The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Lynn Kocan, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Andrew Gutman (excused), David Lipski (excused), Michael Lynch, (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Jason Myers, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Maureen Underhill, Code Enforcement Officer; Ben Croy, Engineer; Doris Hill, Woodland and Landscape Consultant; David Gillam, City Attorney

Chair Cassis led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

Member Kocan said the Implementation Committee will meet on Monday, May 1, 2006 at 6:30 p.m.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that at the April 17, 2006 City Council meeting the Main Street rezoning was approved. Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Commission needs to choose their legal training date at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Consideration of the request of David Zaitchik of Singh Development Company, for a one-year Final Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 12, south of Thirteen Mile, between Meadowbrook Road and the M-5 connector. The subject property is 9.7 acres.

Consideration of the request of Andrew Marougy for a Section 9 Façade Waiver. The subject property is located in Section 22, west of Novi Road, south of Ten Mile in the OS-1, Office Service District. The subject property is 5.037 acres.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Kocan:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Gordon and Patricia Laramie for approval of a Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 32 on Bellagio Ct., Lot 34. The Applicant seeks to restore the protected woodland in the rear yard to an acceptable condition.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that it is not typical for the Planning Commission to review a woodland permit for a single family home, and it is also unusual that this permit request is for trees that have already been removed.

Bellagio Subdivision was approved by City Council in 1999 with a Preservation Option. This provided for reduced lot sizes to maximize the preservation of the woodlands. As the Bellagio lots have been built upon, the Woodland Consultant has met with the homeowners to identify areas where trees could be removed. This particular lot, #34, was cleared of some of its woodlands and its understory, as was noted by the Woodland Consultant and by Neighborhood Services. The City is now working backward with the Laramies for the restoration of this area.

Woodland Consultant Doris Hill addressed the Planning Commission. She explained that back in November one of her site contractors noted the removal of the subject trees and understory. Ms. Hill was asked by Neighborhood Services to write an assessment of this damage. The Woodland Ordinance protects even the small trees and understory. The woodlands in Bellagio are of high quality – beech, maple, hickory, white walnut, flowering dogwood, etc.

The developer, Cambridge Homes, provided contact information to Ms. Hill for the Laramies. Mr. Laramie worked with Ms. Hill on a plan to restore the area. A homeowner is allowed to seek a permit to impact the woodlands after he receives his Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Hill felt that it was fair that Mr. Laramie would be allowed to impact some of the woods. However, she did feel as though this violation was more than she could approve.

Ms. Hill described the plan upon which she and Mr. Laramie agreed. She compared it to the original plot plan of the site. She noted that an extraordinary sassafras had been removed. A triple trunk oak was also removed. Two trees were ash. Mr. Laramie has agreed to replace the damage with credits totaling 50.5. Ms. Hill said that 52 credits would be required, and that Mr. Laramie was very close to that number.

Ms. Hill said that Mr. Laramie has been cooperative. She said that Mrs. Laramie is a gardener, and she felt that these homeowners would do their best to restore the area. Ms. Hill recommended that the plan and permit be approved.

Mr. Laramie said that he has a good working relationship with Ms. Hill. He plans to use native species and add some additional plants to make the plan exceptional.

Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

No one from the audience wished to speak so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan understood the Woodland issue because she sat on the Woodland Review Board and has woodlands in her own back yard. She noted that the neighboring Bellagio lot has a "Protected Woodland" sign in its back yard. She asked where the breakdown in communication started with this project. Mr. Laramie said that there was information in his homeowners’ packet, but it was difficult to understand. He did not understand that the understory couldn’t be removed. He noted that the oak was rotted out – hollowed through. He couldn’t believe that he only had fifteen feet of yard that was landscapable.

Member Kocan was disappointed that the developer didn’t take a more responsible position in explaining the woodlands. This subdivision was allowed to have smaller lots to accommodate the preservation of woodlands. She felt that the developer should be taking on some of the responsibility for this matter. She was concerned that not enough is being done to stop this from happening on other Bellagio sites. Member Kocan said that the trees were removed from the Maybury site behind Mr. Laramie’s home, and she felt that Mr. Laramie probably didn’t understand why he couldn’t remove the trees from his site.

Member Kocan asked about the tractor destruction near this area, and whether this was part of the Laramie request. Ms. Hill replied that said destruction was in a common area that will be revegetated under the review of John Freeland, the City’s Wetland Consultant. Mr. Laramie asked if that area was a protected wetland. He said he understood the area to be a woodland that is supposed to be a park. It is about one-quarter acre.

Ms. Hill said that the area in question is a vernal wetland. It is wet in the spring. It is a high-quality habitat area. Mr. Laramie asked about who was regulating this wetland. Ms. Hill said that the State regulates some wetlands, and some are regulated by the City. Ms. McBeth said that this wetland regulation would have to be researched; she did not know if it was large enough, or part of a stream system, which would then require MDEQ regulation. Mr. Laramie asked that someone get back to him about whether the wetland was regulated.

Member Kocan said that the wetland was probably covered by the Conservation Easement. She was surprised that the buffer was under Mr. Laramie’s house, and the wetland boundary is actually on his property. Ms. McBeth said that someone from the City would get back to Mr. Laramie on this question.

Member Kocan did not think that the Woodland Review Board was sunsetted without an actual vote by City Council. Mr. Gillam from the City Attorney’s office responded that no specific motion sunsetted the Committee, but he felt that there were specific expiration dates in the Ordinance that served to keep woodland review alive with the Planning Commission after the Committee members’ terms expired. This, he thought, was done to ensure some type of woodland review would continue even when the City didn’t have volunteers in place.

Member Kocan said that when she was on the Board it met four times a month during the summer. Last year there was only one case, so she felt that something might be falling through the cracks, or someone is very on top of things. Chair Cassis said that someone was put in charge of making decisions on easy issues, which kept many cases from going to the Board. Member Kocan asked that City Council consider re-appointing the Woodland Review Board, and she noted that there will be interviews held in June.

Member Meyer did not believe that Mr. Laramie should be held accountable for something of which he was not aware. He felt that it was the developer’s responsibility to inform the homeowners properly of the woodland regulations. Ms. Hill explained to Member Meyer that the ash trees were not counted in the calculations, and that the Laramies were given credit for some other large planted trees, and a tree that was saved, though it wasn’t anticipated to have been saved.

Member Avdoulos thanked the Applicant for working with the City. He appreciated Ms. Hill’s work on this project. He said that the developer must show sincerity in enforcing agreements he has made with the City.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Mr. Gillam stated that the motion is an approval, not a recommendation. Mr. Gillam said that with regard to parts A and B of the Vilican Leman letter, he wondered if the City has communicated this part of the recommendation to Novi Investments, LLC (Bellagio developer). Do they understand that the City expects them to notify all homeowners of their responsibility to preserve the woodlands? Otherwise, he had a problem with conditioning the Laramie permit with a stipulation meant for Novi Investments. Ms. Hill said that Mr. Rick Genrich of Novi Investments has already shared a copy of the letter with Ms. Hill, and told her that the letter would be going out in the mail immediately.

Mr. Gillam also asked that the motion reference the plot plan dated March 31, 2006 prepared by JMC landscaping for Mr. and Mrs. Laramies’ property. Member Avdoulos agreed to the changes, providing that the plan has been reviewed by Ms. Hill, which it had been. Member Pehrson also accepted the changes to the motion.

Member Meyer asked whether Bellagio should be held accountable for any of this violation. Chair Cassis suggested that this answer is complicated by the legalities of the situation. Mr. Gillam said too, that the issue before the Planning Commission is the permit, and while there may be a financial issue rising between the Laramies and Bellagio, it isn’t an issue on which the City should take a position.

Mr. Laramie said that he was in essence indemnifying the builder because he removed moved the trees prior to closing on the home. Any additional punishment would be levied on him, because he performed the task prior to closing. He said he was spending a significant amount of money on tree replacement.

Chair Cassis thought that tonight’s dialogue was great and educational. The City believes in preserving the natural resources. It will help maintain the value of the area. He commended Member Kocan for her eloquent pitch to resurrect the Woodland Review Board. He welcomed the Laramies to the community.

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council to amend the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to modify the requirements for outdoor storage of recreational equipment in residential zoning districts.

Planner Tim Schmitt said that a Novi resident, Mr. Landau, came forward last year with his concerns regarding outside storage, which is currently permitted in residential districts. Specifically, he complained about the outdoor storage of recreational equipment and construction materials. Neighborhood Services is also interested in this matter being reviewed. Some items like tires are simple enforcement issues. A phone call to Neighborhood Services is the most efficient way to have the City act upon any of these enforcement issues.

Mr. Schmitt said that the residential vehicle issue was different. The Ordinance language was a bit loose and didn’t necessarily help with enforcement issues.

The two amendments proposed tonight are:

1. Section 21-194 has been given a verb.

2. Temporary storage of recreational and commercial vehicles. Currently in Section 25-04 it states that recreational equipment may be parked anywhere on a residential site, not to exceed 72 hours, for loading and unloading. This provision allows for storage for three days at a time. If something is parked on a Friday for three days, Neighborhood Services won’t know about it, because they don’t patrol on the weekends. In some cases, e.g. a Mac Tool truck, the driver comes and goes each day, resetting the clock. Enforcement is difficult. This amendment proposes striking the sentence. This will allow Neighborhood Services to knock on a door and ask a homeowner to locate his vehicle to the rear of his property. The goal is to make the Ordinance clear and easy for everyone.

Mr. Schmitt said that in the lake area, permanent structures cannot block the view of the lake. This vehicle storage does not fall into this category – storage is temporary. However, Mr. Schmitt said if the Planning Commission wants to address this issue, the Planning Department recommends postponing the Planning Commission Public Hearing. The Planning Department did not think it would be an easy provision to work with because of the small sizes of lots in the lake area.

Mr. Schmitt said that in short, this change will make enforcing the Ordinance easier, and people will better understand that this community does not want front yard parking of recreational and commercial vehicles.

There was no correspondence to share and no one from the audience wished to speak. Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson asked about recreational vehicles being parked in a roadway. Mr. Schmitt said there are regulations that cover parking on public streets. Although this Ordinance wouldn’t address that, it could help the Ordinance Officer in asking the resident to park the vehicle in the back yard. Mr. Schmitt said that he would provide an update at a later time regarding the Ordinance stipulations for on-street parking.

Member Pehrson thought this request made a lot of sense. He didn’t think that the lake viewshed needed to be addressed at this time.

Moved by Member Pehrson, Member Wrobel:

Member Kocan said that around the lake, the back yard is the front yard. Technically, around the lake, the driveway is the back yard. Mr. Schmitt said that West Lake has front yards on the road. Some of South Lake and East Lake have their front yards facing the lake. The front yard is defined as the area between the house and the road. Mr. Schmitt said he would review the Zoning Ordinance to determine whether the lake front yards are indeed considered the front yards.

Member Kocan said that in Section 2504.1, there is a verb missing, or the word "and" needs to be removed: All mobile homes owned by residents of the City of Novi and stored only within the confines of the rear yard shall further respect the requirements of Section 2503, Accessory Buildings, of this Ordinance, in so far as distances from principal structures, lot lines and easements are concerned. Mr. Schmitt said he would make that change.

Member Kocan supported the motion and she said she appreciated the efforts of Neighborhood Services.

Member Meyer was concerned about homes with no-access back yards. In his subdivision, there are fences between each home. Member Meyer read the statement from the Ordinance, "All mobile homes owned by residents of the City of Novi and stored only within confines of the rear yard…" and said he presumed this allowed for residents to park to unload. He was concerned about visitors who traveled by recreational vehicles. Mr. Schmitt said that technically the City does not allow living in recreational vehicles for any amount of time. Again, this Ordinance is enforced largely on a complaint basis. There would have to be a complaint or a glaring problem for Neighborhood Services to become involved in recreational vehicle parking. Mr. Schmitt said that the City will work with residents on their parking needs, including working to mitigate the problem so that the neighbors aren’t upset.

Chair Cassis asked Maureen Underhill of Neighborhood Services to describe the regularity of this problem. Ms. Underhill responded that it happens often, especially in the summer season. Some people have the problem of a small yard that does not accommodate their recreational vehicle. If the provision that allows back yard parking is removed, the City will hear grousing from residents. There are a few ongoing complaints about recreational vehicles. Her department has historically had to wait the 72 hours before they can respond. In order to process a complaint, the neighbor must come forward and complain. That deters the matter from being handled in some cases.

Ms. Underhill said that mostly it is a side yard problem. She wondered if her department would address these issues without a complaint being filed. Ms. Underhill has written tickets for infractions. She gave an example of a trailer parked near Ten Mile and Meadowbrook, whose owner is remodeling his home. The trailer comes and goes, and the neighbor is upset about it. Neighborhood Services asked the gentleman to go to the ZBA for permission to park the trailer in the front yard. A citation was issued after Ms. Underhill witnessed the trailer parked in the same place for five days.

Ms. Underhill said in another case, a resident uses her motor home as her vehicle. She has not been able to address this issue as of yet.

There are other cases in which the residents will have to store their vehicles elsewhere once this amendment to the Ordinance is adopted. Ms. Underhill said that there weren’t a lot of complaints, but the ones that come forward are difficult. In the course of a year, there are a half-dozen complaints, maybe ten.

Member Wrobel asked whether a Homeowners’ Association bylaws can supersede the Ordinance on the books. City Attorney David Gillam responded that in terms of covenants and restrictions or bylaws, those are a separate issue from City Ordinances. Enforcement of those items does not rest with the City. Mr. Gillam said that if someone wanted to enforce subdivision bylaws that were more restrictive, they would in fact take precedence. Conversely, a more lax subdivision bylaw does not supersede the Ordinance.

Planner Jason Myers described the property and project. This is the first site proposed before the Planning Commission for Phase II. The City of Wixom is immediately west of this property. The road and utility approval for this phase was granted in 2004. A Master Deed amendment must be submitted to combine these three sites into one. Bristol Corners Subdivision is to the east. Springs Apartments are to the northeast. The Master Plan recommends light industrial for the entire corporate park. Wixom has a similar Master Plan designation for their adjacent land. The north property is master planned for Multiple Family Residential. To the east the property is master planned for Single Family Residential. There is also a private park encompassing the land and trees left over from the subdivision. The corporate park is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. Wixom is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. The Multiple Family Residential is zoned RM-1 to the north. Bristol Corners is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential.

There is a regulated wetland in the southwest corner of the property that was preserved as part of the entire corporate park. A Conservation Easement is over that wetland. This site does not impact the wetland. Therefore no wetland permit is needed.

The Conservation Easement also protects woodlands. Before the park was developed, the woodlands encompassed a much larger area. The only woodlands on the site are within the conservation easement in a very small corner of the property. A Woodland Permit is required for this development in order to have a protective fence around the conservation easement. The Applicant has stated that he will not be impacting the woods. Very few of the trees are still alive. The intent is to restore the land and regenerate a new woodland.

The County’s natural features inventory located areas around the woodlands as a low priority habitat. None of that land is directly on this site.

Cartier Drive leads into Wixom. Hudson Drive leads into Phase I. There is an entrance to this site from both roads. The entries are as far away from the entrance as possible. There is single loaded parking on both frontages of the building. There is a cross access to the south adjacent to the conservation easement and the easement is back from the curb a short distance. There is no impact.

The Planning Commission must find that the front yard parking is compatible with the surrounding area and developments. Section 2400 footnote H allows front yard parking in the I-1 District under special conditions and with the approval of the Planning Commission. Those conditions have been met with the site plan, based on the size of the area and the amount of parking within the building setback. It is now the Planning Commission’s discretion to allow or deny the parking.

The Landscape Review uncovered a number of deficiencies. The Applicant has responded that they will address all deficiencies and no waivers are necessary.

All other reviews recommended approval.

Oleg Amcheslavsky addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of Amson Dembs Development. He said that possibly 35% of the building would be office use. He hoped to have more office space, as he wished to target more of the office market. The elevation and building type are similar to the rest of the park. They tried a new Landscape Architect, which might explain why there were so many deficiencies. He offered to answer any questions.

Dan LeClair of Alpine Engineering also offered to answer any questions.

Mr. Myers said that a Planning Commission waiver for driveway spacing is required. It is a technicality. It is supported by the Traffic Review and the City’s Engineer.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing after determining no one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received.

Member Kocan said that this park is very sensitive. She noted the easterly and southerly building entrances and parking was all the way around the building. She asked if there would be an entrance through the back side. Would people come through the three-bay truckwell? Mr. Amcheslavsky responded that really, the approach closest to Wixom would be used by the office users. The approach off of Hudson would be the circulation for vans and sixty-foot semis. The truckwells are positioned so that trucks will leave off Hudson to the expressway.

Member Kocan said that there was a sidewalk around the whole building for pedestrians. Mr. Amcheslavsky responded that he did not think employees would be coming from Hudson Drive. Member Kocan just didn’t want people entering the building through the truckwell. Mr. Myers responded that there is also a foot traffic door in that vicinity. For people working in the truckwell office, this door would be there for their use. There is a main entrance, one on the east side, and one on the southwest corner near the lower truck doors. Member Kocan did not see a door on the west side, so she wanted the Applicant to take that into consideration.

Member Kocan said that a future a possible aggravation with this park is the driveway spacing issues. It was previously suggested that all drives should be approved with the road and utility plans, but that can’t be done, particularly in a case like this where 2.25 lots are being used. She said that all future buildings must take into consideration this building’s drives. Did the Planning Department take that into consideration? Is this the best place to start the driveways? Civil Engineer Ben Croy said this was a consideration. In this case, keeping the drives away from the intersection is one of the most important items. This location is the best place for this site. Further, the City is looking at establishing a re-classification of roads for the purpose of providing guidance on driveway spacing. In this case, if the road was re-classified, either of these roads would not have applicability issues with opposite side driveway spacing. The intent of the driveway spacing Ordinance is not to worry about low-volume traffic in an industrial park; it is meant to cover the concerns associated with arterial roads and the like. Mr. Croy explained that with the change to the road classification, the spacing issues will not apply to industrial parks.

Doris Hill of Vilican Leman told Member Kocan that the Applicant was deficient in providing information regarding the tree survey data. That information can be supplied on the next submittal.

Member Kocan said that Nadlan Court cul-de-sac is under water. She thought a wetland was filled in that area so the road could go in. Could this be resolved? Mr. Croy said that the standing water is there because the catch basin filters have clogged up and they need maintenance. If the basin was operating correctly, that water would have drained. It is a soil erosion maintenance issue.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Mr. Myers reminded the Planning Commission that the driveway spacing waiver must be included. Member Kocan added the language, and Member Avdoulos agreed to the addition.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. It came before the Planning Commission earlier this year and was postponed. It is part of West Market Square. TCF Bank is to the north. Shimin Nurseries, Michigan Laser and vacant parcels with vehicle storage are to the east. Providence Hospital is to the south. To the west is the balance of West Market Square. The property is master planned for local commercial, as is West Market Square. The southeast and south are master planned for office. The property is zoned B-2, Community Business, as is West Market Square. The east property is zoned OST. The southeast property is zoned B-3, General Business. To the south the property is zoned OSC.

There are no wetlands, woodlands or natural features.

Gas stations are a principal permitted use in B-2, subject to special conditions. The retail store and restaurant are principal permitted uses. This site previously has an approved plan for a smaller, 3,900 square foot gas station and car wash. It was approved with West Market Square. The approval expired in 2003.

The Planning Commission postponed action on this request on January 6, 2006. The Applicant has addressed most of the Planning Commission’s concerns. The north elevation has been revised. A small addition of 240 square feet has been added. There are two less landscape waivers. There is additional landscaping. There is a place for a possible City sign location. The Applicant did not provide a screen wall facing Beck Road as was requested.

The Planning Department does not recommend approval. This is because a variance is required to reduce the loading and unloading area below the 1,100 square foot that is required. If the variance is granted, the Planning Department can recommend approval subject to the suggested conditions and minor corrections to be addressed on the Final Site Plan submittal.

The plan is in general compliance with the Ordinance. The Applicant did modify the north façade. He included a wall around the loading area. It is six feet tall. The Planning Department and Consultants have a concern about the wall and its narrow entry. They have suggested that protective guard rails be installed. The Applicant has agreed to provide bollards. The Planning Department things that a railing or guardrail would be more appropriate or the Applicant can expand the area and keep the same amount of landscaping. This might still require some protection. The Planning Department supports the variance because the area is adequate to get a small semi in the space, which is typical of the delivery trucks that go to these types of premises.

The Applicant is proposing forty parking spaces on the site. This is ten short of the fifty required, if this was a stand-alone fuel station. Because this lot is a part of the overall center, and if the parking is based on shopping center standards, plus the additional twelve spaces in front of the pumps, the Applicant has an excess of nine parking spaces on his site. The Applicant has submitted a shared parking study that supports his request for even fewer parking spaces. That issue will be addressed with the Retail West development that is in the review process right now. The City’s Traffic Consultant will be asking for further information on that study. At this time there is a surplus of nine spaces. The Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission consider the shopping center as a whole, and find the parking to be satisfactory.

Mr. Spencer said there is a large paved area on the west side of the building, and there is also a nine-foot walkway going from the building to Beck. The Planning Department thinks the Planning Commission should perhaps discuss this with the Applicant, and perhaps ask him to reduce those services and add additional landscaping.

The Special Land Use request requires the Planning Commission to find that the proposal will not have any detrimental effect to existing thoroughfares, public services or facilities, that the use is compatible with the natural environment and adjacent land uses, and is consistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the Master Plan. Further, it must promote the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner, and the site must conform to the City’s design standards.

The Applicant has reduced his landscape variance requests. The waiver for the 25-foot landscape buffer and plantings along Grand River is supported by the Planning Department. The Applicant said that they could provide it, but it is not clear how the site would have to be adjusted to accommodate it. A waiver would be required for the three-foot berm along Beck Road. The Applicant said he would provide the berm, and a partial berm has been provided. The Planning Department and Consultants continue to recommend a wall, echoing the Planning Commission’s sentiments in January. This would provide better shielding of headlights than a berm. It might even look more appropriate in this location.

There is a deficiency of parking lot canopy trees. The Planning Commission should ask the Applicant to continue to work with the Landscape Architect on finding additional tree locations. This site is tight, and there will likely be a shortage anyway.

The Applicant has shown a single-walled sign on his plan in a location previously approved for a Novi City sign. The Planning Commission may want to discuss the possibility of placing an easement in this area for the future possible placement of a City sign. The previous plan showed a three-dimensional triangular plan that could be seen from Grand River and from Beck Road. It might be a viable location for an entryway sign.

Frank Jonna, Jonna Companies, addressed the Planning Commission. He said the loading area is adequate in size for trucks. There is a quirk in the Ordinance, that if the building was square instead of rectangular, there would be adequate loading area. From a practical standpoint, this is a site condominium, and the loading area of the adjacent building is available to all tenants throughout the park. There is a significant loading area just across the drive. There is a debatable concern that this would be considered a loading area across a thoroughfare.

The building elevations now have more glass. There is a small projection off of the north end of the building. It will be built with a lower roof area and a parapet wall so that no roof mounts will be on the high roof. The metal screens have been removed. A decorative wall and ornamental lighting has been added to the north side.

Mr. Jonna said there is potential for a food operation in conjunction with the gas station, within the same building. No seating has been considered at this time. The idea is that people will pick up their food and go. No operator or style of food has been considered.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received; Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos asked about the 17-foot deep parking spaces against the building with a nine foot sidewalk. There should be a two-foot overhang and five-foot sidewalk clearance. He thought this was okay.

Member Avdoulos asked about the area of sidewalk about which Mr. Spencer was concerned. Mr. Spencer responded that the area is to the east of the building. It was labeled as nine feet on the plan. Member Avdoulos said he saw a jog in that area. Mr. Spencer said he would have to scale the plan to see if that is seven feet, which was acceptable to him. Member Avdoulos thought that was fine too.

Member Avdoulos asked about the loading zone wall and the recommendation for bollards or a rail. Where would the Planning Department like to see those? At the beginning of the wall? Mr. Spencer said that bollards would be placed at key places at the entry way. A guard rail could be placed along the entire length of the building and the wall. Mr. Spencer said another suggestion was to eliminate the wall and just use straight landscaping. That could be problematic with trucks brushing up against the plants, or salt being sprayed on them.

Member Avdoulos asked Mr. Jonna how the loading zone would be used. Would there be trucks going in forward and backing out, or trucks backing in and driving out? Mr. Jonna thought that the dump truck would go in head-first. Drivers would enter based on the loading design of their trucks. Member Avdoulos confirmed that the deliveries would go through the dumpster screen area into the door of the storage area. The storage area was not on the previous plan. That is the additional 200 feet.

Member Avdoulos asked if the twelve-foot width of the loading zone was adequate. Mr. Jonna responded that bank drivethroughs were better designed at eight feet than at 8’4". An irresponsible driver will hit the walls no matter how much room is available. Bollards are a good idea. Mr. Jonna would like to use a combination of concrete curbs and bollards. Twelve feet was adequate in Mr. Jonna’s mind. This is not a high-volume loading area.

Member Avdoulos said in his experience, a tighter loading area encourages the drivers to be a bit more careful and slower. He also liked the idea of curbs. He hoped that the structural engineer designs the wall to be structurally stable. He also thought the north elevation was nice. It is not flat like the back end of a building. It has some glass to it. He had some reservations about the additional square footage added, because he thought the building was a bit big for the site. He liked the fact that the storage building acts as a nest for the mechanical equipment, so the top of the gas station keeps a clean look. He understood the suggestions to remove the wall, but he liked the height of the wall and the ornamental iron work and lighting. It has a nice look. He has driven by this area regularly, and he believes this plan works in concert with the building that houses Blockbuster.

Member Avdoulos was concerned about the amount of parking. He understood the concept of taking the entire site’s parking into consideration, but he noted that Blockbuster’s parking area gets pretty filled up. He has sometimes visited gas stations where the parking is filled up because they are busy. However, the parking is not long term. The customers go in and out. These are concerns, but nothing is detrimental to the plan itself. The Applicant has worked out several of the kinks, especially the elevations.

Member Avdoulos would personally like to see the screen wall on the property instead of the berm. He thought it would pull some of the character to the road. He thought the plan has come a long way. He went through the plan and he liked the cupola – which can be lit at night and will act as a nice beacon. Again, he liked that all four elevations were considered.

Member Avdoulos also thought the landscaping has been worked on. He asked if there were other issues to be addressed. There has been an effort to limit the waiver requests. Landscape Consultant Doris Hill responded that the site is constrained. There are planting deficiencies. If the Planning Commission feels that the plan as proposed meets the spirit and intent of what is needed on the site, then she would support the waiver requests. The topic of a wall along Beck Road is intriguing. She noted that the Ordinance gives the Planning Commission the authority to require the wall, not just to suggest it. In her opinion, the wall would be a superior design element in that location. The site is at an intersection into the City off the interstate, and a wall would be a big statement. Ms. Hill said there is a berm deficiency along Beck; the wall would potentially take care of that.

Ms. Hill said that the loading zone screening is not a big item. It could be resolved with different plants.

Chair Cassis asked how big the wall would be, and if it would be built in conjunction with a berm. Ms. Hill responded that it could be designed either way; it would be up to the Planning Commission to decide which would be more aesthetically pleasing. She felt that a combination might be sort of difficult.

Member Avdoulos would prefer a wall with landscaping. The Applicant has provided a cross section showing the parking lot as two feet higher than Beck Road. A berm could just start looking odd in that area. A nice wall would demarcate the corner. That would work better. Member Avdoulos would be looking at a minimum-sized wall – like three feet. He likes to see what is on the other side of the wall. Although this is a gas station, it does provide interest. He would rather tie some of the architectural appeal into the landscape. Because of the type of intersection that this is, the wall might be a bit more appropriate.

Member Meyer recently read the book, "In Praise of Slowness," by Carl Honore. He recommended the book. He said that this gas station will service many hospital patrons. While he joked that this station may benefit from a meditation room, he did encourage the Applicant to consider a seating area inside or outside for those customers who don’t just want to drive off. The book he mentioned explains that the world of speed has resulted in a world of rage in this country. He said that in light of this intersection being deemed a gateway into the City, many people will be coming off of this exit and this Applicant will have a key corner of the City. Member Meyer suggested that the Applicant make his site a bit more user-friendly for patrons who do want to slow down a bit.

Member Kocan had many concerns. She thought that the size of the building was too big for the amount of parking provided. She asked how many parking spaces would be required for Blockbuster alone. Mr. Spencer responded that the answer was on the plan. Member Kocan said if this Applicant wants to share parking, then he is taking parking from others. The Applicant says that the required parking for their site is 25; the City says that it is fifty. Mr. Spencer said that the east outlot (the Blockbuster building) required 61 spaces and 69 are provided. Member Kocan was concerned because she’s been to that building, and people cannot shop at the health food store because all of the parking is being taken by other stores’ patrons. Member Kocan reiterated that the building size concerned her because the amount of activity that can be generated. If the fast food that goes into this building is popular, there will be a lot of traffic, and vice versa.

Member Kocan said that the original gas station with a car wash was designed at 3,000 square feet. This design is 4,700 square feet. That increase concerned here. That impacts her decision on the entire development. She agreed with Member Avdoulos, that the Applicant has worked hard with the City with regard to the north elevation. She also agreed with the use of a wall along Beck Road. She could support a variance along Grand River for a twenty-foot setback rather than a 25-foot setback. She felt that a gas station is a parking lot, so this could be substantiated.

Member Kocan had a question about the oil and gas separator. She didn’t know what it did, but it sounded important. It sounded as if it should be onsite as opposed to somewhere else on the site plan. Shouldn’t there be an oil and gas separator on this particular site? Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that it could be a good idea. The City doesn’t have a standard that directly addresses that. The function of this separator is to trap oil and gas before the water gets to the basin. It might be a good idea to have one on this site. It would also depend on how many outlets there are to the backbone of the storm sewer system. It could be something that the City could look into further, and possibly make it a standard for gas stations.

Member Kocan asked if there would be any landscaping around the vent pipes in the island. Mr. Spencer said that at the last meeting the Applicant was asked to consider moving those vents. He suggested that Member Kocan ask the Applicant what his intentions were. The island appears to be lawn. Member Kocan wondered if arbor vitae or something like that could be used. She thought that the pipes at other gas stations were unsightly.

She did not know whether she could support the plan.

Member Wrobel thought this plan was not perfect, but better than the last submission. He preferred the wall along Beck Road.

Member Wrobel cited a Northville business that uses shared parking, and he said that less popular destinations lose their parking to the more popular destinations. He has a problem with shared parking. Without knowing who the restaurant user might be, Member Wrobel didn’t believe he knew enough of the situation to determine whether there was in fact a parking shortage.

Chair Cassis thought Member Kocan’s concerns were legitimate. He thought that Mr. Jonna had a lot of experience and knew what he was doing. Chair Cassis’ worry is that there won’t be enough parking with a sit-down user. Too much traffic will diminish the appeal of this building and the general area. Chair Cassis recommended that the food use be limited and should not provide a lot of seating. Chair Cassis felt that Mr. Jonna would eventually do the right thing. It would be counterproductive to not do it right. If there is too much activity on this site, it will adversely affect the business.

Chair Cassis asked the Planning Commission what they would like to see for the City sign. Member Pehrson suggested that an easement for the sign be made part of the motion, considering that an approval for the Preliminary Site Plan for this site could include that request. Mr. Jonna said he had no objection to an easement.

Member Kocan said that the City Attorney or the Planning Department asked for certain language, explaining that if the sign is allowed on the southerly Providence property, it does not need to be placed on this property. She asked if this easement applied to the whole park or just this area.

City Attorney David Gillam said that the Planning Commission should accept the Applicant’s easement offer on behalf of the City, without putting any conditions on a siteplan approval. Mr. Gillam said that Mr. Spencer did provide language for the Planning Commission to consider. The language could say, "…until such time that another location is found to be adequate." Member Kocan just didn’t want the motion language to require the sign to be placed on the site, if in fact the sign doesn’t go there. Mr. Gillam said that the language should not be used as a condition of the approval, but as a comment in the motion.

Mr. Jonna asked where the Beck Road wall would go in relation to the back of the curb. What would the length of the wall be? Ms. Hill said that she would have to consider the issue before she responded. She believed the length would mirror the length of a proposed berm. Mr. Jonna had no objection to the wall, and he would like to provide something nice, similar to what he has proposed in the back of this building. He assumed its location would be far enough back from the parking area that cars wouldn’t hit it. However, there must be enough space left to landscape between the wall and the sidewalk.

Mr. Jonna explained that developers share the concern that each tenant has enough parking for their operation. What they have found the challenge to be is providing more convenient parking, not just parking. This could be policed by designating employee parking areas. His experience with the C-store industry is that 90% of the time the visit yields a fuel purchase with the car parked at the pump. Even if there was more parking available, people still want to park in front of the building. Convenience is his intent with this design.

Member Pehrson asked if there was a problem with the south sidewalk. Mr. Spencer said that if the sidewalk is seven feet, he had no concern. He originally thought the measurement was nine feet.

Member Pehrson asked about the blocked off area shown in the shared parking area. Mr. Spencer said that the shared parking area as a whole includes the entire West Market development. Member Pehrson asked how Mr. Spencer expected this project to continue to meet the City’s parking requirements. Mr. Spencer responded that at this time the site has enough parking. If another building comes forward, the site must meet the requirements of the Ordinance, which would include any variations in the parking requirements that may be granted by the Planning Commission, with the use of a shared parking study. This will just ensure that parking spaces will not be removed for other uses and would not meet the requirements.

Member Pehrson asked if anyone has tried to find more parking spaces along the southerly border. Mr. Spencer said that without enlarging the pavement, the Planning Department would not recommend it. The width of the aisle is not that big to begin with, and more landscaping would have to be removed.

Member Pehrson said his issue was parking, relative to the site. He appreciated the Applicant taking the Planning Commission’s previous comments to heart. He asked them to get through the parking issue. Relative to everything else, he was willing to make a motion.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Member Avdoulos was interested in resolving the parking space concerns. He noted that the forty spaces include the twelve spaces at the pump. Member Avdoulos asked how many spaces would be required for a stand alone building. Mr. Spencer said that fifty spaces would be required, if the uses were broken up. Member Avdoulos said that the gas station would be considered the main use, and the others would be accessory to the building itself. Member Avdoulos said it seemed like the parking requirement was based on the building being considered a "mixed use" building and he didn’t think he would have done it that way. Mr. Spencer said that fifty spaces were based on each of the uses present in the building. He said he did not have that number broken down, calculating the parking on the whole retail center, with the additional of the twelve gas pump spaces.

Member Avdoulos said that when he designs a building, he calculates the building on what it is going to be, and he doesn’t go in and break it up as much as this calculation was. For instance, he wouldn’t consider additional storage space or a cafeteria, when calculating the square footage of an office building. When Member Avdoulos looked at this site, he counted 27 spaces, twelve pump spaces, and across the way there are eleven spaces. He noted another area that could be used for spillover parking. Member Avdoulos said that there are peak times at gas stations, i.e., 7:00-9:00 a.m., lunch time, etc. He said a problem right now is the landscape truck driver who pulls his big rig into the site to gas up all of his tanks. Member Avdoulos said that Jonna Development has been around for a long time, and he would not do something detrimental to the building.

Member Avdoulos said that 90% of the TCF bank is empty, yet they have provided the full required parking. He thought perhaps the parking will be used for the property next to Staples. He also noted that the Kroger parking lot is quite empty as well. As was stated earlier, people do want to be closest to the door. If they want gas when this station is busy, they will wait. If they want something else, they might move on and get it somewhere else. Member Avdoulos didn’t have a problem as the others did; getting in and out of the site was more important to him. Connection to the next building was important. This area can provide some flow if necessary.

Chair Cassis thought that Member Avdoulos analyzed the issue very nicely. Mr. Jonna is also part of the hospital complex, and he would want to have a quality place next to their 400 million dollar outfit across the street. Chair Cassis thought the building was very attractive.

Member Kocan asked if the sign statement in the motion should also say, "Unless and until such time another location is found to be adequate." This would allow Providence to place the City sign on their lot, without affecting the finalization of the subject property. Mr. Gillam responded that this was his understanding of what this Applicant has offered. He didn’t think that the motion had to state this specifically. Member Kocan confirmed that if the sign ends up somewhere else, it is not violating a plan that is already approved. Mr. Gillam said no, and noted that if anything, if this happened, the City could formally dismiss the sign easement on this property.

Mr. Spencer asked to clarify the wall in lieu of a berm along Beck Road. Mr. Spencer said that if the requirement is for a berm along the entire frontage, would the Planning Commission want a landscaped wall in between the building and the right-of-way, or just in front of the parking itself? The requirement is for the entire frontage. Member Avdoulos said he anticipated the use of a wall along where the [car] lights in the parking area will be. In his opinion, this will be a nicely-landscaped corner that will highlight the building. What he thought would work out nicely would be for the wall to be along the parking area. He also said that he wasn’t much of a proponent of the sidewalk leading north, though he read the previous minutes and saw that this was very important to some of the Planning Commission members. He said the northeast corner would be appropriate as landscape.

Mr. Spencer asked if this was a friendly amendment to the motion, that the length of the screenwall would be along the parking area. The requirement in the Ordinance would be for the wall to be the whole length where the berm would ordinarily be placed. The Planning Commission can grant a full or partial waiver.

Member Meyer suggested that the design be aesthetically pleasing. He said it would be foolish to put up a wall solely for the purpose of putting up a wall. After all the conversation the Planning Commission has held regarding this corner being considered a gateway to the City, Member Meyer said it wouldn’t make any sense to ruin the site with a poor wall design.

Chair Cassis suggested that the wall be functional.

Chair Cassis called for the vote.

Member Pehrson asked Mr. Croy whether the oil and water separator should be added to the Stormwater Management Plan motion. Mr. Croy said it was a good idea, and he said that he would determine where the existing separator is located. He will pursue getting a second separator if it is determined there is an adequate location for its placement. Member Pehrson asked Mr. Jonna if he had an issue with this item. Mr. Jonna said that if it made sense to add another, he wouldn’t have a problem. They take oil spills seriously, and they are building this site to certain standards as requested by the hospital. He thought there were two oil and water separators for the entire site. They exist at the pond to the north now.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

In the matter of West Market Fuel Station, SP05-48B, motion to grant approval of the Stormwater Management Plan subject to: 1) The conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant Review Letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan; and 2) A review of the oil and water separator requirements and, if determined by the City that one additional unit is required, it would be provided by the Applicant; for the reason that the plan is otherwise in compliance with the City Ordinances. Motion carried 6-0.

The Planning Commission members turned in their corrections for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson:

The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m.

MON 05/01/06 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING 6:30 PM

WED 05/03/06 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE 6:30 PM

TUE 05/02/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 05/08/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 05/10/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 05/22/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 05/24/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 05/29/06 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 06/05/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 06/06/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 06/14/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 06/19/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 06/28/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 07/04/06 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, May 17, 2006 Signature on File

Date Approved: May 24, 2006 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date