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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman (7:45 PM), David Lipski, Michael Meyer (8:12 PM), Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members Michael Lynch (excused), Mark Pehrson (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney

Member Lipski led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission about noteworthy items from the last City Council meeting. The second reading of the drivethrough aisle stacking requirements has been approved. The Amson Dembs rezoning was approved. Ms. McBeth asked the Planning Commission to review the letter written by City Manager Clay Pearson regarding development initiatives. This letter was mailed to several local businesses. It describes various mechanisms that are under review for the betterment of business in Novi. These include the development review process, the Sign Ordinance, OST text amendment for increased height, retail parking standards text amendment, outdoor seating request process, temporary uses process, and the Economic Development Resource Guide.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Jamal S. Kalabat for Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 13, at the southeast corner of Twelve Mile and the northbound M-5 exit ramp, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 20.22 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct four separate buildings, including offices, a hotel, and a bank.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the property. Twelve Mile is to the north. The northbound M-5 ramp is to the west. To the east are several parcels fronting onto Haggerty Road and Twelve Mile. To the south are the ITC property and the Novi Research Park.

The subject property and those to the east are master planned for Office. The westerly property is part of the M-5 right-of-way and does not have a Master Plan designation. The ITC property is master planned for utility uses.

The property and those to the east, south and the north are zoned OST. There is a small amount of B-2 and B-3 commercial located at Twelve Mile and Haggerty.

There is a large wetland complex in the area. There are impacts to the wetlands proposed by this plan. A large portion of the site is a woodland – the quality of which is declining given the state of the wetlands.

The Applicant is proposing four buildings. A roadway is proposed that would travel down to the south middle portion of the site where it will culminate into a parking lot. A secondary access will be through the south and over to the Novi Research Park.

The Planning Commission should discuss the loading zone; they are being asked to waive the screening requirement, because the loading zones are spread throughout the site. Each loading zone is located to the rear of the main building. The Planning Commission should make a finding that this meets the intent of the Ordinance. The Planning Department feels the design does meet the intent of the Ordinance.

A ZBA variance will be required for a portion of the roadway, as it relates to Section 2514 of the Zoning Ordinance. There is a building farther than 900 feet from the main access point on Twelve Mile. The Applicant has done a very good job of putting in a 28-foot wide road for nearly three-quarters of the length. At this location there is parking on both sides of the roadway, which is not permitted per Section 2514. However, there is no other way to get parking in this section, given the narrowness of the wetland opening. The Planning Department would support this request for a variance, given the amount of effort the Applicant has put into designing this project.

The Wetland Review indicated that there are items to be addressed on the Final Site Plan submittal. There will be temporary and permanent impacts to the wetland. The Applicant proposes to fill in .23 acre of wetland in various crossing locations, one of which is the main entrance. There are small crossings proposed throughout the site. There is no substantial fill in any one spot. The fill serves to make room for the road. The Applicant has been asked to provide more information on the buffer disturbances and temporary disturbances. It is anticipated that the Applicant will be able to do so.

The Woodland Review recommends approval. Additional information is needed. A substantial number of trees on the site are dead. This is likely due to additional water entering the wetland from various sources. The Applicant is not proposing to remove any of those trees, but he is proposing to remove other trees on the site. This will require payment into the tree fund or replacement trees. The Applicant has indicated that he will provide a combination of the two.

The Landscape Review indicates that a Planning Commission Waiver is requested for the berm along Twelve Mile. There is a wetland that would inhibit the application of this standard. The Applicant is also requesting a waiver so that his plantings can be placed in the MDOT right-of-way. There isn’t enough room to place the landscape material on the subject parcel. The Applicant has indicated that they have discussed this with MDOT and that they will be given permission to do this. If the Planning Commission agrees to this, the motion should state that the plantings may be placed off-site, or waived if MDOT permission is not granted. Another Planning Commission waiver is requested for the berm along M-5. The Planning Department does not support this request; this should be discussed with the Applicant. There appears to be enough room for the berm. The Applicant requests a Waiver for parking lot landscaping, notably for the islands along the roadway. Normally these areas wouldn’t count in the calculation, though the Applicant has done a good job with this design in light of the narrowness of the site. Again, the landscaping has been provided, just in areas not typically counted for the requirement. The building foundation plantings are in a similar situation. On the site as a whole, there is no net loss of plantings.

The Traffic Review indicates that one item must still be addressed. The Consultant would like to see the secondary access become a full-time access point. The Applicant must work this out with Novi Research Park. If this is not possible, 18 feet is acceptable. It will be gated off and will be an emergency access point. If a 24-foot wide full access point is workable, this would be better.

One City Council Waiver may be necessary. The Applicant is proposing a parking structure and therefore the stormwater may need to be pumped out of the bottom of the deck – similar to a sump pump in a house. The Engineering Department does not see that this would cause major problems.

The Façade Review indicates that the buildings meet the intent of the Ordinance.

The Fire Department indicates minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Gutman arrived at 7:45 PM.

Jamal Kalabat addressed the Planning Commission. He is the developer and the engineer of this site. He introduced Russell Design, Landscape Architects; Nizer Environmental, Wetland Consultant; Birchler Arroyo, Traffic Consultant; PM Environmental, Environmental Assessment Group; Nowak and Fraus, Survey and Engineering; King and MacGregor, Woodland Consultant; JSK Group, Engineers and Architects.

Mr. Kalabat said he acquired the property from MDOT in late 2004. He has worked on this project for 1.5 years. He attended a pre-app meeting with the City and then turned in his first Preliminary Site Plan for review. Upon receiving the comments back, he chose to submit a revised Preliminary Site Plan that implemented most of the suggestions and recommendations. They have reduced the sizes of their buildings. A response letter was submitted for the Planning Commission to review, addressing the issues that remain.

The site is over twenty acres in size. Eight acres are upland. Twelve acres are wetlands. The site is unique. The location is near the M-5 ramp and is surrounded by a wetland and woodland. This makes the property narrow and long and challenging. The topography changes greatly from the M-5 ramp to the wetland. The property is beautiful. The environment will make the project unique and exciting. This proposal is a campus environment. The buildings interact with nature in a very harmonic way.

Four buildings are proposed. The first building is located near Twelve Mile. It is a two-story bank office, 7,750 square feet. Building two is to the south, and is a four-story hotel with 102 guest rooms, a banquet facility, swimming pool and restaurant. Building three is a four story office building, 32,168 square feet. Building four is a two-story office research building, 16,135 square feet. The plan proposes 309 parking spaces, which includes a two-story parking deck. It is uniquely designed into the grade drops. The top level will appear to be at ground level from the road. The lower level will be a walk-out design. This minimizes the impervious surface on the site. It lends itself to the campus feel. The property is surrounded by Twelve Mile, M-5 and MDOT right-of-way, the ITC corridor and vacant land owned by the electric power company.

The entrance onto the site is proposed from Twelve Mile. A 28-foot wide drive services all of the buildings. As recommended, they propose a secondary emergency fire access drive connecting through Novi Research Park to Haggerty Road. They also propose an eight-foot wide sidewalk along Twelve Mile. There will be a five-foot wide sidewalk throughout the project.

Chair Cassis opened the floor up for public comment:

James Lucello, Pellagata Landscape Company, adjacent to this site: Concerned that the dead trees in the wetland were killed by the Amoco gas station and the Ruby Tuesday developments on Twelve Mile. He [and the subject site] take in water from those properties as they filled in their wetlands. Channels have been cut in the utility corridor that also divert water onto his site. He cannot change the lay of his land – he is a non-conforming use. He did not want any more upland affected by run-off. He irrigates and drinks well water from his property. The wetlands provide key features. They filter the water from M-5 and Twelve Mile. He agreed that the property is unique and should be respected. There is a lot of wildlife in the area, though it is decreasing. This is valuable. This project could go ahead as planned, but no price tag can be put on leaving this land in its natural state. This project could fragment the habitat. He felt that the site should be left undeveloped. He cited empty OST buildings in the area. He wished that this land would remain undeveloped.

Steve Pellagata, property owner north of Tower Automotive: He was concerned that his property has been pinched in, and they are losing the area woodlands and wetlands to development. He understood that a proposal can’t be stopped based on his wanting to keep the natural beauty. He just wanted to ensure that the water table stops rising, killing off the rest of the trees. He wanted the engineering of this site to be done in a proper manner. Mr. Pellagata’s written correspondence was acknowledged but not read.

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

Member Meyer arrived at 8:12 p.m.

Member Wrobel asked the Applicant to explain why he didn’t want the M-5 berm. He asked how many parking spaces were required for the hotel. He asked how the water flow would be addressed such that the adjacent property owners would not be adversely affected by this site plan.

Mr. Schmitt responded that the Applicant is either 36 spaces overparked or three or four underparked. There is enough space on the site to add four more spaces if necessary. The hotel requires 102 spaces plus eleven spaces for employees, or 113 spaces. Directly adjacent to the hotel there are 23 spaces in the main lot. There are 41 spaces to the north, which will be shared with the bank. The majority of the parking for the hotel comes from the deck. The office building attached to the deck will not need all of that parking. Member Wrobel asked if the deck parking was practical for the hotel. Mr. Schmitt responded that it may not be practical for most people, but it is within the Ordinance requirements.

Civil Engineer Brian Coburn said that the wetlands are proposed to be used for stormwater storage. The water will pass through a swirl concentrator chamber for sedimentary treatment prior to its discharge into the wetland, as required by the Ordinance. One of the conditions of using the wetland for storage is that the Applicant has to provide a hydrological analysis to the wetland consultant. The Applicant has done so. The City’s consultant has reviewed it and they indicate that the plan proposes a water increase of 2.028 inches for the 12.77 acre wetland, as a result of an 100-year storm. The impact to the entire 25 acres of wetland is about one inch. That is a minimal impact. The consultant will allow this impact based on the hydrological study findings. The Engineering Department is comfortable with the findings as well. Mr. Schmitt iterated that these increases are based on a storm event that is anticipated once every 100 years. This is not the normal storm event. Mr. Coburn said that the wetland and woodland consultants also look for this water to be able to drain within 24-28 hours.

Member Wrobel asked how much wider the wetland would become in such an event. Mr. Schmitt responded that the hydrological model requires this water rising to remain within the confines of the existing wetland. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant made a good point – the wetland was filled somewhere upstream. In this case, it has been suggested that Ruby Tuesday’s and Amoco were part of the problem. He stated that though the Applicant is proposing some wetland fill, he is also mitigating the same amount elsewhere on the site, so there is no net loss. The only increase in the water is a vertical measurement; no horizontal measurement is expected to increase with the proposed design.

Landscape Architect David Beschke told the Planning Commission that there is a three-foot berm required along the entire length of M-5. The Applicant wishes for a waiver of the berm for the southerly end. This area is adjacent to a wetland and is vegetated. It is something nice to look at. There are no buildings or parking areas down there. The Applicant has proposed berming along the parking structure. Mr. Beschke said that in the northwest corner of the site where the road curves there is an area where a berm would be required. The Applicant would like a waiver for this area as well. It is the fronting of the bank at M-5 and Twelve Mile.

Mr. Kalabat said that there is a major ditch in the right-of-way. The M-5 water drains into this ditch and then goes into the wetland before heading south to the big wetland. This area between the property line and the roadway really slopes down to the ditch. The subject property sits higher than the right-of-way. They could work on putting a berm there, to see if they could make something out of it, but they feel that the area has more potential to work properly if it remains as it currently flows.

Mr. Kalabat said that when they originally purchased this site, MDOT had a permit for wetland mitigation on this site. They looked at the plan, and they placed their buildings accordingly to minimize the wetland impact. Technically, they minimized their impact enough that no mitigation is required on their part. Then, they had to go through the entire process again to get an amendment to their permit for their buildings.

Member Wrobel said that this is a difficult site. This is a creative use for it. The Applicant has maintained most of the wetland. As long as the adjoining sites don’t experience an ill-effect from the water flow, Member Wrobel could support the project.

Member Avdoulos knew the site well. He read the reviews and noted that the Applicant has been working well with the City on a site that is well over 50% wetlands. The Applicant has submitted a creative plan for a sensitive area. There are items in Section 2514 that need to be complied with. A ten-foot setback is required but 8.75 feet is proposed. The Applicant has indicated he will try to attain the ten-foot measurement. There is a ZBA variance request for the parking on the south portion of the site which is supported by the Planning Department due to the impact of the wetland. Again, the Applicant is working toward being environmentally sensitive. The parking requirements are being worked out so the City should feel comfortable with what is presented. If the site is modified in such a way, the parking requirements must also match those changes. The Applicant must know this in the event the plan changes. Mr. Schmitt responded that he is comfortable with the parking proposed.

Member Avdoulos said that the stacking requirements for the banks have been changed in the Ordinance. Member Avdoulos also noted that the Planning Department supports the loading zone waiver requests. The lighting will be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Avdoulos noticed that the impact to the wetlands is one-quarter acre, which is not as much as he anticipated. Temporary impacts are even less than that. The consultant has recommended approval. There is a revision to the wetland permit, which the Applicant has acknowledged.

Member Avdoulos thought the woodland report was nice. He appreciated the map that was provided. The entrance off of Twelve Mile was kept in a location that would save some trees. There is a portion of "Woodland B" that is of high quality, and the Applicant is trying to minimize his impact on that area. The Applicant is trying to save a champion-sized serviceberry that is being saved in a lower quality woodland.

Member Avdoulos understood that the neighbors were a bit nervous about this plan, but the project has been reviewed enough that the planning of the site and the placement of the buildings and parking have been taken into account.

Member Avdoulos noted a waiver is required for fifteen spaces in a row on the parking deck, which was an issue that was not considered during the landscape Ordinance update. Member Avdoulos thought the parking deck was warranted on this site.

Member Avdoulos said that the Traffic Review did not recommend approval, but the Applicant has indicated he will provide the 24-foot width.

Member Avdoulos said the Engineering Review recommended an approval subject to a City Council variance. Mr. Coburn said that the formal application for City Council review will likely include the same language found in the response letter.

The Façade Review approved of the plan. The Fire Department Review was okay with the plan. The Applicant has indicated that they will adhere to and work with the consultants’ comments.

Member Avdoulos liked the looks of the buildings. He thought they were nicely proportioned and they complement each other. They have a good variety of scale. They use similar material but they are used differently to create nice geometries and composition. The brick and glass is very nice. The way these buildings sit on the site will further enhance the character of the offramp and will work well with the wetlands and woodlands. The buildings are spread far enough apart where they create nice viewsheds into the site. The first building frames the wetland. The buildings do not create a wall throughout the site. The design complements what is across the street. This area of the City is shaping up with high quality and complementary buildings. This development wraps around the corner and now there is a nice corridor developing. He complimented the Applicant on his buildings, the aesthetics, site layout and his sensitivity to the environment.

Member Avdoulos indicated that the uses for hotels are different from what they used to be. These are hotels for business use, not vacation destinations. They are placed near headquarters. This building will not be difficult to renovate into something else in the future. He supported the project.

Member Avdoulos asked the Applicant to address the secondary access issue. He was a proponent of this requirement because it does allow egress in the event of a road blockage. It also helps the City’s response vehicles navigate the site.

Mr. Kalabat was in favor of making the access a full connection to Novi Research Park. He thought that would be good planning and allowed for good traffic flow. It helps the safety vehicles for this site as well as Novi Research Park, which only has two entrances onto Haggerty. They have been negotiating this access for a year and a half. Now they have purchased this property – Unit Three – of Novi Research Park. The owner of Novi Research Park indicated he had no problem with an access point. Making it a full access is contingent on the condominium by-laws of Novi Research Park, but he felt he had enough leverage to accommodate this full access connection.

City Attorney David Gillam said it sounded as if the condominium documents permit the full access, or they would have to be amended to allow this connection. That would involve the approval of the appropriate number of property owners. It does sound like this Applicant is on the right track. It would be a good situation for both sites.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded Member Burke:

Member Gutman was in favor of the motion. He asked for clarification on the berm motion. Mr. Beschke responded that the Applicant did provide his reasoning for not wanting to place the berm in the northwest corner. Mr. Beschke saw three contours running through a fairly large area, and they are all 901. He would never recommend a berm or vegetation that would cut off drainage or be placed in a wetland. This is quite a large area and runs across the front of the bank. It is 200 feet long and averages fifty feet wide. There is plenty of room for a berm and landscape. He felt the drainage would not be disturbed.

Member Gutman asked Member Avdoulos to remove this waiver from his motion. Member Avdoulos asked whether there were two waivers requested for the area along Twelve Mile. Mr. Beschke said there is one waiver request for the southwest corner, which Mr. Beschke supported. Along the northeast there is vegetation worth saving and the Planning Department would support a waiver request for that area too. Along the northwest, Mr. Beschke felt there was room for the berm and he could not support the Applicant’s request for a waiver. Member Avdoulos asked that this stipulation be upgraded to include, "…with the Applicant continuing to work with the City’s Landscape Architect on the northwest corner in order to meet City requirements as best as possible." This language would be in addition to what Member Avdoulos already said, since there is a berm waiver for part of the area along Twelve Mile. Member Burke agreed to the language.

Member Meyer thought there was a ditch in the area that negated the use of a berm. He sought clarification. Mr. Beschke said there is a lot of room in that frontage. There is a swale that goes right through the frontage. Still, there is another fifty or sixty feet before the curb that could accommodate the berm. Mr. Schmitt said that this image is captured in the aerial photo that was in the Planning Commission packet. Mr. Schmitt said that if the Applicant would continue to work with the City on this matter, it can be ironed out – likely with a partial waiver.

Chair Cassis asked whether a wall could be considered. Mr. Schmitt said that is always an option. He thought that once the final grade is determined, the area can be reviewed to determine how much space is actually there.

Member Burke congratulated the Applicant for this work on such a difficult site. He thought it was a decent project. He appreciated how the Applicant worked with the City and was sensitive to the environment.

Mr. Kalabat showed an area on the map where there was a possibility of placing a berm. He said that the berm would not be able to go all the way around Twelve Mile. There is a proposed sanitary line and manhole for that area. He could redesign the manhole to an increased height so that it would be accessible on the berm. He will go back and look at the area and carefully design a berm that will meet the requirements.

Chair Cassis thought this plan was a fine arrangement. Each building is surrounded by nature. The site is a campus. The uses fit the area. There is a hotel on a major highway. There is a bank which accommodates the other uses. There is an office building that can be seen from M-5. These are good uses in this area. This plan fits into the area beautifully. The Applicant has demonstrated a cooperative spirit with the City. He felt the Applicant was still trying to accommodate the requests. Everyone seems to think that the addition of the berm will do something great for this property. Chair Cassis looked at this site, the off-ramp and the ditch. What is the use of a berm in this area? What will the berm accomplish in the northwest corner? However, the Applicant said he would come along and work with the City to accomplish the wishes of the Planning Commission.

Chair Cassis was pleased with the Applicant’s sensitivity to the wetlands.

Member Avdoulos said this project shows diversity on one site. Sometimes there is concern that there might be a gluttony of office product in Novi. However, this City is in a position to bring in corporate clients and research and development buildings are always a good thing. Industry is changing. Technology is changing. Member Avdoulos is comfortable with this project.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Meyer commented about the 150-year old trees. He said that since this Applicant has demonstrated such sensitivity to this site already, he hoped that this same attitude would continue with regard to these landmark trees. He did understand that many of them were sick and dying. Mr. Kalabat responded that they have attempted to address all the review comments with this revised Preliminary Site Plan submittal. They carved the footprint of their buildings to accommodate the natural features and topography. They are the value of this property.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

The Public Hearing was opened for possible recommendation to City Council to amend Chapter 28, "Signs," of the City of Novi Code, to update, clarify, and provide new substantive regulations concerning the placement of signs within and throughout the City.

Planner Tim Schmitt said this amendment was initiated this by City Council. The Ordinance Review Committee has been working on this language. This is a very large undertaking, but well needed. Mr. Schmitt said he would hit on the highlights of the amendment:

Office: A wall sign and ground sign will both be permitted if the building is 40,000 square feet or greater. The wall signs will not be overpowering on a building of this size.

Changeable Copy Sign: These will now be allowed. An example of one of these signs can be seen at the Expo Center.

Restaurants: These establishments will now be allowed multiple signs, depending on what signs already exist for each business.

Gateway East: This zoning district has been added to the Sign Ordinance in much the same manner as the Town Center District.

The standard for variances has been modified. Instead of the height/use/bulk variance which requires a practical difficulty and is difficult to apply to needing additional signage, a more applicable standard has been incorporated into the Ordinance. It will help the ZBA in their review of a sign request, since finding a "practical hardship" is no longer necessary.

City Council held the first reading of the Sign Ordinance update, and then sent it to the Planning Commission to hold this Public Hearing. They asked that it be returned to City Council in an expeditious manner.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Peter Woolford, Novi Pizza Company at the Pineridge Center, Ten Mile and Novi Road: Remembers working hard to get the lit "open" sign approved for windows. He thought this amendment represented good work. He asked that consideration be given to an item on page five. A "temporary promotional sign" is connected to an approved City-wide promotion or event. He reminded the Planning Commission that the road in front of his business was closed for nearly two years for widening. Then, City Council allowed signs for one week once the road was re-opened. It was a great help. Mr. Woolford would like this opportunity again, but the language as stated earlier requires the event to be in conjunction with a City-wide promotion. For instance, if his Pine Ridge Center would like to put signage up with the 50’s Festival, it would be a counterproductive effort. He would like to see the language allow for a center-wide promotion that is not necessarily attached to a City-wide event. He suggested that the language state that the use of promotional signage is not limited to a City-wide event. In other words, someone could request a "Customer Appreciation Week" and City Council could decide whether the event merited promotional signage.

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

City Attorney David Gillam considered the request of Mr. Woolford and offered that the definition found on page five, which limits the use of promotional signage to City-wide events, could address Mr. Woolford’s comments simply by removing the word "City-wide." City Council would still have the discretion to grant approval for or deny the use of promotional signage.

Member Avdoulos clarified that the idea behind this change is that the signage would still be used in conjunction with an event or promotion and City Council would still be the authoritative body. Mr. Woolford stepped up to the microphone again and reiterated that this is the request he was making.

Mr. Gillam spoke regarding a handout that was given to the Planning Commission. He said that this Sign Ordinance overhaul was a major undertaking. This review is still part of the process. Alan Amolsch of Neighborhood Services, the City’s sign guru, is still reviewing the Ordinance and finding items that could be improved. He listed the following items:

Section 2865.1.e: The reference to canopy signs should be deleted. A canopy sign is an identification or business sign painted on or attached flat against the surface of the canopy. In subsection "L" the language states that a free-standing building in which a restaurant is located shall be permitted both a ground sign and a wall sign, provided however, that the provision does not allow more than two signs. This means that words on the canopy would not be allowed without a variance from the ZBA. Chair Cassis said this should be revisited. The information needs to be clarified.

Section 2865.2.a.3: (pages 10 and 11) The placement of ground signs outside of the future right-of-way. The language includes references to the required yard setback and the one phrase beginning with the word "placement" should be deleted.

Section 2865.4.a: (pages 19 and 20) This section discusses the compatibility of signage in the TC-1 and GE zoning districts. Essentially what this requires is that all of the signage in that type of business development must be compatible. One phrase in the middle flies directly in the face of the intent of the section: "In those instances where the parcel is in a TC-1 and GE districts, walls signs not of a common style shall be permitted." This sentence should be removed.

Section 2865.3.k: Mr. Gillam asked the Planning Commission to discuss entranceway signage for residential and condominium developments. The Ordinance Review Committee discussed how there might be a two-sided identification sign in the boulevard. The issue is whether one of these developments should also be able to put their name on either side of the road if their entry is symmetrically designed, e.g., brick or boulder walls.

Member Meyer commented that near his home the subdivision signs are completely covered by the landscaping that is in place.

Member Wrobel endorsed the use of symmetrical signage; it would reduce the number of people who don’t see the sign until they’ve passed the entrance. He felt this was a common sense approach.

Member Wrobel asked about promotions that use creative means to get a message across, e.g., Gateway Commons using a Marty Feldman Chevrolet vehicle as advertising. Mr. Schmitt said this is not allowed, and in this instance the owner has been notified.

Member Burke stated that according to the Ordinance signage was not supposed to be a distraction. He cited a rolling ten-by-ten foot billboard used by Marty Feldman Chevrolet as an example of a sign that was detrimental to safe driving. Mr. Schmitt said language regarding motor vehicle signage has been added. Specifically, a two-by-two foot sign is allowed on motor vehicles. Traffic hazards are also addressed elsewhere in the Ordinance.

Mr. Gillam said that an "animated sign" is something that changes more than four times per hour, which is a distraction and is prohibited. He did not know if this information was helpful to Member Burke. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that she would ask Mr. Amolsch to look into this particular sign.

Member Meyer said that, while sitting on the ZBA, he used to hear on a regular basis from Applicants who complained about the abundance of Marty Feldman signage. Member Meyer said that Mr. Feldman’s business was grandfathered and therefore was allowed to have that much signage. He did not think, however, that the mobile sign would have been part of that grandfathering.

Member Avdoulos cited the section called "unlawful motor vehicle signs" in Section 12. The language clarifies which types of signage are allowed.

Member Avdoulos said that item 11 on page three should be clarified. Mr. Schmitt explained that the point of this definition is to prohibit temporary poles for the placement of signage.

Member Avdoulos said that the word "marquee" has been removed from the list of definitions but the term is still used throughout the Ordinance, e.g., page four, item 20. Mr. Schmitt responded that he felt this item was describing a projecting sign as not being a marquee sign.

Member Avdoulos asked again about canopy signage – do words on the awning constitute signage? Mr. Schmitt responded that those words are indeed considered signage. In the case of Visions Spa, Mr. Schmitt was confident they received a variance from the ZBA for each of their canopies.

Member Avdoulos said that "open/closed" signs are addressed on page 31, and the language limits the size to 3.5 square feet, with no greater measurement than three feet for any of its dimensions. Mr. Schmitt agreed. Member Avdoulos said that these open signs are allowed on each side of the building. Again Mr. Schmitt agreed. These signs can also be neon.

Member Avdoulos said that number eleven was struck on page 36. The numbers need to be adjusted.

Member Avdoulos asked how the City addresses painted trucks. Mr. Schmitt said this is currently addressed on a case-by-case basis, and therefore the section was written by an attorney to cover specifically all of the issues associated with this type of situation.

Member Avdoulos said that he would like the City to assist with directional signage when things occur like the widening of the Ten Mile/Novi intersection. He felt that was appropriate for the benefit of the affected businesses.

Member Avdoulos said that when a symmetrical wall is designed, signage on both sides is better, especially when the intersection is poorly lit. He said that the landscaping of these areas must be well thought out. Mr. Schmitt explained that the landscape at a subdivision’s entrance is usually done at the developer’s discretion, in an effort to make his property more marketable. Member Avdoulos said that the City must be responsible is reviewing and allowing subdivision signs. Many people actually use the names of their subdivision to describe where they live.

Member Avdoulos suggested that the "two sign maximum" for restaurants be changed from just "one wall/one ground sign" to include the option of "one canopy/one ground sign." He thought this provided appropriate flexibility for the business owner, and won’t tax the ZBA. He suggested that City Council consider this recommendation.

Member Wrobel asked about temporary marketing signage for subdivisions under construction. He said that they are allowed until 80% of the final phase has been granted certificates of occupancy. Mr. Schmitt said that based on the wording, it would be within a developer’s right to put signage at the entrances to all of the completed phases, even if the final phase is not accessed by, for example, the road leading into phase two. Member Wrobel said he did not endorse this concept and would like City Council to reconsider this language.

Member Meyer thought the preamble on page five was a bit redundant. He read items "c, d, e, and f" and felt that each said nearly the same thing. He felt this should be cleaned up a bit. This was not a criticism, rather he felt the Ordinance was otherwise well written and researched and he suggested this preamble be written more in line with the other sections.

Member Meyer noted that the word "signs" was misspelled on page 26 ("sings").

Member Meyer suggested that on page 14 under "c.1" the entire section should be eliminated, in light of the elimination of the definition for the word "marquee." Mr. Schmitt responded the this use of the word "marquee" in this instance was incorrect; it should say "canopy."

Member Meyer recommended that the flow chart be redesigned to make the columns more legible. In some cases the width of the column is so narrow that words are chopped up and therefore the flow of reading is interrupted.

Chair Cassis asked about the Gus O’Connor sign, which is about ninety square feet. Chair Cassis recalled that they argued that their business was set back from the road. He asked whether the new Ordinance language had a provision for buildings with great setbacks. Mr. Schmitt said that there are no size increases simply by virtue of the building’s setback.

Chair Cassis asked whether a future applicant could succeed, even if it meant through the courts, in getting a sign as big as the Gus O’Connor sign. Mr. Gillam responded that the ZBA is charged with keeping a record of the specificities of each case they hear. Each case is treated on its own merits. Just because one variance is granted in one particular case doesn’t mean that a similar request is entitled to the same relief. It is the responsibility of the ZBA to explain their position on each of their decisions. Chair Cassis hoped these changes improved the future agendas of the ZBA.

Chair Cassis asked about the flags on page 29. In the TC and TC-1 districts, up to six flags may be allowed. Mr. Schmitt said that there is a history behind this section of the Ordinance, and this language is not proposed to be changed at this time.

Chair Cassis recalled begging the City for a better Sign Ordinance, back in the day when he was active in the Chamber of Commerce. He felt the City has come a long way. He appreciated the efforts.

Member Gutman thanked the corporate citizens who were present for this Public Hearing.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Cassis encouraged any members of the Planning Commission to attend the conference. If anyone was interested, he was asked to inform Planning Director Barbara McBeth of his intention. Several staff members will be attending.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth explained that recently the Planning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning from Industrial to Office in the area of West Park and Twelve Mile. This rezoning was subsequently approved by City Council. They felt it was a good idea for the Planning Commission to revisit the Master Plan and consider the area for changes. One City Council member suggested that a blended Industrial/Office designation be considered for certain areas of the City. There were other items on the Master Plan that could also be reviewed at this time. There are two special project planning areas and a description of Downtown West that might be picked up for discussion by the Planning Commission or the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. The Planning Department recommends that the first item to be addressed be the West Park/Twelve Mile designation, since it is fresh in everyone’s mind. Ms. McBeth suggested that Staff could prepare information for either the Planning Commission or Master Plan and Zoning Committee to review regarding this area.

Member Avdoulos suggested that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee take the first look. He said that the hybrid classification of Industrial/Office is probably a good idea. This allows flexibility as well.

Chair Cassis agreed with Member Avdoulos’ comments. He thought that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee should review Staff research into this hybrid classification. Perhaps the Staff can find information regarding this designation from other communities. Ms. McBeth agreed to have Staff prepare information for review.

Member Meyer thanked Planner Jason Myers for his efforts while employed with the City. He wished him well. Chair Cassis agreed.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Avdoulos:

The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

MON 08/28/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 08/28/06 GREENWAY/ PATHWAY MEETING 5:30 PM

MON 09/04/06 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 09/11/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 09/12/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 09/13/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/25/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 09/27/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 10/03/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 10/09/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 10/11/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, September 20, 2006 Signature on File

Date Approved: September 27, 2006 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date