The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.

Present:  Members, John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, David Greco, Andrew Gutman, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer (7:21 PM), Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Also Present:  Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Karen Reinowski, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Lindon Ivezaj, Civil Engineer; Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director; Al Hall, Façade Consultant; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy 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.

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth stated that the City Council approved the Master Plan for Land Use for distribution. The recipients will have forty days to comment. The comments will be brought to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Then a second Public Hearing will be held before the Planning Commission votes on the Master Plan. Ms. McBeth said that attorney Joe Galvin spoke at the City Council meeting, opposing the distribution of the Master Plan until additional studies were performed. Mr. Galvin was representing Singh Development. Ms. McBeth said that the Budget Committee met and their proposed budget will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for approval on March 12.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the 2008-2014 Capital Improvement Program. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that the CIP Committee met to discuss the program. The budget was prepared by the joint CIP Committee, with some adjustments made by City Manager Clay Pearson. Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy was present to help answer questions.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Becky Staab: Stated that #86, the Tim Pope Play Structure, embodies the spirit of the community coming together. This structure was built with private funds by volunteers, and meets the ASTM standards. The remaining $8,000 was given to Parks and Recreation for the structure’s upkeep, though they have not used the money to do this. In both 2002 and 2003 it was determined that CCA-treated wood was acceptable for play structure use, which contradicts the CIP statement. The wood should be re-sealed once per year. Ms. Staab suggested that $3,500 be spent on a qualified inspection, and the repair and replacement recommendations from said inspection could be implemented for far less than the $295,000 than the CIP proposes for a new commercial structure. She offered that a Volunteer Committee could again be assembled for the fund-raising and repairing of the structure dedicated in Tim Pope’s memory.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos remembered the installation of the Tim Pope Play Structure. He asked whether the structural soundness of the unit had been inspected. Ms. Smith-Roy said that Parks Director Randy Auler gave a fairly strong recommendation for the replacement of the structure because of the treatment and safety issues. Ms. Smith-Roy said a more formal study could be done; it is not one of the top items in the Parks Department requests. She said that she would ask the City Manager and Mr. Auler to consider this item. Member Avdoulos thought it would be nice to first look at the structure before deciding to replace it. He asked that the City show some sensitivity in the decision-making process regarding this play structure. He suggested that appropriate documentation be provided to ease the community’s concern regarding the possible replacement of this play structure.

Member Avdoulos said that item #46 recommends a roundabout at Taft Road at Eleven Mile; #49 is a roundabout at Taft Road and Nine Mile. Ms. Smith-Roy said that the three roundabouts are far down on the list, because they anticipate future funding. The description in the budget would be corrected, where the wrong road was listed in #49.

Member Avdoulos noted that there were many CIP road projects. He asked about the chip seal on Nine Mile between Beck and Napier roads. There is a maintenance program, but the dollars saved by using chip seal are now needed for the constant repair. Gravel is being used for the holes and the road is becoming gravel once more. Ms. Smith-Roy said that the "maintenance" of that road is no longer shown on the CIP. The DPW is going to review this road, because the root cause of the failing chip-seal may be a drainage problem in the area. Member Avdoulos suggested that either ditches be added or the road be designed with a crown.

Member Greco understood that roundabouts were becoming popular, but wondered whether there was any other reason why roundabouts were needed to replace the four-way stops. Ms. Smith-Roy said the primary reason for these items on the CIP is that there will be grant funding available for these intersections for this type of design. These roundabouts are further out in the CIP planning.

Member Wrobel noted items # 3, 9 and 11 propose replacing concrete with asphalt. He thought that asphalt was not as durable and wondered what the rationale was behind using it. Civil Engineer Lindon Ivezaj responded that both materials have their advantages. He said he could confirm why asphalt was chosen in these instances with his colleague, Brian Coburn. Member Wrobel cited a recently asphalted intersection that was already showing signs of wear from the turning cars.

Member Pehrson asked about item #128 – were these outside warning sirens additional? Ms. Smith-Roy said they are additional, and the Police Department has identified these areas as needing sirens at some point in the future. At this time the City does have proper coverage, but the City is looking to expand the coverage as development occurs.

Member Lynch said that he was a member of the CIP Committee and these items, save the asphalt question, were discussed at their meeting. He said that Ms. Staab’s information was new to him, and that he liked her idea of reconsidering the existing structure for $3,000 rather than replacing it for one-third of a million dollars. Member Lynch acknowledged that the roundabouts are proposed in response to available grant funding. Member Lynch said the additional sirens would be for the far west part of the City, near Island Lake.

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Gutman:

Chair Cassis noted that there are seven roads slated for improvement in 2008-2009; he asked if these were approved or a wish list. Ms. Smith-Roy said that the first five items will be programmed. The next two items are pending for funding issues. These are the Cabot Drive and the northwest quadrant. The northwest quadrant is slated only for the engineering costs in the upcoming budget. She said that the Novi Road project from Ten Mile to Grand River will be started in 2009. The City has already been making payments toward right-of-way purchases and the RCOC will be sending the project out for bid later this year.

Chair Cassis said he and his wife were two of the volunteers who worked on the Tim Pope Play Structure. He thought that Ms. Smith-Roy was gracious in agreeing to look into this project. He said the City should look to reawaken the spirit if there is something that can be done to the structure to preserve it. He supported Ms. Staab’s suggestion of making this a residential endeavor.

Chair Cassis did not like roundabouts. He said the Taft Road roundabout at Springfield Court is misplaced. Chair Cassis said he does not like to hear that the reason to propose these roundabout projects is because there are funds available. He and his wife, Senator Nancy Cassis, routinely debate the projects that she must vote upon as a member of the State’s Finance Committee. Chair Cassis would prefer that grant money for at least the Taft Road roundabouts be returned to the grantor. This money belongs to the taxpayers. Certainly some of the lawmakers would speak up if they saw what was happening here, in light of the near shut-down. He hoped that whoever could react to these comments would consider these projects a bit more seriously. Chair Cassis cited a previous example when the State planned a road project near one of his restaurants that was unnecessary.

Chair Cassis stated for the record that Member Meyer arrived at 7:18 PM.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of General Development Company for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 9, north of Twelve Mile Road, east of West Park Drive in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 3.30 acres and the Applicant is proposing to build a 45,095 square-foot speculative office/warehouse building with accessory parking facilities on Lot 6 in the Novi Corporate Campus development.

Planner Karen Reinowski described the project. The Applicant will provide the tenant information with the next submittal to ensure the parking ratio is adequate, if in fact this prospect signs for the building. At this time the parking has been designed based on a speculative use.

The property and the properties to the west and north are zoned OST and master planned for Light Industrial. The southerly property is zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial. The easterly property is zoned I-2 and master planned for Light Industrial. There are woodlands on the site. There is a small adjacent wetland that will be affected by this project, and an authorization to encroach the buffer is required.

The Applicant has agreed to make the modifications required in the reviews. They continue to seek two waivers; one is for the loading zone screening. This loading zone faces an I-2 property, which is a condition that the Planning Commission may take under consideration. The Applicant also seeks a Section 9 Waiver for an excess of CMU on the southern and eastern facades, which are designed with 68% and 73% EIFS, respectively. The Façade Consultant and Staff do not recommend this waiver, though the Applicant states the design is consistent with the northerly NCC #7 building’s design, which received a waiver in August 2007.

The Landscape, Fire, Traffic and Engineering reviews noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Ryan Dembs addressed the Planning Commission. He defended the design of this building as it is similar to the Toyota Boshuku building and NCC #9. He offered to answer any questions.

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

Member Gutman said it was nice to see that development was still occurring in Novi in light of the downturn in the State’s economy.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Avdoulos was in favor of the motion. He said these waivers are appropriate for this site. The property is very close to the railroad track and is not cited right on Twelve Mile or West Park. The façade waiver mimics the rest of the park. For the NCC #1 and NCC #2 sites, which are along the road, Member Avdoulos said he would adhere to the Façade Ordinance, as they are situated on more high-profile sites. With the medical offices being built in the area, these two sites will need to up the ante. Those buildings can keep the same character, but their elements should be more appropriate. The new materials now allowed per the Ordinance should assist the Applicant with his designing of those sites.

Member Burke said the east side of the building faces another building, and that Applicant did not object to the façade. However, Member Burke was concerned about the south façade’s exposure to Twelve Mile. Mr. Dembs said that eventually this building will not be seen from Twelve Mile. The designs for those Twelve Mile sites have already been determined, and they do address the comments made by Member Avdoulos. Their designs come from the "same family" and will likely be two-story buildings. He hoped to break ground on those two sites within two years. Member Burke concurred with Member Avdoulos that the Planning Commission is more likely to enforce the Ordinance standards on those sites. Member Burke supported the project.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth noted that the buildings to the south will be designed to the Light Industrial standards as opposed to the OST standards. Staff does not generally support the Section Nine Waiver requests on buildings that can easily meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Ms. McBeth said that there may be a second story to this building, and Staff is a bit concerned with parking requirements if in fact, that is the case.

Chair Cassis asked about the parking. Mr. Dembs said that the prospective tenant would only need a one-story building. He said this building design allows them flexibility if they need to build a two-story building. Chair Cassis said that the parking restricts their flexibility. Mr. Dembs responded that additional parking could be gained by realigning the park’s sites. Ms. McBeth responded that the second story would have to be divulged when the plans went to the Building Department; the Planning Commission would have to review the plan again if the square footage increases. The Staff will monitor this issue, and this has been made clear in the proposal reviews. Mr. Dembs said the exact scenario happened with Toyota Boshuku; Mr. Dembs returned to the Planning Commission to add parking for that project. Mr. Dembs said their current lead on this building would not need a second story, but that is not to say that they have a signed deal with them. Mr. Dembs said that he was unable to divulge the name of the prospect, but noted that the new tenant of NCC #9 will be making their location announcement soon. He said that this location, the building appearances and the fact that this is Novi has made marketing this park easier.

Chair Cassis asked about the front properties being zoned Industrial. He asked how Mr. Dembs designed his buildings. Mr. Dembs responded that this entire park was Industrial but he had rezoned the north area to OST. Mr. Dembs prefers to rezone the Twelve Mile sites to Office as well, but he didn’t want to limit his use options.

Alan Hall, the Façade Consultant, explained that the back sides of the building are not shown on the elevations, and they are the two sides in question. He described those walls as an abrupt change in the design. There is a straight line between the two materials. The line could be adjusted down about ten feet to meet the Façade Ordinance.

Member Avdoulos said that the south façade will be visible until something is built on Twelve Mile. The eastern façade faces the railroad and an existing Industrial building. Member Avdoulos did not have an issue with the materials; he understood the Consultant’s recommendation because there is not deviation in the building. It is brick and then it turns into block. Member Avdoulos said he didn’t think it would hurt the design to stretch the brick to meet the Ordinance. The east façade might be more appropriate for the request as it is a full wall. The Planning Commission could ask that the south façade not have more than 50% EIFS. Mr. Dembs responded that the plan is nearly identical to NCC #7, and he had no comment.

Chair Cassis said that the beauty of a façade is in the eye of the beholder. He said he didn’t think the Planning Commission had to require this change. There are technicalities. Member Avdoulos said he could go either way, and a precedent was set with the other buildings. The Applicant is maintaining a similar quality, and the Consultant is doing his job. Nonetheless, he wanted the Applicant to understand that the more visible sites will be expected to adhere to the Ordinance.

roll call vote on NCC #6, SP07-74, Preliminary Site Plan motion made by Member Gutman and seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

In the matter of Novi Corporate Campus #6, SP07-74, motion to approve the Woodland Permit subject to the conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan, for the reason that it is in compliance with Chapter 37 of the Code of Ordinances and all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance. Motion carried 9-0.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Wah Yee Associates and Architects for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 15, west of Novi Road, north of Grand River Avenue on Fonda Drive. The subject property is approximately 0.97 acre and the Applicant is proposing to construct a general office building.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project. The site is bordered by a Big Boy Restaurant and Melting Pot to the north, an existing retail building, doctor’s office and Wendy’s to the east, Baby N Kids’ Bedrooms to the south, all of which are zoned TC and master planned for Town Center Commercial or Downtown West. Vacant land owned by the City to the west is zoned I-1 and master planned for Town Center Commercial. The Expo District is to the northwest. The current Master Plan update proposes a "backage" road that grazes this site, with associated pedestrian amenities, natural areas and a plaza. This Applicant has proposed some amenities.

There are no wetlands, though the floodplain borders the site. There are regulated woodlands, and the Applicant is proposing to remove 24 regulated trees. The Woodland Consultant recommends conditional approval of this permit, with money placed in the tree fund in lieu of tree replacement on the site, and additional items being addressed on the Final Site Plan.

The Applicant is seeking a number of waivers and variances. There are deficiencies with this plan. The Applicant will correct some deficiencies on the next submittal, and they will also seek some variances from the ZBA. The front yard and side yard parking setbacks are deficient on the east and west side yards. Maneuvering lanes are required to be 24 feet wide, though the southern end of the property indicates a 22-foot wide lane. The building setbacks are deficient on the north, east and west sides of the property. In the TC District, the Planning Commission can reduce the setbacks provided the three conditions noted in the plan review chart are met.

The Landscape Review does not recommend approval because five landscape waivers are being sought. Seven subcanopy trees are required within the right-of-way buffer; none are provided because of a lack of available space. 14 interior parking lot canopy trees are required and only three have been provided due to the space constraints. A total of 1,003 square feet of interior parking lot greenspace are required and only 819 feet have been provided, and none of the areas meet the size requirements. The Applicant seeks a waiver for perimeter canopy trees that cannot be placed on site. Additionally, 2,795 square feet of foundation landscaping are required and only 1,698 square feet are proposed. The Applicant is seeking waivers for all of these deficiencies. The Staff could support these waivers if the Applicant can clearly demonstrate that meeting the Ordinance standards would create an unbuildable site and/or the Applicant works toward a plan that is more compliant.

The Façade Review, Traffic Review, Engineering Review and Fire Department Review all noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Cassis asked Ms. Kapelanski to describe the backage road. The recommendation in the recent Master Plan update shows a backage road that, if built, would graze the edge of this site but does not go straight through the site. Ms. Kapelanski said that the Applicant has proposed a plan that is in accordance with the zoning of the site; this backage road is a future City project that can’t really be imposed on this Applicant at this time. The Applicant is aware of the City’s future plan for this backage road. Ms. McBeth added that the green area on the map is the City-owned property and is considered part of the flood plain, as is the property to the west. The shown map did not have enough detail to distinguish each property in particular; the general idea is to improve the road system in that area. This backage road should help those properties fronting on Novi Road. The ring road is separate from this backage road.

Matthew Quinn addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He introduced Wah Yee Associates, The Design Team, Fairway Engineering, and Ron Nuechterlein from Superior Diversified Services. This is a brand new building being proposed for Novi. It will be owner-occupied. The family business will be operated out of this structure. It is good once again, that a new tax-base coming to the City on a very difficult piece of property that is just less than an acre. The site is elongated and narrow. The site reaches from Fonda Drive to Maisano’s restaurant. The Master Plan update suggests bundlingthese smaller parcels into one larger site. The setbacks do not work on a site of this size – fifty-foot setbacks don’t work on a one-acre narrow site. The size of the building is only 5,800 square feet, and is sized to fit the owner’s purpose and is a quality building fit for resale. The building meets the Façade Ordinance.

Mr. Quinn said that this unusual parcel will someday be along the future ringroad, and the design of this proposal accommodates that future change. The west side setback is only 43 feet instead of 50 feet because of the angle requested by the City. The parking setbacks are also a result of the narrowness of the site and the Applicant is prepared to go to the ZBA. The maneuvering lane is 24 feet at the entrance; the rear lane is two feet short but the Fire Marshall has approved the plan as submitted. The landscape waivers are necessary. The site is adjacent to the flood plain, most of which will stay. The City’s road will come through that general area. The detention pond is in the rear of the building and is landscaped to the hilt. The detention pond is shared with Dara Place. It was constructed so both of these sites could make use of it. A greenspace runs along the east side. The front has been heavily planted and a pedestrian plaza, as proposed in the Master Plan, has also been designed. The Design Team and Wah Yee have done an excellent job designing this small site.

Mr. Quinn said that the woodlands will be offset through payment to the Woodland Fund, since there isn’t enough space on site to plant those trees. $12,800 will be submitted to the City. The building suits the area, and half of the variances would not be necessary if the site weren’t zoned TC. Mr. Quinn sought Planning Commission approval and positive recommendations for their ZBA variances. He offered to answer any questions.

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

Member Meyer said that normally he would not be in favor of a plan with so many variances, but he felt that the Applicant’s explanation of the lot’s oddity was accurate. Member Meyer asked why the Applicant had no desire to plant the subcanopy trees. Mr. Quinn said that these are the interior parking lot trees, and the lot is already tight. The landscape areas designed on the plan would not accommodate more trees. Many larger canopy trees were placed in the front of the building rather than the required subcanopy trees. Mr. Quinn said that the site has been treed as well as the Applicant could provide.

Member Meyer asked whether the safety is compromised with how close the road will come to this property. Mr. Quinn responded that the sidewalk is one foot inside the right-of-way. The setback has been provided to accommodate the road when it is built. The 43-foot design is shy of the required fifty feet. Mr. Quinn did not see any question of safety as a result of this proposal.

Member Lynch confirmed that similar concessions were granted on Dara Place. The narrowness of these sites is similar. Ms. Kapelanski was unaware of any variances that may have been granted on the House of Blinds property.

Member Wrobel asked how far the ring road was from the west property line. Ms. Kapelanski did not think the ring road would be on this property. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth and Mr. Quinn reviewed the Master Plan proposal again, which was projected on the screen. Member Wrobel surmised that it was at least fifty feet; Mr. Quinn added that there is a "public buffer" created by the right-of-way measurement. Member Wrobel was concerned about the distances. Mr. Quinn added that the nature area will act as an additional blockage. Member Wrobel understood the difficult nature of this site and he, too, has reservations about site designs that require so many variances, but he wished to hear from the other Planning Commission members before making a decision.

Member Burke agreed that this was a difficult site. At first glance he thought there were many red flags with this proposal, but upon learning that this would be an owner-occupied building, his perspective changed. Mr. Quinn told Member Burke that this would be an import/export jewelry business – a combination of both retail and office space. Mr. Norayr Shirvanian sells to jewelers. He moved here to Michigan from Los Angeles. This will be his main office. He will have about 12-14 employees.

Member Burke was glad that the Applicant would place his woodland credits into the tree fund, but he wanted to ensure that as much of the landscape requirements as possible were placed on the site. Member Burke supported the project.

Member Avdoulos agreed that these properties are tight. He remembered the problems with reviewing the Dara Place site. The issues on that proposal included building size, the curb cut on Novi Road, site engineering, and turning radius problems. Member Avdoulos acknowledged that this proposal has its share of variances, but as one begins to understand a project, its design issues come into focus. Member Avdoulos felt this proposal would benefit Dara Place because of the shared use of access. He approved of the building’s placement on the property. He knew the landscape requirements would be short, but because the site is adjacent to the natural flood plan and there is a detention basin with landscape features, he felt that the intent of providing a natural buffer has somewhat been met. With consideration of the future ideas proposed for this area of the City, the Applicant’s design being acceptable to the Fire Marshal, the Applicant’s working with the Engineering Department for utilities, and the building’s aesthetics, Member Avdoulos felt that this project, however tight the design is, was acceptable.

Member Avdoulos was glad to hear that this was not a speculative building, since its location is somewhat tucked away in its own little oasis. He thought this was a nice project on a difficult site. He thought this building could benefit Dara Place. He supported the project.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Wrobel:

In the matter of Shirvanian Office, SP07-76, motion to approve the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) A Planning Commission reduction of seven feet in the required northern building setback; 2) A Planning Commission reduction of twelve feet in the required eastern building setback; 3) A Planning Commission reduction of 43 feet in the required western building setback; 4) Planning Commission Waiver of the subcanopy tree requirement; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver for required eleven interior parking lot canopy trees; 6) A Planning Commission Waiver for width of and total area of interior parking lot landscape area; 7) A Planning Commission Waiver for perimeter canopy trees required; 8) A Planning Commission Waiver for 1,097 square feet of building foundation landscape area; 9) A Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the eastern and western parking setbacks; 10) A Zoning Board of Appeals Variance to allow a 22-foot width along the maneuvering lane at the southern end of the property; 12) A Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the side-yard loading zone setback; 13) The Applicant revising the plans to address minor comments as indicated by the Applicant response letter; and 14) The conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan; for the reasons that: 1) A reduction in building setback will not impair the health, safety or general welfare of the City as related to the use of the premises or adjacent premises; 2) A Waiver of the building setbacks along a common parcel line between two premises would result in a more desirable relationship between a proposed building and an existing building; 3) Adherence to a minimum required building setback would result in the establishment of nonusable land area that could create maintenance problems; and 4) The plan is otherwise in compliance with Article 16, Article 24 and Article 25 of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance.

Member Meyer confirmed with David Beschke, the Landscape Architect, that he was comfortable with working with the Applicant’s landscape architect on the completion of this design. Mr. Beschke also said the tree fund money will be put to good use elsewhere.

Chair Cassis said that this area of the City is indeed made up of numerous tiny parcels, some of which he, himself, once tried to accumulate and bundle into a larger site. Chair Cassis felt that if the original tiny sites would not have been granted variances, it would have forced property assemblage for the betterment of the area. Mr. Quinn responded that if the ring road would have been built when it was originally supposed to be, these tiny properties would have been gobbled up. Because of the litigation regarding this road, it wasn’t economically worth anything for a developer to come in and buy these pieces. Mr. Quinn is a property rights attorney and he would not endorse Chair Cassis’ suggestion that the original tiny sites should have been restricted.

Ms. McBeth wished to note that the façade board was at the meeting, and it showed the cast stone element that is now allowed under the Façade Ordinance.

In the matter of Shirvanian Office, SP07-76, motion to approve the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) A Planning Commission reduction of seven feet in the required northern building setback; 2) A Planning Commission reduction of twelve feet in the required eastern building setback; 3) A Planning Commission reduction of 43 feet in the required western building setback; 4) Planning Commission Waiver of the subcanopy tree requirement; 5) A Planning Commission Waiver for required eleven interior parking lot canopy trees; 6) A Planning Commission Waiver for width of and total area of interior parking lot landscape area; 7) A Planning Commission Waiver for perimeter canopy trees required; 8) A Planning Commission Waiver for 1,097 square feet of building foundation landscape area; 9) A Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the eastern and western parking setbacks; 10) A Zoning Board of Appeals Variance to allow a 22-foot width along the maneuvering lane at the southern end of the property; 12) A Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the side-yard loading zone setback; 13) The Applicant revising the plans to address minor comments as indicated by the Applicant response letter; and 14) The conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan; for the reasons that: 1) A reduction in building setback will not impair the health, safety or general welfare of the City as related to the use of the premises or adjacent premises; 2) A Waiver of the building setbacks along a common parcel line between two premises would result in a more desirable relationship between a proposed building and an existing building; 3) Adherence to a minimum required building setback would result in the establishment of nonusable land area that could create maintenance problems; and 4) The plan is otherwise in compliance with Article 16, Article 24 and Article 25 of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance. Motion carried 9-0.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Professional Engineering Associates for recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit approval and approval of the Stormwater Management Plan. The subject property is located in Section 14, on the east side of Novi Road, between I-96 and Twelve Mile in the RC, Regional Center District. The subject property is approximately 3.3 acres and the Applicant is proposing to remove the closed bank and furniture store and construct a 30,891 square-foot store.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project that is proposed for the perimeter of the Twelve Oaks Mall site. Novi Office Center is to the north, Twelve Oaks to the east, Red Lobster to the south, and Novi Road and West Oaks to the west. This property and all bordering properties are zoned RC. The Master Plan designates Regional Commercial for the east side of Novi Road and Regional Commercial with a PD-2 Option on the west side.

There are no wetlands or woodlands. A retail establishment in an enclosed building requires a Special Land Use Permit in the RC District. Conditions for a Special Land Use Permit are found in Section 2516.2.c of the Ordinance. Staff does not identify any major concerns with this proposal and therefore recommends approval of the Special Land Use request. The Applicant has submitted a Noise Analysis which indicates the anticipated noise levels of the use fall well below the limits for adjacent non-residential receiving zones. Section 2406.4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the Planning Commission to give City Council a recommendation on this Regional Commercial site plan and Special Land Use requests.

The Planning Review indicates the Applicant is generally in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. They will seek a variance for the northern and eastern setbacks, as they do not meet the 100-foot requirement. The Applicant needs a variance for the loading space and trash compactor in light of the building’s many front yards; the proposed placement is sufficient. There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Landscape Review recommends approval. The Applicant seeks a variance for the Novi Road berm and Staff supports this request.

The Applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment, and the Traffic Consultant has reviewed it and the plan, and recommends approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Applicant has made great improvements to their façade but there are still deficiencies. The color of the façade is meant to be harmonious with the adjacent buildings in the area. Intense colors are considered to be inconsistent with the Ordinance. Use of façade materials to increase the visual appearance of the building or advertising of the business is also inconsistent with the Ordinance. The Best Buy blue EIFS panels are considered intense, even though they have toned them down, and are used in such a manner as to form the background of their sign. The Façade Consultant does not recommend the granting of the Section Nine Waiver.

The Engineering Review and Fire Department Review both noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Jaima Darsinos from MJM Architects addressed the Planning Commission. She introduced Jim Butler from PEA and Jason Krauss of Best Buy. Ms. Darsinos explained that they met with the City four times before submitting this design. In their meetings, the City was not receptive to their 45,000 square-foot design or their elevations. This proposal, though 15,000 square feet smaller, still requires some of the setback waivers. The site is currently two parcels that will be combined. The 100-foot required setbacks render these properties undevelopable if the two parcels aren’t combined.

Ms. Darcinos said that the only side of the building that is not considered a front yard faces the neighboring office building, and they cannot place their dumpster on that side. The placement of the dumpster on the Novi Road side is the least obtrusive and it has been screened with materials similar to the building.

Ms. Darcinos showed a prototype Best Buy façade – which is typically a painted split-faced masonry design. There is a large blue entry element. The blue proposed for this site is less purple than the Haggerty Road Best Buy entry. The building is predominantly brick, and elements such as pilasters have been added to give the building some interest and variation. The entry element has been reduced in size by at least half. There is very little blue on the side elevations. Ms. Darcinos said that they met with the City so many times because they wished to propose something that responded appropriately to the City’s concerns and requirements. She said she thought they had worked hard enough on these issues that the City could support this proposal. They were surprised that they didn’t get the support for their Section Nine Waiver request. She asked the Planning Commission to consider it.

Chair Cassis confirmed that the Haggerty Best Buy is about 35,000 square feet. Ms. Darcinos said they would like this store to be bigger, given the market, but the site would be overbuilt. Mr. Krauss stated that they have a purchase agreement in place with Twelve Oaks. Twelve Oaks and Macy’s also reviewed the plan. Chair Cassis thanked the Applicant for working with the City.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Joe Drolshagen, Northern Equities: Stated that the Best Buy headquarters is also in Novi in Haggerty Corridor Corporate Park, which reflects Best Buy’s commitment to this City. He thought the Applicant did a great job of reducing their façade’s impact, and thought their proposal was very good looking.

There was no written correspondence so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson had no problem with the Best Buy request. He thought they did a nice job of working out this design. He thought they met the criteria of the Special Land Use Permit, and he agreed that the setbacks could potentially make these sites more difficult to develop. He supported their ZBA requests. He supported the Section Nine Waiver request because Best Buy has a trademarked identity; He thought their improvements to their standard design fit this area of the City quite well. He supported the project.

Member Wrobel agreed with the comments made. He did not think the Haggerty Best Buy façade or the adjacent hotel façade was well received by the community. He appreciated Best Buy working to minimize this proposed façade. He thought it was still too much, and would like to see it further reduced. He supported all of their other requests.

Member Avdoulos wondered whether the Haggerty Road Best Buy will remain open once the Novi Road Best Buy opens. The Applicant made many promises which were helpful to this review. He was at first concerned about the big box concept, but he felt that overall, the parking area proposed and the placement of the building on this site is appropriate. He confirmed that the underground parking will also be for public use. Employees will be encouraged to park underneath. There will be a nice entry feature in the parking area. Member Avdoulos liked the parking design.

Member Avdoulos thought the building aesthetics work because of the two types of brick and the pilastering. Twelve Oaks is a regional draw, so this entity as designed will work well. He understood why the Façade Consultant took the position that he did, but businesses work very hard to develop their own branding, so using it is important to their marketing plan. He cited another project discussed in an Implementation Committee meeting that really could benefit from some middle-level marquis signage so that the project’s stores could make use of their own branding identities. He thought the proportionality of this proposal is right on. The geometry works. The design is not blatant, and even his colleagues at his architectural firm did not find the design very daunting.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth suggested that a study of the various building heights in the area could be recommended. This could be helpful to the City Council in their consideration of this request.

Member Avdoulos noted that the grade is far lower on this site than the grade at Novi Road. This building will probably not come off as a "big box" building. He felt that City Council will approve the design once they review the quality materials and differentiation designed into the building. Another positive with this design is that the building is not right up on the roads. There is a setback and there is landscaping. He concluded that the design is acceptable for the upscale mall in the distance.

Member Avdoulos said that the dumpster area is necessary, and he thought the location was the best the Applicant could propose. He supported the project. He understood that there may be hesitation on the façade, but he thought that in all, the design works. He supported the project.

Member Meyer said that he has grown accustomed to the Haggerty Best Buy façade. He also said that it might behoove Best Buy to have their employees park in the parking lot so that other customers are attracted by the busy appearance of the store. He thanked Best Buy for the darker blue; it’s a bit easier on the eye and Best Buy still gets the effect for which they were looking. He wished Best Buy well.

Member Burke confirmed that there are no current plans to close the Haggerty Best Buy store. Member Burke noted that the mall accepted this design, but he wondered how much of a visual block this store would be in front of the mall. Mr. Krauss said that the building will sit about 16 feet higher than the Novi Road grade. The building will be higher than Newton Furniture. Mr. Krauss said that by removing the two buildings, Macy’s will have a better view corridor. Member Burke thought that Best Buy made the most of this site. The parking is a great feature.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Ms. McBeth stated that they will continue to request a view corridor study from the Applicant. She said it would be helpful to City Council if they can put this building into perspective based on the existing mall and grades. "The Applicant providing a study of renderings showing the proposed building in relation to the existing buildings and the topography of the area for review by City Council" was added to the motion, having been agreed upon by Member Pehrson and Member Meyer.

City Attorney Kristin Kolb suggested that the feasibility of the sidewalk connection be added as a stipulation to be further studied.

Mr. Butler stated that the sidewalk would remove a significant amount of landscaping; it’s a very tight corridor that must also provide a grade transition. It is a pretty steep grade drop. Mr. Butler used a copy of the map to show where the sidewalk is that is in question.

Ms. Kapelanski said that she was suggesting that the Novi Road sidewalk somehow be connected to the Best Buy parking lot. This would be beneficial for pedestrians and the store to have some kind of pedestrian connection. She said there wasn’t any specific place that the City was suggesting that the sidewalk go, just that the Applicant consider providing this connection. Civil Engineer Lindon Ivezaj acknowledged the steep grade, and noted that the request came from the Traffic Consultant, whose concerns include pedestrian safety. A staircase could be considered to address the grade change.

Ms. McBeth said that it was still worthwhile for the Applicant to consider providing this connection, since it has become a standard provision throughout the City. Mr. Butler said that a staircase would require about 28-30 steps. He agreed to at least look at the possibilities.

"The Applicant working with the City to determine if a sidewalk connection between Novi Road and the parking lot is feasible and where its optimal location would be" was added to the motion upon approval by Member Pehrson and Member Meyer.

Member Lynch suggested that the connection should be considered but not to the point of silly. He didn’t want to see the problem worsened by the addition of a staircase. The 16-foot drop caused Member Lynch to consider whether this staircase is really that important. Mr. Butler understood, and agreed that a staircase could become a safety and liability issue. Member Lynch encouraged Mr. Butler to find a location without such a steep drop.

Chair Cassis reminisced about the Novi Road corridor some thirty years ago. This area is now quite an attraction, this corridor, and Best Buy is fortunate to be locating here. Chair Cassis said the difficulty of this site is obvious based on the vacant buildings that Best Buy is proposing to tear down. A great building has been architected. The elevations have been brought up to par without compromising Best Buy’s branding.

Member Avdoulos agreed that a cross section showing the relationship between Novi Road, Best Buy and Macy’s should be provided to the City Council for review. The color board is also very important. The blue is not as vibrant; it is toned down. He couldn’t see the design not getting approved, but it would behoove the Applicant to equip the City Council with as much information as possible.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Ms. McBeth said that because this is a planned development option, "PD", the standards listed on pages three and four of the Planning Review should be included in the Planning Commission’s recommendation.  Member Pehrson and Member Meyer agreed.  Therefore, "…and a finding that the plan meets the standards contained in the Planned Development requirements for site plan review, for an enclosed retail establishment in the RC, Regional Center District, as noted in the Planning Review" was added to the motion as an additional reason for approval.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Consideration of the request of Northern Equities Group for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 1, at the southwest corner of Haggerty Road and MacKenzie Drive, north of Thirteen Mile, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 5.42 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a speculative 48,866 square foot one-story general office building.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project. The property is bordered by vacant land on the north, west and south, all zoned OST and master planned for Office. To the east are single family homes in Farmington Hills. There are no wetlands or woodlands on the site.

The Planning Review did not note any major deficiencies. There are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Landscape Review does not recommend approval. The Applicant did not design his landscape pursuant to the current Ordinance. The Applicant has agreed to redesign the site to conform to the current Landscape Ordinance. Staff recommends the approval of this plan on the condition that the Applicant understands he will have to come back before the Planning Commission to seek any waivers or variance recommendations that are a result of his revised landscape plan. The Applicant is also required to include the previously approved landscape feature that was shown on the HCCP Phase 2 plan.

The Traffic Review, Engineering Review, Façade Review and Fire Department Review all noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Cassis confirmed that Staff supports the project subject to the Applicant bringing the landscape plan into compliance. It remains to be seen whether the landscape can all fit on the site; if, for some reason it can’t, the Applicant will have to reappear before the Planning Commission.

Joe Drolshagen from Northern Equities addressed the Planning Commission. They wished to rationalize the current Landscape Ordinance, noting that it has almost made a cacophony out of the landscaping in the OST District. He recommended that the Planning Commission take a drive through this corporate park. There are now so many trees and plants that it has become a maintenance issue, a traffic issue, and soon all of the trees are going to grow together. He stated that some of the earlier buildings that were landscaped according to the previous Landscape Ordinance standards are beautiful buildings with beautiful landscaping. After speaking with the Landscape Architect, Mr. Drolshagen realized they were banging their heads against a wall so they capitulated and agreed to revise the plan according to the new Ordinance. Mr. Drolshagen asked the City to consider looking at the Ordinance in the context of whether the last iteration became too much, as far as landscaping is concerned.

Mr. Drolshagen said the building is 100% brick and is parked accordingly. There is no doubt that they will find the proper use for this building. He offered to answer any questions.

Chair Cassis asked Landscape Architect David Beschke to respond to the Applicant’s assertion that he was banging his head against a wall. Mr. Beschke replied that the Applicant had commented earlier that he wished to design with less landscaping. Mr. Beschke said there would have to be some kind of a hardship associated with the site that would drive the City’s approval of a landscape reduction. This submitted landscape plan would have required a considerable number of waivers and variances. He is 99% sure that the required landscape will fit on this site. Another site on McKenzie is similar to this site, and its landscape meets all the requirements.

Mr. Drolshagen said that the economy is brutally competitive out there; what they are trying to achieve is bringing some of their costs under control, noting how plan proposed earlier in the meeting was designed with a less expensive block and less parking. Northern Equities’ philosophy is different than that particular developer, but as it tries to compete with their corporate park, Northern Equities loses, as evidenced by the project named by that developer earlier in the meeting. Mr. Drolshagen said that Northern Equities and the other developer have different perspectives that drive their economic considerations. They are competing not only with the rest of the world but also with others in the City of Novi within the OST Districts. This landscape proposal was by no means a way to "cheat" the look of the building, because the landscaping in the rest of the park is absolutely stunningly beautiful. Northern Equities would like the City to reconsider the current Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Drolshagen confirmed that their MacKenzie North building was in fact designed under the current Landscape Ordinance. Their landscaping costs have doubled in the last six years, not because of an increase in plant material cost, but because of the increase in plant material required by the Ordinance itself. He noted that the cost of bricks and steel has also gone up, but they have not raised their rents in seven years.

Member Lynch asked for clarification. Mr. Drolshagen said that in the case of the other developer, they choose to maintain the cost of their building by reducing the cost of the façade material. Northern Equities was proposing to reduce the cost of their building by reducing the cost of their landscape material. He said that everyone is trying to lower their costs.

Member Lynch said he has driven the site. He understood there are economic issues in Michigan. He supported the project. He added that the City applies the Ordinance equitably. Mr. Drolshagen agreed; a return to the previous landscaping standards was Northern Equities’ suggestion posed in an effort to help control the cost of building in Novi.

Member Gutman said that the Planning Commission is always reviewing the Ordinance for improvements, and they work hard to accommodate the Applicants.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Mr. Drolshagen briefly described the other projects coming on line in the park and said that they have a positive outlook on leasing the remaining buildings. Chair Cassis noted that this developer is perhaps the largest developer in the City and does excellent work.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

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 Wrobel:

The meeting adjourned at or about 9:59 PM.

MON 03/03/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 03/10/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 03/12/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 03/17/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

FRI 03/21/08 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 04/02/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 04/07/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 04/08/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 04/16/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 04/21/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 04/30/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf Signature upon File

Customer Service Representative Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date

March 27, 2008

Date Approved: April 2, 2008