Chair Cassis asked Secretary Meyer to enter the correspondence into the record. Member Meyer said there were three responses received on this request:

• Richard Regin, 28246 Franklin Road: Approved of the request because it would provide services lacking in the area. He said this was not a residential-type intersection.
• Michael R. Balon and Denise H. Balon, 47825 West Ten Mile: Supported the residential designation as affirmed during the recent Master Plan review.
• Louis Achille, 47590 Greenwich Drive: Objected to the request because he did not want anything other than residential in this area.

Deputy Director of Community Development Ms. McBeth noted that there were many responses to the rezoning Public Hearing notice for the property across the street that was next on the Agenda, some of which may have been for this site. Member Meyer said there were 55, and all of them were opposed to the rezoning request.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch confirmed that daycare would be a Special Land Use in the property’s current R-1 Zoning District. He confirmed though, that the request was for an Office District rezoning.

Member Lynch confirmed that the northeast corner of Beck Road and Ten Mile was developed pursuant to a Consent Judgment. Member Lynch said he has done a very detailed analysis of the southwest quadrant’s engineering, traffic and financial position. Member Lynch assumed that this Applicant was aware that the Master Plan currently designates this site as Residential, and the pending Master Plan update also designates this site for Residential.

City Attorney Tom Schultz reminded the Planning Commission that the Master Plan update has not been finalized or approved. Member Lynch agreed; he just wanted to make sure that this Applicant was aware that the recent Master Plan review that is now underway has recommended Residential for this site.

Member Lynch said the rezoning request would have a negligible impact on the water and sanitary service. However, Member Lynch considered this a spot zoning, so the Planning Commission would be setting a precedent for several other properties in the southwest quadrant. He thought one could reasonably expect an increase in both water and sanitary service.

Member Lynch calculated the taxes and felt that the taxpayers would have to come up with an additional $840,000 in sanitary sewer infrastructure and/or purchase additional sewage capacity, based on the cubic feet of sewage flow per second and also the amount. He said he was speaking broadly, if this and all the other ones in the area get approved.

Member Lynch said the Ten Mile and Beck intersection is in the process of getting upgraded based on the current zoning. There will be a generous right turn lane going northbound off of Beck and going eastbound off of Ten Mile. A left turn traffic signal will be added or has been added. These improvements are scheduled for completion this year and Member Lynch hoped it would be before the Wixom Road interchange closed. He agreed with the public speaker who voiced his concern,

Member Lynch talked about the queuing theory. He took exception to the Applicant’s comments about the improvements not improving the traffic flow and wait time for the queues of cars in the area. He said he had evidence that if the zoning stays the same, traffic would be much better and wait time would be much less. If the Master Plan were to change, and this parcel and other parcels in the same circumstance were moved from Residential to Commercial or Business, Member Lynch said that all bets are off on the millions of dollars that will be spent on this particular intersection. He said it would have to be upgraded.

Member Lynch looked at the City’s Traffic Consultant’s analysis and the Applicant’s Traffic Study. He said it appears that the Applicant utilized an inappropriate traffic factor and assumed lower traffic volumes in their calculations. This error appears to have resulted in unrealistic assessment of the rezoning’s effect on adjacent roadways. In addition it appears that the Applicant is relying on the addition of one residential lane on both Beck Road and Ten Mile to meet the minimum traffic requirements in the City Ordinance. To the best of Member Lynch’s knowledge, these lanes of pavement have not been approved or funded. Based on the current economic conditions, he didn’t see any additional funding for traffic lanes in this decade. Therefore, he found issue with the Traffic Study that was submitted.

Member Lynch said if consideration is given to the idea that this is a spot zoning, which would set precedent for other properties in the southwest quadrant, then the calculation on the taxpayers’ immediate responsibility to improve infrastructure, primarily roads, would be in the neighborhood of 12.83 million dollars.

Member Lynch has no financial interest in this property. He said he didn’t live in the area. He tried to do an unbiased look at the facts. To him, the Master Plan is a promise to business owners on how the City will be developed so they can make a good sound business decision before they decide to invest their money in Novi. It’s a promise to the homeowners so they can decide on whether they should spend their life savings on a Novi home. It’s a promise to the taxpayers that the Planning Commission and City Council won’t do something foolish to increase taxes. He has spent hundreds of hours reviewing this information and he can’t break the promise and rezone this property from Residential to Commercial or Business use:

Moved by Member Lynch, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Wrobel understood that this is a small piece of property. He has not seen any proof that houses could not be developed on this site. Until he sees something that supports that statement, he is going to assume that it can be done. He could not support the request.

Member Greco said that developing this property will be difficult regardless of the use, and that perhaps it should just be developed they way it is currently zoned. The traffic may be complicated by a bank or daycare, but this is an artery that drivers take. There is a commercial property on the northeast corner that is not very busy. It is a busy corner, but it is not a beneficial busy commercial corner. Because of the recent Master Plan review that the Planning Commission just completed, Member Greco said he could not support the request.

Member Pehrson confirmed that the buffers required for this residential site would be thirty feet along Ten Mile and Beck. 35 feet for the rear and 15 feet for the side would be required. For OS-1, the Ten Mile and Beck Road setbacks would be twenty feet. The side would be 15 feet and the rear would be twenty feet. As it is currently zoned, Member Pehrson thought there was ample room on the site to build according the current designation. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that the R-1 designation has been in effect for quite a number of years. Ms. McBeth said the landscape buffer necessary for a non-residential property abutting residential would increase the buffer zones. Ms. McBeth estimated that the recent Master Plan review was the exclusive work of one planner for the second half of last year. Many hours were logged into this project, and she didn’t think that 100 hours would be an overstatement regarding the number of hours spent on the southwest quadrant. She said it was a very thorough process.

Member Pehrson asked about the Chesapeake Needs Assessment. Ms. McBeth said that the study reviewed the 48167 and 48375 zip codes. Some of the 48167 zip code included Northville Township residents. Member Pehrson thought that there has been ample review of this area and overwhelming support for the residential zoning. Member Pehrson supported the motion.

Chair Cassis wished to give an historical perspective on this southwest quadrant. The City has seen quite a few rezoning requests for this southwest quadrant. Over the years the requests have come in for mixed use, shopping centers, etc. They have not materialized because of many components of the Master Plan and the opposition voiced by the neighbors. Ample documentation does not support a rezoning. A referendum previously succeeded whereby the residents told the City that they did not want to change the residential nature of this property, and Chair Cassis suggested that Mr. Carson review the history of this event.

Chair Cassis said the Master Plan review was just completed. Experts helped with the review and there was a great amount of public input. Chair Cassis said that there was perhaps only one supporting comment for changing the residential zoning in this area.

The property is surrounded by residential and is residential in character. Contrary to Mr. Evantini’s comment, Chair Cassis thought one could argue that this is a spot zoning. This term denotes that perhaps a use does not fit the character of an area. Chair Cassis suggested that if this rezoning is approved, it will create the domino effect, and surrounding sites will also ask for a change of zoning.

Chair Cassis did not think that a bank or daycare was necessary for this location. There are many banks already in the area. He was actually more worried about a proliferation of banks. Chair Cassis noted that daycare centers were located down the road. He did not see a compelling or necessary reason to put these types of uses on this corner. Chair Cassis said the Applicant was not being denied the ability to put this use in place, because there are many other areas that would support these uses in the immediate vicinity. Chair Cassis suggested that the Applicant could place a bank at the northeast corner.

Chair Cassis said that Mr. Carson suggested that there is no market for residential on this corner. Chair Cassis said that the City has no proof to support that statement. Chair Cassis said that markets come and go. Therefore the City cannot chart its destiny based upon the whim of the market. The Master Plan cannot be designed in such a fashion either.

Chair Cassis did not agree that the adjacent neighbors would not be affected by this rezoning. There will be lighting, traffic and garbage issues. The required setbacks are not generous. The hours of operation could present a noise problem in the late night or early hours.

City Attorney Tom Schultz said that in terms of the motion, and the comments that preceded it, the Planning Commission is the body that creates the factual basis for their recommendation and the City Council’s approval. Mr. Schultz heard some statements made but has not seen the facts that substantiate those comments. Mr. Schultz thought that the statements were substantial enough that the Planning Commission ought to ask itself whether it is ready to make a substantive decision in light of those comments made. From a procedural perspective, the references to road improvements, increase in sanitary sewer, etc, might be repeated back to the City as not having been substantiated. Those are very technical things, and Mr. Schultz said that the Planning Commission may wish to review the facts behind these statements prior to moving a recommendation for denial forward.

Chair Cassis asked for clarification. Mr. Schultz said the motion maker made a 12.8 million dollar comment for road improvements, and the increase in sewer capacity, and he would like the Planning Commission to consider whether these comments need to be explored for their factual merit.

Member Lynch said the calculations were his own. The $840,000 sewage number was based on a low-end estimate of $475,000 per one cubic foot per second of sewage. He considered the domino effect, and assumed that if this parcel is rezoned, he could wonder how many other parcels in the southwest quadrant could potentially get approved. Legacy Parc would probably require another 2 cfs. The Dinser site would require 2.8 cfs. The Landon site would require another 4.3 cfs. Lakeside Oakland site would require .5 cfs. Member Lynch may have clarified that these were all fractions falling under 1.0, as he corrected the Lakeside Oakland site from 5.1 to .5 cfs. Member Lynch spoke with Civil Engineer Ben Croy and he thought the going rate was about $600,000 per cfs. On the conservative side, this equated to his $840,000 figure.

Member Lynch agreed that the numbers should not be quoted as gospel. Chair Cassis suggested that if a professional planner did not help him with those numbers, perhaps they should be reviewed first. Member Lynch said that was fine, and the numbers could be removed from consideration, but generally there would still be a negative effect on the infrastructure if the zoning changes. Mr. Schultz said that since the numbers have been put out there, they really should be looked at for their substance. Mr. Schultz said the numbers are in the record, and therefore the Planning Commission might want to think about asking for a Staff comment on this because the Applicant may quote these unsubstantiated numbers all over the place if the recommendation does not go in his favor. Mr. Schultz did not think Member Lynch could just rescind his calculations from the record.

Member Greco asked whether the motion could be kept in place with the notation that the numbers are excluded from the consideration. He said he felt that he and perhaps other Planning Commission members were comfortable in casting their vote without the consideration of Member Lynch’s numbers.

Member Lynch said his motion did not reference the numbers. He said that the daycare center would be approvable in his eyes in the R-1 zoning currently on the parcel. The Applicant is requesting an office use rezoning.

Mr. Schultz agreed that the motion says the request is inconsistent with the Master Plan. He said there is now other information in the record and he wondered whether that information should be verified before a substantive decision is made. Mr. Schultz suggested yes, but he did agree that the denial motion is based on the request’s inconsistency to the Master Plan.

Chair Cassis said that the record will show that the calculations were removed from the Planning Commission’s consideration. Mr. Schultz responded that though it’s been said, the information has already been stated on the record. He left it up to the Planning Commission to consider whether it should examine the numbers prior to the vote. Ms. McBeth added that the Staff, specifically the Engineer, has not reviewed the numbers. She said if it would help the Planning Commission, the Staff could provide them with additional information over and above what has already been provided to them.

Member Pehrson agreed with Mr. Schultz and Ms. McBeth. He did not know if the data communicated have any real bearing on this hearing, he felt the City owed it to the Applicant to examine Member Lynch’s numbers. Member Pehrson would rather see the information come back to the Planning Commission after the Staff has had a chance to respond.

Moved by Member Pehrson, Member Gutman:

Member Lynch said the numbers he used were for the domino effect of other properties seeking rezoning as well. He thought it would be a good exercise for the Staff to look at the specific impact upon the infrastructure. This is not an easy task, but he thought a risk assessment is appropriate. Assumptions could include all rezonings. Does this exercise have a bearing on this particular request? Member Lynch did not believe so. He said the motion suggested that the Applicant had uses available to him within the current zoning. They have not applied for those uses; instead, they have applied for a complete rezoning to a different category. The motion was that the request was not in compliance with the Master Plan. He would not have a problem if the Planning Commission wished to postpone the matter in order to gather information, but the information won’t change the fact that the request does not reflect the current Master Plan.

Member Burke thought that the idea that Staff would respond to Member Lynch’s comments, they are in for a lot of work, because which property rezonings would be under consideration? Additionally, the calculations would have to be done on full residential development on the sites. Member Burke thought there were too many variables for the Staff to respond to.

Chair Cassis asked whether the Applicant should have to provide information too. Mr. Schultz responded that he didn’t think that the Planning Commission was asking for studies, but he wanted to acknowledge that the basis for the statements made might also be considered for inclusion into the record.

Member Lynch again gave his motion.

Member Meyer was concerned about casting his motion on this vote. He has listened to the City Attorney’s comments regarding Member Lynch’s figures. If those figures aren’t accurate, or close to accurate, Member Meyer was concerned that there would be a major issue.

Mr. Schultz asked Member Meyer about the received correspondence. Member Meyer explained that there were three specific comments addressing 18.671, and 55 comments regarding the area’s rezonings in general. Mr. Schultz proposed that Member Meyer identify which letters refer to this parcel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Ten and Beck, LLC, for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 20, located at the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Beck Road, from R-1, One-Family Residential, to B-2, Community Business District. The subject property is approximately 24.3 acres.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the request. The Applicant is proposing the rezoning of an approximately twenty-four acre property located on the north side of 10 Mile Road west of Beck Road from R-1, One-Family Residential to B-2, Community Business. The site is currently vacant. To the north is Greenwood Oaks Subdivision, to the west is Warrington Manor Subdivision, and to the east and south are Beck Road and Ten Mile, respectively.

The subject property is currently zoned R-1, and the proposed zoning is B-2. The site is bordered to the east and south by Beck Road and Ten Mile, respectively, and to the north and west by R-1 zoning. Across Ten Mile is R-1 zoning and across Beck Road is R-4 and B-1 zoning.

The Future Land Use Map indicates Single Family Residential uses for the subject property along with all the surrounding properties. The Master Plan density map indicates a density of 1.65 units per acre for the subject property. The property on the northeast corner of Beck Road and Ten Mile is planned for Local Commercial. Recently, the City opened the Master Plan for review, and the southwest quadrant was one of the areas examined as part of this review. The Master Plan review did not recommend any changes for the subject property or the surrounding properties. There are no wetlands or woodlands on the subject property as indicated by the natural features map.

The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property to B-2. The Applicant has suggested per their required traffic impact study a general office or commercial shopping center of 75,000 square feet could occupy the subject property. Since this is not a Planned Rezoning Overlay, any use permitted in the B-2 District could be constructed on the site.

The Community Development Department recommends denial of this request, as it is not consistent with the Master Plan. Furthermore, the requested rezoning would constitute a spot zoning as all immediate surrounding areas are zoned Single Family Residential and the Master Plan recommends One-Family Residential land uses for the area in general. After a number of revisions, the City’s Traffic Consultant was able to recommend approval of the Traffic Impact Study, although they do note concerns regarding the negative impact the rezoning could possibly have on the surrounding roadways. Subsequent concerns following the recommended approval of the Traffic Impact Study have since come up and Steve Dearing, the City’s Traffic Consultant, was at the meeting to answer any questions. The Engineering review indicated there would be a minimal impact on public utilities but did note that any increase in sanitary flow may require the acquisition of additional capacity downstream at the time of build-out.

Mr. Robert Carson addressed the Planning Commission. He said their request is a worthwhile use for the site. He said there was an interesting issue that he wished to address. This area of the City is being treated in a somewhat unique fashion that is otherwise not being used in other parts of the City. The Planning Commission and residents treat the southwest quadrant as though it should be immune from normal planning considerations. This area of the City should be serviced in a way, or not serviced in a way, that is routine for all other areas of the City. The criteria that is being established for consideration, as he understood it, that this area should not be served by businesses that serve the community that surrounds the area because it is a preconceived notion that the Master Plan is either a promise, which implies that it can never be changed, or that this area should be immune from services which facilitate access to neighboring needs.

With respect to spot zoning, Mr. Carson said that they would have to agree to disagree, since sitting immediately adjacent to this site is a commercial use. It may be through a consent judgment, but it a lawful, commercially-zoned use category that sites to the east of this site, thereby negating the theory behind spot zoning.

Mr. Carson said there is an opportunity to not have conjecture with respect to engineering, because the City’s engineers have already pointed out the negligible impact. It would be spurious to say that every other area conceived in Novi might have its zoning change and therefore belie the analysis of the City’s own engineers. This did not make sense to him. This is a circumstance where at least 55 people in the area oppose the activities proposed by the Applicant. These people would have opposed the activities of their own homes being built – be it the density at Island Lakes or at the Links. Everybody in the area apparently has a vested interested in opposing any change and can’t perceive that service that actually enhances value. This is the circumstance that Mr. Carson saw.

Mr. Carson said the residents think this area of Novi should not have any supermarket or modern retail, which could be more than adequately buffered. He said this site serves as a soccer field for the neighbors, despite the "No Trespassing" signs. These residents have their own vested interest in trying to maintain this site as is so that they may use the site improperly. Mr. Carson asked what the appropriate use was, not by way of some artificially-created promise which can never be broken because the residents think the Master Plan can’t be changed.

Mr. Carmen Evantini addressed the Planning Commission. He said this property is really very different from the southwest quadrant in terms of service area. He said the Master Plan update reads, "Citizen input indicates that maintaining the low-density residential character of the southwest quadrant is a high priority for residents. To preserve that character, residents are willing to travel outside the area for goods and services." What does this do for the other neighborhoods along the way and the corresponding roads? For the City as whole, this makes the traffic worse. Now, the residents have to travel farther to reach those commercial destinations. Mr. Evantini had a map that showed where existing commercial is located. Residents are traveling a minimum of two miles to get to commercial. This adds to the roads’ wear and tear and the congestion thereon. Also, drivers are entering nodes of civic uses – schools, churches, etc. There is also a new hospital that will generate major traffic. These southwest quadrant residents now have to pass through all of these traffic nodes to reach commercial.

Mr. Evantini said that traffic is a big issue in the entire City. The Planning Commission and City Council have the responsibility of looking at the particular area, but the City as a whole, in order to minimize the traffic impact. Mr. Evantini wondered how willing the residents will be when gas hits $10 per gallon. It is not beyond reality that gas prices will escalate like this at some point in time. It is not just the congestion.

Mr. Evantini noted that the reviews suggested that if the southerly parcel was rezoned, it would lead the way for the northerly piece to become commercially zoned. He read from one of the reviews, "The changing of the zoning of the subject property to OS-1 would negatively affect the existing vacant parcel. An office development across the street can make the vacant parcel less attractive to prospective residential developers and residents." If that is truly the case, then what does that say about the existing commercial development on the northeast corner? Does that corner make these sites less attractive for residential development? Possibly.

Mr. Evantini said a Master Plan goal is to continue to plan for a local, commercial area at the northeast corner of Ten Mile and Beck Road to meet the convenience shopping needs of residents in nearby neighborhoods. This suggests to Mr. Evantini that the City recognizes there is a need for convenience commercial shopping in this particular area. The question becomes whether the northeast corner serves all of the needs of the entire southwest quadrant. Mr. Evantini ventured to say that it doesn’t. There is demand for additional commercial in this area. In fact, people are now traveling a great distance to be able to get to that point.

Mr. Evantini reiterated that he disagrees with the suggestion that this request is akin to spot-zoning. Just because there is commercial zoning, it does not mean that the value of adjacent residential automatically decreases. There are things that can be done to minimize the impact from the site. Mr. Evantini said his comments from the previous rezoning request applied to this parcel as well.

Mr. Carson assumed that there would not be many questions for them from the Planning Commission. He concluded his presentation with a look at what he considered constitutes good planning. In what circumstances should a City’s Planning Commission exclude an area from servicing the appropriate needs in that area, thereby causing a burden to other areas within the City? In every circumstance where development comes forward, oftentimes the people who are already there oppose the prospect of development, thinking that it will negatively impact their area. In most circumstances where the development is well done, the residents in close proximity to these developments love them. They first swear they’ll boycott the project, and once the development goes up, they can’t wait to shop there. Mr. Carson said he could provide examples of this happening. A commercial development is an amenity; it benefits its immediate area and reduces the traffic burden on the other sections of the City – by the hospital, the schools, and other congested areas. But this particular area perceives itself from being immune to good planning.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Chair Cassis asked Member Meyer to read the correspondence. City Attorney Tom Schultz asked Member Meyer to read the names and their position, which Member Meyer responded that all received correspondence opposed the request.

Chair Cassis asked Member Meyer to offer a concluding remark that summarized the letters. Member Meyer responded that Novi attracts a wonderful diversity of individuals. This is a wonderful, fabulous City. The Planning Commission’s hope is to do what is in the best interest of the citizens of this community. Member Meyer noted that in 1989 the Wall Street Journal selected twenty school districts out of 17,600 that answered the question, "Where would you live if you could live anywhere?" Novi was one of those school districts.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Gutman said the Master Plan is a living, breathing document and is therefore reviewed routinely. It just went through an exhaustive review. That said, Member Gutman said the Applicant’s request is not in compliance with the Master Plan for Land Use, and for that reason, Member Gutman made the following motion:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

Member Pehrson asked Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth whether the PRO Option was available to this Applicant. She responded that they can propose a PRO that if they so choose. Member Pehrson was reminded of a previous request for a grocery store for a site at Ten Mile and Novi Road. The suggestion was made with that request that people needed a more local grocery. It was determined by the Planning Commission that it wasn’t a necessity. It was determined by the citizens that it wasn’t a necessity. Shopping habits have changed over the years; people make purchases according to their travel routes, so big box groceries don’t need to be everywhere. People will make incremental purchases at convenience stores or gas stations. He did not see a compelling argument for a grocery on this site.

Member Pehrson said that good planning can be based upon the Master Plan. That document may not address the needs of the petitioner, but his need does not make the need or reason to change what exists in a community. Member Pehrson listed the B-2 uses and he did not think they fit the area. He felt the designed future interconnectivity of the roads in the area would lend itself to this land being developed with residential.

Member Pehrson said that the Applicant could reconsider submitting his request as a PRO, so that he could specifically describe his intentions for the property. This becomes a negotiation process between the Applicant and the City. Member Pehrson said that the City occasionally rezones property, trading commercial, office or industrial sites, because they offer a common theme between those uses. Member Pehrson did not think that there was a common link between Residential and Business. He supported the Master Plan and the motion.

Member Burke paraphrased Mr. Carson’s comment regarding his perception that this area is being excluded from sensible planning. Member Burke thought the site was sensibly planned as R-1. He thought it was unanimous that the Planning Commission would like to see forty homes on this site. The community would like to see forty homes on this site. Member Burke took offense somewhat to Mr. Carson’s comment, because his statement suggested that the City didn’t know what it was talking about when it zoned this property for Residential.

Member Greco agreed that this area has been carefully planned. It is easy to review plans and maps and construe the information to fit one’s needs. However, one can’t argue against cold, hard facts. In this case, no need for this use has been demonstrated. The citizens have not requested this service. No matter how many times the maps are measured, the answer remains that the residents are readily serviced by what already exists in the area.

Member Lynch asked Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing about the traffic study review and the comments made about additional residential lanes of traffic. Mr. Dearing responded that his review recommended against the rezoning very early in the process, in reaction to the original traffic study that the Applicant submitted. The use of a faulty traffic factor was just one of several computational errors found in the report. The study was revised over and over. One of the issues with the study is that the Applicant was relying road improvements that have been proposed by the City. Some of those improvements are committed projects that have received funding; others were more master-planning for the future. Mr. Dearing said that when a project is funded, then traffic study assumptions can include that information. A wish-list project cannot be used in the traffic study process.

Mr. Dearing said that developers are not expected to fix all of the road problems in the City, nor are they expected to worsen a traffic problem with their development. This intersection may be broken, but the Applicant cannot make it worse. When this intersection was addressed in this light, their engineer recommended that in order to minimize their impacts, this intersection would have to be five lanes on both Beck Road and Ten Mile. This is well beyond the scope of what the City planned on providing for this intersection, i.e., adding right turn lanes.

Mr. Dearing said that his firm may have made mistakes in their review because of the numerous computational errors of the original traffic study. Engineers tend to focus on the math problems, and in so doing they may have lost focus on the Applicant’s assertion that this site would accommodate a 75,000 square foot retail use. Planning has questioned this size of development for the site, and now Mr. Dearing is inclined to agree: the site is more likely to yield a 200,000 square foot project. Mr. Dearing said he should have challenged the Applicant regarding these calculations and the "holding capacity" of the acreage involved. Analyzed with a 75,000 square foot building, Mr. Dearing found that there will be a problematic movement even if the intersection was five lanes wide. The northbound left turn out of the development indicates 300 trips per hour. That is just barely within the possibility of being handled by one lane.

Mr. Dearing said if the capacity of the land is greater than the 75,000 square feet described, the intersection could very easily require a dual-left lane. Because of the right-of-way planning that the City hasdone, this calls into question whether 120 feet can be achieved on both Beck Road and Ten Mile. Additionally, auxiliary right-turn lanes may also be required.

Mr. Dearing noted the Applicant’s comments regarding this society’s automobile dependency. The claim that there will be reduced traffic for the area (if commercial is provided closer to residential) begs the question, how much closer is closer? Mr. Dearing’s charge is to review the impacts of concentrating traffic at a certain point. He has become worried about the intersection. Member Lynch thanked Mr. Dearing.

Member Lynch asked civil engineer Ben Croy regarding the 3X increased water and sanitary demand. Mr. Croy said that the numbers reflect going from the current residential zoning to the worst-case commercial scenario. Mr. Croy added that other rezonings from residential to commercial would yield similar magnitudes of change.

Member Lynch asked if a developer has ever purchased land and developed it according to the Master Plan. Mr. Schultz said that it has happened. Member Lynch said his experience on the Planning Commission has afforded him an opportunity to recommend rezonings in which the requested designations were within the same family of the existing designations. He felt that the Planning Commission has been fair in their review of these deviations.

Member Lynch said that the Master Plan is somewhat of a promise, and people do make decisions based on the Master Plan. Member Lynch was also taken aback by the Applicant’s comments that suggested the Planning Commission did not know what it was doing. He would support the motion.

Mr. Schultz said that, of course, people buy property in the City and develop it according to the Master Plan. The Planning Commission provides the venue for asking for a rezoning. The Planning Commission is charged with determining whether it complies with the Master Plan and if not, is it a reasonable alternative and a reasonable zoning. The Applicant is afforded this opportunity to ask.

Member Wrobel said that planning is an art, not a science. Art is in the eye of the beholder. What the Applicant considers "sensible" may not be what the Planning Commission considers to be sensible. He believes the recent review of the Master Plan reflects the needs of the City and is a true masterpiece. Additionally, Member Wrobel noted that both Public Hearings tonight only received a total of two endorsements, both of which came from a city other than Novi. If there is such a great need for service in this area, Member Wrobel wondered why there weren’t more endorsements in response to the Public Hearing notices. Member Wrobel said the neighbors are satisfied with the way things are and therefore he saw no reason to change it.

Chair Cassis noted Mr. Carson’s discussion of worthwhile uses, immunity from services, appropriate uses, etc. He said the Planning Division exhaustively reviewed the rezoning requests. He said the traffic situation was clarified by Mr. Dearing, and because this parcel can accommodate up to 200,000 square feet, consideration must be given to that kind of impact on that corner. The reviews have recommended that the requests not be recommended for approval. The Planning Commission members belong to this community and represent all walks of life. They have their hearts and souls involved in the work they provide for the City. They make rational decisions to the best of their abilities.

Chair Cassis said this southwest quadrant is not immune from services; what exists already serves their needs. He questioned what should be considered an appropriate use for this corner, and noted that so many of the B-2 uses are not what he would consider appropriate for the area. The forefathers of this community designed the Master Plan to place commercial central to the City and keep the residential and local commercial in different areas. Chair Cassis thought Novi was more rural than urban; that said, there is more commercial in this City than in any other place in Michigan. Grand River has been designated for commercial, and the City worked with Providence to provide commercial near Beck Road.

Chair Cassis asked how far is too far to drive? Nobody really knows. He did not think though, that not allowing commercial on this site is denying the residents in this area. For the above stated reasons, Chair Cassis was going to support the motion.

Chair Cassis called for a ten minute break.

Consideration on the request of HEFCO Properties for revised façade approval. The subject property is located in Section 14, at the southwest corner of Meadowbrook Road and Twelve Mile, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 4.68 acres.

Planner Karen Reinowski reminded the Planning Commission that they postponed this review from the January 23, 2008 meeting in order for the Staff to prepare additional information. She provided the Planning Commission with a timeline of the Applicant’s submittals.

Mr. Howard Friedlaender told the Planning Commission that he tried to bring his architect, but he was unable to attend. Because the Planning Commission raised a number of legal issues, he brought legal counsel with him. He said he provided a letter that summarized the changes made in the plans after they were stamped. Changes include a different brick and façade structural changes. Some of the original design was not functionally structural. He determined too, that limestone was not a good element to use where too much exposure to salt would occur. He said these changes were made without malicious intent; they were well thought out. The façade complies with the Ordinance, though he conceded that the there was a dramatic color change. The footprint and height of the building did not change. Some adjustments were made to the architectural features to accommodate the material changes. A beige brick was originally approved but the building is now reddish brown. He liked the building and its appearance and was very proud of it.

Mr. Friedlaender said the Ordinance calls for the Applicant to choose the brick color, and the colors should be harmonious as a whole. The façade review did not state otherwise. Mr. Friedlaender is currently marketing the building, and the overwhelming consensus is that the building is attractive and functional. He wanted to provide an efficient building to accommodate the higher heating and cooling costs that have unfolded over the years. He considered what changes would help make the building more efficient, and one suggestion was to reduce the amount of unnecessary spandrel glass. The HVACs were going to be placed in the center of the roof, but that isn’t efficient – it can create thermostat wars. All building occupants can be comfortable if the HVAC units are mounted closer to the area where they are expected to heat and cool. Prospects are pleased with the amenities. Mr. Friedlaender offered to give any of the Planning Commission a tour of his building.

Mr. Friedlaender asked the Planning Commission to approve the changes. He wished to note that the changes cost him a lot more money; his motive was not to cut costs but to make an enduring building that he was proud to own. He told the Planning Commission that he would like their direction regarding the rooftop screening. He said the HVAC unit screening will be seen, and people won’t be fooled; they’ll know the screening is covering up the HVAC units. The approved screening will look like little doghouses. Mr. Friedlander said he wished to add trees to the center of the Twelve Mile frontage, in front of the stone picture frame. He thought that ornamental trees would look better; he has asked the Landscape Architect about a couple of different plantings. He asked the Planning Commission to address these landscape changes in their motion.

Member Meyer appreciated the Applicant’s efforts. He thought these conversations have been vital for the Planning Commission to understand the process of this building. He wished the architect could have attended. Member Meyer was grateful that at least some kind of screening was being provided for the HVAC units. He appreciated the information on the brick change and the increased landscaping. Member Meyer hoped that Mr. Friedlaender would work with the landscape architect on the new plantings. He cautioned that the trees should not be placed so close to the road so as to become a hindrance to traffic.

Member Gutman thanked the Applicant for his demonstrated effort.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Lynch could support the motion because the Applicant provided a letter explaining the brick change. He has demonstrated too, his willingness to work with the Landscape Consultant. Member Lynch was indifferent to the screening choice.

Member Pehrson confirmed that there was enough direction to move forward on the rooftop screening. Ms. Reinowski responded that the Façade Consultant has approved the screening for material and color.

Chair Cassis appreciated the Applicant’s hard work. This is a quality building and he felt the quarrel did not lie in the soundness of Mr. Friedlaender’s product but in his making changes without City approval. He wished the Applicant well.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said the Budget Committee met on February 27^th to review the budget. Specific items in the budget are: 1) The Special Planning Area 1 Land Use Study for the Master Plan Update; 2) Ordinance update with Consultant assistance. 3) Habitat Plan update; and 4) Laptop computers. The standard items, such as conferences and workshops, are again being proposed as well.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Burke:

Member Lynch did not support the laptop request. Member Gutman tended to agree, though he thought it was important to keep the request visible for possible future implementation. He hoped that the City would even consider letting the Planning Commission bring in their personal laptop computers. The general idea is to minimize all the paper.

Ms. McBeth said that the City has continually provided technology updates, and the Department is now offering items like packet material access on the internet. Ms. McBeth said the City Council has enjoyed their laptops.