WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.


(810) 347-0475



The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Clark.



ROLL CALL: MEMBERS Bonaventura (Present), Capello (Absent/Excused), Clark (Present), Hoadley (Present), Hodges (Present), Lorenzo (Present), Mutch (Present), Taub (Present), Weddington (Present)


(8) Present (1) Absent/Excused-Capello


A quorum being present, the meeting was in session.



ALSO PRESENT: Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant

David Bluhm - Engineering Consultant

Dennis Watson - Assistant City Attorney

Greg Capote - Staff Planner





The Planning Commission pledged Allegiance to the Flag.





Item #3 was added under Matters for Discussion, Joint Meeting with City Council. The Agenda was then approved as amended.





Ms. Lynn Kocan of 23088 Ennishore Drive was present. She said she understood the work considerations preclude Chairman Clark from applying for another term on the Planning Commission, a term she understood ends on June 30, 1995. She wanted Chairman Clark to know that his service these past years on the Planning Commission, especially his tenure as Chairman, his diplomacy, and his integrity, have been greatly appreciated by her, as well as many others in the City of Novi.


Ms. Kocan stated Chairman Clark would be greatly missed and should he choose, she looked forward to the time when he once again would return and be a representative of the Citizens of Novi.


Chairman Clark thanked Ms. Kocan very much.





Member Taub indicated the first letter received was from Donald Kirmis of 22329 Lancaster Ct. in Novi, which stated:


"Dear Chairman Clark:


I wrote to you and the Board members a year ago concerning the problems with the detention pond that backs up to my lot. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your reference. There has been no action as of yet to rectify the problems other than my efforts to "shore up" the dam to prevent the draining of the pond. I have spoken on numerous occasions with the wetlands people at JCK and they concur that both the silt build-up and the erection of a more permanent dam needs to be addressed prior to sign off of the development. They have also assured me that this will be accomplished prior to the homeowner's acceptance of responsibility. Unfortunately, the development is almost complete and no action has been taken. Apparently this issue has not been made a priority to the developer despite the fact that my neighbors and I are quite concerned about it. This is an issue that not only affects property values, but also portends the outlay of financial assets that should not be our responsibility.


Again I ask for your help to ensure that the necessary action be taken to remedy the two problem areas. If further clarification of the problems is necessary, I would be more than willing to attend a board meeting to do so. Please advise me if there is a problem with the developer fixing these problems promptly so that my neighbors and I can consider other avenues for a solution.




Donald Kirmis"


Member Taub indicated that Mr. Kirmis also wrote a letter dated June 4, 1995 and he wouldn't read that letter, but it would be on file with the Planning Department and anyone was welcomed to review it.


Member Mutch asked if Member Taub could identify the project Mr. Kirmis was referring to and Member Taub said it just references the detention pond that backs up to 22329 Lancaster Court which was in Bradford of Novi II.


Member Taub said the next letter dated May 25, 1995 was from Mr. Karl Wizinsky addressed to Mr. Douglas Steward of Novi Properties, Inc., copied to the Planning Commission:


"Dear Mr. Steward:


Yesterday, at the Planning Office of the City of Novi, there was much progress made in addressing outstanding issues related to the proposed landscaped berm at your Novi facility on Wixom Road. I look forward to seeing the revised plans.


During this meeting, a discussion arose regarding the flooding of my property due to the malfunctioning culvert which runs from north to south under your proposed parking lot. It is good that Bob Badgero brought this to our attention prior to the paving of the lot. In my prior discussion with David Bluhm of JCK, we discussed that the culvert is an important feature of the entire drainage plan for the area. If maintained, the culvert will draw water through your property to the south.


I am requesting that the culvert be cleaned and/or repaired to functioning condition to permanently relieve the flooding of my property. I will be glad to meet with you or your representative to demonstrate the damage that continues to occur on my property due to the blockage of your culvert.


I request a written response within 30 days regarding the resolution of this very important issue.




Karl T. Wizinsky"






1. Approval of the April 5, 1995 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.


Member Lorenzo indicated she had two minor corrections on Page 54. She said the first correction was under the second paragraph, the last line, which should read, whatever else may be inhabiting. She referred to the fourth paragraph, the third line, and stated the word should be inhabits.


It was then,


Moved by Member Weddington

Seconded by Member Lorenzo



To approve the Minutes of April 5, 1995 as corrected.


(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously






1. Novi Place/Chili's Restaurant, SP94-30 A & B - Property Located West of Haggerty Road between Eight Mile Road and Nine Mile Road for Possible Special Land Use Approval, Preliminary Site Plan and Woodlands Permit Approval. (Applicant respectfully requests to table item until the June 21, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting.)


Chairman Clark said the applicant has requested to table this item until June 21, 1995. He asked if the applicant or a representative was present and Mr. Kevin Kohls was present representing American Reality Corporation, 2290 First National Building, Detroit. He believed the Clerk had the letter from his partner, Mr. Norman Hyman, on behalf of American Realty, requesting that this matter be put over to June 21st.


Mr. Kohls said as they all probably know, the traffic impacts and evaluations of M-5 have been updated and reviewed at least by written correspondence with Mr. Arroyo, and there has been an exchange of correspondence between the Applicant's Traffic Consultant and Mr. Arroyo and now there were some open issues which as of that evening, have not been resolved or agreed to that they couldn't be resolved. He said they expect that they could be resolved. He indicated a meeting has been scheduled between the Consultants for this Tuesday, June 13th.


Mr. Kohls said it was for that reason to allow the meeting to occur and discuss the traffic issues, so he would respectfully ask that they table this matter to June 21, 1995.





There was no Audience Participation and Chairman Clark closed the Public Hearing portion of this item. He asked for any Planning Commission discussion and Member Bonaventura made a motion.


It was then,


Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Hoadley



To postpone until June 21, 1995 Novi Place/Chili's Restaurant, SP94-30 A & B.


(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously



2. Arbor Drug Warehouse Addition, SP95-25A - Property Located on Gen-Mar Drive for Possible Special Land Use, Preliminary Site Plan and Wetlands Permit Approval.


Mr. Calvin Fix was present and he indicated he represented the Arbor Drug Construction Department and he then introduced others who were also with him that evening.


Mr. Fix indicated basically they were proposing to add a warehouse to the existing warehouse that they have and they had in 1993 prior approvals on all the variances and the land use and then the project was put on hold for awhile and they re-activated it and re-submitted everything for approval.


Mr. Fix indicated they did make a change with the roof units and roof ventilation and in May they had written recommendations for approval from the Fire Marshall and from the Engineering Consultants and then approximately nine days later, they still had the same approvals, but one particular Consultant had reversed his previously recommended approval to disapproval and that was the position they were in right now.





Mr. Rogers indicated the plans were submitted quite close to packet day that resulted in the first time showing of the roof appurtenances and he probably had good basis for reversing his recommendation.


Mr. Rogers then indicated he would review his May 31, 1995 letter. He said he had one revision on Page Two and he would bring that up when they get to it. He said the site was about 22 acres and they were proposing a 231,200 sq. ft. addition to be attached to a 228,800 sq. ft. existing warehouse that was approved several years ago. He said if built, this would total 460,000 sq. ft. of gross area, a central automated warehouse and probably the warehouse for Arbor Drugs.


Mr. Rogers said they were introducing a rail spur from a spur which was on the site plan. He indicated he has cited the sections in the Ordinance which specifies where contiguous or adjacent to residential, the building height will be 25 feet and further, that any roof appurtenances shall observe that 25 foot height limitation.


Mr. Rogers said the earlier plan for the first warehouse required a 1 foot 3 inch variance which they did receive and then in August of 1993, they submitted a plan for this addition, which again required a 1 foot 3 inch variance which they did get again from the ZBA in January, 1994.


Mr. Rogers said going to the highest point of the largest roof appurtenance, an HVAC unit, he computed would be 9 foot 3 inches above the average height of the building. He said what he did to compute the height was he took the mid-point of the west elevation and the mid-point of the east elevation and averaged it. He said he did that originally five years ago for the first building.


Mr. Rogers said because it has this height excess, he did not feel that it satisfies and they have a screen treatment and they provided at his request some sight distance drawings from a person standing in the back yard of one of those homes so it would be a ground level sight distance. He said that doesn't comply with the standards that they were attempting to hold for adjacency to residential and without mentioning the name of another large industrial project, they had the same situation.


Mr. Rogers said in that case, they recessed all the roof HVAC's and came in flush with the 25 foot height limitation and the Commission approves the special land use and the site plan. He indicated the building interestingly will actually screen a lot of the truck marshalling area and the railroad sidings and he has been over at the site along Clark Street and driven down some of the intersecting streets and they have a tremendous berm well-landscaped, that nearly completely screens that west facade and he was sure they have all seen that.


Mr. Rogers said there would be no lighting except pedestrian door lighting on the west side and no outside storage and no truck doors. He indicated this was a special land use requiring a variance so that was why they were all back with another Public Hearing. He also indicated he and Mr. Bluhm would fill in for Mr. Arroyo that evening if there were any questions regarding his report.


Mr. Rogers said Mr. Bluhm would speak on the utilities. He commented that the police and fire stations were within a mile of the site. He said there were no regulated woodlands, however, there was an impact on a running creek, which he would defer to Mr. Bluhm on how the wetlands permit was being handled.


Mr. Rogers said on Page 2 of his letter, the top paragraph, they should all strike out, "and deficient building setback." He said that was in his earlier report and that should be taken out. He said the variance was one of height and not on setback.


Mr. Rogers then proceeded on with the site plan. He said all application data was provided and the addition complies with I-1 District standards, which was a 5 foot setback for each foot of building height and the building height along the edge was 23 feet 4 inches. He said he didn't go to the top of the HVAC's in this calculation. He stated he went to the top of the building and they meet that requirement.


Mr. Rogers said he believed in their packet there was a picture of the existing building and they would see some rain hoods over the air intake units which were not on the original plan for the existing warehouse building and those do not encroach into the required setback if they were to call them part of the building. He said they intend to add those types of hoods on the proposed addition and apparently Mr. Fix and his colleagues would bear him out and would expand on it that night. He said the building was not air-conditioned and there was a need for substantial air exchange and the air was taken in on the west side of the building and ejected apparently on the east side of the building today.


Mr. Rogers said they were desirous to add improved air exchange units on the roof to possibly facilitate this air movement. He said regarding the parking, the applicant concludes that 441 parking spaces were required if they use the most stringent standard for warehouses, however, the Ordinance has been amended to provide for land banking of parking.


Mr. Rogers said they have 100 employees and they do not need 441 parking spaces, so by using the former standard they had for warehouses and using the 1700 sq. ft. factor instead of the 700, the parking could be reduced and some of the parking could be landbanked.


Mr. Rogers said he found that in the deferred parking option, they provide 257 parking spaces, then have adequate space for 230 surplus spaces, well-designed, coming up to a total of 487 total spaces and then they also have 13 additional handicap spaces. He said the justification for the landbanking was found in the Zoning Ordinance and he has attached that as a supplement to his report and then there were also certain findings that the Planning Commission should include in approving a deferred parking plan, such as the area that was not used for parking but was deferred for parking, should be maintained in a surfacing of grass or other acceptable surface and may not encroach into any required buffer areas and he stated that it doesn't.


Mr. Rogers said adequate off-street loading and unloading was provided along the east side of the addition and the whole series of truck wells and no loading doors would face the residential side of the addition or the west side. He said also in perimeter greenspace, proper setbacks were provided and the berm along the west side of the property was a very gradual berm with substantial evergreens on top and that would be continued northerly to the railroad for this new addition.


Mr. Rogers said regarding conceptual facade plans, the building would look quite like the present warehouse building and they were allowed to continue that existing construction technique and design providing it has a uniform roof line and it has good design under Section 2520.6 without the need to get another Section 4 waiver. He said this building in its present design of materials did receive a Section 4 waiver originally from the Planning Commission.


Mr. Rogers said his conclusion regarding the Preliminary site plan was that he could not recommend it with the excessive building and HVAC height and he thought there might be some discussion on the rail spur usage. He said there was another access to the parking lot along the west side and north side of the addition and that was by a driveway along the south of the existing warehouse and there were two ways to get at it, but if they were to have a string of box cars blocking that access, it could be congested and the turnaround movements of a large truck or vehicle might be inhibited.


Mr. Bluhm said he has also reviewed the Preliminary site plan and the applicant proposes extension of the water and sewer from the existing facilities, the existing warehouse on site and they would however, need to relocate a certain amount of water main at the north end of the site for the new expansion.


Mr. Bluhm said as Mr. Rogers mentioned, the berm would be extended along the west property line to the north to provide a screening to the residential areas. He said the applicant was proposing extension of storm sewers through the site to pick up the developed flows from the site and there would be some abandonment of existing sewers based on the construction that was necessary. He said that in turn would be outletted directly to the branch of the middle Rouge River undetained and those flows would be carried down to the C & O Railroad basin which exists down at the railroad tracks and Ten Mile quite aways downstream and that basically provides proposed improvements.


Mr. Bluhm said some comments he did have with regard to the site was the applicant has shown the 100 year flood plain associated with the Middle Rouge River on the plans schematically, but he would like at Final to see the actual elevations of that 100 year flood plain but he did not believe that would be a problem.


Mr. Bluhm said additionally, when this plan was in a couple of years ago, they had asked the applicant to provide some basic hydrologic studies to show that the developed flows did not impact adversely the area where the creek flows under Novi Road, which was a little bit to the south and east and those calculations a couple of years ago indicated that they did have the capacity that it wasn't going to be a problem.


Mr. Bluhm said there has been some development in that watershed area since then and they were requesting that the developer provide a more detailed hydrologic analysis at the Final to assure that there was not going to be a problem in that area.


Mr. Bluhm said beyond that, the plans demonstrates engineering feasibility and they were recommending approval.


Mr. Bluhm then said since Mr. Arroyo was not present, he would be reviewing his letter. He said regarding access, it was proposed from one driveway on Novi Road, which was Gen Mar Drive. He said Novi Road was designated as an arterial on the City's Thoroughfare Plan, and the Thoroughfare Plan notes in a 1991 count, just shy of 28,000 vehicles per day on Novi Road.


Mr. Bluhm said regarding the traffic study that was submitted, the following highlights were indicated in Mr. Arroyo's report. He said the warehouse operates from 6:30-4:30 in three staggered shifts and that reduces the peak hour impacts. He said additional truck trailer parking spaces were proposed. He said trailers should be prohibited from using non-designated areas for trailer parking. He said additionally, emergency access would continue to be maintained from Marlson Avenue at the southwest corner of the site.


Mr. Bluhm indicated Arbor Drugs forecasts a total of 150 AM peak hour trips, 147 PM peak hour trips and 462 daily trips. He said this compares to 90 AM peak and 88 PM peak hour trips for the existing warehouse facility.


Mr. Bluhm indicated the expansion of Arbor Drugs was expected to have only a minimal impact on the Grand River and Novi Road intersection, adding approximately 48 total vehicles during the AM peak and PM peak hours.


Mr. Bluhm said regarding improvements, a passing lane and a deceleration lane were already in place on Novi Road at Gen Mar Drive and Novi Road was currently being designed for a five-lane section from Grand River to Ten Mile and no construction date has been set and that was a County road and they were looking to provide at this point in time as he understood it, a split-grade intersection at the railroad tracks, which would significantly impact the Gen Mar Drive area and potentially require some future construction, which would actually improve that area some more.


Mr. Bluhm said the plan also proposes a new rail spur, and Final approval would require additional information on crossing procedures and the appropriate signing and striping. He indicated Mr. Arroyo has recommended approval of the plan.


Chairman Clark indicated there was a letter from the City of Novi Fire Department under the signature of Daniel W. Roy, Captain indicating that this plan has been reviewed and that approval has been recommended.


Chairman Clark said the last item concerning this project was the review with reference to the Wetlands Permit.


Mr. Bluhm indicated he would review Ms. Tepatti's letter. He said there were wetlands on site with the most significant being the wetland associated with the Middle Rouge River. He said the river in the area has very steep banks and beyond the banks, there was a buffer area that exists along the river bank. He indicated Ms. Tepatti has also indicated that there were two existing small wetland pockets on site that appear to be created from depressions in the land when they put the storm sewers in for the original building and she doesn't feel that those were of a very high quality and were worth saving.


Mr. Bluhm said Ms. Tepatti has noted that with the improvements, there was also a ditch area that was provided to the creek, a significant ditch, that was also considered a wetland and that carries the flows from the existing culverts that were in place for the warehouse that was in place now and that was also a wetland.


Mr. Bluhm said they were proposing to fill that ditch in with the parking and also impact just a very small amount of the buffer area that exists along the creek in addition to filling the two small wetland pockets. He said Ms. Tepatti has no concerns with those issues and she has recommended approval, but with the following comments to her approval. He stated Item (1) was that Oil and grease separators with 4 foot sumps be installed in the catch basins prior to discharge to the remaining swales; also, a temporary sediment basin or small pit be utilized during the construction to help filter some of the sediment out of the site as it was developing. Mr. Bluhm indicated Ms. Tepatti feels that was something they could look at in more detail at Final and look at the feasibility of it at that time.


Mr. Bluhm stated Item (2) was that Ms. Tepatti would also like to see a buffer enhancement plan showing thick plantings of shrubs along the entire buffer area to help restore that area.


Mr. Bluhm said Item (3) was that the remaining section of the swale between the river and the proposed outlets shall not be disturbed unless to construct a basin. He said it was currently vegetated with cattails and will help filter and slow the storm water before it reaches the river.


Mr. Bluhm indicated Item (4) was that the DNR permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of the City permit and it was currently under review at the Livonia office.


Mr. Bluhm said Ms. Tepatti was recommending approval of the wetlands.





Ms. LaReta Roder, Vice-President of the Novi Heights Community Association, was present. She said since their President Bill Jones was unable to be there, she was representing him and the Association regarding the proposed addition to the Arbor Warehouse facility.


Ms. Roder said they were particularly happy to see that Mr. Rogers and the Planning & Community Development Department gave negative recommendations for this project and they most definitely concur with their conclusion that the height was a problem. She said they do not feel that Arbor should build almost 9 1/2 feet above the maximum allowable height abutting residential property.


Ms. Roder said this restriction was enacted for a good reason. She said to waive this would be to endanger the welfare and the quality of life for the residents. She said with air conditioners on the roof of this building, noise would just flow right over to the neighboring residences.


Ms. Roder said some years ago when Johnson Controls, Arbor's southern neighbor, snuck in a railroad spur, their residents were outraged. She said the first inkling of this proposed spur for Arbor was Monday evening, the first chance she had to get to the Library to find out what was in the packet before the Commission. She said the residents have not changed their minds regarding railroad spurs and if anything, they were more convinced that they do not belong next to residential areas.


Ms. Roder said the noise generated from them was very loud. She said for example, she lives on Clark between Eleven Mile and Stassen and the present spur was about the end of Marlson, the furthermost point from her in the subdivision. She said she could hear and feel the noise at her house now, and putting a second one in almost directly east of her would just compound the problem. She said while none of the industries were suppose to be 24 operations off Gen Mar, trains do not deliver only between 6:30 and 4:30 PM and they were delivering all hours of the day and night as she could hear them. She said noise was a big problem from the industrial area.


Ms. Roder said the 18-wheelers that come in and park there were often left running and while she understood that Arbor said their shifts were from 6:30-4:30, the trucks seem to come in there and at PFS at all hours and idle constantly especially if they were refrigerated trucks.


Ms. Roder said Mr. Rogers in his summary of the Preliminary site plan did not recommend approval and further details of the proposed rail spur and the effect on the access to the parking lots north and west of the building were needed and if rail cars were standing on the spur, access to the lots would be blocked necessitating access from the driveway on the south side of the building and if she was seeing this properly, coming along the asphalt fire lane next to the residential property, she believed violates City Ordinances.


Ms. Roder said on the plans, a diesel generator was shown at the end of the spur outside the building and they have been listening since Memorial Day weekend to around-the-clock diesel generators running on the property being developed between Arbor Drugs and their subdivision. She said it sounds rather like the 18-wheelers were running on her patio.


Ms. Roder said from the location of the Arbor generator, the sound would travel right over to their subdivision in the site condos going in at the northern end of the Arbor Drugs' property. She said a truck turnaround was also placed just north of the railroad spur abutting the residential property and the site condos were, she believed, two-story structures. She commented what a lovely sight this would be for all of them overlooking railroad spurs, truck turnarounds and parking areas.


Ms. Roder said yes there was a proposal to extend the berm, but she didn't believe that berm was going to be sufficient to block the noise nor the sights. She said speaking of the berm, she would hope that when they extend it, they do a better job of maintaining it than was presently being done and many residents have complained about the unkept appearance, the lack of mowing, and the dead tree replacement.


Ms. Roder said regarding the traffic report from 1992, she did not feel that the impact on Novi Road has been adequately looked at and there was a very real and documented problem that exists now and the exit of Gen Mar onto Novi Road was inadequate at best now. She said adding more truck traffic would only compound the problem. She said she travels to and from work by way of Novi Road and at least 2-3 times a week, she has to come to a complete stop waiting for southbound trucks making a right turn onto Gen-Mar Drive. She said there was a right turn lane but it was totally unusable for 18-wheelers.


Ms. Roder said so they take two lanes to turn right and if a vehicle was waiting to exit Gen-Mar, they have to wait for that vehicle in order to enter Gen-Mar. She said the Gen-Mar entrance was too narrow for the kind and volume of truck traffic on it, and consequently, it effects the Novi Road traffic. She said you, the Planning Commission, have a duty to see that no adverse impact occurs to the more than 8 families in the Novi Heights Subdivision and the approximately 26 new ones that would be in the Creek Crossing site condos now being built adjacent to Arbor's proposed expansion.


Ms. Roder said for all of the reasons she has detailed, she would ask that the Commission deny their special land use permit.


Mr. Jerry DeAngeles of 44000 Stassen was present. He indicated his property was right adjacent to the addition to the west and his understanding was that it would extend about 40 feet beyond the property line. He said his house was about 100 feet from the property line so he would be to the north of their end of the building.


Mr. DeAngeles said he needed to know what type of lighting was going to be at the north of the building and also what type of lighting was going to be in the parking lot area. He said he has a two-story home and he sleeps upstairs right facing that area and it was pretty well lit as it is now and he would like to know what type of lighting would be used in the parking lot.


Mr. DeAngeles said also regarding the trailer parking, would there be freezer trucks now or in the future being used there. He said right now at Pepsi-Cola down the street, he could hear them all night long and at this time of year with windows open, all a person hears was those trucks running all night long and it was very, very annoying.


Mr. DeAngeles said also concerning the railroad spur, that wasn't even brought up the first time back in 1993 and he didn't know where this came from at all and that was a problem and he lived right next to this and they do come in and out at night and it was very loud.


Mr. DeAngeles said regarding the future expansion of the parking lot, as Mr. Rogers has stated, they don't need 400 spaces and he didn't understand that as they only have 100 employees, so how much parking were they going to need. He felt that would cut down on the lighting in his opinion.


Mr. DeAngeles said also regarding the mechanicals on the roof, would there be noise up there and he needed to know about that and he would like to know what kind of air-conditioning would be on the roof.


Mr. DeAngeles said as far as the berm, he would like to see more bushes replaced that have died and also would they go all the way to the end of the property and add some new ones.


Ms. Lynn Kocan was present of Meadowbrook Lakes Subdivision. She said this being a Public Hearing, she had anticipated that the developer would have made a presentation of the site plan to the residents and the Planning Commission and she asked Mr. Watson if there were any requirements for a certain amount of information with respect to site plan approvals for public hearings so that residents could actually see them.


Mr. Watson replied not for the Public Hearing itself. He said obviously the plans have to be made available with the Planning Department and anyone was free to come in and look at them and the applicant was free to make whatever presentation he desires to make. He felt if anyone has additional questions or needs additional explanation of the plans, he was sure they have a copy that could be put up by Mr. Rogers or the applicant.


Ms. Kocan said she just felt that the residents were definitely at a disadvantage when it comes to something like this and there was very little information passed out.


Ms. Kocan then asked Mr. Capote about the Community Impact Statement, and was that a requirement for special land use and was that submitted as part of the application. Mr. Capote asked for a few minutes to review the file.


Ms. Kocan then said while she shared all of the concerns stated by Mrs. Roder, her comments were specific to additions to existing developments. She said it was her recollection that when the railroad spur was approved for Johnson Controls, Arbor Drugs had indicated to the people in the Novi Heights Subdivision that they did not foresee ever requesting a railroad spur and to propose a railroad spur at this time, suggests to her that perhaps they have always thought about this and as the Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision abuts an I-1 District near a railroad track, this spur concerns her greatly.


Ms. Kocan said she vehemently opposed a railroad spur in any I-1 District that abuts residential property and she believed that the noise generated by that would be in direct violation of the Ordinances. She said she hoped the fact that there was already an existing business on the site, does not bias the Commission's judgement to have the developer comply with the Ordinances and that the deficiencies in the Arbor plans were clearly spelled out in the City Ordinances. Also she said she had a chance to review the plan that Ms. Roder had and she noticed that there was a road directly behind the building between the residential property and the building and that there was a proposed future parking lot.


Ms. Kocan said they may recall that during the presentation for Programmed Products, which was also in the Novi Heights Subdivision, there was considerable discussion about not having a road that was not planned to be used and that it was a road that perhaps just the Fire Department would use. She felt that this was a great imposition on the resident who lived right there and that resident does not deserve a road in his back yard.


Ms. Kocan said she has heard comments to the effect that the Planning Commission could not tell developers how to develop their property and she couldn't disagree with this more. She said there were Ordinances which regulate development and their job was to enforce those Ordinances, therefore, they could and they must tell this developer how to develop his property. She then urged them to agree with Mr. Rogers' recommendation to deny special land use approval for Arbor Drugs Warehouse Addition.


A gentleman in the Audience asked about the lighting situation and if Arbor puts in the lighting and it was inadequate, what recourse did he have. Chairman Clark said in reference to his question on lighting, he was sure the Commission plans on addressing that items and he would receive a response.


Mr. Fix said he would like to address the site plan and some of the comments that were made. He said as stated earlier, the warehouse closes at 4:30 and there would be no need for trucks to be operating after that time. He said in addition, Arbor Drugs does not have refrigerated trucks. (tape inaudible)


Mr. Fix discussed briefly the 24 hour operation of PSF and their trucks do operate at night. He then indicated with the addition of Arbor Drugs, it would completely screen PSF and he discussed further. (tape inaudible)


Mr. Fix said in addition, they were proposing 31 trailer spaces along the north property line here which would prevent Arbor Drugs from haphazardly leaving trailers parked around the driveway and on Gen-Mar Drive. He said they do not currently leave trailers on Gen-Mar Drive and the trailers that they do find on Gen-Mar Drive were generally left from Johnson Controls and PSF.


Mr. Fix said the railroad spur was originally shown in the 1993 site plan, however, he did believe they were not going to put it in right away as there was not an immediate need for a rail spur. He said there may be a future need for a rail spur but at the moment, plans were right now not to put it in. He added the site would be graded to accommodate it at a future date however.


Mr. Fix said one person noted that there was a future parking lot that was not future parking and that was the surplus area and he pointed it out and indicated it would accommodate the 447 some parking spaces that were required by the Ordinance and those were actually the landbanked spaces that Arbor does not intend to develop and they don't need them as there were only 100 employees and they were providing 200 and some spaces, which was 100% more than what they need.


Mr. Fix said a row of parking was placed on the west side and the accommodating driveway. He said regarding the man doors for employees, there would be three man doors located on the west elevation to accommodate parking for the employees and he just felt it wouldn't be safe or healthy to leave the entrance on the east side where they enter now and have them walk a quarter mile in winter or rainy conditions. He said they have tried to accommodate the personnel as best they could in providing this parking in close proximity to the building and immediate access to it.


Mr. Fix said regarding the lighting, they had originally submitted plans and they still have just a wall pack over each entrance on the west side which was required by code anyway. He said it was below minimal parking and his consideration was for the health, safety and welfare of the people that were parking there and it was not going to be a well-illuminated parking area at all.


Mr. Fix said it was a contention with the Ordinance they would have to deal with, but other than that, there would be some pole lighting in the area and the existing pole lighting would remain on the east side of the building and the pole lighting would not be higher than the proposed warehouse, so casting light over the top of it would not happen. He then said he would be happy to answer any questions.


Mr. DeAngeles asked if there was parking along the west side of the building and it was stated one row and Mr. DeAngeles then discussed that matter further. (tape inaudible)


There was no further Audience Participation, and Chairman Clark closed the Public Hearing.





Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers what was the distance in feet from the proposed building to the Novi Heights Subdivision property line and Mr. Rogers said at the north corner it was dimensioned here on Sheet 1 of 121 feet 4 inches and then down at the middle of the building where it abuts up to the existing warehouse, it was 133 feet 8 inches.


Member Lorenzo said she had some severe concerns with this and 120 some spaces was not a lot of space and her lot was 120 feet wide, so she knows what 120 feet looks like and it wasn't much when looking at this type of a use next to residential.


Member Lorenzo said she was concerned about the additional truck traffic and she didn't want to put Mr. Bluhm on the spot, but she would have questions for Mr. Arroyo in terms of comparisons between other uses that would be allowed here versus what this proposed use was calculating in terms of the number of trucks that would be coming in and out of this facility and since Mr. Arroyo wasn't here, she wouldn't have the opportunity to ask those particular questions, but she was concerned about the increase in truck traffic.


Member Lorenzo said one question she would ask Mr. Bluhm was that he alluded to the fact that in the future, Novi Road was going to be expanded and she asked how was that going to impact the Gen-Mar truck traffic at this point and was it going to improve the situation or make the situation worse or not do anything at all.


Mr. Bluhm said it would have a significant impact because if the County goes with a split-grade, meaning Novi Road being carried over the railroad tracks by a bridge, Gen-Mar would have to be totally reconstructed, and he believed the current thinking and the Master Thoroughfare Plan shows a marginal access drive which would in most cases, and he would expect in this case, carry that driveway to the south and it would be redesigned and reconstructed probably in a location that better serves other existing driveways and proposed driveways.


Mr. Bluhm indicated it was Mr. Arroyo's thinking and they did discuss it the other day, that that would probably improve the situation from the way it exists now.


Member Lorenzo said he had indicated to the south and Mr. Bluhm said yes, the marginal access drive would tie back into Novi Road where the grade meets up more precisely with the road the way it is.


Member Lorenzo said it would be further south along Novi Road then and he replied yes.


Member Lorenzo said at this stage, she didn't see herself being able to support this due to the excessive building heights and the railroad spur. She asked Mr. Watson in terms of the existing building if they wanted to build a railroad spur to that, would it be permissible.


Mr. Watson said he didn't think it would be without coming back here for an amendment to the site plan.


Member Lorenzo then said so that would definitely be a site plan issue in terms of adding the railroad spur. She said she didn't see herself supporting that in terms of this close proximity to the residential area so at this point, she would like to make a motion to move things along.


It was,


Moved by Member Lorenzo

Seconded by Member Bonaventura



To deny Special Land Use for Arbor Drug Warehouse Addition, SP95-25A per Mr. Rogers' letters and the various concerns.





Member Mutch said there was a comment made that the railroad spur was on the original site plan and then there was a comment that it never was so would Mr. Watson's comment still be relevant.


Mr. Watson said he was assuming that it wasn't shown on the original site plan so therefore to put it on there would require a revision to the site plan. He felt that was a safe presumption because of the location of it.


Member Mutch said it was the applicant who made the statement that it had been on there and so if it wasn't, she assumed that was what Mr. Watson was assuming too, that it was not, but if it was on the first one, would his answer be the same.


Mr. Watson said assuming it was shown on the original site plan, and that site plan and special land use were approved, it could probably go in, and he assumed they do need approvals from other governmental entities to do that, but it wouldn't be the City of Novi.



Member Hoadley said he had mixed emotions on this proposal and they need the space in order to stay in business there or they wouldn't be applying for it, but obviously they have submitted plans that could not be approved at this time.


Member Hoadley said he would prefer to see this postponed to a future date, giving the applicant an opportunity to recognize all the comments that have been made by the Audience and by the various different Consultants and then come back with a revised plan that would meet the Ordinances and meet the height requirements.



Member Hoadley said he would support the motion to deny special land use, but again he had mixed emotions and he would prefer to see it postponed to give the applicant an opportunity to come back with something better that would address all the concerns.


The applicant said he would like to make a request that the item be tabled and Chairman Clark indicated the matter was now before the Planning Commission for discussion and when that occurs, they could then take no further comments from the floor, either from the public or the applicant.



Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Capote if he found the Community Impact Statement and Mr. Capote replied he didn't find the Statement itself, but he found their Preliminary site plan application and the applicant indicated that they did submit one on that application and then also in discussing it with Mr. Rogers, he has seen it, so yes it does exist but he just didn't have the entire file with him that evening.


Member Bonaventura asked if it was a recent one or from their previous plan and Mr. Capote said he didn't know and Mr. Rogers felt Mr. Ray could address that matter and he then asked Mr. Ray if he submitted a Community Impact Statement and Mr. Ray replied he did and Mr. Rogers asked him if it was updated for this particular application and Mr. Ray replied it was.


Member Bonaventura said to Mr. Capote that the Planning Commission has received them in the past, and he was wondering were they suppose to receive them and Mr. Capote said yes it would be helpful if each Commissioner did have that information and in the future, he would be sure to include that in the packet but it wasn't included this time.


Member Bonaventura asked if turning onto Gen Mar Drive off of Novi Road was a known problem. He said he rarely goes down Novi Road in that area and he was not familiar with the truck traffic actually having to go into the opposite lane to pull in and was that true and Mr. Bluhm replied he believed so and although they do have a passing lane on the east side of the road there, they were swinging wide to get into that lane.


Member Bonaventura asked because it was not directly on Novi Road was that the reason there were no proposed improvements for this and Mr. Bluhm believed that was part of it but he couldn't speak for Mr. Arroyo directly. He added he didn't think Mr. Arroyo feels that the increase was a significant impact that may warrant additional work in that location.



Member Bonaventura said it was just bad planning right from the get-go then as far as when those four buildings came in as far as when this park was developed.


Mr. Bluhm said he couldn't speak directly to that, but if it wasn't functioning properly then obviously it wasn't forecasted for the future properly.


Member Bonaventura asked about the existing Arbor building and asked Mr. Rogers how long that has been existing and the applicant replied 7 years. Member Bonaventura said it states the existing height was 30 feet and a variance was granted for the existing building height and there was a variance granted on that building.


Mr. Rogers said regarding the existing building, averaging the east and west facades required a 1 foot 3 inch variance above the 25 feet and they should keep in mind that there were no HVAC's on the roof at that time and the ZBA approved it. He said when they came in, in August of 1993 with a plan to put on this addition of a little more square feet, it went through. He said he believed they may have received Preliminary site plan approval and they went to the ZBA in January of 1994 and again received that 1 foot 3 inch waiver so that the building would be level across the top.


Member Bonaventura asked if they kicked the building back proportionately from the residential property line, and Mr. Rogers said they did then and they were proposing to do so now.


Member Bonaventura said regarding the parking on the west side of that existing building, the parking spaces do not exist at this time and Mr. Rogers replied no.



Member Bonaventura said as far as the parking, do they have to do this or could they landbank this area and Mr. Rogers said he would recommend that they landbank this area and he came up with another number. He said if they use the 1700 sq. ft. factor, they need have only 187 parking spaces plus handicapped and they were providing 257 and then they have surplus parking of 230 so they were going somewhere in the middle between the 700 factor and the 1700 factor and in his opinion, 257 parking spaces were considerably in excess of any need they would have.


Member Bonaventura said so they could landbank this area on the west side and Mr. Rogers said as long as they have at least 187 spaces plus 6 handicapped.


Member Bonaventura commented on the rail spur and said he lived next to a rail spur for quite a few years and they were extremely loud and he didn't know if it was when the cars were disconnecting or connecting, but there would be a loud sharp bang and he had been a lot further away from it than those people would be.


Member Bonaventura said if this were to come back, he would first of all, not even want to see it suggested on the print and if it was, he would need some information as far as the decibel readings on such a noise and it was extremely loud and he was sure it exceeds their Ordinance on noise, which obviously would be an adverse impact to the residential area. He then indicated at this time, he couldn't support the plan.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Bonaventura (Yes), Clark (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes)








1. Marty Feldman Chevrolet, SP95-22 - Property Located South of Grand River Avenue, Between Meadowbrook Road and Novi Road for Possible Preliminary Site Plan, Final Site Plan, and Section 4 Waiver Approval.


Mr. Stanley Tkacz, President and owner of AIT Design was present. He said he was there representing Mr. Feldman and Feldman Chevrolet as it relates to the renovation and alteration of his facility on Grand River Avenue for a new fascia as directed by General Motors Corporation in their Image 2000 Program.


Mr. Tkacz said the proposal presented this evening and as presented to the Planning Department, reflects the removal of the existing wood lap siding that was presently existing on the fascia at this facility and then installing a new, dryvit fascia as known within the industry.



Mr. Tkacz said under their present zoning requirements and zoning regulations, they do not acknowledge glass as an exterior wall surface, and in the review by Staff, the elevation of the facility as it faces Grand River was considered a use of 100% of the dryvit material, and the code only allows 75%, thus he was there that evening seeking a Section 4 waiver that would allow the use of this material.



Mr. Tkacz said in the review letters, he has been asked to submit material samples and photographs of other facilities as it would appear and does appear through this Image 2000 Program and he has this material with him for the Commission's review.





Mr. Rogers said he would review his two reports, one of May 23, 1995 and one of June 2, 1995. He said of equal importance were two detailed letters from Mr. Doug Necci, registered architect with JCK, dated May 19, 1995 and April 28, 1995.


Mr. Rogers said the Applicant has in his opinion very adequately explained this type of facade treatment, which if anyone was driving around some of the other GM dealerships and some Chrysler dealerships, they have this same technique. He explained it was a laid-on dryvit as he understood by hand without seams and without identification of any block. He stated it would replace some lap siding and it may even be wood with a uniform flat surface, upon which would be, as the photograph shows, this new signage treatment, which was more contemporary and of a cleaner design. He said at the request of Mr. Necci, he concurred he did provide facade drawings to scale, versus those prospective drawings that they have in some of the plans.


Mr. Rogers said Mr. Tkacz has submitted a sample board of materials and also the light bar and it would be illuminated as he understood it from within and it would be all fabricated.


Mr. Rogers said the Ordinance requires that only those elements of the facade being renovated or re-done should be measured against the Facade Ordinance and Mr. Tkacz has made a point that maybe if they were going to take the north facade, they should take the entire north facade, in which case, they wouldn't be talking about it that evening.


Mr. Rogers said because the way Section 2520 was written, it says only those sections being renovated need be considered. He said he supposed if the Applicant was going to put a new fascia or something on the rest of the building in the back facing north, again they wouldn't be discussing this.


Mr. Rogers said he recommended approval of the Section 4 Waiver and in looking at Mr. Necci's letter, he had three conditions. He said the first condition was to provide large scale color photographs of facilities using similar combinations, colors, articulation and in particular, a nighttime photo showing the illuminated accent band. Mr. Rogers indicated the Applicant has provided those colored photographs for daytime and nighttime.


Mr. Rogers said the second condition was to provide dryvit material representative of both the color and the texture and the Applicant has done that. He said also the joint pattern within the dryvit material should be shown on the drawings.


Mr. Rogers said there would be no joint pattern and it would be a continuous application of dryvit material/cementitious material.


Mr. Rogers said the third condition was a letter from the architect which was required by the Ordinance describing how the selected facade materials and material combinations would be consistent with and enhance the building design concept and how the materials properly relate to the surrounding area. He said they should all have that letter which came in at the last minute and it was dated June 2nd from Mr. Tkacz and addressed to Mr. Cohen and he has gone into the architectural theory of the building, so he felt Mr. Necci's concerns were answered and they both agree that a Section 4 Waiver was needed from the Planning Commission.


Chairman Clark said it was also his understanding that they were making a recommendation as to the Preliminary and the Final and technically it came in as a Preliminary/Final site plan and in reviewing those plans concurrently, the Section 4 Waiver issue came up and there were no other issues because they were not expanding the footprint of the building and they were not changing the parking lot, and they were not changing the landscaping and all they were doing was looking at part of the west and part of the north facades.





Member Weddington said she had a question regarding the dryvit material and how does the durability and strength of this compare to other materials that one might see on the face of a building.


Mr. Rogers said there was dryvit on the upper third of all the buildings at the Novi Town Center. He said it needs to be painted every 2-4 years.


Mr. Tkacz explained they don't paint it but seal it with a water seal. He said that was a contention that was going on in his profession. He said the product was called ESIS which was an exterior surface insulation system and then dryvit was like the name Formica and it was a trade name but they were the "first kids on the block." He said currently there were about 12 companies that make the same product.


Mr. Tkacz said there were about 147 colors in pigmentations that could mix with the final cementitious code. He said when getting a light product like this, just from atmospheric dirt, what was in the air would collect, so they have tried to seal it with something such as Thompson's Water Seal.


Mr. Tkacz said they use a product called Chem-X-Tech, and it was a sealer that seals the pores so it was a natural wash system and it should not be painted as the paint would not adhere to it. He said if they were going to have color, it should be mixed with a cement when they put the final trial coat on, but this was called for sake of conversation, Silver Thread and they put a clear sealer on it and it should be done every 10 years.


Member Weddington said her question was the durability of the material, and the cementitious face was very thin, and she asked what would happen in a hail storm and would it be susceptible to cracks or breaks or holes from the elements or any other exposure. Mr. Tkacz said the product that they see here has four layers, the insulation backing layer that was applied over a plywood or sub-straight up, usually a dura-rock board.


Mr. Tkacz said next goes on a fiberglass mesh that was glued on to the surface of the insulation product and then there was a cementitious trowel base that was put on and then a binder coat and then the finish color coat. He said it was tremendously solid and they could strengthen the product as they come closer to the ground by making and using a greater cement content within the acrylic texture.


Mr. Tkacz said the product was designed or conceived about 18 years ago and was used and made directly for a fascia product. He said many architects were putting it right down into the ground and not to bring up the previous people, but for most of the new Arbor Drugs and Perry Drugs, all of their columns were right to the ground and their columns were concrete in the photograph and they were accenting them with color and texture and a trowel finish over concrete and then accented with stainless steel bands.


Mr. Tkacz said the product takes a tremendous beating unless of course someone hits it with a car. He said he knows of a Perry Drug Store where they were driving trucks against it and it has lasted so it was a very good product. He said just the specific studio that was doing the work has to be conscientious when getting closer to the ground to ask for a 10 bag mix rather than a 5 bag mix of cement within the latex binder and it would take a tremendous beating.


Mr. Tkacz said there were some horror stories in the industry that they hear and one was in Livonia where kids took a hammer to it and ran around and knocked holes in it. He said he has seen it where they have thickened it up and it wouldn't even break when someone takes a hammer to it. He said the thicker the insulation, the stronger it becomes. He said at 10 feet in the air, it doesn't crack and it doesn't expand.



Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers about the additional signage that this site plan/facade plan was showing and would that comply with their Ordinances and Mr. Rogers said they would review the signs with the Building Department and with Mr. Amolsch who would apply the regulations of the City Sign Ordinance. He said it wasn't their function to see whether or not there was a variance, but if there was a variance, yes he would go to the ZBA.


Member Bonaventura said he was reading Mr. Necci's letter, and he was recommending the Section 4 waiver. He said in reading Mr. Necci's letter, he mentioned that he was having trouble determining what to classify this light-bar as and was that correct. He said it was obvious to him that it was part of the sign and he was wondering if Mr. Bluhm could speak to that and Mr. Bluhm indicated he would have Mr. Rogers address that question.


Mr. Rogers said the Facade Ordinance section was being examined right now as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update and there were certain materials that they do not even call out that were new in the building trades since the Ordinance was last amended ten years ago, so they could all appreciate the new innovations and Mr. Necci on the bottom of Page 1 of his May 19th letter, did call out that it would have, in his opinion, a strong visual impact on the appearance of the building but he didn't say an adverse impact, and that was why in those pictures, they have to use their judgement as to whether this was out of scale, etc.


Mr. Rogers explained in granting a Section 4 Waiver, in addition to this "excess percentage of dryvit" on the facades being renovated, he had asked for a copy of the material of the sign item, which he understood Mr. Tkacz had to go to Kentucky to get.


Member Bonaventura said he had it cut up because he heard it was a longer piece. Mr. Tkacz said the only thing that was available up here was an 8 foot piece with a neon light so last Thursday he did go to Knoxville. Member Bonaventura asked what type of light goes back behind there and Mr. Tkacz said a white neon tube. Mr. Rogers pointed it out on the bottom of that night-time view.


Member Bonaventura said he didn't know why the Consultant had a problem determining what this was because it was a sign. Mr. Rogers said it could be part of the image of the facade and he would say there were other buildings that have carried a neon light bar around such as Sensor Manufacturing on Grand River, and he didn't call it a sign at the time.


Mr. Rogers said it could be if this light bar, which appears as a line drawn underneath the name of the car dealership, was part of the sign, Mr. Amolsch could take that into consideration and the Commission could make this part of the Minutes that night and he would look at it.


Member Bonaventura said he was assuming that they didn't count on this as part of the facade and it was not part of the facade and if it wasn't a sign, it has to be something. He said it was really hard to regulate aesthetics and this Ordinance, as Mr. Necci pointed out, was a little ambiguous and has some problems, and he hoped those problems were noted and he hoped they were followed through on.


Member Bonaventura said also the idea of asking an architect to review this Ordinance in his mind, was like asking an artist to sit on a sensor board because it takes some talent to be an architect and takes some style and some skill. He said the reason he says this was because he has seen more Section 4 waivers come out of this guy than anyone, so obviously he was the man with the Section 4 Waiver, but he certainly did not like the Ordinance and obviously they should look at it if there were that many problems.


Mr. Rogers said they may recall about a month ago, they received in the packet a progress report on the Zoning Ordinance Update and one of the elements was Section 2520 so they were looking into that matter right now.


Member Bonaventura said Mr. Rogers also mentioned on Page 1 of his June 2nd letter, "Also building material samples have been provided. Still needed per Mr. Necci is the design of the joint pattern within the dryvit material shown on the drawings."


Member Bonaventura asked if the joint pattern was in the Ordinance as he never heard joint pattern mentioned before.


Mr. Rogers said they were quite concerned on how those materials were set up and in place, and sometimes they get a small 6 x 6" sample of material such as the glass, dryvit, brick, block, etc., and they don't get the big picture. Member Bonaventura asked when it was stated joint pattern, did he mean such as on tile, the grouting and Mr. Rogers replied yes.


Member Bonaventura asked what if this person were to pick an 8 x 16 joint pattern and Mr. Rogers replied it would look Like something other than the dryvit that they plan here. He stated he has driven by the Bill Wink Dealership and there were no joints.


Member Bonaventura said since joint patterns were mentioned, were they looking for that to be talked about as far as their Ordinance and Mr. Rogers said yes, and he would add that Mr. Necci particularly wants to have that in there.


Member Lorenzo said she shared some of Member Bonaventura's concerns particularly regarding the illumination and the neon and how that compares to their Sign Ordinance and how it was visually the aesthetics of what they were trying to restrict here in the City in terms of that type of usage. She said she could support the dryvit and could support the accent, but she was concerned about the use of the neon around the building. She felt that would set a precedent in terms of other buildings that come into the City of Novi with this type of usage. She felt their Ordinance was trying to restrict the use of that type of neon signs and that was where she was having some problems.


Member Lorenzo said she didn't have a problem with the accent band of blue, but lighting it up in terms of the signage and was where she was concerned.


Mr. Tkacz said there was no visual neon and no tube, and they would not see anything and Member Lorenzo remarked that it was lighted. Mr. Tkacz said 99% of the signs that they see have a neon tube inside and for all of the letters they see, there was a neon tube inside. He noted Vic's was a neon tube inside and it was physically impossible to curve a fluorescent tube in that manner, so they just make it out of quarter inch to half inch neon tube and that was how they form it and then there was a plastic face, so there was no visual neon.


Mr. Tkacz said if they want to see a visual neon on a dealership, he has done thousands of them and it just depends on how he does it, but he remarked they shouldn't get that interpretation because they were not seeing neon and it was not a neon product visually to the human eye and it was plastic or the light band.


Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers if he was saying that this was not their issue. She indicated she was going to agree with Member Bonaventura that this was somewhere in limbo and was it a sign or a facade and just what was it and Mr. Rogers replied it was part of the image, the facade, the sign and it was all integral, and he felt it was in good balance for the size of the building and the setback from the road and the purpose for this type of signage.


Mr. Rogers said he could not tell them whether they could have that many characters and meet the Sign Ordinance and there was no indication and they were obliged to show signage on their plans to get some idea of the location of it and the character of it and Mr. Tkacz commented he had nothing to do with the signs.


Member Lorenzo asked was it the Commission's role to include that blue accent with the neon in it as a part of the facade, and Mr. Rogers replied he would and he would make recognition of it, but he would not say the sign was too big or too small. He felt it certainly dominates this dryvit front elevation and it was a material and that was why they asked for samples and the samples have been provided. He said he has seen this pattern on several GM dealerships recently and he felt it was the general trend.


Member Lorenzo asked him if he has seen it at night and Mr. Rogers indicated he has seen it on the Bill Wink Chevrolet dealership and Member Lorenzo asked if it was tacky looking or garish and Mr. Rogers said it looks very contemporary.


Member Hodges said it was her guess that this set-up was really a corporation standard and it was not something that Marty Feldman dreamed up one night and she felt if they were to go to any Chevrolet dealership throughout the nation, they would find that same set-up, and she didn't feel it was setting a precedent unless they were talking about that compared to some other type of car line.


Mr. Tkacz said it was the look that they were promoting across the United States for all of their facilities that sets the corporate standards for colors both inside and outside and then the signage graphics. He said he would agree with Member Lorenzo that as the designer of this particular project and as he stated in his letter, he has taken it further than what he has seen in the 12 other dealerships because he has his own preference as an architect.


Mr. Tkacz said of all the facilities that he has seen, it was just a band applied flat on the surface with blank ends and that bothered him having done so many other dealerships and that was why when he designed this and he capped the ends and put this accent lighting to dress it up so it looks like it was part of the fascia and not just something applied.


Mr. Tkacz said the light bank was part of the fascia but it was not part of the graphics and he wanted the light bar to be an inherent product of the fascia and not an add-on element and that was why it was in the detailing and presentation.


Mr. Tkacz said he was attempting in a new facility to hang it underneath the fascia so it becomes literally boxed within the fascia.


Member Mutch said she was prepared to make a motion but she had a question first. She said the light bar was constructed as part of the building in such a way that if Marty Feldman were to vacate this building and take down part of the sign that says Chevrolet, etc., that light bar would still be an integral part of the fascia.


Mr. Tkacz said it could be and he discussed further. He then noted when they get to the corners, they would still have the nice rounded corners with the accent light but now they would have an extra 8" of fascia.


Member Mutch said at the same time then just from an architect's point of view if the Chevrolet part, the Marty Feldman part, came off and some other use came into this building, they could use it without it looking like it used to be on a Chevrolet dealership.


Member Mutch said she was just trying to get a handle on how much it was sign and how much it was fascia and what Mr. Tkacz was saying was that they designed it in a way that it be considered part of the fascia and not part of the sign, and Mr. Tkacz said it was to appear as part of the fascia. Member Mutch said she just wasn't understanding how much of that was appearance and how much was actual construction.


Member Mutch said she would make a motion now and the motion she would make was that they approve a Section 4 Waiver on this and the only comment she would have was that she felt it was appropriate that they have Mr. Necci and anyone else on Staff take a look periodically at new materials and new design techniques that were appearing in the marketplace and not to wait until they were suddenly before them, because it seems to her that in this particular situation, Mr. Necci had an opportunity to address it negatively if he chose to, but had recommended the approval and noted it would have a strong visual impact. She said also as Mr. Rogers pointed out, he didn't put a value on it as negative or positive but just brought it to the Commission's attention.


Member Mutch said she did think that if they were to have a painted band or a tiled band or some other blue line around the building that was itself illuminated by the exterior lighting, that they might find it less attractive than an illuminated band.


It was then,


Moved by Member Mutch

Seconded by Member Hoadley



To grant a Section 4 Waiver to Marty Feldman Chevrolet, SP95-22.





Member Bonaventura said he had a question relating to what Member Mutch was just discussing. He referred to the sample and said the blue part ends up flush with the face of the building and asked would that be easily removed like a sign and Mr. Tkacz said yes it would.


Mr. Tkacz further said if they look at the photographs, there were raw ends and it was just stuck under the graphic visualization and he questioned why and he felt they should carry it across and make it an element and butt it up against something. He said in this case, it was round because he was trying to get rid of the harsh corners and make it flow. A vote was then taken.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Clark (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (No), Mutch (Yes), Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (No)


(6) Yeas (2) Nays







Chairman Clark said the items left would be the Preliminary and the Final site plan approvals.



It was then,


Moved by Member Taub


To grant Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to Marty Feldman Chevrolet, SP95-22.







Mr. Rogers commented the only items that the Commission needs to review would be the Preliminary site plan and then the Section 4 Waiver and they did not need to review the Final unless they had asked for it to come back for Final.


Chairman Clark said then they would need action on the Preliminary approval then and would the maker of the motion wish to amend the motion, and Mr. Watson said they have already voted on that motion and they should just make a motion on the last issue, which was the Preliminary site plan approval.


It was,


Moved by Member Hoadley

Seconded by Member Hodges



To grant Preliminary Site plan Approval to Marty Feldman Chevrolet, SP95-22.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Clark (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes)








2. Novi Pavilion, SP95-03 C & D - Property Located South of Grand River Avenue, East of Novi Road for Possible Final Site Plan Approval.


Mr. Charles Fosse, with Wah Yee Associates, Architect for the project, was present along with Mr. George Norberg from Sieber-Keast Engineers. He said basically he had two drawings and he felt their packet demonstrates the construction documents for the project were substantially in compliance with the Preliminary site plan that has been approved. He then said he would be happy to answer any questions.


Mr. Rogers indicated he recommended Final site plan approval and this was about the forth submittal. He commented when getting into Final site plan review, there were often revisions and revisions and revisions and they have met all the requirements and the landscape plan was suitable and the most recent revision was the detailing and enclosure of the dumpster and the transformer in the back yard with suitable materials so they have no problems. He said there was a note regarding the lamppost to be used and that the Petitioner must check with Mr. Bruce Jerome of DPW as they would like to coordinate it since this abuts Main Street and the Town Center District. He said they would note that a copy of this letter did go to Mr. Jerome.


Mr. Bluhm indicated he has reviewed the plan several times and the plan has met all the engineering requirements and they were recommending approval, as well as Mr. Arroyo was recommending approval, of the Final site plan.


Chairman Clark indicated that the file contains a letter from the City of Novi Fire Department, Daniel W. Roy, Captain indicating that this plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended.





Member Lorenzo asked if there has been any further discussions on who might be occupying the buildings and she had remembered at one time the bank was going to be on the corner possibly or at one end. Mr. Fosse said he could tell the Commission that a portion of the building was going to be occupied by Kinko's Copy but the rest of the building was still speculative.


Member Lorenzo asked if there had been any more discussions with the bank and Mr. Fosse said possibly and they were pursuing it but there was no tenant at this point.


Member Lorenzo said the only issue she saw the last time around was the east elevation looked rather bland to her and she had suggested that possibly they add another gable on the other side to dress it up a bit and she noticed that wasn't done.


Mr. Fosse said they considered that but there were reasons why they didn't do that. He said one was that this corner was adjacent to the easterly portion of the south elevation and that was the area where the dumpster and the transformer and all the utilities come to the building. He said it wasn't shown because it was behind a screen wall and the screen wall was shown on another drawing. He said there would be a bank of gas heaters and then eventually a gas line would come up the wall to this narrow opening and then go onto the roof.


Mr. Fosse said they feel that adding another element here would complicate this transition and then also, that being towards the rear of the building and because it was tucked behind the adjacent building, it seemed like it wasn't prominant enough a portion of the building to require further enhancement.


Member Lorenzo said so he didn't feel that would be at all visible from Grand River and they wouldn't see the back of the building and Mr. Fosse said they may be able to see it, but it wouldn't be prominent because of the relationship with the existing auto parts store which was very close there. He then discussed further. (tape inaudible)


Member Lorenzo said the only reason why she had suggested this was because they practically have a solid brick wall.


Mr. Fosse said another issue was that he had really wanted to build on a zero lot line and he discussed further. (tape inaudible)


It was then,


Moved by Member Hoadley

Seconded by Member Hodges



To grant Final Site Plan Approval to Novi Pavilion, SP95-03 C & D.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Clark (Yes)









1. Future Planning Commission "Study Session."

Discussion of Possible "Study Session" to be Scheduled for either June 14, 1995 or June 28, 1995.


Mr. Capote said Mr. Wahl in his absence, asked him to speak on his behalf, given there were a number of items that they have been trying to get on some of the Agendas, but due to the number of plans coming through the Commission, it has been difficult to report back to the Commission the various studies and things that they have been working on.



Mr. Capote said in their packet he has supplied them with a memo from Mr. Wahl that had an attachment with eight different items that they would like to add on for a Special Study Session and he believed they made two suggestions as possible dates and he would like to have their recommendation for either June 14, 1995 or June 28, 1995 at 7:30 P.M.



Mr. Capote indicated the eight items were: (1) Zoning Ordinance Update Progress Report; (2) Report Back on the City Council Study Session - FY 95-96 Planning Commission Work Program and Budget; (3) American Planning Association Conference; (4) PA 116 Grant; (5) OS-3 and NCC District; (6) 24-Hour Operation; (7) Bordine Greenhouse Establishment; (8) Planning Commission Minutes.


Chairman Clark asked what would be the Planning Commission's preference for a Special Study Session on either June 14th or June 28th.


The dates were discussed by the Commission and it was decided to go with the date of June 28, 1995 at 7:30 P.M.


Member Bonaventura said he had added Item #3 under Matters for Discussion, Joint Council Meeting with the Planning Commission, and he wondered if he could add that as Item #9 rather than discussing it that night and Chairman Clark indicated that would be fine.



2. FY 1995-96 Planning Commission Budget - Report back by Staff regarding City Council Action on the FY 1995-96 Planning Commission Budget.


Mr. Capote said as far as this item, the Agenda was created before Council had the opportunity to approve or not approve the Budget and it was anticipated that the Budget would get approved and they were simply to provide an updated report to the Commission, but as it stands right now, that item has been tabled to the next meeting and would be re-heard on June 19, 1995, so Item #2 would be null and void.


Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Capote if he had some idea as far as what the Commission submitted and the way it looks right now and the way it looked Monday night.


Mr. Capote said he did not attend Monday night's meeting. Member Bonaventura said he did watch the Monday night meeting and that was not what he was talking about. He said there were several meetings that were not televised, in fact, all of the Budget sessions were not televised and he didn't catch any of it and he was wondering whether the Department did and how their presentation went.


Member Capote said he was part of that process and he thought the presentations went well and he had some discussion with some Council Members and they seemed to feel pretty confident about their presentation and thought they defended it well and that was the feedback that he heard, but he did not talk to every Council Member.


Member Bonaventura asked if there was discussion after the presentation of the Department and Planning Commission as far as funding. Mr. Capote said yes there was and Member Bonaventura asked if he received any feedback from the Council and the feedback was positive and Mr. Capote said he got feedback from some members of Council but not all of Council and that feedback was at the same time when those meetings took place and afterwards. He said he has been in contact with Council Members ongoing.


Member Mutch said regarding that, she was at that particular meeting where the presentation was made and recently at Council meetings where there was televised discussion. She said the comments that were made in the Budget Session were for the most part repeated in those televised meetings. She thought she had already mentioned that she had been there and she thought she had already complimented Chairman Clark on an outstanding job of presenting what was a very comprehensive and wide-ranging program that they want to have funded.


Member Mutch said the one direction that the Department and the Planning Commission got from the Budget Session that was not televised was that they wanted to reduce the amount that they were asking for and that didn't necessarily mean they didn't want to see it funded and they were willing to consider having that funding come from other sources.


Member Mutch said they have had discussions on that issue in public and at this table, and the concern was that some of those studies have been funded before, but they did not get completed the way the Commissioners would have liked so that was why they were requesting direct funding as she recalled the discussion of it. She said but they still were inclined to see those funded with one exception, which she thought was the Water Quality Assessment Study of Walled Lake and Shawood Lake and Mr. Capote indicated that was correct.


Member Hoadley also stated he had attended that meeting along with Chairman Clark. He said regarding the Corridor Study for Grand River, which was the largest single item on the Budget, they really didn't get anything negative back on that at all, but it was felt they could probably tap the DPW for that. He said that was what Member Mutch was referring to and whether or not that would work well, he didn't know. He understood that has been proposed in past years and nothing has ever happened from it, but that was one of the things that he felt and others felt, was important to get funded.





There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned.





Greg Capote

Staff Planner


Transcribed by Sharon Hendrian

June 19, 1995