(810) 347-0475


Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo


PRESENT: Members Bononi, Churella, Csordas, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington


ABSENT: Members Capello, Hoadley


ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Staff Planner Steven Cohen








Chairperson Lorenzo announced she has received a letter from Thomas DuBose & Associates, requesting postponement of Wendy’s Site Plan to a future Agenda.


Steve Cohen, Staff Planner stated he was hoping to get Wendy’s on the March 5, 1997 Agenda because it is not a Public Hearing it does not have to be postponed to a certain date.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any other changes or additions to the Agenda?

Member Weddington stated she has received information regarding a Michigan State University Land Use Conference, she would like to add it under Matters For Discussion. Chairperson Lorenzo noted it and asked if there were any other additions? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as amended.





Moved by Weddington, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.





Yes: Bononi, Churella, Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo announced if anyone was present for Wendy’s SP96-49, it has been postponed to a future Agenda.






Joseph E. Galvin, spoke on behalf of Providence Hospital. He asked the Planning Commission to give favorable consideration and forward to the City Council, the portion of the proposed rezoning ordinance which encompasses the B-2 zoning district. He stated he appeared before the Commission a couple of months ago concerning a proposal for development of the Providence parcel a rezoning request which the Commission forwarded to the City Council. He stated when the City Council received it, they tabled it for 45 days to the February 10, 1997 meeting and asked the staff to examine the B-2, B-3, TC and other districts. He stated he has been working with staff and consultants in an attempt to come up with language which would be acceptable to the City and meet the needs of Providence. He believed it has been done and wished to thank those who participated in the process and asked that the two changes be made which are reflected in Mr. Bowman’s memorandum. The first change is to the intent portion of the ordinance, it would delete language so as to assure that the exclusion of drive-thru restaurants would be clear but that a bank could have a drive-thru on the site. The second change adds the word "banquet facility" after restaurants, to assure that the use would be permissible. With these two additions, he would like the Commission to favorably recommend to Council the B-2 ordinance.



Ronald E. Dunbar, 43417 Scenic Lane spoke in regard to the Noise Ordinance. He stated he lives in the Timber Ridge Estates subdivision across from Damman Hardware, Blockbuster, and Arbor Drugs at Nine Mile Road and Novi Road. He stated the problem in the past was the parking lot would be cleaned during the middle of the night. He stated Arbor Drugs has addressed the problem recently, the police have been called out six or more times in the past, to stop the people and they just do it all over again. Mr. Dunbar stated unfortunately, the ordinances do not properly address this particular issue. He does not have a current problem, he stated it is just a ticking time bomb and over the past four years it has come back six or seven times. He was sure it would come back again and was sure it was a problem for other developments in the area. He stated Arbor Drugs currently cleans their parking lot twice a week, it takes approximately an hour to an hour and fifteen minutes, they use a leaf blower and a very large vacuum truck. Mr. Dunbar wished there did not have to be an ordinance to address these types of issues, but it is definitely a problem.



Lynn Kocan, 23088 Ennishore Drive spoke in regard to the Zoning Ordinance Update. She referred to her letter dated January 22, 1997 and reiterated some of her comments. She was pleased with the revision to the Noise Ordinance, and was grateful to have been included in the process. The Special Land Use requirement as well as the provision that sound levels are regulated, based on the receiving district are very reasonable and responsible. She encouraged the Commission to adopt Section 2519.10. Berm heights abutting residential, 1905.4 (e) as stated in her letter, she thought all berm heights would be changed from 6'-10' to 10'-15' without any qualifier. Now the Ordinance reflects that the only time it will be 10'-15' is if there is "unloading areas or service areas which abut residential properties," Ms. Kocan would like to see the berm height be 10-15 feet and she stated residential and industrial are not compatible. Section 1905.4 (a) with regard to conditions, when light industrial abuts residential, a discussion at the Implementation Committee was, no where in the Ordinance does it state that no windows or doors can be on the side of the building that faces residential. It says nothing about exhaust fans and/or equipment that might be permitted in the wall. She thought Committee members wanted to have this reflected in the revised Ordinance and thought it was a good idea to include it. In regard to the Final Site Plan Review, she referred to the summary sheet called Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission on September 11, 1996, item 19 stated to add provision for final site plans for permitted usage subject to special conditions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Rather than it being an Administrative review for Special Land Uses, when light industrial abuts residential, this would be a requirement that it does come before the Planning Commission. She stated residents deserve to be a part of the final site plan process and felt it to be appropriate to add this stipulation to Section 1905.4. Commercial Recreation in I-1 abutting residential properties, the uses proposed appear to be much more intense than current uses allowed abutting residential, especially relative to the amount of traffic and the hours of operation that can be expected from a recreational use. Ms. Kocan stated she would like to hear discussion about the reason for moving the uses out of Section 1903 which could never be next to residential and now it is proposed to be abutting residential. She asked if the Commission would require additional setback other than the 125 foot, what berm height is being proposed, is the drop off area an unloading area? She believed it would be, therefore the berm should be a minimum of 10-15 feet. The list of recreational uses is "not limited", she asked if it could include a bowling alley, are there other uses that could come under the heading that could be extremely detrimental to the area? She stated if it is not in the Ordinance, it must be allowed. She asked why the uses were not allowed in the B-2 District? Recreation uses were totally dropped from the B-2 and she did not understand it. She then made reference to Mr. Rogers letter regarding moving manufacturing out of Section 1902 and putting it into Section 1903. Not only is manufacturing not compatible with residential, it is not compatible with recreation uses. Ms. Kocan agreed that ordinances are only as good as the enforcement, she stated the City needs an on-call ordinance officer to enforce ordinances after 5:00 p.m. and on weekends.


Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court spoke in regard to Section 2509.7, landscape planning buffers along the abutting R.O.W.’s. He asked to include a provision from Section 1602.5, when is speaks of parking setbacks, it states, "Surface parking lots shall be screened from all public R.O.W.’s and internal roads by either a 2 ½ foot ornamental brick wall or a landscape berm." Currently in Section 2509.7 (c), it only requires 30" of plant material. In the update it states that plant material or a berm or a combination of both can be used to achieve it. He thought the difference of requiring either a wall or a berm was important for several reasons. He stated it creates a uniform standard across all zoning districts, it does not create a future ordinance enforcement problem and it is a permanent screening. He thought the language in Section 1602.5 could be incorporated and would apply to all zoning districts. He also addressed the revisions to the B-2 District. He disagreed that it would be the best solution for the Providence property. He thought the changes to the B-2 District were an improvement and proposed a few minor additions. 1) The inclusion of the berming requirement; 2) 1602.8 - inclusion of the open space requirement minimum 15%; 3) 1601.0 - permit residential uses; 4) the increase in heights to 42' in certain areas should also include an increase in setback. Mr. Mutch thought these changes should be included because it removes a number of potential obnoxious uses that are currently in B-2. He thought it had applicability in other locations.



Glenn Healey, president of the Sports Club of West Bloomfield commented on the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that he is in the early stages of planning the construction of a large athletic club. He stated the City needs to provide for recreational uses somewhere in it’s Zoning Ordinance, he stated it was the consensus of the Planning Commission and the City Council that the I-1 District was an appropriate place to do so. Mr. Healey stated it was quite common for cities to allow large recreational users to operate in the I-1 District, most other Oakland County communities have large recreational facilities in industrial districts. A provision that would allow air structures in Novi is included in the changes. He felt that Including specific provisions in the ordinance to allow for recreational uses was necessary to encourage private investment. Making approval dependent on special permits or zoning variances, introduces substantial uncertainty and would discourage development. He felt the I-1 Ordinance should be changed to allow for recreational use.


Kathy Higinian, 47610 Warrington Drive referred to the Planning Commission meeting of January 7, 1997 where Stuart Frankel made his presentation for the development in western Novi. She stated he spoke in general terms without specifically mentioning his current plan of record. She stated his plan of record is to develop a 150,000 square foot strip mall and expressed her opposition to the project. Currently, she believed there to be sufficient commercial property along the Grand River Corridor, this is where commercial development was planned and where it belongs. From a fundamental fairness point of view, the residents in the surrounding subdivision and the area purchased their property based on faith in the City to abide by the Master Plan. She stated the homes were purchased at prices which reflected the fact that neighboring properties were residential and intended to sell their homes without negative impact of unplanned adjacent commercial property. Ms. Higinian was pleased to see the reaction of the residents who attended the meeting, as well as the reaction from the Planning Commission. She thanked the Planning Commission for their insightful questions and comments, she commended the careful critique given to the written materials that Mr. Frankel used to support his proposal. She thanked the Commission for their attention to detail and thoroughness in their work.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Audience Participation and announced there would be a second after the midpoint break and a third before adjournment.





Mr. Cohen stated he received five (5) letters, two of which were already addressed.


The first letter was Wendy’s request to be postponed. The second letter was from Bill Bowman of Thompson-Brown regarding the B-2, which Joe Galvin addressed.


Mr. Cohen stated the other three letters were regarding the Stuart Frankel proposal. All three letters were in opposition to the proposal for possible commercial at Ten Mile Road and Beck Road. The letters were from Michael and Susan Montpetit, Carolyn and Paul Kirin and Tracey Arbour. He stated the documents will be placed into the formal record.





Chairperson Lorenzo announced there were two items. The approval of the January 8, 1997 Regular Planning Commission meeting minutes and a request to schedule a Special Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, February 12, 1997. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any corrections to the minutes? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.





Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda as presented.







Yes: Bononi, Churella, Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None







Property located west of Meadowbrook Road, between Eleven Mile Road and I-96 for possible Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Larry Morris of TMP Associates, Inc. introduced himself as the architect for Walsh College. He introduced Doug Smith, Vice President of Walsh College; Chris Stout, Director of Facilities; Paul Loosley, President of Environmental Engineers.


Mr. Morris requested Preliminary Site Plan approval for Walsh College. He explained that Walsh currently has a presence in Novi in some leased facilities on the property to the west. He stated it is their intent to make a major commitment to have a campus in Walsh. A 34,000 square foot, single story brick classroom/administrative office building is proposed. Access to the site is from Meadowbrook Road onto Gardenbrook Drive. The drive accesses the new Walsh property and continues along to serve the two existing office buildings at the west side of the property. The project is proposed to have 421 parking spaces. The site includes the development of the proper retention areas, landscaping enhancements and signage, all within the requirements of the ordinances. There are no waivers or exceptions requested.


The building is brick, the patterning has some stone over the windows which ties in with the existing building. The schedule for the project is that the plans should go out in March and construction should occur during the Summer and through the Winter with occupancy for Fall classes. Mr. Morris again requested the approval of the Commission.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the plan meets the site plan application data. A separate sidwell number is required by the City Assessors office before final site plan review. The setbacks are complied with. Regarding parking, Mr. Rogers stated that no standard exists in the ordinance for colleges, based on the standard for senior high schools, one parking space is required for every teacher, employee or administrator, whichever is greater. He stated the parking lots are setback properly from the adjacent streets.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect summarized that the applicant basically meets the requirements for the conceptual landscape plan. There is some additional information to be provided at the time of Final Site Plan. The parking area is recessed from the surrounding roads, so it is provided with a natural screen. The number of trees within the interior requirements of the parking area and adjacent to the building are exceeded according to the present standards. As such, Ms. Lemke recommended approval.


Mr. Rogers stated he and Doug Necci concluded the brick building complies with the standards in Section 2520. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the site is served by a single access roadway off of Meadowbrook Road, with an existing easement for access ingress/egress. The site is sufficiently served by water and sewer. In regard to parking, approximately half of the parking is existing. The site will be improved, storm sewers will be put in on the eastern half. The existing parking is served by an existing detention basin. A second storm detention area is being provided east of the existing with an outlet across the existing driveway. There are some minor issues that can be addressed at the time of final site plan, Mr. Bluhm recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated access will be to Gardenbrook Drive, an existing internal roadway which serves the office development. There were improvements made to Meadowbrook Road at the intersection of Meadowbrook Road and Gardenbrook Drive, to provide for a center left turn lane, it appears that it has not been striped for a center turn lane. It will be verified at final site plan approval, Mr. Arroyo stated a center turn lane is definitely needed for the development. The traffic study indicates the majority of the traffic will likely come from the south, therefore, left turns in and out will be the predominant movement. In addition, there will be a right turn deceleration taper at Meadowbrook which is already in place. Trip generation was based on an analysis of the Walsh College site in Troy. Mr. Arroyo stated this type of facility tends to attract most of its traffic in the evening hours. There are some minor changes to the traffic study but they do not effect the actual site plan. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the minor changes as indicated, as well as a revised traffic study before final site plan.


Mr. Bluhm spoke on behalf of Sue Tepatti, Water Resources Specialist. He stated the Environmental Department has reviewed the plan for a wetland permit and it is recommending approval and an administrative permit. There were two issues in Ms. Tepatti’s letter. The applicant did not find, as it is fairly well hidden, a small wetlands area that is adjacent to the slope of Meadowbrook Road as it crosses the bridge of I-96. It runs north/south. The wetland area is lessened to two acres in size. It does not meet the preservation criteria requirements. The southern tip is proposed to be filled which equates to about 0.10 of an acre of fill. Secondly, the outlet for the proposed detention basin is into an existing storm sewer which crosses Gardenbrook Drive. In speaking with Mr. Watson, it does not require to be part of the permit, as it is an existing outlet and will be detained to the current flow levels that are going through it currently. Ms. Tepatti recommended approval.


Chris Pargoff, City Forester recommended conditional approval upon the changes he has informed the applicants consultant. In particular, due to over planting of Green Ash within the city, he asked that 35 of the Patmore Ash be substituted with second species. Also, that the new islands be drained in such a way to conform with the design and construction standards with a tile drain approximately four feet below the level of the parking lot, and the old islands be backfilled with four foot of sand base backfill. Mr. Pargoff asked that the landscape contractor consult with the landscape and planning consultants before any plant material is purchased so substitutions can be approved by the consultants.


Chairperson Lorenzo announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following: 1) All weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation; 2) All water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation; 3) The building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction, the address is to be at least three inches high on a contrasting background.


Chairperson Lorenzo turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Vrettas asked how many administrative offices and classrooms are proposed?


Mr. Morris answered approximately seventy-five percent of the building is made up of 14 classrooms, the other twenty-five percent is administrative office area.


Member Vrettas asked if students would be able to obtain associates, bachelors and masters degrees, or would it just be for vocational courses?


Doug Smith stated Walsh College is only an upward division school so they will offer bachelors and masters degrees. He stated four degree programs are now offered and it is expected to be expanded to all but one or two full degree programs.

Member Vrettas asked what degrees will be started with?


Mr. Smith stated they already offer the Bachelor or Accountancy Degree, Bachelor of Business Administration. There are five masters degrees of which the Master of Science and Management and the Master of Science and Finance are offered. Mr. Smith stated they offer the core program for the Master of Science and Accountancy as well.


Member Vrettas explained the reason for his questions was for concerns of science labs if it were more broad based. Member Vrettas suggested that the applicant not put a flat roof on the building. He explained that they weather too fast and are very costly. He suggested that the applicant look into putting a slanted roof on the building.





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Preliminary Site Plan for Walsh College - Novi Campus, SP97-02, subject to all of the consultants verbal and written recommendations.


Member Bononi asked Mr. Rogers if a college university was a permitted use in an I-1 District?


Mr. Rogers answered, yes, it is covered under Section 1902 under the terminology "Trade or Industrial Schools".


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated it is Section 1902 in addition to the subsequent provision within Section 1902, subpart 15, provides other uses of a similar no more objectionable character to the above uses.


Member Bononi stated she had a problem with that because she felt there was a great difference of how trade schools and technical schools relate to land use and how colleges and universities relate to land use. The profit motive is the difference. She explained the reason she thought trade schools and technical schools are located in Industrial zones, was because they are for profit, whereas colleges and universities more often than not, are not. She also mentioned that the ordinance spells out colleges and universities and other such institutions of higher learning in Section 402 (7) which are allowed in a single family zone and TC, among others.



In regard to the wetland not being designated on the plan, Member Bononi referred to the soil conservation service maps and pointed out that it refers to a tributary to Bishop Creek. Whether or not the grading preceded or followed the involvement, she thought it could have been avoided by having the applicant bring forward an affidavit of no wetlands involvement. She stated the only problem she had with it was looking at a wetland application with no plan.


Member Weddington thought the proposed project was wonderful and was happy to see it come forward. In regard to the levels of service of traffic, she stated it appears there are some low levels of service at nearby intersections and asked Mr. Arroyo if a traffic signal was warranted at Meadowbrook Road to control traffic at peak hours?


Mr. Arroyo stated the levels of service at Eleven Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road and Grand River and Meadowbrook Road are being addressed through the comments that were made. He stated Eleven Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road is shown at operating at a very poor level of service. When the traffic study was reviewed, it was found that when the computer models were used to do the analysis, they designated Eleven Mile Road as the major road without the stop control and Meadowbrook Road with the stop control, which basically made the level of service a lot worse than it really is. Based on the initial look at the volumes, he believed that when the analysis is redone, it will show that the intersection is at acceptable levels of service.


Mr. Arroyo stated the Grand River and Meadowbrook Road intersection has been evaluated fairly recently. It appears that a change in signalization to provide for left turn signal phasing will bring it to an acceptable level of service. There is a very heavy volume of left turns at that intersection and currently there is just a two face signal. Mr. Arroyo thought signal phasing would improve the intersection.


Member Weddington asked if the applicant anticipated any plans for future expansion or additions to the project?


Mr. Morris stated it was not presented as a phased plan at this time. He hoped that there was an opportunity for some expansion and thought there was definite growth that would occur. He stated at this point he has not planned a Phase II expansion.


Member Weddington asked the applicant, assuming the best case, what could he do in order to add capacity?


Mr. Morris referred to the map and stated the potential for expansion would occur with existing properties to the west.

Member Weddington asked Mr. Rogers if there was sufficient room?


Mr. Rogers answered they would have a 40 foot setback, the parking could be adjusted to position a building at the easterly end of the parking lot. Mr. Rogers envisioned the building being extended down toward Meadowbrook Road and angled, keeping it all in one complex.


Member Weddington stated she would be supporting the motion.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Bluhm if the Bishop Creek drain was a ditch or a stream?


Mr. Bluhm answered it was more defined as a stream, it is fairly large.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the present detention pond has any water quality enhancement?


Mr. Bluhm stated it would be a part of the final site plan. The applicant will have to provide both sedimentation control during the development of the site and permanent water quality control within the basin and within the storm sewers that lead toward it.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated she would appreciate an amendment to the motion to include water quality provisions according to DEQ’s Best Management Practices with the expansion of the detention basin.


Member Vrettas accepted it as the maker of the motion, Member Csordas accepted it as the seconder of the motion.





Yes: Bononi, Churella, Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None





The following items are scheduled to be considered for possible recommendation to City Council: (a) Sections 2520, 1905 and 2509; (b) Noise Ordinance; (c) B-2 District; (d) REC uses in I-1 District; (e) Section 1903.7


Steve Cohen, Staff Planner suggested starting with item (c) B-2 District.





Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated there is only one area zoned B-2, it is the Novi Square Shopping Center on Pontiac Trail, west of West Road. He stated he wanted to design a classification to prohibit drive-thru fast food automobile sales/service establishments. Those uses are now permitted as special land uses in the B-2 District. The permitted uses that have been added are nursery schools, day nurseries, child care, hotels, motels, and office buildings. Item 6, which is a package of recreational facility recommendations, is not in the ordinance. Mr. Rogers thought those uses could find a place in the B-2 District, however, he stated that district should be reserved for commercial and office uses, not large park use. The permitted uses under special approval in the B-2 District were all taken out, and required conditions in reference to open air uses were deleted. The 42 foot height, 3 story qualification has been added for central areas being zoned B-2 where they abut a freeway R.O.W. and do not abut a residential district. In Item 7, it states all B-2 Districts shall be located at the intersection of two major thoroughfares. Major thoroughfare includes major arterial (ie. Twelve Mile Road, Novi Road, Beck Road) and minor arterials (ie. Taft Road, Meadowbrook Road). Mr. Rogers referred to the schedule of regulations, a two acre minimum site size, a reduction of the 75 foot front yard setback to 40 feet, side yards from 30 feet to 20 feet. Mr. Rogers stated that paragraph 5 which deals with parking would be put back into the ordinance.


Mr. Rogers announced he received a letter dated February 4, 1997, from Bill Bowman of Thompson-Brown who represents Providence Hospital. Two minor changes that were suggested by Mr. Bowman were in regard to Section 1400, The Statement of Intent. The suggestion was to delete the phrase, "...and other drive-thru establishments" due to the fact that if a bank were put in, most banks have drive-thru windows. In Section 1401.2 (b) it was suggested to add the phrase, "restaurants, banquet facilities or other places serving food or beverage."


Chairperson Lorenzo turned the Matter over to the Commission.


In regard to Section 1400, Member Bononi asked why, generating large volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic was removed?


Mr. Rogers stated a Regional Center, RC Center, B-3 use would likely generate more traffic than a smaller B-1 or B-2 type business district. He thought it was taken out because of its’ vagueness.


Member Bononi suggested it be left in because she thought it gave strength and supported the major or minor arterial statement. She did not feel it did anything negative, and felt it described the community business district.


Mr. Rogers had no objection with leaving it in.


In regard to Number 2, Item B, Member Bononi was concerned that by striking the combination of a service and a showroom, it might be eliminating some uses that could be quite attractive. Some examples might be an art gallery, painter restorer, an interior decorator who sells fine home furnishings as part of a showroom. She felt they would be nice additions to the community and was not sure she would want to totally eliminate them. She felt the language could be amended to take out the uses that would not be compatible. Another type of business that is considered to be very attractive in most communities are bridal consultants who provide a wide array of services and also have a showroom.


Mr. Rogers stated some of the uses could be construed under the retail permitted uses and office building uses. He stated there was no problem and they could be added in.


Member Bononi referred to Item C in the same section. She asked if it was encouraging restaurants that just serve take-out or is it also speaking about sit down restaurants? She thought this should be defined.


Mr. Rogers stated it should be discussed with the Commission.


Member Bononi referred to Item 3 where it says, "nursery schools, day nurseries, child care centers and adult child care centers", she thought it should read, " care centers" and the word "child" should be removed.


Member Bononi stated Items 5 & 6 were not clear to her from the standpoint of the other uses that are included, hotels and motels seem incongruous uses to her.


Member Bononi stated Item 5 seems to regulate the use from the standpoint of being exclusionary. She asked why only 42 feet and up to 3 stories was being allowed on properties that abut a freeway? She saw how it could be a concern if it were abutting residential, she did not think that it should be excluded to a freeway application.


Member Bononi expressed concern with Items 1-7. She referred to the schedule limiting height, bulk, density and area. She noted that the front, side and rear yard requirements have all been decreased. Member Bononi was concerned that the status quo was not being maintained.






Moved by Bononi, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED ( 6-1)


Member Churella suggested segmenting the motion to allow for better understanding.


Mr. Rogers stated as defined in the Ordinance, sit down restaurants, fast food sit down, fast food carry out and drive in. He stated that sit down restaurants mean just what it says and asked if this was what was intended?


Chairperson Lorenzo stated if that was the intent, then maybe it should say "sit down restaurants". She asked Member Bononi, under number 5, was she proposing hotels and motels, provided the site does not abut a residential district?


Member Bononi answered, yes.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated "is located within 1,300 feet of a federal or state interchange" will be deleted.


Member Churella thought that "abutting" should be defined in terms of distance. He thought that it could mean anything.


Mr. Watson stated it means an adjacent parcel.


Mr. Rogers stated adjacency is addressed with definitions. He asked if the comment about adding "banquet facilities" after the word "restaurants" was going to be addressed?


Member Csordas asked Member Bononi about the addition of the phrases from the Thompson-Brown letter regarding "and other drive-thru establishments". He also asked about "banquet facilities" being added.


Member Bononi stated she had no problem with adding it.


Member Vrettas agreed.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated in Section 1400 to eliminate the words "and other drive-thru establishments" and in Section 1401, add "banquet facilities". She asked the Commission if they would prefer to vote on them one by one?





Yes: Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi

No: Churella


Chairperson Lorenzo entertained a motion for a recommendation to City Council.





Moved by Bononi, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To recommend the revised B-2 District, Ordinance No. 97-18 as amended.





Yes: Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Churella

No: None





Steve Cohen, Staff Planner stated the Ordinance before the Commission is the Implementation Committee’s best attempt to bring the Noise Ordinance up to Michigan and National standards. With the help of Lynn Kocan and the Implementation Committee, he believed the Ordinance would work. He stated he has the support of the Ordinance enforcement officers, they believe they can enforce the Ordinance. One major change to the Ordinance is that it now recognizes residential districts that abut industrial. A more stringent standard is applied so if an industrial site abuts residential, the industrial site has to meet the residential decibel standards to offer protection to the residents. He believed the Ordinance was a significant improvement and hoped the Commission would pass it on to City Council.


Chairperson Lorenzo turned the Matter over to the Commission.


Member Weddington asked Mr. Watson if the changes would address the issue that was brought up by a member of the audience regarding evening activity in commercial districts.


Mr. Watson thought it would, he stated it may already be something that is contrary to the current noise regulations. He thought that the kind of noise described would be in violation because of the decibel levels but more importantly the measurement is made, not based on whether it is originating in a B-1 or B-2 District, but by the district where the sound is being heard. He stated the practical matter of having an enforcement officer on the site is not something that can be addressed in the Ordinance.


Member Weddington stated it can be publicized so that the commercial operators become aware of the new standard and that it is intended to be enforced.


Mr. Cohen suggested notifying the Chamber of Commerce.


Chairperson Lorenzo agreed that the information should be disseminated throughout the business community.


Member Vrettas stated it would not do any good if it is not enforced.


Mr. Watson suggested that Mr. Cohen express the concern of Member Vrettas collectively to the Building Department so they could be made aware of it.


Chairperson Lorenzo suggested along with the recommendation of the Ordinance to City Council, the Commission could also express its’ concern about enforcement after 5:00 p.m.


Member Vrettas thought one of the biggest complaints that was being repeated throughout the community was in the area of enforcement. He asked if there was any way the Commission could send a thought to Council that expresses the concern of the Commission?


Chairperson Lorenzo thought that was what she suggested the Commission do across the board.


Mr. Watson thought each instance that a complaint is heard about something not being enforced, the staff and administration are being used to communicate it to the people who are supposed to enforce the ordinances.


Member Vrettas expressed concern and stated it would carry more weight if the entire Commission shared his concern.


Chairperson Lorenzo thought this was the appropriate time to send that message to City Council and entertained a motion, particularly for the Noise Ordinance.

Member Weddington stated as a member of the Committee who worked so long on it, she was glad to pass it on.





Moved by Weddington, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council to adopt the Revised Zoning Ordinance subsection 2519.10 of the Ordinance No. 96-18 (10) Noise, as proposed. Also to express the concern of the Commission and ask for enforcement of this Ordinance as well as other Ordinances across the board after the hours of 4:30 or 5:00 p.m.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated she appreciated everybody’s time, effort and energy on the Ordinance. She appreciated the comments of Ms. Kocan in recognition of why it took so long to get to this point.





Yes: Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Churella, Csordas

No: None



a. SECTIONS 2520, 1905 AND 2509


In regard to Section 1905, Mr. Watson stated the letter is not a revised draft. He stated the draft dated January 28, 1997 is based upon the collective recommendations made previously by the Implementation Committee, Mr. Necci, Mr. Rogers and Ms. Lemke.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated that the issues were made by the Implementation Committee or the Commission, and never actually made it into the draft. If they did, there may have been some miscommunication. She referred to 1905.4 (e), after "opacity requirements are to be 60% in winter and 80% in summer within two (2) years of planting", should have been amended to say, "opacity requirements are to be 80% in winter and 90% in summer within two (2) years after planting." Additionally, after the last sentence, it should read, "if a natural buffer does not exist or an existing natural buffer is less than 25 feet in depth and does not meet the opacity requirements, the berm shall range in height from 10 to 15 feet with a flat horizontal area at the crest, is required to be ten feet in width."


Mr. Watson asked if it relates to loading/unloading at all?


Chairperson Lorenzo answered, not at all.


Mr. Watson suggested having a requirement of 10 to 15 feet and then provide an exception where there is a 25 foot natural barrier.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated this can also be done. She expressed to Mr. Rogers that her understanding of the reason for going through the exercise of revising the document, was to make it more user friendly. She thought if an applicant were to pick up Section 1900, it made more sense to her if they knew to go to Section 1905, knowing what they need to do without having to flip back or ask the Planning Department for another Ordinance.


Mr. Watson stated as long as an Ordinance re-write was being done, should this be done for every section of the Zoning Ordinance, thus eliminating Section 2509. He stated the purpose of Section 2509 was to put all of the requirements in a single place so they would not have to be duplicated throughout the Ordinance. Mr. Watson asked Mr. Rogers and Ms. Lemke if they have ever had a plan that did not comply with berming requirement?


Mr. Rogers stated he does not want to duplicate throughout the Ordinance, however, he stated it is a critical issue. He stated it is a matter of emphasis.


Mr. Watson stated in every district it is allowed to substitute a natural buffer area, subject to certain standards that are in the Ordinance. He stated it is not as though using natural areas is unique, the method in which it is done is what is unique. Inasmuch as the berm is not being eliminated, it is being reduced.


Member Bononi suggested cross referencing the appropriate section.


Chairperson Lorenzo expressed concern stating she thought the intent was to make the document more user friendly. She did not have a problem including Section 2509 in every section.


Mr. Rogers stated there have not been any screening confrontations in other districts, as there has in I-1 Districts next to residential. He stated it is a unique district screening requirement and suggested including it in both places for emphasis.



Member Churella did not think a 15 foot berm was needed. He thought it must be friendly for the builder as well as the person he is building next to.


Chairperson Lorenzo thought Member Churella misunderstood what she had said.


Member Churella apologized stating he misunderstood.


Mr. Watson stated in the prior draft there was a minimum area of 75 feet that could be used if using a natural area. The current ordinance has no minimum. He stated the provision he received for changing the section, directed him to reduce it to 25 feet. He asked if there is supposed to be a required minimum area in Section 2509?


Chairperson Lorenzo believed it was an amendment of the Commission on September 11, 1996 so it should have been in the Ordinance as 75 feet.


Mr. Watson asked in regard to the minimum, if opacity requirements are being met, does the depth matter?


Chairperson Lorenzo deferred to Ms. Lemke


Ms. Lemke stated a lot of areas are being excluded by limiting it to 75 feet. She stated there can be a very dense 25 foot area that will achieve the same thing as a 75 foot area, it depends upon what type of plant materials are on it.


Mr. Watson explained, the reason he asked was because years ago, the idea of tearing out natural areas just to put a berm in was not received well.


Ms. Lemke thought in a Zoning Ordinance, there has to be some flexibility because opportunities are limited with natural vegetation existing conditions and limitations would limit the designers ability to come up with a creative solution.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated if the 75 foot requirement is going to be stricken, then 1 (g) should say, " has effective screening in accordance with the opacity requirements".


Mr. Watson agreed.


In Section 1905, Chairperson Lorenzo stated it does not include any type of building setback, the applicant must refer to Section 2400, footnote (m). She proposed adding a letter "d" or "e" for building setbacks which would read, "Building setbacks shall be five (5) feet of horizontal setback for each foot of building height or 100 feet, whichever is greater." Mr. Watson stated the whole point of the schedule of regulations is so that it does not have to be listed in each section. He stated there are also rear yard setbacks, side yard setbacks and parking lot setbacks. He stated it is put there to eliminate reiteration. Mr. Watson did not understand how it makes the Zoning Ordinance more user friendly when certain portions of the Ordinance that are patterned with a cross reference. He thought if anything, it might cause confusion.


Chairperson Lorenzo agreed with Mr. Rogers stating that emphasis needed to be placed on I-1 next to residential.


Member Vrettas spoke through experience stating the advantage to including the entire section is being able to review the entire section without having to flip through pages. He thought cross referencing was user friendly.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated the main thing is that the amendments as proposed by the Implementation Committee, make it to the Planning Commission and they can do as they wish.


Chairperson Lorenzo announced in addition, the Implementation Committee proposed amending or adding a section for a parking setback of 100 feet from the boundary of a residential district. Parking could be located in a front yard of a building, except within the R.O.W. setback, in order to meet the requirement. The Planning Commission may waive it, except in no case shall the parking be located closer than 60 feet from the boundary of a residential district.


Mr. Watson stated there are a variety of sections in the Ordinance where the Planning Commission may waive certain requirements, he stated whenever this is done, it is based on certain criteria that are stated. He asked if there was some thought given as to what instances the 100 feet would be waived, and allowed to be reduced to 60 feet.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated under Section 1905, on September 11, 1996, the Planning Commission proposed to add a provision for Final Site Plans for Committee uses subject to special conditions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. She added this to Section 1905.


Mr. Rogers asked if this was just for I-1 uses?


Chairperson Lorenzo answered I-1 abutting residential.


Mr. Watson suggested it be done in Section 2516 where what happens with the final site plan it is otherwise defined.


Mr. Watson stated the section in the facade provision that deals with Section 4 waivers is repeated, a paragraph just needs to be crossed out.


Mr. Watson stated one of the provisions in the re-write regarding earth berms adjacent to residential indicates they will not be required where adjacent residential is separated by a highway, defined as a divided multi-lane major street for through traffic with partial or full control of access, or freeway. He stated Ms. Lemke indicated the word "not" should be deleted. Mr. Watson explained the reason for including the word "not" was to distinguish it from a regular street.


Mr. Rogers asked if just an ordinary R.O.W. would exempt the berm requirement?


Mr. Arroyo stated the way it reads is if abutting a freeway or highway that is divided, then the berm would not have to be put in.


Mr. Watson stated if a use is across the road from a residential district, it will require a berm. He stated every use that is non-residential normally requires a berm.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any other comments or changes regarding Section 2520? Seeing none she


Mr. Watson asked if this type of berm requirement what the Commission is looking for?


Mr. Rogers stated a 6-10 foot berm was being required because an industrial use is on one side of the road, and residential is on the other?


Mr. Arroyo expressed a concern with commercial uses. He stated by constructing a six foot berm along major roadways, it is in effect blocking the commercial business from view from the road and it could be construed as a taking of the property because the business cannot be seen.


Mr. Watson asked if it has any impact on traffic passing by and seeing the business?


Mr. Arroyo answered, absolutely. Depending on the height of the berm, the signage on the building may not be seen. He stated the sign would probably have to be as high if not higher than the berm which may be in conflict with the sign regulations. He thought there was the potential for a number of problems with this type of situation and thought it should be reconsidered.

Chairperson Lorenzo thought there were two reasons the Commission proposed it: 1) providing adequate visual screening; 2) noise attenuation.


Chris Pargoff, City Forester stated with this passage in the Ordinance, it would limit the amount of berming on the residential. He stated berming would not be necessary on the residential side, this was one reason it was brought up. He agreed with Mr. Arroyo that he was not sure berming was needed in the commercial district, but it is needed in residential.


Mr. Watson asked Mr. Pargoff when a residential subdivision is being developed along a major thoroughfare, is there an easement for it?


Mr. Pargoff answered, it is a greenbelt easement and it has always been asked to include a berm in the easement. He stated it has been required but it is not specific in the subdivision ordinance.


Mr. Watson stated the purpose is not only to protect the sites along the road from the business across the street but also the influence of the road. In addition, lots are not allowed to front on the major thoroughfare itself.


Mr. Pargoff thought the confusion was because it also says that maybe it is not needed in a residential district. He wanted to make sure that the residential has the berming.


Mr. Rogers asked what would the height of the residential berm be?


Mr. Pargoff answered, three to four feet.


Ms. Lemke stated that particular section in 2509 asks for a berm and plant material and canopy trees. She stated it is not either/or, it is combined together, so there are still shrubs and canopy trees that add another 45 feet on top of the berm which is quite a lot of screening. She expressed concern with the R.O.W. planting, stating she has never been happy with the section and it probably needs to be modified. Ms. Lemke stated there is a safety liability concern that is becoming more prevalent, where parking lots should be able to be seen into and the doorway to a business should be visible from a major road. She also expressed a concern with the inflexibility. A concern with the R.O.W. plantings is that the intent is to screen the whole R.O.W. and not just the parking and the vehicle use areas, she thought maybe this needed to be reworded.


Member Churella stated he would like to send the Matter back to the Implementation Committee, and have it cleaned up and then bring it back to the Commission for a vote.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated it is not an Implementation Committee matter.


Mr. Watson explained they are items that the Commission pulled from the Zoning Ordinance re-write. A recommendation was sent to Council, Council will look at most of it on March 1, 1997 and they are looking for further recommendation from the Commission.

Chairperson Lorenzo entertained a motion one way or the other to maintain the language or to allow Ms. Lemke and Mr. Pargoff to refine the language with Mr. Watson







Chairperson Lorenzo entertained an alternative motion.


Member Csordas was not sure why all of the berms should be required for all of the developments. He stated there were a couple of locations currently within the city where businesses are located across from residential without berming and it does not seem to be a problem. He did not think it would be wise to have berms located all around the city.


Member Markham thought it depended on the site. She gave an example of 20 foot berms along Telegraph Road in Bloomfield Township, she stated it is nice to drive and it protects the residential community located behind it. It is well landscaped and changes with the seasons, she thought there were places where these types of applications are wanted and places where they are not.


Mr. Watson was familiar with the area that Member Markham was speaking of because he is located near it. He stated that is an area where the berms are located on the residential side of the property.





Moved by Markham, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To ask Ms. Lemke and Mr. Pargoff, based on the discussion, to rework the language with Mr. Watson.


Ms. Lemke asked for clarification if the motion was referring to the R.O.W. plantings to number 6 and 2509 because it all ties together?

Chairperson Lorenzo stated if it all ties together than it should be worked on together.





Yes: Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Churella, Csordas, Lorenzo

No: None


Member Vrettas asked if the Commission could take a break. He explained that the Commission was holding up Mr. Healey who does not need to hear about the Zoning Ordinance. He stated he has observed the other Commissioners stating that they are starting to drift, he thought a break was needed.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked Member Vrettas if he would like to make a motion to break?







Mr. Watson thought there was direction on the remainder of the items.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated there was but she wanted to make sure there was a motion to do so, she does not like to do things unofficially.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked, in terms of Section 1905, all of the previous discussion and the things that came from the Implementation Committee regarding I-1 next to residential, does the Commission want to accept it and pass it on to City Council? She entertained a motion to do so.


Mr. Watson stated there was also the revision to Section 2520.





Moved by Bononi, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Section 1905 as amended.





Yes: Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Churella, Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo announced the Commission would take a ten minute recess.






Chuck Young, 50910 West Nine Mile stated he attended the Implementation Committee meeting and was very impressed because he has been involved with trying to get the communications open, particularly on the Levy program. He stated he was very impressed, it was very gratifying to him and he encouraged the Committee members to keep up the good work.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Audience Participation.


Mr. Watson restated the change to Section 2520, the elimination of paragraph seven which was duplicating the Section 4 Provisions.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated it would be done Administratively and asked if there were any other additional changes or comments?


Member Bononi asked, in the Schedule of Regulated Use of Exterior Building Wall Facade Materials, if the OST classification could be included?


Mr. Rogers stated, offhand, the OS-1, OS-2 Section is where he would include it.


Member Bononi referred to page 14, letter H, where it says, "Plain faced C.M.U.’s..." and "Ground, polished, varnished and striated face C.M.U.’s forming a running bond pattern..." should state that they are not considered decorative. She thought it was very subjective and thought the language was unclear.


Mr. Watson thought the reason Member Bononi referred to the word "decorative" was because the item that was permitted was decorative colored scored C.M.U.


Chairperson Lorenzo clarified it to read, "Plain faced C.M.U.’s are not permitted."


Member Bononi referred to letter (k), because it referred to something else that was not permitted, she asked what was being referred to when it talks about colored plastic and acrylic?


Mr. Rogers gave the example of Marty Feldman, he stated there is a significant section of plastic that is translucent. He referred to signs or wall panels.

Member Bononi thought it was fine as long as the Commission knows what it is talking about.


Mr. Watson clarified it is talking just about facades.


Mr. Rogers agreed.


Member Bononi referred to letter (j) and asked if the building material was approved. She also asked about the effect of the structure on night lighting or on the night sky and how it would be determined?


Mr. Rogers did not know what the emissions were, he believed it would be illuminated.


Member Churella stated there is one locate on Five Mile and it does not illuminate into the sky. He stated it is covered in the winter and it gives very little light.


Member Markham did not think that air structures that illuminate from the inside should be excluded because it would defeat the purpose. However, she suggested using some method to monitor, measure or have some affidavit that speaks to that. She asked if Illuminating the night sky was addressed elsewhere in the Ordinances?


Mr. Rogers answered, yes, it must illuminate only the parking lot in any zoning district. He stated direct light cannot be used on adjacent property. He asked if the light comes through the dome in the winter, thus eliminating the need for artificial lighting?


Member Markham asked Mr. Healey if he has had any experience in the past?


Glenn Healey stated they definitely have lights, he could not answer the question as to how many kilowatts. He stated it does not glow where it can be seen for miles. He did not have any measurements so it was difficult for him to answer.


Member Vrettas asked if there were different types of domes where the amount of lighting coming out could be controlled?


Mr. Healey stated he was sure the lighting could be controlled with the opaqueness of the materials used, however, it was not something that he has researched.


Member Csordas asked if this what was currently used in West Bloomfield?



Mr. Healey answered, yes. He did not know how much light it puts off as he has never measured it.


Member Csordas asked if anyone has ever complained?


Mr. Healey answered, no.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any other comments or suggestions regarding Section 2520?


Chairperson Lorenzo referred to page 15, number 5, "Changes to the facade design or substitution of materials not represented on the sample board at any time after approval by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development for approval. A determination will be made whether the revisions necessitate repeating the facade review process, described in subsections 3 and 4 above." Chairperson Lorenzo assumed the changes were those that still met the standards and did not need a waiver.


Mr. Rogers answered, yes. Sometimes the supplier of the brick cannot get enough of one color. As long as it is an earth tone, he stated he relies on Mr. Cohen to approve it.


Mr. Cohen stated it used to be himself, however, Doug Necci of JCK currently does it, as he is a professional.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the Commission could clarify that design substitutions still comply with the approved materials so that they know that the changes are not going to be something completely different than what was approved.


Mr. Rogers answered, yes.


Chairperson Lorenzo entertained a motion accordingly.





Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Section 2520 with the amendments.


Mr. Watson clarified the changes that were voiced were the amendment to footnote (h), the striking of the additional paragraph, the revision to subpart 5, which dealt with revisions to the materials provided, and adding the OST to the facade chart.





Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Churella, Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas

No: None





Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the uses were postponed by the Commission and they were summarized by the City Attorney in his letter dated January 6, 1997. Mr. Rogers referred to the letter, he stated in Section 1901, it says add "as a permitted use in the I-1 District, a new line item entitled, publicly owned and operated parks, parkways and recreation facilities." In Section 1902, add "indoor recreation facilities including but not limited to health and fitness facilities in clubs, swimming pools, tennis and racquet ball courts, roller skating facilities, ice skating facilities, soccer facilities, baseball and softball practice areas, indoor archery ranges and similar indoor recreation uses also outdoor recreation uses when combined with an indoor recreation facility including but not limited to play fields, playgrounds, soccer fields, swimming pools, tennis and racquet ball courts and ice skating facilities. In Section 1903, to delete in its’ entirety the special land use, "indoor tennis courts, roller skating rinks and ice skating rinks." Mr. Rogers stated these were earlier recommended in a draft, however, the Commission wanted to postpone and rethink them.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked in Section 1902, would they be subject to special land use and a Public Hearing?


Mr. Rogers answered yes, if they are contiguous and adjacent to any residential district, however, if they are separated by a road, they would not be. He stated the qualifier can be found in the beginning statement of Section 1902.


Member Bononi expressed concern with the matter Mr. Rogers mentioned. She was not in support of not having the special land use designation proposals of sight and separated by a street or ROW because the ordinance does not speak to the size or type of the recreation facility. If there were language to distinguish between such usages, she thought it would be reasonable.


Chairperson Lorenzo entertained a motion.






Moved by Bononi, seconded by Vrettas


Mr. Watson stated currently there is a distinction, if recreational uses are inserted in 1902, there would have been a distinction as to whether it was a special land use when it was adjacent or not adjacent to residential. Mr. Watson stated changing that section would eliminate it to all of the uses. He did not know that this was what was intended.


Member Bononi stated she just wanted to eliminate street, road, highway or freeway as being a determinant not to have a special land use review.


Mr. Watson asked Member Bononi, irrespective of whether the special land use is a recreational facility, that would be the way to do it. It would make everything in Section 1902 a special land use.





Moved by Bononi, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend Section 1902, first paragraph, second sentence to eliminate the words "street, road, highway or freeway".


Mr. Watson stated then it would allow the recreational uses as a special land use.


Mr. Rogers commented under Section 1902 and it would be taken out of Section 1903.


Mr. Watson stated the motion refers to indoor recreational facilities, there was also originally in Section 1901, going to be publicly owned and operated parks, parkways, and recreational facilities.


Chairperson Lorenzo thought unless someone makes a change, it will remain as is. She asked the motion maker and the seconder if they wanted to include sending it to City Council for a positive recommendation?


Member Bononi answered, yes.


Member Vrettas answered, yes.


Member Churella thought by eliminating it, there would be a problem down the road. He asked if apartments were classified as residential?


Mr. Watson answered, yes.


Member Churella stated if a project in an I-1 zoning abuts apartments, and the applicant wants to put a road in, the ordinance is saying that he will not be able to do it.


Member Markham disagreed stating that the ordinance is telling the applicant that it is a special land use.


Chairperson Lorenzo agreed stating that the applicant can still put the road in but it needs to be reviewed with a Public Hearing.





Yes: Bononi, Churella, Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None



e. SECTION 1903.7


Chairperson Lorenzo stated Matt Quinn is requesting that the Commission consider increasing the percentage limit from the existing 10% to 15% and delete any reference to any specific square foot limitation. Also to allow it within retail use within an industrial park and not necessarily as it pertains to light industrial buildings that are contained within an industrial park.


Member Bononi proposed to leave the ordinance as it is for the purpose of leaving I-1 as it is. She was not in support of the removal of the 2,000 square foot cap in R-1 regarding retail showroom sites on thoroughfares because she did not believe the intent of the ordinance was to attract retail users to I-1. By allowing those who seek visibility a straight percentage, slowly escalates and promotes retail. She did not agree with it and was not in support of it.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any further comments. Seeing none she stated the Commission has not taken action on it and moved on.





A vacancy in the Committee needs to be filled with an additional Planning Commissioner.


Chairperson Lorenzo announced a vacancy exists on the Capital Improvements Program Committee and needs to be filled.


Member Csordas volunteered to fill the position.


Mr. Cohen stated he would have Larry Frey, the Planning Aide, coordinate a time schedule.


Chairperson Lorenzo thanked Member Csordas for volunteering.








Glenn Healey, President, wishes to present his conceptual site plan to obtain the insights and suggestions of the Planning Commission.


Glenn Healey, stated his plans are very preliminary, his reasoning for coming before the Commission was to try to get some feedback with regard to the project before he undertakes the expensive site plan process. He enclosed materials, including a map that shows the location of the site. He also included a rough drawing of the dimensions of the buildings that are tentatively planned for use and how they would initially fit on the lot. Mr. Healey clarified that the Sports Club is a private enterprise and a private investment, while he is delighted to be developing on the same site as the ice arena, there is no connection whatsoever, financially or managerially.


Mr. Healey stated he runs a successful business in West Bloomfield and he has owned it since mid 1991. A major renovation was done and a new strategy was implemented in 1994, which has been very successful. He stated the reason for its’ success was because they offer many ways for people to use the facility which includes memberships as well as a series of programs. He stated they also offer a series of programs through West Bloomfield Community Schools, education including water aerobics, martial arts, preschool playgroups and preschool dance and ballet. He estimated there were about 10,000 different users of the club in 1996.


Mr. Healey stated he would like to build a similar facility in Novi that would include everything there is in West Bloomfield, with the addition of gymnastics. It would include a fitness center and fitness memberships would be sold. It would also include an aerobic studio, eight (8) indoor tennis courts, four (4) outdoor tennis courts, gymnastic center, outdoor swimming facility that would be enclosed during the winter months, a martial arts center, separate adult and children’s locker rooms, an indoor/outdoor snack bar, kids party rooms and a small outdoor playground. He would offer the same range of services as indicated in his handouts. He reiterated that the site plan is very tentative. The idea was to put the air structures on the other side of taller buildings and have them on the far end of the lot abutting the wetlands. He also set it up this way so that if there was a special event and the ice arena needed to share parking, the parking lot would abut their site. Mr. Healey asked for some advice and feedback before he undergoes the expensive site plan process. He stated it was the suggestion of Mr. Cohen after talking with the Chairperson, that he do it in this manner.


Chairperson Lorenzo turned the Matter over to the Commission.


Member Csordas asked Mr. Healey if he has met with any of the consultants yet, as far as compliance with ordinances, etc.


Mr. Healey answered he has had some preliminary meetings and it has been difficult because it would be subject to the changes to the Zoning Ordinance that were being discussed earlier. He stated he has had some discussion regarding the engineering work and consulting work associated with the site. He stated it has been difficult to completely assess the right process because the Zoning Ordinance somewhat influx.


Member Vrettas stated the concept of the organization was never a question in his mind, he wanted to see it happen in Novi in a place that was in everyone’s best interest. He felt that this has been done and commended Mr. Healey, thanked him and wished him the best of luck.


Member Markham liked the fact that the organization was coming to Novi. She felt the site in Novi was a better one than the one in West Bloomfield, she also appreciated the fact that Mr. Healey has tried to be environmentally sensitive thus far in how he is orienting his facility. She hoped Mr. Healey would do everything he can to maximize the green space and the landscaping around it. She liked the fact that the air structures will be located toward the rear, she was interested for Mr. Healey to obtain some information regarding the light that is emitted in the evening. Member Markham encouraged Mr. Healey to try to blend everything that he does into the environment.


Chairperson Lorenzo commented on storm water drainage and its’ relationship to the adjacent wetlands, she did not see any proposal for a sedimentation/water quality basin, she was not sure where the water was going to be discharged. In terms of swimming pools, she asked where will the chlorinated water be discharging? Other than these concerns, Chairperson Lorenzo stated the Commission looks forward to receiving Mr. Healey’s application.






Presentation from Chris Pargoff, City Forester regarding Twelve Mile Road Landscape Plan.


Chris Pargoff, City Forester passed out maps to the Commission. He stated he has received permission from City Council to ask the authority to go to the county and ask the county for permission to implement the plan of planting Twelve Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the islands just west of Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Pargoff stated the planting plan covers the M-5 area and the power corridor on a north/south basis. It consists of primarily shade trees on the island, they are flanked by the city shrub, the Korean lilac, from Haggerty to M-5 are the city tree, the red maple. On the north and south side of the street are proposed crab apples and street lighting is also proposed. He stated a final determination will not be made regarding the lighting, it is similar to an area along Grand River, between Eight Mile Road and Middlebelt Roads.


As a part of the program, there is a "Welcome to Novi" sign which will be on the first island at Haggerty Road. It consists of two signs pointed at a 45 degree angle so they would be visible from northbound traffic along Haggerty Road and southbound traffic on Haggerty Road, and entering traffic, westbound along Twelve Mile Road. Mr. Pargoff stated four signs were presented to the Beautification Commission and the two that he is presenting are the two they liked the best. The funding of the signs will be the critical issue. He stated the signs are larger than the sign ordinance allows, so he will either go to the ZBA to obtain a variance or adjust the dimensions of the signs.


As indicated in his presentation to City Council, there will be a sprinkler system. In order to better control the sprinkler system, he felt it would be better to have a manual system rather than an automatic timer system that could over water the trees.


Member Vrettas asked if the planting plans were final or was Mr. Pargoff willing to accept suggestions?


Mr. Pargoff asked to hear his suggestions.



Member Vrettas suggested large trees on either side of the road that shade the road. He did not know if there would be safety concerns involved but he thought it was an elegant look.


Mr. Pargoff stated this was the situation he would have liked to have put in, however there were several considerations about the crab apples on the north and south side of the road. The area is not finalized yet and he wanted to allow some visibility for any businesses or office buildings that may be built. In addition, between M-5 and Haggerty Road, there are power lines on both sides of the road, this was one reason the crab apple trees were looked into. Mr. Pargoff stated in the future, he hopes to have Edison lines strictly on the north side of the road.


Member Churella asked if a long range plan of extending the boulevard to the western boundary has been considered?


Mr. Pargoff answered, yes. The plan that the entire length emanated from, was the plan that Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout is putting together for the boulevard from Haggerty Road to Dixon Road. He stated the planting plan is a part of it, and was picked up and used to develop the drawing. He stated the whole area is being looked at to create unified intersesctions.


Member Churella stated a land acquisition would be a lot easier.


Mr. Pargoff stated Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout is working on that portion of the road.


Member Csordas asked if the style of lighting was the same style that Farmington Hills used?


Mr. Pargoff did not believe so. He stated along Twelve Mile Road in Farmington Hills there is not enough illumination. The area he referred to on Grand River between Eight Mile Road and Middlebelt Road is also in Farmington Hills, however, he believed a lot of the push to get that project implemented came from Botsford Hospital.


Member Markham liked the tree planting part of the proposal, however, the signs kind of left her "cold", in her view they did not have a lot of pizazz. She asked if Mr. Pargoff would consider having a design contest in the community, allowing people who want to design a sign for Novi the chance to design something and then let the people who are going to pay for it, pick the one they want to have made.



Mr. Pargoff stated one of the proposals is to have the community service groups that may be financing the signs, have their logos on the pillars.


Member Weddington liked the plan, she commented about the size of the signs. She stated if the City cannot live within its’ own Ordinances, there is something very wrong and she strongly suggested the size comply with the Ordinance.


Chairperson Lorenzo thanked Mr. Pargoff for sharing his presentation with the Commission.





Member Weddington referred to a copy of a notice to the City Clerk from MSU that was included in the packets, regarding a land use conference. She thought it would be very useful and helpful to the Commission, as it relates to open space planning. She hoped that someone from the Commission could attend on Tuesday, February 18, 19 and 20, 1997, in Lansing.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked the Commissioners if anyone thought they would be able to attend?


Member Weddington asked Mr. Cohen if anyone from the staff would be attending?


Mr. Cohen answered he did not believe so, and suggested maybe Mr. Frey or Mr. Pham could attend.






Chuck Young, 50910 West Nine Mile Road stated the S.W.A.N. members were not against Mr. Healey’s proposal. He stated he personally went out and looked at the site and it had nothing to do with it at all. He stated the City said, "this is good for you, this is what you need over here", the fallout from this caused tremendous distrust in his section of the city. He stated it would be very hard to overcome because balance is so important. He stated open communication must occur in the City, it is very important.





Moved by Churella, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:15 p.m.




Yes: Bononi , Churella, Csordas, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None





Steven Cohen - Staff Planner



Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

February 21, 1997


Date Approved: March 05, 1997