WEDNESDAY, JULY 02, 1997 AT 7:30 P.M.


(248) 347-0475


Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Weddington.


PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington


ABSENT: Members Bononi (excused), Churella (excused), Csordas (excused), Vrettas (excused)


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





Vice Chairperson Weddington welcomed Commissioners Brent Canup and Michael Watza.


Commissioner Brent Canup has lived in Novi for 32 years. He and his wife have been active in the Community in different aspects over the past years. He served on the ZBA for 14 years. He has two children, one living in Fenton and one living in Milford.


Commissioner Michael Watza has lived in Novi for 2 years, prior to that he lived in Northville and Royal Oak. He stated he is on the Board of Review and looks forward to serving as a Planning Commissioner.





Vice Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission is required by the by-laws to elect a new Chair for the Planning Commission.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Eda Weddington as Chairperson of the Planning Commission.


Vice Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any other nominees for the position of Chairperson? Seeing none she asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated there was a by-law that indicates if there is only one nominee for an office, the nominee is assumed to be unanimously elected. Therefore, Member Weddington was the new Chairperson of the Planning Commission.


Chairperson Weddington asked for nominations for the position of Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commisson.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Peter Hoadley as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any other nominations? Seeing none she announced that Commissioner Hoadley was the new Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission.


Chairperson Weddington asked for nominations for Secretary of the Planning Commission.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Kim Thomas Capello as Secretary of the Planning Commission.


Chairperson Weddington announced that Kim Thomas Capello is the Secretary of the Planning Commission.





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


Member Capello wished to move SP96-14C Speedway Service Station Rebuild for approval of Final Site Plan approval subject to all of the consultants recommendations to the Consent Agenda.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any other changes to the Agenda? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as amended.






Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None















Chairperson Weddington announced there were two items for approval, the June 18, 1997 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Pioneer Mortgage Company, SP96-32B for possible Preliminary Site Plan approval. Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any corrections to the minutes?


Chairperson Weddington referred to page 10, she stated there was discussion that was initiated by Member Vrettas regarding the applicant’s being homeowners as opposed to developers and it was not reflected in the minutes, she asked those comments be reflected.


Chairperson Weddington referred to page 13, paragraph 4, line 4 should read, "...needed to stop looking at the applicant as a homeowner versus a...".


Chairperson Weddington referred to page 23, after the second paragraph there was a series of questions asked regarding OST and they should be added.









Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the June 18, 1997 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as Corrected.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None


Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any comments or questions regarding Pioneer Mortgage Company, SP96-32B? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Pioneer Mortgage Company Preliminary Site Plan under the Consent Agenda.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None


Chairperson Weddington announced if anyone was present for the Matter of Pioneer Mortgage Company, the application has been approved.








Property located south of Grand River Avenue, west of Taft Road for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property from Residential Acreage District (RA and Light Industrial District (I-1) to Office Service Technology District (OST) or any other appropriate zoning district.


Member Capello stated he has a financial interest in Kimbob LLC. He stated it was his intent to build an office and he would be part owner of the building and occupy it for his law office, as such he thought he should remove himself from the discussion and voting on the issue.


Matt Quinn spoke on behalf of Kimbob, Inc. who is the property owner of the subject property being requested for a rezoning. Taft Road is the north/south road, Grand River Avenue is the east/west road. The Kimbob property is west of Gatsby’s. The northerly property which is part of the same parcel and owned by the corporation is already zoned I-1, the preliminary plan is to develop the northern portion of the property as an industrial condominium park with a private road driveway coming in off of Grand River. The back portion of the property that has been continuously owned by the same corporation has been zoned RA. Mr. Quinn referred to a historical drawing of the industrial property. He stated the I-1 property runs from east to west, everything to the north is I-1 and to the south is Residential. He stated the one property that was involved that did not have a straight line on the Industrial/Residential zoning change was his particular property, it went down to the south area. He stated it made sense to develop the property contiguously with one common plan. The parcel is an isolated parcel for development and the only way it could be developed was for development with the Industrial property to the north. From the east, south and west there is no way to develop the isolated parcel as a residential area which is currently zoned RA, the only way to develop it would be in combination.


Mr. Quinn stated when the OST abuts a Residential district, it requires a minimum of a 100' buffer. He stated there was more than 100' to the south, well more to the east and west and the significant woodlands creates a natural buffer, therefore he believed that the opacity requirement would be met.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant reviewed Brandon Rogers letter dated June 23, 1997. The Master Plan recommends the site as single family residential. The density is designated for 0.8 dwelling units per acre and the small portion for Light Industrial. The property to the north is proposed for Light Industrial use, the property to the south, east and west is proposed for Residential use. Regarding zoning, directly to the east is R-2, the remainder of the property to the south and west is zoned RA. Mr. Rogers noted that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee reviewed a number of split zoning cases on April 30, 1997 and he indicated that the Committee voted and did not recommend rezoning and recommended that the issue be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rogers did not recommend the proposed rezoning. He indicated that there was no proof that the residential roadway could not be introduced into the area, he expressed concern to allow the penetration of non-residential zoning into a uniformly residentially zoned area and also a residentially planned area on the Master Plan, there was concern that it could set a precedence for other similar rezoning requests in the area. There is substantial property to the north which can accommodate future industrial development and Mr. Rogers indicated that the subject property serves as a buffer to the residentially planned and zoned areas to the south. He did not see a compelling reason for it to be developed non-residentially.


Mr. Rogers reported if it were to be rezoned, there would be questions raised about the impact on the Andes Hills development project. It would allow I-1 development on the parcel to the north of the subject property. Further, it appears that the office building footprint would have at least 50% intrusion into the regulated woodlands. Referring to the portrayed concept, the building appears to be at the edge or into a regulated wetlands and would also encroach into a required wetland setback area. Approximately 75% to 80% of the subject site is occupied by regulated woodlands or wetlands. Mr. Rogers did not understand why a 10' strip of I-1 zoned property at the north edge of the property is to be considered for rezoning to an OST District and thought the issue should be addressed. Prior to any rezoning of the area Mr. Rogers recommended that the Planning Commission first revisit the Master Plan for Land Use.


Mr. Arroyo reviewed his memorandum dated June 25, 1997. He stated the purpose of his memorandum was to provide a trip generation comparison. He stated it has been indicated that it appears that two single family units could be constructed on the property if it were to remain RA zoning. Approximately 20, 24 hour trips, 3 trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Two other scenarios that were looked into were Research Development, generating 252, 24 hour trips, 30 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 32 trips during the p.m. peak hour and an Office Development under the OST zoning which generated 378, 24 hour trips, 50 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 52 trips during the p.m. peak hour.


Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Hoadley stated he has been out and walked the property. He stated when the project came before the Committee he served on, he made a motion to leave it the way it was, however, at that point in time he did not have an opportunity to really look at it. He stated the property is basically land-locked and if it were to remain RA, there would still be as much intrusion, if not more, into the wetlands.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Quinn to clarify the 10' strip as he understood the petitioner to be rezoning 4.3 acres.



Mr. Quinn stated the reason for the 10' strip was because there is so much regulated woodlands and wetlands behind the proposed building, it has been moved up 10' and in order to do that, the rezoning line had to be moved up 10' to keep enough parking.


Member Hoadley asked what was wrong with the idea of making one contiguous zoning of Industrial?


Mr. Quinn answered the intent of the OST also includes being a buffer to Residential. The buffering of the OST is stronger than the buffering for an I-1. In regard to setbacks, the OST requires a minimum of a 100' setback when adjacent to Residential while the I-1 does not. Mr. Quinn stated the OST also gives more flexibility in the possible users that can develop as compared to the I-1.


Member Hoadley stated there was still intrusion into a regulated wetland. Even with a rezoning, there was no guarantee that the property would ever be able to be developed RA, I-1 or OST because of all of the problems. Member Hoadley asked if there was any room to move the site to high ground?


Mr. Quinn stated it was already on the highest ground. One problem was that there was a storm water detention basin for Gatsby’s. He stated the property owner made a contract with Gatsby’s to allow them to keep their storm water detention basin on the site. He suggested the possibility of moving the parking around, allowing the building to move up, therefore, locating the parking on the higher and dryer areas available.


Member Hoadley stated he was satisfield that the property could not be developed in an RA manner because there were no cuts off of the cul-de-sac. He asked if this was correct?


Mr. Quinn answered that was correct.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup, CARRIED (3-1): To send a positive recommendation for Zoning Map Amendment 18.567 to rezone from RA to OST.





Chairperson Weddington expressed concerns about the rezoning request. She thought the proposal was nice and stated she would also like to see the OST Ordinance amended in certain areas, however, she agreed with the comments in Mr. Rogers’ letter. She did not see any other parcels changing along that area, therefore, she stated she would not be supporting the motion.


Member Canup stated he seconded the motion because of the fact that he did not see what could be done with the property other than what is proposed. Also because of the fact that it is somewhat landlocked, he felt that it was not feasible as Residential.


Mr. Rogers stated he attended the Master Plan & Zoning Committee Meeting and his feeling was that a significant portion of the site was impacted by regulated wetlands and woodlands. He could not see a real advantage to extend the non-residential into the uniform residentially zoned area.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Rogers to clarify the uniformity issue and the line that has been drawn between the I-1 and Residential Districts.


Mr. Rogers stated the line has been in place since the 1984 Zoning Ordinance and the 1980 Land Use Plan. He recognized that it splits an ownership parcel, however, there are a number of the same types of splits along Grand River. He stated this was what the Master Plan & Zoning Committee was trying to address, however, there was nothing wrong with a zoning district line possibly splitting a large ownership parcel.


Member Hoadley stated the land was not developable under RA zoning. He stated perhaps it could be developed Light Industrial or OST. Member Hoadley stated the applicant should have an opportunity to develop it somehow, but he did not see how it would ever be able to be done under RA zoning.





Yes: Canup, Hoadley, Watza

No: Weddington





Property located north of Grand River Avenue, east of Taft Road for possible Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit approvals.


Don MacMullen of MacMullen Architects, P.C. introduced himself.


James Marshall, Vice President of Corrigan Moving Systems introduced himself.


Mr. Marshall stated the site was a 14 ½ to 15 acre site. He stated it has about 4 acres of wetlands that is not infringed upon. 106,000 square foot storage warehouse is proposed to be built on the northerly end of the property. Access will be off of Grand River where there will be some parking as well as a fire access. He showed the area for truck circulation and office staff parking. Water will come in from Grand River and then looped through an existing vein. Sanitary will come down and go through the wetland, he stated he was currently working with the DEQ to obtain permission to do it. Mr. Marshall stated excel/decel lanes have been provided on Grand River.


Mr. Marshall stated the building will be used for furniture storage. The furniture is put into 7' x 5' x 8 1/2' palettes, they are then stacked three high in the building. The storage comes primarily from international customers. Mr. Marshall stated the north side of the building will be for records storage for commercial customers. He stated there is a 24 hour service and delivery which is serviced by two small trucks.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the plan meets off-street parking, the landbanked option provides additional parking in the event that the building is changed from a warehouse to a more intensive parking demand type use. 60 additional spaces are provided as grass and is developable and meets the setback requirements. The building meets the I-1 District setback standards, no Residential zoning abuts and all application data is provided. In regard to the Landscape Plan, Mr. Rogers stated details will be needed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Certain tree species have been changed and the design standards have been met. The Conceptual Facade Plan meets the terms of Section 2520 of the Zoning Ordinance and Doug Necci of JCK concurs as noted in his letter. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the applicant is proposing one point of access on Grand River Avenue. It has been aligned with the eastern entrance into Little Valley Homes. A deceleration/acceleration lane and passing lane are proposed, which will address the need to remove the right and left turns from the thru traffic stream.


In regard to trip generation, the warehouse can be expected to generate 517 trips during an average day and approximately 70 to 80 trips during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The applicant has submitted an abbreviated traffic study which primarily addresses trip generation information, in the event that the remainder of the site is to develop, then a full traffic study would be required and would need to be submitted with any site plans. Mr. Arroyo indicated that there may need to be some minor modifications to the access point from Grand River and can be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the comments in his letter.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated water mains will be extended into the site from the Grand River existing mains and will be run north into the site, along the eastern edge and then east through the wetland area and into water main stubs that have been left off of the Del Wal Development. Sanitary sewer will be extended from the interceptor which runs parallel to the Middle Rouge River, east of the site. County approval will be needed for the sanitary sewer to be run across the wetland to service the building. The site falls from Grand River to the wetland, the low end is at the northeast end corner. The applicant is proposing storm sewers through the parking areas to collect roof drainage from the roof and all impervious surfaces. The storm sewers will direct the discharge to the edge of the wetland on the east side, north of the parking areas. It will be temporarily detained here for sedimentation and water quality purposes and then released into the wetland. The applicant is also proposing gas and oil seperators prior to releasing into the temporary sedimentation basins. Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


In regard to the wetlands, Mr. Bluhm reported that Ms. Tepatti indicated that a wetlands permit is required for the site. There is a large wetland area off to the northeast of the site which wraps around the north side. The permit is required because there are several intrusions into the wetland, the most significant being the utilities that will be run across the wetlands to pick up and bring service to the building. The applicant also proposes to intrude into the buffer area for construction of the north end of the building. Ms. Tepatti also commented that DEQ permits would be required and intrusions into the wetland for the utility extensions would have to be restored to their original conditions. Ms. Tepatti recommended approval.


Chairperson Weddington 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.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has also received a letter from Douglas R. Necci which indicates a Section 4 waiver is not required.


Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Hoadley asked the applicant if he envisioned 517 trips coming in and out over a 24 hour period and asked if the use would be open 24 hours?

Mr. Marshall answered no. He explained the emergency service for the record storage requires one panel truck. He stated it was only used once every 3 or 4 weeks.


Member Hoadley asked where 517 trips was coming from?


Mr. Arroyo clarified that the use was evaluated as if it were a warehouse. The numbers were produced by using the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation factors for a warehouse. Certain warehouses will generate less, but this was based upon the national averages. Mr. Arroyo stated this use could potentially come in as a warehouse and down the road another warehouse user could come into the site and generate something more like the numbers shown.


Member Hoadley asked how many trips per day would the particular use generate per day?


Mr. Marshall answered normally it carries 14 to 16 trucks that leave in the morning and return in the evening.


Member Hoadley asked how many employees there were?


Mr. Marshall answered, to start there is probably a total of 15 to 18 employees.


Member Hoadley asked how many customers come in and out of the warehouse situation?


Mr. Marshall answered, very few.


Member Hoadley clarified that in actuality the use was looking at a maximum of approximately 100 trips per day. Member Hoadley referred to the impact assessment and expressed concern with some of the statements. He referred to the third page, first sentence which states that no more than 20 gallons of water could be used per day. He did not believe that this was a correct statement and asked for clarification.


Mr. Marshall thought this was a number from the winter, he thought somewhat more water than 20 gallons would be used, however, he stated it is a light usage.


Member Hoadley thought the impact statements should be reviewed and the discrepencies should be brought to the attention ahead of time and those corrections should be made. Member Hoadley referred to page 2 which states the building will not be heated. From a customer concern, he thought there would be tremendous humidity build-up if there was not any type of heating system to reduce it, causing damage to the furniture.

Mr. Marshall stated there were 12 warehouses, one of which was partially heated. He stated the humidity does not seem to be a problem, there are steel buildings in Ann Arbor, Toledo, Grand Rapids, Midland, Auburn Hills, Flint, Dearborn, Romulus and Farmington Hills and none of them are heated.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Marshall to confirm that he has never had a problem with the humidity nor any damage to furniture or furnishings because of the humidity.


Mr. Marshall answered he has never had a problem.


Member Hoadley asked if severe cold had an effect on the furniture?


Mr. Marshall stated when the containers that the furniture is put into are stacked together, the temperature, other than the outside boxes would not change 10 degrees all year.


Member Hoadley asked to see a color rendering of the facade.


Mr. Marshall did not have a colored rendering.


Member Hoadley stated he would like to see any applicant that comes before the Commission provide a colored rendering so the Commission has an idea of what the facade will look like.


Mr. Marshall stated the description of the building was such that roughly ¾ of it was light blue painted metal, the bottom consisted of split block, painted white. The office portion would have a glass facade on the corner, the east side of the building was all block and would be painted the same color as the metal on the three sides.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if regular concrete block was allowed?


Mr. Rogers clarified that the applicant was using split face concrete block, ribbed concrete block, cast in place concrete as a base and metal ribbed panel siding. He stated there was no plain CMU block being used.


Member Hoadley stated he was pleased to see this type of project come forward for development. He was sure the development would be an asset to the community.








Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland approval.





Member Capello stated there seemed to be a large vacant portion on the parcel in question, between Grand River and the front of the building, he asked if there were any plans for it?


Mr. Marshall stated there is a need for a central headquarters and there has been some discussion about a two story office building on Grand River.



Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Arroyo if there would be passing lanes and accel/decel lanes?


Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. They are shown on the plan and they will be required. He explained it was to ensure that the curbs could be set so if the road was widened in the future, they would be in the proper location.





Yes: Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup

No: None


Member Hoadley asked if the issue of being able to see a color rendering could be made a requirement.


Mr. Arroyo stated it was already a requirement in the Site Plan Manual. The applicant is required to bring a colored site plan, landscape plan and elevation drawing plan at least 24" x 36" in size.


Chairperson Weddington shared the interest of Member Hoadley.


Member Hoadley asked why the applicant was able to come forward without the requirements?



Steve Cohen, Staff Planner stated they are required to bring it to the meeting, they are not required to present it prior to the meeting.


Member Canup suggested that in the future, the Chair ask the petitioner if they have a colored site plan and if they do not, the Commission should not hear the case. He stated if it is written and documented that it is a requirement, the petitioner should be prepared.


Member Hoadley suggested in the future, the petitioner should be postponed and they should be told up front that this is what will happen.


Chairperson Weddington stated it might ensure that it gets to the Planning Commission if it is delivered along with the plans.


Mr. Arroyo read from the new Site Plan Manual, "a colored site plan shall be furnished to the Planning & Community Development Department prior to the Planning Commission Meeting."








Property located east of Clark Street, between Eleven Mile Road and Ten Mile Road for possible Revised Woodland Permit approval.


Clif Seiber stated he was before the Commission to request that the Woodland Permit be removed from the table and action be taken on it. He stated he has paid over $1,000 in fees and requested that final determination be made on the matter.





Member Hoadley had real concerns, he stated it has not been given approval by City Council. He thought a motion should be made to postpone a Woodland Permit indefinitely, pending a positive approval by City Council. If Council approves it, then he thought it would be an appropriate time to ask for a Woodland Permit.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney understood Member Hoadley to be suggesting to postpone the Woodland Permit until further action is taken on the Tentative Preliminary Site Plan.



Chairperson Weddington suggested a second option would be to deny the Woodland Permit.


Mr. Watson suggested a third option, if the Commission felt that it meets the Woodlands Ordinance, they could grant the permit conditioned upon obtaining plat approval.


Member Hoadley stated he was not prepared to do that, he also was not prepared to deny it because he might be in a position to approve it later on, if they present an acceptable site plan.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup, FAILED (1-4): To postpone indefinitely action on the Woodland Permit for Settler’s Creek Subdivision, SP96-22B until approval is granted by City Council.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Watson, in order for the petitioner to obtain approval, do they have to resubmit?


Mr. Watson answered they would not have to start from scratch with the Woodlands Permit, they could just submit a Revised Woodlands Plan. He stated they could submit a new application for Tentative Preliminary Plat approval and if the Woodland Permit is denied, they can also start from scratch on the Woodland approval. If it is postponed, they can simply submit a revision of it for the Woodlands Plan.


Member Capello asked if the applicant had any intent in revising the plan and resubmitting?


Mr. Seiber answered, not at this point. Based on the alternatives presented by Council, he stated he did not see any viable alternative. He did not forsee any revisions to the plan that would be acceptable to Council.


Member Capello stated he could see a lot sense in postponing if the applicant were going to redesign the plans and come back with something that is workable. However, in this case if the Commission is going to just sit on it forever, and when it comes back it will probably most likely be given a denial, why not go ahead and vote on it tonight.






Yes: Hoadley

No: Canup, Capello, Watza, Weddington





Moved by Capello, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To deny Woodland Permit for Setter’s Creek Subdivision, SP96-22B.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None





Property located at the southwest corner of Haggerty Road and Fourteen Mile Road for possible Final Site Plan approval.


Richard LaRowe of Tech Express represented Emro Marketing. He stated this is not quite the last step in the building, he explained that he is working out negotiations with Commerce Township for the utility taps. He stated the landscaping has been totally redone, the parking has been redone, the approaches have been adjusted and he felt they have come up with a good compromise for the site and it will definitely improve the convenience to the residents.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the Final Site Plan conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Site Plan. He stated the proposed facade plan reflects face brick on all sides, the roof HVAC’s are recessed behind the gable roof elements and are screened from view by alucabond panels.


Mr. Rogers stated the ZBA approved variances for the site size of less than an acre and the curb cut location on 14 Mile Road less than 100' on October 1, 1996. Mr. Rogers recommended approval of the Final Site Plan.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated he has also reviewed the Final Site Plan and he recommended approval.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated with the exception of the minor comments that the applicant made, he recommended Planning Commission approval with a subsequent Administrative resubmittal for the Site Plan.


Eric Olson commented in regard to the landscaping. He referred to the letter from Chris Pargoff dated June 26, 1997 and stated there seemed to be a slight conflict with utilities, therefore Mr. Pargoff recommended that some of the trees in that area be changed to lower canopy species.


Chairperson Weddington stated she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshall for the City of Novi which states the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.


Chairperson Weddington stated she has also received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states the drawings are consistent with his previous review, in which the design was found to be in full compliance with the Facade Ordinance. The revised drawings are therefore recommended for approval.


Chairperson Weddington then turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Hoadley asked to see the color rendering of the building.


Mr. LaRowe stated none was requested, however, he referred to his colored Site Plan.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated it was now a requirement for Preliminary Site Plan submittal, he suspected that when this project went through the Preliminary Site Plan stage, it was not a requirement.


Member Hoadley asked the applicant if this project was going to look identical to the one on Ten Mile Road and Novi Road?


Mr. LaRowe answered it would be very close, it was not identical. He explained that the building would be the same color brick, same color roof and the same materials.


Member Hoadley referred to the "no left turn" sign. He stated the site plan shows the sign for Fourteen Mile Road but does not for Haggerty Road. He stated there was a terrible stacking problem all day long. He did not see where a "no left turn" sign was on the site plan and stated he would withhold his support for the Final Site Plan until it was clarified or unless the petitioner agreed to do it. Secondly, there was no showing on the drawing in regard to the signage. He asked if the same signage was going to be used as at the station at Novi Road and Ten Mile Road?


Mr. LaRowe answered, yes. He stated the signage has gone before the ZBA and they approved one sign at the corner.


Member Hoadley asked about the left hand turns into the station off of Haggerty Road? He stated right hand turns could be made, but certainly not left hand turns.


Mr. Arroyo did not recall that being a condition. He stated that no left turns off of Fourteen Mile Road was a condition and the applicant does show the signage for that.


Member Hoadley thought a traffic hazard was being created, he thought it was mandatory to require a no left turn out of the site because it was dangerous. Member Hoadley stated if there was a positive recommendation for the approval of the Final Site Plan, he would have to vote against it.


Mr. Arroyo commented that the volumes on Haggerty Road, adjacent to the property, should decrease fairly substantially when M-5 is opened, therefore, it will be easier to turn out of the site.


Member Hoadley stated once that occured, he would be willing to allow the applicant to take down the signage, however, until that time, that situation does not exist. He stated he would be willing to support a motion for Final Site Plan approval, subject to the applicant putting a "no left turn" sign out of the site onto Haggerty Road.


Ted Bloom of Marathon Oil asked if there were certain hours that the left turn could be prohibited?


Member Hoadley stated there were no off peak hours, he stated there was no time during the day that the traffic does not stack past the driveway.


Mr. Arroyo understood the concerns of Member Hoadley, however, he believed that some flexibility could be used by not posting the sign where people would have the alternative going out to Fourteen Mile Road. He clarified that he tends to only recommend signage to prohibit turning movements when it is absolutely necessary because it could become an enforcement problem. He thought it should only be used in unusual circumstances and in this case, it is referring to stacking on the site and not on the public roadway. He stated if there was going to be a significant stacking problem on the public roadway, he would be more concerned.


Member Hoadley reiterated that he would not be in support of a positive recommendation unless that change was made.


Mr. Bloom stated he would not have a problem with including the signage because practically speaking, no one can make a left turn out of the site. He stated he would not have a problem doing it on a trial basis.


Member Capello clarified that if it were going to be done on a trial basis, the applicant would only be required to put up a sign and not actually construct a pork chop.


Member Hoadley agreed.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Final Site Plan approval subject to the Consultants concerns and Member Hoadley’s concerns regarding no left turn signage for SP96-14C.


Mr. Watson suggested to allow the applicant to return after a set period of time to revisit the issue of removing the sign.


Member Hoadley stated that M-5 would be completed in two years and suggested a two year limitation be put on it, or until M-5 is completed, whichever comes first.


Member Capello accepted it as a part of his motion.


In regard to the safety of the kerosene dispenser, Chairperson Weddington asked if it was still included in the site plan?


Mr. LaRowe stated there was a concern over the fire protection for the kerosene dispenser and the fire protection issue has been taken care of since then.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role.







Yes: Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None





Property located north of Grand River Avenue, west of Novi Road for possible Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Bob Redner, President of General Filters, Inc. apologized for not providing a colored rendering, he stated he was not made aware that it was necessary. He gave some history about General Filters. He stated the company manufactures fuel oil filters, power humidifiers and high efficiency air cleaners for residential homes. He stated he has been seeking site plan approval for almost one year and has discovered how complicated it has become due to the two proposed new roads, Crescent Boulevard and the Industrial spur. He stated Novi would like to run Crescent Boulevard through a large part of his property. The plan has required him to include Phase II and Phase III additions as shown on the drawing. He stated he has no target construction date for Phase II and Phase III, however, he felt it was important to show possible future additions in the event that the road project is completed. Due to the large number of unknowns with the road project, it has made the request more difficult. Mr. Redner addressed Mr. Rogers comments: 1) The north setback from the proposed Industrial spur. He stated he was told that the 20' setback on the north side would be acceptable, he considered it a rear yard and it was important that he maintain the 20' setback. 2) The need for a 2’ topo drawing. At the last meeting with JCK, Mr. Bluhm, said he would not need the drawing as the land was flat. 3) The 20' greenspace requirement on the north and east sides. Mr. Redner felt the requirement should be alright, if it was not, he suggested the City look at moving the road to make it fit into the 40' requirement. Mr. Redner stated he would be willing to do whatever the City normally requires in regard to landscaping. He stated he would coordinate it with the construction of Crescent Boulevard, the industrial spur and Phase II.


Mr. Redner hoped that the Planning Commission realized that there was a lot at stake with Novi’s proposed road project and the acquisition with part of his land. He felt he was entitled to develop his property as he proposed. He stated he was showing Phase II and Phase III because he felt it was very important in his long range planning prior to selling the land for the road.



Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the road leading into Progressive Tool was to be a private road in which case being a private R.O.W. there is frontage on a public road. The parking lot greenspace setbacks comply with Ordinance requirements except along north and east side adjacent to the proposed Expo Drive extension, 20' is provided and 40' is required. Mr. Rogers expected to see the items in his report addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The proposed conceptual building facade plan reflects certain upgrading, however, because they are adding to an existing building, they can continue the same materials of construction.


Mr. Rogers recommended preliminary site plan approval subject to: 1) Re-addressing deficient north yard setback for Phase 2 addition, or seeking variance for setback from 40' required to 20'; 2) Need to provide additional topographical application data at time of final site plan submittal; 3) Need consideration of waiver of east side greenspace setback by Planning Commission, based upon future R.O.W. of Expo Drive from 40' to 20'; 4) Landscape concerns as outlined in report need to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan.


Eric Olson added that there are a few regulated trees that the petitioner is proposing to save, however, he noted that if the trees needed to be removed, the petitioner would be required to come back for a Woodlands Permit.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated access to the site will come off of the new Crescent Boulevard extension. The existing access drive to Grand River is proposed to be abandoned. Crescent Boulevard will not permit left turns in. Crescent Boulevard construction will go up to, but not cross, the Rouge River. Mr. Arroyo provided trip generation information, based on a trip generation analysis, he did not believe that it would generate more than 100 peak hour, peak direction trips. In his opinion, a traffic study was not required, due to the magnitude of the development. Mr. Arroyo stated there was a triangular area within the parking lot that he recommended be striped out or curbed and landscaped to better define the internal circulation. He recommended approval subject to the comments in his letter.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated his office is currently starting the final design for the Crescent Boulevard extension. The applicant approached JCK to look at shifting Crescent Drive 40' east to its current location. JCK has been working with the State and the DPW and Mr. Bluhm believed the location to satisfy the needs of everyone. Sewer and water currently serve the building, the Fire Marshal has requested additional hydrants which are extended up and around the site for fire protection purposes. There are some utilities that are not shown properly, however, Mr. Bluhm stated they can be cleared up at the time of Final. The applicant is proposing a two-phased detention system for the site. To the south will be a site detention basin to handle the building run off and a good portion of the parking on the east side of the building. It will outlet into the storm sewers that exist in Grand River Avenue. The northern part of the site is bounded by the proposed public road and Crescent Boulevard. The applicant explored countless alternatives for detentionand it is felt that approximately 1/3 of the site is acceptable to be parking lot detention. It will outlet into the proposed storm sewers that are currently under design, which will outlet into the Rouge River. The permits for the outlets will have to done through the Crescent Boulevard plans.


In regard to the plans, Mr. Bluhm stated he would like to see an easement for sidewalk for Crescent Boulevard, near the approach into the Grand River Avenue area. He also noted that the parking lot and the associated site construction will need to be constructed after Crescent Boulevard is constructed or concurrently with those improvements. Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Chairperson Weddington 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) The 16' gravel drive on the west side of the building shall remain accessible to the F.D.C. If this drive is abandoned, the F.D.C. shall be relcoated to the front side of the bulding and an additional hydrant shall be provided within 100' of the F.D.C.; 2) The proposed outdoor storage area is in conflict with the note under "New fire hydrant". Clarify loction of outside storage.


Mr. Redner explained that Mr. Evans was concerned that the outside storage as shown, would be up against the building. Mr. Redner stated he explained to Mr. Evans that it would be located 15' away from the building, and the area on the plan was just showing the area that the outside storage would be located in.


Chairperson Weddington announced she received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK regarding Facade Ordinance Review. The letter indicates that the plan has been reviewed the application is in compliance with the Facade Ordinance and a Section 4 Waiver is not required.


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





Member Capello asked Mr. Rogers if outdoor storage was allowed in the I-1 District?



Mr. Rogers answered, no it is not allowed. He explained that it already existed and the applicant is reducing the area by ½. Mr. Rogers deferred to Mr. Watson on whether it required a waiver from the ZBA.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney assumed that the outdoor storage existed at a time when it was lawful under the Zoning Ordinance, he stated it would be a lawful non-conforming use.


Member Capello asked even if it were grandfathered in, once the applicant comes in for site plan approval, does the site plan have to comply with the Ordinance.


Mr. Watson stated modifications were allowed as long as it was not an expansion of a non-conforming use.


In regard the the setbacks along proposed Expo Drive, Member Capello asked Mr. Rogers if Expo Drive was the same road as Crescent Boulevard?


Mr. Rogers answered, yes.


Member Capello expressed concern with being able to see the outside storage if Crescent Boulevard is used as a part of the circular pattern.


Mr. Redner stated the outside storage will mostly consist of skids and baled cardboard. He stated he does maintain his backyard and did not see any other alternative.


Member Hoadley stated he was very uncomfortable with the plan as presented. He agreed with Member Capello that the area will be a premier showplace and he hated to see an expansion of a project that does not meet the current facade ordinances. He was also chagrin that there would be any outside storage and thought it should be screened if it were to be approved, he asked the applicant why this could not be done.


Mr. Redner stated the outside storage is as tall as the building and it would not be practical to screen or cover it because he would have to build another building to enclose it.


Member Hoadley expressed concern with parking lot water detention. He stated it causes flooding and asked how the applicant was proposing to eliminate the fluids that will come off of the pavement into the system?


Mr. Bluhm stated the applicant is required to provide oil and gas separators prior to release of storm water from the site.

Member Hoadley asked why some of the storage could not be done underground?


Mr. Bluhm answered the applicant will get some storage underground through the storm sewer pipes and they can possibly upsize some of the pipes to a reasonable amount to provide additional storage.


Member Hoadley asked if there were any other alternatives?


Mr. Bluhm answered that JCK has made the applicant explore other options and there are no other viable options for that area.


Member Hoadley asked what would happen in a ten year storm?


Mr. Bluhm stated it would be subject to the final design plans. At worst case, there would be a foot of water in isolated areas near the catch basins that may extend 30' or 40'. It would hold water for approximately 20-25 minutes and then recede back into the structure as it is released from the site.


Member Hoadley asked if the applicant could expand the area of storage so the detention would not have to be as high as one foot?


Mr. Bluhm answered yes, he stated there were things that they could do to minimize the storage depth. They could add structures, they could flatten out the parking lots and he stated he would be expecting to see those kinds of things at the time of final.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Bluhm if this was his recommendation?


Mr. Bluhm answered, yes.


Member Hoadley asked if there were any plans to upgrade the plantscape because of the desire to reduce the greenbelt area? He thought an increase in opacity was needed if the waiver were to be granted.


Mr. Olson stated along Crescent Boulevard, there is some existing vegetation, the applicant is proposing some evergreens and shrubs along there. He stated there is more room along the north side and he would have to work with the applicant about increasing the screening.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Olson if he recommended some other types of plantings that would provide additional screening?

Mr. Olson stated some Hemlock could be added, some Vibernum would be deciduous and provide a thick screening. He stated he could work with the applicant and come up with some other suggestions.


Member Capello thought if the building was refacaded, all three phases would replace more than 50% of the side building. He believed that unless all three phases were completed, the waiver for the 20' setback and the additional parking would not be needed. He suggested giving up some of the parking spaces within the 40' and when Phase II or Phase III comes in, the additional parking may be needed and it can be discussed at that time.


Mr. Redner stated that was not an option for him. He explained that he has agreed to sell the land for the road. He stated it all hinges on the approval of the three additions as they are proposed. He stated if he does not receive approval, the piece of land will not be for sale.


Member Canup understood the applicant to be a team player in helping the City, by selling some of his property in order to build the road. In doing so, the applicant is crippling himself to be able to develop under the Ordinances. Member Canup thought this needed to be taken into consideration. He stated putting the road through to alleviate some of the traffic problems in the City creates a problem for the applicant.


Member Hoadley stated that was exactly why he was not opposed to reducing the greenspace to 20'. He reiterated his main concern was with water retention on the premises and if there was an opportunity to improve the facade, he thought it should be done.


Member Capello asked if the additional parking was needed at this time or could the applicant wait until another phase?


Mr. Redner answered there would be no change in the parking until Crescent Boulevard and the spur are built and he builds Phase II.


Member Capello clarified that after the roads are built and before Phase II, the applicant will reduce the 40' of greenspace and add additional parking


Mr. Redner answered, yes.








Moved by Capello, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: For Preliminary Site Plan approval for General Filters SP96-43B subject to verification of the legality of the outside storage, the application shall return to the Commission for Final Site Plan approval, a waiver of the 40' setback at Crescent Boulevard down to 20' with additional plantings as well as the conditions of all of the Consultants as set forth in their letters





Member Canup asked how the motion would affect the phasing?


Mr. Watson stated it was approved with the phasing in that order.


Chairperson Weddington asked if the entire plan is approved with Phases II and III, is there a time limit by which construction needs to begin?


Mr. Watson stated there are restrictions within the Ordinances. He stated there is a time limit from getting Preliminary to Final and then from getting Final to commencing construction and the applicant will have to comply with those limits. Mr. Watson stated this may cause them to come back and seek extensions on later phases.


Member Canup understood that there would not be an impact on the changes until Phase II. He asked the applicant if he had a timetable for it?


Mr. Redner answered, no. He proposed Phase I to be 15,000 square feet and potentially it could last 15 years before he would need to start Phase II. He pointed out that it was important for the long range planning of General Filters to get approval for all three phases before he sells the land because he does not want to invest in Phase I and come back for Phase II only to be told that he cannot do it.


Member Canup stated the reason for his question was because 20' will not be of any impact until Phase III. At that time, more than likely, the actions of the Planning Commission will have expired by then.


Mr. Watson stated not necessarily. He clarified that the issue he would need to look into was the impact of the applicant commencing construction and going through construction on one of the initial phases to the subsequent phases. He thought this was a question that would need to be answered before they sell the land and he would look into the issue.


Mr. Arroyo stated it sounds like as a part of Phase I, the parking lot improvements and access improvements are not included in Phase I, but rather Phase II and Phase III and it is not presented on the plan. He stated if it was the applicant’s intent that the parking lot and the access not be improved as a part of Phase I, then the plan will have to reflect that and it will have to be reviewed in that manner, because it was not reviewed in that manner. He stated he heard this verbally and it posed a question, he stated he wanted to bring it up for clarification so everyone is clear what is being approved.


Mr. Redner stated he thought he needed to do the parking lot improvements together with the new roads and Phase II. When both roads are constructed, it will then require certain parking lot improvements at that time.


Mr. Arroyo stated the plan shows the parking lot improvement and the driveway improvements as a part of Phase I, and it sounds like the applicant is proposing something different. He stated it has not been reviewed in light of what is being proposed, with Phase I being constructed with a separate access and a separate parking configuration from Phases II and III.


Mr. Redner stated he did not know when the road was going in, where the State would go in on Grand River and it has made it very difficult. He stated he has applied 3 to 4 times and every time there is a change.


Mr. Arroyo recommended that if it was the applicant’s intent to construct Phase I potentially before the Crescent Boulevard improvements are put into place, that there be an alternative plan presented that would show how access and parking would be provided for Phase I, in the event that Crescent Boulevard does not go forward. He stated it has happened in the past where it was questionable whether a road was going in or if an improvement were going to be made and sometimes there is an alternative presented. Mr. Arroyo stated, the plan as presented would require the applicant to construct the improvements because the parking lot and landscape improvements are not phased on the plan.

Mr. Rogers agreed with Mr. Arroyo. He added that in a phasing plan, each phase should stand on it’s own in the event that Phase II or Phase III are never constructed. He asked Mr. Bluhm when he thought Crescent Boulevard would be constructed?


Mr. Bluhm answered it was projected as a 1998 construction, however it could be 1999 depending on permits.


Member Capello stated in making the motion it was his assumption that all site improvements would be completed with Phase I with the exception of the additional parking in the 40' greenspace area.


Mr. Redner stated the problem was that he could not do the final design on storm until he knows where the storms are located on the road. He stated he was willing to show it but cannot because they do not know at this time.


Member Capello asked Mr. Watson if the applicant would be required to post bond?


Mr. Watson stated the applicant would be required to bond for those site improvements that are shown being done as a part of Phase I.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Bluhm if this was something that could be worked out?


Mr. Bluhm stated from an engineering point of view, he thought the issue was more in regard to parking requirements. He stated a lot of the utilities, with the exception of the fire hydrants, could be done with Phase I. The other site improvements could be done in a later phase.


Member Hoadley asked if the applicant were to build a 15,000 square foot addition, is there adequate parking to support it?


Mr. Rogers answered, the aggregate parking lot is sufficient to serve Phases I, II and III.

Mr. Redner answered, he currently parks about 45 cars on the unmarked gravel lot for Phase I. The area for Phase II is also gravel and no cars are currently parked there, however, they can be.


Member Hoadley thought the plan should be postponed to give the applicant an opportunity to come up with something that can be approved.



Mr. Watson stated it was a catch-22 situation. The plans and construction and implementation of developing is not going to go through until the City has a committment to acquire the property and that is not going to happen until the applicant is satisfied that they have an approved plan. Mr. Watson stated the real issue was the plan should be revised to indicate that some of the site improvements are to be phased with the building. Another issue was that the applicant may want an alternative for doing Phase I in another fashion if the construction of the road is delayed longer than anticipated. I might behoove the applicant to have an alternative Phase I that is completed without the road. Mr. Watson asked the applicant if he anticipated wanting to construct Phase I before the road is completed?


Mr. Redner answered he wants to construct Phase I immediately.


Mr. Arroyo clarified a question that was raised earlier, the Preliminary Site Plan submittal shall show the precise boundary line demarcation of each proposed phase, along with the limits and extent of all proposed new improvements. He thought that Mr. Watson’s suggestion that there be an alternative Phase I, was a good one.


Mr. Watson asked Mr. Arroyo if he saw any reason that it could not be done as a part of the final site plan?


Mr. Arroyo answered, no.


Chairperson Weddington stated since the plan is coming back to the Commission for final, it could be incorporated. She asked the applicant if this could be done?


Mr. Redner answered it would be no problem.


Member Capello was concerned with the applicant going through the expenditure and then coming back to the Commission to have them say that they do not like certain things in Phase I, etc. He did not think it was fair, however, if the applicant wanted to take that risk...


Mr. Redner stated there were no site improvements planned for Phase I, he stated there is more than enough existing gravel parking, the existing gravel driveway would remain where it is.


Member Capello thought that according to the Ordinance, if the applicant were to construct Phase I, he would have to bring the parking lot up to current code.


Mr. Rogers added that there are certain landscape requirements as well.

Chairperson Weddington stated the alternative is to postpone the issue in order to work out some of the details and then come back in a few weeks. She asked Mr. Cohen if there was room on the Agenda?


Mr. Cohen answered, there is room on the Agenda, it is just a matter of whether or not it can be reviewed on time.


Mr. Redner asked what would happen if he said he would do all of the improvements as shown? He stated he could not do it because he did not know where the road was going.


Mr. Arroyo stated if the applicant is approved according to the plan, they will have to build according to it, if they want to do something different, they will have to come back with an amended plan.


Mr. Watson stated the problem is that the applicant will not be able to implement the plan, they will be waiting on the road.


Mr. Rogers asked if JCK knew the alignment of the road extension and what the height of the road would be, within one foot of elevation.


Mr. Bluhm answered, JCK was close with it, the things they did not know were the locations of the storm sewers. He stated there would definitely be some impact.


Mr. Arroyo thought there was a general feeling of what the applicant would like to do, the plan just has to be amended to reflect that. He thought the answer was to do a phasing plan, come up with an interim plan for Phase I, submit it for review and bring it back for consideration.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated it was his understanding that it was in the City’s interest and it is important that the plan receive approval in a timely fashion because if the negotiations do not proceed as discussed, he thought it could have an effect on putting the road back for some period of time. He stated the Department has been trying to move the planning process along in a reasonable fashion without any unusual time delays.


Mr. Watson stated that being the case, it would probably behoove the applicant and the City that the Department facilitate as best it can, whatever meetings are necessary to determine how the phasing is going to be depicted.



Mr. Wahl asked about things coming back at the time of final versus preliminary? He asked if it was a part of the plan?


Chairperson Weddington answered, that was one of the options.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None





Report back regarding Architectural/Design Review Program - Phase I. Review of proposals and contractural obligations for Architectural/Design Review Program - Phase II, Wireless Master Plan, and Master Planning for Auto Service Stations Study for possible approval.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone until the next Planning Commission Meeting.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None



















Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:50 p.m.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None




Steven Cohen - Staff Planner


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

July 16, 1997

Date Approved: August 06, 1997