WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1997 AT 7:30 P.M.


(248) 347-0475


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


PRESENT: Members Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley,

Vrettas, Chairperson Weddington


ABSENT: Member Watza (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 Steve Rumple








Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any changes or additions to the Agenda? She stated if time allows, she would like to add Report from the Master Plan & Zoning Committee on OST as Item 3 under Matters for Discussion.





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





Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None





Lynn Kocan, 23088 Ennishore Drive updated the Commission on the Nine Mile Road truck traffic route. She stated at the meeting of August 20, 1997 the Commission supported her letter and request to look at the Nine Mile Traffic going to and from Hickory Corporate Park. Since then, she stated the Council did not have to review the matter because on October 6, 1997, she received a letter from the Director of Public Services stating that pursuant to her letter, the Department requested the weighmaster to investigate and respond to the concern regarding traffic, the investigation was conducted and resulted in the weighmasters recommendation that additional signage be installed to redirect truck traffic to a more appropriate route. The route heads west toward Novi Road, directing truck traffic north and south on Novi Road. Ms. Kocan reported that the signs have been installed. She thanked the Commission for their support and their work.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to speak? Seeing no one she closed Audience Participation and announced there would be a second Audience Participation following the mid point break and a final before adjournment.










Chairperson Weddington announced there was one item for approval, the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 1997, she asked if there were any changes or corrections?





Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda, being the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 17, 1997.





Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None












Property located south of Grand River, west of Haggerty Road, seeking Preliminary Site Plan Approval.


Dan Halling explained that he was a tool broker and represented a lot of major companies, the building would be the headquarters. It will be located on Grand River, the building will be of the same design as Atlas Auto Leasing, it will be strictly used for offices.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated all application data was provided. The building complies with the NCC District setback standards, they do not meet the two acre minimum lot size or the 200' minimum frontage on the major thoroughfare, per the NCC District standards. The abutting property owners provided Mr. Rogers with information stating they were not willing to sell additional land to the applicant. If the applicant cannot comply with the standards for minimum lot size and width, they will have to seek a variance from the ZBA. In regard to off-street parking, 36 spaces are required which includes the 2 required handicapped spaces, the site plan shows 27 spaces.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated some information was missing and will need to be provided at the time of Final. There are Austrian pines on the eastern boundary in the area of the overhead utility lines, the trees will need to be changed to a sub-canopy tree such as a Service Berry or a Crab. The applicant will need to submit an itemized cost estimate for all plant materials, they will need to change the sizes to meet the Ordinance requirement on the Fraxinus Americana, the Amelanchier, Taxus cuspidata as listed in the letter dated September 22, 1997. Because the applicant is adjacent to residential on the south property line, they are required to provide a 6' berm with plantings. They are proposing a 6' high concrete wall with decorative masonry appearance, this will require 20' intermittent plantings and sub-canopy or canopy trees in addition to shrubs along the base of the wall. The plan indicates evergreen trees which are too close to the overhead wires on the adjacent property, Ms. Lemke recommended using a sub-canopy tree or a columnar canopy tree. The plantings abutting the R.O.W. next to parking and vehicle use areas requires a 36" high berm. The plan does not show any berm along that area, however, it does show a heavy screen. The height from the road to the parking lot is a 1' difference, therefore, they do not meet the berm requirements. The applicant needs to curb the islands and remove the evergreen trees on the islands. They need to delineate the type of plant material used for ground cover and the islands need to be tied into a drainage system or backfilled with a sand mixture. A 4' green space is now required immediately adjacent to the building on all sides, the plan meets the requirement except for the front facade which needs to have 60% of green space planted with shrubs and ground cover. Ms. Lemke stated there was no screening shown for the transformers and this needs to be indicated at the time of Final. There is a sign within the required corner clearance area and detail needs to be provided to show that it is not only 2' in height or it needs to be moved out of the clear view area. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan.


Mr. Rogers stated the conceptual facade plans depict faced brick dryvit on all elevations. He found compliance with Section 2520. In summary, Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to ZBA review of the deficient lot size and width and ZBA review of the deficient parking.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the plan proposes a water and sewer service lead in from existing utilities in Grand River Avenue to the building. Sanitary is on the south side and the water main has to be bored across Grand River. The applicant is proposing to put enclosed storm sewers in. The site is very flat but generally the grade falls from north to south. The proposed storm sewers will be outletted to a detention basin at the very south edge of the property, from that point, it is released into an existing storm sewer catch basin that exists south of the property and the applicant will need an easement for purposes of tying into the storm sewer. The applicant will have to provide an oil and gas separator structure prior to release into the detention basin. The plan shows a 5' sidewalk along the Grand River frontage and he suggested that the applicant consider making a change to an 8' asphalt pathway more in accordance with the Ordinance revisions that the City is currently undertaking. Mr. Bluhm stated the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated a center turn lane currently exists on Grand River which will provide access to the site, applicant is adding a decel/accel taper and lane to serve the proposed access point. The driveway does not meet the spacing standards and basically no driveway on the site would meet the spacing standards because of some of the existing driveways that are located across the street on either side. In terms of the offset from Grand Place Commons Drive, it is located to the east of the drive which provides the proper offset in terms of minimizing inbound left turn conflicts. Due to the unique circumstances in the area and the fact that there are no alternatives that would meet the spacing standards, Mr. Arroyo recommended that a Planning Commission waiver be granted for the driveways facing deficiencies. He noted that there were some minor modifications in regard to the parking lot, that would be necessary to meet the new Zoning Ordinance standards. The new standards call for a 19' long stall instead of a 20' long stall and the aisle widths should be modified to meet the 24' standard. Mr. Arroyo stated this can be addressed at the time of Final and recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the items indicated in his letter being resolved.

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following condition; to show the size and location of the proposed water main for the proposed hydrant.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK who has reviewed the plan for compliance with the Facade Ordinance and he finds that the proposed facade materials are in compliance and there is no need for a Facade Waiver, he therefore recommends approval.


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





Member Csordas asked the applicant to explain the unique configuration with the large kitchen inside, etc.


Mr. Halling explained that they are a food brokerage company with 15 salesmen. They are called a food service broker which means they are into the food service end of the business which relates to restaurants, hospitals, etc. He stated they represent Coldwater Seafood Corporation, McCormick Seasonings and North Pacific Canners and Growers. The kitchen area is used to demonstrate how a food product would relate to a customers kitchen in his restaurant, the storage area is used to store samples for salesmen to show.


Member Csordas asked the applicant if he received a copy of all of the consultants recommendations?


Mr. Halling answered that his architect did.


Member Csordas asked if there was a problem with meeting any or all of the landscaping concerns?


Mr. Holowicki answered no.


Member Hoadley asked to see a color rendering of the project. He also expressed concern in regard to the excess driveway. He stated the undeveloped lot next the project is only approximately 150' in width, if and when it is developed, they would almost be precluded from having another driveway. Member Hoadley stated he would like to see the Commission require that the driveway be moved over to the lot line so that a joint access could be made with the future developer or require that an easement and a cut be made from the applicant’s driveway into the other site.


Mr. Arroyo commented that the site to the west has already been approved for a site plan. It is Provident Medical Center and they are not proposing any driveways to Grand River, all of their access comes off of Olde Orchard, therefore, the conflict will not occur.


Member Hoadley stated that was satisfactory, however, he would still like to see a color rendering.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup, CARRIED (7-1): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to the Halling Company, SP96-29B subject to all of the consultants recommendations including the berm waiver and the driveway spacing waiver, ZBA approval is required for deficient lot size and width and the deficient parking and to have the plan return to the Commission for Final Site Plan approval.





In regard to the applicant asking for a wall versus a berm, Member Vrettas asked Ms. Lemke what the situation was on the properties on either side, he asked if they also have walls or berms?


Ms. Lemke answered, Provident has a wall in the rear with plantings.


Member Vrettas asked if a wall was approved for this project, would it be consistent with the neighbors?


Ms. Lemke stated it could be looked into for Final to make sure that they are compatible in design. A


Member Vrettas was concerned about the consistency with the neighbors. He asked the motion maker to consider adding, what the applicant does on the south edge of their property should be consistent with its neighbors.


Member Hoadley accepted the friendly amendment.


Member Bononi asked if this applicant as well as others are consistently being asked to bring forth color renderings?


Mr. Rogers answered it was his understanding that a color rendering is required in the office one week prior to the meeting and one is to be brought to the Planning Commission meeting.


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner stated a color rendering is required to be mounted and brought to the Planning Commission meeting and one is required for the Planning Department files. He stated it is a requirement of the Site Plan Manual, however, he did not personally contact the applicants today but normally the applicant is contacted the day of the meeting.


Member Bononi explained that she was asking the question because if the applicant has not been asked to bring forward a color rendering, she believed it was a rather unreasonable request to ask them to come back for a white on white color scheme. She asked if there was a way to conditionally do it to avoid the applicant from coming back to the Planning Commission?


Member Hoadley had a problem with deviating from the policy. He stated it was done once and he does not want to do it again. He felt very strongly about receiving the color renderings, he stated he wanted to see what it looks like. He stated he was going to stick to his motion.


Member Bononi saw no reason to make the applicant jump through hoops for a white on white color schemes. If the maker of the motion is not willing to amend the motion to include that, she would be willing to vote against the motion and bring a new motion on the floor to approve with that condition.


Mr. Rumple clarified that the Department does tell all applicants when they walk through the door, that it is a requirement that they bring the color renderings as a reminder, in addition, it is spelled out in the Site Plan Manual.


Member Capello asked about the green space as referred to in Mr. Rogers letter and asked if it was a part of the condition?


In regard to the green space, Ms. Lemke did not know if the applicant was planning on providing more green space in the front of the building with their resubmittal, she asked if the architect could comment?


Mr. Holowicki stated he turned Ms. Lemke’s letter over to his landscape architect and he has brought back the revised plan.


Member Capello understood the motion to require the applicant to have 48'.


Ms. Lemke agreed.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington

No: Bononi



Property located on Novi Road between Grand River and I-96, seeking Final Site Plan Approval.


Thomas Reder, architect with Ledy Design Group introduced Gabe Kassab, President of Elias Brothers Restaurants. He explained he was before the Commission for Final on the remodeling of the Novi Big Boy, he stated he has satisfied all of the consultants comments and was prepared to answer any questions.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the project is a company owned restaurant, the applicant is adding a 540 square foot addition on a 1.3 acre, TC zoned site. All application data has been submitted and they have to permit adequate green space. The applicant has converted angled parking to parallel parking that complies with the parking standards.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect spoke in regard to the planting buffers along the R.O.W., she stated the section requires trees to be planted a 10' buffer width and a 30" screening with berms and shrubs. Along Novi Road, a 30" screening height is proposed with shrubs, the buffer width is existing. The sidewalk is 10' from Novi Road, along the southern property line, there is essentially no property to add any landscaping near Town Center amenities. In regard to the interior requirements, no changes are being made to the parking lot except for restriping and parallel parking. There has been some additional green space added along Novi Road. The applicant is asking for a waiver from the interior green space under the Town Center Ordinance. The applicant has met the corner clearance, there are existing plants in the R.O.W., they have screened the dumpster and the transformer. They are adding the Town Center amenities in lighting and they are proposing a splash strip along the corner of Novi and Fonda Roads. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Landscape Plan.


Mr. Rogers thought it was highly advisable to connect the sidewalk to Bob Evans’ sidewalk and bring it down to Expo Drive where there is a sidewalk leading into the Expo Center. He recommended until the right turn decel lane is put in, that the sidewalk be reinstated or held in advance until a determination is made. The proposed building facades are brick, E.I.F.S. simulated limestone panels. The applicant is replacing the existing cedar roofing with PAC-CLAD galvanized, standing seam panels in a "copper penny" color. Mr. Rogers recommended Final Site Plan approval subject to the Section 4 waiver review.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the applicant agreed to post a construction bond for the sidewalk, light pole and some other Town Center amenities that may be impacted by the widening of Novi Road. The reason the plans were put together was to look and evaluate funding possibilities, it is not a sure thing and there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before it becomes a plan to be constructed by the City. Mr. Bluhm recommended approval of the Final Site Plan.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant recommended approval.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states he has reviewed the plans and based on drawings prepared by Thomas R. Reder, Architect, dated August 15, 1997, the percentages of materials have been analyzed against the schedule of regulating facade materials. The standing seam metal on the north right facade and rear west facade is in excess of the Ordinance maximum as is the E.I.F.S. dryvit material on the front or east side of the building. Mr. Necci noted that the project is located in the TC District which requires facades to be primarily of brick and stone. It was Mr. Necci’s recommendation that a waiver to Sections 2520 and 1602.9 be granted contingent on the submittal of material sample board indicating the following: 1) Copper standingseam metal roof matches material used in Town Center; 2) E.I.F.S. and simulated limestone match each other; 3) New brick matches or harmonizes with existing brick and all other materials.



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 turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Csordas asked Ms. Lemke to explain what Kaiser Lighting was.


Ms. Lemke answered it was the name of a manufacturer and the lighting standard required in the Town Center District.





Moved by Csordas, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Final Site Plan for Big Boy Restaurant, SP97-16D subject to all of the conditions and recommendations of the consultants, as well as ZBA waivers and also to grant a facade waiver under Section 4.


Member Capello stated there were still some facade problems. He noted that the applicant still showed the horizontal and vertical lines as being red stripes when they were specifically told they had to be of limestone.

Mr. Reder stated he did remove the red stripes.


Member Capello stated the plan in front of the Commission still showed the red stripes. In addition, it appeared in the facade waiver that the picture of the Big Boy was not being included as a part of the sign. Member Capello was making sure that the Commission was not approving it as a part of the Facade Ordinance. He stated the Big Boy and the lettering needed to go to the ZBA for any sign ordinance variance.


Mr. Reder stated he understood. He also clarified that the red strip was removed and apologized if the note was still reflected on the plan as it should have been removed.


Mr. Weisberger stated it would be better to state that it is subject to the building having no red horizontal stripes.


Mr. Wahl suggested that the motion could say that approval is contingent on the resubmittal of a final correct plan for stamping.


Member Csordas accepted the amendment as the maker of the motion.


Member Vrettas accepted the amendment as the seconder of the motion.





Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Canup

No: None




Property located on the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Novi Road seeking Prelminary Site Plan Approval.


Mark Drane of Rogvoy Associates Architects stated he prepared the plans and believed all application data to be submitted and also that his proposal meets or exceeds all of the Ordinance requirements. He explained he was proposing a Walgreens on the southeast corner of Novi Road and Ten Mile Road, the building is approximately 14,000 square feet, he is providing 20' greenbelt setbacks for the parking, it is bermed and landscaped and there is a drive thru facility for the pharmacy on the south portion of the building.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated all application data is provided, the building meets the B-1 district setback standards, the required parking spaces under the new Ordinance is 69 spaces, which are provided, off-street loading and unloading is provided in the rear. There will be two drive up pharmacy pick up windows. The applicant is proposing 8' asphalt safety paths along Ten Mile Road and Novi Road which an easement of access will be provided to do so.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the applicant meets all of the requirements. She noted there are no berms, and the parking lots are 4 ½’ below the road, thus providing the 36" screening requirement. Ms. Lemke recommended approval.


Mr. Rogers stated the conceptual building facade review indicated two different shades of brick, E.I.F.S. material, clear anodized aluminum panels, and concrete columns at the entrance. The compactor unit will be screened by a brick wall. Mr. Rogers concluded that the facade plan complies with the standards at Section 2520. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the applicant is proposing a service lead for water and sewer from existing mains in the Ten Mile Road area. A hydrant is to be placed on the site for fire protection. The site has about a 10' fall from the Ten Mile Road and Novi Road intersection to the southeast corner. The applicant is proposing to close storm sewers to pick up drainage where it will be discharged to the southeast corner. At the edge of the parking, there is a retaining wall planned with about a 3' to 4' drop into a detention basin. The detention basin will detain the flows from the storm water and outlet them into an existing drainage course which ultimately goes to the Chapman Creek. At the boundary of the site, there is another retaining wall planned which will drop down and meet the existing grade. Mr. Bluhm stated he had several minor comments that were to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan. He indicated that he would like to see the applicant provide more separation between the outlet into the detention basin and the ultimate outlet off site to provide more water quality. Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the number of access points was being reduced, there will be one point of access from each road upon which the site has frontage. There will be a need for improvements to extend the center left turn lane on the access point to Ten Mile Road, and provide for a decel/accel lane as required by the Design and Construction Standards. He indicated that there were some driveway spacing deficiencies because of the existing driveways, Mr. Arroyo recommended a waiver because of the improvements that are being made and the fact that the applicant is reducing the number of driveways that are currently being provided and placing them as far from the intersection as possible. The driveway on Novi Road is to be posted with a "No Left Turn" sign, due to the conflicts with the driveways that are upstream. In regard to the traffic study, Mr. Arroyo stated the project is forecasted to generate approximately 85 morning peak hour trips and under 140 p.m. peak hour trips. He also evaluated the drive thru facility, and found that the approximate 7 car stack is acceptable for the type of operation that is proposed. Therefore, based upon his review of the plan and the traffic analysis, he recommended approval subject to the comments regarding the access being addressed on the Final Site Plan.


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


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states that he has given an initial review of the drawings dated June 23, 1997 for compliance with Novi Ordinance 2520 Building Facades. The percentage of materials proposed are shown in the letter, the maximum percentages allowed by the Schedule Regulating Facade Materials is also shown. Percentages of materials proposed do not exceed any of the maximums in the Ordinance, therefore, it is recommended that the application is in compliance with the Facade Ordinance and a Section 4 waiver is not required, Mr. Necci recommended approval.


In regard to the soil erosion, Mr. Bluhm stated the site is within 500 feet of the Chapman Creek, therefore it will require a soil erosion and sedimentation control permit. An NPD gas permit is not required due to the size of the site.


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





Member Canup asked if the plan represented the color rendering and the facade?


Mr. Drane answered the bottom elevation has been colored and he provided samples of the brick and stucco.

Member Canup was not satisfied with what was presented, he explained that there were instances in the past where the Commission thought they were getting one thing when in actuality, it was not what they thought. He stated he would not be in favor of going any further on the case until he saw a rendering of the color facades.


Mr. Drane stated he would be bringing a color facade back to the Commission, he stated it would be as descriptive as what he presented today.


In regard to the left hand turn lane on Ten Mile Road, Member Hoadley stated he would prefer to see it as a "pork chop", thus eliminating any questions as to left turns in or out.


Mr. Drane was not opposed to the "pork chop", however, he expressed concern with the truck traffic being forced to make a right hand turn out of the site with no idea how they would get back to the expressway.


Mr. Arroyo stated it becomes an issue often when a site has one point of access to each road. Truck traffic access becomes a concern, he stated the "pork chop" islands work well. He stated in this instance he did not recommend it because he did not feel that the situation was such that it would warrant a "pork chop" and he had concerns if it were put in, it would limit the ability for trucks to maneuver in and out for deliveries and because of the location.


Member Hoadley stated there was a stacking problem twice a day on Ten Mile Road. He disagreed with Mr. Arroyo and thought it was mandatory that a "pork chop" be put in and eliminate any possibility of left hand turns. He recommended requiring a "pork chop" if it is approved.


Member Churella asked if Ten Mile Road was to be widened in that area?


Mr. Arroyo stated Novi Road from Ten Mile Road north to Grand River has been approved for widening. The area of Ten Mile Road between Novi Road and Haggerty Road has not been approved for widening to five lanes and has been subject to study by City Council.

Member Churella asked if the intersection was approved to be widened?


Mr. Arroyo was not aware of any approval.


Member Churella thought if this was going to be widened, a "pork chop" would not be necessary.


Member Bononi asked the applicant what the proposed hours of operation were?


Mr. Drane answered the standard hours of operation are from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday and these are the proposed hours.


Member Bononi asked if the proposed hours were apt to change?


Mr. Drane answered with the changing nature of retailers, he could not say for certain. He stated Walgreen’s hours were from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.


Barry Klein the developer stated Walgreen’s is going to be opening about 50 stores in the Detroit area within the next two years. All of the leases with the developers permit them to name their own hours, he stated he could not control them. It is contemplated that the store will not be a 24 hour store initially. There are some 24 hour stores, however they do not plan on having them. Unlike other drug stores, Walgreen’s does sell liquor or Lotto tickets, 50% of sales are prescriptions. He did not anticipate that they would vary, initially, from the hours that the architect has stated.


In regard to the compactor, Member Bononi asked if there was a specification regarding the sound rating?


Mr. Drane answered the intent was to meet the intent of the Ordinance. He did not have a decibel sound rating of the compactor with him, he stated it was screened by a brick wall and there was landscaping in front of the brick wall. He stated he would do whatever he could to meet the decibel level requirements of the City.


Member Bononi asked if there was any additional H.V.A.C. equipment that would be placed on the roof?


Mr. Drane answered they were behind the front parapets and there were screened and walled.


Member Bononi asked who will own and operate the site?


Mr. Klein answered he owns the site.


Member Bononi asked whether or not there was anything in the requirements that could enable the Commission to condition hours of operation?


Mr. Weisberger did not know if there was an Ordinance that states the Commission can limit someone’s hours of operation. He did not believe it could be done.


Member Bononi asked if the Commission has the authority to do so under the Site Plan Provisions?


Mr. Weisberger did not believe so, however, he could research it.








Moved by Bononi, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED (6-2): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Walgreens SP97-25B subject to all consultants conditions and requirements specifically including the driveway spacing deficiency and the water quality improvements recommended by the City Engineer.





Member Capello made a point of clarification, by the Commission saying that the applicant meets the Facade Standards, it does not mean that the Walgreen’s pharmaceutical picture and the drive-thru are all approved, they all need to go to the ZBA because they all violate the Sign Ordinance.


Mr. Drane stated he was aware that signs were not a part of the approval, he had the signs put on to give the Commission an idea of scale. His intent was to meet the Sign Ordinance.





Yes: Csordas, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Canup, Capello

No: Churella, Hoadley


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development assured the Commission that from now on when renderings come in, the Department will require that they receive them in time to do a visual check of the documentation at the same time the packets are prepared. He stated he would have the Planning Consultant and JCK look at the material and not wait until the day of the meeting to call the applicant and require it.




Property located north of Eleven Mile Road and east of Town Center Drive, seeking Preliminary Site Plan Approval.


Chairperson Weddington asked the applicant if both the Courtyard by Marriott and Towneplace by Marriott would be addressed at the same time?


Member Capello suggested doing so.


Chairperson Weddington announced there would be a combined presentation on Courtyard by Marriott, SP97-28A as well as Towneplace by Marriott, SP97-29A.




Property located north of Eleven Mile Road and east of Town Center Drive, seeking Preliminary Site Plan Approval.


Morris Taitt from Marriott International, Inc. gave a brief overview of Courtyard by Marriott. The proposed Courtyard is 121 units with a small meeting room for the use of guests. The Towneplace by Marriott is a relatively new concept, it is more of an extended stay.



Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the Courtyard site includes most of the lake and goes all the way up to I-96. The applicant has advised him that they would dedicate the R.O.W. for the Crescent Boulevard extension just north of the lake. The two buildings will be on their own separate sites, they are two corporate bodies.


In regard to Courtyard by Marriott, Mr. Rogers stated all application data are provided except for the sidwell number. When they receive approval of the plan, they will be assigned a sidwell number. The Courtyard complies with OSC District setback standards, 133 spaces are required for off-street parking which are provided. Space dimensions will need to be adjusted for Final Site Plan based upon the new Ordinance requirement. They have a daily breakfast for hotel guests and they indicate the types of uses for the breakfast arrangement in the information provided. Off-street loading and unloading space is provided on the east side yard off of Eleven Mile Road. The parking lot green space setbacks should be 35', the applicant shows 20' along Eleven Mile Road instead of 35' and a lesser amount than 20' on the east and west side yard. Mr. Rogers stated the property is squeezed in between Eleven Mile Road and the lake, it is on a narrow parcel. There is considerable alternate green space around the lake and around the south edge of the lake that compensates for the reduction. The property abuts the Town Center District in several locations, it is consistent with the TC District standard. The variance of the setbacks should be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Rogers stated parking in the front yard should not exceed 50% of the area between the required front yard setback and the building facade. The plan reflects 81%.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect touched on outstanding issues. She stated she has had a couple of meetings with the applicants and they have satisfied and are going beyond what the Ordinance is asking for. She expressed some concerns with hedges that are proposed in the islands, they need to be deciduous, not evergreen and placed to not block the visibility of fire hydrants. The screening of the patio area from the service yards needs to be increased and the entry off Town Center Drive needs to be landscaped. Ms. Lemke stated she needs additional information on screening transformers, the lawn trees need to have a 4" diameter circle and the screening of the garbage and refuse areas need to be detailed. The applicant has provided a variety of plant materials throughout the site, they have provided a sidewalk to the north as requested and she continued to recommend approval of the landscape plan.


Mr. Rogers stated the facade plan shows E.I.F.S. brick material in two colors, he finds that it meets the standards of Section 2520. The building is 4 stories, in summary, Mr. Roger recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to the deficient parking setback review by the ZBA, excessive parking as commented in the front yard and reviewable by the ZBA.


Mr. Rogers commented on Towneplace by Marriott. He stated it was a three story, two building complex with 95 rooms. All site plan application data are provided. The building on the west side facing the courtyard has a 28' setback, it should be 35'. Because the two hotel complexes are being split in half, the spacing of one of the hotels ends up being deficient. The parking space dimensions should be revised. Loading and unloading space is at the eastern edge of the site near a dumpster facility. The parking lot green space along Eleven Mile Road is 20' in lieu of the 35', the green space on the east side yard is 10'. The land to the east is zoned Industrial with a non-conforming house on it. Because of the extraordinary green space in and around the lake, it appears that the 20' setback is warranted.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the applicant has added some additional amenities and plantings on the plan. They have a patio area with benches and they have added a bench on the pedestrian circle and they have relocated a canopy tree to provide viewing of that area. The applicant has provided some walkways adjacent to the lake. Screening has been provided for the property that is adjacent and zoned I-1. Ms. Lemke recommended approval.


Mr. Rogers commented on the building facade. He stated the plans have been revised to eliminate the deficiency of having vinyl siding on the building along with the brick. It will be E.I.F.S. and brick. Mr. Rogers concurred with the comments of Doug Necci, he stated the two sets of facade plans on all four elevations do meet the current standards of the Ordinance. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to deficient building setback on the west side of the west building, deficient parking setbacks from Eleven Mile Road, the review of excessive parking in the front yard by the ZBA and the Commission must find that the proposed parking area and lighting is compatible with the surrounding development. Mr. Rogers stated there was no need for a Section 4 waiver. Parking bay dimensions need to be adjusted on the Final Site Plan.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the plans propose sanitary sewer service leads from existing sewer that circles the south end of the lake, north of the buildings. The applicant proposes the extension of a public water main which exists at the northeast corner of the Courtyard site, they will be extending the water main down to Eleven Mile Road and then due east on Eleven Mile Road leaving a stub for future connection. The water main infrastructure will be supplemented with fire hydrants interspersed through the site and domestic service for the buildings. An enclosed storm sewer system is proposed which will outlet to the existing pond. The pond is a large manmade pond. The storm sewers proposed for both sites will outlet into two locations. The western Courtyard site will outlet north of the Courtyard building, on the west side of the lake area. In regard to the Towneplace site, storm sewers will be proposed and they will outlet north of the Towneplace building, at the southeast corner of the lake. Mr. Bluhm recommended that a pre-treatment basin be installed as a part of the approval. The storm sewer system is intended to pick up a large area west of the site, bordered at the northeast corner by Town Center Drive and Eleven Mile Road. They will size the pipes to handle developed flows and out letting into the lake area. The lake area is the detention area for the sites and for the undeveloped area to the west, the applicant should show that the lake has the capacity. It has been indicated that there is a 5' sidewalk along Eleven Mile Road, the City is looking to go to 8' asphalt pathways and he would like to see the applicant adhere to it if it becomes Ordinance. Mr. Bluhm stated he had several other comments with the plans that are minor in nature and can be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan, he recommended engineering approval for both plans.


Mr. Bluhm indicated that a minor wetlands permit would be required for the two sites. There are some minor buffer intrusions into the wetland areas for the soil erosion sedimentation control basins, which he feels are manageable and will be a benefit to the ultimate site. Approval was recommended from a Preliminary standpoint and a minor permit will be issued when the Final Site Plan comes in. Mr. Bluhm stated he received Preliminary Soil Erosion plans for both sites and there were several comments that he would like to see addressed at the Final Site Plan and they are listed in the letter.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the two plans represent a good example of shared access. He stated there were two new driveways that would be shared by several different developments including the two hotel developments. Mr. Arroyo stated there was currently a center turn lane on Town Center Drive as well as on Eleven Mile Road so there is no need for improvements to address it. There is another point of access for Courtyard off the site, on the Towneplace site where there will be a driveway onto Eleven Mile Road. Mr. Arroyo indicated that the approach to Town Center Drive for the access point, needs to be 30' wide and this can be addressed as part of the Final Site Plan. In regard to the traffic study that has been provided, a number of intersections in the surrounding area were evaluated, the problem areas are Crescent Boulevard/Novi Road the other area is Grand River/Novi Road. He indicated in terms of the access point to Eleven Mile Road, there is no need for any additional right turning lanes at that location, in terms of right turn/deceleration lanes , there could be a potential that one might be needed in the future when the pad sights are developed, he stated this would be monitored as those additional sites come on line. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of both site plans subject to the comments in his letter.



Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshall for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the Courtyard by Marriott, 97-28A plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following conditions: 1) The proposed hydrants do not meet the hydrant spacing requirement of 300' maximum between hydrants. Reposition the proposed hydrants and/or add additional hydrants to meet this requirement; 2) Provide a hazardous chemical survey pertaining to the proposed occupancy and another pertaining to construction activity. The original submittal, and the subsequent submittal, were not signed.


In regard to Towneplace by Marriott, SP97-29A the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with two conditions: 1) Show the location of the fire department connection for the 48 unit building and provide a hydrant within 100' of it; 2) Provide a hazardous chemical survey pertaining to the proposed occupancy and another pertaining to construction activity. The original submittal, and the subsequent submittal, were not signed.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK with regard to Courtyard by Marriott, SP97-28A which states he has reviewed the plans and the percentages of materials against the Ordinance requirements and finds that all facades are in full compliance with the facade chart, it is therefore recommended that the application is in compliance with the Facade Ordinance and a Section 4 wavier is not required.


In regard to Towneplace by Marriott, SP97-29A, she received a letter dated October 10, 1997 which states that the following is a review of the above referenced project for compliance with the Facade Ordinance. This review is based on drawings prepared by Dennis C. Woody, Architect, dated September 29, 1997. The percentages of materials proposed are as shown below, the maximum percentages allowed by the Schedule Regulating Facade Materials is also shown. Percentages of materials that exceed the maximum allowed by the Ordinance, if any, are highlighted in bold. Chairperson Weddington reported there were none highlighted. Mr. Necci concluded that all facades were in full compliance with the facade chart, it is therefore recommended that 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. She noted that there would have to be two separate motions, one for each project.








Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas.





Member Hoadley stated the colors do not fit in with the Town Center colors. He stated he had a problem with both projects in regard to the facades. Member Hoadley stated he would be voting against the motion because he did not think they were in the spirit of the Town Center Ordinance.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Rogers if there was a review against the Town Center standards?


Mr. Rogers answered in the TC and TC-1 Districts, it speaks to having certain materials. He stated in the OSC District E.I.F.S. can be introduced whereas in the TC District it cannot. He thought the plan had somewhat of a residential character, it was not much different from the Extended Stay America and Ramada Limited on Haggerty Road. Mr. Rogers felt the Marriott buildings were in character with the OSC District standards.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated the issue was looked at in the past. The issue was whether or not the Town Center District should be extended to include the entire area. A decision was made at that time not to extend the District because it was going to make it too big or otherwise it was appropriate to go to a transition type of district. Mr. Wahl stated the issues were explored, not only the facades and types of amenities, but also the total application of the amenities that are required in the Town Center. It was felt to be both impractical and inappropriate and it would dilute the Town Center District by making it too large.


Member Capello asked if there was any possibility that the 47 unit building could be shifted so that there is no parking in the front yard?


Mr. Taitt answered, no.


Member Capello asked what the problem would be with shifting it? He stated he would prefer to give the applicant a variance in the number of parking spaces than give a waiver for the front yard. He did not think with a ZBA variance that the Commission had the ability to grant any front yard parking. He referred to subsection 3 which stated the Commission could grant it unless the parking area does not extend into the minimum required front yard setback.


Mr. Weisberger thought that the ZBA could grant it. In other words, this is the criteria by which the Planning Commission can do it, in order for the applicant to have front yard parking, they will need to obtain a ZBA variance.


Member Capello stated he did not read it that way. He stated it does not say that the ZBA can grant a variance.


Mr. Rogers also thought it was a ZBA action, even if the Commission recommends against it.


Mr. Taitt pointed out that there was a distance of 45' between Eleven Mile Road and the parking. If it is compared to the surrounding area, there is almost four times the landscaping between the roadway and the parking lot.


Member Capello stated it would look much nicer if the building were fronting the road instead of some additional parking, however, if it was physically impossible, he would not hold the applicant to it.


In regard to the ZBA question, Member Canup stated there is a State law that governs the capabilities of the ZBA and they can overturn or grant a variance to just about anything that is written, except to rezone property. He thought in this case, the ZBA would have the power to grant a variance.


Member Bononi agreed with Member Capello’s comments. She asked the applicant if they cannot change the location of the building, why have they not considered cutting the size of the building?


Mr. Taitt stated it would not be economically feasible to build the hotel if the sizes were reduced


Member Bononi stated that they did have the alternative of choosing a site that fits the building.


Mr. Taitt stated there were not many sites in Novi that meet the criteria that he needs to receive approval.



Member Bononi stated from the standpoint of choosing the site and dealing with what they have to deal with, is the problem of the applicant. She stated the corporate policies which may be hardships to the applicant are not land use decision makers for the Commission. Member Bononi thought that proposing to place the parking spaces on top of the roadway in that location was not compatible with what is going on there. Secondly, in regard to the second site, the applicant is saying that it has to be a separate legal entity from their requirement, that is the reason for the inability to shift the building as suggested by Member Capello, in order to make an alternative parking arrangement whereby parking would not be located so close to the street, she asked the applicant if this was true?


Mr. Taitt stated it has to be in two parcels.


Member Bononi reiterated that it was the problem of the applicant because it was his corporate need and/or legal reason that the parcels need to be separate. She did not believe the building with the parking spaces near the street to be compatible with that particular part of town. She thought that the Courtyard concept just barely fits in, however, she did not believe the Towneplace concept fits in or belongs in that part of Novi. Member Bononi did not believe that the architecture reflects the quality that we look for in Novi. She did not believe it was the correct place for it and did not believe that it would be compatible with the Town Center Concept. Lastly, she did not believe that it looks nearly good enough. Member Bononi believed there might be other places for it, but Town Center was not the place. She disagreed with the fact that the consultants have said that they feel an Administrative approval for the wetlands are involved when the Ordinance clearly states that only one factor may be taken into consideration in granting an Administrative approval. Member Bononi asked the legal council interpret the need for a wetland permit. She suggested that the applicant further look into the suggestion of Member Capello about changing the location of the building if cutting it down is impossible. She stated she would not be supporting an approval for the parcel.


In regard to the wetland permit, Mr. Bluhm stated individually the two site plans propose one outfall each to the watercourse area. He stated the systems that provide the outlet to the pond area are self contained.


Member Bononi stated that only refers to one of the items, the other is the watercourse setback disturbance.


Mr. Bluhm agreed that there was a minor buffer disturbance area.


Member Bononi moved to pursue the action to require the applicant to seek a wetland approval going through the proper channels that always apply to such an application.


Chairperson Weddington asked if Member Bononi proposed to postpone the Matter?


Member Bononi stated she could only speak to the issue of the wetlands. She stated if the applicant is required to come forth with a wetlands application, she would ask legal council to tell whether or not everything else would be in a bans until it is addressed or if they could come forward again concurrently.


Mr. Weisberger did not have the answer off the top of his head.





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED (5-3): To postpone action on Courtyard by Marriott, SP97-28 until the next Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 1997, when Commission will receive clarification of the need for a wetlands permit and give the applicant a chance to look at the parking setback issue in the front yard.


Mr. Taitt stated he had a meeting about 6 months ago with the Mayor, Chairperson Weddington and the City Manager where he presented an alternate plan that showed a hotel that met every require of the Ordinance, what he ended up with was a 154 room Courtyard hotel without the Towneplace hotel. There were a couple of problems with this, one being that it was not economically feasible for him due to the land cost. Also, it did not increase any landscaping. He stated he has almost 40% landscaping combined on the two sites, it also reduces the potential property taxes because he is building a smaller number of rooms.


Member Churella stated he was not in accordance with the Towneplace plan as it currently stands. He thought the Commission was doing a disservice because the Courtyard plan looked like a resort, he wanted to vote on the Courtyard.


Member Hoadley stated he also had a problem with the Towneplace plan.


Chairperson Weddington stated the issues that have been raised as far as front yard parking and wetlands pertain to both plans



VOTE ON PM-97-10-259


Yes: Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello

No: Canup, Churella, Csordas





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED (5-3): To postpone Towneplace by Marriott, SP97-29A to the next Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 1997 so as to be considered at the same time for the same reasons as Courtyard by Marriott, SP97-28.





Member Hoadley stated if the rendering is supposed to be updated, it is the same as what is in the original book, therefore, it is not updated.


Mr. Taitt stated the colors are the same as what is in the original book, however, the materials are different.


Member Hoadley stated it still would not comply in terms of percentages.


Member Churella agreed that it probably complies by the statute, but the appearance looks like a Motel 6, he stated he would like to see more brick.


Member Capello suggested looking at Mr. Kahm’s project across the street.


Chairperson Weddington also suggested looking at the Town Center District standards and materials. She explained that his property was located adjacent to the Town Center and people are thinking of it as an extension of the Town Center. This might give some guidance.

Mr. Wahl stated he would call the applicant tomorrow and set up a work session to go over all of the directives and recommendations, review them and see what can be done about them. He stated they would consult with the attorney and come back with an opinion from the attorney. Mr. Wahl stated that Mr. Arroyo indicated that if a Public Hearing needed to be held, the applicant may not be able to come back at the next meeting due to the notification deadlines, etc.


Mr. Weisberger located in the Ordinance under Section 12.172, B, 6 that a Wetland Permit Application shall be concurrent with the Site Plan process. In that case he thought the outstanding issue was whether or not there were two intrusions. He stated if there are, then a Wetland Permit is needed which means a Public notice is also needed.


Mr. Taitt asked how a manmade pond could be a wetland?


Mr. Weisberger stated there is a new State law that came out about one year ago that says manmade or not, when there is water in it, it is considered a wetland.


Member Vrettas stated that wetlands and woodlands are important to the Commission, the Commission would like to see the applicant come to Novi but it must be done right.


Mr. Taitt stated he has a real hard time getting a correct answer from a lot of the system, he stated this is why there is some confusion.


Chairperson Weddington reiterated that Mr. Wahl has indicated the Department will set up a meeting to resolve the issues and give some additional guideance. She stated given that there may be Public notice needed, she asked if the maker of the motion would be willing to change the motion to reflect if there is wetland intrusion that requires Public notice, that it would probably not be at the next meeting, it will probably be the next possible meeting.


Member Vrettas accepted the change as the maker of the motion.





Yes: Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley

No: Canup, Churella, Csordas,


Chairperson Weddington stated the motion to postpone the Courtyard by Marriott, SP97-28A needed to be revised to reflect the next earliest meeting. She asked if all of the Commissioners were in agreement.


None were opposed.


Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission will take a brief recess.












Report from JCK and Associates (carried over from last Agenda)

David Bluhm of JCK stated there has been an update by his office dated September 9, 1997 which gives a chronology of events for the mitigation plan for High Pointe Shopping Center. The mitigation was one acre and it was ultimately mitigated in the Deer Run Subdivision. The mitigation has been completed and there are some plantings that need to be completed in the area.


Chairperson Weddington asked how it went from being located at Haggerty Road and Eight Mile Road to the Deer Run Subdivision. She stated some of the Commissioners were under the impression that the mitigation would be done on the High Pointe site.


Mr. Bluhm believed from the chronology provided by Sue Tepatti, on May 1, 1996, the Planning Commission granted the High Pointe Final Site Plan approval and the applicant stated that an alternate mitigation site was going to be pursued within the next six months. Dennis Watson commented he believed that approval of the alternate site would be an Administrative approval. Subsequent to that, the alternate site was submitted for Administrative review and subsequently approved.


Chairperson Weddington asked if any other Commissioners recalled that because it was her understanding that it would be located at Haggerty Road and Eight Mile Road.


Member Capello recalled that the original location was at Eight Mile Road and Haggerty Road, however, he did remember it coming back to the Commission looking for an alternate site. He stated he did not know how it got there, but it was discussed and he recalled the Commission to be in agreement that it would be an Administrative approval.


Mr. Bluhm stated the original plan showed the mitigation north of the High Pointe site along Haggerty Road and there were problems inquiring the proper easements for the site, subsequently they pursued the alternate site in the Deer Run area.


Member Capello understood that the applicant still has not acquired an easement in the Deer Run area. He stated no construction or plantings have been done yet. He suggested by the next meeting, it could be investigated to see what the hold up is and the Commission could be told whether the easement is going to be required or not.


Mr. Bluhm stated it could be done.


Member Bononi thought there were two problems. The relocating of the mitigated wetland site are not permitted Administrative approvals under the Wetlands Ordinance, as she reads it, however, this does not say that the matter could not be easily resolved. There is also the woodlands issue with regard to the applicant when the mitigated area was constructed. They did not take any Administrative fee permits, any tree planting permits, or any woodland bond permits to the tune of $17,000. In addition, the wetland regulations provide for Administrative approval of 300 cubic yards of material, this particular job took between 5,000 and 6,000 cubic yards, or the equivalent of 416 to 500 single axle tandem truckloads of soil. Member Bononi thought the thing to do was not try to find blame but to solve the problem and get a procedure that works concurrent with the Wetland and Woodland Ordinance or amend them to make them work. She thought that in addition to asking the Consulting Engineer to review what happened, that the Matter should also be referred to the Environmental Committee to look at the language and see how it can be improved to see that it does not happen again.









Moved by Bononi, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To refer the Matter of reviewing the requirements of mitigation to the Environmental Committee.





Member Vrettas asked if it was also a compliance issue? If it was, he asked if there was a part of City Government that is supposed to make sure the applicant complies? If so, why have they not done it?


Member Bononi stated it has already happened through the Building Department.


Member Hoadley stated the Commission has been fooled twice by this developer. He recalled that it was supposed to be on or close to the site that was approved. He stated in the future, he would not approve any mitigation without the mitigation being done at the time of the project or before the project, he stated he would not give approval without it being done ahead of time. He agreed that the Ordinance should be changed.


Member Capello made a friendly amendment to the motion. He recalled at the joint meeting with the City Council, they discussed redoing the entire Wetland Ordinance, part of the problem was how Mystic Forest turned out. Another problem that was discussed was driving down Beck Road ...(speaking too softly for recorder to pick up)





Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas

No: None


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Rumple to schedule a meeting of the Environmental Committee.




Report from Dave Bluhm of JCK (carried over from last Agenda)


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the field work was done in December of 1996 and a draft map was compiled from the field sheets at that time. In the Spring of 1997, field checks were done on the map and it was given to Margaret Jolin to digitize, however she was not ready until August. Ms. Lemke stated she gave Ms. Jolin the existing Woodlands Map and the Wildlife Habitat Master Plan in 1996 for digitizing. Ms. Lemke reported that Ms. Jolin is still having problems with her scheduling and this has been taken advantage of, in two ways: 1) comparing updated wetlands maps; 2) the aerials for the second phase of the 20/20 build out plan have been obtained. Ms. Lemke reported while waiting for Ms. Jolin to be ready, she is fine tuning the map, however, she is ready and has been ready to give Ms. Jolin a map at any time.


David Bluhm of JCK stated the wetlands field data has all been collected, he stated just recently the additional work has been completed with the additional funding. He stated he had a conversation with Ms. Jolin earlier this week and she indicated there was a couple of reasons that it has been delayed. Mostly, it has been delayed due to problems in creating the base map and the control of the base map for the City, without it properly in order, Ms. Jolin indicated that these maps cannot be completed. She was hopeful that the issues would be resolved fairly shortly by Wayne State, she could not give a timetable.



Chairperson Weddington stated she heard that Ms. Jolin is leaving or that there is some kind of a staff change and questioned it.


Mr. Bluhm stated at best, it is still a rumor. He did not know if Ms. Jolin has made a decision one way or the other. He added that Ms. Jolin coordinates the work with the City, the actual GIS implementation work is done through Wayne State University. They have a staff or a team of students that are working on the project.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there was any impact of the delays on the Commission’s budget?


Mr. Bluhm stated Ms. Jolin has not indicated that there is any budget problem or that there would be any concern with additional funding necessary, therefore, he was not aware that it would be an issue.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there was any kind of a timetable?


Mr. Bluhm stated Ms. Jolin could not give a timetable, he stated from earlier discussions, she did say that the first of the year was a possibility. Mr. Bluhm stated the timing depends upon when they get through the issues with the control of the base map.


Member Csordas was not clear on the matter. He asked if the City was the client and was paying Ms. Jolin?


Mr. Bluhm explained that the actual funding for the GIS maps to be created was part of the original GIS implementation plan. They have indicated that it is a budget item.


Member Csordas asked if there was another company that provides this service?


Mr. Bluhm stated he would have to check on it, it was a possibility. He stated the problem is the GIS is the Novi system. It cannot be given to another company because the maps are a product of the base map that the City is creating. He stated it cannot be done that way.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated the GIS program is a system that is being implemented at the City. Novi is one of the earliest City’s to be dialing into this type of arrangement, he stated there is a certain amount of "teething" in terms of it coming on line. He stated while this project is very important to the City, it is a part of a bigger program, therefore, a lot of other assignments are going forward. He stated they have tried very hard to make sure it did not get lost because it was a part of the bigger picture. Mr. Wahl thought that the City Administration has been wanting all of the City’s mapping systems to compliment the overall GIS program. Therefore, rather than use hand drawn maps, it is trying to be done state-of-the-art which has contributed to the delay.


Member Bononi stated the Environmental Committee recommended to the Planning Commission that the maps be updated and committed the resources toward that end. At the time it was approved, it was in a CAD form, then the Committee was told that being that the City was making a commitment into the GIS system, so the Committee voted to delay. Here it is a lot later and still there are no maps in hand. She stated it was not productive to say that is taking too long and that the verbal contract has not been met, the fact of the matter is there have been two extremely environmentally sensitive projects come up in the past six months and the resources have not been available to use. Member Bononi thought at this point, if there is no date that is possible to reach in-house, it should be looked into doing it elsewhere and getting the product delivered. She was concerned with not having the information in hand, and stated it is not a sound way to do business.







Moved by Bononi, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To have JCK look into an alternative source that is reasonable and timely, to have the map produced and delivered with a time frame.


Mr. Rumple added that the City of Novi is a member of SEMCOG, SEMCOG is a leader in Southeast Michigan with their resources in regard to GIS. He offered his assistance in contacting representatives at SEMCOG to offer information on what would be required to get the job done.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Bluhm to look into some alternatives and perhaps have them appear at the meeting scheduled for the Environmental Committee.


Mr. Bluhm answered, yes.





Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None


In regard to the budget, Chairperson Weddington reminded the various Committees that it was almost time to start pulling together information for the next fiscal year budget. She stated if any Committees want to propose any special studies, please get the information to Jim Wahl so it can be incorporated into the budget preparation.


Chairperson Weddington stated a couple of meetings ago the Commission had a request for information or update on what is happening with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. She asked someone from the Committee to give an update.


Member Vrettas stated the Committee was waiting for Greg Capote to gather some information, everything is still up in the air until the Committee receives the information. He stated the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has been meeting on a regular basis with a lot of discussion and they just have not reached any conclusions because the information that the Committee needs, Mr. Capote has not been able to get to the Committee.


Member Churella asked if they were working on the OST?


Member Vrettas answered this was the number one thing that is being worked on. He stated they have run into a series of questions regarding the areas and Mr. Capote did not have the information available when the Committee needed it.


Member Hoadley stated he and Member Canup would like to see the information developed in the area of Haggerty Road, south of Twelve Mile Road and the M-5 Corridor and the other two members on the Committee do not. He stated there was some interest in having the area re-master planned and developed OST.


Member Capello did not think any Committee has to have a majority before it comes back to the Commission.


Member Vrettas stated he along with Members Bononi and Canup have all tried to keep an open mind about the Matter until they have all of the facts, he stated it was inappropriate for Member Hoadley to go running to the Commission before the Committee has had a chance to finish its deliberations. Member Vrettas suggested letting the sub-committee do its job without any restrictions or anybody being forced to take any positions. He wanted to get all of the facts from Mr. Capote and openly discuss it and reach a decision.


Member Hoadley stated the data cannot be collected, it is off the table. He stated all he wanted to do was study it.


Chairperson Weddington stated she and Mr. Wahl would have a discussion on the Matter to see what they can do to shake it loose.


Chairperson Weddington congratulated Mr. Arroyo and Birchler Arroyo Associates, Inc. for the award they received from the Michigan Society of Planning Officials.





Dick Carroll, 49590 Deer Run stated he lives on parcel D which is two parcels down from where the wetland mitigation project ended up. He stated he woke up one morning at 6:00 a.m. to the sound of heavy equipment. They were excavating on the other side of the pond that he shares part ownership with parcel E. The far side of the pond was being dredged or enlarged. It came as quite a surprise to him that something like this would be going on so close to his property without being notified by someone. He stated he made phone calls and ended up at JCK to discuss the wetland mitigation project. He was even more surprised to find that not only was it taking place on the property next door to his, but the drawing showed the wetland mitigation extending onto his property approximately 70'. Mr. Carroll asked how does something like this happen? He thought it was something that the Commission needed to be aware of.


Mr. Weisberger stated normally the notification for area homeowners is typically a situation where the wetlands are going to be filled or decreased. In this case, when the Wetlands Ordinance is being looked at with the Environmental Committee, they may want to look into adding a provision for notifying adjacent homeowners when wetlands mitigation is occuring. He recommended that the Environmental Committee to make a determination whether or not they would like to add it to the Ordinance.


Chairperson Weddington stated it would be taken under consideration. She asked Mr. Bluhm to address how parcels D and E could have been included in plans for mitigation?


Mr. Bluhm stated it should not have happened unless the property owners gave the City an easement for it. He stated he could not answer it at this time without investigating it.


Chairperson Weddington asked if the easement would be recorded from prior owners?


Mr. Bluhm stated if the wetland mitigation extended onto the property, there would have been an easement required for that mitigation. He stated he would have to research it.


Chairperson Weddington advised Mr. Carroll to go to City Council and let them know what is happening. She stated the chances are that they are not aware of what is happening and they have a lot more control over it than the Planning Commission. She asked Mr. Bluhm if he could look into it.


Mr. Bluhm answered he would look into it.


Member Bononi stated at the Woodlands Review Board level, one of the conditions of approval was that the applicant correct the plan, because it did show an intrusion on the property. She stated the applicants engineer was asked to change it as a condition of approval and he agreed to do so.


Member Hoadley thought the Commission should direct Mr. Bluhm to investigate it and if it is found that they have encroached onto Mr. Carroll’s property, demand that the persons responsible take care of it.


Member Capello guessed that the property owner found the plan to show encroachment onto his property, Member Bononi caught it and they really did not encroach or trespass onto his property.


Mr. Carroll thought Member Capello was probably right. He expressed concern and wondered if he should elect to do something on that piece of his property, with it being a regulated wetland.


Member Capello did not believe it was a regulated pond.


Mr. Weisberger stated there was a long discussion and some measurements have been taken. He stated the body of water is not greater than one acre in size, therefore, it is not considered a regulated wetland. He stated he did not have the plan in front of him and he needed to clarify that the determination that was made, was based upon the fact that it was a mining operation that created it.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Bluhm to follow up with Mr. Weisberger and verify the plans.





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:00 p.m.





Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None


Steve Rumple - Staff Planner


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

October 29, 1997

Date Approved: November 05, 1997