(248) 347-0475


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


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


ABSENT: Vrettas (excused), 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 additions to the Agenda?


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner added a verbal presentation of the free seminars and asked for a motion for future direction. Chairperson Weddington added the seminars under Matters for Discussion.





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





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

No: None










Member Capello announced he has received two letters.


David and Noreen Poltorak, 22358 Taft Road in Northville wrote in regard to the Nine Mile Road and Taft Road intersection. On Thursday, December 3, 1997, they were a part of the meeting concerning the proposed change to the intersection of Nine Mile and Taft Roads. The meeting was called by JCK & Associates, to get input from the residents in the immediate vicinity of the intersection. JCK stated that the proposed traffic signal was still an open issue and opinions of participants of the meeting would be taken into consideration prior to any decision being made. After listening to Mr. McCarthy, the residents were given time to voice their concerns over the signal and offer up any suggestions. The residents felt that safety for drivers and pedestrians would be best achieved by the following: 1) retain the existing stop signs; 2) add four stop ahead signs at appropriate approach distance and crosswalks on the road surface; 3) lower the speed limit on Taft Road to 30 mph; 4) re-evaluate the intersection after the Nine Mile Road/Beck Road signal is installed. It was agreed by all residents that a traffic signal would only increase the risk of fatal accidents at the intersection due to the limited sight distance caused by the incline in the road surface on both Nine Mile Road and Taft Road. Mr. Schlick seemed almost uncaring of our solution and only managed to jot down a couple of notes regarding our issues. Questions raised as a separate set of arguments; 1) are the people of Novi only acting on the issue because we have money to spend? If so, they viewed it as a pathetic use of funds. 2) Is JCK recommending this project simply because they will be the company contracted to do the work as they are on so many other Novi projects? Mr. Poltorak believed that the suggestions proposed by the people who live in the area should be weighed very heavily towards the final outcome of the JCK proposal.


Dan Davis, Director of Novi Parks and Recreation wrote in regard to the Sports Club of Novi. Novi Planning Commission recently approve the above referenced project for Preliminary Site Plan, subject to the applicant providing an internal roadway and sidewalk connection to the Novi Ice Arena. He has had an opportunity to review the request with Mr. Healy and offered the following comments in regard to the parking lot connection. Parking area for the Sports Club is located on the east side of their facility, the Ice Arena parking is located on the west side of their facility. The distance of a connecting roadway would be well over 300 feet. The Ice Arena budget does not have the necessary funds to construct the roadway. If and when the City decides to expand the Ice Arena facility, there may be some justification to consider a connection at that time. In regard to the sidewalk, the two projects have their specific requirements for sidewalk installation. The entrances to each facility are located on the opposite sides of their respective buildings, whereas an internal sidewalk may be desired, it is undetermined if such an improvement would be utilized, therefore, it was his recommendation to wait and see if the patrons from our facilities feel that it is a worthwhile improvement. In addition, the majority of the sidewalk improvements would be constructed on City owned property for which the necessary funds are not readily available under a current project. It was the recommendation of Mr. Davis to rescind their requirement for the Sports Club of Novi to provide internal sidewalk and roadway connections with the Novi Ice Arena.





Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any corrections to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 19, 1997? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve.





Moved by Csordas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 19, 1997 as presented.





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

No: None













Property located east of Novi Road, south of Ten Mile Road, clarification of requirements for road and sidewalk connection to Novi Ice Arena.

Glenn Healey stated he would describe how the two buildings are laid out, how they would be currently connected and to discuss the infeasibility of additional connections. He stated the problem lies with where the buildings are placed on the lots. As a result, additional connections would require a long roadway to be built, while it would give some customer convenience, it would not be enough to justify the cost. He stated there did not appear to be an economic way to increase the number of connections. Mr. Healey asked that the requirement for better connections be removed.


Chairperson Weddington asked if the cul-de-sac indicated that there is a connection?


Mr. Healey answered, yes.


Paul Weisberger stated the Commission could make a motion to approve Final Site Plan eliminating the condition of internal connection.


Chairperson Weddington clarified that the Commission was not ready to approval Final Site Plan at this time, it was just to remove the restriction on the Preliminary Site Plan. She stated an Administrative approval of Final was still needed.


Member Hoadley expressed concern over the lack of cooperation on the City’s behalf. He referred to the minutes of April 2, 1997 where Mr. Davis stated, "The Ice Arena was on a quicker time schedule than the Sports Club, unfortunately Mr. Davis was unable to be in harmony, however, the opportunity has been left open to work cooperatively with Mr. Healey." Member Hoadley then referred to a question he asked in regard to keeping the parking lot to a later date to work with Mr. Healey. Mr. Saylor who was the architect stated that specific arrangements were made in the Ice Arena plans so it was possible to tie the parking together which they obviously did not do. He asked Mr. Healey if the City ever contacted him asking to get together prior to construction?


Mr. Healey stated there were conversations about it but they weren’t in a position to have the meeting or make any commitments because they were not ready to move forward?


Member Hoadley asked if he had a conceptual plan?


Mr. Healey did not think so, he deferred to John Hopper.


John Hopper stated the earliest that he had anything done by an engineering firm was in April or May of 1997.


Member Hoadley again asked if the City contacted Mr. Healey in May, June or July before starting construction?


Mr. Healey stated they talked about it informally but they never sat down with a drawing. He stated he had spoken to Dan Davis about it.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Preliminary Site Plan for Sports Club of Novi, SP97-40A subject to all consultants conditions and comments except for the previous requirement for connecting sidewalks and parking lots which will be dropped, Final Site Plan approval by the Commission will also be dropped and will be proceeded Administratively.






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

No: None





Property located south of Grand River, west of Beck Road, seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Michael Pasche of Ledy Design Group stated he has received copies of the Consultants letters and he was seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to the letters, he hoped to have Final Site Plan approval handled Administratively. Mr. Pasche deferred to Pete Drunchef.


Mr. Drunchef stated he has been a business resident in Novi for about 15 years. He explained that the business is selling, servicing and leasing heavy and medium duty trucks. The reason for the expansion is because the face of the business has changed over 15 years. The trucks have become larger, more expensive and much more care has to be taken with them. He stated he needs to park the trucks indoors to prep them and get them ready, this is the reason for the expansion.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the site is zoned I-2 and surrounded by I-1 property. All application data is provided, it meets all I-2 setback standards, adequate off-street parking is provided. In regard to the conceptual landscape plan, Mr. Rogers stated there were certain issues that are expected at the time of Final. The conceptual facade plan meets the terms of the Zoning Ordinance Section 2520.6, which allows a continuation of use for an addition. A five foot concrete sidewalk is shown. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the applicant is proposing the addition over existing paved areas. They are also proposing to reconstruct the parking area at the back of the site. The site drains by swales, to the front where an existing detention basin services the site. Mr. Bluhm stated the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the site currently exists and has deceleration and acceleration lanes in place. The Final Site Plan needs to show a passing lane. He provided trip generation and found that the internal circulation is acceptable and recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.


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 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 the percentages of proposed materials meets the Facade Ordinance requirements. The percentage of Shadow Scored Block on all facades exceeds the maximum percentages allowed. Although the percentage of Shadow Scored Block exceeds the maximum allowed by the Ordinance, the block is a continuation of an existing material and is therefore not included in the Ordinance per Section 2520.6. 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





Member Csordas asked if the applicant met the requirements?


Mr. Bluhm stated the existing site does not have storm sewers. The storm water is conveyed through shallow swales and ditches to the detention basin. Per the DEQ’s BMP standards, the ditches provide some oil and gas separation.





Moved by Csordas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Preliminary Site Plan SP97-36A for Novi Truck and Trailer in accordance with all of the Consultants conditions and recommendations.





Member Capello asked if the petitioner was required to construct the sidewalk or just grant the easement of R.O.W.?


Mr. Bluhm believed the application showed that the applicant would construct the sidewalk.


Member Capello asked if the Commission could be assured that no matter what widening is done on Grand River, that the sidewalk was not going to have to be torn up in 3 or 4 years?


Mr. Bluhm stated it would be looked at the time of Final. He stated he was going to try to get the sidewalk back as close to the detention basin without intruding into it. He stated they would also be looking at the widening needs based on projections of what is to be done. He did not anticipate a problem.


Member Capello stated in the current Ordinance, there is no limitation on the applicant having to post a bond for the construction of the sidewalk. He asked if there were any limitations on how long the bond could carry out?


Mr. Bluhm explained there is a two year limitation on occupancy requirements. He stated if it is shown on the plan, and they bond as a part of the site plan construction requirements, there is a two year period that the applicant has to make a full completion of site.


Member Capello asked the applicant if they would give a R.O.W. dedication as opposed to an easement?


Mr. Drunchef answered he did not have a problem with it.


Member Capello offered an amendment to the motion to say that the condition is granting the R.O.W. dedication as opposed to an easement.


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


Member Bononi asked if all of the square footage of the building was dedicated to the use of the present business?


Mr. Drunchef answered, yes.


Member Bononi asked how many vehicles are normally on site on a day to day basis?


Mr. Drunchef answered it could vary from 20 to 40 vehicles.



Member Bononi asked if all of the servicing on the vehicles is done indoors and would continue to be done indoors?


Mr. Drunchef answered, yes.


Member Hoadley referred to page 3 of Mr. Rogers report where he indicates that the rear building landscape requirements do not meet the requirement, he asked why not?


Mr. Rogers stated the applicant will, however, when they submit a Preliminary Site Plan, they are obliged to submit a conceptual landscape plan, which they did. He stated he called out certain items that reflect more detailing and refinement at the time of Final.


Member Hoadley asked why Mr. Rogers was requiring a waiver from the ZBA?


Mr. Rogers explained because the parking lot is not a conventional lot and because of the nature of the use a waiver may be justified.


Member Hoadley did not understand why the applicant needed a waiver.


Mr. Rogers stated it was the conclusion of Linda Lemke that the addition and the amount of interior green space on the site was very difficult to provide. He stated in the new Zoning Ordinance, around all commercial and industrial buildings, in addition to perimeter green space around the site and within the parking lot, there is a requirement for green space around the base of the building.


Member Hoadley asked what the hardship was and why the applicant could not comply with it?


Mr. Rogers again stated that the lot is not a conventional commercial parking lot. He stated it did not seem justified.


Mr. Pasche explained that the applicant has no problem putting green space elsewhere on the site. He stated where the green space is required, there will be truck heater blocks for winter truck parking up against the building so at that point, it would be difficult to put in a green space.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Bluhm what clarification he was looking for in regard to the location of existing storm sewer on site.


Mr. Bluhm answered, the applicant has shown a catch basin type feature at the back of the building where there must be some truck wall and it is not clear as to where it is directed. He stated he wants the applicant to clarify it and take account of it at the time of Final.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Bluhm if there would be any type of secondary containment in the event that there is a fuel spill or when the tank is removed to install a new one?


Mr. Bluhm believed that the Fire Department would need to address that issue and the applicant would need to meet the standards of the Fire Department, he was sure this would be looked at during the Final.





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

No: None









Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development referred to the report provided in the packets, he stated it was for informational purposes and discussion. He explained that it is a first step to getting the work program for FY98-99 in front of the Commission in January 1998. He stated this was the conclusion of a five year update of the Master Plan that was completed in 1993, a number of technical studies, background information and traffic updates have been done for the Master Plan analysis of land use. Mr. Wahl pointed out two items in the conclusionary phase which is the update of the Land Use Plan and Map and an update of the Thoroughfare Plan. He stated typically the updates have been done by the Planning Consultant and the Traffic Consultant, there has been a procedure that involved some work sessions of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to help the Commissioners provide input to the Consultants. Mr. Wahl reported that there has been discussion on a number of occasions with the Planning Studies Committee in regard to public input.


Mr. Wahl stated the focus should be on the rewriting of the Master Plan that would start approximately July 1, 1998 and be completed within that fiscal year. He stated the Consultants should provide a more definitive time schedule of steps at the January meetings. In addition, for future consideration of the work program and budget is the Communications and Community Liaison program which includes projects maps, other technical products that are utilized on a daily basis within the Department. Another is the Emerging Issues Budget which allows the Commission to allocate resources to study something that comes up that cannot be done in a couple days, or some sort of technical resources or information that are not something that can be easily be brought back to the Commission. He stated he has asked on several occasions as well as at the Committee level, if any of the Working Committees have other proposals that might not be targeted or programmed for the coming years work program. He stated there was still time for any Committee to submit ideas.


Chairperson Weddington did not remember discussing the numbers of the specific items at the last Committee meeting. She stated the Committee has not done a preliminary review of the budget that is being proposed. She clarified the issues being the Master Plan completion and adoption which consists of a Land Use Plan update for $12,738, Residential Density Update for $3,086, and the compilation and publication of the Master Plan that totals $15,670 to $17,666. She asked if this was the actual documentation and writing of the plan document and also asked, since it was being put on the GIS, will there be any reduction in the cost?


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant answered it would have added to the cost, he explained it was being provided through the GIS program. He understood that there would not be a charge for it.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there was any way to get a reduction for it being electronically prepared?


Mr. Rogers referred to a letter dated November 26, 1997 from JCK which stated if they had to do it on CAD, the cost for a Thoroughfare Plan, Residential Density Plan and the Master Plan would be close to $5,500, which the Commission is saving.


Member Churella asked about the research of the cost of a three-ring binder?


Mr. Rogers explained that pages in a three ring binder get misplaced and taken out. He thought a permanent binder would keep the document all together in sequence. He explained that there would be a reduction if a three-ring binder were used.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated typically the Master Plan document tends to not be amended very often. He agreed with Mr. Rogers that there is some benefit to having it bound into a document because it is not being updated on a regular basis and this keeps it all in one place.


Member Churella asked if 2020 was going to be added? He stated this is something that will be updated and changed.


Mr. Rogers stated the 2020 was being digitized.


Member Hoadley stated he would like to see the 2020 Visioning report as a part of it as well.


Chairperson Weddington stated it was discussed to include it as a part of the update to the objectives, she stated the 2020 report would not be taken as it is and include it into the Master Plan, they are two different things.


Member Capello asked if the Committee needs to go back and review some of the new information gathered tonight?


Chairperson Weddington stated it is preliminary, it is not complete and felt it absolutely needed to be reviewed.


Member Capello thought the cost for printing was rather high, he asked if there was a charge to anybody that wants one of the books?


Mr. Rogers believed the charge was $40 per book.


Member Capello stated he did not mind spending that amount of money as long as they were not being given away.


Member Csordas asked Mr. Rogers who would buy the book?


Mr. Rogers answered, developers, citizens, homeowners associations, attorneys, he stated it is the policy guidelines for people who want to invest in the City.


Member Csordas asked how many people have bought them?


Mr. Wahl thought 500 were printed and stated the City is usually just about out of them at the time another is being worked on.


Mr. Wahl made a clarification on printing in general. It was his understanding that if a Consultant says they are going to produce a product and printing is part of the proposal, then that route can be taken. If it is chosen to do something different, the City has a printing contract and it was his understanding that they would have to go through that procedure.


Member Csordas recommended raising the price so the City could benefit from it.


Chairperson Weddington stated there is a going rate for them, most of the surrounding Communities City plans are about $35.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any comments or suggestions for the Committee? Seeing none, she stated it would be firmed up for more detail at a later time.





Rockwell International Corporation vs. City of Troy



Chairperson Weddington stated she asked Dennis Watson to provide the Commission with a brief memorandum on a recent court decision on a case in Troy. The case dealt with the Master Plan being struck down because it was not being maintained and upheld and there were rezonings done in the City, that were inconsistent with the Master Plan. She stated it received notice in the popular press and thought it was a lesson for the Novi Planning Commission to be aware of what is going on.


Paul Weisberger stated he spoke to Mr. Rogers who happened to be a witness in the trial, and he informed that the City of Troy if planning on appealing it to the next court. Mr. Weisberger stated if it is a distinguishable case, it would then be printed and become law. He also thought it was important that their Master Plan had not been updated since the 1970's. Mr. Weisberger thought the important part was to distinguish oneself from the actions that the City of Troy took.


Chairperson Weddington agreed that the Commission has been diligent in trying to maintain the Master Plan and update it every five years or so. She stated the lesson for the Commission is to try to adhere to the Master Plan as much as possible and when it is decided to deviate from the Master Plan when they make recommendations to Council, they need to clearly articulate the reasons for their rezoning recommendation and site the factors, changing conditions or other factors that form the rational basis on which the decision is made.


Member Hoadley asked when a rezoning is done and was deviated from a Master Plan, would it be apropos

to recommend the Master Plan be changed to conform to the new zoning?


In the past, Chairperson Weddington believed that the changes were gathered and a public hearing was held to change the Master Plan. She clarified that the vote requires six out of nine votes to change the Master Plan.

Member Hoadley asked why there is not a procedure in place for when something is rezoned that is out of compliance with the Master Plan, that it be brought back to the next meeting to debate.


Chairperson Weddington explained it is usually done at the next Master Plan update.


Mr. Wahl stated it has been an initiative of the Planning Commission, he stated the Commission sets the Agenda for updating the Master Plan. If the Commission chooses to recommend to proceed with a Master Plan amendment, the Department would move accordingly. Traditionally, the Department has waited for the Commission to do what it wants to do with the Master Plan.


Chairperson Weddington stated they would be taken care of in the next update. She asked that a copy of the memorandum be forwarded to the Mayor and City Council. She stated she discussed it with the Mayor when she made the request and she asked for a copy of it.





Chairperson Weddington stated this is an item of information for the Commission.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant referred to the meeting minutes of the Implementation Committee of November 19, 1997. He stated it was found that the density standards for RM-1 already excluded regulated wetlands. He referred to page 3250, the last paragraph, footnote D should be eliminated. In regard to district height standards, the Committee recommended to take out two story height and leave the 35' height standard.


Member Capello asked if a plan comes in and obtains preliminary site plan approval, and the Ordinance is amended before Final Site Plan approval, under which standard is the applicant held?



Mr. Rogers stated there could be a paragraph put in that states anything receiving Preliminary Site Plan approval could be grandfathered in.


Member Capello asked if the standard was at the time of Final or Preliminary?


Mr. Rogers answered, whatever Ordinance is in effect at the time of Final is the one that they have to comply with unless the caveat is put in.





Steve Rumple, Staff Planner stated at the August 06, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, a survey was conducted regarding free seminars available to the Planning Commission. The top three of interest include 1) Open Space Development which would be put on by the Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner; 2) MDEQ Lakes and Streams Water Quality Management Discussion that Ashok Punjabi would be conducting; 3) Oakland County Bar Association, Shirley Robertson would put on a residential and commercial development seminar.


Mr. Rumple explained that he was looking for a motion for direction and he could follow up on the free seminars and come back to the next meeting with the availability of the speakers and get the approval of the Commission to set up the seminars.





Moved by Bononi, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct the Department to schedule the top three seminars as they can be fit in.


Member Bononi stated in the event that there are light Agendas, she would like to include a speaker within the Regular Planning Commission Agenda. She suggested this because most speakers do not have more than a 20 to 25 minute presentation and if any Commissioners had any questions, she thought it could be fit into an existing meeting which would prohibit everyone from running to an extra meeting.



Member Capello preferred not to take up Agenda time with guest speakers or seminars. He stated all of the Commissioners come from various backgrounds and some of the seminars might be advantageous to some while not to others. He preferred to have it optional for anyone who wishes to attend, including the community.

Member Churella disagreed with Member Capello because the seminars when held during times other than the Planning Commission meetings are not televised. He thought designating 20 minutes to a speaker could be done.


Member Bononi thought it was important to note that originally when the Commission talked about outreach of information, they were talking about information that could be of benefit to all. If there was a possible way that it could be done within the context of a Planning Commission meeting, she thought it would reach more people and this was the original thought so that if the Community was interested they would get the information.


Member Hoadley agreed with Member Bononi. He thought the idea of the seminars was to be educational for the Commission as well as the public.







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

No: None


Chairperson Weddington clarified a memorandum that was sent out from the City Clerk regarding the Disclosure Form. She stated she did not have anything to do with the design, she did not want to take credit or blame for it. She stated when the Commission implemented the rule change four years ago, someone within the Department created it. She stated the original could not be found but she happened to have copies of it.

Member Csordas wished to comment on the letter that was read earlier by Member Capello. He stated it was a very interesting letter and it was his opinion that if there was a four way stop currently located there and it were changed to a light, he could picture a green light going north to south on Taft Road at Nine Mile Road, and somebody coming over the hill at 40 mph and taking a flying leap down the road. Logically, he thought there was a lot of merit to the letter regarding that intersection and asked for Mr. Arroyo’s input.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the entire issue is under study. He stated JCK is primarily responsible for the design, it is continuing and ongoing, he did not think there has been any final decisions made. He stated there were a number of implications regardless of which way, there were a number of points well taken and they will all be reviewed and part of the recommendation. He stated at this point, there has been no final decision as to what will happen.









Moved by Capello, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:10 p.m.



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

No: None




Steve Rumple - Staff Planner


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

December 30, 1997

Date Approved: January 21, 1998