WEDNESDAY, APRIL 01, 1998 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 (arrived late), Churella, Hoadley, Vrettas, Watza, Chairperson Weddington


ABSENT: Member Csordas (excused)


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









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


Member Hoadley added under Matters for Discussion, the discussion of a letter dated March 24, 1998 from Oakland County regarding a rezoning on Wixom Road.





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





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

No: None


Chairperson Weddington announced that there was a notice published for a matter regarding Maples Place which has been pulled off of the Agenda as the application was not complete, therefore, if anyone was present for Maples Place, that Matter would not be discussed this evening.










Steve Rumple, Staff Planner announced he has received four letters of correspondence.


Mr. Rumple read a letter from Matthew C. Quinn dated March 17, 1998 in regard to possible OST rezonings and Master Plan Amendments. Mr. Quinn represented Ari-El Enterprises, Inc. concerning their involvement in a 2.3 acre parcel of property located on the south side of Twelve Mile road, west of Haggerty Road. Whole the City is taking the correct action in rezoning this area of property to the OST Zoning District, it was his believ that his isolated 2.3 acre parcel did not belong in the OST Zoning District. He stated he would be filing his own application for a change of zoing within the next few days. His request would be for the property to be rezoned to B-2, the application will detail the specific reasons for this request of change. He stated his site was not suited for OST uses because the proposal of putting a hotel on the site is not allowed by the OST Ordinance. The problem with this site is that it cannot be integrated into an overall OST District development because the site stands separate and independent from any of the properties to its south and west. The property is isolated as a result of the existence of extensive wetlands and wooded wetlands that exist on the perimeter of the site and on the abutting properties to the south and west. There is not anyway that a traffic connection would be allowed by the City from this site to another integrated OST development. Therefore, in order to save the City of Novi time, effort and money in including this area in an OST rezoning, he respectfully requested that the property be left out of the Public Hearing process and the mertis of the rezoning to B-2 be determined at a later Public Hearing.


Steven and Linda Reed wrote in regard to Zoning Map Amendment 18.573 dated March 30, 1998. They are the owners of parcel 22-13-100-12 that meets with the southern boundary of the property to be rezoned. It was their understanding that the development is to be a 24 hour emergency center. Unless an adequate buffer is put between their home and the center, they feel the noise could be a problem. The center is also supposedly going to be three floors, this eliminates any type of privacy that they have grown used to in the last 16 years. There was also the question of personal safety to be considered when it comes to their family. They also expressed concern with traffic and metnioned that the asphalt road is deteriorating with the amount of traffic. Between heavy traffic, bad roads and higher levels of noise, they felt that there should be no rezoning at this time.


Ken Nanda from Nanda Enterprises, Inc. Wrote in regard to Wilshire Abbey Subdivision dated April 1, 1998. Mr. Nanda represented Nanda Enterprises who is developing a 30 lot subdivision (Cheltenham Estates) south of the proposed Wilshire Abbey Subdivision. He stated during the approval process for Cheltenham Estates, several issues were discussed. 1) Secondary acess for both subdivisions - Mr. Nanda was given the approval to use the temproary secondary access road until MR. Lokey builds his subdivision and provides a permanent secondary access through Inverness Court. 2) Single curb cut for main entrance at Beck Road to serve both subdivisions - He has rpovided two stubs going to Wilshire Abbey. Several options were presented to Mr. Lokey for positioning of Cheltenham Drive for the benefit of both subdivisions. Nanda Enterprises is funding all costs of the land, construction of boulevard and all landscaping. It does not appear equitable that Mr. Lokey is allowed to use all of this for free while he denied an easement for a temporary access road. Regular maintenance of the landscaping for the entrance is required and the costs should be shared. 3) Double frontage on some lotsof Cheltenham Estates in case Mr. Lokey were to constrct a separate road on the north of these lots - The Wilshire Abbey developer is planning to construct a temporary road north of our lots 28, 29 and 30 to handle all construction traffic. The road will create a double frontage for homes on these lots, additionally, the current plans show this road touching the nrothern property line of lots 28, 29 and 30. There will be a lot of noise, dust and smoke from construction traffic on this temporary road only 35' from the homes on these lots. There is a strip of land ont he north side of Mr. Lokey’s lots which the temporary road can easily be located away from the homes on lots 28, 29 and 30.


Mary Louise Taylor, Marjorie E. Geppert, SueAnn G. Geppert submitted a letter dated March 31, 1998. When a clinic was proposed a short time ago, they expressed their concerns about increased traffic. It seems as though traffic has already increased. At that time the question was also raised about the need for another facility when others are so near. Increased noise does nothing to promote pleasant living conditions for residents, wildlife, animals and their habitat will also suffer. They asked that the Commission give consideration to their concerns when considering the proposal.





Chairperson Weddington announced there were two items for approval, the January 21, 1998 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and the march 04, 1998 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. She stated the January 21st meeting was the first meeting with the new recording equipment and unfortunately it was not hooked into the recorder, therefore, there were no tapes available and only an Action Summary could be provided.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To accept the Action Summary Report in lieu of minutes for January 21 1998.





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

No: None


Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any corrections to the meeting minutes of March 04, 1998?


Member Hoadley referred to Page 21, paragraph 5, line 4, the word "went" should be replaced with the word "gone".





Moved by Canup, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the March 04, 1998 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as corrected.





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

No: None













Consideration of amendment to the Master Plan for Land Use designation of Residential Acreage to Office classification for the area between Haggerty Road and M-5, from Twelve Mile to Fourteen Mile Roads (with some exclusions).


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the initiative by the City involves a proposed amendment by the Planning Commission of the Master Plan for Land Use. It involves property bounded on the south by 12 Mile Road, on the east by Haggerty Road, on the west by M-5 and on the north by 14 Mile Road, with the exception of property that is already proposed for Office use and Commercial use at the corner of Haggerty Road and 14 Mile Road. The proposed change is from Residential Single Family future land use to Office future land use. An OST Study was conducted by a group of City staff and Consultants January 30, 1998. Mr. Rogers stated the work was done at the directive of the Mayor and City Council. Work was done to consider the Master Plan Amendment as well as future rezonings of areas in the City. He stated there was merit for changing the future land use designation from Single Family Residential to Office for six reasons; 1) the area is expected to be served by 1999 by a full interchange at 12 Mile Road and two at grade intersections at 13 Mile Road and 14 Mile Roads. Such freeway linkages will open up the area into the regional freeway network; 2) the area is bisected vertically by an existing Detroit Edison 120kv steel pole line leading to the new Quaker Station at the northeast corner of I-96 and M-5; 3) the area is somewhat isolated from the rest of the City’s residential areas west of M-5 and has little existing residential development other than the Country Cousins Mobile Home Park and a few single family homes; 4)OST uses would produce more jobs and tax base while requiring less City and school services than residential uses; 5) There are large tracts of land under single ownership; 6) OST development can be attractively site planned to permit a compatible relationship with the residential development west of M-5 and east of Haggerty Road.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated a trip generation comparison has been provided for what could be developed under the existing development scenario which is for Residential versus Office.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development pointed out that the reports and information presented by Mr. Rogers and the other Consultants was put together and analyzed and they worked with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee.


Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.


Bob Schmid spoke as a City Council Member and expressed his opposition to the zoning. He thought there were many reasons and stated he would vote against it unless something happens in the next few weeks to change his mind. He stated the Council asked that the Staff look at a number of parcels. At no time was there any indication that this area would be rezoned as well as at no time did the Council make a decision that they would initiate its own zoning. He stated the only money available was to study the area, there was absolutely no money available nor has there been any decisions to rezone. Mr. Schmid believed they should remain large lots. He stated it would be one of the nicest areas for large one acre lots, the homes would be million dollar homes that would be a tremendous tax base for the City of Novi and it would enhance the northern part of Novi. He asked the Commission to think about what is good for Novi and keep in mind a that it was Master planned RA when the Haggerty Connector was coming in and has been ever since then. He thought it was an excellent location for Single Family. He believed M-5 was a limited access highway that was a benefit to single family homes. Mr. Schmid did not think there was a need to increase the amount of land for this type of zoning, he did not believe that Novi was in a crisis, he stated Industrial development might just be a little behind. HE stated it would create a major disaster in that area if that much Office was added to the two mile stretch.


Art Cervi, 28331 Haggerty Road applauded Mr. Rogers and the Consultants for even considering the area. He did not believe that anyone would purchase a $500,000 or a million dollar home on Haggerty Road. He assumed that whatever development is put in, the roads would accommodate the development. He stated he knew the tax base needed to be changed and thought the area was perfect for that type of development, not for single family, multi-million dollar homes.


Angelo Barbero lives on Haggerty Road. He stated he has friends who live in Summit and they say that M-5 is the best thing that ever happened to the City of Novi. He stated he fought it before and he’ll fight it again, he wanted to know why all of a sudden there were talks about all of the development on Haggerty Road.


Ray Soeters, 24279 Weathervane Court represented the new Church of Today West. He expressed concer of the consideration of changing the Master Plan to rezone much of the remining land in Novi which would make it unsuitable for church use. He passed out some information regaridn the church. He stated it has been a vision from the beginning, to locate in Novi. He temporarily holda services at the Village Oaks Elementary School, in February, they relcoated to the new Meadowbrook Elementary School and he was hopeful to build a permanent facility in the City. He stated the church has been growing at a rapid rate, if the growth is maintained, attendance would double within less than 2 years. He felt there was a definite need for a church facility of the type he proposes for the people in and around Novi. He did not believe it mattered whether or not he was in a neighborhood surrounded by homes or high tech businesses. He planned to establish partherships with people from the businesses and medical communities to work on quality of life issues. Mr. Soeters expressed concern about Novi’s consideration of revising the Master Plan to rezone large areas. He felt it might prevent him from obtaining land or from using it to build a church facility upon it. He was aware that the Zoning Ordinance permits buildng of a church on RA, R-1 through R-4 under special approval, and some Office Commercial land. However, under the strict guidelines of the Ordinance, churches are precluded from being built upon land which is zoned OST. He stated it could prevent him from finding a suitable location in Novi. He stated for several months he has been negotiating to buy more than 20 acres on Haggerty Road. He requested a preliminary opinion from the Commission regarding the use of the land to build a church, either by exempting it from rezoning or by granting it a special exception. He also asked the Commission if he should consider buying land in any of the areas slated for rezoning. Mr. Soeters felt the City should strive to achieve a balance between business uses and uses such as his, which promote and enhance the quality of life.


Vince Lee lives on Haggerty Road just north of Twelve Mile Road and stated he has been a tax payer in the City since 1979. HE statedhis property was cut out from the rest of the City. He could not visualize paying a lot of money for houses on Haggerty Road between Twelve and Thirteen Mile Roads backing up to the new expressway. He stated there was traffic to the east traffic to the west, no wooded ravine lots, no streams, no ponds and no attractive topography. He stated it was extremely logical to put something other than residental.


Linda Beshears, 29293 Haggerty complimented and praised the people who put together the study that came up with clear concise logical reasons why 600+ acres should be considered to be rezoned to OST. She expressed her support of the rezoning, she stated it was very logical. She stated it would share the roadways in and out, it was a clean zoning and it would share the tax burden with the residents. Ms. Beshears reiterated her support for the rezoning.


Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court stated he could easily support a low density residential development in the area, but the fact of the matter and the reality was that it was taken to court and low density residential is not gained, but instead, strip malls and other undesirable developments that are contrary to the long term desires of the Committee. He thought the Commission should approve the Master Plan Amendment, he thought it was a proactive step dealing with the realities. He stated there were some details that needed to be addressed and thought the book should be addressed when the decision was made. Mr. Mutch addressed the details he was referring to; 1) Land Use - he thought the Commission must state specifically, absolutely no Commercial in the area. He stated among the Office classifications for zoning is OSC. He stated the OST needed to be specified in the Master Plan. 2) The potential impact of the uses on the adjoining residential areas in Farmington Hills needed to be addressed. E stated there has been some concern expressed about parking lots facing onto their homes and 24 hour lights shining into their backyards. He thought the Commission needed to amake sure that parking did not face onto Haggerty Road. 3) Roadway improvements - He asked the Commission to consider landscaped and lighted boulevards in the high tech area. He stated they were much more attractive and much less intrusive on the surrounding land uses. He also mentioned that the intersections were gateways to the City and they should have additional landscaping and signage to let people know that they are entering the City. 4) Pedestrian pathways are not designated in the Master Plan for Twelve Mile Road, Fourteen Mile Road or haggerty Road. He stated there is an existing pathway on Thirteen Mile Road that needs to interconnect. 5) Woodlands and wetlands - He stated they needed to be protected. He suggested utilizing them as buffers or ways to mitigate someof the impacts of the proposed Office development. Mr. Mutch encouraged the Commission to approve the Master Plan amendment but focus on the details because they will make the difference.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.







Member Hoadley stated he has been in favor of re-master planning the area for several years. He stated it was not an intrusive zoning, it would develop almost no cost to the City of Novi as far as infrastructure, it would not generate a need for any schools, he stated people would move into Novi because of the Industrial. Member Hoadley disagreed with Mr. Schmid and agreed 100% with Mr. Mutch. He stated the details were impoprtant and if the Commission agrees to re-master plan it, they should specify OST. He asked Mr. Rogers if it could be re-master planned as an OST rather than just Office?


Mr. Rogers stated if there is no separate classification, in designating it generically, it would allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to act and have the discretion to go to either OS-1, OS-2, OSC, or OST. He stated it could be reflected in the recommendation and action.


Mr. Wahl stated the various categories of Residential, Commercial and Office in the OST are grouped in a more overall category. He stated during the study period, the Staff and Consultants considered the possibility of having a separate Master Plan designation for OST. It was felt that it was an undesirable approach because it does not allow the flexibility of locating OST or other Office classifications in different areas of the City athat are Master Planned as Office. Mr. Wahl answered, no, OST could not be designated as a separate Master Plan classification because it does not exist in the Master Plan. The commission would have to amend the language or categories in the Master Plan and go through the process to do so. He stated it has not been done and it is not being recommended.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To change the Master Plan designation of the area bounded by Haggerty Road, M-5 Corridor, Twelve Mile Road and Fourteen Mile Road excluding the gas station at Fourteen Mile Road and Haggerty Road from Residential to Office designation.


Chairperson Weddington noted that any change in the Master Plan requries an affirmative vote of at least six (6) Commissioners.


Chairperson Weddington stated she would be in support of the motion. She sympathized with the concerns of Mr. Schmid. She stated because M-5 is a limited access road, she agreed with the comments of many of the other residents that an island has been created. She thought that the Commission could better address the protection of environmental resources, better control traffic and protect the residential neighbors better with an integrated development that is possible under the office than if it were allowed to be developed under another zoning.





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

No: None





Proposed rezoning of property at southeast corner of Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road from RA District and OS-1 District for Saint Joseph Mercy Health Systems.


Member Watza stated his firm represents Saint Joseph Mercy Health Systems, therefore, he would not be able to participate in the next Public Hearing. Additionally, for health reasons, he asked to be excused.


Chairperson Weddington excused Member Watza.


Joseph Galvin stated the property was currently zoned in a combination of Office and Single Family Residential. It is Master Planned for Office. He requested that he be placed in the OST zoning district because he believed it was the zoning district which the City wishes the property to be placed in. He asked that the property be rezoned to OST because it meets the current Master Plan, it meets the goals set forth in the OST Study. He stated the use had previously been approved on the site for a competitor. The use is needed and desirable from a physical and economic point of view. Mr. Galvin stated St. Joseph proposes to bring itsheadquarters to the City of Novi. Mr. Galvin asked that the Commission recommend to the City Council, that the parcel be rezoned to OST.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the property is currently vacant and is porposed for Office future land use. Mr. Rogers recommended the proposed rezoning as being; 1) Consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use; 2) A major coordinated development of property on entire south side of 12 Mile Road between Meadowbrook Road and MDOT’s property along M-5; 3) Usable for intended medical center purposes; 4) Consistent with recommendation of City’s OST Study that site has potential for OST District zoning. Mr. Rogers recommended the rezoning without heistation.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant provided a trip generation comparison between the existing zoning versus the proposed zoning. He stated the existing zoning and the proposed zoning allow many of the same uses with the exception of the area that is zoned for Single Family Residential. He provided information regarding the surrounding road network. He provided intersection and 24 hour count information, as a point of information, the Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road intersection was evaluated in terms of a.m. and p.m. peak hours and it showed that the intersection was operating at Level of Service B during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours.


Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.


Steven Reed, 27168 Meadowbrook Road stated he was totally against the rezoning because of the area. He stated he could not get out of his driveway ½ mile away from Twelve Mile Road and this was telling him that there was too much traffic. He stated the roads were deteriorating. He pointed out that the southern section was being rezoned on April 15, 1998. He questioned it because his property was being rezoned without his knowledge, he found out about it because he read it in the newspaper and stated he was not too happy about it. He thought something should be looked into before any rezoning took place. Mr. Reed asked that better notification be made when it deals with the residents families and lives.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Rumple if he knew anything about Notices to property owners and if they had been sent out?


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner stated in regard to the rezoning on April 15, 1998, the reason Mr. Reed heard about it was because there is a 15 day Public Hearing notice requirement. Because the Novi News is only a weekly publication, it ends up being printed in the paper before he actuallly mails out the Notices. The mailing for the rezoning on April 15, 1998 has been postdated as of today or earlier which would give sufficient 15 day Public Hearing notification as required by State law.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else wished to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.







Member Hoadley asked Mr. Galvin if he had any problem putting up the required berm to screen off the residential property to the south?


Mr. Galvin answered, no he did not.


Member Hoadley asked if he would have parking lot on the southern border?


Mr. Galvin answered, the outline shown on the plan indicates a parking lot on the southern border, however it is just a conceptual location for the building that they are thinking about.


Member Hoadley asked what the timetable was for that building?


Mr. Galvin did not know. He stated at this point, it would ba matter of years. He stated there may be other changes to the southern end during that time. He stated he would deal with whatever is necessary to appropriately buffer the neighbor.


Member Hoadley commended the applicant on acquiring additional acreage because the propr project was overbuilt. However, he stated the problem remains on Meadowbrook Road regarding infrastructure being properly addressed. He stated it was a fact that traffic backs up almost ½ mile in the morning. He asked the applicant if he would make the necessary improvements to Meadowbrook to make the project work?


Mr. Galvin stated he would help deal with the general problem but he did not want it to be constured as saying that he would underake it to make the road system work. As far as the impact that his development has on the road system, he stated he fully expected to help deal with it.


Member Vrettas stated he would appreciated it if the applicant would give serious consideration to the pedestrian pathways linking up tih others in the area.


Member Capello asked if the client was a full tax payer?


Mr. Galvin answered, in regard to real estate taxes he believed that a protion of the activities were exempt. HE did not believe that they were completely exempt.


Member Capello expressed concern with the headquarters coming to Novi and the Administrative offices creating some type of exemption.


John Tatum of St. Joseph’s believed the offices would be tax exempt and portions of the medical building would be subject to property tax.


In regard to outpatient services, Member Capello asked if the applicant intended to expand to any overnight services?


Mr. Galvin answered, no, unless they get a certificate of need.


Member Capello asked if they would pursue obtaining certificate of needs to get extended, over 24 hour stays?


Mr. Galvin believed it was the case.


Member Bononi asked the applicant why he chose the OST classification as opposed to the OS-2?


Mr. Galvin answered he initially spoke with the City about an OS-2 designation. He became aware during the processing that the OST study was being performed, an Ordinance was being proposed and he believed that his application and those events made it something that the City would like the applicant to do.


Member Bononi asked what the applicant could do in OST that he could not do in OS-2?


Mr. Galvin thought he would be able to do the same things. He thought it would be more favorably received by the City, which was an obvious desire on his part if it were put in OST rather than OS-2. He stated it seemed that in doing so was in accordance with what he understood the Cty’s planning initiative to be for the property.


Member Bononi did not totally understand how the OST would suit what the applicant wanted to do any better than OS-2. She was not the least bit impressed with what the applicnat showed on the plan because there was a laundry list of uses in OST, in addition to those uses that are referred to OS-2 principal uses permitted including principal uses permitted subject to special conditions. She stated although the applicant may fully intend to build the plan shown, she was not convinced that they necessarily might. She was also not convinced that the zoning change was the right one for that piece of property.


Member Bononi asked Mr. Rogers opinion of how OST was a superior zoning classification vehicle for such a use, over OS-2?


Mr. Rogers stated OST permits everything in OS-2, OS-1 and would permit a multi-story hospital facility and office ancillary uses around a major building. He stated he recommended to Mr. Galvin to consider OST. Mr. Rogers thought it was a matter of uniformity, compatibiliy and supporting the forthcoming consideration for OST zoning for the balance of the area.


Member Bononi stated there were still quite a few uses that could be put in OST that could not be done in OS-2 which include manufacturing assembly, robotic research, etc. She stated land use decisions, master plan amendments do not have to match, she did not see any rationale for doing that. From that standpoint of the environmental sensitivity of the parcel, she was not sold on the density of the project, the sprawl of the porject or the fact that uniformity was being spoke of. She did not think this was a wise land use decision and stated she would not support it.


Member Canup expressed difficulty with understanding what benefit this development was bringing to the City of Novi. He stated the development would bring a lot of traffic into the City and the tax payers would be paying for the City services because this development will not be paying a lot of taxes.





Moved by Churella, seconded by Capello, CARRIED (4-3): To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.573 to rezone property on the southeast corner of Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road from RA and OS-1 District to OST District.





Yes: Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Weddington

No: Canup, Vrettas, Bononi


Chairperson Weddington announced the Commisison would take a brief recess.





Jim Antosiak, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals stated he has been a member for the past 5½ years. He stated he was not speaking on behalf of the ZBA but rather on behalf of himself. He stated the proposed Ordinance that is being considered for a Public Hearing would allow the ZBA to be the front line on the Site Plan reviews. Essentially, a party who is proposing a site plan would bring the plan to the ZBA with no consideration from the Planning Department or the Planning Commission and basically on behalf of themselves. Mr. Antosiak saw this as a very dangerous policy for the City of Novi and the beginning of blurring the lines of distinction between appeal from Ordinances and approval of site plans. He thought the Commission should consider the contacts in which the ZBA makes its decisions, he stated they do not have site plan approval, they have the authority to override any Ordinance of the City of Novi if the petitioner can demonstrate sufficient hardship. He stated this presents a series of problems for potential development in Novi. He thought the Commission should consider not pursuing a Public Hearing on the Ordinance because he thought it potentially sets a very dangerous precedent for the City of Novi.








This project is located on Beck Road between Nine Mile and Ten Mile Roads and is zoned R-1 (Residential) and is on 33.2575 acres and the applicant is proposing to build a 29 single family subdivision, seeking Tentative Preliminary Plat and Woodlands and Wetlands Permit approvals.


Member Capello stated he represented the subdivision to the north of the project in some minor association matters and in doing so he became somewhat involved as liaison to discuss the connection between Wilshire Abbey to Hummingbird Edinborough. He stated those discussions probably reached a point where he should abstain from commenting and voting in the project. He asked the Commission to allow him to abstain from voting.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any objections to Member Capello’s abstention from the matter?


Member Hoadley asked if Member Capello had a financial interest in the project or if he represented any of the parties present?


Member Capello answered, no.


It was Member Hoadley’s feeling that Member Capello should vote.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated Member Capello represented the subdivision association of property owners to the north of the project and he felt that abstention would be appropriate under those circumstances.


Member Hoadley asked Member Capello if he felt a conflict of interest?


Member Capello thought his vote would probably indicate that there may be a conflict of interest.


Greg Smith of Spaulding DeDecker & Associates, Inc. stated the property is 33 acres, the ground is gently rolling, there is a wooded wetland in the far northeast corner and on the far west side. He stated access to the property would be from Cheltenham Boulevard and he proposed to extend the road into the court. There are 29 lots that all meet or exceed the standards of the Ordinance. Giving the fact that he does not have direct access out to Beck Road, he asked that he be allowed to install a landscape feature in the middle of the entranceway just inside the project to be able to announce the project. There is a proposed detention basin in the far northeast area that will discharge ultimately into the wetlands complex.


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner announced there were some negative letters from the Consultants in regard to this project and although it was not included in the packets, the applicant did submit a letter requesting to come forward.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated all planning data has been provided, the lots comply with R-1 District standards for lot area, width and depth regulations. He stated there were a few side lot lines that were still not at right angles or radial to the street line. The applicant submitted a letter giving the rationale for providing certain side lot lines that are not at right angles owing to the nature and shape of the property. He concluded that the lotting is acceptable. The street plan ties in to the subdivision to the north and south to reduce the need for a variance for a cul-de-sac excess length. Proposed street names should be reviewed by the Street Naming Committee. 5' concrete sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all interior streets and the bikeway along Beck Road. Mr. Rogers recommended Tentative Preliminary Plat approval subject to review by the Commission on the side lot line alignment issues as quoted.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the project proposes access from three internal stub streets, two of which are provided to Cheltenham Estates and one into the Edinborough Subdivision. He stated both connections to Cheltenham Estates are necessary in order to meet cul-de-sac and secondary access requirements. He provided a trip generation projection. He stated that two of the stub street connections must be in place in order for the start of construction because there must be two points of access provided per the Ordinance and also in terms of meeting cul-de-sac length requirements. Mr. Arroyo pointed out that the proposed connection to Sarnia Drive to the south into Cheltenham Estates would need to be provided before construction the lots west of Althorp Lane in order to meet the cul-de-sac length. He stated the proposed island in the center of Ensleigh Lane near the east end of the development must be deleted as it does not conform with the Design and Construction Standards. The Design and Construction Standards state that a 230' centerline radius must be maintained and this does not adhere to that standard, he added that it would also put an object in the center of the roadway that could serve as a potential safety hazard. He was not in favor of that proposal. Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat giving the concerns noted. In addition, he noted that the stub street connection to the north to the Edinborough Subdivision does not go to the property line, there is a cul-de-sac and the applicant would need to coordinate the provision of that connection.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant also rejected the plan due to the cul-de-sac and the roadway on the east end not meeting the design standards. He stated the applicant has the option to remove it, they also have the right to seek a Council variance if they wish to leave it in. In addition, the applicant is proposing a construction access route from Beck Road through the area where the detention basin will be on the south edge abutting the Cheltenham parcel, then extend into the site. The construction access will serve purposes of road construction, utility construction and would be removed after that. The applicant proposed the road extension to Inverness Court, Mr. Bluhm noted that if it allowed to occur, there will need to be discussion at the construction drawing level of removing the excess cul-de-sac pavement to maintain the continuity of the roadway through and into the Edinborough Subdivision. Mr. Bluhm stated public utilities will service the site, there will be a water main extended to the end of Inverness Court for future extension into the Eddinborough Subdivision. There are two areas of detention for the site, the area on the west is for the storm water generated only from the western cul-de-sac area, it is very small. A swale micro pool detention area with stop points along the route to the wetland will provide the minor amount of detention that is needed for the water shed area. Mr. Bluhm felt this was a fairly innovative idea from an engineering standpoint as well as a water quality standpoint. He stated 70% of the site drains to the east to the basin proposed at the northeast corner of the site which will outlet to the north into the large wetland area. The applicant will be required to provide extensive amounts of water quality controls. Mr. Bluhm commented on the Ensleigh Lane island area and the issue with the quarter section corner notifications that need to be provided. With the exception of the issue on the bulb, Mr. Bluhm was in support of the project.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the woodlands are primarily located in the western portion of the site and connect off site to a large Core Reserve area. The amount of intrusion into the woodlands if very minimal, eight trees are shown to be removed and she felt nine additional trees would be impacted. Primarily it is for storm water detention and the basin in the east. The quality of the area is high. Ms. Lemke stated there was quite a bit of information that was still required and she would be looking for them at the time of Final. She stated the Landscape Plan demonstrated feasibility and there were some conditions that were due at the time of Final. In summary, Ms. Lemke recommended approval for a Woodlands Permit with the following conditions; 1) Payment of a Performance Bond of either cash or Letter of Credit; 2) No construction, clearing or grubbing can begin until the protective fencing has been approved by the City and an environmental pre-construction meeting is held; 3) The remaining woodlands on the site which are not platted, are placed into a Preservation Easement; 4) Preservation signage is erected as directed by the City; 5) Review of Final Engineering Plans contain and address the items as called out in her letter.


Mr. Bluhm stated the Environmental Department has reviewed the plan for a Wetlands Permit. He stated there were two large wetland areas that are DEQ regulated. There is a fairly large wetland on the northeast corner which extends off site to the north. The applicant is proposing outlets to each of the wetland areas, there will be pre treatment associated with both outlet points. Mr. Bluhm noted that there is a pathway proposed along Beck Road and he would like to see it shifted as much as possible to try to minimize any impacts into the wetland area. He stated his office recommends approval of a Wetlands Permit for the project.


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 with the following condition; the applicant is required to submit a hazardous chemical inventory for all chemicals on the site indicated on the haz/chem survey for construction activity. The submitted inventory does not list the chemical indicated on the submitted survey. The street names chosen for this project are being referred to the Street Naming Committee.


Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and asked Mr. Rumple to read the correspondence which was received this evening.


Michael and Anna Lisa Loiselle, 48777 Pebble Lane submitted a letter dated April 1, 1998. As property owners of Lot 6 in Hummingbird Estates, 21369 Inverness Court, it has come to our attention that a developer is seeking approval to create a secondary access through our cul-de-sac. We must take this opportunity to express our opposition to this proposal. We purchased this property because of its location on a court, obviously the homes have all been designed and built around the cul-de-sac, as Inverness Court has always been intended to remain a court not a stub street. We trust that the Planning Commission will protect the rights and interests of the Novi homeowners and not allow a developer to infringe upon our most valuable assets, our home.


Wallace Smith, President of the Homeowners Association for Edinborough/Hummingbird Estates. He stated the subdivision is 7 years old, there are currently 10 homes built out of a total of 17 to be built. Mr. Smith stated it has come to his attention that Cheltenham Subdivision was approved without a secondary access road, therefore, a temporary/permanent road is in place to Beck Road instead of a north/south access road that would have encircled Cheltenham and Wilshire through the Singh development and not his development. He stated because of a planning problem the developers are planning to connect to the cul-de-sac for a secondary access road. Therein lies the problem: 1) All the residents will suffer the impact of increased traffic. The residents along Edinborough Lane already suffer because of the increased traffic due to the Andover Subdivision. 2) The residents of Edinborough paid a premium for the lots on the cul-de-sacs, if approved, it will adversely affect the home values; 3) The houses surround the cul-de-sac, they are not parallel to the street; 4) Trees of substantial size would have to be removed. Mr. Smith found the proposal of a narrow gravel road unacceptable. He did not believe it would be any more of a deterrent to people using Inverness Court as a thoroughfare than the sign that currently exists. In conclusion, he wanted to know why the current residents of Novi had to suffer the hardships for the sake of future developers. He asked the Commission to turn the problem back tot he developers of Cheltenham and Wilshire to work together to develop a secondary access road along Beck Road that they can both share. He asked the Commission to please keep their problems to them and don’t make it Edinborough’s problem.


Michael Loiselle, 48777 Pebble Lane reiterated the concerns as expressed in his letter. He did not understand why someone with more money could come in and make his home less valuable by taking a premium lot and turning it into just another normal street. He stated he had three small children and he chose the lot for their safety. He asked the consideration of the Commission that it not happen and think of little people and their concerns.


Ken Nanda, 23115 Beck Road expressed concern with a connection with Inverness Court. He stated he has temporary access granted by the Council with the stipulation that it is a temporary situation and will be resolved when the developer on the north site develops a subdivision and a permanent temporary connection would be granted. Mr. Nanda sympathized with the homeowners, however, he paid a lot of money to acquire his parcel. Mr. Nanda expressed concern with Mr. Lokey’s proposal and the road that goes around the detention basin and touches Lot 28 & 29. He stated the lots are very shallow and the construction would only be 35 feet away from the houses. Mr. Nanda suggested that Mr. Lokey be asked to move his construction road somewhere that does not abut Mr. Nanda’s property. Mr. Nanda stated he is covering all of the costs of putting in a boulevard, landscaping and all of the construction. He stated the neighbor on the north side is getting free access without having to put forth any money. He did not feel this was equitable and that neighbor should be asked to partly fund the costs. He also stated that the landscaping on the boulevard must be maintained by the homeowners and it was not fair that they should be the only ones holding the bill for the regular maintenance of the landscaping because the homeowners of the other development will also benefit from the landscaping.


Cherie Cook, 23150 Inverness Court stated when she considered building her home in Edinborough, she was taken with the generous sized private lots and they backed to the wetlands with mature trees. She felt the price of her lot was more than she would have paid elsewhere but was worth the advantages of the secluded cul-de-sac. Incidentally, there were cows that roamed the field next to her sub. She stated her house was purposely angled in a way to give the neighborhood a cozier feeling. She stated all of the children of the neighborhood play on the cul-de-sac since there are no sidewalks. In keeping with the intended objective of a private subdivision, she strongly disagreed with any cut through of a road. An emergency exit is obtainable by access elsewhere and should not be forced upon them as was the street that connects them to Andover. Lastly, she believed the property value and marketability may be unduly affected by the eyesore.


Bruce Butske, 48100 Nine Mile Road shared the concerns expressed by his neighbor to the north about changing the cul-de-sac into something else. He considered it to be extremely unfair and agreed with the notion that it is taking someone elses problem and trying to distribute it among other people. Overall, it seemed that there was a lack of integrated planning starting with Beckenham. He stated whenever a subdivision is built, 30% of the water enters a swamp and like a basin, when water is added, it goes in all directions. One of those directions is to the south which is the end of his property. He has asked the City in writing and all of its Agents to desist from taking any action that will increase the amount of water being put into the swamp. He asked that the Commission do what it could to alleviate the water. Mr. Butske stated he would rather prevent the problem than have to take some kind of action if he suffers damages and he assured the Commission that this was exactly what he would do.


Leonard Walle, 47530 Edinborough Lane stated the traffic that would emanate from the extension into the cul-de-sac would go down Inverness straight toward his home and turn at the corner. He supported everything that was presented to the Commission on behalf of the homeowners and thought everything boiled down to one issue which was economics. Economics between the developer of Wilshire and the developer of Cheltenham working the issue out by putting in a secondary road. He thought the developers could work the issue out if they so desired, rather than imposing upon the Edinborough Subdivision.

Jeff Spencer, 23210 Inverness Court stated it was noted that Inverness was stopped to protect some trees and asked if they were no longer valued? He also wondered if three accesses were needed verses two.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on the issue? Seeing no one else she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Hoadley stated the Commission tried to get the two developers to work together and they refused to do so. Some of the hardships that Mr. Lokey brought up were self imposed because the two developers could not get together on a common road. He commensurated with Mr. Lokey in regard to sharing the costs of the entranceway, however, it was not an issue that the Commission could work on. Member Hoadley asked if the plan would be approvable with out the cut going into Hummingbird?


Mr. Arroyo stated the Subdivision Ordinance has a number of different standards and requirements related to access. One of the provisions deals with connections to external properties which states that streets shall extend to the boundary of subdivisions to provide access to adjoining properties at intervals along a property boundary not to exceed 1,300' unless one of the following conditions is found to exist; 1) the extension is impractical because of topography, the dimension of the property is subdivided or other natural features including regulated woodlands and wetlands, or the extension will result in the creation of an undesirable traffic pattern not customarily found in a residential area. He stated there was also another provision that says that the arrangement of streets shall make provision for the continuation of principle existing streets in adjoining or adjacent subdivisions insofar as they be of a width as great as that of the street to be continued. Mr. Arroyo stated there is also the requirement for two points of access at a minimum. The northern boundary of the proposed Wilshire Abbey has a total frontage of approximately 2,600 square feet, therefore, it indicates that they should provide a stub connection to property to the north in order to break up the block and provide for 1,300' long blocks. Mr. Arroyo stated the issue would be whether or not the connection could be made to the subdivision to the north since the street does not extend to the property boundary. He believed this was the reason for the applicant showing the connection because of the requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance. In terms of the access points, if the connection were not made, both subdivisions would then be served by the two access points that Cheltenham has to Beck Road.


Member Hoadley recalled looking at the Hummingbird plat and there was a legal stub that extended south through the cul-de-sac.


Mr. Bluhm stated it indicates a 60' wide outlot with a note on the plat that says, "For Future Public Road Purposes".


Mr. Watson stated it appeared on some of the Preliminary Plats and was shown as being an easement for future R.O.W., however, on Final Plat, it was shown as an outlot. Although it says outlot for future R.O.W. purposes, by designated it as an outlot it was not actually dedicated as a R.O.W. at that time. In order to make the connection over that outlot, it has to be dedicated.


Since there was not a designated R.O.W., Member Hoadley asked if the Planning Commission could force the owner of the property to the north to make the connection?


Mr. Watson answered, the Commission could not require them to make the full connection if the property cannot be acquired. The City has the option of condemnation of the outlot for R.O.W. purposes.








Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Vrettas, RESCINDED.


Mr. Watson stated the issue has come up in the past where there were some problems with plats at the Tentative Preliminary stage and the question of postponing has come up, he stated there is a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance that states the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation within 45 days of the time that the developer submits the plat.


Member Hoadley amended the motion to make it in compliance with the Ordinance and that it be postponed for the legal amount of time available.


Member Vrettas asked if the developers could come up with a united plan that would give them both the dual access that they need without affecting their northern neighbor?


Mr. Arroyo stated the only way he could envision it happening on a more permanent basis would be if Mr. Nanda ended his subdivision to actually create a permanent roadway connection where he shows his emergency access connection, to do so he would probably loose two lots.


Member Vrettas stated it seemed if the Commission were to turn the project down and say to both developers that they will have to work with each other, maybe out of economic necessity, to save both projects, they would have to sit down and force themselves to work with one another. Member Vrettas suggested turning down the postponement and vote no because it is not fair to the third group. He stated when developers are willing to work as a good neighbor, the Commission should move mountains for them, however, if they want to be stubborn then the Commission should hold their feet to the fire.


Member Canup asked if there was a reason that the area for the detention pond could not be made an access road?


Mr. Arroyo stated a number of alternatives were looked at and by bringing the access point out directly to Beck Road, the spacing standards would not be met. He stated there was another alternative that looked at making the emergency access area into a permanent access and eliminating the permanent access to the north and putting in a cul-de-sac. He did not believe that this was something that Mr. Nanda was in favor of bringing forward.


Member Canup asked if variances could be granted through waivers to make it so a road could be put through there?


Mr. Arroyo stated waivers could be granted by City Council. He stated it was a situation that was not recommended to have two access points to two subdivisions so close to one another, he thought it would be potential for some problems.


Member Canup stated the neighbors to the north needed to be protected and whatever it takes to work it out, he thought the Administration needed to do so. He stated any possibility of the subdivision exiting into Inverness Court needed to be eliminated.


Mr. Arroyo stated an option to do so would be to maintain the access as it is shown except to eliminate the connection to Inverness Court and change the road design so it provides a cul-de-sac within Wilshire Abbey Subdivision. He stated there may be a potential that the Council would have to grant a waiver on the requirement for providing stub streets every 1,300'. He stated this would be a much more desirable waiver to grant than to allow for two access points for subdivisions close to one another on Beck Road.


Member Canup asked if the Commission votes against the plan and turns it down would it encourage the two developers to work together and be more receptive to sharing the cost of the road going out of the property to Beck Road?


Member Churella asked Ms. Lemke if she looked at the cul-de-sac to see if those trees were historical or specimen trees?


Ms. Lemke answered they were not in the cul-de-sac, she stated it was not a regulated woodland.


Member Bononi was disappointed that the Wetland Consultant was not present to address the matter, she thought when a Wetland Permit was on the Agenda the Wetland Consultant should be present. She stated the items that go into the wetlands include gasoline and oil, lawn fertilizers, chemicals, pesticides, bacteria and street litter. She stated the developments all contribute to it and she was not satisfied with the information given with regard to the description of how that wetland would be affected. Member Bononi asked how long the applicant has owned the property?


Mr. Smith stated Mr. Lokey has owned the property for over 10 years, he has actively farmed it. Mr. Lokey has been a tax payer for that period of time.


Member Bononi stated we cannot force people to do what they do not want to do with their property. She thought from a land use aspect, the development was adversely affecting the property owners to the north who did not buy into the property or problems. She agreed with Member Canup in that the developer had another alternative for access. Member Bononi stated she would not support sending a positive recommendation on the plan, she stated it was not a good plan and the applicant had some work to do.


Mr. Rumple stated the application came in on January 20, 1998. Therefore, it is beyond the time frame to postpone the matter.


Member Hoadley rescinded his motion.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a negative recommendation to City Council on the Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit and to deny the Woodland Permit.


In regard to the innovative detention ditch, Member Bononi asked the applicant who would maintain it?


Mr. Smith answered it would be a part of the homeowners association responsibility.


Member Bononi hoped this would be made clear to the Council in advance of the decision that they make. She expressed concern about homeowners associations taking on the maintenance responsibility for the detention ditch.


Mr. Smith asked what impact would the negative recommendation have on Mr. Nanda’s project as he believed Mr. Nanda received his approvals under the presumption that this project would be moving forward and that he would be getting his access through the project.

Mr. Watson did not have a comment on this issue at this point.





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

No: None

Abstained: Capello








Seeking Final Site Plan approval.


Clif Seiber stated the Commission requested that he return for Final Landscape Approval.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the plan was reviewed on March 16, 1998 and all of the comments have been addressed except for two minor items that needed to be provided regarding details for protective fencing for existing trees. The maple at the entrance of the building needs to be evaluated to see whether or not it should be saved. All of the other concerns have now been addressed and she recommended approval subject to securing a ZBA variance for the placement of the berm.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated he spoke to Mr. Seiber and it appeared that when John Russo of AGA Gas came in, he had a concurring plan to share the driveway with Tutt Printing. He stated the approval of the ZBA allowed 30' of the 60' berm area to be on the R-4 residential property.


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





Moved by Canup, seconded by Capello, CARRIED (6-1): To grant Final Site Plan approval to Beech Tree Office Center SP97-47C subject to the minor conditions of the Landscape Architect.





Member Hoadley stated he would still oppose the motion for the same reasons he originally opposed it which can be found in the minutes.





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

No: Hoadley








An Ordinance to allow the granting of variances prior to the site plan submittal process. Possible public hearing to be scheduled.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated this matter has come before the Commission at the request of the City Manager and through the City Attorney. A proposal was drafted to deal with certain kinds of situations that occur when major developments are trying to make multi-million dollar decisions and have a difficult time dealing with it under the current process.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney added that this is the product of a memorandum from the City Manager. He stated there have been approximately 6 occasions where there were very minor type variances that people wished they could get a read on from the ZBA before they went through the entire site plan process. Mr. Watson stated in terms of the information that is required, it is not a full site plan, it is more of a concept plan, however, the ZBA would still have the authority to require any additional information that they felt necessary to determine whether a hardship or practical difficulty exists.


Chairperson Weddington asked if Mr. Watson knew of any other City that has anything like this?


Mr. Watson stated he really has not looked around for other Ordinances or similar Ordinances.





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED (5-2): To direct Staff to Notice a Public Hearing for a proposed Ordinance Amendment for site plan submittals as requested by the City Manager.





Member Hoadley was absolutely opposed to the concept. He stated he served some time on the ZBA, the Chairman who addressed the Commission earlier was absolutely correct. He stated it would take the planning process out of the Planning Commission and put it on to the ZBA, this would force them to make uninformed decisions. He stated the ZBA does rely on the Planning Commission and its minutes in order to make some of its decisions, he thought it was putting the cart before the horse. He stated he would not support a Public Hearing on it now, nor will he support a recommendation to change it if there is a Public Hearing, he stated he was opposed to it.


Member Canup stated he could see both sides, he could see the developers side in limited cases. He stated if he had to make a decision, he would leave it as is.


Member Bononi stated when the Site Plan Manual was looked at, this was one of her greatest concerns, she thought the process was backwards then as well as now. She thought the City Manager was right on from the standpoint of asking the question, this is why it is important that the matter go through a Public Hearing. She stated this is the only City she has worked at that the ZBA works in this way. She stated it causes people to spend a lot of money and waste a lot of time. She stated the opportunity to go to the ZBA first allows them to act like a sifting mechanism for land use issues. She stated if she were a developer who was interested in a streamline process, this is exactly how the system should work. Member Bononi stated she would support it because in a land use way, it was the right thing to do.


Member Vrettas stated he had no position at this point but he wished to respect the request of the City Manager. He stated a Public Hearing will allow the Commission to find out so they could make a decision. He stated this was a part of the learning process.


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner stated he sits on a ZBA for a Township and they see requests for variances prior to Planning Commission approval of certain site plans. He reminded the Commission that the ZBA is not an end all, there is still a Circuit Court if they wanted to go on and did not like the outcome of the ZBA.






Yes: Vrettas, Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella

No: Weddington, Hoadley





An Ordinance to amend the schedule regulating facade materials. Possible public hearing to be scheduled.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated currently the Consultants and Mr. Necci are working on more wholesale revisions to the Facade Standards to try to resolve a lot of questions. The revisions are taking a considerable amount of work and a longer period of time than was originally hoped. Mr. Necci advised that he did have some changes and things he wanted to get resolved in a more expedient fashion because he thought they were more critical and this is solely what this draft was to do.


Member Churella stated Mr. Necci left out one thing, when it comes to giving credit for fascia. He stated there was no credit given for any glass that you can see in and out of at the same time. He thought credit should be given for this because it is a part of the building.


Member Capello asked if there was any update on the issue as he understood it was on the Implementation Committee’s Agenda this evening.


Chairperson Weddington answered the Committee was not ready to propose other changes at this point. They have asked the Staff to send out for comments on proposed changes and asked them to also send the proposed changes to some other architects for their opinions on how workable the changes might be.


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner stated the issue in front of the Commission is more of a housekeeping situation and what the Implementation Committee looked at was actual changes of the Ordinance itself.





Moved by Churella, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Public Hearing for the purpose of considering a Zoning Amendment to the Schedule of Regulating Exterior Facade materials.





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

No: None


Member Hoadley stated he would like to see the Implementation Committee meet more often.





Request to schedule a Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Zoning Section 1602.10 (Discussion by Paul Weisberger).


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated there was no draft because it was still being worked on in conjunction with some Sign Ordinance changes dealing with the Town Center District. He stated the Town Center Steering Committee has been working on it and making some recommendations that are being put into draft form. It entails changes to the Sign Ordinance as well as a change to the Town Center Zoning Ordinance. He stated the purpose is to get it before the Commission before the Public Hearing.


Chairperson Weddington clarified that he was asking the Commission to schedule a Public Hearing to consider TC-1 Zoning Ordinance amendment and Sign Ordinance changes?


Mr. Watson answered, yes. He stated the Sign Ordinance would not actually be a Public Hearing but it would come before the Commission for a recommendation.





Moved by Churella, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Public Hearing to consider an amendment to TC-1 Zoning Ordinance Section 1602.10.





Member Capello asked if the rough draft should be completed before scheduling the Public Hearing?


Mr. Watson answered, yes. He stated he would have a draft at the time that Mr. Rumple does the publications.





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

No: None


Member Bononi asked if the sound system was the way it was going to remain? She asked if the Commission could ask that question to the person in charge and get some adjustments made. She thought it was entirely unsatisfactory and she has heard from people watching at home who say it is even more unsatisfactory. There is a lot of feedback, she thought it should be heading toward improvement and it did not seem to be heading that way.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Rumple to consult with Mr. Martin.





Member Hoadley believed this could be an important issue for the City of Novi and a representative from the Planning Commission or the Planning Department should be present. He recommended that Mr. Wahl or someone from the Department attend the meeting and bring back a report to the Commission because if it is going to adversely impact the City of Novi, he felt they should know about it and have some input.


Chairperson Weddington stated in the past the Department has been asked to send a letter to the neighboring community expressing its opinion. She asked if there was a consensus for this to be done or should someone attend?


Member Hoadley did not think an opinion could be made until the facts were known. He stated he would hate to send a letter one way or the other without the facts and the only way that can be gathered was if someone attended the meeting.






Moved by Churella, seconded by Vrettas


Member Hoadley respectfully declined. He thought someone from the City’s Department should attend.


Member Churella volunteered to go with Member Hoadley.


Member Hoadley agreed.








Rod Arroyo stated he was asked by Mr. Wahl to update the report. He announced that the City has received a Category A Economic Development Grant for roughly $500,000 for the improvement of the intersection of Novi Road and Nine Mile Road. This will allow the addition of some turn lanes and upgrade the traffic signal. He stated the Department was active in pursuing other road grants. Currently the round of funding for the CMAQ Grants, which are the Congestion, Mitigation, Air Quality Grants, are currently under weigh. Mr. Pham is working on a number of applications for some various intersection improvements which will help with spot congestion areas and address some safety concerns. Mr. Arroyo stated there was also an update on the City’s road program and all of the various road bond projects and where they stand which was prepared by JCK.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated the Commission should be aware that the Department is pursuing any and all available funding sources for road improvements. He stated there were several staff people who are assigned to work in this area along with the DPS. Mr. Wahl stated Novi is in a competition with other Communities and if we are to get more money, there needs to be more money coming in from the top. He wanted the Commission to know that the Department is doing what it can to get more road funds for Novi.


Member Hoadley commended Mr. Arroyo on his report. He thought one major road was being left out which was Beck Road. He understood Beck Road to be currently Master Planned for 5 lanes from Grand River to Eight Mile Road. He also understood that the City of Wixom had it programmed for 5 lanes north of the interchange. The reason he felt it was important to get this issue on the front burner was because it appeared that the exchange will be pushed up sooner. If it goes in, it will create a major traffic problem for the people who will be using Beck Road as a north/south corridor. He stated it needs to be worked on now to promote some kind of funding to 5 lane it.


Mr. Arroyo agreed with Member Hoadley in that it is in the long range plan and he thought there would have to be some improvements in the general vicinity of the Beck Road interchange. He was not sure how Beck Road would end up ranking with some of the other major widening proposals that are moving forward. He stated they get ranked according to congestion and accident rates and it is something that he would take a look at and pass along.


Member Hoadley pointed out that as poor as the interchange is currently, if some planning is not done on Beck Road now, when the exchange comes in, the City will be between a rock and a hard spot.


Mr. Arroyo stated the interchange should have a significant impact on the congestion right now. The improvements should address all of those problems.






Steve Rumple, Staff Planner stated he was requested by one of the sub-committees to put together some type of information form request. He stated it can be modified if anyone has any suggestions. The form is one that the Commissioners can use to formalize issues, the purpose is to improve communication.


Mr. Rumple stated according to his directive, he should have another Fee Free Seminar Speaker on the next Agenda. He asked, with all of the rezonings coming up, should he move it down the line?


Chairperson Weddington thought the Fee Free Seminar Speaker should be postponed due to the full Agenda.


Mr. Rumple announced that the Department has hired a Planning Assistant, Heidi Hannan. He stated she will have her Masters Degree in Urban Planning next month and will be starting work a week from Monday. He stated he would be introducing her to the Commission at the next meeting.









Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:40 p.m.



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

No: None




Steve Rumple - Staff Planner


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

April 15, 1998

Date Approved: May 06, 1998