WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 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, Csordas, Hoadley,Chairperson Weddington


ABSENT: Members Churella (excused), 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 or deletions to the Agenda?


Member Bononi asked about Agenda items 3 through 9 and the fact that there is no explanation or applicant listed and whether or not anyone reviewing the Agenda would have any idea what is being proposed.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated although the Agenda does not list the specific rezoning and area... (voice faded out on tape)


Member Bononi stated she had a concern from the standpoint of consistency in that, other rezoning applicants have explanations on the Agendas. Secondly, with regard to the individual Zoning Map Amendments applications for change of zoning, on the second page of the application it says; I, the undersigned (owner, attorney, or option holder) hereby request that this property now classified as... and then it says; Signed and Mr. Rumple has signed each application. Underneath Mr. Rumple’s signature, it says; If owner does not sign application, attach letter signed by owner, requesting the zoning change). She asked how this requirement could be met by what has been submitted?


Mr. Watson stated it cannot be met because the owner is not the person making the application. That does not make the Amendment... (voice faded out on tape)





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





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

No: None












Member Capello stated he received a letter from David M. Ware, Vice President of the Taubman Company. He requested that the proposed Zoning Map be amended providing for the OST boundary as noted above. A mock up copy of the location map was enclosed with Amendment 590.


Richard Carroll wrote, in August of 1996 he was considering having a house built on Deer Run. The street ended at a temporary cul-de-sac just past the property he was considering for purchase. He moved into his home in February of 1997, shortly thereafter was notified of a plan to extend Deer Run another 1,800'. The road construction was completed during the Summer of 1997 and there was a very permanent cul-de-sac built at the west end of the new construction. He expected it and looked forward to having new neighbors down the street. Further extension of Deer Run would be wrong, those who purchased property and built homes there, did so based on the fact that Deer Run would not be a through street, he did not expect and did not want the volume of traffic going past his house.


Scott Wood stated as a resident of Country Cousin Mobile Home Park, he felt that it was the responsibility of the City to not allow any zoning changes to the property owned by Country Cousin Mobile Home Park.


Steven and Dorian Roberts, George and Mary Thompson, Robert and Fran DeLauder and John Woodruff stated they live in Garvey’s Acres Subdivision on Thirteen Mile Road west of Haggerty Road. They were in disagreement with the City’s rezoning plan for their properties. The rezoning plan makes it impossible for resale as residential as they would be surrounded by offices on the north and south, in addition to being located on a very high traffic road. The current value for resale for office space is averaging $50,000 per acre which means the 1½ acre parcels are only worth $75,000. There is no way they could replace their homes on acreage in Novi for $75,000. They felt their parcels should be rezoned to B-3.


Benjamin and Marlene Chaska stated Deer Run was built as a local access road, additional traffic would be funneled onto the road from unpaved Nine Mile Road and Napier Road. The road is not wide enough for lots of traffic and would not hold up to traffic from hundreds of homes.


Hugh McVeigh stated as a Novi resident who lives on Taft Road, south of 12 Mile Road, he strongly supported the request for rezoning as for Zoning Map Amendment 588 and 589 from OS-2 and RA to OST. The development will convert vacant land into increased tax base for the City, it is beneficial to the City and the tax payers.


Timothy and Nancy Mitts objected to the road called Buck Drive. It is proposed that Buck Drive will connect to the cul-de-sac in Deer Run. They have resided in Novi for 8 years and felt if the road was allowed to be connected to Deer Run, all of the families on Garfield Road and Deer Run will be affected. They asked the Planning Commission to look at the overall impact that the road will have on all of the residents of Garfield and Deer Run.


Mark Chabarick stated the Deer Run connector was not necessary as an access to the proposed Park Place sub. The sub will be bordered by both Napier and Nine Mile Roads, giving ample access through the two main roads. The homes built at the end of Deer Run cul-de-sac contain fire suppression materials which alleviate the need for a second entrance to Deer Run. Of the 18 homesites on Deer Run, 5 homes are occupied. Of the five homes there are 8 children. Common sense dictates that if the road to Park Place goes through, the projected traffic volume will cause a serious safety risk. If this connector is permitted, it will serve as a diagonal short cut to Park Place Sub from Eight Mile Road, not to mention the only paved road in the sub. Since the proposed Deer Run connector is not necessary for any functional or legal reason, he asked that the Commission give this matter careful consideration.



Michael Dazy lives near the intersection of Garfield and Deer Run. The vehicle traffic that this will create will spoil this neighborhood and transform it into another commuting thoroughfare. Deer Run was proposed and developed with a cul-de-sac. Many homes were based on the perception that the cul-de-sac was the end of the road. He was proud of the woodlands and wetlands that were left by the developer and protected by the City, he believed that maintaining the natural wildlife woodlands and wetlands between Deer Run and a westward subdivision would be in the best interest of the Community and would preserve the character of this section of Novi.


Kurt and Terry Ohlgren stated Garfield Road is a 25 mile per hour rural road with very little traffic, many children ride bikes and rollerblade on the paved portion. Deer Run is a private setting small subdivision cul-de-sac. They felt secure with a "No Outlet" sign posted at the end of the street and the that the cul-de-sac would stay closed with no thru traffic. Their house is located at the intersection of Garfield and Deer Run Roads, it has come to their attention that a developer is proposing to connect a Napier/Nine Mile Road subdivision to Deer Run. The connector road from the subdivision through Deer Run and onto Garfield Road will be the only paved road access to the proposed subdivision. While they were not opposed to the building of the subdivision or the additional traffic added to Napier and Nine Mile Roads, they were opposed to connecting the subdivision to Deer Run Road.


Cindy Gronachan stated within the new sub, there is a road called Buck Drive. The road is proposed to connect to an existing cul-de-sac in Deer Run. She expressed concerns because Garfield Road is a one mile long road, 3/4 of the road is paved as a result of the wetland project that took place three years ago. There are no sidewalks, if Buck Road is connected to Deer Run, it would seem likely that Garfield Road faces an additional 1,000 cars per day of traffic.


Richard and Laura Kingsbury presently live in Northville on a street that connects two subdivisions. They stated their street is used for access to Taft. The traffic volume on the street is excessive, with small children, one of the main reasons for their move was to find a place where traffic volume would be low and limited to residents of their subdivision. Deer Run represented the perfect place to locate. The original plot plan had no street connected to Deer Run, if this is the case, the property and homes being purchased were misrepresented.


Mary and Ted Parent were currently building a new home at 49351 Deer Run, they have been told that consideration is being given to extending Deer Run from Garfield to Napier. Because Nine Mile Road and Napier Roads are both dirt, they were certain that many, if not all of the residents and their guests would opt to take Deer Run and use it as a thru road.





Chairperson Weddington announced there was one item for approval, the March 18, 1998 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. She asked if there were any corrections or changes to these minutes? Seeing none she entertained a motion.





Moved by Canup, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 18, 1998 as presented.





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

No: None


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner introduced Heidi Hannan the new Planning Assistant in the Planning and Community Development Department. He stated she comes to Novi from SEMCOG and the Department of Urban Planning at Wayne State University. She will be completing her Masters Degree next month in Urban Planning.


Chairperson Weddington and the Commission welcomed Ms. Hannan.













Located on the southeast corner of Napier Road and Nine Mile Road. The applicant is seeking approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat and Woodlands and Wetlands Permit approvals.


George Norberg of Seiber, Keast and Associates introduced Bob Harris and stated they represented the owner of the project. He requested a recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Plat approval, Woodland Plat approval and also requested a Wetland Permit approval from the Planning Commission. The site is zoned RA, water will be provided to the site by individual wells. Sanitary sewer to the site will be done by connecting to the existing sanitary sewer at Beckenham and tentatively constructing a force main to the site with a pump station situated just off the site. He stated he was in the process of preparing plans to present different alternatives to the City. The storm sewer will discharge in to three separate locations, one is a wetland which will discharge under a culvert under Nine Mile Road and discharge to the north. Most of the balance of the site will discharge into two series of detention basins and finally discharge into a wetland and travel under Nine Mile Road to the north. The smaller portion will discharge into the detention basin which will discharge into the Detroit Edison corridor.


Mr. Norberg stated he has reviewed the letter from Sue Tepatti of JCK dated April 08, 1998 in regard to the wetlands and he concurred with her recommendations and would be happy to follow her requests.


In regarding the woodlands, Mr. Norberg stated the first plan had 102 lots and 77% preservation. After submitting the plan, he met with City staff and discussed the different alternatives. He stated the final result was that he lost 2 lots and increased preservation from 77% to 94%. He felt the layout met the requirements of the City for woodlands. The other issue was relative to traffic, Mr. Arroyo indicated that a stub street should be provided to the east and south of the project. The parcel is zoned RA and without a stub street would end up with approximately 13 lots with a cul-de-sac length of about 1,100 feet. Mr. Norberg was hopeful that he would not be required to provide an outlet, he did not feel it was necessary to provide a stub to that parcel. In order to provide the stub at 1,300 feet, he would have to come through the dense portion of the woodland area. He requested that this stub street and the stub street to the south not be required. He stated he would attempt a waiver for both from City Council. Mr. Norberg stated there were two points of connection on Nine Mile Road, a point of connection on Napier Road and a connection to Deer Run. He asked for a recommendation for Preliminary Plat approval, recommendation for Woodland approval and approval of the Wetland plan.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated in the design of the lots, there were certain lots where the side lot lines were not radial to the proposed streets. He stated all of the lots have at least one acre. The internal streets have 60' ROW’s, Napier Road is shown as dedicating 60' ROW from centerline and Nine Mile Road as having 43' ROW. Road stubs are provided to the south and east. The one to the south would go into Deer Run and requires an easement under the Detroit Edison steel pole line easement. Five parks are proposed and intended for storm water and sediment detention basins, mitigation areas or wetlands enhancement. A 20' non-access landscape easement is proposed along Napier Road and along Nine Mile Road. 5' wide concrete sidewalks are proposed along both sides of all internal streets and an 8' asphalt pathway is proposed along Napier Road and Nine Mile Road frontage. Mr. Rogers recommended Tentative Preliminary Plat approval subject to revisiting the side lot line alignments and compliance with the Woodland Permit conditions in Ms. Lemke’s letter. The proposed street names will need to be approved by the City’s Street Naming Committee.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the applicant proposes 60' ROW’s, public roadways with concrete curb and gutter. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from Nine Mile Road and Beck Road. A force main is being proposed, this is currently being reviewed and evaluation is being made of the merits of a partial gravity or force main system, however, sanitary sewer is feasible to the site. There have been a number of conversations with people who live along Nine Mile Road, in regard to the sewer, he intends to take their interests in mind as much as possible. In regard to the pond/lake areas that extend along Deer Run Road, he did an evaluation of the need for guardrails and based on low traffic volumes, it was determined that they may not be necessary. However, if it is a public road connection, the issues will need to be revisited and possibly require the developer to construct guardrails in critical areas along Deer Run. There are four detention basins proposed that will all have pre-treatment for sediment and permanent water quality. The need for four basins in is that they are trying to mimic the natural grading and drainage for that area. The site falls from the southwest corner and outlets into three different locations off site. There were several comments with respect to the plans and Mr. Bluhm addressed a couple of them; 1) 8' wide asphalt bikepaths are proposed along Napier and Nine Mile Road, however, the Master Plan for pedestrian systems require 5' concrete, therefore, this change will need to be made. 2) Easements will be required for the off-site storm sewer and detention basin prior to subdivision engineering drawing approval. 3) An outlet will need to be provided at Waterland park at the natural overflow elevation. 4) Access to Darby Park will need to be clarified. Mr. Bluhm recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis that was submitted by the applicant. As indicated, the project has several points of access. One proposed off of Napier Road, there are two points of access to Nine Mile Road. Mr. Arroyo stated City Ordinances require that there be stub streets to provide for access to adjacent parcels at a distance not to exceed every 1,300'. He indicated the area to the south and east would need to have a stub street in order to meet City standards. The stub street that is proposed to Deer Run satisfies one of the requirements. The connection to Deer Run is being driven by two separate City Ordinance requirements. In regard to the cul-de-sac requirement, Buck Drive is effectively a cul-de-sac that exceeds 1,000' in length from the point of two points of access, the maximum length for a cul-de-sac is 800', therefore it exceeds that length. There are some options, in terms of access, there are two options, one is to provide the connection as is proposed, the other would be to make the connection for emergency vehicles only. Mr. Arroyo stated there is a trip generation forecast included. A project of this size is anticipated to generate 81 trips during the morning peak hour, 109 during the afternoon peak hour and just over 1,000 trips over a 24 hour period. The applicant has provided an evaluation of many off site intersections and all are operating at acceptable levels of service, with the exception of Beck Road and Nine Mile Road intersection which is at Level of Service F due to the fact that it operates as a four way stop. In regard to access to the external road network, Mr. Arroyo suggested that DPW Superintendent, Craig Smith be asked to provide comment on Nine Mile Road as it is a gravel City road. Mr. Smith indicated that the City provides quite a bit of maintenance on those roads and with any increase in traffic, there would be an increase in maintenance by the City DPW. In conclusion, Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat because the primary issue being the stub streets not being shown as required in the City Subdivision Ordinance.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated there are regulated woodlands located in several areas of the site, most predominantly in the southeast corner. She stated there are light woodlands along Nine Mile Road in two areas. A 2.5 medium woodland is located in the northeast corner and there are approximately 3.9 acres of light woodlands further west. The 2.5 area is located next to a larger woodland that continues off the site behind proposed Lots 39 and 37 in Whitney Park. She stated some of the woodlands have been removed previously by the applicant and there will be an extra 30 trees required for the replacement. The largest and highest quality area of the woodlands on the site are the 12 acre medium woodlands in the southeast corner. There is a total of almost 18 acres of regulated woodlands on the site. There are no existing nominated historic or specimen trees present on the site, however, there are several potential trees that should be considered for historic specimen trees. The quality of the woodlands in the southeast corner is the highest quality and is comprised of two areas that connect to one another. All of the woodlands are part of the Core Reserve area. In the 12 acre site, species are primarily oak, hickory along the south and beech maple in the woodlands that are a part of the northeastern system. Small pockets of wetlands occur in both areas of the woodlands and under story species are the same as what is found in the over story tree species. Ms. Lemke stated she has met with Mr. Norberg several times and discussed alternatives. She stated she felt comfortable with the design alternative that he came up with, the road has been moved to the narrowest portion of the site, the large hedgerow along the south has been taken out, the cul-de-sac has been moved over so the area of intrusion into the edge vegetation has been reduced, the detention pond has been moved to the south, the applicant will be adjusting the sanitary sewers in both areas to pull them both out of the woodlands. The largest area of disruption is on Lot 29, Ms. Lemke noted that there was some existing disruption. There will be 61 regulated trees removed. She stated there were a few items that still needed to be provided; 1) direct roof drainage and sump pumps into the main storm system; 2) location and dimensions of all overhead utilities need overhead line location in south; 3) locations or need for permanent tree protection measures such as wells and retaining walls; 4) tree protection is shown on the plan, detail needs to be changed per City Detail; 5) a list of the trees to be removed for lots 26 and 30 need to be provided as the numbers are not legible; 6) additional woodlands fencing in the R.O.W. areas. Ms. Lemke listed trees that she had particular concern with. She recommended approval for a Woodlands Permit with the following conditions: 1) Payment of a Performance Bond; 2) Remaining Regulated Woodlands which are not platted are placed into a Preservation Easement; 3) Preservation signage is erected; 4) No construction including clearing or grubbing can begin until the protective fencing has been approved by the City and an environmental pre-construction meeting is held.


Sue Tepatti, Water Resources Specialist stated the site contains numerous wetland pockets which are primarily located on the outside edges of the development. The wetland along Nine Mile Road is connected further north to additional wetland which continues off site. There is a large forested wetland that continues north and is connected under Nine Mile Road with a culvert, this area contains permanent standing water in the center. She stated there are quite a few small pockets of wetlands which are within the forested areas, those areas are proposed to be preserved and will be providing additional habitat within the woodland areas. The applicant requires a Wetland Permit for a variety of impacts to some of the areas, the most significant is the installation of a bikepath along Napier Road which will require some fill. Wetland X is proposed to have a small amount of fill along the entrance road and she is working with the applicant to reduce the amount of fill. The applicant is constructing a sedimentation/detention basin and the water will discharge into the larger wetland system and will be pre-treated and detained in the basin prior to its release. A number of small wetland pockets are being preserved and will require City Council approval for platting the wetlands within the lots. The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland area, under 2 acres, currently located in farm field, due to the quality and size of the wetland, Ms. Tepatti did not object to the amount of fill. Ms. Tepatti stated she also worked with the applicant for the Darby Park wetland. She stated a portion of this wetland is proposed to be disturbed to construct the forebay for the sedimentation/detention basin. The detained runoff will enter the wetland prior to reentering the storm system. Ms. Tepatti recommended that the basin be planted with wetland species. She stated the applicant will be requiring a DEQ permit prior to any issuance of a City permit. In summary, Ms. Tepatti recommended approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat. She had a variety of conditions of which she wished to impose on the Wetland Permit; 1) A DEQ permit and approval must be obtained for all of the work; 2) The petitioner shall investigate utilizing retaining walls or other methods to reduce fill along the edge of Wetland X; 3) All basins and slopes adjacent to wetlands should be planted with a variety of species that will be shown on the landscape planting plan; 4) A sequence of construction for the proposed sewer is submitted for review; 5) Mitigation plans shall be submitted to review hydrology, topography, and plantings; 6) A cost estimate must be submitted for the mitigation; 7) A wetland preservation easement shall be placed over remaining wetland areas; 8) Applicant should investigate redesigning the storm sewer to eliminate some of the buffer and wetland impacts.

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


Chairperson Weddington also announced she has received a letter from Craig Smith, DPW Superintendent which Mr. Arroyo has already summarized.


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


Diane Chippewa, 48800 West Nine Mile Road expressed concern with the applicant conducting another meeting with the residents since this is the only Public Hearing for the area. At this point in time it is not being stated exactly how the sewer will be laid out, she felt it could have a big effect on the residents. She was hopeful that the applicant would continue to work with the residents in the are to keep them informed. She stated if the sewer runs down Nine Mile Road, will have a big effect on the residents who did not receive notification of the Public Hearing tonight because they are not within the legal boundary. Ms. Chippewa also expressed concern with the impact on the roads and the road drainage.


Kurt and Theresa Ohlgren, 21666 Garfield just located from North Carolina and bought the property for the advantages of the location. Mrs. Ohlgren stated the impact of the traffic, headlights, noise, dust and increased risk of accidents in front of their home would be felt tremendously. The probability of cars sliding through the stop sign at Deer Run in the winter will be in her front yard or her living room would be increased. She was concerned about the safety of her children as they wait for the bus in the morning on roads that have no sidewalks with increased traffic. She was not opposed to the building of the subdivision, she was opposed to connecting the subdivision to Deer Run Road creating a pass through short cut that would ruin the safety, peace and tranquility of the surrounding neighborhood.


Dick Kingsbury, 49651 Deer Run stated until two weeks ago, he was unaware that there would be any more access on his stretch of the road. One of his main concerns when choosing his house was to find an area that would have limited traffic for his children to play. He urged the Commission to consider not connecting the new subdivision to his for vehicle traffic.


Cindy Gronachan, 21668 Garfield stated her driveway is approximately 300' from the end of Deer Run. She appeared before the Commission to reiterate her concerns for the Buck Drive connecting to Deer Run cul-de-sac. She thought an emergency use only road should be proposed for the subdivision with break away gates. She was concerned that perhaps three years down the road the road will become a through street. Ms. Gronachan also expressed concern with the fact that the existing residents in an established neighborhood could very well be affected. Per the minutes of the Construction Board of Appeals dated July 18, 1996, Deer Run was granted a variance for the extension of the cul-de-sac, she stated it was quite evident that the number one concern was that the stub street had to be proposed for safety reasons. The residents of Garfield Road and Deer Run were strongly supporting an emergency road only use for Buck Drive. She asked the Commission to look at the entire picture before they voted on the subdivision.


Mary Parent & Ted Parent, 49351 Deer Run stated they were currently building on Deer Run. Mr. Parent stated if a road were to be cut through and it was necessary to build barriers, it would spoil the ambiance of Deer Run. He stated it could also be a dangerous situation as the road snakes through the ponds.


Dick Carroll, 49590 Deer Run stated he has lived in Novi for 12 years. He understood that development of the area was inevitable. He reiterated comments of the other residents. He expressed concern about the traffic flow and wildlife crossing the road. He stated he did not have a problem with the development, it just needs to be done in a controlled manner that would not negatively impact the residents who bought their property under one set of parameters that now appear to be changing.



Loretta Szur, 51000 Nine Mile Road hoped that the Commission, the developer and the City Council carefully consider the concerns of the residents in the area. She asked them to plan well and be proud of what they will do.


Bill Szur, 51000 Nine Mile Road stated he sits on the chair for S.W.A.N. On January 26, 1998, the S.W.A.N. members met to discuss issues concerning the area which included the Park Place development. The attendees of the meeting had concerns regarding the sewers and if they would follow the road or would it enter into residents properties, what would the impact be on the properties and how much would it cost to tie in. The residents also expressed concern with the wells that the homes would need to have since there is no City water being offered. Lastly, the residents were concerned with the road conditions. Mr. Szur asked the Commission to consider these issues in planning the subdivision and any other future developments in the area.


Doug Polidori, 49800 Nine Mile Road stated he could not wait for the subdivision to come in, he could not wait for the sewers to come because they are needed. He thought Deer Run was a great development and stated he always had a feeling that it would be a cul-de-sac because it did not make sense to stop when there would be another subdivision right behind it. He stated Garfield Road was one of the best roads right now and he did not know how it could be used for just 20 families.


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.





In regard to the issue of Buck Drive to Deer Run, Member Csordas stated the practical solution would be a break away gate for Buck Drive, he could not see that Park Place residents would have any reason to exit that way. He asked Mr. Arroyo if this was a practical and good solution regarding emergency access?


Mr. Arroyo stated in terms of emergency access, either one would work, the full connection or the emergency access connection. He stated the best solution is one that is more of a policy decision. The City has a number of Ordinances that require that residential projects connect to one another. He stated once it comes time to make the connection of course there will be concerns because the residents have already been living there and the new project will add traffic to their road network.


Member Csordas could not see any reason to support the road going directly through the subdivision without the breakaway gate. He asked Mr. Arroyo to point out the locations of the recommended stub streets. He asked the petitioner for his position on putting in the stub streets?


Mr. Norberg stated the two parcels with an 1,100' cul-de-sac would yield about 9 lots less than a typical R-4 subdivision, therefore, the cul-de-sac length is 200' long but the limited access to the number of residents is still less than what would be limited under an R4 situation. He stated his main reason was that the density was so low on the parcels, that to provide a stub street to them is not necessary.


Member Csordas asked Mr. Wahl to review the Beckenham breakaway and if it was a condition of approval he asked Mr. Wahl to follow up to see if a breakaway gate was actually put up.


In regard to Lots 27, 28 and 29, Member Csordas asked Ms. Lemke what the lot owners options would be as far as developing into the woodlands after they take possession of the property?


Ms. Lemke stated the woodlands would be put into a Preservation Easement and the homeowner would not be able to remove anything from the ground up.



Member Csordas asked Mr. Bluhm who would maintain the water treatment devices in the retention basins?


Mr. Bluhm answered since it is a subdivision, the basins would be maintained by the City.


Member Csordas stated the breakaway gate with limited access would be the only way that he would approve the subdivision.


Member Hoadley agreed with Member Csordas. He expressed concern with following the Ordinances and not requiring stub streets where they belong. He asked why a stub street could not be brought in on Parkview Drive in lieu of having another cut on the adjacent property?


Mr. Seiber stated the lot is 290' deep.


Member Hoadley suggested it could go 400' into the property and be cul-de-sac, therefore the land could still be developed. He stated it might be less expensive and the job could still be done. Member Hoadley stated he was not particularly thrilled about approving the plan without the cul-de-sacs being provided.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Bluhm why Nine Mile Road could not be regraded to a crown and have some ditches put in? He asked if the developer could be required to pay for some of the cost?


Mr. Bluhm stated when the road is graded they do a crown in the gravel road so the drainage goes off the road. He stated the problem along Nine Mile Road is that it is excessively flat through the longitudinally across the roadway.


Member Hoadley asked if more drainage ditches or deeper drainage ditches could be put in?


Mr. Bluhm stated the problem with deepening the drainage ditches is, since it is so flat to begin with if the slope away is not there, the ditches cannot be just deepened.


Member Hoadley asked why a culvert could not be put in?


Mr. Bluhm thought the City looks at it as they continue their grading program for that road. The problem with a gravel road is that it is in a constant state of change, as problem areas surface, culverts are put in, ditches are redone, grading is redone and it is a constant battle.


Member Hoadley stated it was obvious that the City has to step up to the plate now in order for it to be approved properly. He thought some provision should be made to assist or ask the developer to assist to some extent, to put in culverts or whatever is necessary to get the water off of the road. Member Hoadley recommended making it a condition of approval.


Member Hoadley asked Ms. Tepatti, rather than filling in the wetland where the sidewalk is going to be, why can’t a boardwalk be built?


Ms. Tepatti stated that was a possibility and it would reduce some of the fill along the area. She stated there are some problems with maintenance and safety with boardwalks. It was her understanding that the City was leaning toward sidewalks in most cases. The DEQ will look into the issue of safety along the roadway and the necessity of the walk in regard to the wetland fill. In the past, both have been recommended due to the traffic along Garfield Road, she stated she was not objecting to the fill for the boardwalk.


Member Hoadley asked Ms. Lemke where the 48" tree was located?


Ms. Lemke answered, it was located along Napier Road.

Member Hoadley asked why she thought it was going to be lost?


Ms. Lemke answered, as of right now, the applicant is not showing any protective fencing around it.


Member Hoadley asked if she would make it a requirement that the tree be preserved and protected?


Ms. Lemke answered, yes.


In regard to a Core Animal Reserve, Member Hoadley asked if an animal culvert would be necessary on Beck Road where it interdicts the woodlands and why it is not being recommended?


Ms. Lemke stated she considered one on Buck Road. She stated she would like to look at that during final engineering, right now she would consider it strongly.


Member Hoadley asked if she would be uncomfortable if it were made a condition of approval?


Ms. Lemke answered, no.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney referred to a question raised by Member Hoadley regarding whether the developer could be required to make improvements to either Napier Road or Nine Mile Road. Unfortunately, he stated it was not something that could be imposed as a part of the approval. He stated there were circumstances if access to a road is unsafe where it can be prohibited at a certain point or require it to be relocated so it will be safe, but where the access itself is otherwise safe, it is not something that could be required.


In regard to Member Csordas’s question in regard to Beckenham and the breakaway gate, Member Capello recalled specifically discussing putting a breakaway gate on Nine Mile Road. He stated Mr. Arroyo gave a lot of advice on this issue and it was eventually decided not to put the breakaway gate because of the close proximity that the road was to Beck Road.


In regard to the north part of the property where the heavy woodlands are located, Member Capello asked Ms. Lemke if the woodlands continued up into the property to the north?


Ms. Lemke answered, yes.


Member Capello asked when the property is developed, will the developer be required to stay out of the woodlands as much as possible?


Ms. Lemke answered, yes.


If the requirement is to stay out of the woodlands, Member Capello asked why a stub street should be put in. He stated this would give the developer a reason to come in front of the Commission and argue that they should encroach upon the woodlands because they have put in a stub street.


Ms. Lemke agreed.


In regard to the plans, Member Capello stated it looked like there were some new proposed lots. He understood Deer Run to have received a variance from City Council to extend beyond the cul-de-sac length. He asked if a breakaway gate is to be put in, how will there be access to the additional lots without extending beyond the cul-de-sac length? He stated it made sense to access it from a safer road as opposed to an already over extended cul-de-sac and asked if there were any other alternatives?


Mr. Norberg stated there were no other outlets for Deer Run.


Member Capello stated Waterland Park along the south and east, he did not see any sense in having a sidewalk constructed there. He thought it would look nicer in the subdivision if the natural habitat were allowed to take over. He felt the same thing for the parcel on Nine Mile Road at Wheatland Road, he believed that the sidewalk on the west side was not necessary. He asked if it is approved without the sidewalk that there be concrete across the grass where the sidewalk ends.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED (4-2): To send a positive recommendation to City Council for approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat for Park Place Subdivision SP97-44A subject to a waiver for the stub streets on the south and east as well as waiver of sidewalks on the east and south boundaries adjacent to Waterland Park and the accepted parcel on Wheatland and Nine Mile Road as well as subject to all of the Consultants conditions and in addition to install an emergency breakaway gate at the end of Buck Drive.





Member Canup stated ever since Novi has started to heavily develop since the late 1960's, one of the things that has been seen is the proliferation of small lots/large houses. He thought the project was commendable and it appeared that it would develop into estate sized lots with estate sized homes on them. He thought the use of sidewalks would detract from the look of the development. He asked that the motion be amended to allow the petitioner the opportunity to remove the sidewalks if he sees fit to do so.


Member Capello did not have a problem with the amendment.


Mr. Watson stated it would be a recommendation for a variance by the City Council.


In regard to the extension of the sanitary sewer line, Member Bononi asked Mr. Bluhm what the distance was to extend the sanitary sewer line to serve the site?


Mr. Bluhm stated it would be roughly 7,000 feet.


Member Bononi asked who pays?


Mr. Bluhm understood that the developer would initially construct the sewer and has an intention of asking the Council for a payback for the service district that would use the sewer.


Member Bononi asked how the construction of the sewer was funded?


Mr. Bluhm stated there were several different ways that the applicant could fund it. One way was for the applicant to petition the City Council for a payback, which was basically a contract SAD where the applicant builds and pays for the sewer and the City establishes a Payback Ordinance to have the ultimate users pay back a portioned share of the cost through the City, to the developer.

Member Bononi asked for a ballpark estimate of cost for a 7,000' sanitary extension.


Mr. Bluhm asked Mr. Norberg to comment to whether he has done cost estimates?


Mr. Norberg stated there has not been anything definite, however, it may be in the range of $800,000 to 900,000, it is still preliminary.


Member Bononi asked Mr. Bluhm if everyone along that route would be compelled to tie into that line and would they be required to participate in a special assessment district in order to help pay for the extension of the line?


Mr. Bluhm deferred to Mr. Watson.


Mr. Watson stated they would not be compelled to participate in the special assessment district. He stated City Council could create a district that would require all of the people to be in. More possibly, would be the developer fronting all of the costs for the construction and when people decide to use it, they would pay a tap fee that would reimburse a portion in share of that cost. Mr. Watson stated the City has an Ordinance that provides for use by people when they are within a particular distance of such infrastructure, they are only compelled to use it when and if the septic system fails.


In regard to the access roads to the site, Member Bononi stated the number of projected trips that would be generated as a result of the construction of the subdivision was of great concern to her. One of the things in addition to construction a sanitary extension, the developer has the opportunity to propose to improve those streets. Member Bononi thought the breakaway gate situation did not recognize the problem because they often are not put in place, they are unsightly and they speak to failed planning policy.


Member Bononi amended the motion to send a proposal to review stub street applications within the Ordinance to the Implementation Committee.


Member Canup stated he would support the motion if it was made after the current motion on the floor was voted upon.


Chairperson Weddington thought this could be voted on as a separate matter.


Member Bononi asked the applicant to point out the lots that would be considered to be located on soils that would be difficult or unsuitable to build on because of seasonal or high water table limitation.


Mr. Norberg did not know of any.


In regard to the two parcels that are shown on the plan as being accepted, Member Bononi asked why they were accepted?


Mr. Norberg stated one was being set aside for detention and there would be an easement across it for drainage, the other is for detention and is proposed for a City owned pump station after it is built.


Member Bononi asked who would own the other parcel?


Mr. Norberg stated it would remain in the ownership of its current owner.


Member Bononi asked Mr. Bluhm if he thought in exchange for that parcel and the maintaining of a lift station, that it is an equitable proposition for the City of Novi and what does the City get out of it besides the maintenance headache?


Mr. Bluhm answered, stated if the applicant is requesting that the City purchase the property where the pump station is, that would be the preferred method of handling it because the City would have control over what happens with the property and the maintenance and functioning of the pump station. He did not think he was in a position to say that he was accepting the entire parcel, he thought what was being looked at was just the area that the pump station would encompass and a buffer around it.


Member Bononi pointed out that she did not think it was unreasonable to expect that the City knows what the situation is at this preliminary stage. Whether a lift station or a deep elevation and the conclusion with regard to who will get into the sanitary and who will not, were unknowns that she felt uncomfortable with. Member Bononi also expressed concerns with quality of life issues such as encroachment to the neighbors who have voiced their objections. She thought the Commission could do a better job in regard to street stubs, she had very grave concerns about the prematurity of the subdivision application and the fact that the applicant was asking to plat lots in designated wetland areas. She stated the developer could have beautifully designed an open space subdivision on the land and avoided a lot of the problems that he is now asking the Commission to approve. For all of these reasons, Member Bononi stated she would not support the application, primarily because she felt it was terribly premature.


Member Hoadley asked Member Capello if his motion included an animal habitat culvert?


Member Capello answered, no.


Member Hoadley offered it as a friendly amendment.


Member Capello asked the petitioner if it would create a hardship?


Mr. Norberg answered, no.


Member Capello stated he would accept the friendly amendment to his motion.


Member Csordas accepted the friendly amendment as the seconder to the motion.


Member Hoadley objected to the elimination of the sidewalks. He could see eliminating one sidewalk but stated the applicant has some very long runs and there eventually would be a speeding situation and this would create a dangerous situation for children in the future. Member Hoadley stated he could not support the motion as it was currently stated unless one sidewalk was included. He had a problem with eliminating the stub into the undeveloped land. He stated it was much better to have a stub coming in off of an existing subdivision rather than to create another road.


Member Canup stated the older subdivisions in the area of Nine Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road do not have sidewalks. He stated he did not know about anybody being killed on a bicycle. He thought the density on the property was quite a bit less than that of subdivisions in the area.


Member Hoadley stated it would still generate 1,000 trips per day. And the long stretches would allow cars to pick up speed.


Member Canup stated the lots were all one acre and the idea was to create an estate type of look.


Member Hoadley thought a compromise to have one sidewalk put in would be better.


Member Capello stated it was just a recommendation and City Council would make the decision. He suggested sending it to them and let them decide.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Csordas, Weddington

No: Bononi, Hoadley





Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED (5-1): To recommend to City Council, the approval of the Wetland Permit for Park Place Subdivision SP97-44A subject to all of the Consultants conditions and comments.





Yes: Canup, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Weddington

No: Bononi





Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED (5-1): To grant Woodlands Permit to Park Place Subdivision SP97-44A subject to all of the Consultants conditions and comments.





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

No: Bononi





Moved by Bononi, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To refer the matter of Stub Street requirements to the Implementation Committee.





Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development asked Mr. Watson if the Subdivision Regulations was the jurisdiction of the Ordinance Review Committee?


Mr. Watson answered, yes.


Mr. Wahl presumed that a recommendation could be developed and forwarded to that Committee.


Mr. Watson answered, yes, as it has been done for wetlands and woodlands.





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

No: None






Located on the southeast corner of Fourteen Mile Road and Novi Road. The applicant is proposing the commercial phase of the Maples of Novi PUD comprising of a 44,207 square foot shopping center, 24,900 square foot office building, 6,000 square foot restaurant and 4,000 square foot bank. Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Woodlands and Wetlands Permit approvals.


John Damico from Damico Development in Troy introduced himself and gave a brief background. He stated he has taken great pains and great pride in the design of the center. He stated he made sure the design elements were on the rear and sides as well. Further, the anchor for the center is Arbor Drugs. Mr. Damico stated he met with the two surrounding associations, Maples Greens and Maples Point. He introduced Leonard Siegal of Siegal/Toumaala Associates.


Leonard Siegal stated this was the Commercial phase of the Maples of Novi PUD. He proposed about 79,000 square feet of development of which about 44,000 square feet was an "L" shaped shopping center, 25,000 square feet was a two story office, 6,000 square feet was a restaurant and a 4,000 square foot bank. In terms of the shopping center, the anchor would be a drug store and that parcel would be split off for independent ownership. He stated there would be reciprocal parking easements and the architecture was all coordinated so there would be no apparent difference as a result of the lot split. Mr. Siegal stated there were some required variances in terms of side yards in order to accomplish the split. The drug store attaches to the building facing 14 Mile Road and there is a 20' space between the south end of the drug store and the rest of the building, primarily to allow a water main that presently traverses the site to be relocated around the building. He stated there is a driveway connected to Centennial Drive which is consistent with the original PUD plan, there would be a pedestrian circulation path that would allow pedestrian traffic from the Maples residential development to walk up to the stores. Mr. Siegal stated a mini park has been created around the office building. He stated some special consideration has been given to the rear of the shopping center building so it would have the same character of the front.


With regard to the lot split for the drug store, he requested an additional variance at the bank site. The PUD requires a 40' greenbelt surrounding the south and east property line, due to the narrow shape of the parcel, he requested a 20' variance. The project is contemplated to proceed in four phases. The first phase would be the shopping center, the second phase would be the office building, the third phase would be the bank and the fourth phase would be the restaurant. The connecting drive is included in phase one. He also provided the sidewalks along 14 Mile Road and Novi Roads. There were three means of ingress, an existing drive that serves the maintenance building, the two major points of ingress and egress would be a drive that aligns with a drive across the street for the future senior citizens development and a point on 14 Mile Road and a minor connection to Centennial Drive. Mr. Siegal stated the drug store treatment is in character with the rest of the shopping center. He stated it was quite apparent that all of the buildings tie together in character and creates a unified cohesive development although they are dissimilar uses. He requested a Section 4 waiver on the masonry material. The proposed material is a concrete masonry material, it has a blended range and in Mr. Siegal’s opinion was indistinguishable from clay brick. He explained that it enables him to achieve a number of architectural treatments and benefits that he would not be able to achieve if he had to use more costly clay brick. He stated it permits him to do the roof screening, slope roof treatment around all of the buildings, it allows him to develop a heavy cornice expression, trim and detail in the masonry work and it allows him to carry the same treatment around to the rear of the building. Ms. Siegal stated he would be willing to predicate the Commission’s granting a waiver upon the developer building a 5' by 3' sample wall before any masonry work is started on the project to assure that the material matches the product on the building.


Mr. Siegal stated there was concern that building the storm water outlet into the wetland would have some impact on the Egrets that nest there. He read a letter addressed to Mr. Damico from King and McGregor Environmental, Inc. with regard to the potential impacts that may be caused by the development to the existing nesting colony of Snowy Egrets. Mr. Siegal concluded that he would conform to the requirements of the pre-treatment of storm water and the outlet location, he stated he would agree to provide a center turn lane on 14 Mile Road.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated all of the buildings were in general harmony with the Maples of Novi. He stated all Preliminary application data was provided. In the PUD agreement, there was to be 60,000 square feet of convenience Commercial and 20,000 square feet of office, health, fitness and adult and child care use. The applicant has not identified what would be in the office building. The buildings comply with the PUD setback standards with one exception that Building A and Building C should be set 30' apart, each requires 15' and 20' is provided, therefore applicant is seeking a variance. The applicant complies with the 150' minimum setback between a Commercial building and the nearest adjacent residential building. In regard to off street parking, 458 spaces including handicapped are provided and 455 are required. Off street loading and unloading is provided properly in the rear yard area behind the Commercial uses and on the south side of the proposed restaurant.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated all landscape requirements have been submitted. Regarding the obscuring earth wall and berm between the Commercial and Residential uses in the PUD, it is adequate. Additional shrub groupings have been added which help screen the Commercial parking from the adjacent Residential. Ms. Lemke stated she would like to see additional shrubs in three areas south of the adjacent clubhouse, where the property line angles to the south and along the southeast corner. She was concerned as to what would happen to the golf cart path, a note on the plan indicated that it is to be relocated by others. The transition strip needs to be at least 40' in width according to the PUD Agreement. A recommendation from the Planning Commission is required for the City Council to modify or waive the 40'. The required plantings adjacent to the abutting R.O.W.’s are met, the parking area requirements have been increased and now meet requirements. The interior building landscaping requirement has been met, however, the use of ground cover, annuals, perennials, ornamental grasses and bulbs will be reviewed at Final. The plan meets the corner clearance and the Final Site Plan needs to indicate where signs are to be placed, screenage of the garbage and refuse areas has been provided per the Ordinance. Ms. Lemke recommended approval at this stage of conceptual landscape plan.


Mr. Rogers stated the Phasing Plans each stand on their own if developed sequentially. The driveway out to Centennial Drive has been shown to provide an improved access way for residents of Maples, into the shopping center. He stated there is the possibility that Phase I may not be joined by Phase II, III and IV for a number of months or even years. In a letter that was submitted earlier, Mr. Siegal indicated that the areas around the driveway would be graded and hydro seeded until development occurred. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval and Phasing Plan approval subject to: 1) The waiver of the 20' green space deficiency; 2) Further consideration of setback spacing between Buildings A and B and Buildings a and C and need for a ZBA variance; 3) Classification of types of uses for the proposed office building regarding space for health and fitness and adult and child care use; 4) Review of a Section 4 waiver of building facade plan; 5) Addressing Conceptual Landscape Plan concerns of Ms. Lemke at the time of Final.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the applicant is proposing extensions of existing public sewer to service the site, they are also proposing the relocation of some water mains that exist in the area, to facilitate construction of the buildings and some repositioning and additional hydrants for the site. The applicant proposes two accesses off of Novi Road, a single access off of 14 Mile Road and a single access off of Centennial Drive. Mr. Bluhm stated the site slopes from the northeast to the southwest toward Novi Road. The slopes are very flat with the exception of the extreme eastern end where the bank is proposed. The applicant is proposing a retaining wall to account for some of the grade and more detail will be looked at the time of Final. There is an enclosed storm sewer proposed throughout the development, it will direct storm water to two sedimentation water quality basins along the eastern edge. The applicant has proposed the basins to be temporary, however, Mr. Bluhm would like to basins to be left permanent so they can obtain the proper water quality controls on a permanent basis. The water is then directed by storm sewer, off site to the south to a large open bodied wetland for detention. An off site easement will be required for the off-site storm sewer that directs the flow to the south. The proposed detention basin is part of an existing open wetland area which provides storm water detention for the previous existing residential phases within the Maples development. Based on existing development, the high water elevation is approximately 0.4' above the normal water elevation. Storm water for the Commercial development will require a rise above normal water elevation of an additional 0.6' for a total of 1' above the normal water elevation during the 10 year storm. Mr. Bluhm had several other minor comments in his letter, beyond that he felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated there were four points of access to the project. In regard to the site plan, Mr. Arroyo recommended the width of the approach to Centennial Drive needs to be 30' on the plan. He recommended that the three parking spaces north of the drive be eliminated because it would be a fairly heavily traveled and congested area and the removal of the spaces would help to minimize the congestion. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the comments in his letter.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated there were two areas of woodlands on the site. The first was 0.33 acres of regulated woodlands that is part of a slightly larger area that was intruded in with the entry road into the Maples development. There are no historic or specimen trees on the site or in the woodlands and there are no potential trees that should be considered. Secondly is the woodlands area to the south along the large wetland area. The small area has ash, apple, red maple and elm in 8" to 10" d.b.h. size and a heavy under story with a variety of diverse species. It is low quality due to its small size and isolation and its prevalent tree species and size. There was no wildlife noted. Five regulated trees and a small area of the woodlands for the road and south of the entry road are proposed to be removed for the road entrance, the remainder will be saved. Due to the location of other existing structures in the main entry road and the overall low quality of the woodlands, this layout is acceptable in the amount of removal proposed. The woodlands to the south will be affected by the run off directed into the wetlands. The trees are in decline and have become prime habitat for the Snowy Egret colony this is the reason Ms. Lemke expressed concern regarding additional storm water into the area. She was concerned with the maintenance of the dead and dying trees for as long as the Egrets use them for nesting. Because of the large areas of imperviousness, the storm discharge is equivalent to 10 year storms or greater. Ms. Lemke had a lot of concerns that she did not have answers for because there is not enough information available at this stage and additional research needed to be done. There is still some information that needs to be required at the time of Final as listed in her letter. The applicant complies with the requirements of the Ordinance. In summary, Ms. Lemke had no problem recommending for the woodlands on the site for the Commercial use, however, she did not have enough information to recommend positively regarding a Woodlands Permit for the off site woodlands at this time. The following conditions would apply: 1) Payment of a Performance Amount and Fence Maintenance Fee; 2) Remaining Regulated Woodlands are placed into a Preservation Easement; 3) No construction including clearing or grubbing can begin until the protective fencing has been approved and an environmental pre-construction meeting is held; 4) Review of Final Engineering Plans for woodland impact is conducted.


Sue Tepatti, Water Resources Specialist stated the project requires a Wetland Permit due to the storm water discharge and the proposed detention. There are no wetlands located within the Maples Place development, the only wetlands are located off-site to the south. The systems are inter connected by a series of culverts. The wetland contains permanent standing water throughout much of its extent. The hydrology has been altered many years ago and impacts have already occurred to the vegetation within the wetlands, therefore, the majority of vegetation in the center of the wetland is in decline or already dead. The wetland is currently receiving storm water from the existing development and had detention to approximately 0.6' before discharging off site through the remaining wetlands. Ms. Tepatti recommended approval of the Wetland Permit based on a number of conditions and comments. In regard to the storm water going into the area, pre-treatment is being looked into for that area through a series of basins and swales. The storm water outlet is located on the western side of the wetland and is proposed to be located through the golf course and outletting to the wetland. The western side of the wetland has some remaining edge vegetation above the water and the location of the outlets will be reviewed in the future. Ms. Tepatti stated she has walked the area and does not expect there to be any significant impacts to the existing vegetation due to the temporary increase in water levels. She would like to see some additional information on the topography and the extensive water levels to make sure the duration of the water will only take 4 hours to return to its current condition to minimize the impact. She stated additional review of potential effects on the Egrets shall take place in conjunction with the DEQ Wildlife Division. Ms. Tepatti recommended approval of the Wetland Permit conditioned upon obtaining additional information from DEQ on the Egrets and the expected temporary water levels. The project appears to require a DEQ permit or a letter of no jurisdiction for the storm water outlet and detention. The plans also need to label the wetland boundaries more clearly in the acreage of the wetland areas, extent of existing permanent water and elevations. Enhancement plantings may be required around the outlet or other vicinities in order to ensure minimization of disturbance to the rookery.


Doug Necci of JCK stated the applicant submitted a product called intricately colored scored concrete masonry unit which is specifically listed on the facade chart and allowed up to 25% in the district. The applicant is proposing using it on about 85% of the facade areas. Since then, the applicant has submitted three more samples, the problem is that none of the samples come close to matching the building in Troy. This indicates of one of the disadvantages in the product which is the difficulty in keeping consistency of color, he stated there are so many variables that it is difficult to get the same color. It was Mr. Necci’s opinion that the building in Troy rises to the level that would qualify the applicant for a waiver, however, he has yet to receive a sample that shows it. Mr. Necci stated the idea of building a sample wall was a good idea, however, he suggested that the applicant submit several loose samples and that they be part of the record and be held as the criteria for the actual building being built.


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


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


John R. Sheffer, 41765 Independence, declined to speak.


Jim Zurak, 30903 Copper Lane stated he moved to Novi about one year ago. He thought it was important that the project be brought to closure because the muddy field was a severe deterrent to Novi. He thought the prospect of having the complex in place was a very positive contribution that would enhance the property values, he thought it would bring additional revenues to the city and he thought it would improve the overall standard and quality of the residents of the adjacent properties. He was in support of the project.


Dick Weinert, 31108 Arlington Circle stated he has lived in the Maples for 7½ years, he bought in the Maples for three primary reasons; 1) the detached condo concept was very affordable; 2) the golf course; 3) the shopping plaza being discussed. The land for the proposed plaza has been an eyesore for the 7½ years that he has lived in Novi. He agreed with the proposed road, although he thought it could be one way into the shopping plaza rather than the proposed two way. He thought the proposed plaza would have a favorable affect on the property values and hoped the Commission would approve the project.


Wayne Richards, 30839 Centennial Drive represented Maple Point Condominium Association. He was appreciative of the work that Mr. Damico has done on the project and his willingness to attend the Association meetings to explain his plans. Mr. Richards was looking forward to having the development take place on the corner, however, he had some concerns. 1) In regard to the access road, he was concerned because of its close proximity to the club house. While the road would allow residents easy access to the mall, it would also allow for non residents to cut through the subdivision for ingress and egress. He was concerned about the safety of children and was in favor of eliminating the access road leaving a pedestrian walk. Mr. Damico indicated that he would not have a problem if the road were deleted. If this option is not possible, he favored a concerted effort to reduce cut through traffic by making the road one way, enter only or placing signage which indicates that the road is only for residents of the Maples of Novi with no truck traffic permitted. 2) Mr. Richards expressed concern with the Canterbury wetlands. He raised a concern in regard to the problem with the potential of increasing the water level of the wetland by approximately 1'. The Maple Point Condominium Association does not wish to incur any present or future costs to protect the property as a result of the wetlands being used as a retention area for the Maple Place development. In addition, Mr. Richards expressed concerns about draining the water into the wetland because of the lack of any sedimentation control. 3) With a retail development so close to the residential area, he hoped that the landscape plan allowed for maximum screening. He hoped that it be rigidly enforced by the City of Novi. He stated it was particularly critical near the Maple Point club house, both the road and some parking areas would be close to the club house. Long term maintenance and care of the landscaped area must be a priority for Damico. Mr. Richards stated that numerous other concerns were expressed by residents and they will rely upon the City of Novi for vigilant code enforcement during construction and after the businesses begin operation.


Bill Smith, 30741 Sandalwood Circle, declined to speak.


Todd Gerhart, 41772 Webster Court, the General Manager of the Golf Course that abuts the property. He expressed concern regarding the location of the proposed storm run off tearing up the golf course. He stated an alternative was agreed to which runs behind the 7th tee and then down into the wetlands. He expressed concerns about the wetlands, the 7th hole is one of the wettest spots on the golf course, therefore, if water is continually added into the wetlands he had concerns of additional flooding onto the golf course. Mr. Gerhart stated the Egrets do not leave the area until middle to late August. In regard to the road, the golfers cross over Centennial Drive in two areas and he would like to see the road be designated one way as he was concerned for the safety of the golfers.


Gerald W. Hepp, 41670 Kenilworth Lane, President of Maple Greens Association stated the Board of Directors of the Maple Greens Association had the opportunity to review the proposals with the developer and were very satisfied that the development would be a fine addition to the Maples of Novi. He stated it would improve the community to a great extent and asked the Commission to approve the proposal.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Canup asked if the roof line was an actual water bearing roof or if it was a facade parapet roof?


Mr. Norberg stated the shopping center is a screen that extend 6' above the roofline at a 45 degree slope. In regard to the bank and the office building, it is a completed roof.


In regard to the facade, Member Hoadley asked the applicant what kind of guarantee he could give the Commission that should a Section 4 waiver be approved based on the photographs, that it could be duplicated?


Mr. Damico stated the samples cannot be as good a representation because there are not as many and there is a lot of variation. He stated he could agree to produce a full size sample board on site before he lays any of the bricks. He also stated in conjunction with Mr. Necci, if it still does not look just like the center in Troy, he would agree to use a silicone sealant which would give it a bit more luster and depth. Mr. Damico assured the Commission that he would obtain the exact same product and the exact same mix that was used on the center in Troy.


Member Hoadley asked if the applicant would be comfortable if the Commission made a condition of a Section 4 waiver that the Final approval lie in the hands of Mr. Necci?


Mr. Damico agreed for the most part.


In regard to the wetlands, Member Hoadley stated it was an obvious problem and suggested that the applicant give a plan as how he intends to take care of the necessary mitigation to assure that the run off would not damage the Egret area any further and what could be done to control the inflow and outflow of the wetland.

Mr. Damico apologized to Ms. Lemke and Ms. Tepatti for not providing the letter with regard to the Snowy Egrets at a sooner date, however, he just received it from the Biologist. He stated the birds nest up in the trees, therefore, the water should not affect them, also the vegetation on the banks would reproduce further up the banks with the change in the water level. Mr. Damico agreed to take the responsibility of whether it be a bigger or deeper sedimentation pond or what would be the best way to handle it, if in fact the water level were to rise further than anticipated.


Member Hoadley asked the applicant about the access road off of Centennial Drive. He asked if he would be willing to add additional screening around the clubhouse?


Mr. Damico answered, yes. He stated he would be glad to put additional screening around the clubhouse, if additional screening is needed around the road, it could also be done.


Member Hoadley asked about narrowing the road and making it one way.


Mr. Damico had no problem with narrowing the road and making it one way, he stated it was up to the Planning Commission.


Member Hoadley asked if putting in the two story office building would help screen off the rear of the shopping center?


Mr. Damico thought it was true, however, the topography drastically changes so the berms and hills alone would have some affect to screening the rear of the shopping center. He stated he screened the entire rear of the shopping center and used gable and metal roof on the back for the purpose of the office building as well as for the residents in the Condo buildings.


In regard to the restaurant, Member Hoadley asked if the road cut were put in off of Centennial Drive, closer to 14 Mile Road, would the restaurant be moved toward the clubhouse?


Mr. Damico answered, yes.


Member Hoadley asked the applicants engineer how he would address the concerns... (end of tape)


Rick Hofsess of Ziemet Wozniak and Associates stated he did not have any problems with any of the concerns that the Consultants brought up. He stated he could not address any of the biological concerns regarding the Egrets. He stated the retention for the commercial portion of the Maples of Novi project was originally designed to be provided in the wetland, he stated the capacity is there and was set aside in the early designs of 1988 and 1989. He stated the amount of water has not been introduced into the wetland because it has not been paved and put directly into the wetland which is what is currently being proposed. Mr. Hofsess stated the biggest affect it will have would be to raise the high water level on the retention area, the additional water would be drained off in approximately 4 hours after it reached the level after the rainstorm stops.


Member Hoadley asked if there was any other engineering alternative to disperse the water from the project?


Mr. Hofsess stated the only other outlet is the small culvert that runs underneath Novi Road up at 14 Mile Road and this would put retention in the front yard. He stated it would require a large area of the commercial project to store the water.


Mr. Hofsess stated the ponds that are currently shown are sedimentation basins for pre-treatment of the storm water before it goes to the wetland. He stated they would be maintained as permanent.


Member Hoadley asked if the ponds would require any maintenance and if so, who would maintain them?


Mr. Hofsess answered, yes, they would need to be maintained and he believed that the developer would maintain them.


Member Hoadley asked if the developer would be willing to put up a bond to make sure they are maintained?


Mr. Norberg was not sure how it would work, he stated normally there would be a performance bond. However, the maintenance of the sedimentation basins would be part of a normal maintenance program for a center of this size. He stated it was in his best interest to make sure they are maintained because it is a large liability if they are not.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Bluhm if the engineering could be done so the wetlands would not be impacted any further?


Mr. Bluhm could not speak to the damaging of the wetlands, as far as whether it was sufficient from an engineering point of view and the timing for the storage, he stated it was accurate. He stated the sedimentation function is temporary, once the building is finished, the basin would be turned over as a water quality basin. Once all of the measures are in place, there should be very little maintenance necessary. In regard to bonding, he did not know if it was possible.


Member Bononi asked Mr. Necci what the difference in price was to use a face material as opposed to standard brick?


Mr. Necci estimated the difference in price was $4 to $5 per square foot more for brick.


Since the project was to be phased, Member Bononi asked if the concern was regarding the match of the color?


Mr. Necci stated with the intricately colored concrete masonry, this is a big concern. He stated it is a problem as being witnessed with the samples.


In regard to the environment for the Egrets, Member Bononi asked what the average standing water level was at present?


Mr. Hofsess stated on April 1, 1998 there was about 3/10 of water in it and it had rained quite a bit the day before. He stated could not answer what the average depth of water was.


Member Bononi explained the reason for her question was because Egrets are wading creatures. She was concerned about the existing elevation of the water and how much the added water in a 10 year storm even adds to it over a 4 hour period which might prevent an Egret from fishing there. She was not satisfied with the amount of information contained in the letter, she was also not convinced that the site was not going to generate additional phosphorous from fertilizer from plantings, salt from icing control and what affect it would have on the quality of the water. She appreciated it if information could be furnished to the Commission.


Member Canup liked the idea of what he saw, however, he did not like the quality of it and had very strong concerns regarding the phasing of the project and the matching block. He was not in favor of any kind of a waiver on the block. He also expressed concern with the parapet type roofing because he thought it did not lend itself to a quality looking development.


Member Hoadley stated the roads were heavily salted by all of the Associations and 100% of the run off flows into the existing wetlands involved which do not have any pretreatment. Therefore, whatever damage has occurred will continue to occur from the existing project.


Member Csordas asked the petitioner if he read the Facade Ordinance before he came forward with the petition?


Mr. Damico answered, absolutely.


Member Csordas asked what the purpose was to come forward with a project that was so far out, regarding the Facade Ordinance?


Mr. Damico answered, the financial consideration was an element that was part of a total design concept. Had he used face brick, he could have then used a percentage of decorative block in the rear of the building which is commonly done. He stated he wanted to do more because of it’s relationship to the office building and its uniqueness. He wanted to build a building that was cohesive and was uniform on all sides. He stated it was not an economic driven decision to save dollars, it was a redistribution of costs so that he could bring in a better building and do things in terms of roof treatment.


Member Csordas stated the project is an outstanding use of the property and it is a very nice design, however, a good point was brought up in regard to the phasing.


Mr. Damico stated whatever the material, there would be slight variations in the color from time to time. He thought the material that is bought for each phase would come off as being the same material and be uniform and cohesive.





Moved by Csordas, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit and Phasing Plan subject to all of the Consultants conditions and recommendations and require the applicant to meet with the City’s Consultants to insure that the facade masonry matches, prior to the start of the next phase.





Member Bononi asked if the motion included the additional information that the landscape architect and the wetland expert have asked for in addition to what the applicant has provided the Commission from King and McGregor Environmental, Inc.


Member Csordas answered, absolutely.


Member Hoadley stated he went out to Troy to look at the building and had he not been told it was not brick, he would never have known the difference. He stated the masonry allows the project to have a uniformed look. There are residents who are not going to want to look at a split faced block back of a building. He stated the Commission could require that the applicant do that, however, it would hurt the project and he would much rather see a uniform project. He was concerned about the roof line and asked the applicant what the concern was?


Member Canup stated it was just his personal opinion and thought it would look cheap.





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

No: None


Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a brief recess.


David Bluhm of JCK announced that Sue Tepatti recently informed him that she would be moving on. He stated JCK would be trying to find a replacement.







Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Wahl to give a brief overview of each Zoning Map Amendment. She announced the Commission would not be able to take any final action on them this evening because the signs that are required to be posted on the property, were not erected in time to meet the notice requirement. Therefore, the Public Hearing would be carried over to the next meeting on May 06, 1998 and at that time, she anticipated that action would be taken.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated more than a year ago, the City created a new zoning classification called Office Service Technology as a result of considerable study with the goal of creating a zoning district that provided for high tech uses. At that point, the Planning Commission began a series of studies to determine where this type of development would be appropriate located in the City. Mr. Wahl stated the OST Zoning Classification is part of a Master Plan designation under the term of Office. He stated the study was conducted by the Consultants in conjunction with the Planning Commission and City Council, initial work started in September and continued through the end of the year. The next step was to change the Master Plan in the areas along Haggerty Road from Fourteen Mile Road to South of Twelve Mile, from Residential to Office. The study looked at each area individually and reviewed a number of different planning issues. Mr. Wahl stated the Consultants and Staff have endorsed this action as a method of achieving the City policy of providing locations and opportunities for high tech development for the Community which the City has been pursuing over an eight year period and this is considered the most appropriate and effective way to accomplish that policy.

Brandon Rogers summarized the general boundaries of each Zoning Map Amendment. Study Area 1 includes M-5 on the west, Haggerty Road on the east, I-96 excluding Country Cousins Mobile Home Park to the south and 14 Mile Road to the north. Mr. Rogers also stated it excludes the Commercial area at 12 Mile Road and Haggerty Road as well as the Speedway Station at 14 Mile Road and Haggerty Road.


Mr. Wahl stated; 1) Zoning Map Amendment 18.594 is the most northerly piece between 13 Mile Road and 14 Mile Road; 2) Zoning Map Amendment 18.593 is the area from 12 Mile Road to 13 Mile Road; 3) Zoning Map Amendment 18.592 is south of 12 Mile Road, north of Country Cousins Mobile Home Park; 4) Zoning Map Amendment 18.591 is east of Meadowbrook Road, south of 12 Twelve Mile Road; 5) Zoning Map Amendment 18.590 is west of Meadowbrook Road, south of 12 Mile Road; 6) Zoning Map Amendment 18.589 is south of 12 Mile Road immediately east of the C & O Railroad; 7) Zoning Map Amendment 18.588 is between Beck Road west of Taft Road, north of Grand River and south of I-96. This area does not include the I-1 property of DeMaria.


Chairperson Weddington stated she had a few discussions with Glenn Lemmon, City Assessor regarding the tax impact. Under Proposition A, a rezoning alone does not trigger any increase in tax, a rezoning for market conditions may result in an increase in the SEV but the actual taxable value is capped under Proposition A and is not allowed to rise more than the rate of inflation unless there is an improvement made to the property.


Chairperson Weddington opened the Public Hearing to the public.





Blair Bowman 43700 Expo Center Drive encouraged the Commission as it relates to the overall OST concept and the placement of it. He asked that the Commission consider as to whether the OST was the most appropriate type of Zoning designation to try and place upon this particular segment of property. Given the historical and existing uses that are in this District, he asked how much of a difference was the OST as compared to the OS-2. He asked about the availability of classic, well positioned pure light industrial land and the lack of it where there is a non-adjacency to residential, where utilities and location are of interest. He thought this would be more consistent with what is currently there and with what might realistically occur on these properties. Mr. Bowman thought the OST was a better zoning than the OS-2, however, he thought consideration should be given to this area for a Light Industrial piece.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address this particular area? Seeing none she moved on to the next area.





John A. Walker (Not present)


Leslie Kutinsky, 43050 Twelve Oaks Circle, #6044 stated he has been a resident of Novi for nine years, he stated he was impressed with the interest of all of the Planning Commissioners and the studied work of the City. He resides at the Enclave Condominiums and was able to look out his window, until recently, and enjoy egrets, herons, swans, ducks and deer. In regard to the property next to the property that is being joined, the developer removed every single tree and the wildlife has gone. He was in favor of the zoning, however, he expressed concern with the greenbelt.


Susan Gatward, 43000 Twelve Oaks Crescent, #3044 agreed with the comments of Mr. Kutinsky. She asked the Commission to be very cautious about what goes on around the lakefront. She expressed concern with keeping the beauty and nature of the area.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address this particular area? Seeing none she

moved on to the next area.





Harlene Hiken, 43050 Twelve Oaks Crescent, #3055 stated she invested her money in Novi because she loved the area. She was devastated when the view of nature was taken out, now she only has a view of Twelve Mile Road and the traffic. She stated there is a constant noise because the trees that are now gone, acted as a barrier. Ms. Hiken thought something needed to be done to preserve the area for the future generations. She commented that all of her experiences within the City have been very positive as everyone has treated her with respect. She hoped the Commission would reconsider and take into account that the residents want to prosper and also enjoy the natural beauties.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address this particular area? Seeing none she

moved on to the next area.




Steven Reed, 27168 Meadowbrook Road appreciated the comments of the residents who spoke in regard to the Enclave Condominiums. He stated he did not want his property rezoned, he has lived in the area for 16 years and keeps asking why his property is being rezoned against his will. City Council responded, "to make it conform". Mr. Reed stated he currently conforms as everything around him is zoned RA. He did not see why his property could not be Master Planned for Office and then after he moves, if the City can rezone the area. He stated this is his house and he does not like people messing with it.


Chuck Dimaggio, 30100 Telegraph Road represented the Burton Katzman Development Company. He stated they are developers of Commercial Office Buildings in the Detroit Metropolitan area with headquarters in Bingham Farms. He stated they are optionors of a large portion of the privately owned property in Parcel 2B. Mr. Dimaggio gave his support for the initiative of the Commission, he believed that it would send a very strong statement to the development community that he could move forward in preparation of plans which are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Commission. Mr. Dimaggio restated his support and was hopeful that the Commission would make a positive recommendation to City Council.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address this particular area? Seeing none she

moved on to the next area.





Arie Leibovitz, 29548 Southfield Road represented ownership of property on the south side of Twelve Mile Road adjoining Cooker’s Restaurant to the east and M-5 to the west. He felt that his property was not suited for the OST intent, the way it requires the property to be used. He stated the parcel is small and isolated and is surrounded by wetlands and woodlands to the west and south. Mr. Leibovitz’s desire was to develop the site for a business hotel and he stated the OST zoning would not work because it is designed to have a hotel as an ancillary use as part of a larger park type development. He asked the Commission to consider withdrawing his parcel from the amendment and look favorably upon recommending that he be considered for B-2 zoning.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address this particular area? Seeing none she

moved on to the next area.





Manley Cox, 28635 Haggerty Road supported the OST zoning and stated despite any and all hold ups, eventually it would happen.


Debbie Callan, 39252 Kennedy (Not present)


Angelo Barbera, 29075 Haggerty Road commented on Bob Schmid’s comment regarding residential versus high tech. Mr. Barbera stated he purchased his house on Haggerty Road to raise his family. He was in support of the OST.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address this particular area? Seeing none she

moved on to the next area.





Linda Beshears, 29293 Haggerty Road spoke in favor of the rezoning of this piece of property. She thought the City initiated rezoning made her feel like the City government was working for its citizens, she stated it was a perfect piece of property for the rezoning and encouraged the Commission to move on it in a positive way.

Dennis Bagley, 29676 Dorchester Court in Farmington Hills, President of Farmington Ridge Homeowners Association. Stated the zoning seemed like the perfect kind of thing to do. He hoped that the entrances to all of the property would come in on the M-5 side instead of off of Haggerty Road. He welcomed the kind of advanced planning that the City is taking, he just hoped the Commission would remember that there are residential neighbors on the other side of Haggerty Road.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address any of the rezoning proposals? Seeing none she opened the Matter up for Discussion by the Commissioners.





Member Capello read a letter of correspondence that he overlooked. He received a letter from the City of Farmington Hills. A resolution passed by Farmington Hills City Council on April 13, 1998 concerning the rezoning of property west of Haggerty Road between Twelve Mile and Fourteen Mile Roads from Residential to OST. The Resolution read, "Whereas the City of Farmington Hills believes appropriate transition measures include adequate setbacks and reasonable building heights, R.O.W. improvements including limited access to and possible boulevarding Haggerty Road, effective screening, utilizing berms, plantings and restricted activities along the Haggerty Road frontage."


Member Hoadley did not wish to see any additional cuts on Haggerty Road this was why he felt it was a good project. He was hopeful that when the site plans come in, they come in on Twelve Mile, Thirteen Mile and Fourteen Mile Roads and interdict north/south rather than east/west. In regard to the area that Mr. Leibovitz wanted to have rezoned to B-2, he asked Mr. Rogers if this was the only zoning that would allow a business hotel?


Mr. Rogers was not certain of the OS-2, but he knew a business hotel could be built in a B-2, B-3, Freeway Service, Town Center and OSC under certain limitations.


Member Hoadley stated he would hesitate to approve a B use on that land. He stated if they want to put up a hotel, he would like to see it go to a zoning that would be compatible with OST. He had an observation in regard to the land that is currently zoned Industrial, he thought it would probably work as OST and was not so sure that the parcel would not be better served to remain the same light industrial use. Member Hoadley stated he was absolutely for rezoning the corridor between 14 Mile Road and I-96 with the exception of the one hotel use.





Moved by Canup, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone the Public Hearing until the next meeting.





Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Reed for the sidwell number of his property or if he could identify his property at the end of the meeting.





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

No: None










Seeking Extension of Preliminary Site Plan





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Capello, FAILED (3-3): To grant an extension for a one year period, of the Preliminary Site Plan for Novi Auto Wash SP96-45A subject to the Consultants recommendations and subject to the applicant bringing the plan into compliance with current zoning standards.





Chairperson Weddington stated there is a negative letter from Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant called it out as Final Site Plan approval and it should be Preliminary. He stated all of the landscape issues can be addressed at the time of Final as his comments regarding the parking which changed in the September 1997 Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Rogers recommended approval of the extension subject to what he states in his letter.


Member Bononi asked if the site plan is currently valid of if it has expired?


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner answered it has not expired.


Member Bononi asked for the approval date?


Mr. Rumple did not have the approval date at hand.


Mr. Hicks answered approval was granted in February 1997.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated it appeared in the review letter of JCK that Preliminary Site Plan approval was granted on February 19, 1997. He stated in the past the Commission has had the ability to do it even after the expiration date, he had to check the Ordinance because he thought the Commission had recently revised the Ordinance to modify it.


Chairperson Weddington believed the modification was to put a maximum of three years on it.


Member Bononi stated she had never heard of a permit approval that expired, being treated as though it did not. She questioned the practice of doing so, from the standpoint of those applicants who meet the time frames and come before the Commission in a timely manner, she stated it is the job of the applicant.


Mr. Watson stated it was a question of the Commission having the authority to retroactively grant the one year extension. In the past it was treated as being able to do so. He did not see anything in the Ordinance that had been changed to preclude that.


Member Canup understood that once the plan expired, the applicant would have to go back for a site plan review and start all over again.


Chairperson Weddington also understood it to be done this way and did not recall going back and retroactively extending it.


Member Capello asked if any work had been started on the site?


Mr. Hicks answered, no work has started, however, he has submitted for Final Site Plan approval and received review comments back from the Consultants. He stated he is currently making the revisions for those review comments for Final. He stated during the last year he has been working toward getting the project underway.

Member Capello asked Mr. Watson to take a look at it to see if he believes the Commission can grant the extension. The Ordinance states as long as work is commenced the one year does not end until it has been abandoned for one year.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development agreed that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ask for an extension, however, it has been made a policy that the Department shall notify all applicants that their plans are expiring. He stated part of the problem may be that the Department did not do what it had promised to do, therefore it is partially responsible for the error.





Yes: Capello, Csordas, Hoadley

No: Bononi, Canup, Weddington





Moved by Canup, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED (4-2): To deny the request for extension of Novi Auto Wash, SP96-45A due to the fact that it has expired in February.





Yes: Canup, Csordas, Weddington, Bononi

No: Capello, Hoadley









Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 1:30 a.m.



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

No: None


Steve Rumple - Staff Planner

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

April 30, 1998

Date Approved: May 06, 1998