WEDNESDAY, JULY 08, 1998 AT 7:30 P.M.


(248) 347-0475


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


PRESENT: Members, Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Chairperson Weddington


ABSENT: Members Capello (excused), Watza (excused)


ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Kelly Schuler





Chairperson Weddington welcomed the three new Planning Commissioners, Andrew Mutch, Karen Piccinini, Phil Koneda.





Chairperson Weddington stated there were three offices, the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. She explained that any Commissioner who has served on the Commission for one year or more, may be elected to an office. She opened the floor for nominations.





Moved by Csordas, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To re-elect Eda Weddington as the Chairperson of the Planning Commission.





Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None





Moved by Churella, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To elect Lou Csordas as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission





Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None





Moved by Churella, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To re-elect Kim Capello as Secretary of the Planning Commission.






Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None





Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Agenda? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda.





Moved by Canup, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as presented.





Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None





Jim Korte, stated at the last two ZBA meetings there has been a situation with the potential Commercial usage in a residential zone. His major concern was that if it goes to the ZBA, no signs are required to be posted which would notify the residents of its potential happenings. He stated there was a big loop hole because there was the capacity to change the zoning without notifying anyone.


Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin complained about the way the notice went into the paper. She stated the legal opinion to Ms. Bartholomew was that the notice that was put into the paper met the intent of notifying the public that there was a Public Hearing, although it did not say Notice of Public Hearing. She asked that the Public Hearings be noticed as Public Hearings.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Audience Participation and announced there would be a second after the mid-point break and a third before adjournment.





Khanh Pham, Staff Planner stated the Department was in receipt of a Freedom of Information Request from James Korte to present to the Commission, a Resolution by the Walled Lake Sector Study Implementation Committee. He stated the resolution has been distributed to the Commission at the table.


Kelly Schuler, Planning Assistant stated the following letters pertain to the Andris Romaine rezoning.


Samuel Servella, 1247 East Lake Drive did not approve of the rezoning of any lakefront property from Residential to Commercial.


Dave Clark II, 1123 East Lake Drive did not support the rezoning. He was against any added boat activity to any business because of the swimming area and strip malls tend to have transient tenants.


Robert Andrews, 1262 East Lake Drive was opposed to any change of zoning from Residential to General Business as set forth in Zoning Map Amendment 18.574. This is mainly a residential community and changing any or all of the lots in "Grollís Edgewater Sub" is not in the best interest of this part of Novi.


C. Kernen enclosed some important information from past law suits that she had engaged in with the City of Novi against the rezoning.


Phillis Eroya, 1149 East Lake Drive did not feel the lots located on East Lake Drive and 14 Mile Road should be rezoned from Residential to Business.


Asa J. Smith, 1294 East Lake Drive was opposed to the rezoning request. He believed that additional Commercial growth in the residential neighborhood would have undue consequences on the quality of life.


Mr. & Mrs. Rudolf Koder, 1129 East Lake Drive felt the rezoning of buildable, desirable lakefront residential property to B-3 for the sole purpose of enlarging the existing buildable B-3, sets a dangerous precedent and would not speak well of the City of Novi.


Patricia Hughes, 1241 East Lake Drive was vehemently opposed to rezoning any residential property on or near the lakefront.


William and Kay Spencer, Jr., 1231 East Lake Drive fought against the rezoning of any lakefront property form the last 5 years. He was very much opposed to the change.


Bruno and Kelly Tome, 825 East Walled Lake Drive had lots of strong arguments for not wanting commercial property on 14 Mile and East Lake Drive but the strongest was the traffic that would arise near their property at all times of the day.


Michelle Verplanck, 1245 East Lake Drive stressed her deep concern about the rezoning request. She stated commercialization of that property would decrease the quality of the neighborhood, decrease the value of her property and threaten the quality of Walled Lake.


Kurt Kralovich stated rezoning would add increased traffic to East Lake Drive which is already prohibited.


Dave Gillam, President of the Whispering Meadows Homeowners Association wrote in regard to Lifetime Fitness. He expressed complete support of the Whispering Meadows Homeowners Association for Lifetime Fitness and its request for approvals. The principals of Lifetime Fitness played a key role in the settlement of the litigation between the Association. The Whispering Meadows Homeowners Association respectfully requested that the Planning Commission grant Lifetime Fitness Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use and Woodlands Permit approvals.


Chairperson Weddington announced all of the above letters would be placed in the files for further inspection if anyone wished to obtain them.





Chairperson Weddington announced there was one item for approval, the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 10, 1998. She asked if there were any corrections?





Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 10, 1998 as presented.





Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None








Proposed rezoning of property south of 14 Mile Road and East Lake Road from Single Family Residential (R-4) to General Business District (B-3) or any other appropriate zoning district.


Matthew Quinn stated the existing B-3 zoned area near the site has existed for approximately 15 years. The existing site is deficient because of the shallowness of the depth which is only 60', therefore, it does not make a center with units that are leasable for quality tenants. By expanding the B-3 District to the south, the depth of the center will become more adequate to meet the minimum requirements for the leasable units to be able to draw more quality tenants who will be able to make it economically and stay on a longer basis. Secondly, by allowing more depth, it allows the center to increase by about three (3) tenants. It will also allow the driveway along East Lake Drive to be moved down further away from the intersection which will create a safer location. Thirdly, more width to the property will allow a more beautiful and formed landscape to occur on the south border. Mr. Quinn showed a diagram of the center as it could be built under the current zoning with a house built on the current residentially zoned property. The site is deficient under City code, the minimum requirement for all residential property is 80', therefore no house could be built on the property without variances being received from the ZBA. It was Mr. Quinnís position that the lot did not meet the current City codes and a house could not be built on it, therefore, it cannot be used as it is currently zoned. If variances were received, the house would have to be shaped in an unusual manner, it would have to be longer, the driveway would be on the back side creating a very long drive and it would become very expensive. Merging the residential parcel into the Commercial development would make it flow better. The reason the corner speaks of being Commercial is because it is surrounded on all sides by Commercial property except for the lake. He stated the Commercial use would more than likely be something such as a yogurt/ice cream shop, bagel shop or something that would not be a hard use. It is possible that there could be docking facilities so that the boats could come up on the lake side and participate in the Commercial use. Mr. Quinn asked for the continuation of B-3, he stated B-2 could be considered on the lake side which would allow the types of food uses that he mentioned to be built while avoiding the harder uses.


Lee Mamola spoke in regard to the design. Giving the surrounding character that Mr. Quinn described, Mr. Mamola believed there would be some sort of buffer or wall. The house would also be a single story house without a basement giving the proximity to the water, he stated it was unlikely that a two story house would be built giving the fact that it would view over the business district across the street. A Commercial venture wants visibility, he could foresee a building characterized as a cottage/residential style that one could look through. He stated both requests for rezonings began when Mr. Andrisís desire to build a shopping center on the site without the need for any variances.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the proposal for rezoning includes two separate parcels, one on the east and one on the west side of East Lake Drive to B-3 zoning. Mr. Arroyo stated the existing B-3 zoning is located north and east of the subject parcels permits reasonable development. In addition, the applicant has submitted, and received approval on a site plan for a restaurant on the subject B-3 parcel to the north and east of the parcels in question tonight. Therefore, there has been a demonstration that there are reasonable uses that can be built on that existing B-3 property without extending or expanding the B-3 district to the west or to the south. He stated the rezoning would be in conflict with the Cityís Master Plan for Land Use as it calls for single family development on the two parcels. He pointed out the fact that there are other retail centers that are planned or located in the general vicinity, some include Maples Place as well as a commercial center that was approved as part of the Vistas development. Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant has demonstrated that the parcels can be developed as zoned. He clarified that the parcel on the east side of East Lake Drive that is zoned R-4 and approximately 70' wide would not require a variance from the ZBA to be developed, it could be developed as a single family home. He stated there is a provision in the Ordinance that specifies if there is a legal non-conforming lot of record that is at least 60' in width and has at least 6,000 square feet in area, it can in fact be developed without appearing before the ZBA. He stated it appears that the parcel on the west side could potentially be built without variances. Mr. Arroyo questioned the need for a 12' high wall as it was not required by the Zoning Ordinance.


Mr. Arroyo stated there has been a trip generation comparison provided that is required by the Ordinance. He provided some information regarding what will happen to East Lake Drive in terms of traffic volumes. He stated there was a time where volumes on East Lake Drive were over 12,000 cars per day, this has now declined. The count taken in May 1997 indicated a volume of 3,600 vehicles per day. In summary, Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval of the application for rezoning and asked that the R-4 zoning be retained.


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


Carol Kernen, 1167 East Lake Drive was opposed to the project. She stated the Community continues to be dismayed by the developer. He has not maintained the property leaving the City entrance looking like a war zone, he has been awarded every opportunity to build a restaurant including being awarded the last City liquor license and still the property sits in shambles, a disgrace for the City. She did not see where any additional Commercial property in this location would serve the Community, rather it serves only Mr. Andris. Rezoning the property would set a dangerous precedent on and around the lake.


Thomas Toggweiler, 1103 East Lake Drive, the proprietor of Frigates Inn. He stated he was not trying to prevent Mr. Andris from properly developing his land, he would like to see that property developed but suggested that it be done properly. He expressed concerns about the proposed changes in rezoning. In the possible number of detrimental happenings that may occur to the local residential neighborhoods as well as his existing business. He expressed concern with traffic in the neighborhood and thought traffic and safety should be a prime concern. He believed that Mr. Andris needed to work with his neighbors in developing the property and thought the local residents as well as himself had legitimate problems with the rezoning request.


James Korte, spoke as ex-chair Walled Lake Sector Study Implementation Committee. Spoke in regard to a Resolution asking for no more Commercial property. He stated an affidavit from Gerald Luedtke caused all kind of stir because it was hidden from the citizens and Council at that time. Mr. Korte stated he could build a one story 6,126 square foot house on the property and meet the setback requirements, he could also build a two-story 12,000 square foot house with no variances. Therefore, he stated the property was buildable. In regard to berming, he stated the applicant already destroyed trees of more than 2' in diameter, on the lot line. Mr. Korte stated the north end is a different commodity, they are originally deeded property and it is buildable.


John Bolton, 1197 East Lake Drive, President of LARA-SES stated the membership met and voted on the issues. Again, they came up with a resounding, no. He asked the Commission not to rezone the Residential property to Commercial, furthermore, to better fit the area, he requested that the existing Commercial property be rezoned to Residential. In closing, he was against the rezoning.


Lynn MacGowan, 1312 East Lake Drive owned her property for 13 years and was adamantly opposed to any rezoning of Residential property and in full support of the LARA-SES proposal to revert the property back to Residential.


Asa Smith, 1294 East Lake Drive, member of LARA-SES presented a number of petitions on behalf of the homeowners association and the residents and businesses of Walled Lake and Novi. He stated the results were clearly apparent with more than 390 signatures stating a definite "no" to the rezoning request. All concerned have stated that the properties being discussed remain at the presently zoned status and deny the B-3 Commercial classification. He asked that the petitions be entered into the City records regarding the Andris-Romain 18.574 rezoning. Mr. Smith thought that having Mr. Mamola as the architect for this project was very unique. Having many projects accomplished in the City of Novi, one would think he would have more respect for the residents of the north end. Mr. Mamola has been designing homes and buildings of quality for quite some time, he has built one of the nicest houses on the lake on a parcel that said it could not be done. He made it work, so why cannot homes be built the same way on the Andris property? He asked that the property be used as it is presently zoned.


Debbie Koder, 1129 East Lake Drive was adamantly opposed to the rezoning. According to a June 25 article in the Novi News, Mr. Mamola explained why the building of condominiums would not be a worthwhile venture for the site in question. He contended that the condominiums would have to be one story buildings. How can he say that two story condominiums would not be in scale with the neighborhood when Beachwalk Apartments is a two story complex, many of the surrounding homes are two story, almost all of the new homes are two story, not to mention the fact that the Port Pappodopolis restaurant had final site plan approval as a two story building. She stated Mr. Mamola submitted several conceptual site plans for the area, to the Staff Planner along with a letter that promoted acceptance of a plan that called for the rezoning of lots to Commercial. According to Mr. Mamola, "the rezoning provides property to provide a reasonable design of a buffer area between any B-3 development and the abutting residential property to the south". She stated there is going to be a retail center 3/10 of a mile away at Novi and 14 Mile Roads, she asked if there really was a need for another retail center. Since the completion of Decker Road, East Lake Drive has seen a reduction of traffic. She stated she was not anxious to see a large increase in traffic. She could not see that there was enough traffic on East Lake Drive to support any type of retail. Ms. Koder asked for an explanation of the rules on rezoning property because it was her understanding that whatever the site plan showed, was basically irrelevant.


Patricia Hughes, 1241 East Lake Drive rebutted the request for rezoning according to Mr. Mamolaís letter. She stated if approved, the entrance could be off of 14 Mile Road, the common ownership does not automatically entitle the rezoning to Commercial. She thought the entire request was mute because she did not think rezoning lakefront that is already zoned Residential should even be considered. She stated the residents did not want the rezoning.


Mark Adams, 1737 East Lake Drive was opposed to the rezoning. He stated it would add an additional 1,600 cars per day to East Lake Drive which is over a 40% increase in traffic. He believed the increased Commercial would be detriment, however, his biggest concern was that it would set a precedent in the lake area for future developers. He did not believe that the proposed food uses were viable uses therefore, the other uses allowed would be a car wash or convenience store which could be put in.


Bruno Tome, 825 East Walled Lake Drive expressed his concern with traffic. He stated in his neighborhood, a road crosses his property so the traffic concern arises from this situation. He stated it is an ongoing situation. He believed his property value would be affected in a negative way because of the situation in the area. He also thought it would set a dangerous precedent. He stated Mr. Andris was causing the residents undue hardship and thought it was an unfair situation that should not be allowed.


Jason Easter, 903 East Walled Lake Drive asked if the plans were to scale? He obtained a copy of the plans and stated the property on the lake could be divided into two homes or a two story house could be built. He was against the rezoning and would like to see it remain Residential, he hoped the Commission considered the comments of everyone tonight.


John Alexander, 45761 Remingon Lane stated he was a former resident of Walled Lake. He supported the Andris Romain rezoning. He thought it involved more than residential and commercial zoning, he explained that it was residential and commercial areas all adjacent to a public asset. As a resident, he did not think there was a nice place to enjoy the lake. He stated he would like to be able to enjoy the public asset and be able to view the lake. He disagreed that there would be a traffic problem because he drives the area all the time.


Michelle Verplanch, 1245 East Lake Drive stated she moved to Novi a year ago specifically due to the lake. She thought to continue the trend of Commercialization on the lake was a huge mistake. She stated there were many ways to enjoy the lake besides building a strip mall on it.


Kurt Kralovich, 1245 East Lake Drive thanked the Commission for the privilege to speak. He stated the presentation was predicated on two main fallacies, the first being that it would be a benefit to the City of Novi. He stated it did not provide any unique product or service that could not be found throughout the City already. He spoke about the effects of intermingling commercial and residential zoning. He was aware of how much money would be generated on property values and he thought the drop in property values would cause a net decrease in the budget when compared to the amount of tax that was generated by the strip mall. In regard to the increased traffic, he stated it will lead to increased injuries. He thought the opinions and rights of the people in the area who live, sleep, eat and breathe in that area should pull more weight than outsiders and their political allies.


Bernard Alpern, 1315 East Lake Drive stated he has been a Novi resident for six years. He thanked Mr. Quinn and Mr. Mamola on their detailed professional presentation. He asked the Commission not to consider B-2 instead of B-3, he stated it was a dangerous precedent. Moving from B-2 to B-3 was a lot easier than taking it from Residential to Commercial. He asked the Commission to help protect the jewels of the City.


Angelo Zervos, 46193 Galway stated allowing a residential property would make for a more attractive commercial property in the area. Secondly, there was a concern to provide stability of the tenants if it were allowed. Thirdly, to provide a buffer with the existing residential area he thought could be more attractive because of the construction of an attractive berm in the area. He thought a strip mall with the lack of having a liquor licence would provide a better situation in the area. Lastly, he did not think there was another property in the area which would provide the ability to enjoy the lake.


Tom Casoglos, 40149 Buckingham Court stated he has been a Novi resident for more than 30 years. He stated he thought it would be good to approve Mr. Andrisís proposal to rezone the property.


Dean Hountalas, 24699 Willowbrook Road thought that anything new that would enhance the aesthetics of the area would upgrade it with the present surroundings of the businesses. He stated he has yet to see the property values in Novi decrease as this is the largest growing area around. Anything that would reflect more on what the Novi Community projects should be looked at.


Scott Rumely, 1229 East Lake Drive stated he spoke with the Police Department and they have patrolled traffic on East Lake Drive, each shift is required to stake out and take radar on the road due to the increased traffic. He stated there was no reason why the owner of the property could not maintain his property and make it feasible and nice looking for the rest of the residents. He thought the purpose of M-5 and Decker Road was to decrease the traffic on East Lake Drive and thought it defeated the purpose if the Commission were to approve the rezoning.


Elaine Markowitz, 1153 East Lake Drive opposed the rezoning.


Debbie Meyers-Fagan, 1275 East Lake Drive stated the statement by Mr. Quinn that, "the property was surrounded by Commercial on all sides except for the lake," was inaccurate. She stated the parcel to the south was owned by Mr. Clark and is Residential, there was also Residential that leads to Mr. Clarkís property, the lakefront is zoned Residential and crossing over into the City of Walled Lake, the lakefront next to his is also Residential. She stated the lakefront is now Residential and by changing it to Commercial would be setting a very dangerous precedent. She asked what would happen if Mr. Clark and a couple of his neighbors decided to pool their property and wanted to do the same thing that Mr. Andris is asking to do and rezone their property to Commercial. She was against the rezoning of the property but not opposed to the developing of it.


Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin stated Mr. Mamola does real good work, however, he is also being paid by Mr. Andris to represent his point of view and the residents are aware of it. She stated nothing has changed since 1987 when Mr. Andris was told no by previous Councils and Planning Commissions. He bought the property the way it is, she stated the residents have never disputed the fact that he has the right to build on the property as zoned. In regard to building Commercial on the lakefront site, there must be parking on the building site, she asked how parking would be accommodated for, not to mention docks and people coming in and out of the lake if it is allowed by City Code. She stated this would establish a dangerous precedent around the lake as well as throughout the entire City. She stated all of the road improvements planned for the area would only further decrease the traffic on the residential roads, the project will demand increased traffic. Finally, she felt the appropriate zoning was from B-3 to Residential.


Christa Murphy asked the Commission to consider the residents as it involves probably the biggest investment they will ever make.


Cindy Easter, 903 East Walled Lake Drive opposed the rezoning and hoped that the Commission did as well.


Larry Kern, 1159 East Lake Drive stated some of the existing strip malls such as Town Center do not have the traffic to support them. He stated he did not want to see a strip mall built and eventually see it vacant. He stated the City did not need it.


Monica Rochon, 1295 East Lake Drive stated putting in the Commercial structure could create increased potential hazard and pollution to the lake.


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








Moved by Csordas, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a negative recommendation to City Council for the proposed rezoning application of Andris Romain 18.574.





Member Mutch asked what other uses would be allowed under the B-3 zoning at that location?


Mr. Arroyo stated anything that is allowed in the B-1 or B-2 district is permitted, in addition, uses such as auto washes, bus passenger stations, mini lubes, new and used car sales rooms, outdoor vehicle and recreational vehicle sales, motels, businesses with drive-ins, open store front character, veterinary hospitals, plant nurseries, sale of lawn furniture and playground equipment, public and private recreation facilities, and a variety of other office and retail uses.


In regard to the residential property on the west side of the road, Member Mutch asked what the typical lot size was around Walled Lake?


Mr. Arroyo stated there was a wide variety. The standard in the R-4 is a 10,000 square foot minimum, however there are many non-conforming lots within the area because it was platted before the R-4 District was put into place.


Member Mutch asked if he would consider a group of parcels over Ĺ acre in size to be larger than the normal in the lakes area?


Mr. Arroyo thought that was a fair statement.


Member Mutch asked if it was a buildable parcel in terms of building without variances?


Mr. Arroyo stated there has not been a site study conducted, based upon the drawings that have been submitted and evaluating them, it appears that a residential structure could be placed upon the property.


Member Mutch asked Mr. Quinn if there were any other points he could make that would clarify why the original Residential zoning was no longer a viable use in that area.


Mr. Quinn reiterated that he did not think the Residential lot without some variances for setbacks could be built upon. He stated the key was that there would be a Commercial center put in, why not make it as nice a Commercial center as can be built. He thought this was what Mr. Andris was proposing.


Member Mutch stated that he would support the motion to deny the proposed rezoning for all of the reasons stated by the Planning Consultants. He stated there has been a drop in traffic in that area because of the opening of Novi/Decker Road. He stated he had a hard time justifying changes in zoning that will result in increased infrastructure demands in area where there currently isnít any. In terms of the development on the lakefront, Mr. Mutch did not support the concept of having Commercial on the lakefront. There are very few vacant parcels on the lakefront, he stated he would like to see some type of Residential use along the lakefront. He did not see how the Commission could justify encroaching into the neighborhoods. He thought the Commission needed to look at the B-3 zoning because it is a very intense zoning use and he thought some alternatives could be explored.





Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None


Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a very brief recess.





Project is located on West Haggerty Road between Nine Mile Road and Orchard Place Drive. Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use and Woodlands Permit approvals.


Member Churella asked to be excused from the Public Hearing because he sold the land to Lifetime Fitness and he did not feel that he should vote on the matter.


Chairperson Weddington announced that Member Churella has asked to abstain from the matter because of his personal financial interest and called for an oral vote. All in favor please say aye, motion passed unanimously.


Mark Churella, represented FDI Realty Partners, LLC and the developers of the master site. He stated the conceptual design depicted a class A commercial office complex that would also feature a health and fitness center. He stated he was granted Preliminary Site Plan approval on the Summit Pointe Office Complex and subsequently Final Site Plan approval. He felt fortunate to have a development partner in the project, Lifetime Fitness. He reported they are a world class facility that targets in on community health and fitness. He felt this would compliment the project while fitting in with the existing zoning. He stated the primary purpose was to include the residents of the adjoining property throughout the entire process. Mr. Churella introduced Mark Zaebst from Lifetime Fitness.


Mark Zaebst, Vice President of Business Development for Lifetime Fitness currently owns and operates nine (9) recreation and fitness facilities and is currently developing six (6) new facilities. The facility proposed is approximately 92,000 square feet, it has two (2) floors. There is a full service hair salon, a health food restaurant, a meeting seminar room, massage therapy, two regulation size basketball and volleyball courts, two story rock climbing wall, regulation racquetball and squash courts, child care training center with a sign in desk and mini lockers, spacious locker rooms with private lounge areas, showers, steam rooms and tanning rooms in each locker room, family locker rooms, indoor pool area, indoor recreation pool and play area, outdoor recreation pool, dry heat sauna, and two whirlpools. The second floor of the facility has a training and stretching area, two diagnostics desks, cardiovascular training equipment, free weight training area, aerobic training rooms that accommodate up to 80 people each, physical therapy and medical rehabilitation. He felt the facility was a perfect match for Novi. He stated they would bring approximately 120 jobs to Novi without increasing the population.


Frank Bray of Nordstrom Samson Associates stated Lifetime Fitness has gone through great lengths to satisfy the residents with regard to buffering and landscaping. There is a 150' greenbelt that will be present forever, it has been enhanced from the existing vegetation. He stated as each piece is developed, each of the greenbelt areas will be developed based on the property being developed.


Mr. Churella stated the commitment to the development is, when the Lifetime Fitness site commences construction, FDI Realty Partners, LLC will begin the greenbelt plantings, Lifetime Fitnessís commitment is the greenbelt planting within their envelope so that it will all happen simultaneously, even though the only development taking place is Lifetime Fitness.


Mr. Bray stated a main feature of the site was the ability to locate the main access right on the boulevard entrance being provided for the Commercial office development. The roadway will be 100% developed to the front entry of Lifetime Fitness.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant reviewed Brandon Rogerís letter of June 19, 1998. He reviewed how the project relates to the standards of a Special Land Use. 1) Road and traffic access - He stated Section 2517 specifies that an individual site must have frontage on a public R.O.W., it was his understanding that the applicant proposed to split the property from the parent parcel. It would not have direct access to a public thoroughfare, therefore, the applicant is going to be seeking a waiver of the requirement from the ZBA. Also, Section 2518 specifies that a use such as this must have access to a major thoroughfare. Because the applicant is not fronting on a road and their access to a major thoroughfare is indirect, they will also need to address that provision with the ZBA. 2) Adequate public utilities - He stated Mr. Bluhm would address the issue. 3) A Woodlands Permit application is pending and Ms. Lemke would address the issue. 4) Noise analysis - an analysis has been submitted and indicates that it is projected that Noviís Noise Standards will be adhered to and there will not be noise in excess of the maximum permitted decibel level. The project conforms with the Master Plan for Land Use, the recommendation is for Special Land Use approval subject to resolvement of the access issue 2518 and 2517.


In regard to the Preliminary Site Plan, Mr. Arroyo stated there was adequate parking provided, the applicant also proposes to enter into an agreement to share the parking with Summit Pointe Phases I & II. There would be construction of adjacent parking so that during off hours of the office, any overflow of the Lifetime Fitness facility could share the parking. There is a requirement for a 20' front yard parking setback, 10' are provided. The applicant is asking for a waiver based upon the fact that at a later stage, an additional 10' will be constructed as part of future office development. They are providing an excessive setback in the rear yard of which they are asking for consideration of. Off street loading space is provided, they are providing minimal truck access. Because of the nature of the use, the applicant has indicated that they need to exceed the 30' maximum height in the OS-1 District. The midpoint of the skylight structure is located approximately 46' above the average grade which exceeds the 30'. Facade standards are met and a Section 4 Waiver is not necessary. In summary, the recommendation is for Preliminary Site Plan approval owing to the following: 1) conditioned upon Special Land Use approval; 2) Providing the missing application data; 3) Addressing the off-street parking design issues; 4) Clarification of loading and unloading; 5) Granting of a waiver for the front yard parking green space deficiency of 10'; 6) Addressing the landscape concerns; 7) Resolving the access issue by obtaining a waiver for Section 2517 and 2518; 8) Provision of additional details on the outdoor pool as part of the Final Site Plan; 9) The height variance from the ZBA.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated public utilities are proposed, sanitary sewer service is proposed from the western edge of the site through the existing greenbelt area, into an existing sanitary sewer that feeds into the residential area. It is considered a lead and is not expected to be a major intrusion into the wooded vegetation area, the impacts are expected to be fairly limited. The site is fairly flat, it gently slopes from west to east toward Haggerty Road. The storm water will handled through pipes underground, below the parking areas and the Districts will be split into two. The northern half will be outletted and detained on site in the Summit Pointe areas, the southern half outlets across the undeveloped area. A swale is proposed to the east toward a temporarily constructed detention basin which exists near Haggerty Road. Mr Bluhm added that the applicant has proposed a small swale ditch area that will direct the water toward the basin, the ditch area extends across the wetland that has been identified in the undeveloped area, he stated this would be made a condition of approval and would need to be shown at the Final Site Plan. The off-site graded detention basin and the conveyance system leading to that, will need to have a privately executed agreement prior to approval of the plans as well as a maintenance agreement for the Summit Pointe detention basin. There were a number of other minor comments, beyond that, Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Mr. Arroyo reviewed his letter dated June 19, 1998 regarding traffic impact. There is very little information related to a use such as this one. Therefore, the applicant provided traffic counts from an existing Lifetime Fitness facility in Minnesota. The findings were that it could be expected to generate approximately 4,100 trips on an average weekday, 170 trips during the morning peak hour and 365 during the p.m. peak hour. Access is from a boulevard entrance. As part of the Summit Point Phases I & II a number of improvements are being made, including the extension of the center left turn lane, a deceleration and acceleration lane on Haggerty Road. As a condition of approval of this site plan, those improvements should be in place as part of Summit Pointe Phase I. In the event that the applicant chooses to dedicate the boulevard as a public roadway, it would require additional review and the applicant would need to submit additional documentation. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the conditions as stated in his letter.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated some information is missing and will need to be provided by the applicant. They also need to provide an itemized cost estimate for the plant materials. At this stage, the applicant is allowed to come in with a planting plan that indicates general evergreen and deciduous plant materials and shrubs and tree forms, and they do provide the required screening and the correct amount of vegetation on the site. There is an earth berm required because the site is adjacent to residential, she stated it appeared that it would be met, however, she needed additional elevations of the adjacent houses to determine if the height requirement has been met. The existing vegetation in that area will need to have protective fencing shown on all of the landscape, woodlands and engineering grading plans. Additional shrubs needed to be added to meet the screening requirement throughout the berm. There is a provision, subject to Planning Commission approval, that an existing woodland area may be used to meet the screening requirements, she recommended that the Planning Commission approve the use of the natural areas along the west property line. There were a few items that needed to be included on the Final Plan, one in particular was that all of the fire hydrants need to be visible and it appears that some shrubs are obscuring some of the hydrants and it needs to be changed. The interior building landscape requirements require a 4' green space immediately adjacent to the building on all four sides, this has been provided except for the south facade adjacent to the glass entry area. Ms. Lemke suggested that planter and decorative planters be used to meet the requirement, as it currently stands, a variance from the ZBA would be required. Screening for all transformers needs to be provided and shown on the site with an opening provided for access to the electrical transformers. In regard to the corner clearance requirements of Section 25113 Ms. Lemke stated she would like to see more detail where the main entrance and the entry road come together to make sure the 25' corner clearance is met. More details on dumpster screening needs to be provided at Final. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the landscape plan.


Ms. Lemke stated the site contains regulated woodlands per the City of Noviís woodlands map. The whole area of woodlands on the parcel is 3.67 acres. The quality of the area is basically a walnut hedgerow and is in a recessed area. She stated it is showing some signs of decline because of excess water in the area. There are no historic or specimen trees or potential historic or specimen trees on the site. They are impacting slightly into the bulb of higher area. She asked the applicant to look at other alternatives and they have indicated that they have done so but have not been able to reduce the footprint or the parking area on the site. One of the positive things about the proposal of replacements is the existing woodlands along the property line. Ms. Lemke thought tree #178, a 16" diameter hickory could be saved and she would need to look at it during the final woodlands engineering to see if it could be done. Phase II of Summit Pointe shows 11 trees on the northeast corner which needs to be changed and included in Lifetime Fitness. She stated there were a few items that are missing and are required on the Final plan and are listed in her letter. She stated she would be reviewing the replacement numbers, species and their locations at the time of Final. Due to the quality of the woodlands and the limited impact, Ms. Lemke recommended approval of a Woodland Permit with her standard conditions; 1) Payment of a replacement and fence maintenance financial guarantee and payment of Woodlands inspection fee with the amount to be determined at the time of Final Woodlands Engineering review; 2) Remaining regulated woodlands which are not platted are placed into a Preservation Easement; 3) No construction including clearing or grubbing can begin until the protective fencing has been approved by the office and an environmental pre-construction meeting is held; 4) Review of the Final Engineering Plans per the above comments.


David Bluhm, stated JCK has provided a wetlands review for the site and it was determined that no permit is required for wetlands. There is about a 1Ĺ acre wetland to the south and east off site and it is not proposed to be disturbed with this development. There is a lobe of the wetland that extends to the extreme southeast corner of the site and a buffer associated with it, that a minor amount of disturbance will be necessary, however, it has been reviewed against the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance and determined that none of them have been met. Mr. Bluhm would like to make it a condition that the applicant minimize the disturbance to that area through retaining walls. He stated the applicant has also proposed a swale and they have been asked to pull it back, outside of the wetland area. Should it be pulled back, there would be no disturbance to the wetland and there would be no need for a permit. He did not feel the swale was necessary into the wetlands. He would like to see the applicant provide vegetation that is consistent with water quality enhancement of the swale area so the water can be treated from the south parking lot prior to its release into the wetland area. The applicant has also been asked to provide details on how they plan on handling the sedimentation control in that area. Mr. Bluhm recommended approval.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal; 1) Control valve for the 8" fire protection line shall be either a post indicator valve or a valve in a well.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states he has reviewed the plan for compliance with the Facade Ordinance and he finds that all of the facades are in full compliance with the Facade Chart and that a Section 4 Waiver is not required.


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

Andrew Spilkin, attorney representing 18 of the homeowners in the Whispering Meadows subdivision. He stated the homeowners have reviewed the site plan and have met with the developer and lend their support to the project. He cautioned that part of the settlement was conditioned upon an extensive landscape buffer which is to run the entire length of the site once construction starts. The developer has worked closely with the homeowners and has pledged to continually work closely with the homeowners to develop the buffer. Assuming that the landscape buffer is put in, the homeowners support the project.


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








Moved by Canup, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval, Special Land Use approval and Woodlands Permit subject to conformance with all of the written and verbal comments of the Consultants as well as the attainment of ZBA variances for Lifetime Fitness SP98-19.





Member Mutch asked Ms. Lemke if it was possible to extend the preservation easement over the entire greenbelt buffer to prevent further development.


Ms. Lemke stated they are required to maintain the buffer as part of their approved plan, by approving it with recommendations, is basically approving maintaining the existing vegetation with supplemental plantings. Therefore, she was not sure what it would gain.


Member Mutch stated he had heard some reference at some point that those restrictions would actually end in the future.


Mr. Churella stated that was true up until the first amendment to the covenant codes and restrictions. There was no potential chance for development in the 150' greenbelt area unless all of the residents of the Whispering Meadows Homeowners Association decide to allow it to happen.


Member Mutch asked Mr. Bluhm how the drainage was to be handled when the remainder of the property is developed?


Mr. Bluhm stated more than likely, a large detention water quality basin would be provided as part of the development. The basin that is being constructed over the undeveloped land would be removed and the permanent basin would become the outlet for the storm water that goes out of the area.


In regard to the stub streets from the subdivisions, Member Mutch asked how the City deals with them? He asked if there was some way to block them off so kids do not ride their bikes off into the woodlands?


Mr. Bluhm answered, the stub streets are City owned and they deal with the traffic maintenance. He believed that they had some road end signs. He stated it was kind of difficult to control bikes and pedestrians through that area, however, there was vehicular control.


Chairperson Weddington clarified that the motion also included the variances for Section 2518, 2517, height variance, 10' parking setback temporary variance and also the waiver of the berm with supplemental plantings.

In regard to the ditch to be removed to avoid a wetland, Member Csordas asked Mr. Bluhm since it was not mentioned in his letter, would it be sufficient to be on record via the recording?


Mr. Bluhm stated the intent was to add the comment as a condition of the approval.


In regard to the wetland review, Member Csordas asked Mr. Bluhm to clarify the recommendation not included in his letter.


Mr. Bluhm stated it was to provide water quality vegetation enhancement to the swale area so that the vegetation would provide some water quality benefits prior to its release into the wetland, and the sedimentation would be controlled through the structures.


Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo about the traffic situation at the boulevarded entrance and the drop off situation.


Mr. Arroyo stated he would be looking at that issue in more detail at the time of Final. He did not anticipate that it would be a significant problem because as the facilities tend to operate, there is a fairly steady demand.





Yes: Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup

No: None








3. AT & T WIRELESS, SP98-22


Project is located south of Ten Mile Road and west of Novi Road at Ella Mae Powers Park. Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals.


John Riley spoke on behalf of AT & T Wireless, he introduced Dan Wellington, Assistant Design Engineer. Mr. Riley stated the applicant issued a search ring where a facility is needed in order to integrate it into the existing network. He stated the search ring encompasses the Civic Center area, the high school and surrounding residential. He proposed to replace an existing 62' wooden pole with a 150' monopole and equipment cabinets at the base. He stated there was a misprint in the materials he provided, the cabinets are not 10' high, they are approximately 5' high. There are three (3) cabinets about 4' x 3' x 5' high. He stated they have also designed room for additional users because it was likely that other companies may have a need for transmitters to serve the City. Mr. Riley briefly reviewed an aerial photograph. He passed out pamphlets with computer generated before and after pictures to each Commissioner. Mr. Riley stated there would be no additional lighting on the pole, he said they would replace the lighting on the existing wooden pole. He stated the pole was not significant, he could replace any pole or they could put a free standing site anywhere. He was looking to minimize the impact of the site and put the pole in an area that would not interfere with any future development that the City may have. Mr. Riley the equipment and pole will be located on one side of the drain and any other additional users will most likely locate on the other side of the drain. He stated he has not yet negotiated a lease with the City, he was hopeful to begin the process once the Planning Commission has had the opportunity to review the site.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the applicant has applied for a new tower that would permit co-location by other users as required by Ordinance. He stated it falls under the classification of uses not otherwise specified in another district. He stated they were allowed under special approval subject to a Public Hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission and ultimate approval by the City Council. Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval at this time due to several outstanding items. He stated more information needed to be submitted regarding that co-location on the site is not feasible and a denial of request would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personnel wireless services. He explained that the City could not deny an application if it would prohibit the provision of a public service. City Council has the ability to grant a waiver to the requirement as part of their consideration. As a part of that consideration, he asked the applicant to provide detailed information regarding the fall zone of the tower if there were to be a situation where the tower were to collapse, how large the fall zone is and how would it impact the adjacent uses. He thought this was important information that should be carefully documented before any decision is made regarding the location. The monopole does not meet the minimum setback requirement which is 100% of the height of the tower or 150' to the west property line which is the high school. Council can waiver that requirement after a recommendation from the Planning Commission. All transmission lines must be placed underground and this needs to be specified on the plan. Mr. Arroyo suggested an alternative may be to construct a small structure with a brick face and a gable roof that would be large enough to take all three potential users and house them within that structure. Another alternative would be for the applicant to work on the plan to reconsider future co-location equipment and where it might be placed on the site and come up with a screening plan to screen all three equipment cabinets. Mr. Arroyo indicated there must be FAA approval due to the potential aircraft conflicts which the applicant has provided. In regard to the Preliminary Site Plan, there were some minor issues. He stated some alternatives to the chain link fence could be explored, such as a dark green color and suggested that it be evaluated and considered. Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval, however, he stated progress was being made toward many of the items and he thought there could be a resolution with some additional information and site plan modifications.


Mr. Arroyo stated the project would have access from an existing roadway and a small driveway would come off of it to serve the recreational facilities within Ella Mae Power Park. No substantial traffic impact is anticipated as the facilities do not have personnel on a regular basis. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval from a traffic impact standpoint.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated there were no engineering concerns, however, he was not aware of a water main through that location. There is a storm sewer that exists right off of the edge of the proposed improvement which the applicant is not proposing to impact. With the issues raised, he asked that the applicant provide a Final Site Plan to confirm the issues and to be sure there are not proposed impacts.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the landscape plan provided 21 dark green Arborvitae which will provide screening to the equipment base and fence. She thought Mr. Arroyoís concern with the other co-location units disturbing the planting was valid and support it. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan.


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


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


Mike Breckenridge, 24152 Brentwood Court was concerned that the tower would be the type that was unable to climb because of its close proximity to a recreation facility and the high school. He also was concerned about a constant check by the FCC on the frequency because it is a new higher frequency being used.


Yongxing (Jim) Wang, 45256 Roundview Drive was deeply concerned about the project He believed it would lower the standard of living and have negative impacts on the property value. He was strongly against the project.


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





Member Canup stated there were a lot of places in the City that would have a hard time approving the plan. However, being as it is going to be placed in an area with surrounding poles, he did not see a problem with it.




Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, CARRIED(4-3): To send a positive recommendation for Preliminary Site Plan approval and Special Land Use approval subject to all of the Consultants conditions for AT & T Wireless, SP98-22.





Member Csordas asked if the tower would turn into a tower that would have a number of transmitters over time, or if it was strictly limited to the digital cellular? He asked the applicant what he could foresee?


Mr. Riley stated it was a concern of Council and he stated the City would have absolute control of what goes on and off of the tower. He stated AT & T would initially have 9 antennas and possibly 12. He stated this structure will be designed to handle only up to three users like AT & T. In regard to aesthetics, he stated it would be the tapering pole variety because it is a more attractive structure, any addition to the pole would require review by the Commission.


Member Csordas asked another antenna were put onto the tower, would it require another equipment cabinet?


Mr. Riley answered typically, yes. He stated there were a lot of variations in the sizes of the cabinets among the different carriers.


Member Csordas asked where the cabinets would be put on the site?


Mr. Riley answered, the site plan has provided general space for co-locators. He stated it would be hard to design the area to accommodate unknown future uses.


Member Csordas asked if Mr. Riley was assuring the Commission that prior to any other antennas or cabinets being placed on the site, it would have to come before the Commission.


Mr. Riley answered, yes. He asked Mr. Arroyo if another building would require a site plan approval?


Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He explained because the equipment cabinets, up until now, have not been viewed as a building because they are not constructed as a building. It is an Administrative review when doing a co-location.


Member Csordas asked if Administration could limit the number of antennas?


Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He thought the way the applicant presented the application was that there would only be two additional users for a total of three users. He thought if it were changed, it would require them to come back before City Council and go through a different type of approval process.


Member Csordas asked if the object of the antenna was to enhance or to fill in a hole?


Mr. Riley answered, it was to provide basic coverage, to fill in a hole. He stated there was very poor coverage and there were areas where there was no in-building coverage.


Member Churella asked about the wind resistance.


Mr. Riley stated the structures were designed to meet wind loading as required by the State of Michigan and Federal Regulations. He thought it was about 80 mph.


Member Churella asked about breaking and falling and about the snap point.


Mr. Riley stated the monopoles have been tested to destruction and it was not anticipated that anything would ever break off or hit the ground. He stated the pole would bend over which is known as localized buckling and this reduces the wind stress. He stated to have a monopole fall over would be an extremely remote occurrence because that is not the way they are engineered.


As a previous Parks & Recreation Commissioner Member Koneda had several concerns. He did not see anything in the packet from Parks & Rec telling what the impact would be on the field. He stated the fence and monopole would be placed at the entrance and would impact the walkway. Therefore, he expressed concern with the location and stated he would like to have some feedback from the Parks & Rec. Dept. regarding the impact that it may have on the programming. He also expressed concern about the height of the fence and the fact that it is going to be in an area where a lot of children will be traveling past it. He expressed concern about the location and the fact that it is going to be located in the heart of one of the most active parks in the City. He thought whatever the Commission does with this application could impact other parks and other City property, he thought the Commission needed to be careful in its decision.


Khanh Pham, Staff Planner stated Dan Davis, Director of Parks & Recreation was aware of the plan and the fact that the meeting was taking place, however, he had a prior engagement and could not be in attendance to lend support to the proposal.


Mr. Riley stated the site would not impact the sidewalk at all, nor would the location of the proposed future cabinets impact the sidewalk.


Member Churella believed the cabinets would not get any bigger, he believed that they would only get smaller.

In regard to looking at other possible locations, Member Mutch asked the applicant if he looked at the light towers on the high school property, if so, he asked about the height of the towers and why he was not locating on those towers?


Mr. Riley answered the height of the towers is 96' and they are not tall enough.


If this tower is located at this point, Member Mutch asked, in the future will there be another tower popping up in a residential area? He asked how far apart the towers are located and where will the next one be located?


Mr. Riley stated AT & T could not say that they would not be back before the Commission. He stated the coverage on the far west and southwest of the City is deficient and will be one of the next areas that AT & T will move into. He did not have information on the exact location as it has not yet been engineered.


Member Mutch stated he could not approve the plan as it currently stands because it does not meet the Special Land Use standards. He did not want to send an approval and set a precedent for future proposals which may not involve City property and the City may not have as much control.





Yes: Churella, Csordas, Piccinini, Canup

No: Koneda, Mutch, Weddington








Property is located on the east side of Novi Road between Eight and Nine Mile Roads. Applicant is seeking Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval.


Steve LaBelle stated Novi Auto Wash is looking to build two additions, one in front and one in the rear of the building. They are proposing to place a brick facade around the building and improve the overall look of the structure as well as the landscaping.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant reviewed Brandon Rogersí letter dated June 15, 1998. He stated the project was before the Planning Commission and has received approval, the Site Plan approval expired so they are now back before the Commission for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The plan has not changed, all setback requirements are met. There are two (2) additions proposed to the existing structure. One is on the west side and one is on the east side of the building. The access is going to be improved with a landscape island, there will be additional landscaping and paving to enhance the circulation around the site. The structure will be dramatically improved in terms of adding a gable roof and new facade materials. The recommendation was for approval of the Preliminary Site Plan as well as the Final, which will take place Administratively.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated she has looked at the plan in terms of additional requirements and the applicant meets everything per the new Ordinances. They have submitted a cost estimate, the required green space setbacks are complied with except along the north side yard where 8' is shown and 10' are required. Since the site is of narrow width, no off-street parking exists near the setback and interior green space exists on the site, a waiver by the Planning Commission was previously granted. Ms. Lemke recommended approval.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated utilities currently service the site and will continue with the improvements. The site is very flat and there is a storm sewer outlet along Novi Road which is very shallow. The applicant previously had explored options for storing storm water in the new paved areas, curbed areas and basin options and they have been exhausted. Mr. Bluhm recommended that the applicant provide parking lot storage. In areas that are away from the vehicular movement, he asked that the elevations that are allowed to store up to 1' of water during a rain event be kept down as much as possible by flattening the parking lot. Mr. Bluhm stated the back of the parking area appears to be in a flood plain area, therefore, the applicant will be required to provide some minor fill and a local permit for flood plain. Mr. Bluhm recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Mr. Arroyo stated the improvement should improve circulation around the site, there is adequate stacking space provided per the Ordinance requirements. Mr. Arroyo stated the existing driveway which is going to be slightly modified, does not meet the driveway spacing standards and he thought the Commission should address the driveway spacing standard waiver as part of the action.


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

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci which states he has reviewed the plan for conformance with the Facade Ordinance and he states that the application is in compliance with the Facade Ordinance and that a Section 4 Waiver is not required.


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








Moved by Churella, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Novi Auto Wash, SP96-45D subject to all of the Consultants conditions including the driveway spacing waiver.





Member Mutch asked why the waiver was required on the north side of the property? He thought there was plenty of space to add an additional 2'.


Mr. LaBelle answered they needed the parking and the drive lane. He explained that the building sits cockeyed to the property line and as the building extends, the distance for the drive lane decreases.


Mr. Arroyo stated the parking circulation standard does not require that width, however, he believed it was the regulation of the Fire Department that specifies they prefer an 18' wide aisle for fire trucks.





Yes: Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup, Churella, Csordas

No: None











Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To rescind the approval of the motion to address Phasing Plan for General Filters that was granted May 20, 1998.





Yes: Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda

No: None


Member Mutch asked if the Matter could be tabled until next week? He stated there were three new Commissioners who were not familiar with the project, secondly, he expressed concern that the Commission would make an approval with the possibility of missing another item. He asked if there was a rush on the matter which meant the Commission had to vote on it tonight?

Member Churella agreed with the comments of Member Mutch.

Chairperson Weddington stated she expected a suggested action at the next meeting.




Chairperson Weddington announced there were several Committees that need new Commissioner appointments. The Administrative Liaison Committee meets as needed and she announced that Member Csordas was already serving on that Committee. The Capital Improvements Committee has one vacancy, she asked if anyone was interested in volunteering?


Khanh Pham, Staff Planner stated that there was no immediate need to appoint any members to this Committee as it only meets during the budgeting process.


Chairperson Weddington announced the Environmental Planning Committee needed another member, she stated the Committee meets once a month on alternating weeks of the Planning Commission. She stated the Committee members can also agree to meet whenever it is convenient for them.


Member Koneda volunteered for this Committee.


Chairperson Weddington announced the Implementation Committee was in need of two members.


Member Churella and Member Mutch volunteered.


Chairperson Weddington announced the Master Plan and Zoning Committee needed two members.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development announced they meet on an as needed basis. He added that this will be a high priority compared to past years. He stated the Committee tries to meet during the day so that Mr. Arroyo can attend because of the nature of the consultation.


Member Mutch and Member Piccinini volunteered.


Chairperson Weddington announced that the Planning Studies and Budget Committee was in need of one member.


Chairperson Weddington announced the Rules Committee was in need of one member.


Member Csordas volunteered.


Chairperson Weddington announced the Woodlands Review Board was in need of one member.


Member Piccinini volunteered.


Chairperson Weddington announced that the Town Center Steering Committee was in need of one member.


Member Canup volunteered.


Chairperson Weddington reminded the Department that she requested an orientation schedule for the new Commissioners and any old Commissioners who wish to participate. She asked about the status?




Mr. Arroyo stated he passed out a small orientation packet to the three new Commissioners that describes the role as Planning Commissioner to start the process. He stated they would be following up with some additional sessions with the various Consultants.


Mr. Wahl stated typically when new Commissioners are appointed, there is a series of general briefings, legal briefings and an engineering briefings. He stated this will be done within the next 30 days.









Moved by Mutch, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:56 p.m.



Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None




Kelly Schuler - Planning Assistant


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

July 21, 1998

Date Approved: August 05, 1998