WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1998 AT 7:30 P.M.


(248) 347-0475


Meeting called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chairperson Weddington.


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




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








Chairperson Weddington stated she would like to move up the introduction of Kerreen Conley before Audience Participation. She also noted that there would be five (5) Public Hearings and because signs were not posted for the Zoning Map Amendment 18.576, the rezoning at Beck and Eight Mile, no action would be taken at tonights meeting, however, the Public Hearing would still be conducted. The Public Hearing will also be carried over to the next meeting. She asked if there were any other changes to the Agenda? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as amended.





Moved by Watza, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.





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

No: None








Edward F. Kriewall, City Manager introduced Kerreen Conley. He stated her position, Director of Developmental Services was a new position that was budgeted by City Council in the 1998-99 Budget. He stated the intention of City Council and the Administration was to place an Administrative umbrella over the entire Developmental sphere, consisting of Planning & Community Development and the Building Department. He stated Ms. Conley was the former City Manager of Belleville, Michigan. She received her bachelors degree from Central Michigan University and she will receive her Masters in Business Administration from Eastern Michigan University in December.


Kerreen Conley, Director of Developmental Services greeted everyone and stated she looked forward to working with everyone.







Debbie Bundoff stated that one of the greatest obstacles that the City deals with is communication. She commented that a communication did not get to management in order to have posted an Agenda for tonights meeting nor did the Library have the information available. She was hopeful that when the City finds itself with a very important issue, that they do make copies of Agendas so the citizens are aware of what is on the Agenda in advance.


Khanh Pham, Staff Planner explained that the Planning & Community Development Department posts the Agendas on the kiosk in the lobby of City Hall. However, if someone comes in and takes it off of the kiosk without our knowledge, the Department is apologetic. He also clarified that the Novi Public Library does receive a copy of every Planning Commission Packet that is sent out.


Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission? Seeing none she closed the Audience Participation.






(See Correspondence File)













Proposed rezoning of 23.19 acre property located in Section 32, at the northwest corner of Beck Road and Eight Mile Road, from Residential Acreage (RA) to community Business District (B-2) or any other appropriate zoning district.


Stuart Frankel, gave some background information about himself. He stated the proposed development would draw approximately 80% of its volume and sales from the immediate geographic trade area. He stated it was suggested that a better site for the retail development would be somewhere on Grand River Avenue, between Beck Road and Wixom Road. He stated the market did not exist in that location because the area north of Grand River within three miles is all Industrial which is a non-existent neighborhood to serve the area. He believed the corner of Eight Mile Road and Beck Road serviced a market that is not currently being served and would also create a viable retail development site because of the existing market. He stated the benefit to the City will be less traffic on the road system. Mr. Frankel stated his development would be eliminating a heavy industrial use on the northwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Beck Road.


Dave Burke who conducts site analyses and market feasibility studies for retail users, gave a brief synopsis of the shopping habits of a convenience retail customer. He stated there were basically three alternatives: 1) nothing; 2) a destination grocery store center that would pull a vast majority of its business from well beyond the neighborhood; 3) a neighborhood oriented center to serve the area needs. He felt that option three was the best option at this location. He stated the number one reason for a consumer to shop at a particular grocery store is location convenience.


Mr. Frankel asked that his application for rezoning be postponed to a date to be established, along with notice to the residents and that the Planning Commission refer the application to the Master Plan & Zoning Committee to review and the thoughts to proposals to modify the Master Plan.

Rod Arroyo, Planning & Traffic Consultant reviewed his letter dated July 21, 1998. The applicant proposed that a parcel of property approximately 23 acres from RA to B-2. He recommended that the Commission not recommend approval of the rezoning. Mr. Arroyo stated the rezoning was not consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use. It calls for residential uses on the site at a density of 0.8 dwelling units per acre. The subject site is not currently fully served by public utilities. The Planning Commission is in the process of embarking upon a Master Plan for Land Use update. At that time the Commission will be exploring appropriate land use designations for every parcel in the City of Novi. Giving the timing of the situation, he did not believe it was appropriate to make changes in the Zoning Map for Commercial in that area of the City. In summary, Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval based upon the information that was indicated in his report.


In regard to traffic issues, he referred to his letter dated July 27, 1998. The applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis that was prepared by their consultant. The applicant provided an analysis of levels of service that would typically be reviewed at the Site Plan Review stage. Access would be provided to Beck Road and Eight Mile Road and is subject to change. In regard to existing traffic volumes, the 1995 counts indicate that Beck Road had approximately 16,578 cars traveling north of Eight Mile Road and Eight Mile Road had approximately 8,400 vehicles per day.


Mr. Arroyo stated currently the intersection of Eight Mile Road and Beck Road is operating at Level of Service C during the morning peak hour, during the afternoon peak hour it operates at Level of Service F. He stated the site generated traffic as well as traffic from projects in the surrounding area would make both the morning and afternoon peak hour Level of Service operate at level F. He stated there were some road improvements that could be made to improve levels of service which would include adding a right turn lane and changing signal phasing and timing. Under this scenario, the future Level of Service would be at level D during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The intersection of Beck Road and Nine Mile Road is currently operating at Level of Service F, the City is proposing to signalize that intersection which would greatly improve the level of service at that intersection and provide adequate Levels of Service.


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


Philip J. Goodman, 1045 Portsmere Court thought that what historically went into the Master Plan and what he voted for, should be honored today. He stated he did not have any trouble getting to the grocery store as it currently exists and he did not think another one was needed at that site.


William Absalom, 20600 Beck Road stated he collected about 1,600 signatures on a petition which stated they did not want the grocery store built in that location. He stated the residents rely on the Commission as their defense against developers being able to come in and change the zoning and the neighborhoods.


Frank Brennan, 23876 Heartwood stated the result of the Master Plan is a very nicely developed City. In 1997, the Planning Commission and City Council unanimously rebuked the plans for the same project at 10 Mile Road and Beck Road.


Peter J. King, 46842 Grasmere stated he moved to Novi about 10 years ago and chose the area based on the Master Plan. He urged the Commission not to mass Commercially develop the area.


Jean Bemish, 8800 Napier stated she has lived here for over 50 years. She represented the Maybury State Park Horse Trail Riders Association and expressed concern with the impact that additional traffic would have on users of the park. Many of the riders regularly ride their horses along Eight Mile Road in order to use the horse entrance to get into the park. The traffic study projects that Commercial development would add almost 8,000 car trips per day to the already overcrowded intersection. All three entrances into the park are located within ½ mile of the proposed Commercial development. The entrances would be severely affected by an additional 8,000 cars per day. If a Commercial development is built, getting to and from Maybury would propose a significant danger to horseback riders, pedestrians, bike riders and cars.

Pat Lamerato, 45947 North Valley Drive resides directly southeast of the proposed site. She asked the Commission to consider the children in the area as there are four (4) schools located in approximately one mile if the proposed site. She expressed concern for the safety of the children with the increased traffic flow along Eight Mile Road. If the development is built, it would seriously affect the safety of the children, to and from school, the parents who travel to and from the schools and the busses that are delivering the children. She asked the Commission not to allow the development.


Karen Zyczynski, 22125 York Mills Circle stated Maybury is a sanctuary for wildlife. The site along Eight Mile Road and Beck Road includes sizable wetlands. She stated the park is a place for families to relax and have fun, it is also an educational facility. As an elementary teacher, she stated the teachers regularly bring their classes to the park to learn about wildlife and protecting the environment. She believed that the original plan should be upheld as it is a kinder, gentler land use that would be less intrusive and threatening to the wildlife and preserve the integrity of the area for human use.


Mark Zayti, 21321 Beck stated he built his house on ten acres for the nature and wildlife. His major concern dealt with crime that would come into the area with the development.


Phil Jerome, Westview Drive stated Novi is a well planned community. He did not think the rezoning request made any sense. The property is Master Planned for Residential, it is an environmentally sensitive area and there is Commercially zoned property less than four (4) miles away. He stated the residents have been able to get along just fine without grocery stores, barber shops and dry cleaners on the corner of Eight Mile Road and Beck Road. He asked the Commission to stick to its Master Plan and keep the area free of shopping centers.


Dan Dembicki, 22357 Hazelton Court was extremely disturbed by the proposed development. He expressed concerns about crime and urged the Commission to stick to the Master Plan on behalf of the Novi residents.


Diane Chippewa, 48800 Nine Mile Road asked the Commission to carefully consider any project that comes into the area and choose one that enhances the quality of life, not change it.


Rex Shaffner, 49680 West Eight Mile Road stated Commercial is not needed in the area.


Inga Zayti, 48000 Eight Mile Road has lived next to the trucking firm for almost 30 years. She lives on 10 acres. She did not think the property should be rezoned to Commercial.


Allen Czajkowski, 20500 Beck Road stated he moved to the area because it is a rural agricultural area. He stated he has photographed planets, stars and comets, lights from the shopping center would destroy his ability to practice this hobby. He also stated he did not know anybody who wanted to live 300' from a Kroger store with that kind of traffic.


Howard Hansen, 20194 Woodbend Drive stated when he moved into Novi he assumed that the Commercial areas would eventually be developed Commercial and that the Government would keep its promise to the residents and keep the Residential areas Residential.


Sharon Harper, 47010 Dunsany read a letter from the pastor of the Northville United Methodist Church. He expressed grave concern regarding the proposed shopping center development. He was aware of how busy Eight Mile Road is, particularly as it regards turning left either in or out of the parking lot. He expressed concern about the safety of children coming and going from the Church. The increased traffic is not just an inconvenience, but is a threat to public safety. He asked the Commission to give careful consideration to the consequences of Commercial growth in the Residential area. Ms. Harper also stated the church runs a full time day care/preschool program from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., therefore their area is well used.


Anne Bright, 47025 S. Chigwidden Drive stated the petitions include the names of 96% of the residents of her subdivision who all oppose the rezoning. She was hopeful that the petitions would be thoughtfully considered. Her shared concerns were for the safety of people and for the serenity of Maybury State Park. She asked the Commission not to erode the spirit of cooperation and neighborliness that exists between Novi and Northville and vote "no" for the rezoning.


Robin Polletta, 20220 Beck Road lives directly across from the side entrance to Maybury. Suggested that the applicant look into the two vacant buildings on 7 Mile, east of Northville Road complete with parking lots and utilities instead of paving over another piece of greenery.


Pamela Warner, 24630 Nottingham stated no one was present wishing for a shopping center close to their home. She asked the Commission not to give the applicant the advantage of lining his pockets while doing no benefit to the residents of Novi.


Ellen King, 18990 Beck Road stated she has lived here for 19 years. She urged the Commission to listen and vote with the Consultants. She stated it seemed like the supporters of the development are very few in number. She stated there are many convenience stores in the area, she stated it really is not needed and hoped the Commission would listen to the residents.


Ken Swartz, 46810 Elmsmere Drive added emphasis for the opposition of the proposed rezoning. He stated Mr. Frankel was not serving the Community nor would he be serving his client, he would only be serving himself. He asked the Commission to reject the proposed zoning amendment.


John A. Kuenzel, 23819 Heartwood urged the Planning Commission to look at what is going on, he stated the developer is asking for a postponement so that things can be developed in another way. He stated it is a typical tactic that occurs with developers where if they see that the feeling of the town is that they do not want it, then they delay until the people are not able to attend, he stated this is not how it should operate.


Cindy Gronachan, 21668 Garfield opposed the rezoning. She stated the west section of Novi is not the business section of Novi. She stated the development would only add to the inconvenience of the residents.

Joe Yurasek, 22527 Havergale proposed that the City consider extending the partial sidewalk along Beck Road and connect it to Maybury.


Tim Rose, 24395 Nantucket Drive stated he lives over two miles away from the proposed development. He expressed concern with any kind of rezoning of Residential land to Commercial. He stated he did not hear anything compelling out of the presentation made by Mr. Frankel. He asked the Commission not to rezone the area.


Michelle J. Bononi, 22724 Bertram Drive stated she did not understand what about the document that the applicant did not understand. She stated Eight Mile Road is a wilderness that is dramatic in its impact and the uses do not correlate with a shopping center. Secondly, she stated if the Commission decides to positively recommend a rezoning to Council, all of the uses included in the Zoning Ordinance could be chosen by the applicant regardless of what he says he is going to build. Furthermore, if he is not the developer, someone else could buy the land and do exactly what he wished as long as the Commission recommended it and Council approves it. She asked what the residents get out of the development ? She saw that the residents would get traffic, noise, lighting intrusion, rapid water run-off, polluted run-off, police calls, and developments that are open 24 hours a day. She stated the developer gets money. She stated those who do not plan for the future will have to live through it anyway, and the people who have to live through the consequences of this development are those who live in the City. She urged the Commission to send a "no recommendation" to the Council.


Bruce Butske, 48100 Nine Mile Road agreed with many of the comments made earlier. He was opposed to the rezoning and recommended that the Commission reject any project that is anything like the proposed project for the property.


Carole Hartman Johnson, 48272 Andover (not present)


Mike Williams, 47073 Elmsmere thought the tactic taken by Mr. Frankel was an insult to everybody’s intelligence. He stated the residents do not need another shopping center and they do not want it. He asked the Commission to reject the proposal on behalf of everyone who spoke and those who could not attend.


Michael Zayti stated as everybody moved into the subdivisions around him and the surrounding areas, he had to give way a little bit. He stated he lost some of his privacy and some animals. He stated now there is crime whether there is a shopping center located there or not. He asked for a fair shake. He stated Northville has gone along with Novi in the past, since 1947. He thought it was due time for Northville to get a fair shake with this issue.


Dave Duland, 21994 York Mills Circle stated he moved into western Novi to try to get away from the Commercial development. He stated nobody wants it and expected the Commission to do its job and represent the citizens.


Dave Creden, 22237 Hazelton Court stated he has lived in Novi for 27 years. He stated it makes no difference how far he has to travel whenever he or his wife needs to go to the store. This is what they want, and this is why residents build their homes in the areas they live in. He stated it was not needed.


Dennis Kessler, 55650 Eight Mile Road stated Mr. Frankel’s references were all made regarding Communities that were somewhat more urban than the area in question. He thought it seemed to be in error to use those types of references regarding the development of an area of this nature. He stated it does not pay to solve one problem by adding another.


Sandy Mainard, 20030 Westview has lived in Northville her entire life. She stated to put in a shopping center instead of a trucking company, she would take the four trucks and let them run a lifetime before the center goes up.


George Dwelly, 21237 Summerside quoted a Joni Mitchell song regarding paving paradise and putting up a parking lot.


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





Moved by Canup, seconded by Watza, CARRIED (6-3): To postpone application for rezoning map amendment 18.576 to the next meeting on September 02, 1998 and to continue the Public Hearing until that date.





Member Koneda stated Mr. Frankel’s request was to return to Committee to be considered as part of the Master Plan update. This courtesy was extended to the Twelve Mile and Wixom property and he asked why the Commission was acting to act on the matter even though his request was to send it back to Committee?





Yes: Canup, Capello, Csordas, Mutch, Watza, Weddington

No: Churella, Koneda, Piccinini


Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a brief recess.










This project is located north of Eight Mile Road and west of Meadowbrook Road. The 3.62 acre property is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals.


Lee Mamola, stated the site is bordered on the south by a portion of Rotary Park, the park extends to the east of the site. The CSX railroad is located to the west of the site, therefore, the site is isolated with respect to Industrial development and separated from any residential development that contains housing. The development is proposed as a two phase development. The users are speculative at this point. The vast majority of the Consultants concerns can be addressed on revised plans as the site design continues to be developed. Mr. Mamola stated the applicant would be seeking a zoning variance on four items and they would also be seeking a waiver from the Construction Standards on one item.


Rod Arroyo, Planning & Traffic Consultant reviewed his letter of August 09, 1998. He did not recommend approval of the Special Land Use or Site Plan giving the long list of outstanding items that the plan does not meet. He stated the rear yard setbacks are required to be 110' and 20' are proposed for building B and 58' for building A. Off street parking must not be closer than 100' from a Residential District, only 10' are proposed. When a use abuts a Residential District, the Ordinance requires that truck wells and loading docks not be permitted on or in the walls which face the residential district. There is a provision that specifies that the site should be designed to discourage semi-trailer truck access on the portion of the site that abuts residential by having the loading areas adjacent to Residential. There is little or no screening of the loading and unloading areas at the south end of both buildings to the adjacent residential zoning district. Front yard loading space must be recessed at least 50' from the front wall, this item is not met. A 10' high earth berm is required along the southern boundary because it is an I-1 use adjacent to Residential. Performance standards and noise analysis is required per the Ordinance and was not submitted with the application. Mr. Arroyo requested further clarification regarding the manufacturing and other uses that would be proposed within the structures to ensure that they are consistent with I-1 uses that can be constructed and used adjacent to Residential. In regard to the site plan, the phasing line needs to be adjusted. In summary, Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval of the Special Land Use or the Site Plan.


Victoria Weber reviewed her letter dated August 13, 1998. She did not recommend approval. She stated the primary reason for the negative recommendation was the requirement for on site detention as well as the requirements that the applicant provide a sedimentation basin and permanent water quality controls. Ms.

Weber stated that Mr. McAdams also does not recommend Preliminary approvals from a soil erosion standpoint for the reason that on site detention is being provided.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect did not recommend approval of the conceptual landscape plan primary because of buffer concerns and setback requirements and one design issue. She stated the screening requirements are two fold, one is residential adjacent to I-1 requires a 10' to 15' high berm with a 6' crest and 80% winter and 90% summer opacity. The proposed would not meet the opacity requirement or the height requirement. The setback requirements have not been met, all off street parking and areas used for vehicle repair delivering, loading and transport cannot be closer than 100' from residential. The plan does not meet the landscape plantings abutting the R.O.W. along Ashbury or Roethel Drive. The parking and vehicle use areas require a 36" high berm and the same opacity requirements and the non-parking areas require a 30" high berm with clusters or grouping of shrubs and canopy trees. Ms. Lemke suggested that the dumpster location be moved further away from those areas. In summary, Ms. Lemke did not recommend approval.


In regard to trip generation, Mr. Arroyo stated until clarification of the land uses within the proposed development are clarified, he could not provide the Commission with trip generation estimates. In regard to access and circulation, the two drives off of Roethel do not meet the driveway spacing standards and would require a waiver from the Planning Commission or adjustment on the plan. He stated there were other minor site plan issues that would need to be addressed. Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the items identified in his letter.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal; 1) provide separate fire service and domestic water mains for each building; 2) the fire service main shall be controlled by either a post indicator valve or a valve in well; 3) show the location of the fire department connection for each building. The Fire Department connection shall be located in the front address side of the building, accessible and unobstructed and shall be within 100' of a hydrant; 4) at least 50% of the perimeter of building B shall be accessible within 25' for fire apparatus.


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


Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Capello asked Mr. Mamola if the improvements to the park plans were existing or proposed improvements?


Mr. Mamola stated the actual improvements would be left up to the Parks & Recreation Commission. He explained that he was suggesting there was room to put a T-Ball field, play structures, an ice rink, a basketball court or such facilities on that part of the park.


Member Capello asked about the parking lot area, he asked if it was the City’s responsibility?


Mr. Mamola stated based on discussions with Dan Davis, the balance of the park improvements would be done by the City.


Member Capello asked Mr. Watson if there was some means of requiring the applicant to put the berm onto City property with the consent of Parks & Recreation. He asked how this would be incorporated into the site plan?


Mr. Watson stated it would just be conditioned upon providing a berm.


Member Capello asked the applicant if they have attempted to resolve the engineering problems?

Mr. Mamola thought the engineering problems were resolvable, he stated it may mean that the footprint of the buildings would become less, but they were able to be resolved.





Moved by Watza, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To deny the Clements Industrial Park SP98-32 for Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use.





In regard to the storm water detention on the site, Member Mutch asked how it would be handled in term of run off?


Mr. Mamola stated the buildings would have to become smaller to provide more green area on the site to construct a pond.


Member Mutch asked if the applicant has sought out approaching the City in terms of having the property to the south rezoned to an I-1 District?


Mr. Mamola answered, the property was up for rezoning and if it had happened, the building would have had the 110' setbacks off Ashbury, he did not feel that it was fair with a 100' wide lot to begin with. He welcomed the alternative and stated it would relieve the burden of having to comply with the zoning requirements when Industrial abuts Residential. He understood other issues of what the City would have to do to develop the park under the I-1.


Member Mutch commented that without some direction from City Council, he would not feel comfortable approving something that would involve trade offs. He did not believe there was enough information at this time to make a decision.


Member Capello asked the applicant if he preferred a motion to postpone the Matter?


Mr. Mamola understood that a motion to deny the site plan was in order and he explained that he was here to receive the denial in order to appear before the ZBA. Mr. Mamola stated he would appreciate a motion to table the Special Land Use so he could come before the Commission with revised plans.


Member Watza called for a vote on the motion.





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

No: None



3. HUSKY SP 98-35A


This project is located south of Twelve Mile and west of Novi Road, directly east of the CSX railroad. The 24.4 acre property is zoned Office Service Technology (OST). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Wetlands and Woodlands Permit approvals.


Trefor Jones of Husky Injection Molding Systems explained that Husky is a global manufacturer of high-tech, state of the art injection molding equipment. The equipment is used by customers around the world to make plastic parts. The proposed technical development center will be primarily focused on automotive applications to develop new prototype injection molding, manufacturing cells and processes for equipment testing and demonstrations, technical training and to facilitate the service and sales offices for the Detroit region. The initial project is to develop prototype parts for an all plastic vehicle to enhance the environment, this will be a project to feature the first of its kind, largest injection molding machine in the world. The railroad that is proposed to be brought into the facility is required to move in the equipment that is required to mold some of the large plastic parts.


Mr. Jones stated part of the site selection criteria was to find a site with significant natural attributes. The site has woodlands and wetlands. He has worked diligently with the Consultants to ensure that the natural beauty of the site is preserved and enhanced. Mr. Jones introduced Jack Zelazny of Campbell Manix.


Jack Zelazny stated they would actually be constructing the project. He stated the project is situated centrally on the 24 acre site. In looking at the wetlands and woodlands, it was determined that moving it back to about 475' would preserve a great deal of the natural terrain and allow it to act as the buffer to Twelve Mile Road. He stated the loading docks are located on the front east side of the building due to the railroad being located at the rear and the inability for both to be located in the rear, therefore they would be seeking a variance from the ZBA. The molding area of the building is the central focal point which is approximately 55' above finished floor line, he explained that the finished floor line is established at 20' lower than the undeveloped portion of the site. The medium height areas to the west are the storage and ancillary facilities for the total building area. The total building facility is approximately 90,000 square feet.


In regard to the building facade elevations, he stated they worked closely with Mr. Necci to develop the facades which are principally exposed aggregate pre-cast in warm colors, to buffer the impact of the high bays, a graduated hue of blues are used to blend the higher parts of the building with the surrounding environment of the sky. The rooftop equipment screening is complimented in color combinations that will compliment the basic color ranges of the building. The stone facade portions of the buildings in the office area will be supplemented with sandstone type finishes and the color coordination will be complimentary with the main portion of the building. Mr. Zelazny stated the storm water requirements will be handled on site in conjunction with the wetlands mitigation.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the items identified in his letter being resolved at the time of Final. He stated there were a couple of outstanding items that the applicant would be seeking action from the ZBA. The building exceeds the 42' maximum building height primarily because of the height of the equipment that is being brought into the site. Mr. Arroyo pointed out that the Master Plan designates that area of the Community for PD-2. He explained if it were OS-1 zoning, the applicant could go through the PD-2 Option and a structure up to 65' in height could be constructed. Because the zoning is OST, the applicant is not eligible to go through the PD-2 Option provisions, he thought this would be addressed as part of the ZBA action. The loading area is not consistent with the Ordinance provisions. The Ordinance specifies that all loading be located in the rear yard, therefore, the applicant will be seeking a variance from the ZBA. The reason for this is the location of the rail spur coming off of the CSX railroad and the internal building design precludes the applicant from locating the loading area in the rear yard. The site plan does not provide the required berm to screen the subject site to the RA zoning to the west, it is not the normal 10' high berm that is required because of the railroad that separates as well as the proposed Office uses to the west. The Ordinance specifies that if there is a Master Plan designation for Office or a non-residential use, that the applicant would not have to provide for the full berming in OST, however, there is still a requirement for berming and screening of the parking and loading areas. They are seeking relief primarily because of the railroad and the railroad grade adjacent to it.


Mr. Arroyo indicated that there are wetlands and other impediments to providing the required sidewalk along Twelve Mile Road. The applicant is going to ask that City Council grant a waiver for provision of a sidewalk and instead, post a financial guarantee so that it could be put into place when the Twelve Mile Road improvements are made. The subject site also has regulated woodlands. In summary, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.


Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant recommended approval. Water services will be provided by connection to the City of Novi proposed 16" water main along Twelve Mile Road. The water main will be looped internally on the site and there will be a stub left off on the east property line for future connections. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by connection to the City of Novi proposed sanitary sewer being extended near the east property line. Storm water run off will be routed to proposed storm sewer to an on site sedimentation and water quality basin. It will be discharged unrestricted to the Walled Lake Branch of the Middle Rouge which flows south across I-96 to the Taft Road District Regional Storm Water Basin where it will be detained.


Ms. Weber stated there would be two phases to the sedimentation basin. The first phase will be temporary, once construction is complete, the basin will be turned into a wetland mitigation area with permanent water quality controls. Oil and gas separators will be required in the last storm sewer structures prior to discharge into the sedimentation basin. A 5' wide sidewalk is required off of Twelve Mile Road, however, the applicant has indicated that they will be seeking a waiver from City Council. Ms. Weber recommended approval.


Ms. Weber referenced Mr. McAdams letter dated August 03, 1998. His main comment was that any changes to the sedimentation basin design, as a result of a wetland review, will need to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan. Mr. McAdams recommended approval.


Mr. Arroyo reviewed his traffic review letter dated August 03, 1998. The type of development project is forecast to generate approximately 400 trips in an average weekday. Approximately 50 to 60 trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Mr. Arroyo provided information regarding existing volumes. The applicant is providing a passing lane and the required deceleration lanes and tapers. There were a couple of site plan issues that needed to be addressed as part of the Final Site Plan which include making the parking lot aisles wider in a couple of areas, making some minor modifications to the end islands and providing some minor details regarding curbing. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect reviewed the conceptual landscape review and the woodlands letter. She stated the proposed landscape plan demonstrates a creative approach to the site. Adequate screening is provided both for the loading and unloading areas, a storm water garden is proposed among the parking lots, the existing topography, existing metal and natural stream habitat and woodlands are all being used in combination with a strongly designed landscape plan and an abundance of proposed trees, boulder walls and walking paths. She gave a very strong recommendation of approval regarding the landscape plan.


Ms. Lemke stated there was an existing barn on the site, off of Twelve Mile Road which may have merit to save. She recommended that the applicant evaluate it in that regard. According to Section 2302 (a), the truck service areas and overhead truck loading and unloading doors need to be reviewed carefully. The service drives are located along the western facade which would be adjacent to the railroad tracks. The shipping and receiving areas are located along the eastern facade. Ms. Lemke stated the applicant has provided a 6' to 10' high berm for the shipping areas and the service drive by the railroad can be screened by additional plant materials. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan with the comments in her letter.


In regard to the woodlands, they are indicated as Medium on the official Woodlands Map and are regulated. They are located along Twelve Mile Road and primarily in the northwest corner of the site. The woodlands are basically being preserved as a whole with some removal on the eastern side for access. The are no potential trees that are considered for historic or specimen trees and there are no historic or specimen trees on the site. The woodlands are a mixture of pioneer species, they have some habitat value as breeding areas and are adjacent to meadows throughout the site. The understory is very dense and provides a heavy screen from Twelve Mile Road. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Woodlands Permit, there are quite a few items that need to be furnished for Final, the replacement trees are calculated separately from the landscape requirements and will need to see them delineated separately and a separate cost estimate. The applicant is missing some information and notes and Ms. Lemke recommended approval with her standard five (5) conditions.


David Wickens, Environmental Specialist stated there were four (4) wetland pockets contained on the site. The applicant proposes to impact two (2) of them, Wetland C and Wetland D. Wetland C is located near the center of the property and contains a mix of forested and scrub shrub habitat near the upland fringe. It appears to be seasonally ponded, he stated there was no water contained in the wetland at the time of his on site inspection. Wetland D is located northwest of Wetland C. It contains a mix of scrub shrub and forested habitat near the edge. Grasses and sedges dominate the center, he stated it appears to have seasonal ponding and there was no water contained in the wetland at the time of inspection. Mr. Wickens stated the applicant proposes to fill Wetland C which is approximately ½ of an acre, and partially impact Wetland D. The total amount of fill proposed is 24,730 square feet. The applicant proposes to mitigate 37,400 square feet. Mr. Wickens believed the plan was in conformance with the City of Novi Wetland and Watercourse Ordinance and recommended approval conditioned upon more detailed wetland mitigation drawings being submitted during the final stages of plan review. A conservation easement will need to be placed over the wetland areas being protected on site, this generally occurs within 60 days following final site plan approval and permit issuance.


In regard to the mitigation area, Mr. Wickens stated during the initial stages of construction, it will be a sediment water quality basin. The purpose will be to protect the wetland system, which the applicant does not propose to impact. During the final stages of construction, it will be converted into a wetland mitigation, the ratio of mitigation to wetland fill is 1 ½ to 1 which Mr. Wickens found to be acceptable. Mr. Wickens recommended approval of the wetland plan.


Doug Necci of JCK stated the applicant is proposing a building consisting of exposed aggregate pre-cast stone, metal and spandrel glass. The applicant is approximately 10% over the maximum percentage of exposed aggregate pre-cast. Mr. Necci recommended a Section 4 Waiver for the 10% overage based on three factors. 1) It is a relatively small amount of difference between the chart; 2) the facade faces the CSX railroad R.O.W. and is of low importance as far as visibility; 3) the applicant is showing that the area of pre-cast will be delineated by the use of three different graduations of color.


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

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


Debbie Bundoff, commented on the OST zoning. She stated it was a new designation for the City and this project is one of the first in the process. Although it may be adjacent to an RA or any type of residential zoning although it may be Master Planned for the future, the fact that it could be looked at as not being residential and not meeting the requirements for Residential was frightening to her. In regard to the setbacks, she understood that the applicant moved the building back approximately 100' from Twelve Mile Road, she stated Twelve Mile Road is planned for either a 4 or 6 lane boulevard. She stated she would like to know how much a six lane boulevard would impact and take away from the buffer.


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.














Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval, wetlands permit and woodlands permit to Husky SP98-35A subject to all of the Consultants conditions and ZBA variances on all of the items sited by the Consultants including the granting of a Section 4 Waiver.





In regard to the replacement trees, Member Mutch asked Ms. Lemke if it would be possible to target the replacement trees to the Twelve Mile Road boulevard improvements so when the boulevard takes place, the replacement trees can take place in that location as opposed to on the site.


Ms. Lemke explained that the Ordinance and her belief was that the trees should be replaced on site and then if there are extra, they can be placed onto another piece of property in the City or into the City Tree Fund.


In regard to the earth berms that the applicant is going to the ZBA with, Member Capello asked for clarification if it was the landscaping berm or the required berm between the OST and abutting Residential.


Mr. Arroyo answered it was the landscaping berm because the OST provisions state that uses that are permitted in OST shall not be located on property sharing a common boundary with property that is zoned Residential, unless one of the following conditions exist, and one of them happens to be the abutting property on the Master Plan is recommended for uses other than Residential. He stated the berm is not required.


Member Capello asked if the Commission should include in the motion, a recommendation to ZBA under 2509.6 (b) whether or not it should be waived or not.


Mr. Arroyo stated the Commission has the option to make a recommendation if they like.


Member Capello suggested that the Commission recommend a positive approval for the waiver of the berms and that it be added into the motion.


Member Watza asked that the motion be amended to include that the plan come back to the Commission for Final Site Plan approval. This would allow the Commission to address the number of concerns raised by the Consultants to make sure that the applicant complies with the requests of the Consultants.


Member Mutch asked the Consultants if they felt there were any concerns that needed to be addressed through Final?


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning and Community Development stated through the planning process, the staff has worked under the assumption that they were trying to have any remaining items be capable of being handled Administratively. Matters that were not policy matters, matters that might be sensitive to Planning Commission or concerns that were expressed in the past.

Member Mutch stated he felt comfortable not requiring the plan to come back to the Commission for Final Site Plan and he did not accept the amendment to the motion.


Member Canup understood the motion to cover those items to be addressed by the Consultants, therefore, he felt it took care of the matter.


In regard to the wetland mitigation, Member Koneda clarified that all of the wetland mitigation was being handled on site, therefore, the resolution from City Council offering the property on West Road was no longer needed.


Mr. Wickens answered, that was correct.


Member Koneda asked if the on-site mitigation was also the on-site temporary storm water retention basin?


Mr. Wickens answered, no. He stated a portion of the location will be offered as a sediment basin. He stated they would be on a temporary basin, during the latter stages of construction, the wetland mitigation will be constructed in that area. A small forebay for storm water discharge will be placed and will be directed into the Rouge River.


In regard to the Woodlands Permit, Member Koneda clarified that the replacement trees would be handled on site and he commended the developer. He asked if the plan was to incorporate them into the landscaping or to try and put them somewhere else as a grouping?


It was the intent of Ms. Lemke that they be put as close to the existing woodlands as possible to connect the two areas.


Member Koneda agreed. He stated he would not like to see them used in the landscape plan, but perhaps, used to extend the wetlands. Member Koneda commended the applicant for the way they handled the sensitivity of the land and worked with staff to ensure that the Ordinances were followed.




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

No: None


Chairperson Weddington also commended the applicant. She felt they did a wonderful job with preservation and enhancement of the natural resources on site by incorporating them as amenities. She thought it should stand as an example to other developers in the City.





An ordinance to add a definition of "Adult Day Care Center" to Section 201 of Ordinance 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to add Subsection 7 to Section 302 to said Ordinance and to add Subsection 8 and 9 to Section 303 to said Ordinance, to permit an adult day care center in an RA District, as a principal use permitted subject to special conditions.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated this is a new section to the Ordinance as well as some changes to the regulations dealing with the RA District to allow for defined Adult Day Care Centers and to provide for them within the District. He added that it is not a use that would be included in the other residential districts.


Rod Arroyo, Planning & Traffic Consultant added that the Text Amendment has been studied in detail by the Implementation Committee. The definition defines what would actually be included within an Adult Day Care Center. He pointed out that what would potentially be permitted in the RA District is different from an operational standpoint, than what could be permitted in another District. He stated the NCC District allows Adult Day Care Facilities but as a special approval use. It is done in a manner where there are very little limitations in terms of hours of operation, etc. and is not meant to fit within a residential district. In addition, there are some proposed modifications under Part III that would apply to all special approval uses.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated the Department has supported the proposal from the conceptual level, feeling that it is something that is a plus for the Community. He stated it is a service that does not currently exist for families or individuals who have suffered. He thought it was an opportunity to provide a very needed benefit. He stated the provisions in the Ordinance provide protections, parameters, controls and the types of limitations that would make it acceptable within the Districts it is provided for.


Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Watza asked if the reference to 35 square feet per person was supposed to be a larger number?


Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He explained that this number refers to usable square feet within the building and is consistent with other uses. It sets a minimum standard from a local perspective.


Member Watza stated he was not in favor of the idea. He stated 35 square feet is less than a 6 x 6 space. He thought there may be an appropriate place for the facilities, however, he did not think that any of the Commissioners would want such a facility to be built in their RA subdivision. He stated he would not be in support of the amendment.


Member Koneda agreed that the minimum space seems too small, however he could accept it. In regard to Part III, number 8, he asked what defines an area?


Mr. Arroyo thought it was something that the Commission would address on a case by case basis, looking at natural bodies of water, freeways or things that might define a district and surrounding areas that would help mold it. He thought it was difficult to specify a certain radius.


In regard to over concentration of non-residential and day care uses, Member Koneda asked if there was such a demand for them, then aren’t more facilities needed? He asked Mr. Watson how it could be enforced?


Mr. Watson stated over concentration is something that is looked at on a case by case basis along with the impact on the neighborhood and the particular use.


Mr. Arroyo added that just because there is a demand for something, it does not mean that it has to go at that particular site. He stated it was not being precluded from going somewhere else in the Community.





Moved by Churella, seconded by Capello, CARRIED (8-1): To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Text Amendment 18.142 as presented with one change being in Part 2, subsection 7, subpart 6, changing the square footage to 150 square feet and Part 2, subpart 10, outdoor recreation areas shall be restricted.





Member Capello agreed that 35 square feet was a little small, however he thought 90 would be overdoing it. He stated it is not 24 hours, therefore it is not going to be a bedroom, it is just working space. He suggested 60 square feet.


Member Capello asked why the age 18 was chosen?


Mr. Arroyo stated it was defined as an Adult Day Care Center and 18 years was a logical connection.


Member Capello asked where the 14 and 15 year olds would go?


Martha Castle stated with the education laws that are in effect, anyone with a disability is allowed to continue in the public school system until they are 26 years old. It is their choice whether they decide to stay in the public school system but they can graduate if they are able to, at the standard age of 17 or 18 years old. She agreed with the recommendation of the 18 year old being in a day care center.


Member Capello referred to Subsection 7, sub 3, under "facilities shall provide", he did not think the intent was to say that the applicant had to provide every one listed, they only needed to provide some of them.


Mr. Arroyo clarified it reads "supervised activities such as...", which would not be inclusive of all of them, he stated it was more of an example.


Mr. Watson referred to number 10, he asked if it was intended that they have to provide the outdoor recreation?


Mr. Arroyo answered, no. It indicates that if it is provided, it would have to meet the requirements that exist in the Ordinance.


Mr. Watson suggested rewording it to read "outdoor recreation areas shall be restricted as follows".


Member Canup referred to the square footage issue. He stated a 1,700 square foot facility would not comfortably house 30 people. He was not in support of the motion even with 60 square feet.


Member Watza asked who the applicant was paid by, in order to build the facility?


Ms. Castle answered, primarily by Michigan Auto No Fault Insurance.


Member Watza asked what the insurance industry was currently doing to care for the injured people?


Ms. Castle answered, they pay for home attendants.


Member Watza pointed out that the insurance industry was compelled into the no fault statutes to provide handicapped access to homes, to enlarge homes where necessary, to provide people at the homes and to provide the kinds of services that are being requested. He stated the request is backed by the insurance industry to try to cut their costs. He recognized that it was a needy cause, however, he stated he would not support it.


Member Churella disagreed with Member Watza. He stated sometimes group homes are better, he thought the Ordinance was acceptable, however, the number of square feet needed to be resolved.


Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo what the standard was, in terms of required space per person?


Mr. Arroyo stated the current provision for an Adult Day Care in NCC refers to the Nursery School Day Care requirements which speaks to an outdoor area of 100 square feet minimum adding on to that. It does not address indoor minimums.


Member Mutch pointed out in the NCC District, there is a zero requirement in terms of indoor space. He stated the applicant could go into an NCC District and build a facility and not be guided by any of the standards, he thought to keep increasing the standards without any basis for it, is penalizing them when the standards already provide a level of comfort that is not found in the other districts.


Member Canup thought just because there was a loop hole somewhere, does not mean that the Commission should have to pass an Ordinance that is not adequate for what is trying to be accomplished.


Member Capello asked how big the facility was proposed to be?


Ms. Castle answered, 10,000 square plus a barn and a greenhouse.


Member Capello asked how many people were proposed?


Ms. Castle stated currently there are about 45 traumatically brain injured people who do not all attend on the same day. The maximum per day is currently 28.


Member Koneda stated if the number were changed to 100 square feet, it would be 10,000 square feet and could handle 100 people.


Based on the comments made by the Commissioners, Mr. Arroyo concurred, stating that 35 square feet was too low. Based upon the representations that Ms. Castle has made, somewhere in the area of 90 square feet to 100 square feet would be workable within what is happening within existing facilities. Mr. Arroyo stated 90 to 100 square feet or more would be in line with what is occurring with at least one existing facility.


Member Canup asked that the maker of the motion consider changing it to 150 square feet.


Member Churella accepted the friendly amendment to the motion as the maker.


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



VOTE ON PM-98-08-160


Yes: Csordas, Koneda, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella

No: Mutch





An Ordinance to amend footnote a of Subsection 1602.4 of Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Ordinance to provide size and placement restrictions for awning and projecting signs in a TC-1 District.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated City Council adopted some Sign Ordinance changes dealing with the Town Center area. He stated there are currently some provisions within the Zoning Ordinance that already impact it. These are some corresponding changes to the Town Center District Regulations to correspond with the changes made to the Sign Ordinance.


Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission.





Member Mutch was unfamiliar with the Sign Ordinance, he asked for an idea of the maximum square footage that a sign could be?


Khanh Pham, Staff Planner announced a projection sign in the TC-1 District 8 ½ x 12 ½ is equal to 10 square feet. A second floor projection sign is allowed a maximum of 24 square feet.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for adoption of Zoning Text Amendment 18.141.





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

No: None








This project is located south of Thirteen Mile Road and east of Novi Road. The 17.81 acre property is zoned Residential Acreage (RA). Applicant is seeking Final Site Plan approval.


Doug Stratton of Fram Building Group stated he was seeking approval for Final Site Plan. He introduced Alexander Boegarts the architect for the project.


Alexander Boegarts stated the project is a 260 unit development contained in 20 buildings along with a clubhouse. He believed he was ready to make final comments on the development.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval. He stated there were some minor items regarding traffic control measures that could be addressed at the time of Final. He stated all of the previous concerns that were addressed and identified as part of the Preliminary review have been addressed, therefore he recommended approval.


Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant recommended approval, she stated there were a few minor items that were outstanding and could be addressed at the time of Final.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated all of the concerns have been addressed. There are woodlands on and off site and additional fencing will be required off site, it will be determined in the field and a minimum woodlands inspection fee and maintenance bond will be required. In summary, Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Final Landscape plan.


David Wickens 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 that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.


Doug Necci of JCK stated the guidelines and the design were consistent. He recommended approval with a couple of comments regarding the #200 building. He thought it was rather inconsistent with the other two buildings and suggested some architectural improvements.


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





In regard to the Architectural Code, Member Mutch stated when the Vistas Area Plan was submitted, it showed general guidelines and standards, he asked if they applied to the units?


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated as far as actual architectural standards, the area plan specifically provided the guidelines for Single Family Residential. As to the other uses, it indicated that they would be developing guidelines for each type of usage.


Member Mutch asked Mr. Necci if there was some sort of architectural style at work?


Mr. Necci stated all of the buildings fell under the same traditional small town Michigan architectural style. He stated there were phrases that leads one to believe that eventually there will be more than one style in the Vista’s project.


Member Capello agreed with Mr. Necci and stated he had a problem with Building 200. He stated the rear elevation of Building 100 did not appear to have much style and thought it could be dressed up with some minor amenities. He asked if there was a reason that the design for Building 200 was changed?


Mr. Boegarts answered, yes, it was changed because of the topography of the site. He stated there were only four (4) of Building 200 on the property which all lie along a steep topographic drop. He stated he has met with Mr. Necci and staff and has agreed that he would make some of the recommended additions.


Member Capello stated the facade of Building 200 is the least appealing. It was his opinion that there was very little architecture with no style. He stated he would like to see the applicant rework the Building 200 to change the facade on the front and do something with the rear.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Watza, CARRIED (8-1): To grant Final Site Plan approval to Brownstones at the Vistas, SP97-43D subject to Mr. Necci’s review of changes specifically to Building 200 and the other comments of the Consultants.


Mr. Necci added that through a conversation with the applicant, they showed a willingness to change the roof pitches to a steeper pitch and add return cornices to Building 200. He stated they have shown an inclination to make those changes. He stated if the applicant were to agree to it, an Administrative approval could be administered.





Member Mutch expressed concern regarding people getting to the facility without walking in the street. He suggested if there was any way to introduce additional pedestrian walkways to improve pedestrian safety, it would be helpful. However, he was unsure that there was a practical way to do so.





Yes: Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda

No: Weddington


Rod Arroyo announced he has received the results of the Citizen Survey and passed out copies to the Commission in order to give everyone a chance to review it prior to receiving their packets for the next meeting.









Moved by Churella, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:35 p.m.





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

No: None





Kelly Schuler - Planning Assistant



Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

September 08, 1998


Date Approved: September 16, 1998