View Agenda for this Meeting


WEDNESDAY, September 20, 2000 AT 7:30 P.M.




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


PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, and Richards


ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Piccinini


ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Community Development and Planning Staff Planner Beth Brock






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




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as Amended.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None












Chairperson Capello announced there were 2 items on the Consent Agenda.


Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 2, 2000. He asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.


Member Mutch stated a correction to be made to the August 2, 2000 minutes was on page 16 to change "moral acts standard" to "normal standards".




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the consent agenda subject to amending the August 2, 2000 Planning Commission minutes.



Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None






An Ordinance to add Subsection 1502.8 to Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to restrict tattoo parlors to special land use within the B-3 General Business District.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated the sole purpose of the amendment was to make tattoo parlors a special land use in a B-3 district. This would subject such uses to the additional standards that would be applied to special land uses, making it a discretionary evaluation under those particular standards. The contents of sub part C of Section 2516 are the site plan standards, which look at the additional impacts, a special land use has, relative to detrimental impacts as compared to principle uses permitted. Mr. Watson stated this would include the impacts of the adjacent property or on the surrounding neighborhoods. It would allow these to be considered as special land uses, and those additional factors would be considered at the time of submittal.


Member Canup asked why there was a concern regarding tattoo parlors?


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant felt the reason this issue arose due to a question opposed to the planning Department a few months ago regarding where tattoo parlors would be permitted. The Assistant City Attorney and the staff looked into the matter and determined that tattoo parlors were not addressed in the Ordinance. Therefore, Mr. Watson felt the argument could be made that it would be a principle permitted use in any commercial district. He gave the example that if it was not specifically considered and treated as a special land use, then it was possible a typical service establishment that would be allowed in any business district. Mr. Arroyo felt it was interrupted as being more closely associated with the more intensive B-3 type uses, more appropriate in a B-3 District as a special land use than to allow it in a B-1 District that is generally closer to the residential neighborhoods. He felt this was the reason for the Ordinance Amendment.


Member Mutch stated he did not support the change. He understood the Planning Consultant’s comments. He felt it was an old stereotype of what tattoo parlors were and what types of people go there. He did not feel the impact was different from other uses that would require it to be treated as a special land use. He stated it would not generate an extraordinary amount of traffic or other issues. He stated this was a moral act path and did not see that there was an influx of tattoo parlors coming into the City to create a concern.


Member Koneda agreed with Member Mutch in that a tattoo parlor would not require special land use considerations. He referred to the requirements outlined 2516.C "…whether relative to other feasible uses the proposed use will cause any detrimental impact on thoroughfares…" he stated a tattoo parlor would not generate more traffic than another business. "…public services…" he did not feel they would require any more public services than a principle land use. He stated when he reviewed all seven (7) criteria he saw no justification for putting it in special land use. Therefore, he felt tattoo parlors were covered in the B-3 general business district and it would not make sense to place a special land use on it.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Watson if he was in favor of the amendment?


Mr. Watson stated he was neutral.


Member Nagy agreed with Member Koneda in that it did not make sense in terms of zoning. Although she stated she understood why people would not appreciate it next door to them.


Mr. Arroyo suggested to the Commission the possibility of considering where it might be appropriate. He gave the example that it might be appropriate to consider it as a principle permitted use in the B-3 District. He felt it should be clarified so that everyone would be clear as to where a tattoo parlor was permitted and where it was not. He felt that was the reason it was being brought before the Commission, to be identified. He stated that although they may not want to recommend it to be a special land use, they may want to make a recommendation to have it added to the principle permitted uses in the B-3 District.


Member Churella agreed that it belonged in a B-3 District and it should be kept out of the residential areas. He felt the goal was to keep it out of primary residential areas B-1, B-2 and OST zoning. He stated it should be kept in a general business district.


Member Koneda agreed with Churella in that it did not belong in a B-1 or B-2 District, but he could agreed with placing it in a B-3 District.


Member Capello felt there should be specific places for it.


Member Canup asked the proper procedure to amend the text amendment to alleviate the words "Special Land Use"?


Mr. Watson stated the change would not be to eliminate the special land use language, although the title would be changed slightly. He stated it would need to be a subsection to 1501 as opposed to a subsection to 1502.


Member Canup stated then there would be a definite definition of where they fit.


Member Cassis stated if it were a special land use it would then require a public hearing. He wanted it clarified if there were operations that would be involved in the business that were additional to the tattooing under a tattoo parlor business name.


Member Koneda stated they could have retail business. He stated typically they would allow retail businesses in a B-1 District. He stated when he looked at the special conditions that the special land use imposes, it did not exclude a tattoo parlor from that usage based on the conditions they were asking for. He felt placing it in 1501 defined as a principle use permitted in a B-3 District covered it the best. He questioned if there were other uses, besides tattoo parlors, that according to the ordinances that could slip into a B-1 or B-2 District? Therefore, he felt the conditions to the B-3 District should be extended to move some of those districts out of B-1 or B-2 if they thought they did not belong there. He felt a tattoo parlor was not any worse than a massage parlor.


Member Churella stated the differences. 1) Tattoo parlors do not need to be licensed, 2) massage parlor would be in a doctor office because it is massage therapy


Member Nagy agreed with Member Churella in that they are no longer called massage parlors but instead are called massage therapists and they are certified. She felt the true concern was the clientele and what it would bring with it.




Moved by Nagy, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Moved that we accept the Zoning Text Amendment 18.165 to exclude the words of special land use to B-3 general business district




Member Koneda asked if it would become item 7 and item 8 would be under principle uses.


Mr. Watson answered it would probably become item 7 and item 6, which refers to accessory uses. He stated they would be renumbering.


Mr. Watson stated this did not deal with body piercing.


Member Mutch clarified if someone wanted to have body piercing done; it was okay as long as there was no ink.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None.




An Ordinance to amend Subsection 2508.6 of Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to restrict the landing of helicopters to approved helipad, heliport and helistop sites.


Mr. Watson stated the only change made to the text of the Ordinance was an addition of the sentence " except in the case of an emergency helicopters shall only be landed at approved helipads, heliports and helistops". He stated the remaining text was the same. He explained the reason for this addition was due to an incident when a helicopter landed in the middle of a street to make a delivery. Although there were specific provisions indicating the required approval of a helipad, heliport or helistop, there was nothing that explicitly stated where the helicopter was to be landed.








Moved by Mutch, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED (5-1): To send a positive recommendation to the City Council on Zoning Text Amendment 18.166




Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Nagy, Richards

No: Canup






An Ordinance to add a definition of "Day Care Center" to Section 201 definitions: D-F of Ordinance No. 98-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to add a definition of "Group Day Care Home" to Section 201 definitions: G-K of said Ordinance, to amend subsection 402.4, 902.2, 1102.4 and 1202.5 of said Ordinance, and to add Subsection 2302.6 to said to modify the standards for child day care establishments within the City of Novi.


Mr. Arroyo stated that there have been a number of childcare facilities that have come before the Planning Commission as special approval uses in a residential district and did not receive approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission requested this ordinance be sent to the Implementation Committee for evaluation. In their evaluation they recommended that daycare centers of fifty (50) or fewer children could be permitted as special approval uses in a residential district. However, if there were more than fifty (50) children, it would not be permitted in any residential district. The current ordinance allows for a daycare center, of any size, to potentially be approved as a Special Approval Use providing it meets the standards in a residential district. He stated due to the concern of the use and the size of the center becoming too large, it was not fitting in with the residential character. The Implementation Committee felt there needed to be a capon the number of children permitted. There was also discussion of the possibility to remove childcare centers from the residential district.


Mr. Arroyo stated the ordinance provided a definition and regulation of group daycare homes. Group Daycare homes are currently defined in State Regulations. However, the city ordinance did not specify where a group daycare home was permitted. A group daycare home cares for more than six (6) but not more than twelve (12) children. He stated if one wanted to care for six (6) or more children in their home, they are permitted without special approval. The "no more than twelve (12) children" was not defined in the ordinance. He stated this component of the amendment would provide the definition (consistent with the state definition) and specify these uses may be permitted in a residential district subject to conditions. The added condition being that the property would need to front on or have a side yard relationship to a major thoroughfare or section line collector (a mile road), not necessarily having direct access. He gave the example of the first home of a subdivision, with access to the internal subdivision street with side yard frontage on a mile road, this could potentially be a group daycare home. A single family home caring for up to twelve (12) children. He stated this was not currently regulated. Daycare centers, commercial facilities not in homes, caring for up to fifty (50) children would be permitted provided that access and frontage both are to a major thoroughfare or mile road. Mr. Arroyo explained the average square feet per child was figured with daycare averages. This figured tended to average between fifty (50) and seventy (70) square feet per child. Therefore, they felt if the number of children was limited to fifty (50) children, the size of the facility would be approximately similar to many single family homes in the Novi market today. It was also felt that the limit of fifty (50) children would still provide a service to those in need of childcare, close to where they live, and yet would not detrimentally impact on the surrounding residential district.


Mr. Arroyo stated that the provisions in surrounding non-residential districts have changed to reflect the new definition of a daycare center. All childcare would be reflected under one (1) name as "Daycare Centers". The NCC District, the OS-1 District and the OSC District provide for this particular use. He stated the OS-2 would also allow for daycare centers. Currently, daycare centers are not permitted in the OST District. Mr. Arroyo suggested it would be appropriate to consider some non-residential district due to the possibility of the larger centers being moved from the residential district. The OST District would allow a daycare center as part of a larger planned office development but not on its own. He stated another option would be to have a daycare center in an OST project, again being part of an OST development and not a parcel standing on its own.


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


Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.


Member Richards asked if the definition Mr. Arroyo stated for group daycare home was a standard definition? He referred to a definition stating a group daycare home included "a home that gives care to an unrelated minor child for more than four (4) weeks during the calendar year".


Mr. Arroyo stated the definition came from the State Definition and this was how it was licensed.


Member Richards asked how this was different from anything else?


Mr. Arroyo stated this was the way the State chose to regulate it and they were attempting to replicate the State Standards and be consistent with the State Definition for licensing.


Member Nagy asked if the portion under group daycare home stating "a private home in which more than six (6) etc…" was part of the State?


Mr. Arroyo answered this is the Stated Licenses Group Daycare Homes according to this definition.


Member Koneda stated he would not support the ordinance. He felt when building a daycare center, regardless of the number of children, the residents would object. He stated the problem was not resolved. He felt daycare centers belonged in residential districts under specified conditions such as a major arterial and the intersection of two (2) major arterials. He felt daycare centers are intended to be convenient to the residents and need to be of sufficient size to be self supporting and economically feasible. He did not feel changing the maximum number in the ordinance would solve the problem. He thought they should consider moving the daycare centers out of the residential areas or change the requirements and have the centers placed on major intersections. Member Koneda was concerned that although there are major intersections that are zoned residential today they might never be developed as residential. Therefore, the property would be build around them, leaving pieces of property like Ten Mile and Beck Road, which are undeveloped corner sections. These sections could possibly be forced into a future general business due to no possible alternative. He preferred to have a childcare center as opposed to other commercial developments.


Member Cassis agreed that daycare centers did not belong in a residential district. He felt the traditional daycare home with three (3) or four (4) children was okay. However, with daycare centers of fifty (50) children, he felt the amount of vender trucks to service the homes and traffic of fifty (50) cars should be considered. He also questioned who would "police" the limit, as the limit of fifty (50) children would be pushed to fifty-five (55) or sixty (60). He felt this was a controversy that did not need to be brought into the residential community. Therefore, he did not give his support.


Member Canup also agreed with the comments of the previous members. He stated he would have a difficult time supporting this in a residential district. He did not agree with placing daycare homes into a residential district due to the amount traffic generated with the fifty (50) cars.


Mr. Arroyo added that generally the fifty (50) cars would not all arrive and depart at the same time. He stated it could also be less than fifty (50) cars due to one (1) car dropping of siblings.


Member Canup felt the ordinance needed more research before it could be passed. He stated he would not vote for it under any conditions for a residential district.


Member Mutch did not agree with the attempt to eliminate the daycare centers from the residential districts. He stated although there were some commercial aspects to the larger centers, he stressed the fact that they are dealing with children. He did not agree with the placement of the children in an office and commercial district and treating them as a commodity. He felt that residential was the preferred setting for children to spend their days. He stated the presented idea was a good compromise for a number of reasons. He felt it recognized that beyond a certain point the centers take on a characteristic which would not be appropriate for a residential district. It also recognized there are centers of a certain size that are appropriate for a residential areas with a number of protections. He stated it was a special land use and allowed the traffic impact, noise and adjacent land uses to be evaluated and determine whether or not it would be an appropriate use for the area. The uses of this type are required to have a seventy-five (75) foot setback, and therefore, would have a larger setback requirement than a normal residential use. He felt the limit of fifty (50) children would keep out a lot of the brand name daycare centers that would have a larger operation. He stated there were already a number of small daycare locations in the city that service the immediate neighborhoods. These are convenient to those that live in the neighborhood and provide a residential setting for the children. He felt what was presented was a good compromise. It did not completely eliminate the daycare centers and yet limits the impact. Therefore, he felt the presented information addressed the concerns that were raised and yet still allowed the uses to exist.


Member Mutch also stated if they felt the impacts of the daycare uses were not appropriate for the residential district, then they should examine an ordinance to rid of schools in a residential district. He felt an elementary school generated more traffic than a daycare center, as well as churches that have daycare centers within. He felt if they were going to be consistent to eliminate the impacts in the residential district, then they should review the ordinance across the board. He felt they had singled out the daycare centers to eliminate the pressure of making the difficult decisions. He felt the concerns were being addressed and it gave the ability to the commission to impose the necessary conditions, on the centers in residential districts, to ensure it did not have a negative impact. Therefore, Member Mutch stated his support of this Amendment to the Zoning Text.


Chairperson Capello stated they attempted to reach compromise during the Implementation meeting. He disagreed with Member Mutch in that the commission was avoiding difficult decision situations with special land use issues. He stated it was sent to Implementation because turned down two (2) or three (3) daycare special land use requests in a row, and felt it was unfair to property owners and applicants to have to go through the entire process. He stated it was an attempt to examine the standards being set if the applicants were going to be continually turned down. Chairperson Capello felt the matter should either be sent on to City Council allowing them to work out the various policy issues or bring it back to the committee, have opposing members attend the meeting and work out the items.


Member Churella agreed with Member Mutch. He stated a daycare center is not designed for a large commercial use in a residential area. He stated special setbacks and other conditions to prevent this. He felt they needed to give recognition to the committee’s efforts. A daycare center would be approximately a three thousand (3000) square foot home. He felt the commission should review the amendment before not supporting it.


Member Nagy asked if there were any studies of daycare centers within residential areas that were done at the State or Federal level?


Mr. Arroyo asked if she was referring to the general impact on the residential area?


Member Nagy answered, yes.


Mr. Arroyo stated that it could be researched to find what was available.


Member Nagy felt this should be considered because Novi is a small community to base the decision. She stated it would be a good idea to draw from the experience of others. She asked if with the purchase four (4) homes could a large daycare be built in the middle of the four (4) homes?


Chairperson Capello stated although this sounded absurd, there was a case recently located on Nine Mile Road between Beck and Taft. The applicant proposed a daycare in between residential houses across from Thorton Creek. However, with the new residential lots it does not happen.


Member Nagy asked if a daycare center was allowed in a restricted residential area?


Chairperson Capello answered it would be at major thoroughfares with the intent of having the location by a big street, not within the inert of the subdivision.


Mr. Arroyo stated if the amendment passed the fifty (50) child daycare center would be required to have access to a major thoroughfare or a mile road. It could not have access within a subdivision.


Member Nagy asked in relation to the example given, if the applicant that was proposing a center on Nine Mile Road would have been approved?


Mr. Arroyo answered no, because it would still have been a situation with a Special Land Use.


Member Nagy asked if the amendment was passed then would they have approval?


Mr. Arroyo answered no, because it would still be a discretionary decision due to it being a special approval use.


Member Nagy suggested the commission table until they had studies to aid the decision. She felt the committee had worked hard and the suggestions were reasonable. However, she was not comfortable with the word "discretionary". She felt it could deny an applicant in a biased way.




Motioned by Nagy, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (6-2): Motion to table Zoning Text Amendment 18.167 and send it back to special committee comprised of Andrew, Antonia, Victor and Phil.





Member Koneda stated the daycare centers have changed over the years. He stated that in the past it was a resident in the neighborhood who cared for six (6) children in their home. However, he felt it has evolved into a commercial development with one hundred fifty (150) to two hundred (200) kids, large staff and large building for the making of money. He felt a daycare center was a pass by trip on their way to work. Therefore, they could be moved out of the residential district. He stated he agreed with Member Mutch that childcare centers belong in a residential district. He stated he did not feel that placing a fifty (50) child limit would solve the problem. It would only reduced its magnitude and there would still be a large number of residents upset and against it. He felt the committee’s suggestions were a great compromise, however, it did not resolve the issue. Member Koneda suggested the ordinance be changed to allow the daycare centers in the residential area under very specific restraints or moved out of the residential areas. He agreed if they were going to allow schools and churches they needed to be consistent. He stated the city is currently filled with large daycare facilities at major intersections and this might be where they belong.

Member Cassis stated he had seen several daycare centers in Farmington Hills. He felt that Mr. Arroyo needed to research and present the garbage trucks, food trucks, laundry trucks and support personnel parking needed.


Member Mutch disagreed and did not understand what the Commission was requesting Mr. Arroyo to bring before them. He felt it would be informational for the commission to look at the existing daycare centers in the city to find information on the number of children, parking spots, and size of the facility. He felt if they were planning on making the daycare centers non-conforming they should know the actual impact on the neighborhood as opposed to using a study that does not apply to the city.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Nagy, Richards

No: Churella, Mutch




This sales, service and storage facility project is locate in Section 9, north of Twelve Mile Road and west of West Park Drive. The 3.38 acre site is zoned General Industrial (I-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Woodland Permit approvals.


Mark Drane of Rogvoy Architects introduced himself. He proposed the construction of a thirty-six thousand (36,000) square foot Weingartz Turf, a sales, service and parts facility. It is a 3.38-acre site with forty-six (46) parking spaces. The landscape exceeds the minimum requirements. He stated their commitment was to provide a quality project in the I-2 District. He stated he, Mr. Weingartz and the construction manager were present to answer any questions.


Mr. Arroyo defined the location of the site and stated the woodland line at the back of the site. Additional lots front onto the cul-de-sac, which is extended further from the original inception, and the property adjoins at the western boundary. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. The site is part of the proposed Beck West Corporate Park Site Condominium. Therefore, he stated Final approval of the site plan would be contingent upon final approval of the Beck West Corporate Park Site Condominium. He stated the applicant agreed to provide the additional information, requested in his letter, as part of the Final Site Plan review and approval.


In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval. He stated the truck access was directly across from an emergency access connection to an adjoining property. The appropriate turn around area had also been provided.


Ms. Weber recommended approval. In her letter, dated August 18, 2000, she noted comment five (5) stating "A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be required form FEMA removing the 100-year floodplain from the parcel. It should be noted the developer of Beck West Corporate Park is in the process of obtaining this." She added the LOMR was required prior to recommendation of the Final Site Plan.


Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan. She stated there were a number of items in her letter, dated August 21, 2000, that would need to be addressed at Final. She stated the landscape plan would need to match the Site Plan and that the area mentioned by Mr. Arroyo was not included on the landscape plan.


In regard to woodlands, Ms. Lemke stated there are .5 acres of regulated woodlands on the site. The woodlands are located along the northern edge, adjacent to Humbolt, along the eastern edge, along the southern part and a larger area that continues off of this site to the south onto another site. She stated the site is listed as part of the northwestern Core Reserve on the City’s Wildlife Habitat Master Plan. There are only two (2) Core Reserve areas in the city. She explained the highest qualities of woodlands are those to the south and continue to the adjacent lot to the south. She stated the front hedgerow was disrupted by the development of the industrial subdivision. The easterly hedgerow is a higher quality, provides some connection, but lacks the continually planting that would make it a higher quality linear system. She recommended approval of the Woodlands Permit along with a number of items that needed to be furnished on the Final Site Plan Submittal. She stated the plan disrupts the lower quality hedgerow in the front and preserves the majority of the eastern hedgerow and all of the woodlands located on the lot to the south. There are eight (8) regulated trees 8" d.b.h. and greater being removed.


Ms. Lemke stated according to the replacement ratio formula, there were twelve (12) trees that would be required to be replaced. She stated the details and exact number would be determined at the Final and the detailed engineering plans would be examined more closely. She stated due to the fact the lot is located within the Core Reserve Area on the City’s Wildlife Habitat Map, additional shrubs, such as Viburnum, needed to be furnished along the eastern hedgerow to provide a continuous connection across the property line. She also recommended the regulated woodland in the southern portion of the site be placed into a Preservation Easement. Ms. Lemke stated although there were a number of items that needed to be furnished on the Final Plan, she recommended approval with the four (4) conditions in her August 21, 2000 letter.


Chairperson Capello announced he 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 an approval is recommended. He announced he also received a letter from Doug Necci of JCK dated September 13, 2000, which states "The applicant decided to use a concrete material as a substitute for brick. The product has been used on two (2) previous projects in Novi, Maples Place and Magellan Center for which the Section 9 Waiver was granted. In the case of the previous project the Section 9 Waiver was granted on basis that the unique size, color, and texture of the material produced an overall visual effect virtually indistinguishable from brick. It is therefore my recommendation that the use of INTEGRALLY COLORED SMOOTH CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS (C.M.U.), is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, and therefore qualifies for a Section 9 Waiver. This positive recommendation is contingent on the applicant submitting a sample board showing the color, size, and texture, including mortar."


Chairperson Capello announced that although applicant has brought the sample board tonight, and they would still need to submit it to Mr. Necci if the Section 9 Waiver is granted.


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

Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.



Member Canup stated he was familiar with the other Weingartz locations in Farmington and Utica. He felt Novi would be proud to have them as part of the industrial community. He asked if they would still operate the Farmington location?

Mr. Drane stated it would still operate.

Member Canup commented on the excellent presentation.


Moved by Koneda, seconded Cassis, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Site Plan approval in Case No. SP 00-45 and Woodlands Permit and Section 9 Façade Waiver.


Member Nagy asked why it would be recommended to remove a 100-year Floodplain from a parcel?

Ms. Weber explained LOMR. Portions of a site fall within the hundred (100) year floodplain based on the elevation. She stated a Letter Of Map Revision is required when a flood plain is filled. Usually when a floodplain is filled, there is an analysis done to determine if there would be a significant impact in filling the floodplain. She stated this analysis is incorporated into the LOMR process and reviewed carefully to avoid adverse problems.

Member Nagy asked what would happen during the torrential rain with a building on the site? he asked what would happen to the water?

Ms. Weber stated in this case, the Shaw Creek originally went through the site, and since then was rerouted through the storm/sewer system within the Beck West Corporate Park Development. She stated this storm system actually routes the 100-year flows to an existing regional detention basin, where it is detained. The 100-year flows are detained in the basin and conveyed in a controlled manner to the basin.

Member Nagy asked how much of the floodplain on the parcel would be utilized by the building?

Ms. Weber stated she did not have the information with her, but she would forward it to Member Nagy.

Member Nagy asked why they were choosing to waiver the brick requirement? She asked if it was because the material was cheaper and less labor intensive?

Mr. Drane answered, correct.

Member Nagy asked how it fit with the building in the area in regard to color and material?

Mr. Drane stated most of the buildings are a decorative masonry block. He stated due to the location to the Beck West Drive, they are within the three hundred (300) feet of a thoroughfare by sixty (60) feet. In the view from the road to the building, he stated the material would not be distinguishable from brick.

Member Nagy asked what they were using to insulate the building?

Mr. Drane stated the product itself is twelve (12) inches deep. It would build the entire wall.

Chairperson Capello stated at a previous meeting, Mr. Necci stated the only difference was that a brick was made from fire clay and this product was made from masonry. Chairperson Capello stated he felt it looked nicer, especially on a large building.

Member Koneda asked Ms. Lemke if there was hedgerow left on the east side with the detention basin?

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

Member Koneda asked if it was an extension of the property to the south or if it hooked up to something?

Ms. Lemke stated it continued further north on the site. She explained there is a center area of woodlands and it continues to the adjacent property.

Member Koneda asked where the replacement trees would be planted on the site?

Ms. Lemke answered the replacement trees would be placed toward the southern woodland.

Member Koneda asked if there would be an attempt to replenish the hedgerow?

Ms. Lemke stated this was a condition, to add additional shrubs in that area.

Member Mutch asked the applicant if the design of the building provided for potential expansion or if they had future expansion plans?

Mr. Drane stated there were no current plans. However, the site was designed to extend the south should the need arise.

Member Mutch commented the reason for his question was due to the design of the parking lot and open space. He stated he supported the project.

Chairperson Capello referred to Ms. Lemke’s requirement of Preservation of Regulated Woodlands. He stated he did not agree with this nor think it was necessary because of the existing ordinance to regulate the woodlands. He felt this could potentially lead to lawsuits.


Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None





This warehouse and accessory office building project is located in Section 24, on the south side of Jo Drive between Haggerty and Meadowbrook Roads. The 1.614 acre site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Seymour Manville introduced himself. He felt that some of the consultant’s recommendations were not consistent with the site. He stated Microcraft was the planned occupant of the new facility. Microcraft currently occupies the several of the buildings in the area. Mr. Manville stated the design of the building was due to their occupancy and option to purchase the building next door. They were attempting to create a campus look. He stated the properties are owned by either common ownership or mutual agreement. He felt the easements were created before the ordinance requirements for side yard setback and landscape requirements. He stated the intent of the was to create mutual drive and parking easements for the benefit of joint owners. He stated at that time there was a minimum of a twenty (20) foot side yard restriction. Mr. Manville designed the industrial buildings on Vincenti Drive with mutual benefit easements to avoid a number of wide driveways. By establishing the common easement drives, it allowed the driveway impacts on the front street to be narrowed. He stated the proposed parcel also has easements on both sides. He speculated Microcraft could own all of the buildings in this area in the future and they planned to be a long-term occupant of the proposed parcel. He felt it was a more efficient use of space to give Microcraft the benefit of the using the parking drives and existing easements. He stated the easements are for the ingress, egress and the drainage. The site also has utilities. He understood that this was the last site in the industrial park and it was not being developed consistent with the other buildings. He gave the example of the driveways, parking and side yard usage. He stated the buildings would all have the same kind of facility. He felt that since the legal rights were established before the ordinance was passed, changing the requirements was a question of vested rights of property owners to use the property. Therefore, Mr. Manville asked the Planning Commission consider this and the elements of usage by common occupant and other occupants in the industrial park with similar conditions/utilities. He asked that the Commission waiver this or give suggestions of how to handle the situation. He stated the property owner to the west had been using the easement rights. He did not know of a way to legally inform them that they could not do this. He stated with the other property owner, Michael Craft, may own the entire property therefore, leaving no side lot line due to the common owner usage.


Mr. Manville stated that they met the percentages of landscaping required for the site. (site coverage and site requirement) He stated the rear of the building faces a land lock piece of property approximately two hundred (200) or three hundred (300) feet deep. The Grand River property is three hundred (300) or four hundred (400) feet deep. He did not feel there was any protection necessary beyond what they have provided to anybody to the south. He stated the property to the south was either undeveloped or it could not be viewed with the distance being more than seven hundred (700) feet. Therefore, he did not feel it would be beneficial for public interest with the given greenbelt established.


Mr. Manville felt the plan met the zoning and planning requirements. He considered their submitted plan to be a first class landscape plan for the facility. He stated they have complied with the general zoning requirements and the requirements established throughout the industrial park.


Mr. Arroyo stated in his September 1, 2000 planning review, he recommended approval. However, there were some items to be addressed as part of the Final Site Plan. He stated the sharing of drives and parking, serving Lot 6 to the west, would be removed. Documentation would need to be provided indicating that the site would still have an adequate number of parking meeting the ordinance requirements. His letter indicated the need for Zoning Board of Appeals variances for the side yard setbacks for the parking lot. He stated the ordinance allowed the commission to grant waivers under certain circumstances. He gave the example of providing additional setbacks with the total area equivalent to the full setback requirements on all sides. He stated in this case, the total area was not provided. However, they have provided an additional parking setback from the rear. Only ten (10) feet is required, and they have provided twenty (20). He felt they were attempting to address some of the existing conditions by providing for additional green area on the south side. He stated the parking setbacks were a ZBA issue.


In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval. However, he stated he would be looking for additional detailed information on the Final.


Ms. Weber recommended approval in her letter dated August 24, 2000. She stated the storm water would be detained in an existing detention basin, located off-site. Although she had some preliminary information on the basin capacity, she stated they would take a closer look at the time of Final to ensure the basin had adequate capacity to detain the flows for the site.


Ms. Lemke did not recommend approval due to the ZBA variance for the side yards. She stated in her letter dated September 5, 2000, the applicant was approximately five thousand (5000) square feet too short to receive a Planning Commission waiver. However, they added an extra ten (10) feet in the rear and provided additional plant materials along the southern property line. Therefore, she would support a ZBA variance, but not a Planning Commission waiver. She stated the applicant would need to take options into consideration and provide at Final Site Plan submission.


Chairperson Capello announced he 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 Capello asked Mr. Arroyo if he indicated there were not sufficient additional setbacks that could allow the Planning Commission waiver to be granted?


Mr. Arroyo stated correct, they did not qualify for a Planning Commission and would need to go to the ZBA.




Member Mutch referred to Mr. Arroyo’s review letter, which indicated zero (0) side yard setback on the western property line. He asked if the portion along the southern part, where they are providing some setback, if this width met the ordinance?


Mr. Arroyo answered no. He stated it might be five (5) or six (6) feet.


Member Mutch asked if they provided ten (10) would this count toward the total?


Ms. Lemke stated they could, but there may not be enough room.


Mr. Arroyo stated they could do widen it out if they took out one (1) parking space.


Member Mutch stated ordinance requires thirty-seven (37) spaces and they are providing forty-nine (49). He asked the applicant to explain the additional spaces?


Mr. Manville stated they met the ordinance on all counts. He stated it was based on a formula that included the employee count of the business to occupy the space. It was approximately one (1) parking space for every one and one half (1 ½) employees, plus the additional five (5). He stated they paved out the area to round out the site and allow for the future need of additional parking. However, if giving up spaces was required for greenbelt issues, he stated they were willing to work this out within the confines of the design.


Member Mutch stated in review of the plan, with the existing drives and existing easements, there would be a side yard setback issue. He stated unless they eliminated the driveways, they would not able to get around this. However, along the western property line, south of that entrance, possibly the area to the eastern property line, the area between the dumpster and the end island, possibly an extension through there. It is a wide-open parking area. The parking spaces along the eastern side of the building are also an option for additional greenspace. Member Mutch stated he understood the existing conditions in the park, however, the problem exists because when reviewing other sites, there is zero (0) setback along the lot lines. He felt the asphalt would have to run off somewhere. He felt more grass on the site would absorb the water run off and pollutants benefiting the surrounding area. He stated this solution would serve as a function to eliminate the asphalt. However, if they needed the parking spaces and the setback and maneuvering did not work out, he could understand that. He felt these efforts would assist them with the ZBA.


Mr. Manville agreed with Member Mutch. He stated the possibility of angle parking to provide some latitude in the requirements to place more landscaping next to the building. He suggested creating three (3) to four (4) feet of landscaping at the southwest side of the site by eliminating a space. He stated if there is a deficiency with the greenbelt they are willing to resolve the problem.


Member Koneda asked Mr. Arroyo if they eliminated twelve (12) parking spaces, going down to thirty-seven (37), could they get the fifty-seven hundred (5,700) square feet? He stated the deficit was fifty-seven hundred (5,700) square feet therefore, would this elimination make a significant impact?


Mr. Arroyo felt it would make a significant visual impact. He stated by eliminating a couple of spaces at the southwest corner and extending out what is now shown as a five (5) foot wide green area, the result would be a significant size green space. A parking space is nine (9) feet wide, therefore removing two (2) would add eighteen (18) feet. He stated there would be fifty (50) or sixty (60) feet of area with an extra eighteen (18) feet of greenspace. Although it may not make up the entire deficiency, he stated it would be a lot closer with some changes. He felt the deficiency would not be close enough to allow a Planning Commission waiver, therefore it would still need to go before the ZBA for a variance.




Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, CARRIED (7-1): To grant Jo Drive SP 00-44A Preliminary Site Plan approval conditional upon the developer working with the landscape architect and consultants to identify additional greenspace and conditional upon a ZBA variance for the deficiency on side yard setback.




Member Nagy asked why the applicant could not reduce the size of the building to meet the requirements?


Mr. Manville stated the tenant had a certain amount of space required for his plan.


Member Nagy asked why the applicant could not reduce the building a little and the parking lot a little?


Mr. Manville explained the building is built with certain modules with standards of practice for the design of industrial buildings. He gave the example of even number feet, a sixty (60) foot with twenty (20) foot. He stated if the modules are "played with" it could become a non-modular type industrial buildings.


Member Mutch felt even if the building size was reduced, the site would still have driveways on either side and that was the variance issue. He asked Mr. Watson if the motion was too vague to have it conditional upon more greenspace? He asked at what point would the applicant meet the condition?


Chairperson Capello stated he understood the motion to leave the amount of greenspace up to Ms. Lemke’s discretion.


Member Koneda stated it was possible to grant the approval and ask the applicant to go to the ZBA for a variance for fifty-seven hundred (5,700) square foot, what they are deficient. He stated he intended the motion to allow the applicant to make an effort to work with the consultants and created additional greenspace to make it easier when they go before the ZBA. Member Koneda felt if they went before the ZBA requesting fifty-seven hundred (5,700) square feet, the ZBA could turn them down. However, if they made an effort to pick up additional would benefit them.


Member Mutch agreed. He asked Ms. Lemke and Mr. Arroyo if they felt comfortable with the direction the Planning Commission had given?


Ms. Lemke and Mr. Arroyo both answered yes.


Mr. Watson stated he understood the motion to mean that Ms. Lemke and Mr. Arroyo are to evaluate if the applicant has made the best effort they could to obtain as much greenspace as possible before going before the ZBA.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Richards

No: Nagy




This concrete recycling facility project is located in Section 9, on the north side of Twelve Mile Road east of Beck Road. The 10 acre site is zoned General Industrial (I-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Karl Kraiten attorney of Bircher Tangora Galleger Kraiten & Aimen introduced Brian Devlin of Ludwig & Associates, Mr. Howard and Rose Copeland of Novi Crushed Concrete. He stated they previously presented their request to the Commission on August 2, 2000.


Howard Copeland of Novi Crushed Concrete Copeland Paving gave an overview of why he was before the Planning Commission. He stated when he completed the paperwork to relocated his operation he made it clear that he could only afford to purchase the property if he was assured he could set up the crusher on the new property. He stated the City told him there was nothing that they could do being that it was a portable operation and he was given approval. He stated during this six (6) month period, he began to hall material to the new location. However, approval was not given until summer. When Mr. Copeland applied for a paving permit he was told there was a screening issue. He stated at the last meeting it was mentioned the business was too harsh to be in Novi. Therefore, he reminded the Commission that he is located in Novi. Mr. Copeland felt the new property was a better location for both he and the City of Novi. He stated there were an average of fifty (50) trucks a day that traveled through the middle of town to their current location. However, the new location, is not more than a thousand (1,000) feet from the expressway.


Karl Kraiten stated the Copeland family has been in Novi for thirty (30) years. Their current location is 25550 Meadowbrook, on the east side of Meadowbrook between Grand River and Eleven Mile Road. Being familiar with the site, he felt it was not difficult to understand the desire to relocate. He stated the current location is not a heavy industrial site. Nor is it conducive to the health safety and welfare community of Novi, yet it is a necessary business. Novi Crushed Concrete is a recycling business of natural product into reusable natural products. The current location has an elevated driveway, which he felt is not safe for gravel hauling when navigating. He also felt it had poor site lines. He stated they would have to stay at the current location if they could not find a new one. The Copeland family found a location with the appropriate zoning where they could minimize the overall impact to the residents of the City of Novi. He felt this was a valid use for Industrial 2 zoning. He stated there was a limited amount of Industrial 2 zoning already in Novi. Additionally, Mr. Copeland already received the consent of the owner to the east. Mr. Kraiten stated they have addressed some of the concerns of the Board as well as many of the concerns of the consultants. Novi Crushed Concrete is a portable operation, the crusher is on wheels and is electric powered. It is strictly regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality and has met the standards for dust control and containment. He stated there would be no hazardous material processed. The applicant has attempted to meet every criteria suggested by the consultants except those required to be addressed by a waiver, a variance or at the Final. He stated the ultimate conclusion that there is no residential area abutting the property, and then would only need to meet two (2) variances. A variance is needed for the side yard setback at the west edge of the facility. Currently, there is currently a 4.5’ side yard setback and a 50’ is required. The second variance would be for the screening of the outside storage area of raw materials. He stated the Master Plan for the City of Wixom has eliminated the residential along Twelve Mile. He felt the obvious result would be industrial properties surrounding this area. He stated the visual impact of the facility, with the natural topography, natural screening and the operations of the outdoor storage, would be a minimum of over a thousand (1,000) feet from Twelve Mile Road and more than two thousand (2,000) linear feet from Beck Road. Along the Beck Road Corridor are existing wetlands and existing tree stands they felt could be incorporated into the screening. To the north is a scrubland leading to a large stand of woodlands creating an impenetrable visual screen. Mr. Kraiten felt the two (2) story building and the one (1) story building in front of it also made an impenetrable screen. He stated the operation would be due to the topography and the existing vegetation. He felt the proposed berming and plantings made the site virtually invisible from any angle except the property to the east, which they already have the consent. Mr. Kraiten felt aside from the economic investment, a relocation of Novi Crushed Concrete was in the best interest of the City of Novi.


Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval due to the ZBA variances. However, if the ZBA variances were granted, he would be able to recommend approval subject to the items being addressed on the Final Site Plan. The required side yard setback requirement is fifty (50) feet and a hundred (100) feet if adjacent to residential. The property to the west, in Wixom, is zoned residential but is planned for industrial. He stated there were corrections to his letter. The two (2) existing structures are 45.5’ and 49’ from the side lot line. Mr. Arroyo explained if the residential zone exists, a 100’ setback would be required and if the area were not zoned residential, it would require a 50’ setback. Either instance, a variance would be required due to the change of use. He stated the side setback was met in terms of building setbacks, however there is a deficiency to the east in terms of the parking setback. He suggested they possibly shift the weigh scale to make it a couple feet away from the side lot line meeting the twenty (20) foot side line setback requirement. The applicant agreed and would address this as part of the Final Site Plan. In regard to screening, the ordinance states: if a property is zoned I-2 and is adjacent to residential outdoor storage is not permitted. Mr. Arroyo stated there was a screening requirement whether the area was zoned residential or not.


In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval. The applicant was proposing to construct a paved apron access point to Twelve Mile Road. They would widen the existing gravel access to twenty-eight (28) feet back to where it widens out into the parking area. They proposed it would be paved when Twelve Mile was relocated. However, the Design and Construction Standards require that access to be paved. Mr. Arroyo explained they would have to go before City Council for a Design and Construction Standards Waiver to receive permission postpone paving. Twelve Mile will shift to the north pulling away from the rebuilt interchange at Beck Road. He stated a substantial amount of paving would come out with the relocation of Twelve Mile. He felt this was one of the reasons the applicant requested permission to postpone paving.


Ms. Weber recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. She stated there are some required variances. She recommended a variance be obtained for the bike path due to the future Twelve Mile Road construction, with the recommendation that the value of the bike path be held in escrow. She felt if a path was constructed now, it would have to be relocated later. She stated her comments at the August 2, 2000 meeting still applies.


Ms. Lemke reviewed the changes made to the plan. She stated a 3’ high berm and plantings were added along Twelve Mile Road and 4’ of greenspace around the building to the north. They added eleven (11) additional Evergreen trees on the east and eleven (11) on the west. Ms. Lemke stated the property to the west is primarily wetland area. There is screening requirement for outdoor storage whether it is zoned residential or not. The applicant proposed a 3’ high berm and 10’-15’ row of Evergreen trees on the west and the east with an extensive area of woodlands to the north. She explained that due to the width of the property and any use of the property, it would be difficult to have a higher berm. She stated it was difficult to screen anything high. Due to the type of property and the type of use they are proposing, she felt their proposed screening was the best they could provide. She questioned if the residential use on the west was usable or not. She stated there were some waivers that could be given to save additional tree areas to the north and west. She stated she would support this. However, she was not recommending approval due to the amount of variances required.


Member Canup asked Mr. Arroyo if there were any limitations on the height of outdoor storage materials?

Mr. Arroyo answered yes. It can not exceed the maximum height in the district of sixty (60) feet.

Member Canup asked if this presented a problem to the petitioner?

Mr. Kraiten stated the existing pile, which would not be seen, was less than sixty (60) feet, it was forty (40) feet or less. He stated this was the amount that could be reasonably be done given the capacity of trucks and front-end loaders.

Mr. Copeland stated this was off of the conveyors, which is forty (40) feet.

Member Canup stated he wanted it clarified avoiding any surprises in the future.

Member Mutch stated he felt the same issues from the last meeting. He asked if this met the underlying industrial district requirements. He recognized the property in Wixom, currently residential, was neither planned nor was it expected for long term to be residential. He stated the applicant seemed to have made some attempts to address this in terms of reducing that. He gave the example of a situation where a strictly industrial property adjoined industrial property. However, he did not feel comfortable giving approval without this being addressed by ZBA first. He stated there was a previous project where industrial property adjoined residential. The project went to the ZBA, and it was treated as adjoining industrial. Member Mutch felt if the ZBA came to the conclusion with this project, he would be able to view the project differently. However, currently, and with the number of variances required, he could not support it. Member Mutch asked Mr. Watson if it was appropriate for the applicant to go to the ZBA for this type of determination before coming back for approval?

Mr. Watson answered it was a possibility. He stated the reason this has rarely been done was the ZBA generally prefers, and he felt it made sense, to have the Site Plan pass through the Site Plan Process to avoid any potential issues. Inevitably there would be another change on the plan and another trip would be required.

Member Mutch understood the applicant not wanting to make several trips. However, the determination of adjacency was clear-cut. He stated the adjoining property would either be considered or not.

Mr. Watson did not feel the ZBA would make an interpretation that the property is not adjacent. He felt the ZBA would be addressing whether or not the applicant could receive a variance due to the fact the property is a wetland, Master Planned for non residential use in Wixom and is not foreseeable for use of residential property.


Member Mutch asked Mr. Watson regarding the applicant’s desire to relocate. He asked if they did relocate, would it be possible for another owner to come in and use that site for a similar use?

Mr. Watson answered there would be a potential. He spoke of the zoning ordinance that dealt with non-conforming uses and when a non-conforming use can be continued. It provides a non-lawful and non-conforming use ceases for a period of six (6) months (as the ordinance states) it may not be restarted. The Michigan Case Law has modified the simple ceasing of the use for the ordinance-established period of time. The court also stated there must be an intent to abandon the use. Mr. Watson stated basically, the site could be sold to another of the same type of operation.

Mr. Kraiten did not feel the site was recommended for this type of use. He felt it was inappropriately zoned and not efficient. He stated there were other plans for the site that did not involve the crushing of concrete or any industrial 2 usage.

Mr. Copeland thought the zoning changed when the property was sold.

Mr. Kraiten assured the commission that the site would be liquidated and be put to an appropriate use more consistent with the parcels of property on Meadowbrook and Eleven Mile.

Member Mutch agreed the current location was not the best location for this use.

Mr. Kraiten stated he would not sit on two (2) million dollar parcels. He stated the family was over stretched and had been led astray due to representation they received from the employees at the City of Novi Building and Planning Department. He stated Mr. Copeland asked if they would need Site Plan approval for the new site and was told no because his equipment was portable and he was not putting up permanent structures. He stated Mr. Copeland was told he would not need to have a Site Plan because there was outdoor storage there. Mr. Kraiten stated the site was previously used for storage of "junk" and twenty (20) various construction sites prior to the this proposal. He stated they cleaned it up with the anticipation of relocating there. He stated the ordinances have changed since the time they started the process and some of the site plan requirements have changed. Mr. Kraiten stated Mr. Copeland had a certificate of occupancy for front half and he asked Mr. Arroyo if he could only address the back half, since they only wanted to expand the use into the back half. Mr. Copeland was told yes. He stated he was just informed a few days ago that they are not in compliance with the existing buildings.

Member Mutch restated his point being that the Commission is not able to factor the representations being made regarding the current property and its potential to move, into the decision making process. He clarified the applicant’s intention of the property was not part of the process. Mr. Mutch stated he asked the question as an informational point not as a part of the deliberation process.

Mr. Arroyo stated when he first met with the applicant, he understood potentially the structures that existed on the site may stay under the use or may potentially not be part of this use. However, he stated with the understanding these structures are included and the use of the structures would be changing, they would need to go before ZBA to ask for a variance.

Member Canup felt due to the number of variances they should give approval and forward the case to the ZBA. He stated there are a number of items that need a ZBA variance. He stated the new site is industrial, with a wetland on one side and the back, they proposed to put screening on the east and west side along with a road coming in the front.

PM-00-09-130 To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Novi Crushed Concrete SP 00-47 subject to the consultant’s comments, recommendations and subject to the ZBA variance for the required proposed west side yard setback, ZBA variance was required for east and west side parking setbacks, ZBA variance for the berm, ZBA variance contiguous to the outdoor storage in the rear of the property, the Design and Construction variance for the driveway and City Council approval for escrowing the monies for through the paving of the service road and the bike path.



Moved by Churella, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED (5-3): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Novi Crushed Concrete SP 00-47 subject to the consultant’s comments, recommendations and subject to the ZBA variance for the required proposed west side yard setback, ZBA variance was required for east and west side parking setbacks, ZBA variance for the berm, ZBA variance contiguous to the outdoor storage in the rear of the property, the Design and Construction variance for the driveway and City Council approval for escrowing the monies for through the paving of the service road and the bike path.




Member Koneda stated he voted against it last time because he thought it was premature to have it brought before the Planning Commission due to Twelve Mile Road not being developed yet. He asked Mr. Arroyo if the property to the west was rezoned comparable to the City of Novi’s I-2 zoning, how many variances would the applicant need from the ZBA and what would they be for?


Mr. Arroyo stated they would need a variance for the screening for the outdoor storage. They are required to screen whatever is stored on the site. The applicant stated they had a pile of forty (40) feet and therefore, would need a screen forty (40) feet high. He stated the east side parking setback issue (the scale area is eighteen (18) feet to from the side and needs to be twenty (20) feet) was to be resolved through a revised plan. Since the structures are part of the operation they are 45’-49’ from the side lot line. However, If this were industrial zoning to the west, it would require a 50’.


Member Cassis stated he has known Mr. Copeland for many years and he has used their services. He commended Mr. Copeland on the quality of service his company provided. He asked Mr. Copeland if he was given misguided advice?


Mr. Copeland answered yes. He added that he would not have and could not have made the purchase. He stated he asked for things in writing and was told that it was not necessary because they fit the criteria.


Member Cassis clarified that Mr. Copeland commenced work on the project and purchased the property based on those assurances?


Mr. Copeland answered yes.


Member Cassis asked if it was possible to pile up crushed concrete on the west side in the future to create a wall and place screening on the higher level?


Mr. Copeland stated it is possible if it would work. He stated he is willing to do anything to make this work.


Member Cassis asked how Ms. Lemke viewed the idea?


Ms. Lemke stated she would need to look at the engineering on the site to determine if that was practical, but she thought it was a good idea.


Member Cassis felt they should take in a resident like Mr. Copeland who has been in Novi for thirty (30) years and would like to stay in Novi. Member Cassis stated that Mr. Copeland has found a suitable site and it is zoned properly. He felt with a few adjustments, the project would be feasible. He would vote for it.



Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Richards

No: Canup, Mutch, Nagy


Member Mutch stated when the Master Plan was done, he felt the area around the to Beck Road interchange, to the north side of the interchange, did not receive the attention it needed. He stated looking at the area now, he realized the type of uses are coming in. He stated this is an area that is an entrance for people to a part of Novi along the Twelve Mile Road corridor and to the east there are high tech uses coming in. Member Mutch felt another look needed to be given to this area. He stated this was not the direction he wanted for the Beck Road interchange. He stated anywhere there is an interchange is an opportunity to have "stand out" uses. He stated his intent was not to side track the project, but that they should look at some of the other properties in that area.

Chairperson Capello stated a year ago, Mr. Stewart came to the Planning Department asking if there was a possibility to rezone his I-2 property to I-1 due to the concerns of some of the tenants. He was told no. However, if Member Mutch wanted to send it to Master Planning, he saw no problem.

Member Koneda agreed with Member Mutch. He stated this is one of the gateway points into the City, the location for the new Fountain Park and a boulevard down Twelve Mile. He did not agree with heavy industrial I-2 uses along the boulevard entrance into the City. Therefore, he did not feel it was the appropriate zoning and that it should be sent back to Master Planning.

SP 00-09-131 MOTIONED TO SEND IT BACK TO MASTER Planning Commission

Moved by Koneda, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Motioned to send it back to Master Planning Commission.


Member Cassis agreed with both Member Mutch and Member Koneda. He stated his voted was not based on the fact that he thought it was ideal that the project is at that location. He stated he voted it because the zoning was proper, it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission to change the zoning at the appropriated time before the applicant comes in and asks for it. He stated he agreed the types of uses for that area are those that Member Mutch and Member Koneda spoke of.

Member Nagy stated she did not vote for the applicant because she was concerned about the fact that the Planning Commission should be considering the recommendations of the consultants they hire. She was also concerned about the applicants that come before the Commission requiring several variances, and then are sent to ZBA. She questioned if this was the function of the Planning Commission to send applicants to ZBA? She felt it was part of the function of the Planning Commission to make the decision of site approval or not based on what the applicant has before the Commission. She agreed the area should be sent back to Master Planning. She also stated she felt this was an emotional issue yet there certain things in place that should be voted on properly.

Member Canup stated he did not have much sympathy for people who spend a million dollars for a piece of land and do not get the proper credentials.



Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None


















Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:20 p.m.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None




Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant


Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

October 16, 2000


Date Approved: October 25, 2000