View Agenda for this meeting






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


PRESENT: Members Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards


ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Canup, Churella


ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Kathy Wyrosdick, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber, Director of Planning and Community Development and Staff Planner Beth Brock, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, City Attorney Gerald Fisher






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




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




Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None











Chairperson Piccinini announced there were four (4) items on the Consent Agenda.


Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 3, 2001 and January 17, 2001. She asked if there were any corrections to the minutes?


Member Mutch stated he had a spelling correction on page 8 of the minutes of January 17, 2001 of breath to breadth.


Member Kocan stated the correct spelling of a resident was "Marian Pickl". She asked if the letters to the Planning Commission were included in the official record of the minutes?


Beth Brock stated the Public Hearing letter are included as part of the record.


Member Kocan stated this was a communication read by Member Churella.

Beth Brock stated she would ensure this was included.




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 3, 2001 and January 17, 2001 as amended.




Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the consent agenda as amended.




Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None





This project is located in Section 3, on the southwest corner of Pontiac Trail and West Park Drive. The 2.31 acre site is zoned Community Business (B-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit and Woodland Permit approval and a Section Nine Facade Waiver.


Chairperson Piccinini stated there would be a continuance with the public hearing for Novi Express SP 00-29A. She stated the reason being that only the condominium association was notified and the individual units were not. She stated this meeting would include the applicant’s presentation, the consultant’s comments and there would be an audience participation. She stated the Planning Commission would then motion for continuance.


David Donnellon, architect of Novi Express, represented the property owners. He requested a Special Land Use Permit for the car wash on the proposed site. He stated the car wash would be one (1) of several anticipated uses. The additional uses of the site would include a gas station and convenient store. He stated 1.3 acres of the site would remain undeveloped due to the configuration and location of the property. He explained that West Park Drive northeasterly crosses Pontiac Trail on a curve and Pontiac Trail also crosses the intersection on a curve. He stated that the frontage is on three (3) of the five (5) sides after the right-of-way. He described the surrounding developments: west – a bank and shopping center; north – City of Walled Lake; south – a driveway to the bank property, marginal access drive and multiple-family zoning district. He stated the only areas associated with the site were the triangular grass area and parking lot. He added the building to the south was actually located southwesterly due to the angle of the street. He showed the commission the westerly portion of the building with a canopy. He stated the canopy was not supported by the typical 10" X 10" steel column. Instead, the canopy would be supported with matching brick and material proposed for the building. He stated the convenient store and car wash would be composed of brick veneer. He noted the character element on the corner of the building is part of the retail space on the inside of the building, representing a clock tower. He stated the building exceeds the height requirement due to the clock tower. He felt this project would be a quality, well-designed addition to the community. He stated the façade design was created for all sides of the building.


Chairperson Piccinini asked the Mr. Donnellon if they intended to have a certified sound engineer and revise the plan according to the consultant’s recommendations?


Mr. Donnellon stated his intention was to address the issues related to the sound. He added that he has done a lot of architect work for Chrysler and questioned if there was need for a certified engineer at this point. He felt confident with his qualifications to design a project without a certified engineer. He felt confident with a noise analysis of his project.


Gerald Fisher, City Attorney asked if he Mr. Donnellon if he agreed that the ordinance specified that the noise analysis would need to be performed by a certified sound engineer?


Mr. Donnellon answered, yes.


Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Donnellon if he was aware that he would need to make a variance request for the noise analysis test if he chose to not hire a certified sound engineer?


Mr. Donnellon understood this and that it was his choice of option.


Chairperson Piccinini informed Mr. Donnellon that his decision was needed for the motion to clarify for the continuance to place the project on a specific agenda date.


Mr. Donnellon clarified if he needed to decide which option he would do and when?


Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.


Mr. Donnellon asked if she needed the answer immediately?


Chairperson Piccinini stated she would need to know at this meeting so the continuance date could be set. Therefore, she stated the commission needed to know if he planned to comply, how long it might take to obtain a certified engineer to perform the test or if he would be requesting a variance?


Mr. Donnellon stated he could have a certified engineer within two (2) weeks, if the variance was not obtained within two (2) weeks. He continued, that he applied for the ZBA on February 14 and may be on the March 6, 2001 agenda.


Mr. Fisher clarified that he already applied for ZBA variance?


Mr. Donnellon answered, yes.


Mr. Fisher clarified that the car wash and the gas station were both Special Land Uses.


Member Koneda felt the continuance should be at the next meeting. If no action was taken, he stated they could postpone/delay action. Since the process has been started, he felt it was appropriate to have the continuance at the next meeting.


Ms. Brock stated the upcoming Planning Commission meeting dates were March 7, 2001 and March 21, 2001. She added the ZBA would meet next on March 6, 2001.


Kathy Wyrosdick, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval of the Special Land Use or the Preliminary Site Plan due to the required variances. She stated the applicant would need a variance for the height of the building. The clock tower, proposed at fifty-three (53) feet, exceeds the maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet in the B-2 District. The applicant would also require a variance for the overhead doors of the car wash. She explained that the doors are not permitted to face a major thoroughfare or abutting residential district. She indicated that the applicant would need to submit a noise analysis, performed by a certified sound engineer. Ms. Wyrosdick added that the sound analysis would need to include an analysis of the RM-1 property line, which has not been done. She explained that although the applicant submitted a revised noise analysis, the sound level at the RM-1 property line was not analyzed. She stated there were additional items that could be addressed at final.


In regard to traffic Ms. Wyrosdick did not recommend approval. She stated the Planning Commission would need to grant a waiver for the driveway spacing. The proposed driveway on West Park Drive is located ninety (90) feet north of the existing driveway of the Novi Square Shopping Center. She stated that at least one hundred fifty (150) feet between commercial driveways is required. She added the applicant would need to coordinate with the developers of the North Haven’s tentative preliminary plat to align these drives. The applicant would also require a Planning Commission Waiver for the driveway on Pontiac Trail. She explained the driveway is located one hundred seventy-five (175) feet east of the shopping center driveway and two hundred twenty (220) feet west of West Park Drive. She stated the required distance is two hundred thirty (230) feet. Ms. Wyrosdick suggested the only alternative of a shared drive with the shopping center, providing the shopping center was willing to comply. She noted the improvements that would be required for the major road ways. A passing or center left turn lane is warranted for both access drives on Pontiac Trail and West Park Drive. She stated they could satisfy this by extending the existing center left turn lanes to serve the proposed driveways. She stated the applicant would need to provide both right turn excel and decel tapers for both driveways. Ms. Wyrosdick indicated that the traffic counts were not determined at the shopping center driveway and the existing residential street (opposite the proposed driveway). She noted that the recommendations could change after the study is submitted. (It was supposed to be included with the submittal.) The study submitted depicted the existing level of service at Level F during the PM Peak Hour. Their analysis predicted that the delays could be reduced to approximately nineteen (19) seconds making it a Level of Service B. (Twenty-four (24) seconds for the West Park Drive approach.) Another improvement would be the addition of a north bound right turn overlap and signal timing optimization. Since this issue was found in the impact study, she urged the city to work with the Road Commission to make these improvements as soon as possible.


Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant recommended approval. She stated existing utilities, water/sewer, would serve the site. Storm water on the site would be detained in a detention basin located at the southwest corner of the site. The storm water would pass through the proposed sedimentation basin vault with a discharge at a restricted rate into an existing ditch on the south side of Pontiac Trail. Ms. Weber pointed out that the sedimentation and water quality controls would be handled in the detention basin. She noted that the applicant had chosen to provide the sedimentation basin vault as an additional water quality control. She referred to the comment #2, of the review letter dated January 15, 2001, regarding the water main. The City of Novi is in the process of designing a water main along the east side of West Park Drive, which is scheduled for construction mid to late summer. She stated should the construction of this site precede the City’s water main construction, the applicant would need an agreement with the City of Walled Lake, City of Novi and the developer for the temporary use of the Walled Lake water main. She noted that the applicant will be required to provide a stub connection to the point of the city’s future proposed water main. In the event the City of Novi’s water main is constructed prior or concurrent to the site construction, the applicant would need to tap in.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect did not recommend approval. She indicated that the site was under the Woodlands Ordinance. She noted the area to be 1.8 acres, with approximately 1.8 acres of regulated woodlands. She added that it was almost one hundred percent (100%) regulated woodlands. She described the woodland as an isolated pocket, not connecting to another woodland. Therefore, she stated, it did not have representation on the city’s wildlife habitat map and there were no historic or specimen trees on the site. It is primarily a diverse species woodland, consisting of Locust, Elm, Poplar, Ash and Oaks and range in size from 9" to 36" d.b.h. She described the woodland is a medium quality woodland. Ms. Lemke suggested that the applicant explore alternatives to save additional areas. The applicant proposed to save ten (10) trees. Based on the existing grading system, she noted that only one (1) of those trees could actually be saved. She stated there was additional grading information that was needed to make the submitted plan feasible.


Ms. Lemke did not recommend approval of the Landscape Plan due to the required ZBA variance. She indicated the shortage of square footage and the canopy trees that could count toward the requirement of having the landscaping to break up the interior pavement. She was not in support of the ZBA variance. She added that the applicant did not meet the requirement for right-of-way berms along Pontiac Trail. The opacity and the number of trees did not meet the requirements. She noted the interference with corner clearance. She stated there are a number of items in her letter dated January 15, 2001, which indicate their deficiency to meet the basic requirements at conceptual landscape design.

Doug Necci of JCK indicated the project had an excessive amount of seam metal on the roof area. He considered the building to be well designed and well proportioned. He felt the design met the ordinance requirement for this building type adjacent to the residential. He noted the ordinance discourages the corporate architect adjacent to residential. He commented that the building is designed with brick on all four (4) sides. He felt the clock tower would be a visual asset to the building, although the height may be able to be scaled back without any detrimental effect. He stated the metal roof is approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) percent over the ordinance maximum. He explained that the increments are in twenty-five percent (25%), therefore, it is a nominal difference from the ordinance. He recommended a Section Nine Facade Waiver.


Chairperson Piccinini 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.


Ms. Brock announced that the residents would be re-notified. She added that the individual units would receive a notice of the public hearing.




Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter from Mr. Olk stating "A gas station in this location will have a direct effect on my property values. I am an owner of one of the condo’s directly across the street in the Bayview association. My living room windows face onto West Road. With addition of a gas station and the amount of traffic it would generate, would cause an already busy corner to become more congested. The bright lights and the noise would be hindrance. If this goes through and is approved, it is putative that large evergreen trees be planted on both sides of West Road to block the view. The owner of the property of the gas station should be responsible for the cost of the trees."


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


Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin, felt it was a hindrance to those in the audience to not be able to see the site on the board. She noted that she was familiar with the site. She felt each member on the commission needed to personally examine the site prior to making any decisions. She felt a gas station would be good idea, however, she was not certain about the car wash. She stated there was not a gas station until Pontiac Trail and Beck Road. She questioned where the ditch spoken of would be placed? She questioned if the ditch would go across West Park into Walled Lake and run down a side street? She wanted these questions to be answered. She felt the proposed corner was the most difficult corner in the city to deal with. She stated when a vehicle turns off of West Park Boulevard onto Pontiac Trail westbound, the stacking at the lights, no turn on red from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. from West Park onto east bound Pontiac Trail, she felt the commission was inviting a bad situation. She noted the developer had a right to build on the undeveloped property. She stated it is the commission’s job to make it be the best development for the area. Ms. Gray noted an existing hole in the southwest corner of the property that serves no purpose. She stated the standing water behind the bank is horrendous. She stated the site is surrounded with residents with the exception of the shopping area. She felt the only reason residents could turn left onto West Park Blvd was due to her efforts to have the county place a turn arrow when it was reconfigured.


Jim Korte, 2022 Austin, did not feel the project met the city ordinance. He noted the petitioner’s request to the commission to not consider West Park Drive a major thoroughfare. He stated this would have a lot to do with how and where they would open their doors. He stated the north side of Novi has fought to have a direction to Twelve Mile Road. He stated the Taft Road connector was two (2) road bond issues ago. He questioned if the city would have all of the residents from the apartment complexes to travel the major road? He stated the major thoroughfare is West Park Drive / Taft connector. He added that in the next three (3) years there will be a Beck Road interchange for all of the traffic to flow an alternate direction. He asked the commission if Pontiac Trail was a major thoroughfare? He stated the apartments travel Pontiac Trail along with the high school and the only entrance into the City of Walled Lake. Mr. Korte stated Pontiac Trail is a major thoroughfare. He noted the previous efforts to fight the condominium development due its approach on the roads. He stated they were able to have the city condominium use the entrance of Walled Lake due to the poor road configuration. He asked the commission how this development could be passed as meeting the city ordinances? He stated it could be a Use Variance, however, there was not a Use Variance for a car wash or convenient store. He commented that within visual site of the proposed property, there exists a store, deli etc… He asked what the hardship would be? He stated he could go four (4) blocks to Walled Lake and get gasoline, Commerce Township or on Twelve Mile Road. Therefore, he did not find the Use Variance to be legitimate.


D. Willacker, P.O. Box 1057, a member of the Board of Directors for the Windward Bay Condominiums asked that the commission deny all variances requested by the applicant. She requested on behalf of the fifty-one (51) families residing at Windward Bay that the commission not approve a gas station or any project of similar nature to be approved for that area. She stated the run off from the project would flow into their location and to the lake a block and one half away. She stated she would band with the other condominium developments in the area to stop this project. She requested that the Planning Commission require earth, berms, foliage areas, trees, walls, ingress, egress and re-addressing of the entire intersection. She stated that she would make many requirements to make the project impossible. She informed the commission that she would be contacting the additional three hundred (300) residents following the meeting, that are in direct access of the project.


Dianne Troye, 45000 Bayview Drive #6, stated she resides directly across from the proposed project. She stated neither she nor the president of her association were notified. She was glad to hear there would be a continuance. She agreed that the commission should come out to examine the property. She stated there are two (2) condominium developments and a high-rise senior development across the street which were not mentioned in the applicant’s presentation. She stated this was definitely a residential area. She stated her balcony faces the proposed gas station and felt this development would directly affect her investment. She commented that there are seven (7) gas stations within the three (3) mile radius.


Tom McCampbell, 45000 Bayview Drive #6, stated he is a resident of Windward Bay. He was mainly concerned with the impact on traffic, the smell of gas fumes and property values. He felt this decision would force the residents to have to lock up their windows and run air conditioners to avoid the noise. He stated he has lived around car washes with the blowers and did not feel this would be quiet. He questioned if it was a twenty-four (24) hour gas station? He was not in objection to the land being developed, however, he was opposed to a gas station. He was glad for the continuance so that he could notify the seniors as well.


Terri Vlk, 45000 Bayview #1, stated over the past couple of years, the traffic has become horrendous. She stated it backs up ¾ of a mile. She stated her windows all face West Park Drive, the location of the proposed gas station. She expressed her desire to keep the windows open in the summer without concern of the noise and smell. She was concerned for her son’s health and her investment in property. She did not feel there was a need for the gas station.


Chairperson Piccinini announced that the public hearing would not be closed and there will be the opportunity to speak at the next planning commission meeting. She asked Ms. Brock if the Windward Bay was the association that was not notified individually?

Ms. Brock answered, yes.



Member Mutch clarified if the continuance would be scheduled for the next planning commission meeting?


Chairperson Piccinini answered it would be March 7, 2001.


Member Mutch restated the applicant’s comment to go before ZBA for the variances and the comments from the Planning Department indicating the earliest date would be March 21.


Ms. Brock stated that because the ZBA meeting is on March 6th and the reports would not be available until March 21, 2001.


Member Mutch asked Mr. Fisher regarding public notice. He asked if the City of Novi is required by law to notify adjoining municipalities and property owners in a situation in which Novi borders another community?


Mr. Fisher stated if the three hundred (300) feet extend into the adjoining community, he felt they should be notified.


Member Mutch asked the Planning Department if this notice was done?


Ms. Brock answered the city does not have the access to the individual addresses. However, a notice was sent to the City of Walled Lake.


Member Mutch asked if this met the intent?


Mr. Fisher stated he was not certain and would reread the statue.


Member Mutch felt these developments should be notified. He encouraged the residents to have comments in writing in prior to the continuance meeting. He stated it would allow the commission to address the issues prior to the meeting. He stated it would allow the commission the time needed to address the concerns, such as coming out to a location etc…


Member Kocan stated her list was long for issues that she did not agree with for the development. She felt the sound analysis report was a critical part of the Special Land Use. She stated she would not recommend the ZBA provide a variance for the sound analysis report. She stated the decibel level from the car wash, near Guernsey’s, at the property line was ninety (90) decibels, which is thirty-five (35) too high. She commented on the proposed driveway location centered across from the development from the east should also be widened. She stated this would change the layout of the service station. She agreed with the woodland consultant’s comments that additional options should be explored. She would not recommend a parking variance from ZBA. Regarding the clock tower, Member Kocan explained that they would need to demonstrate to the ZBA hardship or show the absolute minimum of need to exceed the ordinance. She requested that additional traffic reports be submitted. She noted the grading would change the water retention. She stated when she visited the site, it appeared to be higher and Grand Court went down. Member Kocan stated the berming issue and the opacity issue on Pontiac Trail needed to be addressed. She added that a shared driveway between the bank and the gas station should be explored. She was not sure if the possibility existed to have the driveway moved. She stated these were some of the many concerns that she had. She was not in support of the project as presented.


Chairperson Piccinini informed the Planning Commission that she need the motion for continuance to the next meeting. She noted the importance of the comments made, however, she felt these should be discussed at the continuance meeting.


Member Nagy clarified if the applicant would go before the ZBA on March 6, 2001 and then come back to the Planning Commission on March 21, 2001 for a continuance?


Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes.


Member Nagy stated the site plan has not been approved. She questioned what would happen to the site plan if the ZBA granted the variance and the Planning Commission did not approve the site plan?


Mr. Fisher stated the ZBA is not permitted to approve the site plan. He continued that the ZBA could only grant variances that would enable the site plan. Therefore, he stated, they would essentially become moved.




Moved by Nagy, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To have continuation of the Public Hearing SP 00-29A to March 21, 2001 and to require a certified sound engineer analysis.




Member Mutch requested the applicant provide the Planning Commission with a statement of the proposed hours of operation at the next meeting.


Mr. Donnellon agreed to provide this at the next meeting.


Member Landry referred to Ms. Gray’s comment that a gas station use could probably going on the site, if the other aspects of the ordinance were met. He stated the use is permitted, subject to special conditions, providing both sides work together to minimize the concerns of the citizens.

Mr. Donnellon was aware that the height of the clock tower did exceeded the ordinance requirement, however, he hoped the value of the design would be recognized. He stated the driveway approaches would be a problem for the site regardless of the use. He felt these issues could be dealt with.

Member Koneda suggested that the applicant look into the development options used by the Grand River Avenue and Beck car wash. He stated that site also had difficulties with the overheard door space and the thoroughfare. He commented that they would have sent a negative recommendation to ZBA, mainly because of the efforts made by other sites to alleviate this same problem. If the ZBA does not grant the variances on March 6, 2001, he suggested the applicant take advantage of the time to revise their plan before coming back Planning Commission on March 21, 2001.

VOTE ON PM-01-02-029


Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None



This retail project is located in Section 15, west of Donelson between 12 Mile Road and I-96. The site is zoned Regional Center District (R-C). The applicant is seeking a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Chris Gobel, of Taylor Scott Architects, requested a Section Nine Facade Waiver. He stated it would be for Building B of the Fountain Walk Development. He presented the façade board to the commission.

Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval of the façade changes subject to the comments from the façade consultant.

Mr. Necci stated the application is for a revision to change the previously shown cast stone to a masonry block material along the base of the building. He felt this was a minor change and not visually significant on the overall scope of the building. He recommended approval based on the consistency of the original approval. He expressed his concern of there being a succession of such revisions. He clarified that he was not diminishing the recommendation however, he stated the caution that would be taken with incremental changes to the overall project. He noted the project was approved under a set of renderings of the overall project. He explained with the several minor changes, the risk of the overall could be compromised slowly.


Member Mutch stated Building B appeared to be the most visible element of the entire development. He asked Mr. Necci if he agreed?

Mr. Necci agreed.

Member Mutch was concerned of the lack of "break up" in the façade. He continued that there would be large expanses of uniform materials without delineation or counter materials.

Mr. Necci stated that the darker material is brick. He noted it was difficult to see on the rendering, but there are pilasters and delineation of brick area.

Member Mutch was still concerned that the façade was not being broken up. He was not certain if this would be an aesthetic issue. He asked the durability of the aluminum that is to be incorporated on the major entrances?

Mr. Necci stated the shop finished aluminum has a baked on carbon finish, a high durability finish. He stated some of the elements could be field painted, which would be a maintenance issue. Mr. Necci indicated that the applicant had not clarified this information and show it as painted metal. He stated the shape and character indicated that they may be field painted and would therefore pose a concern.

Member Mutch noted the east elevation, a minor entrance to the center facing I-96, also having a lot of unbroken façade. He felt it appeared stark. He asked if it was appropriate to break up this façade?

Chairperson Piccinini asked if the anything had been changed except for the split block?

Mr. Necci answered, no.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if all the materials were approved previously?

Mr. Necci answered yes.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if there was a significant appearance with the stone and the split block?

Mr. Necci answered no. He explained that the appearance was consistent with both and he noted it was a small percentage of the overall building. He stated it was interpreted as a minor change and it was consistent with the original architecture.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if the waiver was for the split block only?

Mr. Necci answered yes.

Chairperson Piccinini stated the issues that were being raised were not regarding the split block, therefore, she asked the city attorney if additional issues could be re-raise other than the waiver?

Mr. Fisher answered it could only be in the form of a comment.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified to the commissioners that the only issue on the table is the split face block.

Member Nagy stated her concern regarding Mr. Necci’s comment about the minor changes. She questioned how they commission would be able to grant one and not all the requests that may follow?

Member Landry was concerned with the approval of more than double of what the ordinance would permit. He stated that he would have not have voted in favor of the percentage of Dryvit that was approved.

Member Koneda asked if aluminum was a permitted building material for the façade?

Mr. Necci answered, yes. He stated this was part of the vision glass area and the vision glass area is not subject to the ordinance.

Member Nagy asked the architect the reasoning for the change with the materials?

Mr. Gobel answered this was a constructability issue. He stated the building to the highest corner is fifty-five (55) feet tall. He stated there was a need for a more substantial material to hold up the weight as opposed to the originally proposed material. He stated the original material did not have the means or mass to support the brick, therefore they needed a more suitable material. Mr. Gobel showed the commission the two (2) samples of brick. He stated it was a hemlock green with a finish and a multi-year warrantee to withstand weathering.

Member Nagy asked if there was a material that met both the ordinance and the strength that he was looking for?

Mr. Gobel stated with substantial additional cost, there would be another material. He stated they would need to ledge with steel the brick above to support.

Member Nagy clarified if there would then be two (2) facets to using the split block, one being for strength and the other for cost efficiency?

Mr. Gobel answered, yes.

Member Koneda asked how the cost of the proposed change compared to the original material?

Mr. Gobel stated there is a cost savings for Sears to use the split faced block as opposed to the proposed material. He added the commission is now seeing the attempts being made to conform with the original plans of the Fountain Walk Development. He noted this was the reason for the increments of revisions. He did not foresee more changes occurring on the building.

Member Landry asked Mr. Gobel when they arrived at the conclusion that the split faced block would be a better foundation verses the stone to uphold the brick?

Mr. Gobel stated the first set of construction drawings were concluded in October of the previous year.

Member Landry asked when the plan was brought before the commission and approved with no split faced block?

Ms. Brock stated the original Fountain Walk Approval submittal was November 1999.

Mr. Gobel was not certain if Sears and the Great Indoors were a part of the development.

Member Mutch stated that it appeared the original façade approved was not feasible and it also did not include this applicant. He felt that the original façade approved may have been preliminary ideas. Member Mutch stated that he had not supported the project from the beginning and therefore, he would not be in support of waivers for it.

Member Kocan asked the applicant to clarify which layouts faced north, east and west?

Mr. Gobel stated the building elevation four (4) is east, building elevation three (3) is the west, building elevation two (2) is the north and building elevation one (1) is the south.

Member Richards asked if the split faced block was as durable as the material it was to replace?

Mr. Gobel stated it would be more durable. He added it is a fifty (50) year material.

Member Richards clarified if the applicant was insinuating that the life of the façade was increased?

Mr. Gobel answered, yes.


Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, FAILS (3-4): To grant a Section Nine Facade Waiver for The Great Indoors SP 00-60




VOTE ON PM-01-02-030 FAILS

Yes: Koneda, Piccinini, Richards

No: Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy


Mr. Fisher suggested that the commission make another motion because he did not find the reason(s) for denial. He stated if the request has been denied, there does need to be reason should it be challenged at a future date.

Member Nagy stated her vote of "No" was because the split faced block did not meet the ordinance requirement.


Moved by Nagy, seconded by Landry, FAILS (3-4): To deny Great Indoors SP 00-60 façade waiver due to the fact that the ordinance requires zero (0) split faced block and the applicant has requested split faced block


Member Mutch stated that he voted against the approval for the façade waiver because he was not satisfied with the façade or the changes. He stated he would support another motion to approval.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that she would not support a motion for denial.

Member Nagy stated Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to clarify the reason for those who voted no.

Mr. Fisher stated the condition of the record after the last motion was a denial with no reason. He felt the records would be more appropriate if there was a reason for the denial.

Member Nagy asked how it would make sense if there was now a motion to approve?

Mr. Fisher stated if the motion to deny fails, then there would need to be a motion for reconsideration.

Member Koneda stated he would not vote for the denial.

Member Landry stated he was in support of the denial because the ordinance does not permit split faced block. He stated his concern that the applicant may have made representations to the commission about what the façade would look like through discussion and approval and now the situation has changed. He also shared similar concerns that Mr. Necci expressed.

Member Mutch clarified his position. He stated he voted for the denial based on the general façade of the project. He stated he would not support the motion on the floor and would make a motion to reconsider.

Member Nagy asked if it was the Planning Commission’s responsibility to determine the material durability with regard to the ordinance?

Mr. Fisher stated the Commission is being requested to make a waiver. He stated in addition to the number of issues to be taken into consideration, durability would (tape ends).

Member Kocan asked if there were materials that would be as strong or stronger that would fit within the ordinance?

Mr. Necci stated there are several products that exist between split faced block and cast stone panels. He stated cast stone panels, similar to limestone are the same product being used on the Home Depot façade. He explained that when the cast stone is damp/wet, it has a modeling effect. The applicant is requesting a high quality split faced block with intricate color, with the sparkling granite aggregate. He stated it has been approved as a simulated stone base several times in the past. He stated in this case, it is being used as an enhancement to the brick. Therefore, regardless of the material, the visual effect to achieve is the stone base to the building. Mr. Necci explained that whether it is a sixteen (16) or three (3) foot wide unit, if it were cast panels, is not as important as the color and the visual effect created. He noted a product that would be visually equal to the proposed product. He stated it is a masonry product, with the same finish as cast stone, with a flat limestone finish. He was not certain, but he thought it might be cost effective by comparison to the split faced block. He suggested this product as a compromise. However, he felt he split faced block was a suitable. He stressed that this waiver has been granted in the past at least four (4) times that he could recall.

Member Richards felt if the architect accepted the façade and the durability being equivalent, he supported the waiver.


Yes: Kocan, Landry, Nagy

No: Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards



Moved Mutch, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (4-3): To reconsider approval for a Section Nine Facade Waiver for The Great Indoors SP 00-60


Yes: Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: Kocan, Landry, Nagy


Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (4-3): To approve the Section Nine Facade Waiver for the Great Indoors SP 00-60


Member Mutch stated that although he would vote in favor of the Section Nine Facade Waiver, he was not satisfied with the façade. He did not think the denial of the Section Nine Facade Waiver would accomplish what the commission was seeking to accomplish with the project. He stated what was initially proposed and what was initially approved did not correlate to what the project participants were seeking to do on the site. However, he will vote for the waiver due to the legality of it.

Member Landry stated that he was concerned with the Façade Ordinance and the commission’s handling of the ordinance. He stated the ordinance states "zero", and the commission has ignored that. Therefore, he questioned if the commission would ever uphold the façade ordinance? He stated if the commission did not like the ordinance, it needed to be rid of. However, he felt as long as the ordinance was written, it should be upheld as it is written. Therefore, he would not support the waiver. He felt the ordinance should be reviewed.

Chairperson Piccinini informed Member Landry that the Façade Ordinance is currently at Implementation.


Yes: Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: Kocan, Landry, Nagy


This project is located in Section 4, north of West Road and east of the City of Wixom on Ryan Road. The 1.83 acre site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Oleg Amcheslavsky, representative for Paramount Investments, proposed a twenty-eight thousand (28,000) square foot industrial building in Beck North Industrial Park.

Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. She noted there were minor site plan issues that could be addressed at final. One (1) of the minor items would be the submission of a lighting plan.

In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval. She stated the applicant needed a waiver for the Design and Construction Standards for the minimum opposite side driveway offset. The property opposite is a Paramount proposal for a parcel on the north side of Ryan. She noted these two (2) properties did not meet the required opposite side driveway separation. She stated there is a favorable direction of the offset and the presumed infrequent cross over traffic. She explained to the west was a cul-de-sac therefore, most of the traffic would leave the site toward the intersection of Hudson Drive and exit the industrial park. She noted because there did not seem to be a significant problem with the offset, she supported the waiver. Ms. Wyrosdick commented that the internal radius and parking design modifications could be address at final.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the landscape plan. She stated her January 19, 2001 review letter listed several of the items she would be looking for at final. She noted that the actual landscape proposed is more attractive than the drawing presented to the commission. She stated there are not woodlands on this parcel.

Ms. Weber recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. She stated the applicant would need to provide the off-site water main prior to final site plan approval. She stated the other comments were minor and could be addressed at final.

Mr. Necci stated the building is a Region 3 and is in full compliance with the façade ordinance.

Chairperson Piccinini 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 item corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) The proposed 6 inch fire protection water main shall be controlled by a gate valve that is in a well.


Member Richards asked if it was possible to move the driveway to align with the opposite driveway?

Ms. Wyrosdick stated this was proposed to the applicant when both parcels were brought in for conceptual development review. Another alternative was to rotate the building and placing the driveway further away from the proposed. The applicant felt that this option would be detrimental due to the design of the building and asked the consultants to reconsider the options. She noted that due to the location of the site and the cul-de-sac, they are able to support the waiver and the applicant’s request to maintain the design of the two (2) buildings. She stated the reason for the offset of the driveway was due to the north and south property line not being parallel.

Member Richards asked if this was the best alternate solution?

Ms. Wyrosdick stated the alternative of "swooping" the driveway would cause conflict with the truck access to the site. She stated their preference was to rotate the building, however, they understood the applicant’s concerns of redesigning the building. She stated the applicant preferred the entrance to the building to face the oncoming traffic off of Hudson verses facing the end of the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Amcheslavsky stated the proposed building is not a typical industrial building. He described it as a high end industrial building with a lot of potential office. He felt if the entrance faced a cul-de-sac it would be detrimental to the ability to lease the spec buildings. He stated if the building was rotated around, the warehouse would be facing the street and he did not feel this would be appealing to the high end industrial market.

Member Richards asked if there was a secondary access road?

Mr. Amcheslavsky answered, no.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated there were multiple stubs. She noted this applicant is the first on the site with the exception to parcel fourteen (14), the Sun Tec parcel. She stated it would not be feasible to have two (2) curb cuts to provide secondary access. In the past, they have requested the applicant to provide stubs to the parcels and when the parcels are developed the stubs would be continued to create the secondary access.

Member Richards noted the comment that moving of the driveway would hinder the truck traffic. He stated when the stubs are used, it would also provide access for trucks thereby creating a better traffic condition. He asked the difficulty to be demonstrated that the truck would have if the driveways were lined up? He asked if this would be a radius issue?

Ms. Wyrosdick stated this would need to be reviewed. She noted there have not been conceptual drawings for that proposal. She noted again that it was common for stubs to be provided until future development of adjacent property could tie in and provide secondary access. She stated the primary reason for the secondary access would be for emergency vehicle and not trucks.

Member Richards asked what size trucks/vehicles the applicant anticipated to be entering the site?

Mr. Amcheslavsky stated that because it is an industrial building and there is a double truck well, there would be two (2) sixty (60) foot long trucks coming on the property.

Member Koneda asked if the site plan for the property across Ryan Road had come before the commission?

Ms. Wyrosdick stated the two (2) project were submitted concurrently, however, there were other issues with parcel 13 and it has not come before the commission.

Member Koneda stated the applicant did not have a driveway spacing problem because they are the first to submit. Therefore, he stated the parcel 13 site plan would have the driveway spacing issue. He questioned why there was a need for a driveway spacing waiver for a condition that does not yet exist?

Ms. Wyrosdick stated at the time of review, it was an issue. She agreed that the issue would become parcel 13’s.

Member Koneda clarified that the Preliminary Site Plan could be granted without granting the driveway spacing waiver and instead address that issue with Parcel 13. Member Koneda suggested deferring this item.


Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for SP 00-73 contingent upon all consultant’s recommendations and conditions.


Member Mutch asked if there was sufficient space to fit the thirty-six (36) inch parking berm fit within the ten (10) foot setback?

Ms. Lemke stated it was not actually thirty-six (36) inch that drops down to thirty (30) inch because there was only the building with the exception of in front of the parking spaces where there is not room for a berm. She stated there is a low hedge there to meet the same requirement.

Member Mutch asked regarding the southerly secondary access. He asked if there was a concern that traffic or persons would use this access through the parcel to the south to access West Road? He asked if this should have restrictions? He stated with the two (2) secondary accesses between the two (2) parcels would create a though route to West Road.

Ms. Wyrosdick agreed that Member Mutch had a good point. However, she did not find this to be an issue until the property and the connection to the south was developed. Since the development of the property to the south was not known at this time, she did not want to take the stub, or the opportunity of a secondary access away from that property. She stated at this point, they were attempting to make a secondary access available to all of the parcels adjacent to the proposed property.


Member Mutch agreed with Member Koneda in that some of the issues would become the burden of those that follow on the adjacent properties.

Member Kocan asked if the Paramount owned the abutting properties?

Mr. Amcheslavsky stated that Paramount only owns the parcel across the street.

Member Kocan asked if the design of the building gave the flexibility to design the interior appropriately and stay within the ordinance?

Mr. Amcheslavsky stated they would have the flexibility to offer client’s requests of square footage as well as carpet color and wall color. He stated that once the interior is cemented, the options become limited.

Member Kocan asked if the off-site water main would be provided?

Mr. Amcheslavsky answered, yes.

Member Kocan stated she was pleased that there were not a Section Nine Facade Waiver being requested.


Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None


Proposed amendments to add Section 3.7(c), revise 3.12 and add new Section 6 (and renumber existing 7).

Chairperson Piccinini stated she would like to have two (2) separate discussion for each section and two (2) separate motions.

Section 3.7 (c), revised 3.12

Mr. Fisher stated this addition would provide a cut-off time for requests to be made for an adjournment for matters that are public hearings and those not public hearings. He stated this would allow an applicant to request up to two (2) automatic adjournments for matters that are not public hearings. He stated the reason would be to prevent the unfairness to the public attending the meeting and only to find that the hearing would not be presented.

Chairperson Piccinini added that Section 3.12 item (b) needed to be rephrased legally by Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Fisher stated Section 3.12 (b) currently indicates that the delay could be the result of the city not placing the matter on the agenda and thereafter having the conclusion that it was withdrawn. He noted the modification of the language would read: "IF AN APPLICANT DOES NOT REQUEST THAT A SITE PLAN, MEETING ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUB SECTION (a) ABOVE, BE PLACED ON THE COMMISSION AGENDA WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS OF THE DATE THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL WAS SUBMITTED…"

Member Nagy clarified if Mr. Fisher was changing the first sentence?

Mr. Fisher stated yes, it would be the first phrase.

Chairperson Piccinini referred to Section 1 (c) "…or petitioner is received by the Planning Office no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Monday before the meeting…" She noted that at the Implementation Meeting she suggested that it read the day of instead of the Monday before. Her reasoning was if the applicant was to request an adjournment, it would most likely be an unplanned event. She explained that it would not be often an applicant would know of an emergency or conflict two (2) days prior. Chairperson Piccinini felt this would give the applicant more flexibility.

Member Nagy clarified if Chairperson Piccinini was referring to the day of the Planning Commission meeting?

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct. She felt this was a more realistic to most situations for an adjournment.

Member Koneda agreed with Chairperson Piccinini. He stated there would not be a way to notify the public of the change with either date of the request. Therefore, giving the applicant up to the Planning Commission meeting date was appropriate and he supported that change. He felt it was important to note the reason for the two (2) changes was because there was no language addressing the cut-off or managing those who withdrew at the last minute. He stated when an applicant did not show up for the meeting, the commission had to assume that they were asking for a postponement and had no mechanism to handle the situation. These changes would basically allow the planning commission to take action on the matter if the applicant does not request an adjournment.

Member Nagy stated she could support the change that Chairperson Piccinini suggested. She felt it was reasonable.

Member Mutch disagreed with the change. He corrected Member Koneda regarding the first section. Member Mutch stated the section deals with matters that are not for public hearing. He did not feel that 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting was sufficient notice for many reasons. He stated it was not for resident notification, but for the consultants and staff notification. He explained that often they may be coming for one (1) agenda item and 4:00 p.m. did not allow the sufficient time to notify them that they would not need to attend. He felt a Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. may be comparable. He did not understand the logic of having a deadline if it was only 4:00 p.m. the same day of the meeting.

Chairperson Piccinini stated with emergencies, the applicant would not always know earlier than the proposed time.

Member Mutch stated the commission would have the discretion if there was a legitimate emergency, they would be able to make the exception(s) needed. He restated that the intent was to ensure the department and those involved in the process sufficient notice of an adjournment. He did not feel that 4:00 p.m. met the intent they were attempting to be established.

Member Kocan suggested no later than noon the day of the meeting. She was asked if an agenda item is adjourned, would mean the item is postponed or is it dropped?

Chairperson Piccinini answered it would mean that it is dropped.

Mr. Fisher suggested sending to the Implementation Committee Section 3.12 (a)(2). He stated the purpose would be to give the commission the right to not place an item on the agenda until ready to hear it. He stated the intent would be to avoid overburdening any one (1) meeting to a late hour. He suggested adding another condition for not scheduling a meeting such as if appropriate staff and consultant reviews have not been received. He gave the language example of "the commission reserves the right to limit its agenda so that meetings can end at the established adjourned time and so that the appropriate staff or consultant reviews may be provided."

Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Brock to elaborate on this matter.

Ms. Brock stated that the applicant tonight was advised that they had received negative recommendations and it was suggested to them to not move forward. She explained that the applicant has the right to move forward. She stated if the applicant chooses to move forward, they write a letter requesting to move forward despite the negative reviews and the advisement not to.

Chairperson Piccinini felt this would be a good item to send to the Implementation Committee, however, she did not feel comfortable adding it to the section tonight. She asked if the commission agreed?

Member Koneda suggested sending the proposed amendments back to Implementation to update it with the changes. He apologized for the misunderstanding of to Section 3.7 (c). He agreed that enough time should be allowed to notify the staff and consultants. He stated he supported the suggestion of the day before the meeting at closing as a deadline. He suggested items 3.7 and 3.12 return to the Implementation Committee.


Moved by Koneda, seconded by Landry, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send Section 3.7 (c), Section 3.12 back to the Implementation Committee for revisions.


Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Section 6 (and renumber existing 7).

Chairperson Piccinini suggested that Section 6 be sent to the Rules Committee. She did not want the topic to be premature to the discussion with Council of what the commission was attempting to establish regarding communication.



Moved by Richards, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send the new Section 6 to the Rules Committee


Member Kocan asked if the paragraph would remove her right as a resident? Since she was now a Planning Commissioner, she asked if she would no longer be permitted to speak as a resident? She understood she was not permitted to speak as a representative of the Planning Commission, however, she did not feel that her rights as a resident should be taken from her.

Member Mutch agreed with Member Kocan regarding the legal rights. However, legally he understood a planning commissioner represents themselves and the city. Therefore, the commissioner and the city could be prejudiced legally by comments made. He asked the city attorney to address this matter. Member Mutch agreed that this item needed to be sent back to the Implementation Committee.

Mr. Fisher understood the concern. He stated he was involved in a case in which a planning commissioner was made public statements outside the scope of the planning commission and then had the same project before the planning commission. When the project was denied, the property owner challenged the right of the member to sit on the commission due to the public statements made outside the context of the planning commission.

Member Nagy asked if the text could be re-worded by Mr. Fisher?

Chairperson Piccinini indicated when an item is sent to the Rules Committee the changes and modification are made by the legal.


Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None


  2. Chairperson Piccinini felt the information from the legal briefing were excellent. She recapped the suggestions made regarding motions. She stated she would like to have a motion to send this section to the Rules Committee. She commented on the legal briefing section regarding the Conflict of Interests. She noted the City Resolution of 1991 - for the conduct of officers, employees and consultants along with the bylaws that address this issue. She requested there be a motion to send this to the Rules Committee for review also.



    Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send consideration on the motions that suggest the changes by our legal counsel and suggest the changes or discussion of the conflict of interest section from the legal counsel from the legal briefing.


    Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

    No: None


    Member Landry stated the issue was raised to him regarding the manner in which Ms. Piccinini exceeded to the Chair of the commission. He continued that it was not in complete comportment with the Planning Commission bylaws. He stated if the body were to revote for the Chair, he would vote for Ms. Piccinini. He felt the concern may have been because the bylaws indicate the term of an officer is one (1) year and there was not an election last summer. Member Landry asked Mr. Fisher if he felt an election should be held? If so, he stated he would move to amend the agenda and have an election. He nominated Ms. Piccinini as the Chair. He wanted to ensure that the concern was properly addressed.

    Mr. Fisher stated he was notified of the unusual scheduling and that the minutes indicated an election was not conducted. Therefore, he felt it was appropriate to have an election. He stated this election would involve an election of officers to serve until the next election in July.

    Chairperson Piccinini indicated an election was held for Member Canup as Vice Chair. Therefore, she clarified if his term would hold for July and if the revote would be for the Chair and the Secretary?

    Member Richards requested that the election be held with a full Planning Commission was present. He indicated it would be important to place it on the agenda for next meeting.

    Member Koneda felt a motion to defer the election to the next meeting was appropriate. He did not feel it was necessary to amend the agenda and include it immediately.


    Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: to put the election of officers on the agenda for the next meeting, the first meeting March. March 7, 2001.


    Member Mutch supported the motion. He felt the matter should be addressed with a full board. He understood the concern, however, since there are no action items remaining on the agenda, he did not find a cause for an immediate election.


    Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

    No: None

  1. Summary of purpose of each committee
  2. Present issues for each committee
  3. Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting date
  4. Appointments to committees

Chairperson Piccinini requested information be sent to the new members to enable them to decide on appointments they may be interested in seeking. She noted the information would include the summary and purpose of each committee and would be enclosed in the next planning commission packet. The present issues for each committee would also be included in the packet. She stated a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting date would be set after the next meeting, to allow for a full committee. She noted a dated needed to be set due to the issues raised at the joint meeting with City Council and routine updating issues. Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Brock to set the date.

Ms. Brock stated a vacancy existed on the committee at this time.

Chairperson Piccinini asked the date of the Master Plan and Zoning meeting to be set after the March 7, 2001 meeting.

Ms. Brock stated the current members on the Master Planning and Zoning Committee are Member Mutch, Chairperson Piccinini and Member Canup. She noted the committee used to meet on Monday.

Chairperson Piccinini stated she was not available Monday and suggested March 21, 2001 prior to the Implementation Committee. She suggested a 5:30 p.m. meeting time.

Member Mutch stated this date/time was good for his schedule.



Member Kocan stated there are twenty-nine (29) opportunities to serve on a committee. She hoped that everyone would not stay positioned and that all the committees would be up for reappointment. She stated this would afford everyone an opportunity to serve on at least one (1) committee (according to the bylaws). She asked the planning commission to prioritize and allow the new members to have the opportunity to participate on some of the committees.


Member Mutch stated he was glad that the property at East Lake Drive and Fourteen Mile would be addressed at the upcoming Master Planning and Zoning Committee meeting.






















Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:28 p.m.




Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None




Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant


Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

March 2, 2001


Date Approved: March 7, 2001