View Agenda for this meeting

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2001 AT 7:30 P.M.


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


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




ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Director of Planning and Community Development David Evancoe, Façade Engineer Chris Fox, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke and City Attorney Tom Schultz






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




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




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

No: None
















Clay Pearson introduced the City’s new Director of Planning and Community Development David Evancoe. His educational experience includes a Master Degree in Urban Planning and a Bachelor Degree in Landscape Architecture, both from the University of Illinois. Mr. Evancoe previously employed as a Senior Urban Planner for the City of Peoria Illinois. Peoria Illinois has a population of 113,000.


David Evancoe, Director of Planning and Community Development, thanked the Planning Commission and the staff for the opportunity to be part of the City of Novi.



Presentation by Greg Capote and Blair Bowman.

Blair Bowman, 43700 Expo Center Drive, represented Novi Expo Center Inc. He noted the expansion and enhancement of the Expo Center Program in Novi, Michigan, to include the relocation and construction of a new Expo Center. He noted there were ordinance issues that needed to be addressed. He requested that the current Exposition Ordinance be reviewed to determined if the revisions or modifications needed to be made. He commented that over the past nine (9) years, he had the opportunity to have an experienced-based approach with the newly drafted ordinance for the Expo Center operation. Mr. Bowman stated that he understood that the first step to the updates would be to send the issue to the Implementation Committee.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that if the commission felt this was appropriate, a motion would need to be made to send the issue to the Implementation Committee.


Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo to explain the time line for the Grand River Corridor Study, which includes the Expo Center property. He felt that this information would aid the Planning Commission, with the contemplated changes to the Ordinance, in keeping in agreement with the Planning Study update.

Mr. Arroyo answered it is currently at the data collection phase with the examination of existing conditions. He added a series of maps and observations are being prepared at this time. The next step in the process, tentatively scheduled for the first week in May, would be a public input process, which would allow those located along the corridor to provide ideas of development. Following would be the planning stage, to develop recommendations and components of the plan element. He anticipated this work to be completed and submitted to the Planning Commission by the end of June.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo recommended they proceed with the potential ordinance amendments for the Expo District to ensure there would be consistency between the two efforts?

Mr. Arroyo felt there were elements that could be examined while the planning process is ongoing. He stated some items might be separate from the corridor and area plan analysis. He noted that the information presented today might be of assistance to the commission as they move forward. He did not find any reason to delay the analysis of the district.


Moved by Richards, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send the Expo Center, Exposition Ordinance to the Implementation Committee to determine if any changes need to be made in the Ordinance.


Gerald Fisher, City Attorney, asked if the Planning Commission and the Implementation Committee had sufficient detail of what is proposed to perform an adequate review?

Mr. Arroyo indicated that both Mr. Bowman and the Implementation members would input suggestions as part of the discussion. He noted if there was a need for additional information, it could be collected as the process continued.

Gerald Fisher asked if the need of the proposed Novi Expo Center was clarified? He suggested that the dialog and focus be directed clearly to define what may be necessary and what may be desired, etc…

Member Churella suggested that the City indicate to the Implementation Committee the needs they would like to have included in the Ordinance. He stated this would provide guidelines for the Committee to follow. He felt a guideline should be provided from both the City and Mr. Bowman.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that a letter was provided to the Planning Department regarding the specific ordinance issues that needed to be addressed. She added there were additional items from the Master Plan.

Mr. Bowman anticipated this being the process and had framed the issues in the ordinance. He understood the City’s needs. He stated the uniqueness of a private entity being funded and operated by a governmental entity. He stated his confidence in the progress that would take place.

Member Landry felt this process should be moved along as adequately as possible. He clarified if the list of Mr. Bowman’s revisions were submitted to the City?

Chairperson Piccinini stated she was not certain if both the Planning Department and Mr. Bowman created the list.

Mr. Bowman interjected that the list was complied solely by him on a rushed basis.

Beth Brock indicated a memo was included in the commissioner’s packets.

Chairperson Piccinini felt there was sufficient information to start the process.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini

No: None


  2. 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 approvals and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

    David Donnellon represented property owners Susan Haidar and Khalil Kassem. He stated he would be available to answer additional questions as he understood this meeting was a continuation of the previous public hearing.

    Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant indicated the memorandum dated March 16, 2001, is a reiteration of the standards that are included in the Zoning Ordinance for Special Land Use Approval. He noted there were specific Special Land Use Standards that apply only to gas stations in the District along with the general Special Land Use Standards. He stated the areas that have been identified would need additional information, studies or modifications to meet ordinance requirements. The Ordinance specifies that all Special Land Uses shall be accompanied by a noise study prepared by a certified noise engineer. This would specify and demonstrate that the use would have a reasonable likely hood of compliance with the ordinance standards. He stated this standard has not been met. He noted that there were issues regarding the preparation and the documentation indicating if the ordinance standards would be met at the residential property lines. These may be abutting or in close proximity to the site. He stated that the proposed use is not a use allowed by right, but a use that is permitted only if the standards are met. He stated that this would be a discretionary decision on behalf of the Planning Commission. He reminded the commission that the adherence with the noise standards is a requirement and should considered as part of their deliberation of the appropriateness of the Special Land Use. Mr. Arroyo noted that the Exterior Lighting Standards were amended since the original submittal of their application. A lighting plan is now a mandatory requirement. If a property is adjacent to residential, the lighting plan needs to be submitted with the preliminary site plan. He indicated that the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with all issues related to the Lighting Plan with the preliminary site plan. He informed the commission that they could request that this be provided now or at final site plan. He commented that the amendment has effected numerous project site plans that would be coming before the commission in the future for approval. Mr. Arroyo indicated a ZBA Variance is required for the proposed car wash overhead Exit door because it faces a major thoroughfare. A ZBA Variance is required for the proposed clock tower, which exceeds the maximum height limit in the B-2 District (53 feet proposed – proposed 30 feet maximum permitted).


    David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant indicated in the review letter dated January 15, 2001 that the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility. He did not have any additional comments.


    Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect did not recommend approval in her letters dated January 15, 2001 due to the required variance. Parking Area Requirement (Section 2509.8) – The landscaping required to break up the expanse of interior pavement has not been provided. Interior space of island square footage and plantings have not been met. This required twenty-two (22) canopy trees have not been met. Only nine (9) canopy trees can count toward required trees and only 1,032 square footage of the 2,294 square footage is shown. Ms. Lemke indicated that she did not support the variance.




    Member Churella indicated seven (7) objections at the previous public hearing for Novi Express. James Korte, Tom McCampbell, Fred Campbell, James Vlk, D. Willacker, Dianne Troye and Terri Vlk. He indicated that Sarah Gray approved of the project with the condition that all of the standards were met.




    Lena Kocsis, 1035 Walled Lake Villa Drive #205, wrote approval for "convenience".


    Florence M. Caane, 1035 Walled Lake Villa Drive #612, wrote "This project sounds good to me. Residents of Walled Lake Villa would be happy to have the convenience store and restaurant. The gas station and car wash would be great. I and senior citizens - as many of us are in the area – I would like a full service gas area if feasible."


    Mary Strang, Walled Lake Villa #626, wrote " Please try to preserve as many of the trees on the property as possible."




    Teresa Vlk, 45000 Bayview #1, wrote due to "Traffic problems, water drainage and the gas station would will effect the value of my home."


    Craig F. Brobauer, 44800 Bayview Drive #33, wrote "I strongly object to the referenced project for the following reasons: 1) Traffic is already severely congested at this intersection. 2) This is the only patch of land that currently separates a commercial and private community. In addition it is a natural boundary. 3) A fuel station is not needed there are two located within ½ mile at Beck Road and Pontiac Trail intersection."


    Elaine M. Meaney, 45000 Bayview Drive #4, wrote "1) It will effect real estate values adversely. 2) It is too close to the Walled Lake and could be a source of pollution (gas leakage). 3) It is not needed as a public service as there are similar structures close by."


    Kevin W. Dittmer, 44850 Bayview Drive #25, wrote "Congestion on West Park Dive is currently bad enough. I often need to wait up to five light changes to turn right into Windward Bay entrance (traveling north on West Park Drive). Developing this corner will bring traffic to an unacceptable and dangerous level. Road expansion will only draw more traffic to this once quiet corner. The fumes, traffic, noise and from both the restaurant and gas station will pollute the air and water around our homes. Please realize the EPA or other government agencies may provide an adherence level that is way below what those of us that actually have to smell and live next to it would like. Development should better a community and not detract. There is certainly no shortage of what this proposed provides already in the area. Please do not allow this to proceed."


    Janice Bringard, 1035 Walled Lake Drive, wrote "This is a dangerous corner now! It will be so much worse! It is a blind corner on Pontiac Trail! Please do not put a gas station there."


    A. Nels Carlson, 49 Windward Bay, 44700 Bayview Drive, wrote "I object to this proposed change. We (the City of Novi) does not require another gas station convenience outlet. Traffic at this intersection is already congested. If this request is granted traffic will be further impeded from the residential areas adjacent."


    Diane V. Green, 44750 Bayview Drive #37, wrote "I object to this proposal because it will cause more congestion at the corner. It is hard to leave to West Park Drive as it is certain times of the day. We don’t need another gas station and convenience store and car wash."


    June R. Hildebrandt, 1035 Walled Lake Villa Drive #108, wrote "The current traffic pattern is already over extended. With the coming extensions of the M-5 onto Pontiac Trail, it will become more stressed. Two senior citizens residences will suffer form the gasoline fumes – hundreds of older residents live within a short distance of the property. It is already difficult to cross Pontiac Trail on foot or a car."


    Cecilia Shura, 1635 Walled Lake Villa Drive, wrote "We have sufficient gas stations and grocery stores and car washes. Why exploit a nice town. We have enough of all we need in the form of businesses. Keep what’s left of Walled Lake quaint and nice town. Why exploit. Besides it would create traffic and danger."


    Rosaria Catalanotti, 1035 Walled Lake Villa #209, wrote "I would like to object to the gasoline fumes carried by the wind and to the added congestion of traffic on an already busy intersection. Is it possible to have the plan of this proposal showing the entrance and exit of the project? Additional comments: The majority of the residents in WLV are seniors, many already living with respiratory problems. However, convenience store, car wash, and fast food restaurants can be attractive. Convenience that your proposal would benefit the majority without causing undue discomfort to the nearby businesses and residents."


    Vladimir and Galina Gilfman, 44800 Bayview Drive #34, wrote " We do not want and do not need this project in this area, so close to our homes. This project has just minuses and no pluses for all of us who elves here. It is going to be noise, area around this project is going to be dirty. It is bad for the value of our property impossible to exit from our subdivision and ugly to look at."


    Michael Davis, 1256 E. West Maple #8, wrote, "A dangerous intersection for a gas station, already enough gas station in the area."

    Jeanette Davis, 1035 Walled Lake Villa #526, wrote "This is a poor area to put a gas station too much traffic on that corner."


    Thomas and Diane McCampbell, 45000 Bayview Drive #6, wrote "I am incredulous at even the proposal to erect a commercial structure at this site. Do any of YOU live in this quickly-becoming-congested section of Novi? Aren’t there State of Michigan issues involved – regulations which prevent such uncontrolled sprawl so near a LAKE? Can you possibly envisage the negative impact such a complex will have on property values in the area? Ruminate on the TRAFFIC today; as well as summer visitors and the CHILDREN down the street at the middle school. This is a total, unmitigated mistake: there is NO need! Residents are not clamoring for greater gasoline ACCESS! Rather, just the opposite: less, less, LESS development in this area! Tempers are high – this is wrong. Do you really live in the same city we do? It is impossible to imagine you live in north Novi. Are Novi RESIDENTS being considered carefully in this proposal? What type of city are we "planning"? One where, like us, long-time residents are anxious to move because we are imitating SOUTHFIELD, Troy or Birmingham: overdeveloped, undervalued and CONGESTED! WE strongly object to what you are doing to our city (e.g. the current proposal); and will in-turn be equally as pertinacious in making certain stops. If you will not listen to the justified complaints of ordinary proles who inhabit the are they YOU should be replaced."


    Judith Grant, 44900 Bayview Drive #16, wrote "The corner for this proposed project is already a traffic nightmare. Anyone turning left from West Park Drive into the Windward Bay condominium complex is in danger of being rear-ended, s there is very little clearance form the corner to the entrance. Also the entrance is blocked 95% of the time by traffic waiting for the light at Pontiac Trail and West Park Drive to change. If traffic is trying to turn into the new proposed project and trying to turn anywhere else there will be nowhere to wait. Everyone will be in the middle of the intersection. I also believe this is a residential area and not appropriate for business development. We have apartments, condominiums, houses and senior citizen complexes directly involved. Please do not approve this project."


    Thomas F. Jakubowski, 44700 Bayview Drive #48, wrote "As a resident of the City of Novi I am very concerned with the development planned for the Southwest corner of the intersection West Park Drive and Pontiac Trail Roads. The plans for a convenience store, gas station and/or fast food restaurant, as outlined in the notice distributed by the planning commission will certainly impact those living in the immediate area in the following ways: 1) Residents of the neighborhoods close to the property will be exposed to noise, pollution and congestion from the project. Each year the delicate balance of nature and development threatens Walled Lake with each closings and pollution warnings. Adding a facility that produces idling SUV’s and littered Big Gulp cups at the site will certainly stain this balance further. 2) The intersection proposed for the project is already congested. Continuing with the project will add to the congestion at the intersection of the proposed site. This intersection already contains entrances to a strip mall, an apartment complex, and two condominium complexes. Adding further development at the site could potentially create dangerous traffic flow scenarios. 3) West Park Drive is frequently by pedestrian year-round, because sidewalks and bike paths are lacking along this road. Adding development that can potentially add tot the traffic along West Park Drive will threaten the safety of those jogging and biking along the road side. If this development is to continue, the City of Novi and those developing the properties that add to the traffic flow along West Park Drive should fund the construction of uninterrupted sidewalks or bike paths to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Pedestrians need these paths not only along the site plan, but the entire stretch of West Park Drive spanning from Pontiac Trail to West Road. Please consider my opinions in the Public Hearing that will be held on March 21, 2001. I believe that studies of noise, pollution, traffic flow and public safety need to be further investigated before this development is allowed to continue."


    Michael Gizzi, 44900 Bayview Drive #15, wrote "I am very sorry that I will not be able to attend the scheduled meeting of March 21, 2001 to discuss this very important matter. I am a resident of Novi that would be effected by this proposal. I absolutely object to the proposed plan for construction of a self-serve gas station, convenience store, fast food restaurant and car wash at the Southwest corner of Pontiac Trail and West Park Drive. I currently reside in the Windward Bay Condominiums that are located at West Park Drive. I moved into the area 5 years for several reasons. One major reason was the peacefulness. And with this proposal the quietness and peacefulness would disappear. Other reasons I oppose this plan include; traffic would be a definite problem. That intersection (West Park Drive and Pontiac Trail) is already congested due to having only a two-lane road. There have been several accidents at this location also. We do not need more traffic. Also, the concern of pollution. The run off from all the spilled gas and oil would go into Walled Lake. This would result in an environmental issue. I hope you reconsider this proposal."


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


    Debbie Bundoff, Novi and Twelve Mile Road, stated the agenda notes the project as a 2.31 acre site, however, a consultant’s review letter indicates the site to be 1.8 acres. She asked for this to be clarified. She felt the site was too small for the proposed activity. She stated the plan indicated the car wash to be twenty-four hundred and thirty (2,430) square feet. She suggested the car wash and convenient store be reduced. She suggested a poly drain be placed around the pump and car wash to collect spills. She stated the site should not be allowed to have the automatic fills. She stated the drainage on the site routed to a ditch and eventually to the lower lands. She did not want to see a minor/major spill lead to the community watercourses.


    Ms. Lemke stated there was a typo in the review letter. She corrected the 1.8 acres to represent the regulated woodlands on the site and the 2.31 is the acreage of the site.


    Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Bluhm if he was familiar with the poly drain?


    Mr. Bluhm noted that he was not familiar with that product. He assumed it was a containment for oils and gases.


    Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Fisher if they could limit the automatic pumping clips on the gas pump?


    Mr. Fisher stated if the use was permitted and a realistic problem was presented that adversely impacted the public health, safety and welfare then a condition might be able to be posed that would be reasonably related to protect against a problem.


    Joyce Campbell, Windward Bay Condominiums, indicated her attraction to the beauty of the area. She enjoys the lake and being away from the congestion. She stated the new subdivision has already created a large amount of additional traffic. She stated entering and exiting her complex has become difficult. She noted that although there is a sign to not block the intersection, no body sees or abides by it. She did not support the new gas station. She did not find the need as there are others less than a mile away. She felt the commission would be endangering the life of the residents by approving the project. She stated the corner was already high traffic with several accidents. She asked the Planning Commission to reconsider. She felt the seniors have ample strip malls within walking distance. She stated most of the seniors do not drive and would not need a gas station.


    Michael Smith, 44850 Bayview Drive #28, stated the corner is already congested. He noted that he purchased his property three (3) years ago due to the quietness. However, the congestion and developments have been tripled. He felt the intersection should be widened. He felt the value of the property would be severely effected by the development. He asked if the project would be operating 24 hours? He stated as a resident, he felt this was a poor location for this type of project.


    Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter? Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.




    Member Mutch followed up on his question from the previous Planning Commission meeting regarding the planned hours of operation?


    David Donnellon answered the gas station would be 24 hours. However, he indicated the car wash would be open 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.


    Member Mutch clarified that the gas station would be opened 24 hours?


    David Donnellon answered, correct.


    Member Mutch asked if the fast food restaurant and the convenient store would be 24 hours?


    David Donnellon stated those uses would be integrated with the gas station and cashier counter. However, he anticipated that the sub shop activity would cease after 7:00 p.m.


    Member Mutch asked if there were projections on the traffic volumes for the gas deliveries and restaurant uses?


    Susan Hadar, owner of the Novi Express project, indicated the deliveries would be made behind the gas station to avoid blocking traffic. She indicated the frequency of delivery would be one (1) time a week. She stated the tank size holds two (2) loads, therefore, one (1) delivery would hold a weekly supply of gasoline. She noted the food and beverages would be a one (1) weekly delivery.


    Member Mutch asked what type of delivery truck would be used?


    Susan Hadar noted it would be a delivery truck similar to the Hostess or Wonder Bread truck.


    Member Mutch asked if the revised noise analysis had been submitted?


    David Donnellon answered, no. He felt this would be part of the next step in the review process. He did not anticipate approval at this meeting. He requested the meeting to be tabled to allow them to process the input from the public and the commission. He wanted to know if the car wash would be considered for approval prior to hiring a sound engineer. He requested that it be clarified if the car wash would be considered for approval if it met the sound ordinance.


    Member Mutch clarified if the applicant wished to table if he felt the Planning Commission was inclined to not approve the project?


    David Donnellon answered, yes. He wanted to address the clock tower and additional items prior to appearing before the ZBA for a variance.


    Member Mutch clarified that the B-2 Zoning Ordinance was changed to facilitate the West Market development on the Beck Road interchange.


    Mr. Arroyo noted that changes were made not only to facilitate the West Market development but also because it is a district that needed attention.


    Member Mutch clarified that West Market was an impetuous for the ordinance change?


    Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.


    Member Mutch asked if additional B-2 sites in the City were examined to find if they were compatible with the revisions of the ordinance, in light of the need to be at two (2) major thoroughfares and the permitted uses?


    Mr. Arroyo stated that he was only partially involved with this process. He noted that a different consultant was leading during that period of time. He recalled additional B-2 sites being identified, however, he did not recall the details of the specific analysis.


    Member Mutch clarified if the anticipated generation of 1800+ trips per day in a 24-hour period, with the A.M. and P.M. peak hours having 150 to 200 trips per hour?


    Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.


    Member Mutch stated after reviewing the location and proposed and associated uses, he did not support the proposal. He could not recall another B-2 use that would have a more negative impact on the surrounding residential area. He noted the aerial depicts the majority of the surrounding area as the residential. He stated the adjacent and abutting properties are apartment complexes, condominiums, single-family homes and senior complexes. He reminded the Commission of the daycare center on Ten Mile and Beck Road. It was proposed on a more traveled intersection, that they denied due to the potential negative impact. He noted the 2.3 acre proposed use would generated traffic equivalent to that of two hundred (200) homes. He stated the 24-hour operation, noise, fumes and traffic that would come with the development of the site did not have his support. Member Mutch felt if the commission was to deny the project, there needed to be further reason detailed for the denial. Member Mutch asked Mr. Fisher if the applicant could go the ZBA without a denial from the Planning Commission?


    Mr. Fisher stated that according to the City Ordinance, the applicant could not go before the ZBA for an appeal, to seek a variance from a provision that required a denial. He noted the ordinance is written to have the Planning Commission to deny the plan with the idea that the case could go before the ZBA for the variance and return to the Planning Commission.


    Member Mutch clarified that an appeal for ZBA could only be on site plan specific issues? That Special Land Use would have to go before the Circuit Court.


    Mr. Fisher answered, correct. He noted the applicant could take the case before the ZBA only if the permission is granted in the ordinance. However, City of Novi does not permit this in its ordinance.


    Member Richards expressed his concern of the driveway on Pontiac Trail. He asked if a NO LEFT TURN option has been considered?


    David Donnellon noted the comments regarding the traffic report. He stated Bircher Arroyo indicated there needed to be significant improvements in the right-of-way at both entrances. These included the moving of the West Park Drive driveway, excel/decel lanes and by pass lanes being added. He stressed that the additional improvements are not a requirement of the applicant yet, would improve the level of service to the intersection of West Park Drive and Pontiac Trail. Therefore, he did not agree with the need for a NO LEFT TURN sign due the additions of the bypass lane, two through lanes and the right turn lane for West Park Drive. He noted these are improvements that would help the intersection to function better at the expense of the applicant.


    Member Richards noted the door that would face West Park Drive. He asked how the water would drain from the car wash and how they planned to avoid the icing of the driveway abutting West Park Drive?

    David Donnellon stated the most frequent comment from the neighbors and the Planning Commission was the concern of the gasoline spills. Therefore, he noted he would address these together. He explained the catch basin is designed to flow into an exterior intersector for the facility. The storm water and drainage will pass into and through the regulated intersector to collect the contaminants if any, before releasing it into the property. Mr. Donnellon indicated that the door of the small exterior car wash would not open to the drive approach that passes onto the street as typical car washes. The proposed Novi Express would instead have the open door facing a dead end of heavy landscaping and a lot of pines trees, thereby leaving no view of the overhead door. According to the engineering plans, two (2) catch basins collect the water as the vehicles exit the car wash. He designated the area for those to dry their vehicles. The entrance to the car wash faces northwesterly and is located behind the drive through areas and the bank.


    Member Richards asked Mr. Arroyo if this section could become similar to that of Novi Road and its car wash location?


    Mr. Arroyo stated the site is designed so that the vehicle would need to travel prior to reaching the approach, whereas the Novi Road’s car wash directly exits onto the drive with very little stacking area. He added the volume of traffic on West Park Drive is approximately eleven thousand to twelve thousand (11,000-12,000) vehicles per day compared to Novi Road being approximately over forty thousand (40,000) per day. He understood Member Richards’ concern of the negotiating the left turn out of the drive, however, he felt this site was different from the Novi Road car wash.


    Member Richards hypothetically stated that those traveling east on Pontiac Trail may give the right-of-way, (not being able to see the center lane), to the vehicle exiting the car wash at the Pontiac Trail drive making the left turn. The driver would cover the first lane and collide with the vehicle traveling in the turning lane. He felt this was a safety concern.


    Mr. Arroyo felt this was a possibility that could be explored if the project was tabled, along with a JCK site distance evaluation at Final.


    Member Richards requested that this be explored.


    David Donnellon noted that the car wash on Novi Road is a single purpose use. He indicated that the proposed project is not meant to be the single purpose of a car wash.


    Member Richards indicated a Shell gas station with a similar concept of free car wash with a fill up, located on Haggerty Road and Grand River Avenue. He noted therefore, the proposed site might have more vehicles than anticipated.


    David Donnellon stated when the weather is cold car washes are higher. However, he stated the summer use is less.



    Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan: To deny Special Land Use Permit because it does not meet Special Land Use requirement No. 6 Section 2519.10C regarding noise analysis.




    Member Koneda indicated that the plan does not meet the criteria of the Special Land Use of the overhead doors facing the thoroughfare. He stated West Park Drive is a public road, which it does not meet. He asked Mr. Arroyo if there is a provision in the ordinance indicating that additional screening would negated the door facing the thoroughfare?


    Mr. Arroyo answered, no.


    Member Koneda asked the City Attorney if there should be action on the remaining items such as Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit, etc… if the it is found that the Special Land Use requirements have not been met?


    Mr. Fisher commented on the motion denying the Special Land Use based on the language of a section of the ordinance. He noted that the specific factual items on this proposal that fail to meet the noted section of the ordinance.


    Chairperson Piccinini indicated the noise analysis was mentioned. However, she also indicated additional items: the proposed is not compatible with the natural characteristics and features of the land; it is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan; and the proposed use is not in harmony with the purposed and does not conform with the design regulations of the Zoning District in which it is located.


    Mr. Fisher advised that the commission be more specific.


    Member Koneda reminded the commission that there is not noise analysis indicating that proposed project complies at the property line and the overhead doors face the thoroughfare and residential district. He stated these are sufficient reason to deny the proposed project. He felt the building was in harmony with the surroundings as it is a residential style building. Therefore, he was not in support of all of the conditions mentioned by Chairperson Piccinini. He stated that he did not support the Woodland Permit because he did not feel the applicant had made sufficient efforts to preserve the trees that are existing. He supported Linda Lemke’s comments regarding this matter. In regard to the Preliminary Site Plan, he would not support it due to the required variances for the interior landscaping, berming along Pontiac Trail and the building height.


    Chairperson Piccinini asked if Member Nagy would like to amend her motion?


    Member Nagy answered, yes. She noted that she would also like to add that the plan does not meet Section 1403.7 of the ordinance.


    Member Landry understood the traffic conditions. However, he felt that any use of the property would increase the traffic at the corner. He did not feel the other B-2 uses, except a gas station, would fit onto this parcel. He felt the Planning Commission needed to be careful to not render the property to be unmarketable. He noted that he would not support the proposed project as it has been presented with no noise analysis. Member Landry felt the denial of the Special Land Use was justified and he suggested that the petitioner work toward to removing the car wash.


    Member Koneda asked Mr. Arroyo if the use would create more traffic or merely drive by traffic?


    Mr. Arroyo stated there would be both. He stated gas stations tend to have a significant amount of traffic in and out of the site that is already on the road network. He noted the percentage of new trips would not be high.


    Member Koneda stated additional B-2 uses may generate new traffic, however, the gas station use would be mainly drive by traffic.


    Mr. Arroyo indicated a commercial use, such as a small convenient store, would pull traffic from the existing stream of traffic.


    Member Koneda felt the applicant’s largest obstacle would be the car wash. He noted they, as the commission, could not dictate where to build gas stations. However, they can dictate the need for the applicant to meet the ordinance standards for noise, safety and lighting etc… He indicated they do not meet the noise analysis requirement at this point.


    Mr. Fisher added that the applicant could request the tabling. He noted a motion to table would supercede the motion on the floor.


    Chairperson Piccinini clarified with the applicant if he needed the project to be tabled due to the conditions that he could not meet the noise analysis and the overhead door.


    David Donnellon requested a denial in part and a tabling in part. He wanted to go before the ZBA to discuss the issues to find if there would be the opportunity for a variance. He suggested tabling for the landscaping, façade and traffic issues to be addressed. He did not understand the reason for the denial.


    Member Landry clarified that the applicant needed the Special Land Use as the first step of approval? (Leaving nothing relevant until the Special Land Use is granted.)


    Mr. Fisher answered, correct.


    Member Landry clarified if the applicant understood that he could not go to the ZBA until the Planning Commission has approved the Special Land Use.


    David Donnellon stated he understood the process.


    Mr. Fisher explained if the Special Land Use was being denied because the applicant had not submitted the certified noise analysis, this would be different that being denied for anticipated noise. He noted that would be the denial that the ZBA could address, because they could request a waiver for the obligation to submit the certified analysis.


    Member Landry stated the motion is to deny because it does not meet the RM-1 noise requirements.


    Mr. Arroyo stated this potential question has been raised. It has not been demonstrated that they would meet the ordinance at the RM-1 boundary.


    Member Landry clarified if the Special Land Use was denied then the applicant would not be able to go the ZBA.


    Mr. Fisher noted that the applicant has not provided a certified noise analysis, however, the noise itself appears to not be consistent with the ordinance. He stated this could not be appealed to the ZBA.


    Member Kocan indicated that the car wash needed to meet the Special Land Use requirement as well. She noted her disappointment that the sound analysis was not submitted after the discussion at the last meeting. She noted the additional items: berming, driveway spacing, height, traffic, lining up with residential, landscape consultant and woodland consultant requests. She felt the applicant should have had a revised site plan for this meeting. Member Kocan stated the Special Land Use should be denied because the proposed use does not meet the ordinance requirements with respect to the district it is located. She suggested the motion be amended to include the following items: that the proposed use does not meet ordinance requirements with respect to the district in which it is located; the proposed use will not promote the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner because of the potential noise and the lack of the noise analysis report being submitted by a certified sound engineer; the proposed use is not compatible with the natural features and characteristics of the land; the woodlands have not been taken into consideration; and the consultants have requested that those be maintained on the property.


    Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Fisher if the motion was sufficient without the amendment of Member Kocan?


    Mr. Fisher noted these included amendments would give the applicant more guidance for the applicant.


    Member Nagy stated the applicant was before the commission in February 2001. She felt that the applicant should have addressed the comments in the adequate time he had been given. She asked if the applicant was confused with the process? She stated the applicant should have made clarification on the plan verses asking the Commission to clarify for him.


    David Donnellon stated he understood that this was a continuation. He needed to gather the input to advise his client of the options. He noted that he was attempting to minimize the amount of times that he would need to appear before the Planning Commission. He stated he wanted to gather all of the information and then discuss the revisions with his client.


    PM-01-03-066 TO TABLE NOVI EXPRESS SP 00-29A

    Moved by Churella, seconded by Koneda: To table Novi Express SP 00-29A.



    Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Fisher if a specific date was required?


    Mr. Fisher stated if there is a postponement, a specific date is required. He suggested there be a motion to table with the idea that the plan would come off of the table when an appropriate plan comes back.


    Chairperson Piccinini informed the applicant that this was a continuation of the public hearing. She encouraged the applicant to review the letters from the consultants for the direction he was requesting.


    Member Mutch stated that he did not think the motion to table was appropriate. He did not support the site plan or a Special Land Use at this location due to the impact. He stated there are specific conditions the applicant has failed to meet, which he agreed were grounds for Special Land Use denial. However, he noted the Special Land Use provisions are intended to address those areas not specifically addressed by site plan provisions. He noted the number of standards that the applicant is supposed to meet. He stated a 24-hour use of this nature adjacent to residential development is not appropriate and is not consistent with the Master Plan or Special Land Use standards. He felt that a site plan that destroys all but one (1) tree is not consistent with the Special Land Use standards. He continued that a site plan generating close to two thousand (2,000) trips a day and over 150 during peak hours is not consistent with the Special Land Use standards. He noted a permitted use such as a restaurant would not have 24-hour operation. He did not find that the applicant would be able to address the 24-hour issue. He encouraged the commission to focus beyond the specifics and look at the standards of the Special Land Use.


    Mr. Arroyo asked if the commission desired to have the exterior lighting standard addressed at the preliminary stage or at the final stage.


    Chairperson Piccinini answered at the preliminary stage.



    Moved by Churella, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (5-4): To table Novi Express SP 00-29A and address the present lighting standards at the preliminary stage.


    VOTE ON PM-01-03-067 CARRIED


    Yes: Churella, Koneda, Landry, Piccinini, Richards

    No: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Nagy



This project is located in Section 29, on the southeast corner of Wixom and Ten Mile Roads. The 6 acre site is zoned Residential Acreage (RA). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit approvals and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.


Peter Albertson of Nordstrom Samson Associates introduced the Novi Fire Station #4 and Training Center. He referred to the vicinity map of the area. He indicated that Wixom dead ends at the intersection of the site at Ten Mile and Beck Road. He indicated the driveway approach (to the left of the screen) is property presently being purchased by the City to form the parcel to the west of the site allowing a driveway entrance. He stated there is a twelve hundred (1200) foot radius. He indicated the distance from the fire station site to the closest residents to the east is twelve hundred feet (1200), the south and west is woodland and wetland area, the north across Ten Mile is a daycare center and further north is vacant property. He stated the access drive to the west would provide the driveway around the building to the training center, perimeter vehicle access and apparatus access to drive through to the apparatus bay. Access would also be providing for parking for the training function contained inside the facility. He noted the retention pond to the east, training tower 3 ½ stories high, circulation area for trucks, drive through for the site to enter the apparatus base, exterior yard enclosed trash receptacle area and transforming emergency generator for the site, drive through condition – front driveway going though onto the proposed driveway and site lighting. He noted that the building has three (3) primary functions: 1) company quarters to the east, containing locker and toilet facilities, shop areas, bay room and kitchen, meeting and exercise room. 2) Apparatus room – containing three (3) drive through bays. 3) Training area seating sixty (60) people and toilet facility, with access into the apparatus room and the company quarters.


Mr. Albertson stated that building elevations were developed with respect to the façade ordinance. He stated the basic materials are masonry with horizontal accent stripping. He noted he rooftop units are screened from public view. He noted he stone above the entry doors at the front at the back of the facility. He presented a color board indicating the color of the brick and the glass material, stone coping and metal finishes.


Mr. Albertson described the training tower as 3 ½ stories high constructed of masonry. He noted the primary structure of concrete that will be exposed, would be stained to match the stone coloration. He requested a Section Nine Facade Waiver for this.


Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the preliminary site plan and Special Land Use subject to the items indicated in the review letter dated March 5, 2001. He indicated discussion regarding the noise analysis with the applicant and Fire Chief. He noted that the noise study indicates the potential for non-compliance at the property line. He stated originally when the plan was reviewed, there was to be right-of-way along the west property where the extension of Wixom Road would be. However, it would now be created as a drive, moving the property line further west. This improves the noise situation due to the greater distance between the noise generated to the property line. He stated discussions with the Fire Chief indicate the only remaining noise violation would be the operation of a chainsaw. The applicant indicated this would only occur two (2) or three (3) times a year. He stated Chief Lenaghan explained this could be in comparison to a neighbor cutting down trees in their yard. He stated if this interpretation was accurate, then it could be assumed that the use is consistent with a single-family use in a similar situation. Mr. Arroyo indicated that there did not appear to be a violation associated with the building equipment HVAC as there is a typically concerned with. He indicated the new exterior lighting standards would need to be met at minimum at the final site plan submittal.


In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval based on the review letter dated March 12, 2001. He noted that minor issues would need to be addressed at final. He stated that many of the items could be satisfied by the modification of the driveway.


Mr. Bluhm recommended approval in the review letter dated March 12, 2001. The applicant proposes water main, sewer extensions and Access Road extension. He stated the City of Novi is currently in the process of having designed extended into the site, through an easement west of the site. North of Ten Mile, Island Lake development will be extending the utilities south of Ten Mile and brought into the Fire Station site. The water main will be looped around the building with fire hydrants. Sanitary will service the site. He described the flat site having a few pockets of wetlands sloping to the south. He noted the proposed is a portion of the large site parcel owned by the City. The wetlands are intended to be a future regional detention basin on the Master Plan. An on-site storm system will collect site runoff and future Access Road drainage which will be routed to an on-site detention basin prior to discharging at a restricted rate to the wetland at the south side of the site. This wetland is a part of the headwaters of Novi-Lyon drain which flows south to north through Island Lake north of Ten Mile Road. He stated that some of the comments in the review letter are related to the coordination of the construction of the Access Drive and the utilities with the site plan. He commented that any off-site easements outside of the Fire Station property would need to be secured prior to construction. He stated a gravel access drive would be provided for the construction of the basin on a temporary basis and a paved roadway west of the site. He noted there were additional minor comments that would need to be addressed at final, however he recommended approval.


Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan in her letter dated March 9, 2001 subject to the Planning Commission Wavier being granted. She indicated that she has had several meetings with the Fire Chief and the architects. She stated the applicant has revised the landscaping to provide the proper screening along the proposed entrance area and adjacent to the building. She noted a 4’6" berm and planting is required on the south and east property lines. The entire site is woodlands (Primarily pioneer species to a wooded wetland area of higher quality.) and meets the screening. She noted additional Evergreen Trees would be added to provide the winter opacity. Ms. Lemke stated she supported the Planning Commission Waiver. She indicated the applicant has complied with her requested to locate everything to the west as much as possible, where there are lighter less quality woodlands. She stated they have also pulled in areas closer to the parking lot and away from the wetland system to the south and northeast. The site plan indicates the redesigning of the sidewalks at her request to avoid the larger trees. The remainder of the site would remain. Ms. Lemke indicated she would be looking for a number of items at final related to landscape review and woodlands review.


Ms. Kay recommended approval in the review letter dated March 8, 2001. She designated the wetland location that posed the most concern in the first site plan. The approximate 1.5 acre area proposed to be left as open space. She stated she was pleased with the applicant’s revisions from the original submittal. She stated the remaining impacts were minor buffer disturbances, which would be addressed with native landscaping.


Mr. Fox stated the building complies with the ordinance. He noted that although some of the percentages were changed, from efface to cast stone, from the previous submittal they still meet ordinance. He stated a Section Nine Facade Waiver is required for the training tower. They propose to use cast in place concrete for the main portion of the support of the structure. He stated a stain would be used to match the cast stone, along with sand blasting to create the stone texture. He recommended a Section Nine Facade Waiver contingent upon the applicant providing adequate evidence via a sample board that a visual match can be achieved between the CAST STONE and the INTEGRALLY COLORED LIGHTLY SAND BLASTED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE used on the Training Tower.


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.




L. Steve Weiner from Lifestyles Limited Partnership, owner of the 3 acres on the northwest corner on the intersection of Ten Mile and Wixom directly adjacent to the Fire Station and Training Center, felt that this development would greatly diminish the development of their parcel within the limits of the current residential zoning.


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


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




Member Canup recalled the three (3) acres of property, mentioned in the correspondence, during the development there was not a concern. He expressed that he was glad to have a project without several variances and required waivers etc…





Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of SP 00-71A to approve Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit and Section Nine Facade Waiver contingent upon the consultant’s recommendations and conditions. Compliance with the City standards for noise allowance based upon the frequency of the use of the chainsaws being used two (2) to three (3) times per year, to provide the lighting plans on Final Site Plan and a Planning Commission Waiver for the berm to contain existing wooded area on the south and east property lines with the additional supplemental plantings to meet the opacity requirements.




Member Koneda asked Ms. Lemke if a Planning Commission Waiver would be needed for the berming wall along Ten Mile?

Ms. Lemke stated that the applicant would be saving the existing vegetation along Ten Mile. She stated they have not required other project to seek waivers for this in the past.


Member Koneda asked if the Planning Commission typically granted the waiver and requested additional plantings in place of the berm? He asked if the Planning Commission needed to act on this?


Ms. Lemke stated there was not need to act on this.


Member Koneda asked what the purpose of the training tower would be?


Mr. Albertson stated that Chief Lenaghan could better define the purpose. However, since Chief Lenaghan was not present, he would attempt to explain the purpose from the design meetings. He felt it was the intent of the Chief to conduct training sessions here. He noted the vehicle access around the perimeter of the training tower. There will be off-site visitors to participate in some training activity. The tower consists of a "burn room", which will only utilize straw or similar nature materials, to generate smoke.


Member Koneda asked if this "burn room" was the need for the Cast in place Concrete?


Mr. Albertson stated the cast concrete was chosen because it was the most durable material for the structure and its activity. He noted additional activity would include spraying of water, placements of ladders to climb up and down.


Member Koneda asked if the noise analysis included the activity around the training center? He asked if the training would involve the truck sirens and lights to simulate a real fire condition?


Mr. Albertson stated he did not think there would be siren activity during the training, however, Chief Lenaghan would need to confirm that. He stated the noise analysis was conducted in an open field environment. The equipment was physically started and ladders were raised and lowered. He noted the analysis included the technical data of roof top equipment, the emergency generator and additional typical items that would be around the perimeter of a building of this nature.


Member Koneda asked Mr. Arroyo if he felt the major issue was the chainsaw?


Mr. Arroyo stated the noise analysis appeared to be thorough. He listed some of the items included: chainsaw, gas powered saw, fire engine, ladder and truck. He stated the shift in the property left only the chainsaw issue remaining.


Member Koneda asked if the Fire Department would be conducting any testing of lights and sirens each morning to ensure they work properly? He noted the Police Station conducts these tests 3-4 times a day.


Mr. Albertson stated that he did not have this information.


Member Koneda asked Ms. Kay why mitigation was not required? He stated in his addition of the impacted wetlands and disturbances totals to a little over .7 acres.


(tape ends)


Member Koneda asked if Ms. Kay was satisfied with the plantings?


Ms. Kay answered, yes.




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

No: None




This project is located in Section 12, on the west side of Haggerty Road, north of 12 Mile and north of Lewis Drive. The 8.2 acre site is zoned Office Service Technology (OST). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Section Nine Facade Waiver. The Wetland Permit approval is administrative.

Henry Werner of the Wallbridge Aldinger Company introduced the President of Eberspacher, Warner Mantag and the engineer and architect Haresh Dharia. Eberspacher North America Research & Development is a global engineering firm, specializing in the design and test of automotive exhaust systems. He proposed to construct in two (2) phases: Phase I being forty thousand one hundred seventy (40,170) square feet and Phase II being eighteen thousand one hundred forty- five (18,145). He requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval for both phases. He described the building as having an office area for management and engineering functions. Here is where the Eberspacher engineers will create the exhaust system component. The designs will be forwarded to the prototype shop for cutting bending and fabricating equipment to create a prototype part. He clarified that the prototype shop is not a manufacturing shop. The test lab is comprised of three (3) test cells – 1) A device to allow the placement of the device on the automobile to test acoustical analysis. 2) The component is hooked to a live engine without an automobile to test acoustical analysis. 3) Component is placed on a "shaker rig" to shake the component for several hours to test its durability. He described the building as a two-story structure with a partial basement. He stated the main floor would be the three (3) test cells. The partial second floor would house the mechanical and electrical equipment and a partial basement to access the equipment.

Mr. Werner pointed out the primary features to the site plan. He indicated the primary access from Haggerty Road. He stated complete access would be provided around the site. He stated secondary access to Cabot Drive has been secured through an easement with Millennium Technology. He understood that Cabot has not been deeded to the City and that it would be ample time for the construction.

Mr. Arroyo noted the many activities at the corridor and its relation to other property in the surrounding area. He noted the many projects: Magna, Omron and Millennium Technology (still in plan review process). He stated they are encouraging shared drives and share access points to minimize the impact. The property does not have direct frontage on Cabot Drive. Detroit Edison has an easement through the area. By sharing access with the property to the north, the site is able to have access to Cabot. Mr. Arroyo felt this access is critical because it would become a life line component of this technology center. He anticipated most of the traffic entering and exiting the site through Cabot Road due to the easy access from M-5.

Mr. Arroyo indicated in his planning review letter dated March 9, 2001 the need for a Planning Commission Waiver for the screening of loading areas from adjacent property that may be required if the internal loading area will be open and can be seen from the west property line. He explained when the project is surrounded by OST this can be done. He pointed out that most of the loading would be screened by the buildings, as the loading areas is between the buildings. He stated the lighting plan would be reviewed at final. He requested that additional spaces be incorporated into the Phase I project at final. In additional to the minor items to be addressed at final Mr. Arroyo recommended approval.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the items listed in the review letter dated March 9, 2001. He was pleased to find the private properties cooperating with each other. He noted Cabot has not been dedicated. He understood that the developer of Northern Equities and the City were working on resolving the remaining issues.

Ms. Lemke noted the regulated woodlands on the western edge of the site. She stated the proposed project would not impact these woodlands. The applicant would be providing protective fencing as a condition; therefore, no Woodland Permit would be required. She recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan with the Planning Commission Waiver for the berm and planting to screen the loading and unloading area and contingent upon the items in there review letter dated February 27, 2001. She listed some of the conditions: screening of the parking spaces from Haggerty Road, moving berm height over 2’ in the corner clearances, screening the fuel cabinet, providing the protective fencing, relocating the water main along the north property line to preserve the 45" Maple and changes in species.

Mr. Bluhm recommended approval in the review letter dated March 1, 2001. Public utilities will service the site. A water main located on Cabot Drive would be extended in, circulated through the site, stubbed out to Haggerty Road for future extensions to the north and south. Sanitary sewer exists along the south side of the site and would be stubbing into the building with private service leads. He noted there was not a need for public sewer extension within the project. Several access points to the site from Cabot Drive and Haggerty Road. He stated the western third to half of the site falls to the west to Wetland B. Generally the area falls toward Haggerty Road and then north along Haggerty Road. He noted the proposed detention basin along the western portion of the development, which will discharge storm water into the wetland. The discharge will be brought back and stubbed to the north. He noted Millennium Technology and Eberspacher have developed a partnership for extension of the storm sewer system and the detention basins systems. This will discharge toward Haggerty Road at a restricted rated to the existing ditch along Haggerty Road and will ultimately be routed through the existing culvert to the north located under Haggerty Road. Mr. Bluhm requested a more detailed evaluation of the capacity of the culvert. He requested that the applicant contact Farmington Hills for any concerns of their discharge. He stated the easement requirements would need to be provided prior to final site plan approval. These include: An off-site water main easements for connection of the proposed water main to the existing water main located in Cabot Drive. An ingress/egress easement agreement for access to Cabot Drive. An off-site easement for connection to the proposed off-site storm sewer to the north.


Ms. Kay stated the approval is administrative. She noted Wetland A – 0.15 acres of non-essential wetland located north of the retention area. It is a low quality wetland adjacent to a detention basin. The wetland function and characteristics are minimal. Therefore, this wetland is not essential to the preservation of the natural resources of the City of Novi. Wetland B – 0.42 acres of regulated essential wetland. It is an open water wetland with some large trees and a scrub/shrub fringe. Water depth is approximately one to two feet in depth. Numerous species of submergent and emergent vegetation were observed on site inspection.

Mr. Fox stated the original submittal consisted of a brick material as opposed to the concrete block, which his letter stated. Therefore, the building was in full compliance with the ordinance. He noted the meetings with unsuccessful attempts to match the color scheme with the clay brick material. A sample of the Concrete Block material was submitted (same size and shape of the brick material). It is a 4" X 4" X 12" smooth face unit, ninety-two percent (92%) marble aggregate on the inside and matches the color scheme. He stated the alternative to this material would be to stain the clay brick, which is not as durable. Mr. Fox recommended a Section Nine Facade Waiver for the concrete block.

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 items being corrected on the next submittal: 1) Provide an additional hydrant at the west (rear) drive across from the detention basin. When the Phase II addition is built, the hydrant spacing will exceed 500 feet. 2) It appears that the three buildings will all be serviced by one fire suppression riser. Provide the Fire Department Connection at the front doors tot he office within 100 feet of the hydrant. 3) A Hazardous Chemicals Survey and inventory for occupant shall be submitted. 4) The underground fuel storage tanks and distribution system shall be installed in accordance with the International Fired Code/2000 and NFPA 30. An MDEQ Permit shall also be obtained. 5) All weather access roads capable of supporting 255 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. 6) All water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation. 7) The building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3 inches high on a contrasting background. This shall be noted on the plans.




Member Canup commended the applicant on their submittal.




Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (8-1): In case No. SP 01-09 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Section Nine Facade Waiver, Planning Commission Waiver for the screening loading areas from adjacent properties contingent upon all of the consultant’s recommendations and conditions.


Mr. Werner stated the Building Department requested that they provide an additional stair tower to access the second floor. However, additional space was used in the building that was not originally planned for. Therefore, he requested administrative approval to move the walls out approximately 6.75 feet, increasing the square footage by approximately nine hundred fifty (950) square feet. He stated the Zoning Ordinance 2516 indicates the ability to make a modification under one thousand (1000) square feet on an administrative basis.


Mr. Fisher noted this was also his understanding and therefore, did not need to be addressed by the Planning Commission.


Member Mutch complimented the Planning Consultant for the notations of the sidewalk connection. He asked Mr. Arroyo to clarify his review letter, which indicated the rear yard setbacks in Phase II at forty-three (43) feet, and the required is fifty (50) feet.

Mr. Arroyo noted this as a typo in the review letter. He clarified that the rear yard setback is in excess.


Member Mutch recalled each project on Haggerty Road discharging to the ditch on Haggerty Road. Although they are restricted, he asked if there are facilities being built for storm water? Hypothetically, he visualized the water draining into Farmington Hills and questioned where the water would go with the inevitable future widening of Haggerty Road? He asked if the capacity on the Farmington Hills side of Haggerty Road had been closely evaluated to determine if it could accommodate the storm water run off?


Mr. Bluhm stated Haggerty Road has a number of culverts. He stated each project is not discharging into one culvert. He noted one concern is the volume of water. The detention requirements of Novi require the site to restrict the flow to what the existing land in its undeveloped stated would discharge. He stated they could not require the site to go beyond what the ordinance specifies, unless there are additional restrictions downstream. He stated this is the reasoning for having the involvement of Farmington Hills. He stated the city is required to examine the culverts under Haggerty Road because they are under joint jurisdiction with the county and the Road Commission. He stated because the information and infrastructure is not available to determine where exactly the water is being routed they request that Farmington Hills become involved. He stated if Farmington Hills foresaw problems downstream, they City of Novi would require the developer to provide additional restrictions.


Member Mutch stated after the Haggerty Road improvements, there needed to be location for the water to flow. He felt that since Novi has more vacant land at this point that they are better positioned to address the concern. Member Mutch referred to the traffic report, which indicated the necessary off-site improvements. He specified the importance of the signalization of the intersection of Thirteen Mile and Cabot. He asked who would be responsible for these improvements and the cost?


Mr. Arroyo stated this has not been determined at this time. He stated the roadway improvements that are not currently there and are still under construction with the placement of center turn lanes on Thirteen Mile and Haggerty. He stated these would provide for capacity improvements. However he did not foresee the signalization occurring for several more years. He explained this would depend upon when the warrants are met for signalization. At this time the City could seek tri-party funds with the County (to pay a share and roll it into another type of STP funding). He explained that because it is not warranted today, there are not specific plans for funding this at the moment.


Member Mutch asked since the signal primary benefits those developments along Cabot Drive could the City create a special assessment district? He did not feel that this should be at the expense of the taxpayers.

Mr. Arroyo stated he was not aware of a special assessment district being used to pay for a traffic signal. He noted that this was often done at the with the larger road improvements. He felt that if the City could have participation through a matching program, it may cost the City under twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or under twenty thousand ($20,000) per its share. He added the developer could offer to fund the cost. He stressed that it is not warranted today and therefore, it is difficult to bring forth.

Member Landry asked Mr. Fox to clarify the applicant’s submittal to the City…(tape ends)

Mr. Fox stated the applicant asked to use the proposed material to replace the brick. He stated because it was the same size, shape and the only difference was the colored solid material, it was a prudent way to be handled.

Member Landry clarified that the idea to Concrete Block was the idea of the applicant and not the City’s idea?

Mr. Fox answered, correct.

Member Landry did not support the Section Nine Facade Waiver. He stated although he was in support of the program, the ordinance states zero concrete block. The proposed building has three (3) sides and ¾ of the fourth side in violation of the ordinance. Therefore, he would not support the waiver.

Member Canup explained to Member Landry that the Concrete Block is a different material than brick, it does not look different in its appearance. He stated that the concrete block is a material he would chose over brick. He added that the cost of concrete block is more expensive than the brick and therefore, the choice is not due to expense but instead a selection of color.

Member Nagy commended the applicant for the provision of the surveys with their application. Although she typically would not be in support of a Section Nine Facade Waiver, she stated she went out to see the concrete block material. She understood and agreed with Member Canup’s comments. She reminded the Implementation Committee that several months have passed with more façade ordinances being waived. She suggested that they change the ordinance. She expressed the shared concerns raised by Member Mutch regarding the storm water.

Chairperson Piccinini informed Member Nagy that the Implementation Committee has completed the review of the façade ordinance and it will be placed on the agenda.

Member Kocan asked if the parking needed to be discussed? She noted that Phase I does not meet the ordinance requirements. Although Phase II meets the requirement, the combination of the two (2) Phases is insufficient parking. She stated if they comply with the requests to widening the end isle, this would eliminate two (2) parking stalls in Phase I and the change in the radius would delete another parking stall.

Mr. Arroyo felt confident that at final, the applicant could amend the plan to provide for the appropriate number of spaces for Phase I and Phase II. He stated they would be able to work with the plan to provide some parking that they did not anticipate in the Phase I.

Member Kocan clarified that this would not need to be addressed because the applicant would be held to the required parking.

Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bluhm if it would be necessary to construct any facilities on the adjoining property to make the system on the proposed property feasible?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He stated it may require the applicant to construct a storm sewer system on the off-site property. He added the applicant would have to provide the easements to do this.

Mr. Fisher clarified with the applicant that they understood the possibility of having to do construction on the adjoining property and obtain the easements?

Mr. Werner answered, yes. He stated the owner and Millennium Technologies have reached a verbal understanding of the construction of these items and the easements.

Mr. Fisher asked if there would also be a maintenance agreement?

Mr. Werner answered, yes. He added the maintenance is included in the easement.

Member Koneda commented on the applicant’s plan to move the walls out approximately 6.75 feet, increasing the square footage by approximately nine hundred fifty (950) square feet. He suggested that at final it be taken into consideration that there may be an impact on the wetlands behind the site. He felt there would either be a deficiency in the parking or an impact to the wetland.

Member Mutch asked how the driveway spacing and access would be handled with the parcel located between the proposed development to the north and the proposed project? He asked if there needed to be consideration at this time to plan access to that parcel?

Mr. Arroyo stated that the proposed project has placed its driveway as far to the south as possible, which will increase the spacing. He was not aware if this was discussed or if it is included in the Millennium Technology property. He stated because there are no know plans for that parcel, it is difficult to address Member Mutch’s concern.

Member Mutch expressed that he was attempting to avoid future driveway spacing issues if they could be prevented and planned out.

Mr. Arroyo pointed out that the drive for Millennium Technology is at the extreme northern end of the property and the driveway for the proposed property is at the extreme southern end. He stated the potential that the driveway serving the property to the north would not need a spacing waiver.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: Landry






Presentation by Planning Consultant Rod Arroyo.

Mr. Arroyo discussed the role of the County and how it relates to the work of the commission at the local level. County Planning Commission in rural area typically does Master Planning for the unincorporated areas in the community. Many townships in Michigan do not have zoning or planning and are under County Zoning. This is not typically found in Oakland County. Counties are charged by statue with the review and approval of Master Plans for all townships. Villages and Cities are not required to do this. Long range planning functions of the County include the Solid Waste Management Act of citing facilities for the management of solid waste. The County Planning Commission or a Separate County Body often fulfills this responsibility. The County serves as an information center to obtain GIS, aerial photographs, parcel boundary information and natural features. They are also a coordinating agency for other Planning Commissions. For example if there is a dispute between two abutting communities, they can address some of the issues as a mediator. Oakland County has not had a Planning Commission since 1974. There is not County Master Plan. The County has made an attempt to promote non-motorized trails and the linkage of them from community to community. The County Coordinated Zoning Committee is involved with reviewing Zoning Ordinances. Townships need to submit their Zoning Ordinance Amendments to the County, however the Cities and Villages do not. Oakland County reviews the changes on the border of a community or if the change abuts a county property (e.g. airport or park). The Planning and Economic Development Department is not involved in the Solid Waste Planning efforts, as there is a separate board at Oakland County to address this. Some of the unique projects the County is involved in are the Main Street Program - the assisting of communities with the Main Street Planning, Environmental Stewardship Program – providing assistance in preserving natural resources, Community Assistance Programs – to help redevelopment sites with natural feature related planning that crosses multiple jurisdictional boundaries.


Member Churella noted that he would resign his positions from the Planning & Study Committee and the Communications and Community Committee if any of the commissioners are interested.

Chairperson Piccinini announced that with Member Churella’s resignation, there would be one opening on the Planning & Studies Committee. She asked if anyone was interested?

Member Landry stated his interest.


Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add Member Landry to the Planning & Studies Committee


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

No: None

Chairperson Piccinini asked if anyone was interested in filling the new vacancy on the Communications and Community Committee?

Member Nagy stated her interest.



Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add Member Nagy to the Communications and Community Committee


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

No: None




Debbi Bundoff, Twelve Mile Road and Novi Road, thanked Member Canup regarding the OST zoning district’s need for the development is was designed for. She expressed that she was pleased with the proposed project that saved the wetlands and woodlands and still designed his site. She was in agreement to allow the applicant to construct his stairwell administratively. She commended the developer for bringing a plan to the City and not ask for the ordinance to be redesigned. She hoped to find other developers in the future follow this example.






Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:25 p.m.




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

No: None



Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant


Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

April 17, 2001


Date Approved: April 25, 2001