View Agenda for this meeting 


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

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

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Landry (absence excused), Member Nagy (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Façade Consultant Christian Fox, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber



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

Member Kocan moved The Novi Promenade SP01-53 from the Consent Agenda to Matters for Consideration.


Moved by Kocan, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.


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

No: None






Chairperson Churella announced there were 4 items on the Consent Agenda.





This church and school facility project is located in Section 32, on the north side of Eight Mile Road and west of Beck Road. The 23.3 acre site is zoned Residential District (RA). The applicant is seeking a one-year extension on the Preliminary Site Plan.

Approval of Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church request for a one-year extension on the Preliminary Site Plan, approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 15, 2001, Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 29, 2001 and Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2001. He asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.

Seeing none he entertained a motion to approve the minutes.


Moved by Kocan, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant one-year extension for Preliminary Site Plan Approval to Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church and to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 15, 2001, Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 29, 2001 and Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2001 as submitted.


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

No: None



The proposed rezoning of 8.942 acres in Section 4, is located on north of West Road and west of West Park. The applicant is seeking a positive recommendation to City Council from RA (Residential Acreage) to R-3 (One Family Residential) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Matt Quinn indicated the largest lot is thirty-five thousand plus (35,000+) and the average lot is nineteen thousand (19,000). He noted the project will be constructed with larger lots and under the Master Planned Density. The front footage problem is the only reason for the R-3 zoning request. He felt the rezoning request met the intent of the Master Plan. He indicated they would comply with the Master Plan requirement of 2.0 units per acre as the project would have 1.9 units per acre. Mr. Quinn requested a positive recommendation for the R-3 zoning.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant gave an overview of the location of the proposed parcel and its surrounding area. He noted the break to R-2 zoning to the north and east. The area is Master Plan for residential with the density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre. The regulated Woodlands Map indicates woodlands along the perimeter and Ms. Lemke could comment on the internal portions of the site. There are wetlands in the vicinity of the site however, none on the Regulated Wetlands Map. Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval of the R-3 rezoning in the review letter dated October 15, 2001. He recommended rezoning to R-2, consistent with the Master Pan for Land Use. He stated a rezoning to the R-3 district would be inconsistent with the Master Plan for Land Use recommendations. He reminded the Commission that the Master Plan densities are maximum densities that area within those particular classifications and are not guarantees of density. He explained the it would depend upon how the uniqueness of each parcel and how it lays out (the choices that are made by the developer when the site is laid out to determine the actual yield). He noted the comparison made to the Bristol Corners project. Bristol Corners has reduced lot sizes, due to the Preservation Option. The Preservation Option provided permanently protected open space in exchange for the reduction in lot size. Therefore, if the applicant chose to move forward with a conventional development, the minimum lot size would need to be met. The R-2 zoning classification would not be eligible for reduced lot sizes. However, these decisions are typically made in the plat or plan process. He noted the information provided in his letter regarding the public utilities, services and impact on the natural features.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo referred to the review letter October 18, 2001. The trip generation comparison were based upon the concept sketches prepared by the applicant, which indicated six (6) homes under the existing R-A verses sixteen (16) under the proposed R-3. The

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect did not have any additional comments.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant did not have any additional comments.


Member Richards announced that he has received correspondence on the matter.

Lisa Deptula, 46300 West Park Drive; Paulette Brodbeck, 46050 West Park Drive; and Brooks Docker, 46130 West Park Drive wrote, "Regarding the request made by Brad Bach for the rezoning to his property consisting of 8.942 acres of land 50-22-01-451-011, 7.972-acres and 50-22-04-451-012, 1.0-acres) commonly known as 46120 West Park Drive. I would like to state that I have reviewed the concept drawings that Mr. Bach that Mr. Bach has submitted to the City of Novi, and the request to have the zoning change from R-A to R-3. As a neighbor to the property I would like to state that I support the change as a good and reasonable use for the above named property."

Mark Jacobson & Associates, Inc., Arnold F. Serlin, wrote, "On behalf of the Novi Group LLC, Developers of Bristol Corners West Subdivision, north of the subject property, there is no objection to the proposed rezoning. I have reviewed the concept plan an supporting data and R-3 zoning requiring minimum ninety (90) foot lots is consistent with and should support the values established in Bristol Corners."

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

Maria Scala, 46100 West Park Drive, stated that she purchased her home two (2) years ago. She was concerned that the development would encroach upon her property to install a right- hand turn lane. She opposed the rezoning. She noted Mr. Bach’s attempt to sell his property for the past two (2) years. She felt that Mr. Bach’s intent was to make a profit and was not concern with the community. She stated that she was insulted because of the developer’s indication that there was no electricity in her home, when in fact there was.

John Jensen, 46066 West Park Drive, owner of the bordering piece of property indicated that he was not in favor of the increased population density. He noted Bristol Corners already abuts his property and his privacy is being invaded. He informed the Commission that a house is being built on the border of the property, who are not represented at the meeting.

Rick Katterman, 46090 West Park Drive, questioned why the Master Plan should be modified. He stated the Master Plan is R-2. He felt that a low number of letters went out to the residents because of the low number of residents present at the meeting. He indicated that those at the meeting have property zoned R-A. He felt that the concept plan appeared to have two (2) small cul-de-sacs squeezed in, which he questioned if that was a safety issue. He noted the subdivision located on Pontiac Trail. He indicated that a R-2 zoning would allow for the street to not be pushed up against the house on the right, creating a situation. He did not agree that the addition of a new subdivision should create a violation for a new home. He noted that in speaking with the petitioner, he felt that the petitioner was only interested in making a profit. Mr. Katterman indicated that he and his neighbors wanted to stay in the neighborhood.

Bryan Cyr, 46140 West Park Drive, stated that he purchased his property in 1984. At the time of his purchase, he indicated the Master Plan was R-A. He stated that he planned to have neighbors with large lots. The old plats and layouts have large lots around his property. He noted that Bristol Corners was developed as R-2. He did not have a problem with the surrounding existing zonings. He stated the petitioner was comparing the proposed property to Bristol Corners and not including the "pie shaped" area with larger lots. He agreed that the petitioner was seeking to make a profit and move out of the area. However, he would be residing in the area and preferred that the current zoning remain.

Dana Howe, 46050 West Park Drive, stated that five (5) of the seven (7) houses that would be immediately impacted by the builder are represented at the Public Hearing. She indicated her neighbor Paulette Brodbeck changed her response to an objection. She purchased her land as R-A. She described her surrounding property with industrial on one side, another side with the Bristol Corners development and wetland mitigation. She noted the proposed condominium project for the corner of West Park Road and West Park Drive. She indicated that the speed limit was increased without notification. She noted the difficulty entering and exiting her property. She felt that Mr. Bach was not cooperative in discussing the difference between the R-2 and R-3 zonings. The configurations of their homes would not permit City sewer with the exception of the back of their property. Mr. Bach indicated that he paid Bristol Corners extend their sewer into his property. She noted her request to Mr. Bach for an easement for an extension and his response that it would be the developer’s responsibility. She stated that he was not intending to be the developer. She stated that he is only interested in maximizing the value of his property. She stated that she would be more amenable if he were planning on residing on the property. She reminded the Commission that the proposal is not to develop but, one to maximize the value of the property. She noted her preference of R-A, however if it were to be rezoned, she felt that R-2 was sufficient. She closed questioning if her neighbor of twelve (12) years was not willing to extend sewer to them, then what hope do they have from a new developer.

Chairperson Churella asked if there were any further audience participant to speak to the matter. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.


Member Koneda clarified if an error was made in Mr. Arroyo’s review letter. He noted the indication of the R-2 underlying zoning of Bristol Corners and its development as R-4. He questioned if it should have read R-3.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that Bristol Corners is a combination of R-2 and R-4 zoning. The East Side of West Park Drive is zoned R-4 zoning and the West Side is zoned R-2.

Member Koneda clarified that Bristol Corners is an R-2 zoning developed with the Preservation Option, which allowed the reduced lot sizes in exchanged for the preservation of Open Space equal to the net area of reduction that was saved.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct. He stated the equivalent lot size reduction for the amount of open space.

Member Koneda clarified that the R-A minimum lot width is 150 feet, R-2 zoning - 110 feet and R-3 zoning - 90 feet.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Koneda clarified if the minimum square footage for R-2 is 18,000 square feet with 2.0 dwelling units per acre and R-3 is 12,000 square feet with 2.7 dwelling units per acre. He stated no evidence was presented by the petitioner indicating the site could not be developed under the Master Planned designation of R-2.


Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.614 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning of the acreage from R-A to R-2 to bring the proposed parcel into conformance with the Master Plan.


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

No: None


This proposed gas station is located in Section 22, on the south side of Grand River and west of Novi Road. The .69 acre site is zoned TC-1 (Town Center). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, and a Section Nine Façade Waiver approvals.

Robert Jacobs represented the owners of the property Gus Campbell and Lawrence Trepeck. He also introduced Chuck Lauer architect of the proposed project. He recalled at the October 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, there was question of the use being non-conforming and abandoned. The Commission requested the submission of additional information to the City Attorney and the Commission, which was done. Additionally, he noted the submission of a letter from the prior City Attorney Dennis Watson, which confirmed the position that was espoused at that time. If the Commission desired, he noted his willingness to discuss further the "issue" raised at the prior meeting. However, he felt that the matter was resolved upon the submission of the necessary information, which included the affidavits and exhibits. He submitted information indicates no abandonment of the non-conforming use. Continually, from the time of the occupancy, it was an effort and intent to use it for the purpose of a gas station with the sale of convenience items. Approximately a thousand (1,000) square feet of space was devoted to convenience goods and sale of those. He believed there was no deviation from this use. The property is located in the TC-1 District, which provides for the permitted use of a convenient store. However, he stated the non-conforming use is one that is established by law and the information has been presented to the Commission. Mr. Jacobs indicated his availability to answer questions regarding the non-conforming use or predicated use of the property.

Chuck Lauer pointed out the fourth corner of the Town Center area with the extension of Main Street and Flint Street. He noted his understanding of the long range plan to have Flint Street turn into the west extension of Main Street. Ultimately, Flint Street would "T" into a streetscape similar to the Main Street project. The site has several driveways, small lots and curb cuts. He indicated the need for a driveway spacing waiver for the existing driveways for the other buildings. He explained that it would not be possible to be located one hundred fifty (150) feet from other driveways because the lot is only a couple hundred feet wide. He stated the idea is to bring the site into the aesthetic vocabulary of Main Street. He noted the compliance with the Town Center requirements for landscaping and site development standards, with the exception of the Flint Street sidewalk. The existing centerline of Flint Street is locked in and there is not enough room to have the full twelve and one-half (12.5) foot sidewalk with brick splash strips as required by Ordinance. He stated that it is made along the front on Grand River. The area has been screened for the fueling islands, screening along the side wall and landscaped all available square foot of property possible. Storm water detention has been provided with the outlet into the branch of the Rouge River. He described the proposed project as attractive and in keeping with the intent of Town Center. The primary façade will have a three-foot (3’) block wall across the back, plantings in beds along the Grand River façade, street trees, pedestrian amenities, pedestrian connections from the street, bike parking and landscape island along Flint Street providing the remainder of the landscaping in the area. The façade of the building for the convenient store side will have brick with glass windows and mullions. Brick columns will be used for the canopy with dryvit face on the canopy. He stated the benefit of the proposed location was that there were not dreadlock conditions as with a corner location. He stated the re-use of the property would bring it up to contemporary aesthetic standards. He indicated that the remaining environmental re-mediation work would be done in conjunction with the re-building. He explained the soil would be excavated when the tanks are installed and everything would be double walled and fully monitored. Therefore, he indicated that nothing would be done to jeopardize the area and the clean-up process would be part of the remodeling and redevelopment of the existing building. He noted their attempt to meet the intention within Town Center and meet the high level of aesthetics the City has achieved over the last ten years.

Mr. Arroyo showed the Commission an aerial of the surrounding area. He noted the location of Flint Street, access to Grand River Avenue from City Center Plaza, the bridge is located west of the railroad tracks and future alignment of the Ring Road (Main Street Extension), where Flint Street might "T" in. A number of driveways exist within the area due to the development over the years. He did not recommend approval in the review letter dated September 28, 2001 due to the needed ZBA variance. However, if the issue regarding the variance is resolved at the ZBA, then he would be in a position to recommend approval subject to the items of the review letter dated September 28, 2001 being addressed at Final. Typically, the Design and Construction Standards govern sidewalks. However, special regulations regarding sidewalks, for the TC and TC-1 District, can be found in the Zoning Ordinance. According to the TC-1 District, the sidewalks are required to be 12 ˝ feet wide when fronting on a non-residential collector road or a local street. The extra wide sidewalks are part of the Main Street component to provide for pedestrian movements. The applicant has indicated they are not able to meet the required width and instead have proposed an eight-foot (8’) wide path. Additionally, they propose to set aside monies for the construction of a portion at a later date, due to the potential change in alignment with Flint Street. Therefore, the applicant requires a Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for a width modification. The site was previously developed with a non-conforming use situation. The more recently reviewed modern gas station sites typically had larger buildings and more room for circulation. However, the proposed site deals with a retrofit and enhancement of an existing site. The review letter indicates how the various zoning ordinance issues are being addressed. He added that the applicant is addressing most of the issues.

In regard to Traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the granting of the waivers and variances and subject to the items listed in the review letter dated September 28, 2001 being addressed at Final. Planning Commission waivers are required for both same-side and opposite-side driveway spacing. He agreed with the applicant in that it would be literally impossible to develop the site and not require a waiver. There are existing driveways and there is not a place to move the drive and not require a waiver. The curb cuts currently in place have been reduced in number to one (1) driveway on each major roadway. He noted the existing drive on Grand River Avenue and the drive onto Flint Street. A ZBA Variance will be necessary for the substandard width of aisle serving the three spaces behind the building (less than 24 feet). A ZBA Variance is also required for substandard sidewalk width in a TC-1 District (Town Center zoning district less than 12.5 feet). This variance should also be construed to permit the missing sidewalk along Flint Street south of the site access drive, which the Applicant has proposed to not build at this time but pay for via escrowed funds. Trip generations have been calculated based on fueling positions and retail space. He noted the difference between the two calculations. Details regarding driveway spacing have been included in the review letter. The curb on Grand River Avenue will be set back to the future width. Therefore, when Grand River Avenue is widened to five (5) lanes and the Town Center amenities that have been installed should not have to be ripped out by road construction. He noted the applicant’s modifications to the site plan to address this matter.

Ms. Weber recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan from an Engineering perspective in the review letter dated September 27, 2001 with the additional comment(s) regarding the escrow amount necessary to pay for the remaining extension of the sidewalk along Flint Street. She indicated that it is a Design and Construction Standard Waiver because the Design and Construction Standards require extension along a property frontage. The applicant has indicated that they would continue to use the existing sanitary sewer and water service leads to service the building. The site is relatively flat with the exception of the rear portion along the banks of the Rouge River where it is steep. Storm water will be collected in proposed storm sewer and routed through oil/gas separators to a detention basin located at the southeast corner of the site. The basin is proposed to contain temporary sedimentation and permanent water quality controls. Storm water will discharge form the basin at a restricted rate to the Walled Lake Branch of the Middle Rouge River. She noted that because the site contains flood plain and flood way, a Local Flood Plain Use Permit would be required at Final. The applicant will need to apply for this permit through the City of Novi Building Department.

Ms. Lemke indicated the landscape plan has been revised from the previous presentation. The proposed plan includes the Town Center amenities, such as brick pavers, pedestrian lighting, benches and trash receptacles. The proposed landscape plan meets and exceeds the required fifteen percent (15%) of open space. The four foot (4’) of green space around the building has been met. The loading area continues to be screened and shrubs will be provided around the detention basin. Therefore, with the comments in her September 26, 2001 review letter, Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan.

In regard to Woodlands, Ms. Lemke noted approximately 0.4-acres Woodlands located at the south of the property (noted on the Woodlands Map in dark green), which is not on the Wildlife Habitat Plan. The woodlands follow the banks of the Walled Lake branch of the Rouge River. Therefore, the quality is good and preservation is important to filter and shade the river. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Woodland Permit with the condition of placing a preservation easement on the remainder of the Woodlands on the site. The applicant is only removing a small area of woodlands for the storm outlet. One cottonwood tree with a double trunk of 15" and 18" d.b.h. and possibly some edge vegetation. The remainder of the regulated woodlands on the site are being preserved. She noted there are a number of items, which she would be looking for at Final along with the four (4) conditions included in her review letter dated September 26, 2001.

Mr. Fox stated the proposed project fronts within 500 feet of Grand River Avenue placing it in Façade Region 1. In addition to the requirements of the Façade Ordinance, the project is required to meet the TC standards of Section 1603.4, which states that façades need to be primarily brick and stone. The project was originally reviewed by JCK October 16, 2000, at which time a Section Nine Facade Waiver was recommended for the building and canopy. According to the Ordinance, the building and canopy are separate issues. The October 16, 2000 review indicated the building was in full compliance. A waiver was recommended for the canopy for the excessive amount of E.I.F.S. The percentages were around 60% due to the fact of the fascia and columns. Contingencies on the Section Nine Facade Waiver included, 1) …The E.I.F.S. located on the canopy should be delineated to a greater degree to more closely simulate stone. An E.I.F.S. crown molding with dentil detail not less than 18" in height or other similar enhancement is suggested. 2) The brick column enclosures should be increased in size to increase their percentage to 30% of the canopy area. He noted that currently the lowest percent is 20% on one of the façades. Region 1 requires a 30% brick percentage. The two (2) submittals since the October 16, 2000 review have not shown the recommended changes. 3) A sample board showing the brick, mortar, E.I.F.S., and trim colors be submitted. 4) The plans should be revised and resubmitted. Mr. Fox did not recommend approval in the review letter dated September 28, 2001 based on the fact that the recommended changes have not been submitted. However, if the applicant agrees to make the changes, then he would be able to recommend a Section Nine Facade Waiver.

Chairperson Churella announced he has received a letter dated September 26, 2001 from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.

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

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


Member Mutch referenced Mr. Fisher’s letter dated November 1, 2001. There was a need to determine if the use was a lawful use at the time it became non-conforming. Mr. Fisher indicated in his letter that under Michigan Law, the Commission needed to make a determination at the point the non-conforming use was established, that the prior use had been lawful. He quoted from Mr. Fisher’s letter, "…that is earlier activity that was not lawfully permitted may not be used as a basis of later claiming the existence of a non-conforming use". He asked Mr. Schultz at what point the use would have become a non-conforming use that the Commission would need to determine if the use at the time was lawful.

Mr. Schultz clarified if the Member Mutch was referring to the overall use of the gas station or Mr. Fisher’s letter related to the accessory use of sale and convenience items.

Member Mutch narrowed his question to the retail use.

Mr. Schultz indicated some of the main issues for the Commission to consider when making their determination. 1) There is no change in the building footprint. 2) An allegation of some prior use and they may have not provided any particular evidence that it was a lawful use. Mr. Fisher’s quote of the Norton Shores v. Carr indicates the consideration if the use similar in nature to what existed there. He agreed that if the sale of convenience items were unlawful, then there would be difficulty establishing a right to continue this type of use inside the building. However, he felt in a broader sense, the use of a gas station is permitted and they have met their burden to shift the burden to the City on the overall use as a gas station. At this point, the question becomes if they are allowed to continue the use, is there a purpose or benefit to the City and not allowing what he believed is clearly an accessory use to the overall use. He did not feel that they would have the right if they have not established that they had a lawful use of convenience sales in the bays of that building. However, aside from a legal issue, he deferred to Mr. Arroyo for a response in regard to a planning question.

Member Mutch clarified the applicant had established a point of a lawful gas station use, which it is the City’s burden to prove otherwise. The retail portion has not been established as lawful, however, it is secondary as it is an accessory use.

Mr. Schultz agreed. He indicated that it becomes less of a legal question and more of a planning issue. If the Commission acknowledges it was a lawfully established gas station then, the planning question would become, "What would you want to see it be?"

Member Mutch asked if the next step would be to review the issue of the size of the use, the nature of the use and whether or not there has been an actual expansion of a non-conforming use or not.

Mr. Schultz stated that according to the materials he received the review is for a use is within the footprint with the same number of pumps. He did not find any evidence to indicate an expansion. He suggested that in addition to focusing on a non-conforming use, that the Commission also focuses on the fact that the site is non-conforming. Many elements of the non-conforming site under the proposed Site Plan are being brought into compliance.

Member Mutch noted his question to Mr. Fisher, City Attorney, if an addition to the number of pumps would indicated the expansion of a non-conforming use. He stated that Mr. Fisher seemed to indicate that it would be. He stated the number of pumps previously used and the number of proposed pumps needed be established.

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Mutch asked if the determination should be made at the point the gas station was actually pumping gas or the point the zoning changed making the use non-conforming.

Mr. Schultz indicated the time of the zoning change, when the use became non-conforming, should be the point of determination. He believed it was the late 80’s change to the current district.

Member Mutch indicated his findings of a July 30, 1984 Zoning District Map, which indicates the property as zoned TC-1. He believed 1984 would be the date, however, it would need to be established. He clarified that whatever was in place at the date established would then indicated what could be done now.

Mr. Schultz agreed with the exception of the gas station operating for a substantial period of time with additional pumps and the City took no action to stop the increase of non-conformity. He indicated that if there were additional pumps after 1984, there could be an argument on the other side that the City "sat on their rights". He restated that to his understanding there has not been a change in the pump number.

Member Mutch noted the issue of the convenient store as an accessory use to the gas station. The gas station has been established as a non-conforming use and therefore, the convenient store would be allowed to continue and the gas station re-developed. He referenced the traffic trip generation. He indicated it could be argued, based on the PM Trip Generation, the retail use is the primary use and the square footage allocated to that use.

Mr. Schultz indicated that hypothetically, if the use had never ceased and there was no sale of convenience items on the property in 1995 and the proponent requested to use the bays (not changing the footprint) to begin the sale of those items. He questioned if the City would have a legitimate basis to claim an expansion of use. He felt that it would have been a difficult position for the City, even if the use had not ceased. He stated that although it may be a bigger use, it is a bigger use at several other gas stations as an accessory use.

Member Mutch noted Mr. Schultz’ philosophical view of the uses, because it seemed that convenience stores have fast food restaurants and convenience stores with gas pumps but not vice versa.

Member Richards asked if the eight foot (8") sidewalk width was the maximum that could be packaged along Flint Street.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that it would overlap. However, in order to have a twelve and one half-foot (12.5’) sidewalk, the landscaping would have to be removed. The applicant has attempted to maintain landscaping and still provide a sidewalk of a reasonable width.

Member Richards questioned if the sidewalk width issue would be required to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct. He stated the width is specified in the Zoning Ordinance.

Member Richards stated it appears the five (5) driveways would be reduced to two (2). He noted the many driveways located across the street. Therefore, he felt their proposed reduction in driveways was the best that could be done.

Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Member Richards clarified a Planning Commission Waiver was required.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Richards clarified if the Preservation Easement for the green space to the south of the service station was a voluntary issue from the developer.

Ms. Lemke indicated that is typically a condition of the Planning Commission. Ms. Lemke made the recommendation and the Planning Commission would need to make it a condition.

Member Richards asked the developer if he was agreeable to this condition.

Mr. Jacobs answered, yes.

Member Richards stated it appeared that the usage has been on going as gas station because the owners have not indicated that they did not want it to be a gas station. The owners have attempted to develop the site as a gas station. Member Richards indicated that he did not have a problem as they are using the same footprint. He questioned if the retail store would be a permitted option in a TC-1 zoning and if so, it would not be an issue.

Mr. Schultz indicated that it is permitted.

Member Richards indicated that if there had not been a gas station there, then they could have built a retail store with no problem. Based on these finding, he made a motion.



Moved by Richards, seconded by Piccinini, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Proposed Gas Station SP00-52 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Planning Commission Waiver Driveway Spacing Waiver, subject to the granting of a ZBA Variance for the sidewalk width, placement of Woodlands on the site being placed into a Preservation Easement, the establishment of the escrow for the sidewalk along Flint Street, subject to submitting a plan that meets the Section Nine Facade Waiver requirements, contingent upon the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.


Member Piccinini asked if a determination was made regarding the exterior side yard parking along the West Side of the building.

Mr. Arroyo indicated if the exterior side yard parking could continue if it previously existed. However, if it did not previously exist, then a ZBA Variance would be required because it is not permitted in the TC-1 District.

Member Canup recalled purchasing gasoline from the gas station and the side yard parking existed.

Member Richards clarified if the Commission agreed that the exterior side yard parking previously existed.

Commission agreed.

Member Piccinini amended the motion to include a Woodland Permit and City Council Design and Construction Wavier for the escrow.


Moved by Richards, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED (4-3): In the matter of Proposed Gas Station SP00-52 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit, Planning Commission Waiver Driveway Spacing Waiver, subject to the granting of a ZBA Variance for the sidewalk width, placement of Woodlands on the site being placed into a Preservation Easement, City Council Design and Construction Waiver for the escrow, the establishment of the escrow for the sidewalk along Flint Street, subject to submitting a plan that meets the Section Nine Facade Waiver requirements, contingent upon the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.


Member Koneda agreed that the petitioner submitted significant information indicating the site was not abandoned. However, he struggled with the issues of non-conforming usages and the expansion of the building. The purpose of a non-conforming usage meant that the usage would go away over time and not expand. Therefore, he believed they were violating the purpose of a non-conforming usage. He noted the desire to have Fendt and the gas station move out of the Town Center area to allow an expansion of the street. Hypothetically, he stated if the proposal was a convenient store without a gas station, he would vote for an approval. However, with the gas station, he would not be in support of the motion. He stated the plan is an attempt to expand the usage of the gas station. It is an attempt to meet the Ordinance requirements of the TC-1 zoning to allow the building to remain due to it having all of the TC-1 amenities. He stated it was in conflict with the premise. Regardless if the convenience usages were lawful or not lawful, the fact that the building footprint is being expanded is an expansion of a non-conforming use. A gas station is not permitted therefore the Commission could not approve an expansion.

Member Piccinini interjected and indicated that the footprint was not enlarged.

Member Koneda stated the footprint is enlarged by three hundred and eighty feet (380’). The cooler is an expansion of an existing building.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the building is not being expanded. However, equipment is being added to the back, which does not constitute a building.

Member Koneda questioned if it should be considered an expansion of the building because the footprint enlarges.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it does not meet the definition of a building. Instead it meets the definition of a structure. A building has a roof over it and is supported by columns.

Member Canup commented that "anyone" could place "anything" outside.

Mr. Arroyo indicated it is required to meet all setback requirements. In the proposed, all façade requirements have been met in terms of making it fit within the district with the brick. To his understanding it technically did not have a roof. Therefore, it would not formally meet the definition of a building.

Member Koneda clarified that the added equipment is not an expansion of the building, even though the footprint of the building is being enlarged. He clarified if the additional equipment was causing the problems with parking.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the Commission would need to make this determination.

Member Koneda felt that the addition was causing the problem(s) with the parking. The space is 380 square feet. He questioned how many parking spaces the 380 square feet would effect.

Mr. Arroyo stated it requires a little over one (1). However, the parking requirement has been met.

Member Koneda clarified if there was a deficiency of parking by one (1).

Mr. Arroyo indicated that this issue was resolved.

Member Koneda clarified if the site was contaminated. He referred to the Wetland review letter, which indicated a gas leak. The tank removal occurred between October 1999 and March 2000.

Ms. Kay agreed. She added the finding was according to the D.E.Q.

Member Koneda questioned if the D.E.Q. estimated clean up to be complete in five (5) years.

Ms. Kay answered, correct.

Member Koneda questioned if this would be through re-mediation. He questioned if there were any other uses that could be built on the site. He recalled the difficulties with contamination on the site at the northeast corner of Novi Road and Grand River Avenue, which prevented the construction of other uses. He questioned if the proposed site faced similar circumstances. He questioned further, if another use could be built if they elected to not construct a gas station.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that generally the answer is no. A contaminated site would need to be re-mediated prior to human use of the site. Possible uses may include a parking lot, which would pave over the entire contaminated area. He restated that re-mediation would be required.

Member Koneda questioned the legality of selling the convenience merchandise in 1984. He questioned if a determination needed to be made of whether it was a lawful usage.

Mr. Evancoe commented on issue of whether the convenient store aspect would expand the overall use. He recalled Mr. Fisher’s comments stating that a non-conforming use (such as the gas station) and addition of a convenient store retail use would be considered an expansion of the non-conforming use. However, the applicant provided information, which indicated approximately one thousand square feet (1000) of the property was used for convenient store purposes. With this information, Mr. Fisher acknowledged in his letter that it was part of the existing use. Therefore, to have the convenient store as part of their proposal would not be creating anything new that did not already exist.

Member Koneda asked if they obtained a license from the City with the expanded usage. He assumed they had a license to pump gas. Therefore, he questioned if they had legal means of selling the convenience items. He stated in the "old days" gas stations had coin operated machines for beverages or snacks. Member Koenda felt that the use was inappropriate in the Town Center District.

Mr. Schultz noted that he was not able to quote the Ordinance for the prior district before the Town Center District. He responded to the question if a City permit was required to sell the goods. The City would not issue any approvals unless there was a Building Permit for a change in use, which was substantial enough to require reconsideration by the Planning Commission. Based upon their representation, he did not believe there was a need for a Building Permit. He indicated that they did not represent that they made physical changes to the building. Therefore whether the City would have taken enforcement action if they made the finding of convenience sales in 1989 would be difficult to determine in 2001. He noted the difficulty of whether the use would be considered an accessory use under any district.

Member Canup noted his history of purchasing gasoline from the gas station. He did not recall any significant amount convenience items (as defined today) being sold. He questioned if there was proof of this. He added that an affidavit could be signed by anyone. He did not recall a cooler such as the one proposed.

Larry Trepeck made himself available to answer any questions pertaining to any particular usage. He noted that he did not operate the location and instead, it was leased out. The advent of the majority of convenience items did not occur until the later years, possibly the early 90’s. At this point, the operator had one person pumping self-serve gas and converted the balance of the inside to convenience items, as it is defined today. Therefore, one would have to walk inside to see the items.

Member Canup disagreed with the Mr. Trepeck’s comparison of a convenient store as it is defined today.

Mr. Campbell added that there were two large coolers, which could be seen today.

Mr. Trepeck stated that he visited the site two to three times a week. He added that one would have to go inside the store to detect the sales.

Member Koneda stated the total square footage is limited to one thousand (1000) or less or it is considered an expansion of a usage. The one thousand (1000) must include the cooler, which is 380 square feet. He asked how much retail space would be available in the new building. A cash register would accommodate both uses. Therefore, it would be assumed that the entire interior space of the building, including the cooler (because it is merchandise to be sold) is dedicated to retail space. Member Koneda indicated that he would support an approval providing the area is less than one thousand square feet (1000), which the they claim to have had in 1993. However, if the area were more than 1000 square feet, then he would vote against an approval because it would be expanding beyond what they had in 1993.

Member Kocan asked if the left-hand turns, in and out of the intersection, were far enough away from the Grand River Avenue / Novi Road intersection to allow for safe turns.

Mr. Arroyo stated that although there is occasional stacking, he rarely witnessed it extending as far as Flint Street. He stated left-turns headed eastbound to travel north on Novi Road have cued up, however, he did not find it to extend that distance on a regular basis. When the road is widened to five (5) lanes, there will be a center left-turn lane. The cue would not normally extend beyond the frontage of the property. However, he noted that he was able to determine what would occur in the future.

Member Kocan questioned if the extension of the bridge and the change in the grade would impact the gas station. She questioned if he anticipated that the bridge extension would come as far as Flint Street.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that to his understanding, the bridge would touch down and reach grade prior reaching the Ring Road, which is west of the site. Therefore, it should not have a significant impact on the proposed site.

Member Kocan stated her concern with the taking of the petitioner’s property with the widening of the road.

Mr. Arroyo explained this was the reasoning for the recommendation to have the curb along Grand River Avenue set back thirty-two and half feet (32.5’), which is the amount the Road Commission indicated was needed for the road widening to five (5) lanes. Therefore, there should not be an additional take if all goes according to the information received from the Road Commission.

Chairperson Churella asked the architect to indicate the amount of square feet.

Mr. Lauer indicated the portion of the existing building devoted to the retail uses is eight hundred thirty-two square feet (832’) plus the three eighty (380) for the cooler in the back. The total submitted amount devoted to retail is twelve hundred and twelve square feet (1212’).

Chairperson Churella clarified if his calculation included the cooler in the back, which is not part of the building.

Mr. Lauer answered, correct. He stated if the cooler is counted as square footage then there would be an additional three hundred eighty square feet (380’).

Chairperson Churella stated that otherwise the amount is under nine hundred square feet (900’).

Mr. Lauer answered, correct.

Mr. Arroyo stated the Site Plan indicates seven hundred and five feet (705’) square footage of floor area devoted to retail sales.

Member Mutch agreed with Member Koneda’s point determining the square footage, if there is an expansion of the use and if the square footage increased. He stated the information presented indicates that when the entire building was converted into a retail uses that it was a smaller amount of retail space than what was use in the past. He found it difficult to believe that the space converted to a retail use utilized less space for retail than when it was "not really " a retail use, but actually was. He did not accept the calculations that were presented. He asked the applicant to explain his figures.

Mr. Lauer indicated the area of the principle differences. The toilets are considerably larger than in the past. The area for the cash register and gas pump controls are taken out of the retail calculation because it is the support for the employee and the gas controls.

Member Mutch questioned if the affidavits, which state at least one thousand square feet (1000) of the space was used for retail space essentially indicate every inch of the building (as it currently exists) was used for retail with the exception of the cash register area.

Mr. Lauer answered, yes. He added it had a smaller toilet. The area effectively is one large open building that was filled with the racks for merchandise and free standing coolers along the back and side walls.

Member Mutch could not recall the applicant’s site. However, he did recall other gas stations, which converted a portion for retail use. He did not recall ever seeing a gas station with every square inch of the store was converted to a retail use. He was not comfortable with the explanations presented without more tangible proof. He was aware of the efforts made on behalf of the applicants. However; the building has not had any activity for eight (8) years. Therefore, he understood the difficulty in reconstructing the history. Member Mutch agreed with Member Koneda. He did not find the use consistent with the Town Center. A gas station is specifically spelled out in the Ordinance as not the type of use for Town Center.

Mr. Lauer clarified that he was not representing that the use was consistent with Town Center. Instead he noted that he was representing the aesthetic qualities (streetscape, look and feel) would be perceived by the passer by as in keeping with the intent of Town Center. He added a convenient store is permitted by right in the TC-1 District. Therefore, the issue is the eight (8) fueling stations present before and now. He noted the large investment of money in an effort to meet the design intent of the TC-1 District.

Member Mutch stated intent of zoning generally is to reduce non-conforming uses whenever possible. He stated unless there is no other option, to continue the existence of a non-conforming use is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance or with the law of the State of Michigan.

Chairperson Churella called for the vote.

Mr. Schultz asked the proponent and the owner if the use of the bays was for auto service prior to the conversion to retail use. He stated the discussion regarding 1000 feet verses 1200 feet becomes complicated if the direction is to limit to the indicated 1000 square feet in the affidavit. He questioned if the remainder of the footage could be returned to a use that would be permitted if he went back to the original non-conforming use.

Chairperson Churella interjected and called for the vote.


Yes: Churella, Kocan, Piccinini, Richards

No: Canup, Koneda, Mutch,



This retail shopping center project is located in Section 17,on the southeast corner of Grand

River and Wixom Roads. The 58.14-acre site is zoned B-3 (General Business) and I-1 (Light Industrial). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan (Phase I), Wetland and Woodland Permit approvals under a Consent Judgement

Mr. Evancoe directed the Commission’s attention to his memo dated November 2, 2001. He noted the number of unresolved issues at the October 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, which required further discussion between the City, Consultants, adjacent property owner and developer. He outlined his memo for the benefit of the audience. The South Screening Area is located directly north of Mr. Wyzinski’s home located on Wixom Road. The concern of whether proper screening and buffering was being provided. The berm shown on the previous Site Plan did not extend the entire length of the south property line. However, the developer has agreed to provide this, as indicated on the revised plan. The proposed berm height will meet Ordinance requirements and the Consent Judgement Agreement. The truck loading area meets Ordinance requirements. He recalled the petitioner’s representation that no refrigeration trucks brought to the premises. In addition, there is screening of the truck area. He noted Mr. Wyzinski’s expressed desire to have increased buffering related to his house because the Revised Version remains unacceptable. Mr. Wyzinski desires the wall be increased to twelve feet (12’). Another option, as noted in Ms. Lemke’s review, would be to place plantings on Mr. Wyzinski’s property or additional on the berm area. He outlined the Grand River access issues. The developer has relocated the property entry to align with where Twelve Mile Road will intersect with Grand River Avenue (part of the Grand River Improvement Project). The Oakland County Road Commission will be moving the traffic signal from its current location to where Twelve Mile Road comes out to its new location. This change would provide for a safer entry point for the proposed shopping development. The developer and Varsity Lincoln have indicated that they are willing to discuss a mutually agreeable option for closing Varsity’s current easterly ingress/egress and incorporating a new entrance into the Novi Promenade. The access would ultimately come at the point where the Novi Promenade access would be located on Grand River. There are various ways to accomplish this as indicated in Mr. Arroyo’s review letter. One option would be to bisect the property to the north of the Promenade, which has frontage on Grand River Avenue, providing a direct east/west connection to Varsity Lincoln Mercury from the Promenade entryway. Another option would close the road traveling northerly out of the Varsity property to Grand River Avenue and have it southerly entering into the parking lot of the Promenade with access over to the Twelve Mile Road signal. He recommended if the Commission chose to make a motion to approve the site plan that they also include the condition that the two parties work out this matter.

Mr. Evancoe indicated issues related to the preservation of Woodland Trees have not been resolved. Ms. Lemke and the developer have differences in their methods of counting. Therefore, an agreement has not been reached as to how the trees should be counted and ultimately how many need to be preserved. He noted the Commission would ultimately need to determine how to resolve the matter. In terms of photometrics, minor adjustments are needed and could be handled at Final. The building façade complies with the Consent Agreement. However, he recalled the developer’s comments regarding the addition of a two foot (2’) parapet wall around the perimeter of the Target building, which would screen the rooftop equipment. Another option to screen rooftop equipment would involve the use of individual structures scattered in the location of the units, which could result in ten or twelve. The developer has expressed the desire to have a parapet incorporated into the design of the building. This change would require going before the City Council to amend the Consent Agreement in regard to the building height. He noted the applicant’s interest to have the Planning Commission endorse this possibility.

Mr. Arroyo did not have any additional comments.


Ms. Lemke explained her memo dated November 2, 2001. On October 24, 2001 a telephone conversation took place between the City Staff and the City Attorney. The number of total trees on the site surveyed at one thousand four hundred forty-one (1,441) included dead, hazard, off-site trees and trees outside of the Woodland Boundary. Approximately seven hundred (700) trees were to be saved according to the Consent Judgement. The applicant proposed to save six hundred and one (601) and ninety-nine (99) additional trees were required. Ms. Lemke indicated a proportional formula was used, (to avoid arguments of which trees to remove etc…), in which the number of trees (1,441) were divided by seven hundred (700) to obtain the percentage of forty-eight point six (48.6%). The number of trees calculated to one thousand three hundred twenty-five (1,325) trees. Ms. Lemke agreed with this number of trees. She noted that Mr. High was also in agreement with this calculated number and its breakdown. She added that the breakdown is included in Mr. High’s memo dated November 1, 2001. Approximate at that time was defined by a conversation with the City Staff and City Attorney as plus or minus three (3) trees from the six hundred and forty-four (644) that were required to be saved. A memo was forwarded to Mr. High’s office indicating the number of trees to be saved. The memo also indicated the alternatives and areas on the site where proposed construction and proposed future construction could be removed or relocated to meet the number of 644. Ms. Lemke felt that six hundred forty-four (644) was a reasonable number proportionately with the seven hundred (700) trees. Areas for tree preservation were reviewed at a meeting with the applicant on October 29, 2001. There was question with the November 2, 2001 Site Plan submittal with regard to the twenty-eight (28) "Border Trees" mentioned in the November 1, 2001 memorandum. Nine (9) of the twenty-eight (28) "Border Trees" were already indicated to be saved. She noted the limited time for review of the landscape plan. It appeared that the remaining number of trees were saved by reworking the grading areas adjacent to the proposed wetland mitigation and detention basin, which was one of her suggestions as an alternative to save additional trees. However, she did not received grading plans with the submittal, which made it difficult to determine its certainty. Giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, possibly another nineteen (19) trees could be credited. Therefore, five hundred sixty (560) plus nineteen (19) would total five hundred seventy-nine (579) trees saved. Therefore, they would be short sixty-five (65) trees from the six hundred forty-four (644) total. Ms. Lemke pointed out areas where it might be possible to save addition trees. 1) The relocation of a portion of the wetland mitigation area on the northern side of Wetland C, which would be relocate it to the western side of Wetland C. 2a) A reduction of the greenspace for land bank parking east of Building C by fifteen feet (15’) and moving the detention basin westerly by fifteen feet (15’), which could save plus or minus 20 trees. 2b) An elimination of the land banked area completely could save plus or minus sixty-seven (67) trees. Additional parking could be added further north on the site by the entrance off of Grand River for that elimination of the reserved area for parking. East of the parking lot approximately Lot 1, south of Building C, have two (2) areas for additional parking. She roughly calculated that the two (2) mentioned alternatives could save an additional plus or minus eighty-six (86) trees, allowing the applicant to meet the six hundred forty-four (644) trees. She commented on the discussion of the wetland mitigation taking up additional trees. She stated that the wetland mitigation is not required to be on site and traditionally has not been allowed in high quality woodland areas. However, it has been allowed in some small areas of a lesser quality on the proposed site. (southeastern portion of Wetland C) The are no replacement of trees permitted within the any Woodland area or under canopy trees of any trees to be saved. She reminded the Commission that a tree survey is required to be sealed by a professional engineer should be accurate upon submittal.

Ms. Lemke stated the combination of the wall and berm meets the height requirement. However, screening from Mr. Wyzinski’s house is not provided in this height. She suggested raising the height of the evergreen trees to the berm area located along Mr. Wyzinski’s house. She recommended additional plant materials be planted throughout the berm. She noted that Mr. Wyzinski had expressed the desire to have a higher wall as oppose to more plant materials, which she proposed as an alternative.

Ms. Weber did not have any additional comments.

Chairperson Churella called Mr. Wyzinski forward to comment.

Mr. Wyzinski, 26850 Wixom Road, indicated that his home is located south of the proposed project. He recalled his attempt to construct a 30x40 pull barn, which was one percent of the proposed Target store. He stated the City did not permit him to construct his barn on residential property less than one hundred feet (100’) from the border of the vacant industrial property. He understood the City Officials negotiated a consent agreement with the property owners. However, as a long time resident of Novi, he did not believe his concerns were completely considered with only a fifty foot (50’) berm for screening. He stated the top of the berm is the same level as the floor of his home. He stated the site would place eight (8) to ten (10) foot of fill to build the store up due to the different levels of the ground. Most of the property border slopes toward the north, which would extend the property down. He did not agree with the allowing of a truck access fifty feet (50’) from residential property. He showed the Commission photographs of semi-trucks to demonstrate its average size of approximately thirteen feet (13’). He noted his concern of the creation of areas that could "pond" due to the ground sloping down and the berm being constructed upward. He did not recall provisions for a swail or drain along the southern portion of the berm and his northern side to prevent the holding of water. He counted fifty (50) evergreens planned for along the seven hundred seventy foot (770’) border, thirty-seven (37) seven foot (7’) trees and thirteen (13) twelve foot (12’) trees. He indicated if these trees were lined up it would calculate to one (1) every fifteen point four feet (15.4’). Therefore, he did not feel that the proposed screening and the proposed six foot (6’) wall were not adequate. He suggested add to the existing plan another six foot (6’) brick wall to create a twelve foot (12’) wall, taller evergreens and a provision to prevent pooling water along the property line. He reminded the Commission of the sound that would be generated from the truck well. He assumed the scoops at the back of the building were for drainage from the roof. He then questioned if there would be down spouts from the roof leading to the storm sewer verses running to the ground. As mentioned at the first meeting, he restated the large amount of gravel in the area allowing the water to travel underneath. He requested that the large metal louver at the back of the building be moved to the East Side of the building where it would not be adjacent to the residential property. He stated that the City would assume the responsibility for the profile drain. However, if the City is unable or unwilling to complete the drain, he requested that this be completed prior to the approval of a Phase II. He stated if the drain can not or will not be completed, then he requested that no water flowing south would be permitted.


Member Kocan directed the petitioner’s attention to Sheet A-8 of the proposed Site Plan showing the rear elevation. She agreed with Karl. She understood that technically the berm meets the ordinance. However, it is a six (6) foot high berm from the developer's piece of property. The berm Karl Wyzinski has is zero (0) with the top elevation of the berm is 986 and his house at 986. She stated the Ordinance refers to the berm as an obscuring berm and wall. The placement of the berm is not to make the property "look pretty". Instead the intention of the berm is to divide two (2) disassociated parcels of property. She wanted to explore to find the option that could make the two (2) more compatible. She added that one to two semi-truck trips per day would create noise that would bounce off of the building with no earth to absorb the noise. She requested that the Commission comply with the intent of the Ordinance, which is to obscure property from the residential area. She hoped the developer would be willing to comply. She suggested the addition of six feet (6’) to the height of the brick wall running along the entire berm, which would give Mr. Wyzinski a six foot (6’) obscurity. Member Kocan noted that regardless of the viewing point, (next to Karl’s house or further toward the loading docks), he has no obscurity. Therefore, she hoped the developer, as a "good neighbor", would consider the additional height to the wall. She only noted three (3) lights located on the back of the building, which she calculated to be thirteen feet (13’) high. She commended the developer for this consideration. She recalled it being determined that a wall would run along the area of the truck well. However, the Site Plan only indicated guardrails. She asked the petitioner to address if he proposed a brick wall proposed where the building "jogs in" for the loading dock and continues the entire length of the loading dock. Additionally, how high is the proposed wall and the material it would be constructed with.

Tom High directed the Commission’s attention to the rear elevation. He explained the elevation was done to depict the "cut away" of loading dock. Using the Site Plan, he pointed out the wall running along the edge of the loading dock. He restated that it was "cut away" in order to show the elevation of the building. He noted the corner of the next drawing of elevation shows the cut of the wall location.

Member Kocan asked about the proposed height and material(s) of the wall.

Mr. High indicated it would be an eight foot (8’) solid brick wall. He added that the wall would run flat.

Member Kocan clarified that the wall would not run down with the loading dock.

Mr. High stated that the wall would be four feet (4’) above ground at the actual loading dock and four feet (4’) of it would retain the ground it holds down.

Member Kocan stated the plan indicates guardrail. Therefore, she questioned if he proposed guardrail in addition to the brick wall.

Mr. High stated his architect informed him that his interpretation was correct.

Member Kocan clarified her concern was that Site Plan identifies a guardrail and does not indicate a wall.

Mr. High asked her to clarify the area that she was referring to.

Member Kocan stated her comments were referring to page A-8 - Exterior Elevations of the Site Plan, which depicts the rear elevation. She noted the poured concrete and Item #15.

Mr. High suggested that the guardrail might be located inside to protect the wall. He stated wall is higher than the guardrail.

Member Kocan asked Ms. Lemke if she reviewed other elevations consistent with the comments of the applicant.

Mr. High noted on the Site Plan the truck dock and the wall on the edge of the truck dock. The wall is four feet (4’) above grade level at its shallowest.

Member Kocan clarified that the wall would only be four (4) feet in high.

Mr. High noted the original comment requiring the planting of twelve foot (12’) evergreen trees in the area along the berm, which has been done. He commented on the misnomer of fifty feet (50’). He explained that fifty feet (50’) is the distance from the Promenade property line to the edge of the road. Twenty-four (24) or thirty (30) foot of road and forty feet (40’) of landscaping exist prior to reaching the residential property. Therefore, the distance from the wall intersection to Mr. Wyzinski’s house is three hundred thirteen feet (313’).

Member Kocan stated that she was not concerned with the actual distance to the resident’s house because he should be able to enjoy the quality of life up to his property line. She pointed out that his argument of 313’ places the burden on the resident and not on the developer. She felt the more that could be done to reduce the impact on the resident would create a better situation on both sides.

Mr. High noted the significant fall off, where the property has the largest difference in elevations, has a berm of eighteen feet (18’) in height when standing on his property.

Member Kocan commented that not while standing on his property.

Mr. High added that there is another four feet (4’) of wall in addition to the eighteen feet of berm height.

Member Kocan disagreed. She referenced the Site Plan, which indicated the top elevation of the berm is 986 and his house at 986.

Mr. High stated the Site Plan indicates a measurement at the finished floor of his house. However, he stated that his calculations were based upon standing on Mr. Wyzinski’s property at the Promenade property boundary. This calculation would be at eighteen feet (18’). He stated that Mr. Wyzinski’s house is located on top of a hill.

Member Kocan stated that she would not be supporting a Site Plan approval if the applicant was not willing to add onto the top of the berm. She felt the intent of the Ordinance was to obscure.

Mr. High stated there would then be a wall on either side and it would then depend which wall Mr. Wyzinski would like to look at.

Member Kocan noted that to her knowledge, all Target Stores have a snack bar inside. However, the applicant has indicated that there would not be refrigerated truck traffic. She clarified if the applicant was indicating they would not provide this service and therefore, would not require refrigerated truck deliveries.

Dean Sermolie, real estate manager for the State of Michigan Target Corporation explained the truck traffic situation. Target Stores have two (2) types of truck deliveries. 1) Shorter Panel trucks to deliver potato chips, milk and ice cream would traffic between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon 5-days a week. Milk and minor refrigerated items would be sold. However, Target is not a grocery store and would not have large semi-trucks with refrigeration equipment running all night. 2) Approximately five (5) to seven (7) Large Merchandise Trucks deliver a week between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. The deliveries are made in the truck well and unloaded in a couple days.

Member Kocan stated that the petitioner indicated at the last Planning Commission meeting that there would be one (1) to two (2) trucks between the hours 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon.

Mr. Sermolie stated that the smaller trucks deliver during the morning. However, the semi-trucks deliver in the early evening.

Member Kocan stated the evening semi-truck traffic was her reasoning for requesting additional height to the wall. She noted another site in Novi with the metal louvers, which create a considerable amount of noise. Therefore, she concurred with Mr. Wyzinski’s request to move the metal louver to another side of the building if possible. She questioned if the metal louvers were for a fan.

Mr. Sermolie indicated the area to be a mechanical room, which could not be moved. However, he did not feel there should be a concern because it is a ventilation louver for emergencies. He explained that the overriding system has a generator, which is powered by natural gas. Therefore, the generator would be used if the electricity were to go out. Moving the mechanical systems would involve a reconfiguration of the store. He understood Mr. Wyzinski’s concern(s) and comment(s) regarding the water flows. He noted that the site has overflow scuppers. If water is too high due to torrential rainfall and can not be taken under the storm sewer system, then the water would overflow the wall and come down. He noted the rain leaders (gutters), which are internalized. Therefore, they were not visible on the back of the elevations. The rain leaders are located inside the wall and connect with the storm sewer system behind the store. The scuppers are present due to the possibility of an extraordinary event of a release of water flow from the wall.

Member Kocan understood Mr. Wyzinski’s concern(s) of water pooling and the drain that runs through his property, which has not been maintained for years. She clarified if the City indicated to Mr. Wyzinski that they are planning to clean the drain in January 2002. However, the DEQ might not allow them to do so, which would necessitate in changing the draining of the parcel in its future phases.

Mr. Wyzinski answered, correct.

Member Kocan requested that the Consultant’s monitor this situation carefully.

Ms. Weber indicated the drainage proposed to the mitigation area, located to the east, will flow south into the drain. The overall drainage from the Promenade property would be less than what is currently flowing to the drain. The reduction will be approximately three to four (3-4) cubic feet per second.

Member Kocan clarified if the berm would have swails or the necessities to prevent pooling of the water flows.

Ms. Weber answered, correct. She stated the drainage from at least the northern half of the berm would be directed toward the north to the four (4) proposed catch basin behind the store.

Member Kocan asked if a drain was proposed along the bottom of the berm. She explained that the dirt will come up to the wall and the water could only drain south toward Mr. Wyzinski’s property.

Ms. Weber stated that there is not a drain proposed under the berm. However, she indicated the option could be explored. She added that the amount of drainage coming off of the berm would be significantly less than what is "heading" there currently with the existing property topography.

Chairperson Churella called Mr. Wyzinski to comment on the matter.

Mr. Wyzinski stated the water currently flows north, then east and then down the drain. He noted the ridges on the property that the water would get caught in. He stated the drainage to the north would be obscured by the berm, resulting in 30-feet of berm water along with the existing water headed north. He stated that the site would not drain without drains. He stated if a swail is installed, it would need to go on the Promenade’s property. He stated the proposed project is being built on two (2) wetlands, which are at 970 and 969. His property line is at 972. Therefore, the water currently goes to the back and south and without a drain, the water will pool.

Ms. Weber indicated that the issue could be discussed with the applicant’s engineer and reviewed at Final.

Chairperson Churella asked the developer if he had any alternatives in regard to the berm issue.

Sanford Green of Landon Companies noted his intention to be a good neighbor to Mr. Wyzinski. He believed the Consent Judgement negotiated clearly specified the type of berm to be constructed on the property. The berm to be constructed would be a six foot (6’), two foot (2’) and six foot (6’) berm as measured from the Promenade side of the property. Due to the land dropping off the berm would be placed more on Mr. Wyzinski’s side. He indicated that he would be willing to speak to Mr. Wyzinski in the spirit of being a good neighbor. However, he felt it was very clear in the Consent Judgement what the obligation would be. He suggested that he was willing to discuss Mr. Wyzinski’s future plans for the property.

Member Kocan agreed with Mr. Green’s comments regarding the inclusions of the Consent Judgement. However, she reminded him that the Consent Judgement also indicates with the objective of providing screening as contemplated in the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Green showed a photograph indicating the appearance of the berm in two (2) years from Mr. Wyzinski’s property. He felt that the opacity requirement of the Ordinance have been met. He did not feel the Ordinance was indicating the Target building should not be visible at all. He showed the Commission the photos of line of sight elevation. He deferred to Ralph Nunez, landscape designer for Promenade.


Ralph Nunez Landscape Architect of Design Team Limited stated the Ordinance requires a 3:1 side slope landscape berm. It does not permit a developer to enter upon another owner’s property and add grade. Therefore, the developer uses the property line as the limit to the area of construction. At this point, the berm is at the required 3:1 slope, the maximum allowable in height. He noted a cross section through Mr. Wyzinski’s house, through the property line and to the Target Store. There is approximately three hundred and thirteen (313) linear feet from Mr. Wyzinski’s house to the side of the Target building. He noted the Target Store the green space with vegetation with deciduous and evergreen trees, the truck access and the berm coming up at a 3:1 slope 2-foot high and then going down. On Mr. Wyzinski’s side of the property line to the top of the berm measures ten (10) foot in height. Mr. Wyzinski’s house is raised up five feet higher. He noted with the permission of Mrs. Wyzinski, the site was photographed from the Wyzinski property looking directly north. The photographs indicate the garage and a number of existing vegetation trees around the portion of the property (not indicated on the photograph) to obscure some of the view. The landscape materials were reviewed by Ms. Lemke’s office, which recommended additional shrubs and ornamental trees, twelve-foot high evergreen trees in the relationship of the truck well. He noted the compliance with all of her requests. He referred to the section designated red on the diagram. The top is ten-foot high with a 3:1 slope, two-foot coming over and two-foot (2’) back down and seven-foot (7’) measured on the Promenade side of the truck access. An engineered architecture retaining all projects L-Shaped and continues east. Ornamental grasses, shrubs, deciduous trees and evergreen trees were added to help continue to filter the view of the Promenade property from the residents. He noted a 3:1 slope continues for nearly forty-five-feet (45’). At the top, a small section of the wall is visible at seventeen-point- two feet (17.2’), with vegetation and the beginning of the twelve-foot (12’) evergreen trees. The wall measurement at this location is eight-foot (8’) from the pavement to the top of the wall. Another cross section depicts a reverse view from the East Side toward the west. He noted the eight-foot (8’) high wall, which is measured from the inside of the truck well up. He calculated eighteen-point-five feet (18.5’) sloping down. He indicated that the cross-section was cut due to the diagonal measurement. He noted that the opacity was met on the second to the last submittal. Originally the wall was six-foot (6’) and he felt that every attempt has been made to increase the height based on the side slopes. He indicated a slope at eighteen-feet (18’) at the property line (bottom line) and seventeen-feet (17’) at the green. He noted the attempt to keep the larger trees/vegetation on the high side near the truck well. Ornamental trees were added for color at the request of Linda Lemke, along with the additional shrubs and deciduous trees to meet opacity. He indicated the portions of the building are visible as it is permitted by the ordinance. He noted the attempt to best obscure the building.

Member Piccinini questioned if the grade was currently raised as it has been discussed.

Mr. Nunez answered, no.

Member Piccinini clarified further that the grade has not been raised.

Mr. Nunez answered, no.

Member Piccinini asked if the grade would be raised with the plan.

Mr. Nunez answered, yes.

Member Piccinini asked how much it would be raised.

Mr. Nunez indicated that the grade would be raised a maximum of ten-feet (10’).

Member Piccinini clarified if the petitioner is currently draining to the property, then it would be his obligation to pick up the drainage. It would not be an option to look into and instead must be picked up.

Ms. Weber answered, correct. She added if it is an existing drainage path.

Mr. Nunez showed the Commission an engineering hydrology map with the red area indicating the watershed area(s). He noted the ridgeline depicted in orange. The watershed area from the three sides of the lines would flow to the existing wetland. The easterly area would flow to the existing wetland system, flow across Mr. Wyzinski’s easterly property line and back down to Wixom Road. Adjacent to Mr. Wyzinski’s property, the Target Parcel indicates two (2) low point where water would enter the non regulated wetland, flow across the resident’s property (as the current water pattern), fill into his pond, releases on the East Side and continues to the drain coming down. He indicated the areas for the proposed engineering storm water detentions. The water would be held as a dry detention basin going through a storm drain, which would continue along the side of the berm and picked up at Wixom Road. Currently, approximately thirteen-acres (13) have water under its normal rainfall flowing onto the property. The new Site Plan will provide storm drains along the truck well to pick up the storm water. He designated the flow routes for the remainder of the site water. Therefore, the water falling on the property is whatever is provided by "Mother Nature" by means of rainfall.

Member Piccinini asked the applicant to clarify where the top section, indicated as blue on the diagram would drain.

Mr. Nunez deferred the matter to the engineer, Matt Deffin.

MR. Diffin, Civil Engineer from Bartel & King Engineers noted the validity of the sloping of the property in both directions. He noted the six-foot to eight-foot (6-8) grade difference from the two areas, which is greater than a one percent (1%) over the distance. He added that the water flow is very good at one percent over a grassed area. Therefore, he did not feel there would be a problem with the water flowing direction. He noted a few drainage tiles could be added to the storm drain to Wixom Road if there are areas of possible ponding.

Member Piccinini clarified if this would be through the berm.

Mr. Diffin answered, yes. The drain tile would go to the property line and pick up the water at the location(s) of ponding and divert the water to the drain. He noted the simplicity and low cost of this option. He noted his willingness to work with the consultants to address the matter.

Member Piccinini referred to the Consent Judgement’s reference to approximately seven hundred (700) trees of the total of fourteen hundred forty-one (1441). She understood the formula. She noted it also indicated that the trees to be removed or replaced are determined in Site Plan Review and Approval in accordance with City applicable Ordinances and shall be subject to maintenance, etc… She noted her difficulty with the fact that the number has already been dropped to 644 and Mr. High’s indication in his letter that the provision of 91% is "good enough". She disagreed. She did not feel that 91% of the lower number (644) was "good enough". Therefore, she noted that she would not support a motion for approval without the provision of the 644 trees.

Member Mutch asked if there would be tree issues, in terms of meeting the numbers, if they were not dealing with the wetland mitigation area, drainage and detention ponds. He questioned how the Target Store itself impacted the Woodlands.

Ms. Lemke stated the location of the Target store influences the location of the detention basin, which would in turn influence the woodlands.

Member Mutch clarified that the store itself is not the issue. Instead the issue is what is associated with having the detention area.

Ms. Lemke indicated that the issues were trying to have everything on the site.

Member Mutch asked further if the focus was only the Target Store, then the other items could be maneuvered around. Further, Target is not taking down the trees.

Ms. Lemke indicated the footprint of the Target building location is not removing any regulated trees.

Member Mutch asked if the reason for the debate is due to the Woodland Permit for the entire site with Phase I.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Mutch noted items included in the Consent Judgement, which were required to be in place prior to the opening of the Target store. Therefore, he questioned if issue was driving the requirement to have the Woodland Permit approved for the entire site verses dealing with Target and the drainage area and not the remainder of the site for with the current Woodland Permit.

Ms. Lemke stated that she was not aware of the answer to his question. However, she was aware that the entire site was part of the Consent Agreement.

Member Mutch asked if it was possible to separated it out. In other words could there be a Woodland Permit to deal with some of the areas and not the entire site.

Ms. Lemke felt that it would be difficult.

Member Mutch noted that based upon Ms. Lemke’s response, he agreed with Member Piccinini’s comments. He agreed with the numbers discussed and felt that the applicant needed to meet Ms. Lemke’s number, which is consistent with the Consent Judgement. However, the difficulty with the trees is the developer’s desire to "max out" the amount of square feet for the stores, which he felt was understandable. However, the Consent Judgement does not indicate the store has to be three hundred seventy-five thousand (375,000) square feet. Instead, the Consent Judgement indicates they are allowed up to three hundred seventy-five thousand (375,000) square feet. Therefore, if the Commission desired to have the tree standard met they would need to request that the applicant find a reduction on the site to be able to meet the standard(s) of the Consent Judgement. The applicant is not being requested to provide anything beyond what is included in the written language of the judgement. He agreed that the applicant has already been given a "break" with the reduced number. He felt that this should be addressed prior to an approval.

Member Mutch read from a letter from Design Team Limited dated November 2, 2001 regarding the landscape review comment. Landscape Plantings Buffers Abutting Rights-of-Way – According to previous conversations with the City and their consultants we do not need to include the wetland area along the right-of-way in our tree frontage calculations. He asked Ms. Lemke if she is the consultant that they are referring to in the letter.

Ms. Lemke indicated that she was not certain what the letter was referencing. However, there was discussion of the amount of trees required along the right-of-way and the credit for saving these.

Member Mutch asked if the wetland area needed to be included in the calculations or not.

Ms. Lemke stated the entire linear frontage is included, including the wetland area to determine how many trees would be needed along the right-of-way.

Member Mutch clarified further her indication of her expectation to calculate the tree frontage calculation based on the entire right-of-way frontage including the wetland, there may be some credit for existing vegetation.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct. She added that this has been met.

Member Mutch clarified that the statement he read from the Design Team letter is not consistent with Ms. Lemke understanding.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Mutch felt that this should be clarified in the terms of approval.

Member Mutch asked Ms. Kay if the potential wetland impact has been determined for the parcel along Grand River Avenue where the revised access drive is proposed to go through.

Ms. Kay indicated that this has not been determined.

Member Mutch clarified if wetlands existed on the property.

Ms. Kay referenced the City Wetland Map.

Member Mutch stated drawings of the access drive indicate a resolution to the access issue to Grand River Avenue. However, according to the Wetland Map, a lot of the property is wet. He added that the applicant does not own the property. Therefore, there is an assumption that another property owner would have a drive running through the middle of their property. He deferred to Mr. Arroyo asking if the wetland impact was considered with the design of the drive.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that he was not aware if the wetlands were delineated on the property.

Member Mutch questioned if the proposed area was the best location for the drive if the wetland impact was not taken into consideration.

Mr. Arroyo indicated factors beyond the control of the City or the applicant. The Road Commission has determined that Twelve Mile Road would touch Grand River at the location as shown on the provided sketch. He understood that this was to be part of the Grand River that is underway. Therefore, the access point for Promenade needs to align at its proposed location to be able to utilize the signal and otherwise present traffic safety issues with left-turn conflicts. He did not find too many options in terms of the location. However, once on the property, it could maneuver to avoid wetlands or other natural features to be protected.

Member Mutch clarified if the County is essentially driving the issue.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Mutch asked if it was sensible to show the access point off of the drive in terms of wetland impact. He questioned if the Commission’s approval of the design concept (indicating the stub) would condone the development of the property regardless of the wetlands.

Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He suggested that the Commission clarify that it is shown in concept only and any proposal for the property would be subject to the City Ordinances.

Member Mutch asked if the remaining parcels would be undevelopable or raise several setback and Ordinance issues.

Mr. Arroyo noted the comment included in his review letter. He indicated that the parcel immediately to the west (depending upon how it is configured) might only be developable as part of the shopping center, Varsity Lincoln Mercury or a combination.

Member Mutch recalled the reference to potentially bring the Varsity drive south into the center.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that option was included in the sketch as Concept B.

Member Mutch asked the status of Concept B in terms of mitigating the impact(s).

Mr. Arroyo indicated that Concept B would not cross the piece west of the drive, which he was not certain if it was sensitive. The two (2) options presented in his review letter would satisfy the concerns from a traffic perspective. Therefore, either option would be acceptable depending upon what would work best for Varsity and Promenade.

Member Mutch asked if Varsity utilized the drive.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the drive is an open access drive.

Mike Stanford of Varsity Lincoln Mercury responded to the matter. He was required to construct the road upon receiving approval for his building. He noted the plans to utilize the drive for dropping off cars and the additional traffic flow from service, which generates one hundred twenty-five (125) cars a day. He noted the time period was in 1994, prior to the road widening and the other projects. He stated the City required him to construct and pay for this road. Therefore, he was not agreeable to pay for another road when his road is closed off. He recalled the City’s indication that he could not have his project constructed without the provision of this road, due to the additional traffic flow to Grand River. However, a Consent Judgement is able to change the "plan". He added that originally the site was I-2 and to be the road to lead into the project.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Stanford to express his needs to the Commission. He asked he had the opportunity to review the concept plans.

Mr. Stanford indicated if the petitioner is paying for the "hook up" then he did not have a preference how it was done.

Member Mutch clarified that Mr. Stanford was agreeable to any option providing the petitioner is responsible for the cost.

Mr. Stanford felt confident of the decision. He stated the petitioner would require a variance for a curb cut. If the access to his site was closed then a variance would not be required.

Member Mutch clarified that Mr. Stanford was comfortable with his access providing that there is some point of access.

Mr. Stanford he only requests access and signage at the point.

Member Koneda stated the proposal of an industrial building adjacent to residential requires a noise analysis as part of the Special Land Use Requirement. He questioned if this was also done for the commercial developments.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the noise analysis is not limited to industrial uses and it applies to any Special Land Uses.

Member Koneda clarified that the proposed site did not require a Special Land Use. He stated an industrial development typically requires sound barrier walls and truck wells in attempt to evade the noise. Therefore, he questioned there would be a problem with the noise at the property line. He was aware that it is not required, however, he felt should be discussed.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that noise standards apply regardless of a requirement of an advanced noise study. He explained in the event they operate and exceed noise standards at the property line, they would be responsible to provide additional mitigation. He stated the noise standards apply either way.

Member Koneda asked what noise standards would apply for the daytime and nighttime.

Mr. Arroyo stated the nighttime would be fifty-five (55) for the receiving zone (residential) and daytime is sixty (60) decibels.

Member Koneda clarified that the nighttime delivery trucks are not permitted to exceed fifty-five (55) at the property line.’

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Koneda did not feel it was necessary to have the information included in the motion because it is a condition of the Site Plan. If the noise level(s) exceed the levels at the property line, he anticipated the City would be informed and the applicant would have to mitigate the problem by with either additional plantings or raising the wall. However, he did not feel that it was a condition that would need to be imposed upon the applicant as part of the Site Plan Process because it is already an ordinance.

Mr. Evancoe noted that all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance would need to be met unless specifically addressed in the Consent Agreement. Therefore, it was not necessary to call out each component of the Ordinance to be met.

Member Koneda noted that he understood Mr. Evancoe’s point. However, he was speaking specifically to the fifty (50) foot landscape buffer and protection for the resident. He wanted to ensure that legitimate action(s) were in place without being overly restrictive.

Mr. Evancoe stated the developer informed him that they are prepared to address the issue if they could have the opportunity to speak.

Chairperson Churella noted that Member Canup has the floor.

Member Canup questioned if the applicant wanted to address the tree issue. He allowed the petitioner to comment.

Mr. Nunez stated that Target is amenable to increase the wall at the level of the truck well. However, he was not aware at this time of the exact number. He noted his willingness to work through the matter with the City during the permitting process because he felt it was a permitting issue and part of the building. Therefore, he preferred to have it addressed as part of the building review. In response to the trees, he showed the Commission a diagram. The red indicated the overlay of the Site Plan with the Consent Agreement. He questioned why the numbers in the Consent Agreement were incorrect because there were not fourteen hundred forty-four (1441) trees. He indicated the reduction of the number of trees to one thousand three hundred twenty-five (1325) penalized them. He stated twenty-seven (27) of the trees called out in the fourteen hundred forty-one (1441) trees were located off-site and would not have been cut down. They are being saved but can not be counted because they are not on the property. He stated the trees have to be counted within fifty feet (50) of the property line. Twelve (12) of the fifty (50) trees that are dead are located in the areas that are being removed. Thirty-eight (38) of the trees are in the area where trees are being saved, which can not be counted because they are dead and not regulated. He continued with other examples. He stated the Consent Agreement exhibit indicates the buildable areas. He stated there are not seven hundred (700) trees to save in the area that is buildable nor were there six hundred forty-four (644) trees. However, there are five hundred eighty (580) trees that exist in the buildable area. He noted that the 580 trees could have been inconceivably increased by twenty-two (22) trees. He pointed out a section of 0.62-acres with five (5) trees, which he calculated to one (1) tree per tenth of an acre. He an area more densely wooded in which some of the land was taken out, which has seventeen (17) trees. Therefore, when the expansion was made to accommodate the requirements of the M.D.E.Q., there was also an expansion of other areas that would be placed into permanent conservation easement. There were no trees in these areas. Every area that was adjacent to a wetland was expanded to the extent that it could be, with the preservation of the agreed upon building envelope area. He noted his willingness to relocate the detention area outside the agreed upon area. As a result, the additional parking (approved as part of the negotiated Consent Agreement for future expansion) would have to be waived, which would save thirty (30) trees. He noted the planting of seventy-seven (77) new trees. He stated the number of trees being planted was greater than those being cut down. He reminded the commission of the requirement to pay for all the trees that they cut down. He stated he wanted to cooperate and asked the commission what they were asking of them.

Member Canup asked how many trees were at odds.

Ms. Lemke stated with credit given of approximately nineteen (19) trees, for the regrading along the detention basin, they would be short approximately sixty-five (65) trees.

Mr. Nunez clarified how many she counted.

Ms. Lemke restated sixty-five (65).

Mr. Nunez indicated the planting of seventy-seven (77) trees.

Ms. Lemke indicated to the applicant that they would be required to plant these regardless, due to the removal of trees.

Mr. Nunez questioned the number if he moved it fifteen feet (15’).

Ms. Lemke stated that it would be approximately twenty (20). However, she indicated the credit was already being given with the nineteen (19) trees.

Mr. Nunez disagreed. He stated that he was speaking to the parking area.

Ms. Lemke indicated this number could be approximately sixty-seven (67) trees.

Mr. Nunez clarified that he would need to take all of the parking area.

Ms. Lemke agreed that it would be all of the parking area.

Mr. Nunez questioned the calculated number if he left one row of the expanded parking area and only took fifteen (15) feet.

Ms. Lemke indicated that she did not calculate the figure that way.

Mr. Nunez disagreed. He said that Ms. Lemke indicated a figure if it was moved fifteen (15) feet.

Ms. Lemke indicated that she did one calculation with fifteen (15) feet and one calculation eliminating it all. She stated that she did not count off the separate areas. She explained that the calculation would not work backwards because it would be from a different area.

Member Canup asked Ms. Lemke what her solution would be for the issue.

Ms. Lemke felt confident that the six hundred forty-four (644) could be met and along with having the parking. She added that there were other areas on the site for parking.

Mr. Nunez stated that in order to accommodate Ms. Lemke’s solution, they would have to give up something that was negotiated. He stated the Consent Agreement gives the right to construct his project. However the count of tress is incorrect.

Member Canup stated they are sixty-five (65) trees at odds. He questioned the possibility of having the developer plant sixty-five (65) trees elsewhere in the City that would be of value to the residents.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes. She indicated that could be an alternative after the site has been expended.

Member Canup questioned if the developer was agreeable to this solution.

Mr. Nunez answered, yes. He indicated that they would be planting sixty-five (65) trees.

Member Canup asked Ms. Lemke the size of the trees.

Ms. Lemke indicated the trees need to be two and one-half (2˝) inch caliper or greater.

Member Canup clarified if Ms. Lemke was comfortable with the suggested resolution.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

Member Canup asked who would designate the location the trees would be planted.

Ms. Lemke indicated it would be worked out as part of the Woodland Permit and the record.

Member Canup clarified that the applicant has agreed to plant the sixty-five (65) two and one-half (2˝) inch trees at the discretion of Ms. Lemke.

Mr. Schultz indicated that for the purposes of Site Plan Approval, the Planning Commission is interpreting the Consent Judgement, which states approximately seven hundred (700) trees. The Commission seems to be making a determination as to what that means.

Member Canup asked if the berm situation was resolved.

Mr. Schultz indicated the berm meets the Ordinance requirements.

Member Canup clarified if the berm exceeds ordinance requirements.

Mr. Schultz indicated that it might in some locations. However, the berm at least meets Ordinance requirements.

Member Canup questioned if the access road issue was resolved. He indicated that Mr. Stanford of Varsity stated he was satisfied if the developers of Promenade absorbed the expense(s).

Mr. Nunez indicated that he had no prior information on the matter. He noted that he previously indicated in discussion with the City that he was happy with the existing entrance. He did not find any problem with the placement of his entrance and traffic light in the back. However, Oakland County Road Commission would not permit the placement of the entrance at that location. Therefore, the entrance is required to be moved. He indicated that if Mr. Stanford was interested in working out an agreement to use the entrance and he was willing to permit the access rights to him. However, he did not feel it was his responsibility to build the road.

Chairperson Churella stated that Mr. Stanford build the other road and would be losing it.

Mr. Nunez stated that the road does not belong to him and he did not tell Mr. Stanford to build it. Oakland County Road Commission indicated the entrance would have to be moved. He stated that he did not have a problem with Mr. Stanford leaving his access as it currently exists.

Harold Fried, Legal Council of the Landon Companies assured the Commission that the road issue would be resolved to accommodate everyone. He noted his intention to continue to work matters out with Varsity. He added that the matter would be resolved prior to Final. He assured that the matter would not create a problem.

Mr. Stanford indicated that he could not have his plan approved until the road was in place. He stated that the road should not be going to "no where". He restated that the original property was I-1.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the City has "not changed the rules". He noted that the majority of the issue was being driven by the County Road Commission’s determination to move the entranceway. The original plan depicted use of the entranceway, which was constructed by Varsity Ford. He indicated the matter was a Final Site Plan issue. The Preliminary Site Plan Approval could be approved, if it were the Commission’s intention, based upon the resolution of the access issues along the lines submitted by the City Traffic Consultant. If the matter were not resolved then the issue would return to the Commission.


Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of The Novi Promenade (Phase I) SP01-53 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit conditional upon the drive with Varsity be worked out and shown on Final Site Plan and the tree issue be handled as per the minutes of the previous discussion.




Member Kocan amended the motion to include the additional two (2) foot parapet wall on top of the building, which exceeds the Consent Judgement with a positive recommendation to City Council.

Member Piccinini amended the motion to include the applicant’s agreement to work with the Department to increase the wall at the docks and the placement of drain tiles along the berm on the problem areas on the adjacent property to the south to alleviate any drain problems with the neighbor. She indicated the several conditions of the consultant’s letters.

Mr. Arroyo suggested amending the motion to include as specified in the review letters.

Member Piccinini asked the dated of the letter.

Member Kocan indicated it would be the letter dated October 12, 2001. She questioned the comments regarding Council Waivers included in the letter dated October 12, 2001, which referred to the access drives and the shorter islands. She questioned if these would be worked out.

Mr. Arroyo stated that to his understanding, the applicant would be making the revisions and the waivers would then be unnecessary.

Member Mutch clarified if the frontage calculation determination for the landscaping was covered in Ms. Lemke’s letter and would therefore be covered under consultant’s conditions and comments.

Ms. Lemke indicated that it is included under the right-of-way section and is a requirement of the Ordinance. She indicated the last plans she reviewed, (not the plans submitted November 2, 2001), met this requirement. She added that it would be for the total lineal footage.

Member Mutch clarified if it is clearly indicated in her conditions. He indicated that he was aware of what the Ordinance required, however he wanted to ensure it was clearly defined.

Ms. Lemke suggested making it a condition to the motion.

Member Piccinini amended the motion to include that motion for approval is for Phase I only with the exception of the Woodland Permit.



Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (5-2): In the matter of Novi Promenade SP01-53 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for Phase I only, Woodland Permit Approval, Wetland Permit Approval subject to consultant’s conditions and recommendations as stated in their review letters, subject to the drive being worked out with Varsity Ford, and the applicant meet the requirement of six hundred forty-four (644) trees by providing sixty-five (65) replacement trees, to work with the Planning Department to increase the wall at the dock, provide placement drain tiles along the berm, subject to the Traffic Consultant’s conditions listed in the October 12, 2001 letter, and meet the total lineal footage for the frontage calculation for the landscaping as required of the Ordinance.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini, Richards

No: Kocan, Mutch




Moved by Churella, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To place the remaining items under Matters for Consideration on the next Planning Commission Agenda.


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

No: None


Matter moved to next Planning Commission meeting


Matter moved to next Planning Commission meeting


Matter moved to next Planning Commission meeting


Matter moved to next Planning Commission meeting









Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:15 p.m.


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

No: None



Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

November 29, 2001


Date Approved: December 19, 2001