View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 2002 AT 7:30 P.M.

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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Kocan (absence excused), Nagy (absence excused), Shroyer (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire



Chairperson Churella announced Brae Pointe Estates SP02-08 would be removed from the agenda due to a death in the Petitioner’s family. He stated the item would be placed on the next available agenda.

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


Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as amended with the removal of Brae Pointe Estates SP02-08


Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None
















Public Hearing on the request of Lee Mamola & Associates for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit and Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 3 on the southwest corner Pontiac Trail and West Park Drive in the B-2 (Community Business) District. The developer proposes a 3,680 square foot self-serve gas station, carry-out and convenience store. The subject property is 2.31 acres.

Barbara McBeth Planner introduced the request of Lee Mamola and Associates for approval of a preliminary site plan, special land use permit and woodland permit. The property is undeveloped land located on the southwest corner of Pontiac Trail and West Park Drive. The developer proposes a 3680 square foot self-service gas station, a carryout and convenience store within the proposed building. The site is zoned B-2, Community Business, as are the properties to the west and south. Further to the south the property is zoned RM-1, Low density multiple family. To the east the land is zoned RM-1, and R-4, One Family Residential. To the north, in the city of Walled Lake, the property is zoned multiple family residential. The site is currently undeveloped land. To the west are the Standard Federal Bank and the Novi Square Shopping Center. To the south are the Grand Court Senior Apartments. To the east are the Windward Bay Condominiums and the North Have Woods subdivision currently under construction. To the north in Walled Lake are the Walled Lake Villa apartments. The applicant is requesting special land use and preliminary site plan approval. This request is a revised plan from a request by the same applicant one year ago in March, when a car wash was also proposed. At this time, the car wash is not being requested, only the self-service gas station, carryout and convenience store, with the associated canopy over the pump islands. The proposed plan consists of approximately 3900 square feet of building area on a 2.31-acre parcel of land. Thirty-five (35) parking spaces are required and provided on the site plan, and two driveways are proposed, one on Pontiac Trail, and one on West Park Drive. A number of concerns have been raised in the staff and consultant reviews. Ms. McBeth highlighted some of these concerns for the Commission: 1) The Planning Review reiterated that this review requires Special Land Use approval by the Planning Commission. The site plan and submitted materials must comply with the requirements for Special Land Use for gas station uses, such as location of driveway entrances from street intersections, minimum site size, sufficient vehicle stacking spaces at the pump islands, canopy setbacks, and the submittal of a noise analysis. The noise analysis was prepared by a board certified noise control engineer and showed that the expected noise levels from the use of the site will fall within the applicable code limits for this development. 2) The Planning Commission, in it’s motion this evening, should also make a finding that the proposed use demonstrates compliance with the other general special land use standards of the ordinance. These standards from the Ordinance, are outlined on page 4 of the Planning review letter. 3) The location of the loading area and trash receptacles needs to be approved by the Planning Commission, as they are located in the interior side yard, instead of the rear yard, as required by the ordinance. The Planning Department has worked with the applicant to relocate the loading and dumpster areas to the West Side of the building, from the east side, in an attempt to make provide a location closer to ordinance requirements, and provide better screening of these areas. The ordinance requires the location for these uses in the rear yard; however, this is not practical on this site, because of the grade differential in the rear yard. 4) The woodland review stated that nearly the entire site is regulated, medium density woodland and therefore, a woodland permit is requested with this application. The Planning Commission, in its motion, will need to make a finding as to whether the general intent of the Woodland Ordinance has been met, and that no feasible alternative location for the structure is possible, without undue hardship to the applicant. The Woodlands report states that there is little flexibility with this site, as the entire site is governed by the Woodlands Ordinance, but the applicant has worked with the Landscape Architect to reconfigure the site to preserve more trees than on a previous submittal. Some of the wooded area along the Pontiac Trail will be retained, and can serve as an alternative to the screening berm that is required for this location. 5) The landscape review discusses the need for a Planning Commission waiver of the four-foot wide landscaped area surrounding the building. The landscaped area is not practical along the front of the building, as a portion of the area is under the proposed canopy that covers the pump islands. The landscape report indicated that more than an equivalent amount of landscaping is provided elsewhere on the site, and the Planning Commission may use this information in deciding whether to grant the waiver. 6) The traffic report states that the Planning Commission will need to grant a waiver of the City’s minimum same-side driveway spacing standards on West Park Drive and on Pontiac Trail. The driveway proposed on West Park is located only 86 feet north of the existing driveway for Novi Square Shopping Center, while the Design and Construction Standards require 185 feet between commercial driveways. The proposed driveway on Pontiac Trail does not meet the required distance from either the driveway for the shopping center, 177 feet, nor the distance from West Park Drive, 228 feet, neither of which meets the minimum standard of 230 feet. A revised traffic study and letter from the applicant’s traffic engineer indicate that the timing of the signal at the intersection of West Park Drive and Pontiac Trail could be improved for better traffic flow through this area. The letter from the applicant’s engineer asks that the County to review the timing of this traffic light to improve the traffic movement at this intersection. 7) A Section Nine Façade waiver is required for the building as presented. The west façade exceeds the percentage of EIFS allowed by ordinance at 31 percent, whereas 25 percent is permitted. The façade consultant does recommend that the design is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. In summary, the proposed Preliminary Site Plan review also requires Planning Commission approval of the Special Land Use, and Woodland permit, as well as a number of Planning Commission approvals for location of loading in the interior side yard, PC waiver of the required 4 foot of landscape space adjacent to the building, 3 PC waivers of D and C standards for minimum driveway spacing, and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Matt Quinn represented the owners of the property. He introduced the Project Architect Lee Mamola, Project Engineer Cliff Seiber and the owners of the property. He stated the matter was previously before the Commission in February 2001. At that time the Planning Commission tabled action on the item and requested the applicant to revise the Site Plan before bringing it back before the Commission. At that point, the Applicant hired Mr. Quinn, Lee Mamola and Cliff Seiber. Initially, the neighbors were objecting to the sounds that might come from the car wash and the bay doors, which were facing that area. Mr. Quinn convinced the owners to drop the car wash and propose a gas station and convenience store. He noted his research determined that there were not any gas stations in Novi. There is a gas station one-mile to the west from the proposed site in downtown Walled Lake and one at Twelve Mile Road and Novi Road. Therefore, he considered the proposed location an asset at the border of the community. The site is property and the property to the west area zoned B-2 (Community Business District). Thereby, making it easy to construct a 10,000-foot commercial strip center, which Mr. Mamola elaborate on. A commercial strip center would remove more trees due to the parking requirements and the placement of the building. However, he found the best use of the property to be the service station and convenience store. He noted that the landowners were giving up the right-of-way on both streets (a loss of .7-acre) and as a result would have a 1.6-acre site. All positive recommendations were given with the exception of the Woodland Review. He stated the proposed location is the only location for the gas station/convenience store on the site. The first alternate site plan with the drive through and two other alternative site plans were presented to the Staff during the review process. It was determined that the proposed location of the building and driveways would save the maximum amount of trees on the site and increase the greenspace. Forty-eight percent (48%) of the site would be developed impervious and the remainder of the site would remain in its natural state. He noted that the setbacks from Pontiac Trail and the large green space on the corner would result in traffic improvements along the intersection. He stated by removing the trees on the corner and making the landscaping lower, it would increase the safety of vehicles turning onto the main road. A variance is required for the buffer in the front of the building. The building is fronted with a sidewalk. He noted the difficulty in keeping things alive in the front of a gas station, which is surrounded by pavement. Due to the significant amount of green space being saved, the City Staff determined the Waiver was acceptable. The Driveway Spacing is unique due to the triangular shaped site located on a corner. He stated it was very difficult to place the two entrances farther away from the corner of Pontiac Trail and West Park Drive due to the shape of the site and the limitations of the adjacent properties. It was not feasible to place a driveway on the site, which would comply with the spacing requirements from other commercial developments’ driveways and traffic safety. Therefore, the issues were addressed with turn lanes thereby, defining the variances minimal. He also requested a Section Nine Facade Waiver. He reminded the Commission of the previous site plan with a larger tower, which was reduced to meet height regulations. The proposed Site Plan has green areas and the tree preservation was maximized. He anticipated the Commission would be in favor of the Woodland Permit and the Special Land Use Permit.

Lee Mamola of Mamola & Associates discussed the site plan. He showed the Commission the previous Site Plan. He pointed out that regardless of which direction one is traveling, it is necessary to have two (2) driveways for a gas station use. The triangular shape would allow the traffic to enter the site at the midpoints of Pontiac Trail and West Park Drive. He explained the building is toward the back corner and a canopy extends out in a "natural movement" of the traffic, which would allow the traffic to maneuver on the property relatively easy. The mass of the building would be tucked back in the corner of the site with more evergreen trees. The back of the building would be hidden and the height would be less prominent to those traveling northbound on West Park Drive because they would be traveling uphill. The driveway on West Park Drive is designed to align with the existing drive curb cut across the street. He stated the circulation works well on the site for the proposed use. He defined the green highlight on the Site Plan. The light green is per the original Site Plan; the aqua green represents the areas that were pavement on the original plan, which is proposed as more green area. He noted their efforts to maintain the trees in the upper left corner and open space in the upper right corner. He noted the additional green space that was saved as a result of shrinking the perimeter of the parking. Two (2) spaces were eliminated, which created more green area. He pointed out the preservation of the thirty (30) inch oak tree located along West Park Drive, which was to be removed in the old Site Plan. The dark green area represents the Site Plan if it were to comply with the ten (10) foot setback on all sites. He described the unique shape of the site, the building footprint and the canopy, which fit somewhat perpendicular to the traffic flow of the driveways and allowed a thirty to forty-five degree angle to the rear yard. Thereby giving the perception of greater green area to be saved. He introduced the possibility of a strip center. The parking could be placed to the inside of the site and the building placed to the outside. He pointed out that retail tenants like long and narrow spaces with exposure. There would be far less green area devoted to landscaping and far less natural area that would be retained. A Site Plan with a strip mall use would comply with the ordinances and therefore would be approved. However, he felt the proposed site plan represented a better use. On the proposed Site Plan the area devoted to pavement and building represents forty-five percent (45%) of the developable area of the site within the right-of-way. Therefore, more than half of the property is devoted to retaining woodlands, landscaped areas or open space areas. He noted that there is no greenbelt under the canopy as referenced. However, the Ordinance requires four (4) foot of green around the perimeter of the building and the proposed Site Plan has seven (7) feet and in some areas a little more than seven (7) feet. He explained that the canopy structure is main the reason for the Façade Waiver.


Member Richards announced he received twenty-seven (27) responses from Novi residents objecting to the proposed project due to the traffic congestion and vehicular safety. The residents feel the proposed development would increase the traffic congestion that is already bad at the current time.

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

Donna Willacker, PO Box 1057 stated, "I represent fifty-one (51) families that live in the Windward Bay Condominium Complex that was pointed out earlier on the other document that was on the screen. Could someone put that back up for me? Those 51 families I am representative of including the additional sixty (60) families which were not noted on the document the lady has brought up earlier, which is the shoreline community, which is part of Walled Lake. That is across from the Walled Lake Village, which the lady did speak of earlier. In addition to that I have a petition of forty-eight (48) signatures of people down the North Haven sector, Bristol Corners and down further that you may want to take a look at, who we are representing as well. You say you have a question?"

Member Richards asked her to submit a copy of the petition to the Commission for record purposes.

Donna Willacker continued, "Yes, I will submit a copy to you. On behalf of all those people, I am amazed, concerned and frightened that this would be entertained this far at all. We were all here in February when it was first brought to the table. I am very frightened that no one has brought up the fact that we have a lake. In fact, the lake does not show up on the document that you have here. Which is ingenious possibly. The community is five hundred feet from this gentleman’s proposed complex. This day in age, most Planning Commissions are doing their damnedest to keep anything contaminating lakes and waterways out of the area. I would be absolutely shocked if you were to submit to any of this regardless of how many walls are on the tanks or gas holdings. That would be insanity in its rarest form. In total, I am representing about 150, 160, 170 families in that general corner of the world here in Novi. We were told in February, the group of us that did attend who several are here today, that three studies would take place. One of those studies would be the noise level study, which I understand was addressed earlier. We were also told a traffic study would take place and an elevations study would be presented when we next met. As of now I have not heard any discussion of elevations from the developers or the owners or the petitioners. The traffic study perplexed me. The response on the traffic study suggested that Oakland County Road Commission did do that study. And in fact, the letter that we received from the Oakland County Road Commission says indeed that they are most interested in taking a look at that very dangerous area. They had not been notified of it as of yet. This letter may be premature to the information that you received. It is dated May 21, 2002. With that in mind I am very perplexed. I am begging you to reconsider if indeed you have approved any of this for a gas station that near a lake. I hope that we as a community or the 170 people that I am representing families are notified to what exactly what has been approved at this point, so that we could immediately contact legal advisement and get some legal action under way. Is there any hope that I could expect for these people that I could get some detailed information so that we could take to some attorney and get this underway?"

Chairperson Churella stated the Commission would handle the matter. He noted that if she had something to add after listening to the Commission’s discussion, there would be an opportunity for her to speak again.

Dianne Troye, 45000 Bayview Drive #6 stated, "We have a condominium that faces West Park Drive. Donna spoke most eloquently about our needs and concerns and objections. I was in front of you people last year. I was watching the City Council a couple of nights ago. It was in regard to the fire lanes on the side street that runs there with the new subdivision and this development. One of the gentlemen that was addressing the City Council, because of the concerns of the fire lanes, had said that there were no intentions of changing this area as it was a previously turn of the century village. It is considered historically inclined and we are taking the somewhat hamlet that we have out in this area and turning it in this bevy of commercialism. Tom, my husband, and I took a ride around Wolverine Lake, Union Lake, Boggie Lake and Green Lake. I have to say that we did not see any gas stations in such close proximity to lake areas."

Jason Levy, 44900 Bayview Drive #14 stated, "I would like to say in regard to what they were speaking about with the location of the gas station and how you would have to drive to get to another gas station. We can leave our little area and drive one mile, approximately 3-5 minutes and there are two gas stations. Full service convenience stores and a supermarket. You can go the other way into Downtown Walled Lake, which is 5-7 minute and there are two more gas stations. Additionally, they said that they could build a strip mall on the property by rights. Right behind that area, there is a CVS and a strip mall with stores, a cleaners and Chinese restaurant that every body uses. I am the seventh generation of my family in the construction business. I do not have any problems with building, but where is necessary then build. Here it is unnecessary. I think if these people would actually take the time to come and live where we live and see the fifty car back up at West Park Drive and Pontiac Trail at 5pm. There is a sign at our condominium entrance stating DO NOT BLOCK DRIVEWAY. People do not car about that sign. They just pull right up behind each other and no one can get in or out. I do not know if any of you have ever driven that route, but there is no denying what I am saying is not true. Even what they were saying about putting their driveway up, they would be hindering themselves in business. There is such a back up there, no one would be able to get in or out. If one is labeled exit and one is entrance people will use it as an entrance or an exit anyway. I am sure that people will use it to bypass traffic. Adding these extra lanes? What is that going to do? The amount of increased traffic this would bring besides the traffic that is already there. I just do not see how that corner could get any busier. If you have to make a left turn from Pontiac Trail onto West Park Drive to go down the other way and then to stop to turn into our condos? You run the risk of getting rear ended there all the time. Luckily it is a little wider and people could go around you. But, I can not count the number of times that I was almost hit. I have seen accidents there. I can appreciate what they want to do, but I do not see the point. We have everything that we need in that area within a very short distance. I can appreciate them wanting to keep the trees and put the driveways here and there. But, the people that sit out on their decks, we do not need to smell the gasoline fumes. We do not need to take the risk of something happening and the gas getting the lake which is the third largest lake in Oakland County, as I am led to believe. Still, we like it. It is a private lake and people can not just dump their things in there and go around. The amount of building that is going on there now with Bristol Corners and that other side are going to increase traffic as it is. To jam something else in there I do not really see it feasible."

Asa Smith 1294 East Lake Drive stated, "Good evening. I am here tonight to make a few comments on Novi Express SP00-29. I am primarily concerned about what happens with the storm water run off. Gas station spills and so forth. I know the drawings have been specified and engineering for a detention basin to help control the storm water. It is proposed to be located at the northeast corner of the property. It would be nice if it could be located to the southwest or east corner at the back of the properties. I understand that it is tough to make water run uphill. Our concern with the storm water is if the retention basin and the holding area is large enough and would adequately hold the water and dissipate the water. Where would the water go form that point? It is only downhill from there toward Walled Lake. There is only one way for it to roll. It will not go into the City of Novi. It will run into Walled Lake and going down the first side street. From there the runoff would be swailed or ditched to exit into the lake. I know from reading the plans that there are proposed gas and oil separators to prevent the spillage of fluids or any type of gasoline and be controlled before it gets to the water of the lake. The concern is of any large amounts, where would it adequately go? We know that we would have to cross two major highways possibly there to get that water out of that area. So that is a concern. There has been some concern since the car wash has been deleted. There has been talk of a fast food type of a restaurant operation. The concerns of some people are the facts that it might be a McDonalds or Wendy’s type of drive though. Will there be an eatery or an inside prepared sandwich shop similar to Subway or Taco Bell, where the customers could go to the inside and get their fast food prepared while they are paying there gas bill and carryout their food that way. Again we are going to reiterate that there is a major problem there with the traffic. We are not looking for anything more that would entice people to come there except what their necessities are. Items such as food, water, gas or some convenience items. The property is zoned B-2, which entitles a gas station to be established on that property with certain criteria, Ordinances to be met. People have to understand the possibility of other business that could be constructed on a B-2 property. Therefore, those that are concerned with the everyday traffic in and out of the area should know that regardless of what kind of a business is there, the same dilemma would be faced. I believed what has been designed on the engineering plans with the accelerating and decelerating lanes and the way they propose to handle the traffic would alleviate some of the problems on that corner and allow the traffic to fall freely as required. I spent a lot of time reviewing this particular project and looked over the drawings very carefully. I found that everything there is in compliance with the City Ordinances and everything that is governed according to what should be built in a gas station criteria. Site lighting has been modified and that was a concern of some people. Some were concerned where the lights would be and if it was a 24-hour operation. It has been reengineered to meet the City Standards and to meet some of the City of Novi’s concerns. I do not think that would be a major problem. There is a major problem with the traffic. I think the plans and everything are in order to have such things transpire. I thank you for your time and I hope that you make the right decision this evening.

Richard Meaney, 45000 Bayview stated, "I am a retired attorney recently relocated from Massachusetts. I came here to spend time with my grandchildren. My daughter and son-and-law are practicing attorneys. I am 63-years old. In Massachusetts, I spent time as the Town Water Rater, member of the Planning Board, Board of Appeals, School Committee; you name it I have been there. I do have first hand experience. The first thing that I am interested in and want to raise to the board is that there is a case that came out of Massachusetts within the last ten years where the town did not give the abutting town notice on a Board of Appeals matter. The matter went all the way up to the highest court in the State. It was confirmed by the First District Court in Boston Massachusetts that if there is an ordinance of giving notice within so many feet, the town had to give notice to the other town regardless of the fact that there was a border there. I heard tonight that perhaps there is a defect in the notice system as I speak. However, I am here to represent my wife and myself. Our home looks at the site. We bought there considering all matters primarily because of the lake and we have a dock there. Obviously I like looking out at the trees and I don’t particularly care to see a gas station. Having represented gas station owners and petitioners, pro and opposed, I have been on both sides of the fence. No one has visited the fact of how many units would visit the station per day. My guess is that in order to make a profit, they would have to have 100 to 125 cars per day, which would average 15-gallons per fill. Somewhere between 15,000 to 20,000 minimum gallons would be sold a day. That means out put and in put. That means two trucks containing 10,000-gallons a day would come and visit and pump the tanks underground so that the cars could pump out. With every pump in and pump out you are running the risk of a spillage. I say that because I have stood at the top of West Park and Bayview in a rainstorm and guess where the water flows? It flows into Walled Lake. I do not think there is a boundary line between Walled Lake and Novi. I think that it is all going to merge and co-mingle. In 25-years I would hate to visit here if I am still here thank God, to say that I told you people 25-years ago and now you have all of this deterioration. On Cape Cod they invented the word conservation. If you want to put in a gas station, you had better be a half mile away from any water, pond, lake or the ocean. Because of contamination that they have experienced over the years. That is primarily the point that I want to mention here. You better seriously consider the possibility of contamination to Walled Lake with runoff water and the number of units that are going to use this gas station. If it were zoned for a gas station now, then I would recommend the board to not give any variances. Make it so difficult that they do not put a gas station in. Let them put in a strip mall, medical building, legal building or something else. You have to realize that the petition here before you is not for the best use of the land it is for the maximum amount of profit that the petitioner owner can make, if you allow them all these variances that they are asking for. I sincerely ask you to consider the potentially damage that is there with a gas station. Let it be something else. Anything but a gas station. The fact that it is out there and you are here… it is still part of Novi. We moved to Novi for certain reasons. We could have chosen Wixom or Walled Lake, but we chose Novi for a lot of reasons. We chose it for schools, Walled Lake. Protect the Lake. Protect the water system. I do not care about the traffic or lights all night long or horns, I am worried about the potential damage to the lake. I have seen too many accidents in my 63-years regarding gas and water. How it travels and how it contaminates. The life of petroleum damages in the soil will last beyond your grandchildren’s lives. It is not needed. The people traveling West Park and Pontiac Trail do not need another gas station. It is not that you have to travel 15-miles to get gasoline. It is a short distance in either direction. You do not need another gas station."

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



Moved by Paul, seconded by Richards, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Novi Express SP00-29 to deny Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit and Woodland Permit for the following reasons: it does not meet the City’s Design and Construction Standards (Section 11-216(d)) for minimum same-side driveway spacing on West Park Drive and Pontiac Trail.


Gerald Fisher, City Attorney advised the Commission that the motion to deny should include factual aspects and not only the conclusion that it does not meet the standard.

Member Richards indicated the driveways are closer than City Standards allow in Section 11-216(d). The driveway on West Park Drive is only 85-foot north of the existing driveway and the distance should be at least 185-feet. The driveway on Pontiac Trail is 177-feet east and 228-foot west of West Park Drive and it should be 230-feet. The fact that the driveways do not have adequate spacing would exaggerate the traffic problems in that area. It would become more congested. It would be very difficult for people to go in and out of the gasoline station. He amended the motion.

Member Paul accepted the amendment. She agreed with the residents’ comments regarding the storm water management and the runoff into Walled Lake. She did not believe the retention basin, located at the northeast corner of the site, would withstand a large storm. As a result, the runoff would go into Walled Lake. She noted the amount of construction in the area with Bristol Corners and also on the East Side of West Park Drive. She indicated that she travels the road three to four times a week in both directions and was aware of the existing traffic congestion. She noted the blind corner for vehicles traveling south on West Park Drive. Those vehicles looking west on Pontiac Trail do have good visibility for making a left-hand turn onto West Park Drive. For the sake of health, safety and welfare of the Novi residents, the storm water runoff and traffic Member Paul indicated that she did not support the proposed project.


Moved by Paul, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (4-2): In the matter of Novi Express SP00-29 to deny Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit and Woodland Permit for the following reasons: it does not meet the City’s Design and Construction Standards (Section 11-216(d)) for minimum same-side driveway spacing on West Park Drive and Pontiac Trail which would cause more traffic congestion.

Member Markham commented on the residents’ request to the Commission to not developed the property. She indicated the Commission must allow the property to be developed according to the Zoning Ordinance. There are a number of possibilities in the Zoning Ordinance that would not necessarily be desirable yet, would be allowed. She felt there needed to be a balance with what is desired with what must be allowed by Ordinance. Member Markham believed the driveway spacing issue would exist regardless of the type of development. Therefore, resolutions to minimize the problem should be used, such as moving the driveways as far to the most optimal position possible and widening the lane. She agreed with the proposal to match the driveway on the West Park Drive side with the driveway across the street. The Birchler & Arroyo traffic review letter recommended widening of the driveway to 40-feet. However, she noted the proposed Site Plan did not include this recommendation. Therefore, she asked Ms. McClain to comment.

Nancy McClain City Engineer stated that Applicant has proposed a 30-foot driveway. The narrower driveway is desired, because it has less of an impact and would echo the road across the street. In this case, the road across the street is a residential street with a width of 28-feet. She stated if the Commission chose to included the Birchler & Arroyo recommendation to widen the driveway to 40-feet then they should include the verbiage "subject to the conditions and recommendations of the Staff and Consultants" in their motion.

Member Markham asked Ms. McClain if she felt the 40-foot would be an improvement.

Ms. McClain did not feel the 40-foot would be necessarily required. She stated a 40-foot drive would reduce the amount of green space on the site by another 10-feet and possibly impact the 30-inch tree to the south due to the parking required.

Member Markham asked if it would help the traffic situation or hurt it.

Ms. McClain indicated that it would not help the traffic situation too much. There would still be the same number of lanes coming in and out.

Member Markham asked the distance of the driveways from the intersection.

Ms. McClain stated the driveway on Pontiac Trail is located 228-feet west of the intersection. She explained that the distance is measured to near curb on the throat coming up. The requirement for West Park Drive is 230-feet. Therefore, the proposed is 2-feet short of meeting the requirement.

Member Markham interpreted the Ordinance to state that a curb cut for access is required to be no less than 100-feet from a street intersection. She asked if this was correct.

Ms. McClain answered, correct.

Member Markham asked if both of the drives were beyond that.

Ms. McClain answered, yes. It is approximately 240-feet down West Park Drive. According to the Zoning Ordinance the proposed site can not have a driveway out onto either road without requiring a waiver because of the existing configuration of drives around it.

Member Markham asked if she was referring to the surrounding development.

Ms. McClain answered, yes.

Member Markham clarified that she was not referring to the intersection itself.

Ms. McClain stated the site meets the requirement going southward on West Park Drive. However, it is shy 2-feet from meeting the requirement westward on Pontiac Trail.

Member Markham asked her to address in more detail, the question of storm water retention, how it is engineered and why she felt that pollution was not an issue.

Ms. McClain noted that in the past underground tanks have had problems with leaking. However, there are new regulations throughout the United States and most tanks have been replaced. The tanks are required to have double containment and mandatory monitoring of the area is required. The proposed site is required to have the new tanks and MDEQ approval for the tanks. These standards would be met regardless of the property location near a lake. Secondly, an oil and gas separator is required and must be monitored. According to the MDEQ requirements the detention basin must be monitored. She explained that it flows down the ditch-system down to Walled Lake, as anything would that flows onto the site. The Site Plan would have to address the new Storm Water Ordinance controls.

Member Markham asked what would happen in a 100-year flood.

Ms. McClain stated a 100-year flood would have runoff from the site. She noted that the Applicant would have to reevaluate the basin according to the new Ordinance requirements. The language currently in the "works" would determine at what point the applicant would have to reevaluate. However, the site would be reviewed to determine whether or not they would have to hold the 100-year flood. Currently, the site holds the ordinance requirements. At the 100-year flood, the site would detain 100-year flood and there would be runoff in the controlled rate to Walled Lake.

Member Markham asked if the runoff would go through the gas and oil separators.

Ms. McClain answered, correct. She explained that it would have to go through the gas and oil separators before it entered the detention basin because it is the ground water. Some of the water would be leaking back into the ground. Therefore, it must have the separator prior to it reaching the ground water stage.

Member Markham clarified that if there was a 100-year flood, then the detention pond would be large enough to hold the water and release it at the specified rate. It would also go through an oil and gas separator.

Ms. McClain answered, correct.

Member Markham asked if the Ordinance specified the proximity a gas station use could be located to a lake. She added that most of Walled Lake is in Novi.

Ms. McClain indicated that that issue is addressed with the oil and water separators, which are monitored on a regular basis when there are large storms and on a periodic basis otherwise. She stated that to her knowledge there was not a specific Ordinance relating to the actual location of the use in relation to the lake.

Member Markham suggested exploring the idea of defining this in the future. She noted the comment of the Birchler & Arroyo letter regarding the sight distance relative to the curb on Pontiac Trail. It states, "The City Engineer should indicate whether or not she is satisfied that adequate sight distance will exist at the sites north drive." She asked Ms. McClain to comment on the matter.

Ms. McClain indicated that it meets the approximately 37mph. She was aware of the traffic congestion problems. She also noted the speeding problems that occur when there is not traffic congestion, which is an enforcement issue. There should be adequate sight distance based on AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials) guidelines.

Member Markham asked the speed limit for both roads.

Ms. McClain answered; the speed limit is 30mph.

Member Markham stated the proposed development meets the ordinance with the exception of the driveway spacing issues, which would exist regardless of the use on the proposed site. She believed that the proposed project met the intent of the Woodland Ordinance. She agreed that it made sense to waive the four-foot landscaped area adjacent to the building. She indicated that she would not be supporting the motion. Member Markham did not like the idea of putting a gas station that close to Walled Lake. However, she did not find anything that allowed her to not approve the proposed development.

Member Canup advised the Commission that the proposed use is a Special Land Use. He reminded the commissioners that there is a broad range of powers in using the Special Land Use as to if a project fits or does not fit the community.

Chairperson Churella agreed with Member Canup’s comments. He called for the vote.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Paul, Richards

No: Markham, Ruyle


Mr. Quinn indicated there were two separate items requiring a vote from the Commission. He noted one item was a request for a Woodland Permit and the other was a Special Land Use Permit. He stated both the Woodland Permit and the Special Land Use Permit require a separate vote.

Chairperson Churella indicated the Woodland Permit was denied.

Ms. Brock indicated the motion included the Woodland Permit.

Mr. Fisher stated that his understanding that all three requests were included in the motion. Therefore, the denial of the Woodland Permit was voted on by the Commission.

Mr. Quinn pointed out his right to appeal the Woodland Permit to the City Council. He stated there was no rational given as to why the Woodland Permit was denied. He requested a separate finding for the Woodland Permit. He stated the Special Land Use Permit is partially contingent upon the Woodland Permit being granted or turned down.

Mr. Fisher indicated if the Special Land Use is denied then the Woodland Permit is no longer an issue. However, if the Commission chose to allow the applicant to "perfect their appeal" on the entire case, then…

Chairperson Churella interjected and stated the applicant could still appeal the case to the Council with the denial.

Mr. Fisher continued and stated the Special Land Use denial would go before the Circuit Court. He explained that Mr. Quinn would like to take the Woodland Permit separately to the City Council. He assumed the appeal would go before the Council if the Court overturned the Special Land Use because there would be no sense in acting on a Woodland Permit if the underlying Special Land Use Permit were denied.

Member Canup asked if the Commission could back up and voted on the items individually. Although he felt the Commission voted on all three of the matters.

Mr. Fisher felt this would be okay.

Member Canup restated that the Commission did not have to vote on the matters separately.

Mr. Fisher answered, yes.

Member Canup clarified that it could be as a group.

Chairperson Churella stated that he did not want to vote on it separately. He felt that if the Commission approved one and denied the other then it would be defeating the denial.

Member Markham pointed out that according to the documentation given to the Commission, the approval of the Woodland Plan could not be recommended unless the Commission makes the finding that the general intent of the Woodland Ordinance has been met and that no feasible alternative location for the structure would be possible without undo hardship to the applicant. She recalled the comment made earlier in the meeting indicating that another use, other than a gas station, could be located elsewhere on the site.


Moved by Markham, seconded by Canup, CARRIED (5-1): In the matter of Novi Express SP00-29 to deny Woodland Permit because there is a feasible alternative location for the structure on the property.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards

No: Ruyle

Chairperson Churella asked those audience participants to come forward if they that had additional comments.

Dianne Willacker stated, "I would like to correct your information. You keep requesting how many streets and roads and driveways are available. You have not once noted the Bayview Drive street that exists in that area. Please correct your records. Thank you."

Jason Levy stated, "The lady over there said that we were opposed to anything there. We were not opposed to anything there. We are only opposed to the gas station. Another use would be fine."

Richard Meaney stated, "I would like to address Commissioner Markham. The reason why gas tanks are double insulated and encapsulated into concrete with alarms and wells on the four corners of the property. It is not to prevent spillage. It is to sound alarms when there is spillage and to consolidate the spillage as much as possible. But if you have any diesel leakage there it would go underground right into Walled Lake. Guaranteed."

(10 minute break)



Consideration of the request of William Roskelly for recommendation to City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat approval. The subject property is located in Section 24 on the north side of Ten Mile Road between Haggerty and Meadowbrook Roads in the R-4 (One Family Residential) District. The developer proposes a single-family subdivision with 25 lots. The subject property is 9.49 acres.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of William Roskelly for a recommendation to City Council for a Tentative Preliminary Plat. The property is located on the north side of Ten Mile Road, between Haggerty and Meadowbrook Roads. The developer proposes a single family platted subdivision containing 25 lots. The site is zoned R-4 (One Family Residential), as are the surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west. The site is currently developed with one single family home. The properties to the east are developed with single family homes in the Cambourne Place Subdivision. Homes to the west are in the Willowbrook Farms Subdivision. To the north the homes are in the Leslie Park Subdivision. To the west is the Spirit of Christ Lutheran Church. To the south are homes within the Wilowbrook Estates Number 3 subdivision. The request of the petitioner is for a tentative preliminary plat containing 25 lots. The total site consists of 9.49 acres of land. The plans were modified as a result of the comments received at the March 20 Planning Commission meeting. The plans have been modified as a result of the comments received at the March 20 Planning Commission meeting, and now Avalon Lane connects with Ten Mile Road, instead of ending in a cul-de-sac just short of Ten Mile. On the plan presented to the PC on March 20, access to the subdivision was provided only from Cambourne Lane from the adjacent streets to the east and west (Bethany Way west, Willowbrook east) and not from Ten Mile Road. The Planning Commission may consider the following items included in the staff and consultants review letters regarding this tentative preliminary plat: 1) The Planning, Woodlands, Landscaping, Engineering, and Fire review letters all contain minor comments which may be addressed on the Final Preliminary Plat. 2) The Traffic review showed that a Planning Commission waiver of the Design and Construction standards would be necessary for minimum same-side driveway spacing standards along Ten Mile Road. 230 feet is the minimum distance required from Willowbrook Road to the east, and 178 feet is provided. Secondly, a City Council waiver of the Design and Construction standards will be required for the entrance boulevard, or the plans must be modified to extend this boulevard island 6 feet to the south. She reminded the Commission that the requested action is to make a recommendation to City Council for either approval or denial of this Tentative Preliminary Plat.

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

Michele Nance, 24749 Joseph stated, "Will this come back again for a public hearing?"

Chairperson Churella answered, no.

Ms. Nance continued stating, "I live on Joseph, which is to the north of the development. It goes onto Grand River Avenue. I am sure that you are familiar with it. It is a dirt road. At the May 2002 meeting, Mr. Kenips stated that twenty-five (25) homes would generate approximately 250-trips a day. I do not know how many trips you think would go onto Ten Mile but, I am sure that at least 100 trips would be going to and from on Joseph to Grand River. It is a dirt road and we have no sidewalks. We have over 20 school-age children on our street. The Committee had noted the safety of the children on Willowbrook when the project was proposed the first time with the cul-de-sac. That is fine. Willowbrook is a paved road with sidewalks. On a dirt road you can not stop as fast. The developer did note on May 20, the two accesses to Grand River Avenue. One would be through Willowbrook Farms and the other is my street, Joseph. My street can not handle that, which can not handle 100 or more trips a day. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. If something can be done and the street could be paved or if there could be a stop at the Cambourne Place so that traffic can not get through. Thank you."

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




Member Richards asked regarding the issue of moving the boulevard island back.

William Roskelly indicated that the nose of that island would be removed six (6) feet to the south. Although it was not illustrated on the drawing, he felt it was a minor item and indicated that he would bring up to standards.

Member Richards clarified that he would be changing it to bring it into compliance.

Mr. Roskelly answered, yes.


Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Avalon Subdivision SP01-77 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Tentative Preliminary Plat.


Member Ruyle indicated that the motion needed to include the required waivers.

Ms. Brock stated the Planning Commission Waivers could be granted at this time.

Member Canup amended his motion to include these waivers.

Member Richards accepted the amendment to the motion.


Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Avalon Subdivision SP01-77 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Tentative Preliminary Plat and Design and Construction Waiver for boulevard location relative to Ten Mile Road, grant a Planning Commission Waiver for the same-side driveway spacing waiver, subject to the Staff and Consultant’s recommendations and conditions.


Member Markham indicated she received several phone calls since the last time the matter was before the Commission. She believed the residents were mainly from the Willowbrook Subdivision located to the south. The residents were not particularly please that the Commission changed the design from a cul-de-sac to an access point onto Ten Mile Road, which has to be handle by way of the Planning Commission Waiver. She indicated that she personally was not in favor of the project the last time the Commission voted on the matter. Member Markham wanted to ensure records included the fact that residents, who may not be present at tonight’s meeting, expressed their concern(s) regarding the change in the development.

Member Paul noted Ms. McGuire’s recommendation to have the street tree, at the southwest corner of Cambourne and Avalon, relocated thirty-five (35) feet back from the intersection of the curb. She asked Mr. Roskelly if he was willing to comply with this request.

Mr. Roskelly answered, yes. He indicated that he would adhere to all of the changes that were suggested.

Member Paul clarified that he would provide the five (5) red twig shrubs not shown on the Site Plan.

Mr. Roskelly stated they would be altered and changed prior to the Preliminary Plat.

Member Paul asked if he was in agreement with all of the changes recommended by Ms. McGuire.

Mr. Roskelly answered, yes.

Chairperson Churella suggested amending the motion to incorporate Mr. Roskelly’s agreement.

Member Paul amended the motion.

Member Canup and Member Richards accepted the amendment to the motion.


Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Avalon Subdivision SP01-77 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Tentative Preliminary Plat and Design and Construction Waiver for boulevard location relative to Ten Mile Road, grant a Planning Commission Waiver for the same-side driveway spacing waiver, subject to the Staff and Consultant’s recommendations and conditions and subject to the petitioner’s agreement to conform with all Ms. McGuire’s recommendations and comments.


Member Paul asked if Mr. Roskelly was in agreement with the provision of mulch verses the egg rock, as requested by Ms. McGuire.

Mr. Roskelly answered, yes.

Member Paul asked if the island would have an irrigation system.

Mr. Roskelly answered, yes.

Member Ruyle indicated that Mr. Roskelly complied with the previous requests of the Commission, with the exception of Member Markham. Member Ruyle supported the motion. He called for the vote.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None



Consideration of the request of Northern Equities Group for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 12 in the Haggerty Corporate Park on the North side of Lewis Drive in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. The developer is proposing two speculative multi-tenant office buildings each consisting of 54,197 sq ft for a total of 108,394 sq ft. The subject property is 10.87 acres.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Northern Equities for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The developer is proposing two speculative multi-tenant office buildings, each of which will consist of 54,197 square feet, for a total development of 108,394 square feet. The property is located within the Haggerty Corridor Corporate Park, on the north side of Lewis Drive, between Haggerty and Cabot Drive. The site is zoned OST, Office Service Technology, as are the surrounding properties. The site is currently undeveloped land. The property to the north is developed with the Eberspacher facility. To the south is the Magna development. To the east is the corporate park’s stormwater detention facility. The land to the west is currently undeveloped. The request of the petitioner is to develop two, identical size, one-story office buildings, for a total development of 108,394 square feet. The development parcel is 10.872 acres. The proposal includes the re-sculpting of the stormwater detention facility and the addition of some landscaping around the pond on the 1.9-acre parcel. The proposed development will have three driveways on the north side of Lewis Drive and will be designed with courtyards for partial screening of the loading and service areas. A total of 504 parking spaces are provided on the property. The following items are brought to the Planning Commission’s attention as a result of the staff and consultants review of the plans. 1) The OST ordinance requires that truck service areas an overhead truck loading doors shall be totally screened from view from public rights of way and from adjacent properties. The ordinance states that such screening shall be accomplished by the courtyard design of the building, by a solid ornamental wall, or by an earth berm and plantings. On the submitted site plan, the building design provides courtyards, which are recommended for developments within the OST zoning district, and additional landscaping is being provided within the courtyard areas and along the north property line to assist in screening the loading areas from the adjacent property to the north. The Planning Commission should make a finding that the intent of the ordinance to screen the loading areas has been met with the type and quantity of landscaping provided along the north property line. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may wish to grant a waiver of the berm or wall requirements of the ordinance, allowed when the site abuts other OST zoned property. 2) The traffic engineer’s review revealed that two Planning Commission waivers of the Design and Construction Standards are required in order to approve the locations of the center and west access drives. Each of these driveways as shown is 8 feet 7 inches too far to the west to align properly with the existing driveways for Magna on the south side of Lewis Drive. Alternatively, instead of the PC waiver, the plans could be modified to correct the opposite driveway spacing and allow the driveways opposite each other on Lewis Drive to line up perfectly. She stated the Applicant indicated to her that he preferred to have the Waiver granted in this case to avoid having misaligned driveways at those two locations. There are no woodlands or wetlands on site, so no action needs to be taken for these issues. The Engineering and Fire review all showed minor comments, which can be addressed on the final site plan. The landscaping review reflected similar concerns to the Planner’s report regarding screening of the loading areas. The façade review indicated that the buildings are primarily brick construction with ribbed metal panels, which would be used for rooftop screening. She indicated that because it meets ordinance requirements there is no Section Nine Façade Waiver is required.

Joe Drolshagen of Northern Equities Group requested approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and appropriate waivers. He noted that Northern Equities Group brought Cabot Technology before the Commission approximately 2-years ago, which was a building very similar in design. Cabot Technology Center is to the south of the proposed property. He stated Cabot Technology has been successful in its leasing to very high tech firms. The firms have expressed their like of the single-story nature and full height windows. Therefore, Lewis Technology was designed to incorporate those attributes. He stated Lewis Technology would be a successful extension of the Cabot Technology. He felt Ms. McBeth’s summary was sufficient.

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 Paul asked Ms. McGuire to comment on the berm and wall to provide screening of the loading areas from the adjacent properties.

Ms. McGuire stated there is approximately twenty (20) feet of space. The requirement is a six (6) to ten (10) foot berm. Forty (40) feet would be needed for a six (6) foot berm, which is not available. However, the building has been designed with a courtyard design to screen it from that direction. The Applicant proposed eight (8) foot evergreens where seven (7) foot are required. She noted that the trees are placed tightly. Therefore, she felt the White Spruce and Colorado Spruce would provide effective screening.

Member Paul clarified that she was satisfied with the screening.

Ms. McGuire answered, yes. She indicated that the Commission has the ability, per the Ordinance, to waive the berm requirement.

Member Paul asked Ms. McClain to comment on the driveway placement.

Ms. McClain stated that based on the traffic going in and out of Lewis Technology, if the driveways were shifted over, then vehicles would need to shift over as they drove into the parking lot. The Traffic Engineer has stated that it would allow a bit of a taper, which would be comfortable. However, she felt the Commission was aware of how it felt to pull in and then have to turn a little to get into the parking spot. The Traffic Engineer has also stated there would not be an interlock, which is something that she looks for. Specifically an interlock between the left-turn lanes. Ms. McClain found the driveway placement acceptable.

Member Paul asked for the total square footage for Lewis Technology.

Mr. Drolshagen indicated the total footage of the building is approximately 108,000 feet. He stated Cabot Technology Center, located to the southwest, has approximately 60% leasing to the tenants. Lewis Technology is a speculative building. He informed the Commission of the current proposal for a major corporation (30,000 square feet). However, he noted that there are three or four other cities competing for the same proposal.

Member Paul asked what cities they were in competition with.

Mr. Drolshagen stated that to his understanding the cities were two locations in Farmington Hills and the other is either Livonia or Novi.

Member Paul stated Cabot has 60% of the square footage already leased.

Mr. Drolshagen answered, correct.

Member Paul clarified that there was 40% remaining in Cabot Technology and 108 in the Lewis Technology site.

Mr. Drolshagen answered, correct. He stated approximately 40% is not occupied and another 7% that is currently being built out. He anticipated 70% by the end of this month. He stated Cabot Technology Center is running out of inventory.

Member Paul asked when he anticipated starting the site. She asked specifically if he anticipated starting the Lewis Technology with empty spaces remaining in Cabot Technology.

Mr. Drolshagen stated Cabot Technology has leased steadily through the real estate down turn. He stated that because Cabot Technology has leased consistently he anticipated starting the new project as soon as possible. He felt the tenants prefer to see the building as opposed to a piece of paper prior to signing a lease.

Member Richards felt the driveways could be aligned as with other sites. He noted that the Traffic Consultant recommended it. The site has 504 parking spaces and only 488 parking spaces are needed. Therefore, he questioned why the driveways could not be aligned.

Ms. McClain did not feel parking spaces would be lost with the alignment of the driveways. She explained that there is usually an ingress feeling as a vehicle pulls into a parking lot.

Mr. Drolshagen presented the Commission with a drawing of the Birchler & Arroyo proposal. He noted the alignment. As people are exiting on either of the driveways, they would need to make a "funky" left-hand turn. The vehicles entering the site would need to be knowledgeable of this fact.

Member Richards indicated that would be the case on any given street when going across an intersection. He felt this is how one learns to drive. He suggested the option of making one wider.

Mr. Drolshagen pointed out the issue that the Traffic Consultant did not find any problem on the outside of the site. Secondly, he felt that drivers let their guard down the moment they travel off of the main street.

Ms. McClain stated the review of driveway alignments typically includes the issue of whether or not there would be problem with the left-turns. In this case, as expressed in the Birchler & Arroyo letter, there would not be a problem with the left-turns interlocking in this manner. This is usually the primary concern when dealing with drives that are directly across from each other in an area where most of the traffic would occur at the same time of day. In this case it would be entering and exiting traffic mornings and evenings with the left-turn interlock problem. The granting of the waiver is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Staff and Consultants have reviewed both sides. The options are to have the drives directly across with a slight jog interior, which may cause a traffic problem or there could be a slight misalignment on the outside. She did not feel the drives would be able to be lined up in a perfect situation. She noted that both are minor changes.

Member Richards asked if aligning the drives would cause hardship for the applicant.

Mr. Drolshagen deferred to his architect.

Gordon Klaus project architect stated the option of shifting the entire parcel over 8.5-feet was explored with the receipt of Birchler & Arroyo’s first letter. The problem was the existing pond area, which was already being encroached upon. The additional 8.5-feet would place the site into the actual water area.

Member Richards clarified that he was referring to moving the entire site to align the drives.

Mr. Klaus answered, correct.

Member Richards stated that he was referring to aligning the driveways with the offset of the buildings. As people come down the Boulevard to turn in, they would make the appropriate change to the buildings. The cross street issue is the area where he felt drivers had problems. He felt this was a feasible option and there did not seem to be an additional cost.

Mr. Klaus agreed that there was no additional cost. He understood that the alignment of the drives would alleviate the problem of having the drives align on an external point of view. However, on an internal point of view it would cause "hic-ups" in the circulation around the buildings.

Member Richards asked if the external driveway could be made wider to give the benefit of both.

Mr. Klaus stated this option was explored at the Pre-Application level. It was determined that a wider drive would exceed the City Standard for driveway width.

Member Richards indicated that he would rather grant a waiver of the driveway width as opposed to a waiver for offset drives. Member Richards clarified if he would be requesting a waiver with either option.

Mr. Klaus answered, yes. He stated if the Commission could grant a waiver of the driveway width, then he would be willing to make it wider.

Member Richards asked Mr. Fisher if it was within the Commission’s domain to grant a waiver to make the driveway wider, which would allow the center line to line up with the drive across the street and aligns with the interior driveways around the building.

Mr. Fisher indicated the Commission would grant a waiver for Design and Construction Standards.

Member Richards clarified if his answer was yes.

Mr. Fisher answered, yes.


Moved by Richards, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Lewis Technology SP02-16 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval with the finding that the screening of the loading areas meets the intent of Section 2302A.1 and Planning Commission Waiver for widening of the west and center driveways so that they line up with the internal driveways and line up with the driveway across the street, subject to the Staff and Consultant’s conditions and recommendations


Mr. Klaus clarified if it was to be both drives.

Member Richards answered, correct.

Member Markham asked if there were any side driveway issues in terms of spacing. She noted the Commission reviewed previous developments that had side driveway proximity issues.

Ms. McClain indicated that currently there were no issues because neither parcel to either side of the proposed development were developed. Therefore, there are no driveways to interfere. She did not anticipate any future problems to the east because of the detention basin. She did not anticipate any to the west because of the overhead electric line, which can not be built under.

Member Markham clarified that the future developments on either side would need to address their own driveway issues according to the layout. She clarified that Ms. McClain did not anticipate any issues similar to those the Commission dealt with a couple months ago.

Ms. McClain answered, correct. She noted it would depend what occurred at the northeast corner of Cabot and Lewis, which would need a driveway somewhere. She added if that parcel is sold separately from the parcel next to it then it might need a spacing waiver to the intersection, which would be strictly the responsibility of that lot regardless of what occurred in the proposed lot.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None





Moved by Richards, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission minutes of April 17, 2002


Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None


Chairperson Churella recalled that the Commission (at a previous meeting) voted in favor of scheduling the joint meeting after the new commissioners were appointed. He felt it would be beneficial for the new commissioners to sit in a joint meeting with the City Council. He asked if the other commissioners agreed or disagreed.

Member Canup agreed. He did not feel it was in the Commission’s best interest to have three (3) commissioners, who would not be serving on the Commission after June, to sit in a joint meeting.

Chairperson Churella suggested moving the meeting date to July or August.

Member Markham asked if there was anything specific the Council wanted to discuss with the Commission.

Mr. Evancoe stated the purpose was an annual meeting and he did not believe there were any specific topics. He indicated the last joint meeting was February or March of 2001. He agreed it was a good idea to wait until the new commissioners were appointed.

Chairperson Churella suggested inviting the new commissioners to the last meeting. He asked Mr. Fisher if it would be proper to have the new commissioners sit with the current Commission at the last meeting.

Mr. Fisher stated it would not be proper to have new commissioners sit with the current Commission. However, it would be proper to have them sit in the audience. He asked Mr. Evancoe to handle the request.

Mr. Evancoe agreed. He suggested that the Commission make a motion and vote for the postponing of the Special Meeting.


Moved by Markham, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To delay the joint meeting with the City Council and the Planning Commission until the new commissioners are serving on the Planning Commission.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None


Mr. Evancoe noted the City Attorney’s request for a Special Meeting to be held prior on June 16, 2002 at 7pm prior to the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:30pm. He deferred to Mr. Fisher for the verbiage.

Mr. Fisher requested a Special meeting for June 19, 2002 at 7pm for the purpose of meeting with Legal Council to discuss material exempt from disclosure under State Law with the request to the Commission to vote to go into Executive Sessions.

Chairperson Churella agreed with his request. He requested to have the new commissioners present for the Special meeting.

Mr. Fisher stated the new commissioners could not go into closed session with the current Commission. However, they could see the process.

Chairperson Churella agreed.


Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Special Meeting for June 19, 2002 at 7pm for the purpose of meeting with Legal Council to discuss material exempt from disclosure under State Law. The Commission will be requested to vote to go into Executive Sessions.


Member Paul suggested that the Commission schedule the joint meeting in September due to everyone’s vacation schedules.

Chairperson Churella indicated that the new Commission would determine the date of the joint meeting.

Member Ruyle indicated that in watching City Council meetings, he noted that only Councilmember Lorenzo was pushing for the joint meeting.

Member Paul disagreed. She noted that Councilmember Capello was also pushing for the meeting.

Chairperson Churella was certain that if Councilmember Lorenzo was pushing for a joint meeting then she must have a good reason.

Member Paul stated Councilmember Capello wanted to gather ideas from the two bodies to allow for communication back and fourth.

Chairperson Churella noted that Council has the right to determine to have the meeting prior to the new Commission timeframe. He informed the commissioners that if the Council found it viable to have the meeting then they would set a date. He asked Mr. Evancoe to find out if the Council felt it was necessary to have the joint meeting more immediate.

Mr. Evancoe indicated he would forward the motion to the Council.

Chairperson Churella requested that Mr. Evancoe also forward to the Council, the Commission’s willingness to meet with the Council that if they deemed it necessary to have the meeting with the present Commission.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Member Paul requested updates of the Committees’ progress on the items that were sent from the Workshop Session of April 17, 2002.

Ms. Brock indicated that she would forward Committee minutes to the commissioners.

Chairperson Churella noted a memorandum, which indicated Council’s suggested meeting date of June 20, 2002. He stated if the Council would like to meet June 20, 2002 then the present Commission would oblige them.

Mr. Evancoe stated the Council scheduled another meeting on June 20, 2002. Therefore, that timeslot was no longer available.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None









Moved by Paul, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:55 p.m.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None


Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

June 12, 2002

Date Approved: June 19, 2002