View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting


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

PRESENT: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul (late arrival), Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague.


ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Planner Barbara McBeth, Planner Timothy Schmitt, City Engineer Nancy McClain, City Engineer Brian Coburn, Interim Landscape Architect Mike McGinnis



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


Moved by Ruyle , seconded by Papp, CARRIED (8-0)*:To approve the agenda as submitted


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

(*Member Paul not present to vote)






Member Kocan announced that she, as the Commission Representative of the Woodlands Review Board, and Member Papp, as the Alternate Representative, were requested to attend the City Council meeting concerning an appeal of a recent decision to disallow a swimming pool in a woodland area.






Chairperson Nagy announced there was one (1) item on the Consent Agenda. She asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda.

Member Kocan removed the Consent Agenda Item and placed it under Matters for Consideration #4.



Moved by Kocan, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED (8-0)*: To approve the Consent Agenda as amended.


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

(*Member Paul not present to vote)




Public Hearing on the request of Trillium Village for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 25 north of Nine Mile Road and west of Haggerty Road in the RM-1 (Low-Density Multiple Family) District. The subject property is 7.38 acres.

Barbara McBeth, Planner introduced the request of Trillium Village for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. She reminded the Planning Commission that they sent a favorable recommendation to City Council for a rezoning request on 4.73 acres of this property from R-3 One Family Residential to RM-1 Low Density Multiple Family zoning in June of this year. City Council approved that rezoning in July. Additional information included in the Planning Commission’s packets this evening includes review letters, site plan, and Planning Commission minutes from last October when preliminary site plan approval was sought for a portion of this property by the same applicant. That request was withdrawn by the applicant following considerable discussion by the Planning Commission. The applicant has now returned with the request before the Planning Commission and the property is now slightly larger. The subject property contains 7.38-acres and contains two single family homes and associated out buildings on the property. The property to the north and to the west is developed with the Pavillion Court Apartments. The land to the south, and across Nine Mile Road is developed with the Highline Club Apartments and Crosswinds West Condominiums. To the east are single family homes fronting on Nine Mile Road, and the recently approved Palushaj office building, which is scheduled for construction at the northwest corner of Nine Mile Road and Haggerty Road. The property is currently zoned RM-1 (Low Density Multiple Family Residential). To the north, south and west the land is zoned RM-1. Directly to the south, where the single-family homes are located, the land is zoned R-3 (One Family Residential). To the southeast the property is zoned OS-1 (Office Service). The property is Master Planned for Multiple-Family uses as well as most of the surrounding properties with the exception of the property located to the southeast, which is Master Planned for office use. The submitted site plan shows the removal of the homes and outbuildings from the property with the exception of the stone house and garage. The Applicant proposes a total of 35-units on the site, 17 buildings will contain two units each, and the existing stone house will stand on its own. The Applicant has provided photographs of the stone house. A private road is proposed through the site connecting Nine Mile Road and Haggerty Road. The proposed driveway to Haggerty will be shared with the Palushaj property, as previously approved. The applicant has requested review under the RT, Attached Single-Family home standards of the Ordinance as it is allowed under the RM-1 zoning that currently exists on the site. A few questions have come up since the review letters were written. The Planning Department has prepared a revised motion sheet which addresses some of these concerns and includes the interpretation from the City Attorney. The applicant was requesting approval of a condominium plan. The review letters made a distinction between general condo and site condo. After lengthy discussion with the City Attorney regarding this question, it is now recommended that the plans be reviewed as site condominiums, that is retaining the lot lines that are shown on the plans before the Commission this evening and not be considered as general condominiums (without lot lines). This will allow City Staff to review the plans to insure compliance with the RT standards, which require a certain lot width and area frontage for each lot proposed. If this project is developed then the approval of the plans, using that method, would allow a determination to be made that there is adequate building setback for each home and any future additions that might be proposed to the homes. While the applicant may want to market the homes as general condominiums without the lot lines, this would be acceptable to the City as long as the plans the City maintains contain those lot lines. Also it was determined that the Interim Policy on Roadway design is considered to be applicable to this type of development, as interpreted by the City Attorney. Ms. McBeth outlined the variances and waivers that would be requested. A City Council Waiver of the stormwater pond located on a subdivision lot is required; two stormwater ponds are located at the northeast portion of the site and are shown to be part of the lots on the plan. A Zoning Board of Appeals variance will be required for the lack of a sidewalk near lot 18, near the house that is proposed to be retained. A Planning Commission finding will be needed to determine whether the depth to width ratio for lots 10, 12 and 13 is reasonable. Typically, a depth to width ratio of 3 to 1 is normally considered the maximum. A Zoning Board of Appeals variance for the reduced setback of the existing home from Trillium Drive (25 feet is required and 9.5 feet is provided). The Woodlands review indicated that there are no regulated woodlands on the site; however, it is requested that an existing 34-ich elm tree near be preserved if possible by shifting a utility line from that area. The landscaping review identified that the plans should be modified to provide the required berm along Nine Mile Road. She pointed out the existing 34-inch Elm tree located near the Haggerty Road entrance, which is recommended for preservation. She indicated that the berm along Nine Mile Road has been provided for the most part. She also noted the location of some existing trees proposed to be preserved and a small area where the berm is required and should be provided. The Traffic Engineer’s review indicated that the proposed driveways throughout the site do not meet ordinance standards of a site condominium development, however, this recent interpretation by the attorney suggested that the Interim Policy for roadway design applies to all condominium projects. Therefore, the note from the Traffic Engineer does not apply. The Engineering and Fire Department reviews indicated that no waivers or variances are needed. The Façade review indicated that a Section Nine Waiver is being requested. The chart provided in the review letter indicated that the percentage of trim and asphalt shingles on certain facades exceed the maximum percentage allowed. The Vinyl Siding on all façades exceeds the maximum percentage allowed by Ordinance. The Façade Consultant reviewed the façade board prior to tonight’s evening and was able to recommend a Section Nine Waiver based on the materials being proposed.

Anthony Randazzo, owner of the property, indicated that he was available for questions. Additionally, he noted that he had been working with the Staff for four years to derive the proposed site plan. Mr. Randazzo stated he met with several of the neighbors and letters of support were submitted to the Planning Department.


Member Kocan announced that she received one (1) correspondence. Additionally, there were letters included in the commissioners’ packets from residents who support the preservation of the stone house.

Lara Barduca 39630 West Nine Mile Road wrote, "We approve, but only if a privacy fence is included with trees and shrubs for privacy. We would like our property considered to be sold. Also, buildings no closer than the existing home of Roger Christiansen."

Member Kocan indicated that the distance was not indicated in the letter.

Mr. Randazzo was certain that Ms. Barduca would not be affected. Lauren McGuire, previous landscape architect and the current Landscape Architect required extensive landscaping along the southern boundary. He designated the area on the map. Additionally, there is a road next to Ms. Barduca’s home, which has been used for access for years; however it would be abandoned. As a result, Ms. Barduca would benefit from this change.

Chairperson Nagy announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the matter to the Public.

Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.


Member Kocan referenced Section 2407 – a site condominium shall mean a condominium project developed under Act 59 of the public acts of 1978 as amended, which does not otherwise qualify as a detached cluster development, under Section 2403 of this ordinance also which is not otherwise developed in a manner permissible under existing RM-1 or RM-2. She noted that the proposed development is not proposed as a cluster development; it is an RT-2 proposed in a RM-1 District. Article 6 Section 601.1 of the ordinance indicates RT-2 Family Residential as a principle permitted use. Therefore, if the proposed development is an RT-2 Family District, a principle permitted use in the RM-1 District, then it does not qualify under the Ordinance definition of Site Condominium. She asked Mr. Fisher to clarify if the development is a RT-2 to be developed under RT-2 standards (included in the ordinance) or if it is a site condominium. If the development is a site condominium, then it cannot be RT-2.

Gerald Fisher, City Attorney asked the Applicant if the development is a site condominium.

Mr. Randazzo noted to his understanding that as a site condominium it can be included in the RT zoning.

Mr. Fisher asked the Applicant if he proposed the development as a site condominium or a general condominium.

Mr. Randazzo indicated that he proposed the development in any manner that it needs to be in order to make it work. He allowed Mr. Fisher to interpret the proposal.

Mr. Fisher did not want to impede the Commission’s determination to treat the proposed one way or another. He believed the definition in Section 2407 was an attempt to define the term site condominium; however, State Law does not define site condominium. The Condominium Act was promulgated as a form of ownership arrangement (rather than creating certain other kinds of regulations) with the expectation that it would be utilized as a general condominium (people would own just their unit and nothing around it). Developers, lawyers, municipal planners and others in the industry decided to make the condominium form of ownership the same as a subdivision to avoid the necessity of going through all of the planning process to have the same end result. He interpreted the definition as an attempt to define what it is and not where you cannot put it. He referenced the verbiage, which is not otherwise developed in a manner permissible under existing RM-1, which indicates it is not being developed as a general condominium that would be permissible under multiple zoning. He did not feel the intent of the language was indicating a site condominium could not be placed in the RM-1 zoning. Further supporting this conclusion, the Condominium Act states one can not discriminate against condominiums merely because of the form of development as compared to the form of single-family or other permissible development. He explained if a general condominium use is permitted and a site condominium is not permitted, then an argument could be made that the City is attempting to regulate on the basis of the form of ownership rather than the land use.

Member Kocan recalled the statement made earlier that site condominiums are part of the Interim Policy Road Design; however the Implementation Committee determined the Interim Policy applied only to general condominium developments. The policy cannot be applied to the development as a site condominium.

Mr. Fisher agreed with her comments.

Member Kocan pointed out that other interpretations were made this evening.

Mr. Fisher stated his interpretation is that the Interim Policy would apply if the development is a general condominium. The plan was reviewed as a general condominium. If the proposed is a site condominium, then it must follow the same standards as Single-Family residential as applied.

Member Kocan stated the removal of the setbacks becomes an issue under the Site Condominium Ordinance.

Mr. Fisher stated only if the development is a site condominium.

Chairperson Nagy stated Traffic/Planning Consultant Rod Arroyo, who raised the issues, is not present at tonight’s meeting. The questions were not clarified to the Commission prior to the meeting; therefore, nine (9) commissioners are reviewing a proposal with inadequate information. The Commission has requested in the past, that issues such as these, are worked out beforehand to allow the Commission the ability to utilize and review the proposal. She pointed out that these issues were not raised by the Commission yet, within the consultant review letter. She felt it would have been appropriate to have Mr. Arroyo present at the meeting. She clarified whether the Commission should proceed with the review of a site condominium.

Mr. Fisher recalled the Applicant’s earlier response to be flexible to the pleasure of the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Nagy stressed that it is not the Planning Commission’s decision. She asked Mr. Evancoe to comment.

Planning Director David Evancoe stated it is the Department’s belief that the Applicant prefers to eventually have a general condominium; however the plan was submitted as a site condominium with lot lines. This is important because there needs to be a basis for reviewing items such as side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, etc. He explained if a plan were submitted without lot lines, then there could be no conclusions of whether or not the plan complied with the RT setback standards. The lot lines are helpful for the review; however, the developer has the option because the form of ownership is not under the Staff’s purview. The Staff and Commission are concerned with the site plan itself and with items such as the streets, layout of the streets, etc.

Chairperson Nagy asked how the site plan should be reviewed by the Commission. She stressed that it has nothing to do with the applicant.

Mr. Evancoe restated his belief, based on previous discussions, that the plan should be reviewed with the RT standards recognizing lot lines are proposed on the submitted site plan. In the future, the Developer can change to a general condominium with an exhibit attached to the Master Deed showing no lot lines, which is a situation that would be acceptable and can not be controlled by the Staff/Commission. The proposed plan with lot lines should be on file in the case that future property owners proposed a deck or other additions. The plan would be used as a basis for determining conformance. Therefore, Mr. Evancoe advised the Commission to review the plan as a site condominium.

Member Ruyle noted the need for clarification as the City Attorney has advised the Commission to review as general condominium and the Director has advised a review as site condominiums. He suggested tabling the matter under a clarification is made.

Member Avdoulos did not find it appropriate for the Commission to "guess" what is best for the Applicant. He stressed that it is the Applicant’s responsibility to make this determination. He agreed tabling the matter was an appropriate action.

Member Markham stated the commissioners’ packets included recommended motions for either a general condominium or a site condominium; however tonight the only recommended motion is for a site condominium. She asked what decision-process occurred between the time the commissioners’ packets were distributed and tonight’s meeting, which caused the City to decide the plan should only be reviewed as a site condominium.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the review letter was not clear as to how to handle the matter. As the matter was reviewed further, it was determined to be a site condominium and a revised motion sheet was written. He felt the real question was how to handle the Interim Policy. The plan has lot lines and therefore is not a general condominium. He agreed with Member Kocan’s concerns of applying the interpretation of the Interim Policy for the road and measuring setbacks from the curb or applying the RT standards and measuring the setback from a hypothetical right-of-way; since there is no right-of-way line as it is a private road. In this case, a 60-foot right-of-way could be extrapolated. Should the commission choose this route, then the applicant would request front yard variances. In his opinion, he felt the central question was whether front yard setbacks should be viewed as a variance from RT standards or as conforming to the Interim Policy.

Member Kocan noted the issues if the plan is reviewed as a site condominium under the RT standards. A City Council Waiver for the stormwater pond on subdivision lots is necessary. The Planning Commission has a policy of not allowing detention ponds to be within the lot lines of any residence. She would not recommend a City Council Waiver for the ponds. She was willing to discuss a Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the sidewalk near Lot 18. Concerning the determination for the depth to width ratio for Lots 10, 12, and 13, she stated the reason for these ratios is the location of the detention basin within the lot lines of the properties, which she would not support. She was concerned about the reduced setback of the existing home. In review as a site condominium based on RT zoning the Interim Policy can not be used as it is not for general condominiums only. Therefore, the required setback is 35-feet from the right-of-way. The proposal is for a 25-foot setback from the curb. There is a considerable difference between the proposed setback and the required setback. Member Kocan was not in favor of having the homes up against the road and would not make a recommendation to the ZBA to grant a variance. She noted the berm along Haggerty Road would be provided. The largest issues are the setbacks and the detention basins. Member Kocan found denying or tabling the matter as appropriate forms of action. The proposed did not come close to her expectation of a subdivision that would be approved in the City of Novi.

Member Shroyer concurred with Member Kocan’s comments. Additionally, he could support a denial or a tabling of the matter. In the event the matter is tabled, he recommended the Commission provide the applicant and Staff with feedback of their expectations. He noted that there are several issues beyond those already mentioned.

Member Paul questioned the reasoning for the preservation of the stone home because it does not fit in with the vinyl siding of the proposed condominiums.

Mr. Randazzo indicated an exit on Nine Mile was requested for safety. Due to the unusual entrance on Haggerty Road, the exit had to be placed in the proposed location. Originally, there was a cul-de-sac. The reason for preserving the stone house is merely due to it being part of Novi’s history. It is an attractive home and sets in its own location. He felt it would set apart from the other homes.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the staff encourage the preservation of this house with the recognition that Novi is a rapidly growing community without a great deal of historical architectural resources. The Developer has been cooperative and interested in its preservation.

Member Paul did not support the detention basin encroaching on Lots 10, 11 and 12. She asked for information on tree protection, construction access and landscaping issues. She asked why the City permits private roads that do not meet the standards of public roads.

Mr. Evancoe stated the road is built to public standards in terms of width. Private roads are required to be built to public standards with the difference being the right-of-way. He asked her to be specific with the character of the road that does not conform to public standards.

Member Paul referenced Mr. Arroyo’s letter, each building site shall front on and have direct access to a public street or private street constructed to public street standards. The site plan indicates that Trillium Drive will be private and is not proposed to meet public road standards. She planned to ask Mr. Arroyo to explain his comment; however, he is not present. Member Paul was not in favor of any development that did not meet the public road standards because eventually, the City might have to maintain those roads.

Mr. Evancoe deferred to City Engineer Brian Coburn.

Mr. Coburn stated the road is designed to the Interim Policy Road standard.

Member Paul interrupted and stated it is not allowed.

Mr. Coburn pointed out that that determination was not made until tonight; however, the original assumption was that the plan could be placed under the Interim Policy. He deferred to the City Attorney.

Member Paul noted the conflicting and changing comments that have been made.

Mr. Randazzo interjected to comment.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that it is not appropriate for the applicant to address the Commission during discussion unless directed to do so. She stressed to the Applicant that the Commission is not trying to penalize him and the matters being discussed do not involve him or his site plan. Instead the Commission’s discussion with staff is concerning the information received from the Planning Department. The Commission needs to clarify the matter prior to moving forward.

Member Paul asked Mr. Evancoe to address her comments.

Mr. Evancoe agreed that matters need to be clarified and apologized that they were not. The plan was reviewed as a site condominium. He restated that the plan is a site condominium that will turn into a general condominium. He felt the confusion derived from the lack of separating the present from future. He stated the landscaping issues could be easily addressed at Final. He asked Member Paul to restate her question.

Member Paul asked him to elaborate on the construction access and detention basin. If the stone house is preserved, she advised moving the road over and eliminating Lot 1 and Lot 2. She noted her disappointment. Member Paul supported denying or tabling the matter.

Member Ruyle asked if the request is denied, then the Applicant can go before the City Council; however, the City Council would take the Commission’s recommendation into consideration.

Mr. Fisher advised that the decision is at the discretion of the Planning Commission.

Member Ruyle recalled the Applicant’s statement that the project has been in process for four years. He asked if the Applicant is required to start at step one if the project is denied.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct.

Member Ruyle indicated that he wanted the Applicant to have the option to work out the issues.


Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Trillium Village SP02-12 to table until the site plan is clear on what the Planning Commission is to review.


Member Markham supported tabling the matter because the road standards need to be addressed. Additionally, the detention pond located at the northeast corner of the property should be addressed. Unit #10 has a walkout elevation of 857.9-feet and the top of the detention pond is 858-feet. In the event a storm occurs the pond will become full and the basement of Lot 10 will also become a pond. Further, the property setbacks are not met for the frontage; particularly unit #11. She suggested reconfiguring the entire corner by possibly removing two units, provide the berm and placing the pond where it belongs. Another home has an elevation of 858.1-feet. She found this issue unworkable. She did not have an issue with the stone house having a 9.5-foot setback from the road; the house is where it is. She could support a waiver for the setback and for the sidewalk not being provided along the side of the stone house. She questioned why a berm should be placed in front of the historical home. The stone house is being preserved with a historical purpose and therefore, should not be covered up with a berm and landscaping. Although the Ordinance requires a berm, she would support a waiver for this reason. Member Markham asked where guests are anticipated to park if no parking is permitted on the road.

Mr. Coburn indicated the prohibition on parking deals with sight distance. Due to the proposed radii (Interim Policy of 100-feet), there is a problem with sight distance. Parking in certain areas is eliminated due to the lack of visibility of the parked cars when driving around the curb.

Member Markham indicated that it was not delineated on the plan. She felt additional parking, beyond the driveways, should be accommodated in the development. Member Markham supported Member Kocan’s comments regarding setbacks. She stated it needs to be clarified under what requirements the development is being built.

Member Sprague concurred with Member Kocan’s comments. It is not the Planning Commission’s position to redesign. He supported tabling the matter.

Member Papp supported tabling the matter. He asked if the entrance on Haggerty Road was located directly across from CVS. He asked if there was a problem for those vehicles turning left.

Mr. Coburn stated according to the site plan, the entrance is located directly across from the CVS entrance.

Member Papp questioned the safety of those traveling south on Haggerty Road and entering the left turn lane earlier than needed.

Mr. Coburn needed to review the traffic engineer’s comments.

Member Papp stated it could be unsafe if there are two left turns at the same time.

Mr. Coburn agreed.

Mr. Evancoe believed the location was selected due to the Palushaj site being developed first. If the site were located any further south, then it would be worse in terms of the grades into the Palushaj site from Haggerty Road.

Member Papp asked where the Palushaj site was in its development.

Mr. Evancoe noted that to his knowledge the site is not moving forward at this time; however, it is yet to be seen as it is not the City’s determination.

Chairperson Nagy indicated the Palushaj site is located near her home. She noted the site has been worked on lately.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that he had not observed a lot of recent work.

Member Avdoulos was concerned with the Applicant’s comment, "in any manner that it needs to be in order to make it work". The Applicant has proposed his project without a definite direction. At this point he described the Commission’s discussion as a brainstorming session and found it to be a waste of time. The matter should be tabled and presented back to the Commission with a definite direction.

Member Kocan appreciated the amount of time the Developer has spent on the proposal; however she wanted the commissioners to understand there were numerous proposals. The first proposal was for a retirement complex, which was determined unfeasible and the request was withdrawn. Second, there was a proposal for a multiple development. The developer did not want to abide by the 75-foot setback for the multiple. Therefore, a year ago the Developer was advised to explore the RT-2 option. Since that time, the developer added additional property and went through the rezoning process. She made the Commission aware that the same plan has not been in review for four years. She noted if the Palushaj Building is not being developed when Trillium returns to the Commission, then the berm requirement around the office area shall be required on the property of the residential district. Therefore, the applicant should allow for this berm in their site plan.

Member Shroyer suggested that the Applicant consider the removal of the shed of the stone house. He also had concerns with the Haggerty Road entrance (shared driveway). He calculated that it would not take long for a southbound car on Haggerty Road to accomplish the 100 yard distance in a 45mph zone. He suggested a "T" 45-degree angle with an access drive for the property currently under development.

Mr. Evancoe clarified that Member Shroyer supported the shared access. He however, preferred it to come out from the Trillium site farther north onto Haggerty Road.

Member Shroyer believed that it could be safer to have a short access stub from the current site being built to a right angel Trillium Drive street into Haggerty Road.

Mr. Coburn noted a previous decision by the City to eliminate Haggerty Road access in this area. The shared drive was approved as part of the Palushaj site plan. Therefore, the Palushaj site plan would need to be amended for the shared access to be moved onto the Trillium site.

Member Shroyer did not oppose the shared access; however, for safety purposes, it should be reconfigured if feasible. He agreed that the removal of some lots would eliminate the detention pond and setback problems and possibly the Haggerty Road access issue.

Chairperson Nagy indicated she served on the Planning Commission when the matter came forward prior. She noted her concern with regard to guest parking. She agreed with the other commissioner’s comments, particularly Member Avdoulos’. Chairperson Nagy called for the vote.


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None



Public Hearing on the request of Mike Fellows of Mozart Homes for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Site Condominium Development and Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 23 on the north side of Ten Mile Road and east of Novi Road in the R-4 (One Family Residential) District. The developer is proposing 16 detached condominiums. The subject property is 7.03 acres.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Mozart Homes. The subject property is currently developed with one single family home and associated out buildings. To the north and east are homes within the Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision. To the west is the City of Novi C&O Regional Detention Basin, and further to the west is the CSX Railroad. To the south, across Ten Mile Road is the Wisne Building and the Novi Ridge Townhouses. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Single Family uses for the site and surrounding properties to the northwest, north and east. To the west, the master plan designates the property for quasi public uses. The south is designated for multiple family and light industrial uses. The subject property is zoned R-4, One Family Residential, as are the properties to the north, east and west. The property to the south is zoned RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family Residential and I-1, Light Industrial. The proposed preliminary site plan shows the removal of the existing home and outbuildings from the property and the construction of a new road, Myrtle Court, extending north from Ten Mile Road, and ending in a cul-de-sac. A total of 16 homes are proposed along both sides of the cul-de-sac and a park is proposed at the north end of the property. The Planning Department has worked with the applicant over the last several months in a request to modify the plans from the earlier submittal, which showed the cul-de-sac extending farther to the north with the bulb of the cul-de-sac in the narrower part of the property. Staff requested that the cul-de-sac be pulled back to the wider part of the property because of the Single-Family homes that currently exist. The submitted plans have now shortened the overall length of the proposed public road; moving the cul-de-sac farther back with a private drive proposed to extend off of the north end of the cul-de-sac that would serve the three homes at the north end. Input into the design was received from a meeting with the Meadowbrook Glens neighborhood association in June of this year where this proposal was a topic of discussion. It was the Planning Department’s opinion that the cul-de-sac as shown, is a better location because of the better buffer that would be possible for the existing homes in the Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision. This modification would require a ZBA variance for lot width for lots 8, 9 and 10, which will not meet the minimum requirement of 80-feet of frontage required in the R-4 district. Additionally, if the plans are to be approved, a Commission determination would be appropriate with a finding that the east property line for lots 8, 9 and 10 would constitute a rear property line for these lots. The Planning Consultant and the Plan Review Center believe that this would be a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The Wetlands review recommended conditional approval of the minor use wetland permit which can be granted administratively. The impacts noted in the review letter include the discharge of pretreated storm water from a Filtration System and vegetated swale along the north side of lot 11, which would go into the Walled Lake Branch of the Middle Rouge River. The Woodlands Review included in the packets did not recommend approval of the proposed plans. The City Forester recommended preserving additional woodlands along the east side of lots 2 through 9 on the east side of the property, and was seeking additional woodland plantings. Since the review letter was written, the applicant has worked with the City Forester to identify areas where replacement and additional landscaping could be proposed on the property and the preservation of additional woodlands might be possible. A memo from the City Forester dated November 6, 2002 has been placed in front of the commissioners this evening and indicates that approval of the plans is recommended subject to the items mentioned, as well as the items from the original review letter, be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. The landscaping review has comments which may be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. The Traffic Engineer’s review indicated that a Planning Commission waiver of the minimum opposite-side driveway spacing requirements will be needed for the location of proposed Myrtle Court relative to Wisne Drive, which is a driveway which serves the large industrial building to the south. 200 feet of separation is required, and 157 feet is proposed. The traffic engineer has reviewed data provided by the applicant, which concluded that there will not be a significant safety problem for the proposed driveway relative to the other existing driveway. The Engineering and Fire Department review letters indicated concerns that may be addressed at the time of Final Site plan review. Façade review is not required for the development, as this proposal is being reviewed under the site condominium and subdivisions requirements sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has provided for the Planning Commission preliminary floor plans and building elevations for the homes he intends to build.

Mike Fellows of Mozart Homes concurred with Ms. McBeth’s presentation. The first proposal with 17-lots was submitted in April of 2002 and did not require a variance for the three lots. Both the 16-lot plan and the 17-lot plan require a waiver for driveway spacing. It appears that a waiver is required regardless of the location of the driveway. Traffic counts were taken to determine the optimum location for the driveway, which is the proposed location. After meeting with adjacent neighbors, Mr. Fellows indicated that he withdrew the request to come before the Commission with the 17-lot plan. As a result, the proposed 16-lot plan was derived. The allowable density in R-4 is 3.3 dwelling units per acre. He indicated that the one lot was voluntarily lost due to its close location to the cul-de-sac. He requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval with a recommendation for the ZBA Variance.


Jerry Coonce and Jane Coonce 24540 Park Ridge Court wrote two correspondences, "We approve the amended and current layout of the proposed site plan above as being much more acceptable and favorable to interests." Jerry Coonce and Jane Coonce wrote, "We live in the subdivision adjacent to the referenced proposed project. We have met the developer and seen the development plan both in its originally submitted form and its current layout. The changes he made to the plan were largely in response to concerns we had about the location of the cul-de-sac. The new plan not only has relocated the cul-de-sac to a much more favorable location, but also preserves a large area as a park at the north end of the development. We are aware that the previous plan did not require the variance needed to approve the new plan. However, we much prefer the new plan and ask that you approve it with a positive recommendation on the variance request."

A. Sherwood 24705 Applecrest Drive wrote, "Not enough room for 16 units in that little space. Traffic is bad enough on Ten Mile Road without this. I hope they like noise from trains and lumberyards."

Mr. and Mrs. David Yoon 24548 Park Ridge Court wrote, "We live in the subdivision adjacent to the referenced proposed project. We have met the developer and seen the development plan both in its original submitted form and its current layout. The changes he made to the plan were largely in response to concerns we had about the location of the cul-de-sac. The new plan not only has relocated the cul-de-sac to a much more favorable location, but also preserves a large area as a park at the north end of the development. We are aware that the previous plan did not require the variance needed to approve the new plan. However, we much prefer the new plan and ask that you approve it with a positive recommendation on the variance request."

Mr. and Mrs. Rick Wixson 24375 Pinecrest wrote, "We live in the subdivision adjacent to the referenced proposed project. We have met the developer and seen the development plan both in its original submitted form and its current layout. The changes he made to the plan were largely in response to concerns we had about the location of the cul-de-sac. The new plan not only has relocated the cul-de-sac to a much more favorable location, but also preserves a large area as a park at the north end of the development. We are aware that the previous plan did not require the variance needed to approve the new plan. However, we much prefer the new plan and ask that you approve it with a positive recommendation on the variance request."

Mark Lumley 24299 Pinecrest wrote, "My property is on the east side of the planned site. I have seen and studied both Mozart Homes original 17-home plan as well as their revised plan for 16 homes and I approve of the revised plan. I very much appreciate Mozart Homes’ willingness to accommodate the wishes of my neighbors to the north and move the planned cul-de-sac to a more acceptable location. I also support their request for a setback variance recognizing that this may move the homes on the east side of their property somewhat closer to our existing homes or closer to the road/driveway than otherwise might be the case. Finally, I understand that Mozart Homes has been asked by the City to leave as many of the existing trees as possible, particularly those trees within 10-feet of the property line. Whoever, there are four ash and elm trees #41-44 and one unsightly box elder #40 within 10 feet of my property that appear to be declining and may soon die. They are at risk of falling on our property and damaging out home or deck. Mr. Fellows of Mozart Homes has offered to remove and replace these trees and we request that he be allowed to do so."

Meadowbrook Homeowners Association wrote, "I am writing to communicate to you and the Planning Board the concerns shared by several residence of Meadowbrook Glens regarding the subject planned development. We are hopeful that by letting you know our concerns as soon as possible, you will be able to give them ample consideration in your deliberations regarding this project. We are also looking forward to attending the June 19, 2002 meeting of the Planning Board so that we can reiterate these concerns in person. There are currently several well beaten paths to the stream on the subject property. Will public access be maintained? Will the utilities and risers be located in the front yard of these new homes? The northern end of the subject property has always been considered wetlands due to the fact that it is wet about six months out of every year. In this regard we have two concerns. First is it a wetland and therefore land that should not be built at all? We are hoping that the wetlands question will be answered by the appropriate authority prior to approval of this project. Second, if it is not truly a wetlands, will it be built up in a way that insures the surrounding properties will not end up with flooding problems? Thirteen properties are being impacted to build two new homes. The developer has already removed trees from the property illegally. Will he continue to operate in this manner? Significant sound buffering as it relates to the railroad has been lost with the removal of the trees. Will this be rectified with new construction and re-landscaping? We would like more details regarding the site condominium. (ownership/responsibility to property, selling price, square footage, footprint etc.) The current site plans call for a retaining wall as part of the development. This is seen as a significant safety issue for children who play in this area. The addition of another street entrance in an already hazardous area is a concern. Can steps be taken to provide for traffic safety? We are concerned about the loss of green space and trees. In other developments, this builder has cleared the entire property. The placement of the cul-de-sac in relationship to the surrounding properties will be a significant safety hazard because this street turnaround will come within a couple of feet of backyards where children play. The placement of the cul-de-sac will be detrimental to property values for the adjacent properties. We are requesting that no fences be built around the north end of the subject property so that the residents that have maintained this property of as many as thirty years can continue to enjoy the feeling of openness. In addition to our concerns we would like to request that you and members of the board take the time to walk the property with us so that you can see the source of our concerns first hand. Respectfully, Eric J. Schillinger, President of Meadowbrook Glens Homeowner’s Association."

Chairperson Nagy announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the matter to the Public.

Tom Willard 24355 Pinecrest stated, "This plan does not show the elevation. The foreseen danger is that these houses with ice storms will slip down into these properties back in Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision. They are asking for a variance on these properties here to move them off the road and closer to these properties here. Now my property is directly behind there. That would be putting them closer to me."

Pat Brunnet stated, "My family and I have lived adjacent to that property for about thirty years. Like others we do not want to see it developed, but we always would like to be the last one in. we were dismayed when we saw the first plan that we thought raised some of the objection that Ms. McBeth mentioned. Too close to the homes that are already there with the cul-de-sac and the elimination of the green space. We much prefer this plan. This plan has a lot more benefit to the neighbors who already live around there. Particularly the green space that is preserved at the north end of the property. If the choice was between the two plans, then we prefer that this plan be approved. We hope that the Planning Commission will act in that way. Thank you very much."

Ron Jones stated, "I live on Parkridge and I have a home that backs up to the open space in the back. I objected to the first site because the cul-de-sac had a road in the neighbor’s backyard. I have a little water that builds up in that area. It would appear that he is making an effort to take care of the detention area and directing the waters away. I much prefer this plan over the plan that he had before. It appears to be more workable. If I could keep it as trees, then that would be nice too. Thank you very much."

Chairperson Nagy asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.


Member Avdoulos understood the concern with the turnaround area and the proximity to the residences of the adjoining subdivision. He stated there is a 250-foot drive with no turnarounds indicated, an 18-foot wide drive; therefore, one would back up 250-ft to the cul-de-sac. There was mention of adding a 20-foot radius curve at the turnaround to allow for this situation; however, it is a strange orientation of the lots to attain access to lot 10. Unless there are any turnarounds implemented, he could not visualize a vehicle driving 250-feet backwards until they could turn around. He suggested putting lots 8, 9 and 10 in line with lots 6 and 7, which would pull lot 10 further south; creating more area for the Park. The access for the driveway would continue parallel with the property line and provide a quick turnaround for lots 8, 9 and 10. HeHHH understood the dialog with the woodlands. He marked the trees in question. Based on the note the commissioner’s received prior to tonight’s meeting, he asked the Applicant if most of the issues relating to the trees were resolved.

Mr. Fellows answered, yes. He stated the issues would be resolved at Final.

Member Avdoulos understood Mr. Fellows’ concerns with trees catching diseases and being located in close proximity to a home. He requested Mr. Fellows to be in discussions with the Woodlands Review.

Mr. Fellows agreed.

Member Shroyer stated he was impressed with the changes made. He recalled his initial concern was related to the headlights shining into the neighbors’ property at the end of the cul-de-sac. He indicated that his present concern is centered around the negative recommendation from the Forester. He noted his disappointment that the Forester was not present at tonight’s meeting. Since a majority of the items were addressed, he clarified that there was not a major concern with regard to the woodlands.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct. He apologized for Mr. Printz’s absence; however, he was unable to attend tonight’s meeting. Woodland Technician Elaine Grehl is present and able to address questions. Mr. Evancoe indicated that Mr. Printz was pleased with the progress that came forth from the recent meeting with Mr. Fellows. He felt the woodland issues were very much resolved.

Member Shroyer was pleased to hear that Mr. Printz could make a positive recommendation at this point. Additional landscape items were addressed as well. He questioned how pedestrians will access to the park as there is no nature trail or path provided.

Mr. Fellows noted a strip of land varying in width starting at the northwest portion of the cul-de-sac and following north straight along the western property line. The strip starts at approximately 10-feet and widens out to approximately 20-feet. He indicated that it is part of the common area. Boillat Park includes the area where the sedimentation basin is located and is accessible from the cul-de-sac.

Member Shroyer clarified that this is the location of the steep hill.

Mr. Fellows did not characterize the hill as steep; however, he agreed that a hill is present. He indicated that he personally has walked the hill and found it accessible and not steep.

Member Shroyer asked if he intended to propose any type of nature trail or woodbark pathway leading back to the park.

Mr. Fellows stated he was not against it. In order to make a walkway, a flat spot would need to be created along the side of the hill, which could impact the existing trees and vegetation of the buffer. He felt the preservation of the vegetation was a better option. The development will have an association of sixteen homeowners. There will be an easement for the owners of lots 8, 9 and 10 to share the driveway. He indicated his willingness to write into the easement that the other homeowners can utilize the driveway to access the park.

Member Shroyer agreed with his suggestion. He did not want the park to seem like a personal park for lot 10. He asked Mr. Evancoe what resolution came from Mr. Printz’ letter dated March 13, 2002 regarding the restoration of the disturbed areas by Louise Tree Service.

Mr. Evancoe clarified if he was referring to the Woodland Violation.

Member Shroyer answered, yes.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that he spoke with Mr. Printz, who indicated that since the site was proposed for development, both the City Forester and the City Attorney felt it was not advisable to have the applicant restore the site as the trees would be torn out for the proposed development. Therefore, it was agreed that the replacements, required as a result of the clearing, would be included in the proposed site plan. Mr. Fellow’s acceptance of this provision was indicated in the memo from Mr. Printz.

Member Shroyer asked if the replacements include the additional 278 shrubs and other items of this nature.

Mr. Evancoe answered, yes.

Member Markham clarified that the Ordinance permits 22 units; however only 16 are proposed.

Mr. Fellows answered, correct.

Member Markham noted her appreciation that the project has proposed fewer units than permitted.

Member Ruyle asked if the homes were 3367 square foot.

Mr. Fellows did not anticipate the homes would be that large. He indicated the drawing shown to the Commission is of a similar site in Novi.

Member Ruyle asked the market price.

Mr. Fellows hoped the market price would be in the high $300,000 and under $400,000.

Member Ruyle asked if his prices were based on the location.

Mr. Fellows stated the reason is because no one else is at this price at this time.

Member Papp thanked the Applicant for working with the neighbors and modifying his plans. He liked the layout.

Member Kocan thanked the Applicant for working with the residents. She stated the tree replacements will be handled with the City Forester. There were a number of comments referring to the removal of trees. She asked if he anticipated a flat development.

Mr. Fellows answered, no. He stated the site needs to be flattened to construct the road. The site itself is high on the east property line and falls slowly to the west to the westerly property line and drops off to the branch of the river. The general pattern will stay the same. There are little areas in between each house for the road. The cul-de-sac itself and next to the cul-de-sac will have to be regarded to accommodate storm drainage. Unfortunately, most trees cannot withstand a three inch change in grade without suffering. Typically, the detailed grading plans are not done at this preliminary stage; necessary details are done to show the development can be done. He noted from his experience, the area graded is always larger than anticipated to make the drainage work.

Member Kocan did not like the number of trees left on the east and west property line of the proposed plan. It appears that more clearing will be done. She had no knowledge of the locations for the replacement trees and hoped they would be used to reforest along the back lot line. She recalled the applicant’s statement that people do not want a lot of trees in their backyard; however, there is something to be said for trees.

Mr. Fellows stated the balance needs to be achieved. The majority of the replacement trees will be placed in the back of the rear of all the lots.

Member Kocan stated it appears that lot 4 jets out considerably closer to the road; lots 3 and 5 go back quite a bit. She was concerned if somebody’s front door would be in someone else’s backyard. She requested the City and the Developer to be cognizant of this concern. Member Kocan asked for clarification on the request for 4-feet of greenspace around the back of building on four sides.

Mike McGinnis, Interim Landscape Architect indicated the comment was from former Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire. It appeared to him that the homes have plenty of room to provide the recommendation.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that is not uncommon for a typical unit landscape plan to be requested. It shows the appearance of each approach from the driveway to the front door and how the foundational plantings will look.

Member Kocan questioned if every homeowner would do their own foundational plantings.

Mr. Fellows answered, correct. The replacement trees would provide approximately 12 to 14 trees on each lot. He explained after the homeowner purchases the lot, they will then determine where their replacement trees will be planted. There is not a typical unit plan.

Member Kocan asked if there is truly a requirement.

Mr. Fellows noted that to his understanding, the landscape requirement applies more appropriately to commercial buildings.

Mr. Evancoe agreed. He indicated that often the site condominium will provide the foundation plantings; however, it varies from development to development.

Member Kocan indicated that the motions are made with references to the consultant’s letters. Therefore, she found it important that clarifications be made. Boilatt Court is now Myrtle Court as the applicant changed the street name.

Mr. Fellows agreed.

Member Kocan supported the finding that the east lot line of lots 8-10 constitutes the rear lot line based on the reasonable application that the Ordinance intent is being met by the configuration of the lots. She agreed that there were not options to avoid the need for an opposite-side driveway spacing waiver. She asked Member Avdoulos to repeat his comments regarding the reconfiguring of lots 8, 9 and 10. Member Kocan stated no reference was made to retaining walls on the plan, therefore, she questioned if they were proposed.

Mr. Fellows indicated that the new plan with the shortened cul-de-sac does not require the use of retaining walls. He also needed Member Avdoulos to repeat his comments regarding the reconfiguring of the lots. Additionally, he proposed to flip unit 10 and place the driveway more toward the southern end and use a stub turnaround in the shared driveway going to the north. It would allow the resident to back out of his/her driveway and drive forward down to the cul-de-sac. This change would allow the resident to back up, while shortening the length of the shared driveway possibly by 70-feet.

Member Avdoulos suggested making that suggestion to the Planning Department administratively. Either mirror unit 10 with the driveway on the other side or "jockey" unit 8 and 9 slightly to create a 90-degree turn. He indicated that Mr. Evancoe was aware of the issues. He noted his understanding that the lots are configured in this manner to allow frontage to the cul-de-sac to create a lot as opposed to not having anything through the cul-de-sac with the need for an easement.

Mr. Fellows recalled the Traffic Engineer Bill Stimpson’s, request for radius curves where the stair driveway meets the cul-de-sac, which he would provide.

Member Kocan noted the discussion regarding developing lot 11 last, which the Applicant did not agree to. She stated a determination needed to be made and she supported the City’s request.

Mr. Fellows indicated it is not a typical detention basin or temporary sedimentation basin. Typically there is a desire to keep the temporary sedimentation basin clean and therefore have no house next to it during the course of development. In this particular case, a permanent sedimentation basin will be constructed. The idea of the basin is to filter the stormwater flowing through it before it discharges into the river. He found it advantageous to have as much vegetation as possible to filter the water. He did not intend to push lot 11 to be the first to be sold; however, he also did not find it advantageous to hold it from being built as there would only be dirt next to the sedimentation basin.

Nancy McClain City Engineer agreed with Mr. Fellows’ comments. Typically, if there was not a permanent basin at that location, then a temporary sedimentation basin would be needed. A filter fence and plantings of seed would be required to help with runoff. If the area was not developed first or left for last, then any development around the area with its landscape would help with the runoff. She indicated the permanent sedimentation basin could handle the sediment from the development during construction.

Member Paul asked the lot width for lot 8, 9 and 10. The minimum requirement is 80-feet; however, some of the lots are 10-feet and 41-feet. Therefore, a ZBA variance is required. If lot 10 is mirrored, then she questioned if the issue would be resolved.

Ms. McBeth believed the suggestion was to mirror the footprint of the house of lot 10. Therefore, the change would not affect the required ZBA variance.

Member Paul indicated the driveway would be shortened.

Ms. McBeth stated the lot would be maintained in its current configuration and shape and the same variance would still be required. It is a matter of measuring the lot width at the required setback distance. The width of the lot has been measured at 40-feet from the road; in either case, it will be 10-feet. There was not discussion regarding making modifications that close to the end of the road.

Member Paul appreciated the Applicant working with the neighbors; however, she noted the issues with the driveway setbacks and the width of the lot. She felt there was one too many lots. She felt lot 10 should be eliminated to resolve the issue with the configuration of the road. She stated this variance could be avoided. She could support the driveway spacing waiver; however, two variances were too many.

Chairperson Nagy appreciated the Applicant’s cooperation and efforts. She asked if the new Stormwater Management Ordinance applies to the site.

Ms. McClain indicated the site was started prior to the new Stormwater Ordinance. The site plan number was issued prior to June 4th and therefore fall under the interim interpretation of the Stormwater Ordinance.

Chairperson Nagy indicated the runoff will eventually flow into the Middle Rouge. Therefore, she asked if all necessary steps are being taken to ensure the Middle Rouge will not be destroyed.

Ms. McClain stated Mr. Fellows made changes to the site plan based on comments from JCK and the City. They are allowed due to the location of the detention basin to flow into the detention basin unrestricted. It currently flows into the detention basin unrestricted and will not be causing additional problems with the flow. The detention basin is literally at the lot line.

Chairperson Nagy noted the numerous ash trees remaining. She asked if the White Ash trees are subject to disease.

Mr. McGinnis answered, yes. He recommended these trees to be removed from the plant list.

Chairperson Nagy noted that the plan still showed quite a few. These could affect any healthy Ash tree within a half mile.

Mr. McGinnis did not find Ash trees on the plant list.

Chairperson Nagy stated the tree protection fence details note 32 White Ash – 10 good, 41 White Ash 10 low, etc.

Mr. McGinnis clarified that she was referencing the existing trees.

Chairperson Nagy answered, correct. She asked if the trees would be removed.

Mr. McGinnis stated according to the tree survey, the trees that are not crossed off are to remain.

Chairperson Nagy requested the removal of all the Ash trees as they are subject to disease.

Mr. Evancoe assured the Commission that City Staff would work with the applicant during the Final site plan with regard to the radii for the driveways coming out on the private shared driveway. He advised the Commission to indicate in the motion that Boillat Park is a private park. It is not labeled as a private park on the site plan and should not be confused as a public park accepted by the City.

Chairperson Nagy agreed with his comments. She entertained a motion.


Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Brookhaven SP02-26 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Woodland Permit conditional upon the Planning Commission finding that the east lot line of lots 8-10 constitutes the rear lot line, Planning Commission Waiver of minimum opposite-side driveway spacing (157-feet proposed, 200-feet required) per Design and Construction Standard Figure IX.12 (or modification of the plans), and subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals lot width variances for lots 8, 9 and 10 (10-ft – 41-ft proposed and 80-ft required), subject to the comments of the attached review letters, subject to the letter from City Forester Steve Printz dated November 6, 2002 being addressed at Final and subject to the Commission’s comments from this evening’s meeting being reviewed and resolved by working with the City Staff, Boillat Park shall be designated as a private park and with the Commission finding that the Developer worked with the surrounding property owners to address their concerns.


Member Kocan asked if the removal of the Ash trees should be included in the motion.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that her comment was a suggestion and could not be part of the motion.


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None




Consideration of the request of Mark Hildebrandt of Gillett Associates for a Preliminary Site Plan approval and a Section Nine Façade Waiver. The subject property is located in Section 4, on the north side of West Road, east of Beck Road in the Beck North Corporate Park. The developer is proposing a 31,640 square foot single story office and research development facility in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is 2.39 acres.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of S.C. Novi One. She noted the history related to the site. The applicant was scheduled for a public hearing for the September 11, 2002 meeting; however, asked to be pulled from that agenda to allow the opportunity to continue to work with staff and consultants to resolve some of the concerns expressed in the Traffic Review letter. The alternative presented this evening was prepared following extensive discussion between the Plan Review Center and the applicant. It is believed that the plans presented tonight exhibit a compromise that both staff and the applicant find an acceptable resolution to those traffic concerns. The subject property is currently vacant land and contains 2.39 acres of land on the northeast corner of Hudson Drive and Desoto Court. The site consists of lot 9 of the Beck North Corporate park. (The corporate park is located in the northwest corner of the city of Novi, north of West Road and east of Beck Road.) The surrounding properties within the corporate park are under development or approved for the following projects: To the north and northeast Peary Court A and B buildings, to the southeast the Design Research Engineering, to the east, south and west are vacant parcels within the corporate park, to the northwest, across Hudson Drive is the proposed Suntec development. The subject property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as are all of the surrounding properties within the Beck North Corporate Park. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Light Industrial uses for the property and the other properties within the Beck North Corporate Park. The proposed site plan shows a one-story office and research development building containing a total of 31,640 square feet. The office area located at the south is proposed to contain 8000 square feet and the research and development area will contain 23,640 square feet. The building is speculative at this time, according to the Applicant, the future tenant is not known. This use as office and shop are permitted uses in the I-1 light industrial Zoning District when the property does not abut residential zoning, which this property does not. The proposed site plan provides two driveways into the site: one from Hudson Drive and one from DeSoto Court, with the office area at the south part of the building, and the loading area located at the northeast corner of the building. A total of 64 parking spaces are required for the proposed use and provided on the submitted site plan are 64 parking spaces. During review of the proposed site plan City Staff and Consultants determined the following items should be brought to the Planning Commission’s attention: Planning review indicates that the site plan meets ordinance requirements and that the Planning Commission needs to make a finding regarding whether the parking areas abutting the two streets, Hudson Drive and DeSoto Court, are compatible with the surrounding developments. No Woodlands or Wetlands exist on the site. The Landscaping review revealed only minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. The Traffic Engineer’s review of the revised site plan included a few issues of concern. Among the modifications the applicant has made to the plans to reduce the traffic impacts associated with first submittal, was to make the driveway on Hudson a one-way driveway into the site. This modification has resulted in improved traffic safety when compared to the plans submitted previously; however, two Planning Commission waivers will be needed for the driveway. A Planning Commission waiver is needed for the spacing of the proposed driveway and the approved driveway for Peary Court A and B to the north. A waiver of the minimum same-side driveway spacing standard is needed as 105-feet required and 59-feet is provided on the plans submitted. The traffic engineer suggested a modification to the plans which would reduce the waiver requested by 6-feet. A second Planning Commission waiver will be required for this driveway and the existing location of Ryan Court; almost opposite. A waiver of the minimum opposite-side driveway spacing standard is needed because 150-feet is required and only 67-feet is provided. The traffic engineer’s suggested modifications to the plans would increase the necessary waiver by 3-feet; however, it would improve traffic maneuverability. She stated it is a one-way driveway proposed into the site. Engineering and Fire Review revealed items that will require attention at the time of Final Site Plan Review. The Façade review revealed that the applicant has requested a Section Nine Façade waiver. The building is proposed to be constructed primarily of split face block and brick, with some single scored block, ribbed metal panels to screen the rooftop equipment, and some trim materials. The north building façade only, (back of the building) exceeds the Ordinance requirements in that 88 percent of the façade is proposed to be constructed of split-faced block while the ordinance allows a maximum of 75 percent in split-faced block.

Mark Canvesor is a partner of the firm Stoyer & Canvesor, a real estate management company for commercial and residential. He stated the company is very attuned to the communities it works with, its customers and the clients served. He was aware that the Commission approved numerous buildings in Beck North Corporate Park. In response to this information, architectural firms that were familiar with the needs of the Novi community and the requirements of the ordinance were utilized for the proposed project. The site plan clearly demonstrates the amount of work put into meeting the City Ordinance requirement. He described the proposed development as both functional and attractive. As a corner lot, there were additional setback requirements, which were met as best as possible. Due to the issue(s) with the driveway, the matter was removed from the September 11, 2002 agenda; however, the issue(s) were resolved with a well-defined approach. Beyond meeting with the Planning Staff, Mr. Canvesor additionally met with Mike Evans and Jeff Johnson of the Fire Department to discuss breakaway gates or no entrance from Hudson Drive. Fire Marshall Mike Evans was opposed to this option and wanted a double access to the building. He thanked the Commission for their time and support.


Member Avdoulos asked if the parking in the front yard included the spaces along DeSoto Court and jet out from Hudson Drive.

Ms. McBeth answered, correct.

Member Avdoulos noted the indication of the Planning Commission making a commentary on lighting fixtures, The Planning Commission makes a finding that the parking area and lighting is compatible with surrounding developments. He stated since no lighting information was provided, as it is not a requirement, he did not plan to comment. He supported the drive off Hudson to avoid the land-locking of the site; however, the dimensions should concur with the Ordinance, which would pull back the northern edge 6½-feet. He also agreed with the radii as it would widen the distance between the proposed driveway and the driveway to the north. He asked if there would be semi-truck traffic on the site.

Mr. Canvesor indicated that it was possible since the tenant was not known at this time.

Member Avdoulos asked if the space provided in the truck maneuvering area would handle semi-trucks.

Mr. Canvesor indicated that the site was designed to accommodate a 53-foot truck (standard semi-truck).

Member Avdoulos asked if all islands are required to be located 3-feet from the parking. The islands appear to be located at the back end of the parking stripes.

Ms. McBeth stated typically the islands are pulled back 3-feet; however, there have been a few occasions where they were not.

Member Avdoulos asked the building would have wall mounted fixtures for lighting.

Mr. Canvesor answered, yes.

Member Markham stated since she served on the Commission, every development in the area have driveway spacing issues. She felt either the Ordinance makes sense or it does not. She did not understand why every developer from this industrial park requires a driveway spacing waiver. She stressed that her intent is not to penalize the Developer; however, she questioned if it was possible to determine where the driveways should be placed before the buildings are planned. If each developer is permitted to request a waiver for each lot then she did not feel there should be an Ordinance. Member Markham noted the development near the M-5 has a similar situation. She did not agree with the manner the driveways were being handled in the new developments. She questioned if the piece of paper with little red arrows was intended to show the ingress and egress of the lots.

Mr. Coburn stated it is a design flaw that occurred with the industrial parks. He assured the Commission similar issue(s) with the development Beck North Phase II would be addressed with access easements for shared driveway access to prevent similar occurrences in the future. He indicated that there is not a lot that could be done at this point with the existing industrial parks; however it will be addressed in future planning.

Ms. McBeth stated the paper Member Markham referenced is not a planning project. It was created as a reference of the location of the driveways as each development comes in.

Member Kocan noted the comment of the traffic review letter indicated the access stub at the east side of the property was unacceptable and should be widened and permanent. The site plan shows the access as emergency only. She asked the Applicant if he intended to comply with the recommendation.

Mr. Canvesor answered, yes.

Member Kocan was glad to hear that the City planned to be more proactive as opposed to reactive for the future developments. She stated the Design Research Engineering is not shown on the site plan; however, she was informed that it exceeds 150-foot distance from the driveway to the proposed building.

Mr. Coburn answered, correct. He stated Traffic Engineer Bill Stimpson indicated that they are 184-feet and only 150-feet is required.

Member Kocan noted the shortened angle parking spaces as it is unusual for a site plan to come in with something larger than Ordinance requirements. She noted the Commission was pleased to see this. She asked if they are allowed to keep the spaces larger.

Ms. McBeth stated the spaces are the minimum size of the Ordinance requirements. If the applicant was interested in making the spaces wider, then the Staff could explore the option.

Member Avdoulos indicated that his comments were referring to the depth and not the width. If condensed, then the whole curb would be pulled down 6½- feet and provide more green space along the northern edge.

Mr. Canvesor restated that there was no knowledge of the type of trucks that would be on the site as there are numerous industrial developments. In dealing with a "potential trucker", extra room was provided on that side to allow for the possibility of the truck clipping the corner. The extra foot will keep the trucks from driving over the curb.

Member Sprague noted parcel 8 was the only parcel remaining undeveloped. He asked if the Planning Department planned to delegate the location of the roads for parcel 8.

Ms. McBeth indicated the Staff would work with the Applicant in attempt to find the best location for the driveways.

Member Sprague asked further if the Department would set the locations for the roads as opposed to working with the applicant.

Ms. McBeth was unaware if that option was a past practice. She indicated that there are many factors involved in designing a site other than the location of the driveway. Therefore, the Staff attempts to work though the design factors with the applicant.

Member Shroyer asked Mr. Coburn to explain the reasoning for the one way road from Hudson Drive.

Mr. Coburn stated originally the applicant proposed a two way access from Hudson Drive; however, Traffic Engineer Bill Stimpson suggested the gated emergency access. He indicated the Staff supported working with the applicant to provide a secondary access other than the gated access.

Chairperson Nagy asked if there were left turn problems anticipated.

Mr. Coburn indicated that at this time, there did not appear to be problems. Southbound traffic on Hudson Drive would turn left into the one way access; northbound traffic on Hudson Drive would turn left onto Ryan Court. Therefore, no conflict appeared to be present. Additionally, no conflicts are anticipated at Peary Court A and B.

Member Shroyer asked him to elaborate on why a two way road is not recommended.

Mr. Coburn stated due to the spacing to the north with Peary Court A and B (59-feet provided and 105-feet required) and to the south Ryan Court (67-feet provided and 150-feet required).

Member Shroyer asked if the road could be moved further south to line up with Ryan Court.

Mr. Coburn answered, no. The S-Curve driveway did not work from a maneuvering standpoint. Moving the driveway to the south could create a problem with developing the site.

Member Shroyer questioned if he meant developing the site at the size of the vendors request of 32,000 square feet.

Mr. Coburn answered, correct.

Member Shroyer indicated that a two way road would be feasible if the building were made smaller and the road moved further south. He asked Mr. Coburn if he agreed.

Mr. Coburn indicated it was possible.

Member Shroyer noted his concern(s) with one way roads. Hypothetically, a driver could pull in from DeSoto Court could decide to pull out onto Hudson Drive; however, Hudson is one way. He was concerned with safety.

Mr. Canvesor indicated the street is not one way.

Member Shroyer apologized and corrected his statement to refer to the drive coming off the street. He was not pleased with this aspect of the site plan.

Member Paul asked if the stub street was for future development.

Mr. Canvesor answered, correct. It is for the lot to east of the site.

Member Paul indicated that eventually, it would become a one way road as there will be development to the site’s east border.

Mr. Canvesor indicated that it is not on all of the lots. Further, it was not on the original and it was provided due to a request. He felt it created a hardship, particularly on the corner lot. Although it is open, he indicated that to his understanding, it is for fire or emergency.

Member Paul asked if he owned the lot to the east.

Mr. Canvesor answered, no.

Member Paul stated the lot to east could and likely would be developed.

Mr. Canvesor agreed.

Member Paul stated if the stub street was not provided, then land-locking problems would arise. She stressed that it is a one way drive and a one way road. A future development to the east would have this drive as their only entrance to have access.

Mr. Canvesor indicated there is no knowledge of the development to the east; however, they could have two cuts from DeSoto.

Ms. McBeth stated an applicant met with the City regarding developing the two lots to the east. They proposed one driveway on DeSoto and anticipated a connection at this location. She noted the possibility of a one way drive from Hudson accessing through the back of the building and a two way drive on DeSoto. As another option, they could go through the S.C.Novi site back onto DeSoto Court.

Member Paul asked if the site could align with Ryan Court.

Mr. Evancoe stated there is a way to align the site with Ryan Court; however, it would severely impact the size of the building that the developer could build.

Chairperson Nagy informed Member Paul that it was not appropriate to penalize the Developer.

Member Papp asked if there was a tenant for the building.

Mr. Canvesor answered, no. He indicated that it is a spec building.

Member Papp clarified that there was no information as to how many people would access the site or the number of parked cars.

Mr. Canvesor answered, correct.

Member Kocan perceived that there would not be a flow of different customers such as with a sales office. Therefore, the employees would eventually learn the direction of accessing and exiting the site. She asked him to comment on the old site plan.

Mr. Canvesor stated the original plan proposed a two way in and out. He noted the change was an evolution. There was a double entrance and it did not line up with Peary Court. He indicated that he tried his best to make it work. He was also not pleased with the one way drive because a lot of flexibility is desired. He recalled one comment to dead end the street; however, he disagreed.

Member Kocan foresaw an opposite-side spacing problems with left-hand-turns from the site onto Hudson drive while Ryan Court is making left-hand-turns. She noted that a 100-foot deficiency in a left-turn drive was more of a concern than the 55-foot deficiency between the same-side. She was amenable to the one way or the two way.

Mr. Coburn clarified that angle parking creates a sense of a one way drive.

Chairperson Nagy agreed with Mr. Coburn. She entertained a motion.


Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of S.C. Novi One SP02-36 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Section Nine Facade Waiver subject to the Planning Commission finding that parking areas abutting the streets are compatible with the surrounded properties which is the case in this particular development, Planning Commission Waiver of the minimum same-side driveway spacing standard for the proposed access driveway on Hudson Drive, subject to the modifications of the plans as suggested by the Traffic Engineer, Planning Commission Waiver of the minimum opposite-side driveway spacing standard for the proposed access drive on Hudson Drive (150-feet required 64-feet proposed) as plans will be modified as suggested by the Traffic Engineer (this includes the one-way drive into the property), subject to the emergency only access stub being a full-time stub to the east, subject to the comments on the attached review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan.


Member Shroyer indicated that he would not be in favor of the layout if the proposed were a retail establishment; however, the nature of the business is different and the traffic will be minimal. Therefore, he supported the project.


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None


(Member Ruyle was excused from the meeting at this time.)


Member Kocan made corrections to the minutes.


Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED (8-0)*: To approve the Regular Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 25, 2002 as amended.


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

(*Member Ruyle left early)



Member Kocan, Chairperson Nagy and Member Avdoulos made corrections to the minutes.


Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED (8-0)*: To approve the Regular Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 2, 2002 as amended.


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

(*Member Ruyle left early)





Member Kocan recalled that the minutes were not previously approved because Ms. Brock was verifying where the public hearing notice responses were the night of the meeting. She has not heard back from Ms. Brock. She requested the addition of Mr. Marroni’s letter.

Member Sprague made corrections to the minutes.


Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED (8-0)*: To approve the Regular Planning Commission meeting minutes of September 11, 2002 as amended.


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

(*Member Ruyle left early)



Member Kocan asked Ms. McBeth if she was able to confirm with all Implementation Committee members to meet on Thursday instead of Wednesday.

Ms. McBeth indicated that Chairperson Nagy is the only member she was not able to speak with. She asked Chairperson Nagy if she was available on Thursday.

Chairperson Nagy answered, yes. Additionally, she announced to the Master Planning and Zoning Committee that one member is not available for the September 25, 2002.

Member Kocan asked if another day should be selected.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that all four members of the Committee are not present.



Mr. Evancoe reminded the commissioners to attend the Plan Review Center Open House on November 20, 2002 at 6:45 pm.







Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED (8-0): To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:46 p.m.


Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

(*Member Ruyle left early)


Signature on File

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji
November 14, 2002

Date Approved: January 15, 2003