View Agenda for this meeting
View Action Summary for this meeting

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004 7:30 P.M.
45175 W. TEN MILE
NOVI, MI 48375 (248) 347-0475


The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.


Present: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Pehrson, Ruyle (left early), Shroyer, Sprague (left early)

Absent: Members Cassis (excused), Gaul (excused)

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Barbara McBeth, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Nancy McClain, City Engineer; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; Tom Schultz, City Attorney


The attendees of the meeting recited the pledge of Allegiance.


Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Motion to approve the Agenda of April 7, 2004.

Motion carried 7-0.


No one from the audience wished to speak.


There was no correspondence.


Member Avdoulos said that Hillside Middle School is hosting a Senior Prom for the Northville and Novi older adults on Wednesday, April 28, 2004 from 4:00 – 6:30 p.m. Secondly, Member Avdoulos said that on April 15, 2004 the Friends of Maybury are sponsoring a spaghetti dinner at the Northville Crossing Restaurant to raise funds for the children’s barn; the cost is $12.00 and the seatings are on the hour from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.


Planning Director David Evancoe presented the FY2004/05 Planning Commission budget at the request of some Planning Commission members. He discussed City Manager Rick Helwig’s budget message and how municipalities throughout the country are facing difficult economic times. Here in Michigan there has been a drastic cut in the state revenue sharing program. Additionally, there is a 27th pay period in this year’s budget, which happens every twelve years and affects Novi by another $600,000.

Mr. Evancoe said that Mr. Helwig is looking to formalize a budget that does not increase Novi’s mill rate. He has proposed maintaining the Rainy Day Fund for unanticipated expenses at 14% of the general fund. He has proposed a $100,000 Judgment Trust fund. Chief Schaeffer and Chief Lenaghan have both proposed certain staffing changes that are high priorities for the City. The budget will maintain the basic service levels for the City. Mr. Helwig has proposed that administrative employees participate in paying for the increase in their medical benefits. Prescription co-pays will increase and employees will pay a percentage of their monthly premium and 50% of their college-aged children’s medical benefit premium. When contract bargaining begins, the union employees will also be asked for these concessions at the negotiation table.

Mr. Evancoe passed out copies of the Planning Commission budget. He said there were three projects in their budget. $45,000 was proposed for updating the Zoning Ordinance. $8,000 was proposed for a Greenways and Trails Plan, which would increase the City’s likelihood of garnering grants. $8,000 was proposed for updating the Woodland and Wetland maps. Other categories include Emerging Issues and Conferences and Workshops ($11,400). Mr. Evancoe said that Mr. Helwig then took every department’s request and allocated the available dollars to those requests.

Mr. Evancoe said that none of the three Planning Commission projects were proposed for funding. City Council will see the service improvement forms that explain what items the Planning Commission originally proposed. They have also received the narrative portion of the budget that outlined these objectives and standards of performance.

Member Kocan confirmed that City Council did not discuss the Planning Commission budget at the City Council meeting held on April 3, 2004. Mr. Evancoe said that it will likely be discussed on April 24, 2004.

Chair Markham said that it didn’t make sense to remove these projects yet leave such an aggressive number for Conferences and Workshops. Particularly, the money for Greenways will pay for itself in federal and state grant money. She listed sidewalks, trails and the non-motorized transportation plan that could make great use of that grant money. While she appreciated that money was earmarked for Planning Commission training, she asked how the message could be delivered to City Council that the Greenways plan was more important.

Mr. Evancoe responded that the Conference line was originally $11,400; Mr. Helwig’s proposal increased that line to $14,200 to account for the refreshments that are provided on meeting days. He said that the rest of the departments had that line item slashed. The Planning Department line went from $6,500 to $700. Mr. Evancoe confirmed that given the choice, the Planning Commission would prefer that the money was earmarked for the community via the Greenways Plan versus the Planning Commission’s attending conferences and workshops. He offered to communicate that to the City Council on their behalf, or someone from the Planning Commission could speak during Audience Participation at the Budget Session.

Chair Markham felt that the business of the City should take precedence over their training. She said the Planning Commissioners could avail themselves of the local training. She had not discussed this with the entire Planning Commission so she asked for other members to speak.

Member Shroyer feels strongly about training and commended the City Manager for keeping that line item in the budget. Historically, the Planning Commission has not taken advantage of this conference line due to scheduling conflicts, and it is unlikely this amount will be spent again this year. Member Shroyer asked whether the money in the conference line could have dual consideration with the Greenways Plan. He asked whether the Greenways Plan could be done in phases – with, for instance, $3,000 allocated in this budget, $3,000 in next year’s budget, etc.

Mr. Evancoe responded that the Greenways Plan could be done in phases. The necessary funding however, was mainly for printing; the preparation was expected to be done in-house by Darcy Schmitt, Lance Shipman and himself. Mr. Evancoe said that it was unlikely that the money for conferences could have dual allocation, from both a timing standpoint and from an auditor’s standpoint.

Member Kocan suggested that the conference line be adjusted from $14,200 to $6,200 and $8,000 be put back in the Greenways Plan. City Council should be informed that the Greenways Plan is the Planning Commission’s priority for this budget year. Training is important but not as important as planning which is what they have been commissioned to do. She asked if Mr. Evancoe could write a letter on their behalf. He said he would be happy to convey that to the City Council. Mr. Evancoe also noted that all workshop and conference lines have been frozen since last year. The criteria Mr. Helwig used for funding the workshop line relied heavily on whether attendance of the conference was necessary to maintain professional certification.

Member Sprague said he supported the moving of funds from conferences to the Greenways Plan. Not allocating money to that line item is penny wise and pound foolish. By any means and by all means, the Planning Commission wants to see the Greenways Plan funded. He offered to attend the next budget meeting if necessary to convey this message.

Mr. Evancoe noted that the Emerging Issues line item is still intact and that so far this year the Planning Commission hasn’t had to use this line item. It is possible that this could also be a funding source that is currently not earmarked for any single purpose.

Member Pehrson echoed the other Planning Commission members. He said that although he is new and would benefit from the training, he would prefer that funds be made available for the Greenways Plan instead of training or Emerging Issues.

Member Avdoulos commended Mr. Helwig for making difficult choices in the budget process. However, the Greenways Plan is a tool that allows the City to capture other funds through the granting agencies. He asked for clarification of the Emerging Issues line. Mr. Evancoe said that historically the line item has paid for difficult planning issues that have arisen, such as a difficult Master Plan change. It was used more readily when the City relied on all consultants instead of an in-house Plan Review Center. It is still important that the line be kept for unforeseen issues, especially if they are wetland, woodland or traffic issues.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Motion to request Mr. Evancoe to write a letter or convey to City Council that the Planning Commission prioritizes the Greenways Plan, which was estimated to be budgeted at $8,000.00. The Planning Commission requests $8,000.00 be put in as a Greenways Plan line item and the Conferences and Workshops line item reduced by the same amount of money, thereby indicating the priority of a Greenways Plan.


Member Ruyle said that historically, City Council is quick to reduce line items in the budget but they never put money back in. He did not support the motion.

Member Avdoulos said that the record should reflect that this is in response to Mr. Helwig’s budget for the Planning Commission, and that this request on the table is meant to infer that if this is what the budget must be, the Planning Commission at least requests the re-allocation of the $8,000.00 to the Greenways Plan.


Motion to request Mr. Evancoe to write a letter or convey to City Council that the Planning Commission prioritizes the Greenways Plan, which was estimated to be budgeted at $8,000.00. The Planning Commission requests $8,000.00 be put in as a Greenways Plan line item and the Conferences and Workshops line item reduced by the same amount of money, thereby indicating the priority of a Greenways Plan.

Motion carried 6-1 (Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Pehrson, Shroyer, Sprague; No: Ruyle).

Chair Markham appreciated Member Sprague’s attending the City Council meeting at which the budget will be discussed.

Mr. Evancoe gave a brief update on some projects that have gone on to City Council from the Planning Commission. He said that The Preserve RUD was approved on March 1, 2004. The Agreement is being drafted and will return to City Council in the near future. The Rear Façade Ordinance was amended to address only façades abutting major thoroughfares and was approved on March 15, 2004. The Daycare Ordinance was approved on April 5, 2004. City Council moved to send the Sign Ordinance to Planning Commission for a Public Hearing; the motion also included a request for the Planning Commission to work with Mr. Stewart of Northern Equities to determine how signage can be of benefit to industrial parks and office districts.

City Attorney Tom Schultz discussed the April 6, 2004 ZBA hearing wherein the Family Fun Park was heard. This project was before the Planning Commission in March 2004 and was granted a Special Land Use subject to a number of variances. Two issues had to go before the ZBA. The ZBA granted a variance for the interior landscaping around the cart building, finding that it would be difficult to place the interior landscaping. The parking area on the southeast side of the site was required by the Ordinance to be one hundred feet from the boundary line between the I-1 parcel and the residential parcel but was proposed at only 64 feet. This variance was not granted. The City expects to generate a memorandum in the next day or two that explains where this project is in light of the fact that the variance was not granted. Chair Markham confirmed that the Applicant cannot move forward until this is resolved.


There was no Consent Agenda



The Public Hearing was opened for possible recommendation to City Council to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, to modify the standards for the height of inpatient hospital facilities in the OSC, Office Service Commercial Zoning District: to add a definition of "Inpatient Bed Facilities" to Section 201 Definitions G—K; to amend Subsection 1101.3; to add Subsection 1201.6, Principal Uses Permitted in the OSC District; to amend Subsection 2301.3; to add a new footnote (v) to Section 2400, referencing the OSC District only; all for related purposes.

Planner Barbara McBeth explained that this text amendment was requested by representatives from Providence Park. They have asked the City to review the Zoning Ordinance language that limits the height of hospitals in the City of Novi. Their future plans include a possible hospital bed structure at Providence Park at the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Beck Road.

The Providence parcel of land is zoned OSC, Office Service Commercial, which currently allows construction of buildings the lesser of five stories or 65 feet in height. This Ordinance amendment would require the modification of footnote J of the Schedule of Regulations to allow increased height for hospitals to a maximum height of 115 feet, but would still provide that hospital buildings are a minimum of 200 feet from residential districts.

During the course of review, the Implementation Committee developed Ordinance language that would allow the increased height for inpatient hospital bed structures only; other buildings would remain subject to the current height restrictions of the lesser of five stories or 65 feet. A meeting was held with the Plan Review Center, representatives of Providence Park and the Fire Marshal to insure that the fire department’s ladder truck will be able to provide adequate protection for an inpatient bed structure with those measurements. It was suggested that an inpatient bed structure would be allowed up to 100 feet to the roofline of the highest occupied floor, and the mechanical equipment shall not exceed 115 feet. The language was based on the diagram prepared by Providence showing the mechanical equipment on top of the highest occupied floor. The Fire Marshal subsequently expressed acceptance of the proposed Ordinance language, especially with the proposed Ordinance provision that any proposed site plan will receive favorable recommendation from the Fire Marshal regarding fire protection, access and compliance with State and Local Codes.

The Applicant provided a diagram that showed what Providence’s request would look like with the proposed bed facility, which also shows building setbacks from existing buildings and roads in the area. Additionally, for comparison purposes, the Implementation Committee reviewed the City of Royal Oak’s Ordinance for hospitals. They reviewed pictures of the new bed structure at Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak; this building is 116 feet tall and is a nine story building.

The Implementation Committee also developed language that proposes a new section 1201.6, wherein standards are outlined for general hospitals that house inpatient bed facilities. These new standards, as well as other changes to the Ordinance, include:

§ The site must be a minimum of forty acres

§ The building setback for any part of the inpatient bed tower from adjacent residential districts shall be three feet for every one foot of building height

§ The hospital must have access from a major thoroughfare

§ Given the additional height and mass of the building, additional façade relief must be provided

§ Reference to this section in Footnote V

§ Definition of Inpatient Bed Facility

The Planning Commission is required to hold this Public Hearing on the proposed text amendment and is welcome to send their recommendation regarding this issue to City Council.

Larry Helman from NBBJ represented Providence Hospital. His company developed the campus master plan for Providence. Gary Jonna from Whitehall Development was also part of this planning team. Rich Abbott from Providence was also present.

Mr. Helman said that this plan is envisioned be to award winning within the industry and on a national level. This facility will provide Novi with the highest and broadest care possible.

Mr. Helman said that the master plan blends open space with the buildings to create a unique environment. Open space with pedestrian walkways will be a focal point in the center of the property; cars will be on the outside. All uses relate to the wholeness of the human being, from a healing standpoint as well as life enhancement and transformation from being on such a beautiful site.

Mr. Helman said that during their planning process they have studied what physical requirements are necessary for the most efficient facility. They have considered the ring road design which will also be discussed at this meeting. In Providence’s situation, this ring road will also accommodate some ancillary uses. He reiterated how all of the pieces will be integrated to form a campus that promotes total wellness.

Mr. Helman said that their plan currently proposes four in-patient floors atop of two diagnostic and treatment floors. He said that the use of mechanical equipment in a hospital is unique in that it requires much larger areas of building space to accommodate a more rapid air exchange. There are higher duct work requirements that are most efficient if they are placed overhead, thereby making floor-to-floor heights higher. The diagnostic floors are more sophisticated – high technology operating rooms, the imaging and related functions. Placing the patient beds directly over these floors minimizes patient movement and maximizes patient safety and convenience.

Chair Markham opened the floor for public comment.

Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft Road: Thought the proposed language was too general and would allow Providence to put patient beds in every building.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan is the chair of the Implementation Committee. She said that in their review they tried to include the proper language that specified which buildings could be up to 115 feet. They felt that "the part of the building that housed inpatient facilities for overnight stay" was specific enough to identify that only the hospital portion applied to the increased height. She asked for the City Attorney to comment on whether the language was specific enough. She said that the existing Providence is an outpatient facility – not an inpatient facility.

Member Kocan said there are a number of locations in the City where a hospital could be built. She said the Committee intended to make the language broad enough that it was applicable to more than just the Providence use. They also wanted to ensure that any future hospitals would also be limited to property that would not be invasive to its surroundings.

Member Kocan said the only other location where a building taller than 65 feet is allowed is in the EXO district where a hotel of up to 100 feet would be allowed. The Committee discussed whether allowing the height of hospitals should be able to exceed 100 feet. They all agreed that the 65-foot height limit would preclude a hospital being built in Novi.

Member Kocan noted the location of OSC property in the City of Novi:

1. The Providence campus

Northwest of the Providence campus, on the north side of Grand River (52-1 District Court)

Northeast side of Town Center Drive and Eleven Mile Road, east of the Town Center Shopping Center

North of Eight Mile and west of Haggerty Road

Member Kocan said that these locations would be affected by this language being added to the Ordinance. She also noted that there are several considerations on the state level that determine where hospitals may be placed and how many would be allowed.

Member Kocan said the Committee reviewed other Ordinances to determine whether there should be a maximum height listed or whether the language should be more flexible. They also agreed to propose language wherein hospitals are a Principal Permitted Use which addressed Providence’s concerns that if hospitals were considered a Special Land Use, they could put untold time and money into a project that could ultimately be turned down. Member Kocan said that Member Cassis recused himself from the discussions, Member Avdoulos and Member Pehrson both were comfortable with the Principal Permitted Land Use designation but she herself was unconvinced that hospitals shouldn’t be considered a Special Land Use. Her reasoning was that the Special Land Use designation would require a Public Hearing and a noise analysis.

Member Kocan said that the final language reflects the culmination of their discussions, and she also had two more suggestions to present at this meeting. First, she recommended for 1201.6.b.1, language stating that the building must be at least 200 feet from the roadway. Second, she recommended for 1201.6.h, language stating that should there be accommodations for helicopters on site they must comply with Section 2508.6. The latter recommendation was meant to help guide the Applicant through the Zoning Ordinance.

Member Kocan thanked everyone involved with this review process for their hard work.

Mr. Evancoe suggested the following language: General hospitals, provided that the portion of such installation that will house inpatient bed facilities as defined, may exceed five stories…. He said this would limit a hospital’s ability to exceed five stories except for areas where the inpatient bed facilities are located. This language addresses Mr. Mutch’s concern. He said that at the end of the section it should read: …115 feet in height, and subject to the following conditions.

Member Shroyer asked for the definition of average grade. Ms. McBeth said that the average grade is generally interpreted as the mean average of the measurements of all four (or more) sides of the building. Member Shroyer asked whether anyone thought putting this definition directly into the Ordinance would be helpful; Ms. McBeth responded that this has been the standing definition for many years.

Member Shroyer asked where the suggestion for a forty-acre requirement came from and whether any of the other four locations could accommodate that measurement. Ms. McBeth responded that the Eight Mile and Haggerty location could yield a forty acre parcel, though she did not think that the other two locations could. She said that the general consensus was that in order to house a hospital campus a certain amount of land would be necessary to support it in terms of parking, landscaping, etc. The Committee found that forty acres was a reasonable figure.

Member Kocan said that in some instances the Ordinance calls for twenty acres for 65-foot buildings. Member Kocan said that the Providence parcel is well over 200 acres. Mr. Helman said that new hospital facilities are typically designed for a minimum of forty acres. This provides enough room for future growth.

Member Shroyer did not think that the forty-acre comment was necessary. He also thought that ultimately it disqualifies the other OSC locations in the City. He said that the Master Plan does not even plan for additional OSC land to be added around the current OSC areas.

Member Avdoulos said that the forty acre requirement came about in several different ways. In Royal Oak, they required only five acres but that is a more urban environment than Novi. The majority of the complexes that are being built are in areas where large pieces of land have been acquired. A hospital has several other buildings associated with it – outpatient centers, cancer centers, etc. It becomes a complex. The existing twenty-acre standard found in the Ordinance was doubled for hospitals in order to accommodate a reasonably-sized hospital campus and still maintain open space.

Member Avdoulos said that Providence Park is already here. They are already in the process of applying for beds with the State. He did not think that another hospital would ever come into the City. He said based on that opinion, they began crafting new Ordinance language that would allow some flexibility. He said that if something were to happen and another company did come forward to build another hospital site in Novi, the forty acre standard was added to address the potential for another 115-foot building.

Member Avdoulos said that the Committee did not do a mathematical equation to ascertain what the minimum size for a 115-foot tall hospital site with appropriate setbacks would be, but he said that new hospitals are being built in the suburbs and are naturally acquiring more land. Member Avdoulos said that the forty acre requirement would maintain the comfortable buffer between this use and residential, and would ensure the buffer would remain even if the campus expanded. He said that the Implementation Committee was comfortable with the standard.

Member Shroyer asked whether a potential future two-story hospital would also require forty acres. Member Kocan and Member Avdoulos said no because this provision of the Ordinance would not apply to them.

Member Shroyer asked for the City Attorney to comment on the Special Land Use provision. He did not want to write a designer Ordinance if this use could be better handled with Special Land Use language. City Attorney Tom Schultz said that he was not present when the Implementation Committee discussed the Special Land Use provision. Mr. Schultz said that a Special Land Use would also provide the City with some discretionary control over a project, but it provides less of a comfort level for the property owner because they don’t have the assurance of knowing what the parameters of their development can be. On a big site like this, the project is more of a PUD than a Special Land Use, which is not geared to address the described land use. He said in the end, the language would end up looking awfully similar to what is being proposed tonight.

Member Shroyer reiterated that he thought the City Attorney was stating that even though the Ordinance could be written to require this to be handled as a Special Land Use, it is more appropriate for the Applicant and the City to handle this as proposed. Mr. Schultz said that was correct.

Member Shroyer said that it was his intent to push for Providence to be permitted to build an inpatient bed facility. He said it was a big boost for the City and that the conceptual plan was well-planned. He stated that whatever decision is made this evening does not imply that the Providence plan was approved by the Planning Commission.

Member Avdoulos thanked Providence and NBBJ on their assistance in crafting this Ordinance language. It will become a tool that guides the City in approving a future hospital project.

Member Avdoulos said that aside from the Planning Commission understanding why hospitals floors require a greater floor-to-floor height, he said they should be aware that buildings greater than a certain height must be fully sprinklered and protected. The levels of review on a hospital include the City, State, Health Department, Fire Marshal and Building Code. He noted that throughout this Implementation Committee review the Novi Fire Marshal’s input was continually requested.

Member Avdoulos said that the Zoning Ordinance as currently written already allows for hospitals as a Principal Permitted Use. For that reason, Member Avdoulos did not think that this proposed language should treat hospitals as a Special Land Use. This language only provides for hospitals to be higher than 65 feet - up to 115 feet.

Member Avdoulos commented about Mr. Evancoe’s proposed language. He suggested this language: The inpatient bed facility portion of general hospitals, as defined within the Zoning Ordinance, may exceed five stories... He said that in this order, the emphasis is being placed on that portion of the hospital affected by this new language.

Member Avdoulos also said that, in reference to Mr. Mutch’s comments, hospitals are bound by their own parameters as well as by the State’s Certificate of Need procurement process. The whole process is very complex. He felt that the Implementation Committee’s review took into consideration everyone’s input into the hospital process. The proposed language ensures certain characteristics for a proposed hospital, but there is also latitude because it’s a given that the other agencies will provide a more appropriate review and direction on certain issues.

Member Avdoulos said that the Implementation Committee did spend time considering the average height issue. In the case of Providence, they also considered how the ring road would affect this hospital complex. He thought that everyone’s hard work has paid off.

Chair Markham was in favor of a hospital of this size being located in Novi. She said this was the right location for it. It is on a major thoroughfare and near an expressway exit. It will be an asset to the community. She thanked the Implementation Committee for their hard work.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Shroyer:


In the matter of Text Amendment 18.189, motion to send a positive recommendation to City Council to amend Ordinance 97-18 Appendix A of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances to modify the standards for the height of inpatient hospital facilities in the OSC (Office Service Commercial) Zoning District: to add a definition of "Inpatient Bed Facilities" to Section 201 Definitions G—K; to amend Subsection 1101.3; to add Subsection 1201.6, Principal Uses Permitted in the OSC District with the following changes made at the table: 1) Subsection 1201.6 shall begin, "The inpatient bed facility portion of a General Hospital, as defined within the Zoning Ordinance, may exceed five stories … and subject to the following conditions"; 2) Subsection 1201.6.a shall read, "The minimum site size shall be not less than forty (40) acres."; 3) Subsection 1201.6.b.1 shall read, "The minimum distance from any property line or public right of way shall be at least 200 feet."; and 4) Subsection 1201.6.h shall be added and read, "Accommodations for helicopters on the site shall comply with Section 2508.6 of the Zoning Ordinance."; 5) To amend Subsection 2301.3; 6) To add a new footnote (v) to Section 2400, referencing the OSC District only; all for related purposes.

Motion carried 7-0.

Member Kocan had noted while making the motion that an Applicant could always appeal to the ZBA if there was a hardship in attaining the forty acres stipulated in this language. She said that the draft’s numbering for 1201.6.b.1 and 1201.6.b.2 will now be 1201.6.b.2 and 1201.6.b.3, respectively.


The Public Hearing was opened for possible recommendation to City Council to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, to amend Subsection 2516.1.b to clarify site plan submittal requirements; to create subsection 2516.1.e to clarify requirements for submittal of plans that propose construction of new public and/or private roads, regardless of whether any buildings or other structures are proposed; and to amend the site plan manual, as it relates to types of development that follow the site plan review process, as permitted under Section 2516.2.a, for related purposes.

Planner Barbara McBeth stated that the Implementation Committee has also recently considered changes to the Ordinance to provide clear standards for review of plans that propose construction of only a road and/or utilities, and do not propose construction of buildings or other land improvements.

Ms. McBeth reminded the Planning Commission that several projects have come to the City recently seeking approval under Section 2407, the site condominium section of the Zoning Ordinance, either as residential site condominiums or industrial park site condominiums. The Site Plan Manual indicates any site condominium or condominium development requires site plan review. Plans that are submitted under this section of the Zoning Ordinance insure that each building site will front on and have direct access to a public or private street (Section 2407.3.A). It also states the intent is to allow review of plans consistent with the City of Novi Subdivision Ordinance, and for building sites and envelopes to be comparable to lots and building setback requirements (Section 2407.3.B).

Ms. McBeth said that in recent months staff has attended several meetings with representatives from Providence Park for possible submittal of a "ring road" plan for their property at Grand River and Beck Road. The discussions indicate that plans for the ring road and utilities will be submitted soon, with subsequent submittal of site plans for construction of buildings and parking lots and other land improvements after the roads and utilities are in place. Providence does not intend to propose a site condominium for the property. The Zoning Ordinance and Site Plan Manual do not provide a clear direction for how the proposed ring road plans may be approved. Ms. McBeth noted that it may be possible that other developments will also choose to proceed in this manner.

The Planning Department has concerns about the possible impacts of approving road designs without benefit of knowing how the property may be developed in the future. One possible resolution is to include additional requirements in the site plan submittal section of the Ordinance. Over the course of several meetings, the Implementation Committee has been considering Ordinance changes that will address these concerns.

The following bolded language is proposed to be added to the Ordinance in the section that describes when site plan review is necessary. Most of the items listed are taken from the Site Plan Manual.

Unless administrative review is permitted pursuant to subparts (c) or (d), below, or subsection 2516.4, all site plans shall be reviewed for approval by the Planning Commission, or where required within this Ordinance, by the City Council after receipt of a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Site plan approval is required prior to conducting any of the following activities:

(1) Building of any structure(s) or additions, including carports, other than single family homes to be used as a residence.

(2) Improvements or modifications to, or expansion of, off-street parking areas unless determined by the Planning Department that same can be reviewed by the Department of Public Services.

(3) A change in use within an existing freestanding building or the interior modification of an existing use which results in an increase in off-street parking needs.

(4) The improvement, expansion, extension, or abandonment of any public or private overhead or underground utility or utility-related lines or easements (including oil and gas production facilities), unless determined by the Planning Department that same can be reviewed by the Department of Public Services.

(5) Establishment of any site condominium or condominium development.

(6) Any plan showing the construction of new public or private roads.

(7) Revisions made to any previously approved site plan including, but not limited to, the following:

i. Approved landscape plans.

ii. Modification of the location of buildings.

iii. Changes to the façade design or sample board.

iv. Revisions in any phasing plan.

(8) Any special land use (principal use permitted subject to special conditions).

(9) Any of the above items that would intrude or cause impact on regulated woodlands or wetlands either on previously approved plans or alterations to existing structures and parking facilities.

For plans proposing road construction, the Implementation Committee proposes that the Applicant submit "Conceptual Development Plans" that provide information on how the property may be developed in the future.

The City’s professional staff and consultants would still review the plans prior to Planning Commission review, specifically the engineering aspects of the site plan. The Applicant will be required to show feasibility of the systems proposed. The conceptual development plans shall also illustrate how the site may develop following the construction of the road, in terms of general layout of the site within the development, woodlands and wetlands information, and written statements to support the conceptual development plans.

Ms. McBeth said that Section 2516.1.e would be added:

e. Site plans shall be submitted to the City for review of all plans that propose construction of new public and/or private roads, regardless of whether any buildings or other structures are proposed.

If a new public or private road is proposed to be constructed without or in advance of buildings, parking areas, or other improvements, a site plan shall be submitted for review of the proposed roads and any proposed utilities. Site plans for roadways shall be prepared in accordance with this ordinance and the City’s Site Plan Manual. The site plan shall also meet all of the requirements of the district in which the property is located, and be subject to all of the requirements of those districts.

If utilities are proposed to be constructed at the same time the roads are constructed, Engineering design and calculations and a Storm Water Management Plan shall be submitted for review as required by Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code in order to demonstrate engineering feasibility of the proposed utilities. The submitted Engineering and Storm Water Management plans shall support the proposed sizing of utilities and shall be based on the design provided on the conceptual development plans.

The Site Plan for the proposed roads shall also be supported by appropriate additional information showing conceptual development plans of possible future improvements on the site, in relation to the proposed roads, in order to demonstrate feasibility of compliance with ordinance standards with regard to development areas. Conceptual development plans are illustrative only, and shall not constitute approval of any development outside the roads and utilities. A conceptual development plan need not be as detailed as a site plan, but shall at a minimum include the following:

(1) An illustrative plan for the development area carried out in such detail as to indicate any expected improvements, such as future buildings or other structures, parking and landscaped areas, lot lines, required building setbacks, public or private parks or other open spaces, utility locations and storm water detention basins (scale: not smaller than 1" = 200').

(2) A written statement reinforcing the illustrative plan explaining in detail the full intent of the applicant, indicating the type of structures contemplated, expected uses of the property, and the intended scheduling of the development.

(3) A topographic map of the development area at a contour interval of not more than two (2) feet. For the development area and within one hundred (100) feet of the development area, this map shall indicate all major stands of trees, of eight (8) inches or greater in diameter, bodies of water, wetlands and unbuildable areas (scale: not smaller than 1" = 200'). In its review, the Planning Department may request additional information or greater detail of the existing conditions of the property be provided.

(4) A boundary survey of the exact acreage of the property, prepared by a registered land surveyor or civil engineer (scale: not smaller than 1" = 200').

(5) A recent aerial photograph of the area shall be provided (scale: not smaller than 1" = 200').

(6) If utilities are not proposed to be constructed at the same time roads are constructed, the applicant shall submit a plan with an indication of the contemplated storm and sanitary sewer plan, and a preliminary topographic map indicating how the land area is proposed to be shaped.

Additionally, if a site condominium development is proposed, it shall be reviewed under Section 2407 and other relevant sections of the Zoning Ordinance. If woodlands and wetlands permits are requested at the time of Site Plan Review for the roads and utilities, the Applicant shall provide information as required by appropriate sections of the Ordinance.

Ms. McBeth closed in stating that the City of Novi Site Plan and Development Manual section titled "What Types of Development Must Go through the Site Plan Review Process", as referenced in Section 2516 of the Zoning Ordinance, would also be amended to add any plan showing the construction of new public or private roads as a plan requiring site plan review. She said that the Planning Commission is required to hold this Public Hearing on the text amendment, and they may also forward their recommendation to City Council for approval or denial of the proposed language. She said that Providence representatives were available for the Planning Commission discussion, as was Civil Engineer Brian Coburn, who assisted with the development of this language.

Mr. Larry Helman of NBBJ told the Planning Commission that they would like to present a ring road plan so that they can proceed with their hospital plans knowing that their proposed layout of the site has been accepted. They can begin negotiating with interested parties for the future placement of medical office buildings, restaurants and hotels that will combine to create the total campus. This Ordinance will allow Providence to make progress with their plans.

Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft Road: Thought that this Ordinance text amendment was the result of a previous plan coming before the Planning Commission for roads and utilities review. He thought that the woodland and wetland Ordinances do not give the City enough jurisdiction in preserving the natural resources and he hoped that language could be added to this Ordinance to accomplish this.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan said that Providence came forward and asked how they could proceed with their plans and have assurance that the City agreed with their concept. She tried to get language added to this amendment that would dedicate wetland and woodland areas at the time of utility and/or road proposals. City Attorney Tom Schultz said that this was not the vehicle to use; the wetland and woodland Ordinances would be more appropriate for preservation language. Mr. Schultz said that it was important for them to remember what section of the Ordinance this language is going in to. He said this is not where rules about wetlands and woodlands belong. If the City doesn’t think that the wetland and woodland Ordinances are doing what they should be doing, then the substance of those Ordinances needs to be reviewed. He said that this text amendment gets the Planning Commission half way to their goal; and he is aware that they would like to address the other substantive environmental issues.

Member Kocan said that this language does ask for some specific information that will give the Planning Commission some idea of what future development options might be. Member Kocan said that the Committee has asked for at least 100 feet beyond the road and utilities so that it becomes clearer what development could be built around this road system. The language is specific enough that if wetlands and woodlands exist within that 100 feet the Applicant would have to supply wetland and woodland plans. The Committee also inserted the provision that if the Planning Department thought additional information was necessary they could ask for it (this was changed from Planning Commission so that the timing process wasn’t dragged out).

Member Kocan said that the Committee worked on the language and arrived at a compromise. They discussed the topography map, the illustrative plan and the boundary survey at 1":200’; she was comfortable with the language they are proposing.

Member Kocan asked City Engineer Brian Coburn about number six on page three wherein it is requested that if utilities are not proposed to be constructed at the same time as roads are constructed, the Applicant shall submit a plan with an indication of the contemplated storm and sanitary sewer plan and a preliminary topography map indicating how the land area is proposed to be shaped. She asked if this language was specific enough for the developer to understand what kind of map he is requested to submit. Mr. Coburn said that a preliminary design is something that illustrates to the City that the Applicant has thought through their engineering requirements enough that they know they can serve the adjacent areas with utilities. He suggested that the language read, "...submit a plan with an indication that contemplates storm and sanitary sewer design with preliminary calculations."

Member Avdoulos said that the Implementation Committee, Planning Department and Providence worked together in the review and design of this Ordinance language. He said that the location of Grand River Avenue and Beck Road, the medical office buildings on Twelve Mile and the Expo Center development are all examples of the Master Plan coming to fruition. He commented that the architectural firm designing the Providence campus is well known and the product should be pleasing and act as a catalyst for that area.

Chair Markham confirmed that Providence will not provide access to its campus via Eleven Mile. She said that area is master planned residential and should remain as such.

Moved by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Ruyle:


In the matter of Text Amendment 18.192, motion to send a positive recommendation to City Council to amend the Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances, to amend Subsection 2516.1.b to clarify site plan submittal requirements; to create subsection 2516.1.e to clarify requirements for submittal of plans that propose construction of new public and/or private roads, regardless of whether any buildings or other structures are proposed, with the addition of words within number six to read, "If utilities are not proposed to be constructed at the same time roads are constructed, the Applicant shall submit a plan with an indication of the contemplated storm and sanitary sewer design with preliminary engineering calculations and a preliminary topographic map indicating how the land area is proposed to be shaped; and to amend the site plan manual, as it relates to types of development that follow the site plan review process, as permitted under Section 2516.2.a, for related purposes."

Motion carried 7-0.



Recommendation to City Council to approve the Draft Master Plan for distribution.

Chair Markham noted that members Ruyle and Sprague had excused themselves during the ten minute break. Prior to his leaving, Member Ruyle said that he thought the Master Plan was excellent, and thanked Member Avdoulos for stepping into his place on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee during his recent illness. He commented that his only statement for tonight’s review was that the City must relocate the post office to another location, such as between Nine Mile and Ten Mile roads.

Director of Planning David Evancoe thanked the Planning Commission and the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for their efforts in completing the Master Plan update. He thanked City Manager Rick Helwig and Assistant City Manager Clay Pearson for their leadership and assistance on this project. He thanked Project Manager Darcy Schmitt for bringing the entire document together. He thanked Planner Tim Schmitt for his input on the build-out analysis and Nancy McClain and the Engineering Department for their assistance. He especially thanked the citizens for their contributions into a plan that reflects the community’s values.

Mr. Evancoe said that this update began some years ago with the creation of documents like the Grand River Geographic Area Plan and the Novi Road Corridor Plan. More than a year ago, Eastern Michigan University assisted the City in conducting a comprehensive citizen survey that defined what the community viewed as important issues.

Mr. Evancoe said that the Master Plan update answers three questions: What do we have? What do we want? How do we get it? The planning process, he said, is not rocket science. He said the Plan does have some fairly technical information in it, but at its core these basic questions are answered. The data collected from the citizens told us what we have. Goals were then set to determine what we wanted, especially in regard to land use. Finally, the Implementation section of the Master Plan answers the question, "How do we get it?"

Mr. Evancoe said that one manner in which this is accomplished is by the Planning Commission upholding the Master Plan when rezoning requests come forward. Also, the Capital Improvement Program moves the City toward its goal. Applying for grants is also an implementation technique.

Mr. Evancoe said that the public input is critical to this process. Surveys have been conducted and public meetings have been held. A website,, has been dedicated to this project. The Planning Commission was being asked at this meeting to send a positive recommendation to City Council for the distribution of this plan to the following agencies, in accordance with State law: Adjacent communities, railroads, public utilities (each with a 65-day review window); and Oakland County (with a 95-day review window). Each of these entities will review the plan for compatibility and comment as necessary. Upon the completion of this review, which also includes the City Council, the Planning Department will make the necessary revisions and present the final document to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. Recent State legislation has provided that at its option, City Council may elect to be the adopting governing body of the Master Plan and they will determine whether they choose to be so at the time of their review; otherwise, the Planning Commission will adopt this Master Plan.

Chair Markham said that everyone was grateful for the hard work Ms. Schmitt has provided during this Master Plan process. Ms. Schmitt said that the purposes of the Master Plan are to:

Balance land use

Establish a diversified tax base to adequately support public facilities and services

Ensure the City’s infrastructure is capable of handling future development

Protect natural features

Provide adequate open space

Establish and preserve community character

Ms. Schmitt said that the 2000 US Census Bureau counted 47,386 Novi residents. Currently, the population is projected at 51,889 – determined by the number of building permits applied for multiplied by average persons per household. In like manner, the build-out population is projected at 72,500. Calculating this number included using the Future Land Use Map zoning districts but removing non-buildable land, wetlands and woodlands acreage prior to the computation.

Ms. Schmitt said that the population by age group indicates that the 35-64 age group is one of the largest, which also represents the home-buying demographic. She said that in 2000 the City had 18,726 households with an average of 2.52 persons per household. Adding the recent building permits, the number rises to 19,513 households. The Assessor’s Office reports that 50% of the City’s residential base is single family detached housing, 11% townhomes, 30% apartments and 9% mobile homes.

Ms. Schmitt said that the Novi 2000 Census Median Housing Value was $236,300, Median Rent was $818. Median Household Income in 2000 was $71,918, up from $47,518 in 1990. 1999 Per Capita Income in Novi was $35,992, while Oakland County’s was $32,534.

Ms. Schmitt said that Novi’s 2000 unemployment rate was 1.7% (Oakland County was 2.2%; Michigan was 3.5%).

In 2000, Novi’s residents had a 94% high school graduation rate and a 49.1% college graduation rate.

Ms. Schmitt said that currently Novi’s 20,019 acres can be described as:

4,869 acres of single family residential land use

1,037 acres of multiple family residential

305 acres of mobile home parks

1,494 acres of commercial office

1,020 acres of industrial

79 acres of extractive

2,184 acres of recreation and conservation areas

808 acres of public and institutional

66 acres of railroad right of ways

2,449 road right of ways

336 acres of transportation, utility and communication

4,051 acres of vacant land

1,157 acres of water bodies

163 acres of agricultural land

Ms. Schmitt said that the majority of future office land use is located along major thoroughfares – Haggerty Road, Twelve Mile, Grand River - and a few areas away from the major thoroughfares. Commercial land use is in the central area of Novi. Industrial land is mostly located along the Wixom border to the west and along the railroad and Grand River, with good access off major thoroughfares. The Beck Road improvements at I-96 will assist the office development in that area.

Ms. Schmitt said that the Goals and Objectives determined through the Master Plan process include:

Protect the southwest corridor character as it is the majority of the vacant land in the City

- Provide legally defensible development options through the Ordinances to maintain the semi-rural character yet allow developers a reasonable profit

Encourage residential development that makes adequate provisions for open space

- New development should provide open space

Promote light industrial development which provides economic value to the community that properly safeguards neighboring homeowners

Enhance Novi’s reputation as an attractive community in which to live

- Maintain structurally safe, attractive housing

- Maintain safe neighborhoods

Create aesthetically-pleasing developments, especially in residential areas

- Set high standards

- Promote good examples for use of public property through the City’s actions

- Maintain quality architecture throughout the City of Novi

Create a strong cultural presence and identity for the City of Novi

- Create gathering places for residents and community activity

Protect the City’s historic buildings and sites

- Establish a legally defensible process for protecting historic buildings

Protect Novi’s remaining woodlands and wetlands

- Maintain an accurate inventory of natural areas

- Encourage developers to use Ordinance development options that preserve natural features

- Protect and maintain open spaces throughout the community

Increase recreation opportunities in the face of diminished open space and funding

- Increase Novi’s probability in receiving state and federal grants to fund recreation opportunities

Maintain adequate Infrastructure in an environment of limited state and federal funding

- Determine the future needs for roads, utilities, water, sanitary sewer and storm water

- Identify long-term funding sources for community infrastructure

Ascertain that land uses have no physical or fiscal negative impact on community infrastructure

- Encourage developers to upgrade infrastructure impacted by their developments

- Encourage developments that reduce the number of vehicle trips on local thoroughfares

Promote interconnectivity between neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips on main roads

- Educate developers and residents on the benefits of interconnections

Ensure Novi’s future as a desirable place for business investment

- Work with developers and partners to foster a favorable business climate

- Promote and support development in the Office/Service/Technology district

- Attract and maintain quality businesses in a competitive marketplace

- Support and strengthen existing businesses

- Allow existing business owners to update and upgrade their developments without strict adherence to the current requirements which could negate their decision to make improvements

Determine the effect of non-residential development on the City as a whole

- Determine the balance between cost and benefit for commercial and industrial developments

- Support retail and commercial use along established transportation corridors

Ms. Schmitt said that the distribution phase of the Master Plan is next. City Council will discuss and determine which utilities will receive the Master Plan after this discussion by the Planning Commission. The County has 95 days for comment. A Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Commission prior to the final approval of the Master Plan.

Member Kocan asked if it is the Master Plan and Zoning Committee’s prerogative to include comments made by the utilities and adjacent communities. Ms. Schmitt responded that it was their choice as to whether any of the comments should be included.

Member Pehrson asked whether the environmental deficiencies noted on page 47 were based on current or build-out population estimates. Ms. Schmitt responded that it is based on both; the Parks and Recreation numbers are not based on build-out, but the deficiencies would still exist (to a lesser extent) if their numbers were updated. She also noted that additional parkland has been acquired by the City since their plan was completed.

Member Pehrson thought that the document was interesting and a great example of the City’s tax dollars at work doing the right thing. He said it also demonstrated why it is so important for the City to move certain funds toward the Greenways Plan.

Member Pehrson asked whether there were timeframes associated with the goals and objectives. Mr. Evancoe said that timelines often lead to disappointment because there are so many variables that affect when projects get completed. He said that budgeting plays a large role and that priorities as well as political bodies change over time. Specific times are generally not listed because inevitably they don’t get met, rendering the document less valid. The implementation of the objectives may fall into the CIP or a Greenways Plan or through map updates, for just a few examples.

Member Pehrson also noted that the state level funding cuts also affect timing. He said that he was perhaps thinking more about a prioritization of the items rather than a specific date. Mr. Evancoe replied that he has seen Master Plans that outline short-term, medium-range and long-term goals.

Member Pehrson asked what the difference was between SEMCOG’s regional approach build-out population and the City’s land use approach build-out population figure. Planner Tim Schmitt said that the City’s initial projection came out at 69,000, which is 11,000 less than the SEMCOG number. The City then incorporated certain items that were not originally taken into consideration. Novi has three mixed-use zoning classifications that could potentially yield residents. There are trends in the "persons per household" category that are likely to change the average household figure in the near future. Ultimately, the City calculated the build-out population to be 72,616, or 8,000 less than SEMCOG. The likely build-out will be somewhat lower than SEMCOG’s (or the City’s) number because splitting two Eight Mile estates into subdivisions was taken into account although that is unlikely to happen, and a very high density was considered for the mixed-use districts.

Member Shroyer said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee will not disband after the Master Plan is approved. Member Shroyer would like to move forward in making changes from the recommendations made as a result of this process. He said a five year Master Plan looks at a twenty-year window. He hopes that many of the items noted in this update can be accomplished in the upcoming five years.

Member Kocan thanked the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for their work. Chair Markham commented that the Implementation Committee and the Master Plan and Zoning Committee members convene for untold hours to meet the needs of the community. They work this hard because they believe it is important.

Member Kocan recommended that John Avdoulos’ name be listed as a Master Plan and Zoning Committee member, even though he was only an alternate. Chair Markham commented that a previous member, Larry Papp, should also get recognition.

Member Kocan said that page 76 discusses driveways and their design. She asked if the Master Plan was proposing an Ordinance change based on the information contained in the document. Ms. Schmitt responded that the information in the Master Plan was meant to provide general suggestions and not set new policy because in some cases shared driveway designs create more problems than they solve. Member Kocan’s point was that she didn’t want developers to read this document and translate it that dual entrances were no longer important.

Member Kocan was surprised that the memo they received at the February Planning Commission meeting was not made part of this Master Plan. This memo outlined the differences between the current Master Plan and this proposed document. She likes to review this kind of information, but conceded that perhaps including it was not necessary. She wondered if anyone else thought that outlining the changes made would be advantageous.

Member Kocan suggested that the language under the Woodland subheading on page 43 be reviewed. Specifically, she said that the word "no" was wrong in this sentence: The preservation of woodlands, trees, similar woody vegetation, and related natural resources shall have priority over development when there are no location alternatives.

Member Kocan also questioned whether the word "mitigation" in that same section, a term normally used in wetland discussions, could be replaced with a more appropriate phrase, such as "replacement guidelines have been established." Ms. Schmitt said that these language excerpts came directly from the Ordinance so the Ordinance would have to be changed as well. Member Kocan noted that the term "mitigation" wasn’t used in the wetland section.

Member Kocan clarified that the 2002-installed stop sign at Eleven Mile and Taft addressed the (2000-2002) accident problem described on page 52.

Member Kocan noted that the Water System section of the CIP could be found on page 82. She suggested that the Street Improvement section of the CIP also be included. City Engineer Nancy McClain said that the Water System improvements are funded through a water and sewer fund which is a stand alone fund. Monies received for maintenance is allocated to future improvements. Determining what money is available for this line item is somewhat easier to predict and plan for. The monies received for road funds come from gas taxes, and the general fund, for example, and predicting what will actually be available is not as easy. Ms. McClain also said that this particular CIP section was placed in the Master Plan document because it was considered part of the recently approved Water Master Plan.

Member Kocan said that she believes that the timing of Novi’s traffic lights causes 90-95% of the traffic problems. She does not believe that the "smart lights" work properly. Ms. McClain said that Oakland County is currently reviewing and reprogramming traffic lights county-wide. They met with Novi about one month ago, and said that they would be working in the City for the next year. As an example, they cited the light at Nine Mile and Meadowbrook as a light that hasn’t been reviewed for over twenty years. Member Kocan also thought that there were certain areas in Novi where the speed limits need to be reduced.

Member Kocan closed her comments by stating that she thought the Master Plan was definitely a Planning Commission document and should be approved by the Planning Commission. She suggested that if the City Council wants final approval then they should appoint their own Master Plan and Zoning Committee to create the document.

Member Avdoulos encouraged Novi residents to read this document as it is filled with historical information and future plans for the City. He said that the fiscal/economic information provides an excellent explanation on how the various districts affect the City and use its services. He encouraged the City to support the goal of preserving the City’s historical buildings. He also thought that preserving the rural character of the City was of paramount importance.

Member Avdoulos wondered whether the recent philanthropic donation made to the library should be noted in the Master Plan, to possibly encourage like donations.

Member Avdoulos also agreed with the goal of maintaining the architectural quality of the City. He commented that many recent developments in the City are very aesthetically pleasing.

Member Avdoulos noted that the speed limit on Beck Road between Nine Mile and Ten Mile has been returned to 40 mph.

Member Avdoulos noted the properties listed on page 34 for the Haggerty Corridor Office Center. He said that he would like that section to also mention that Trinity Health received a national award in 2003 for health systems, which is the highest honor in that field. He said that this will highlight that Novi has high quality businesses as well as high quality homes and schools.

Member Avdoulos said that information contained in the Master Plan is all-encompassing and provides detail on every issue from traffic lights to sewer holes. He agreed that it was a Planning Commission document.

Mr. Evancoe noted that Bill Berdelman of the City’s GIS Department created all of the maps in the Master Plan and should be acknowledged for his fine work.

Member Pehrson confirmed with Chair Markham that the document will be placed on the internet.

Chair Markham compared this plan to the current Master Plan (Novi 2020). She asked how close this plan’s population projections were to the Novi 2020 Plan. Mr. Schmitt recalled that the previous plan projected 79,000 based on SEMCOG’s information. He said that most communities rely on SEMCOG’s information. Chair Markham said that it is important that the population projection be considered from one plan to the next to ensure that the City’s infrastructure meets the community’s needs.

Chair Markham noted that this new plan reflects a better balance between single family and multiple family housing. This is the result of taking action on the last plan’s findings, that 55% of the City’s tax base was residential. This plan shows that number lowered to 50%, and suggests that this trend is continuing; it is important for a community that the tax burden is not carried by the residential segment.

Chair Markham noted that the interconnectivity concept is new to this plan. She said that those who have been involved in the City’s planning process during the last five years have found out how important interconnectivity is in reducing the traffic burden on the major thoroughfares. She said that it is important to continue educating the developers and the residents on this concept to reduce the traffic burden in the City.

Chair Markham reiterated that there was tremendous input from the public. Citizens answered surveys and attended Master Plan and Zoning Committee meetings; this document would not be what it is without the help from the residents of Novi. She said that the Path System is so strongly highlighted throughout this Master Plan document as a direct result of what the community said throughout the process.

Chair Markham said that there is no summarization of the differences between this plan and the Novi 2020 Plan because there are so many differences. It would be difficult to capture that in this document.

Chair Markham noted that the City recently reviewed Commerce Township’s Master Plan update which was very interesting and she was glad to be a part of the process. She said it is helpful to learn what neighboring development is planned along our boundaries and that the information will also help the City plan for its own boundary development.

Chair Markham noted that the City is looking forward to working with Lyon Township in the future on the coordination of Napier Road/Ten Mile projects.

Chair Markham stated that the Master Plan is a planning document and that it should be approved by the Planning Commission. She said that Planning Commission’s role is to plan the future of the City and oversee the Ordinances and determine whether they point the direction of where the City wants to go. She said these are planning functions and the Planning Commission is the author of this plan and therefore it should be administered by them.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Motion to send a positive recommendation for the City Council to approve the draft Master Plan for distribution as required by the State requirements.


Chair Markham asked whether any corrections would be made to the document before it went to City Council. Member Kocan agreed, stating she would like as many corrections as can be made before it was submitted to them. Member Avdoulos asked whether the document would need to be reproduced and whether the budget could afford these changes. Director of Planning David Evancoe responded that the comments already collected, along with the comments collected from City Council on April 19, 2004 and the comments made by the various agencies will be incorporated into a new document. The plan is not to keep changing the plan along the way, rather to wait until all of the comments are received so that a clearer picture can be determined.

Ms. Schmitt said that many of the typos have already been corrected based on the various reviews that have already been handed in. Member Kocan said she just wanted to ensure that the City did not send this document out to other agencies until the grammatical corrections have been made.


Motion to send a positive recommendation for the City Council to approve the draft Master Plan for distribution as required by the State requirements.

Motion carried 5-0.


There were no Consent Agenda Removals for Commission Action.


There were no Matters for Discussion.


Chair Markham said that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 28, 2004.


There was no one in the audience who wished to speak.


Moved by Member Kocan:

Motion to adjourn.

Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at or about 11:30 p.m.
















Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, April 26, 2004 Signature on File

Date Approved: May 26, 2004 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant June 18, 2004