View Agenda for this meeting



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 02, 1999 AT 7:30 P.M.




Meeting called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Chairperson Weddington


PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza and Chairperson Weddington




ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Kelly Schuler






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




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as presented.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None








Member Csordas read the correspondence.


Karl Wizinsky and Marcia Boynton wrote in support of the Island Lake of Novi project as presently designed as their concerns have been fully resolved.


Thomas J. Cleary wrote regarding the proposed rezoning at Nine Mile Road and Haggerty Road. He referred to the terrible traffic congestion on Haggerty Road between 8 and 10 Mile Roads. He believed a thorough traffic study should be the number one concern. He pleaded with the Commission to reconsider the project as the two lane Haggerty Road was too congested.


Mary B. Campbell wrote regarding the rezoning at the northwest corner of Nine Mile Road and Haggerty Road. The Haggerty Corridor between 8 and 10 Mile Roads already has innumerable offices as well as two large apartment complexes at the 9 Mile and Haggerty corner. How would ingress and egress occur to the parcel under consideration? She stated a goodly number of Novi citizens live in this southeast corner and many feel they live at the traffic light, with no left hand turn signal.


Angelo Barduca and Laura Barduca did not object to the proposed rezoning if the buffer was a brick wall 6’ in height which would be in accordance with the other walls that have been placed between single family residential and multiple housing apartments.


Roger W. Christensen did not object to the proposed rezoning if the buffer abutting his property was a brick wall of 6’ in height.


Kyle Boring and Stephanie Pappas Boring objected stating that Nine Mile Road and Haggerty Road could not support the additional traffic. There was no plan for exit and entrance to the facility.


Sunai Youyeunyong objected stating overly crowded traffic along Haggerty Road has been the problem already. We do not need the problem to worsen any further.


Ann Marocco objected stating changing the zoning would make it more difficult for present nearby residents to use Nine Mile and Haggerty.


Ellen O’Connor objected stating that congestion would be greater from new construction.


Helen Rarick objected stating there would be more congestion for residents using Nine Mile and Haggerty Roads.


James and Betty Doughty objected stating the area was congested already and we do not need more office and/or apartments in the area.


Beatrice Hutcherson objected stating more traffic is not needed on that corner, enough is enough.


Jeannette Weis objected to the "any other appropriate zoning".


Maryann Wender objected.


Ken Tworzyollo objected.


Lauren Wheeler objected.


Tim Wheeler objected because there was way too much traffic already at the intersection. If new buildings are built, it would increase traffic flow and cause more chaos.




Chairperson Weddington announced there were three (3) items on the Consent Agenda. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meetings of April 21, 1999, May 05, 1999 and May 19, 19999. She asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.


Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.











Moved by Csordas, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda consisting of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meetings of April 21, 1999, May 05, 1999 and May 19, 1999 as presented.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None









    Zoning Map Amendment 18.584 for possible rezoning of 5.36 acre parcel at the northwest corner of Nine Mile and Haggerty Roads from One-Family Residential District (R-3) to Low-Density Multiple Family Residential District (RM-1) (4.11 acres) and Office Service District (OS-1) (1.25 acres), or any other appropriate zoning district.


    Lee Mamola represented the property owner. He introduced Richard Dippolito the developer from Eden Care Senior Living Services who proposes the construction for approximately 84 units of an assisted care unit as well as a 9,500 square foot office building to be placed on the corner.


    Mark Mayberry, Executive Vice President of Development for Eden Care proposed an 84 unit building of about 57,000 square feet on the northernmost portion of the site. He stated he was working closely with the current property owner on the corner parcel regarding curb cuts, access, landscaping and architectural design. Mr. Mayberry stated the building was proposed to be 2 stories and designed to be residential in appearance. In regard to traffic, he stated his development generates very little traffic as the residents do not drive. The staff comes and goes during off peak hours, the visitors come during off hours, therefore, traffic is not generated on the highways at the time of morning or evening peak hours. In regard to the abutting residents, he stated he would work with them during the planning process to put up screening between the building and their existing homes. Mr. Mayberry felt his use was very good for the corner property as it generates very little impact on the roads and emergency services.


    Mr. Mamola stated the logic for office at the corner comes about when looking at some of the other alternatives and land uses to the south. He stated giving the "L" shape of the property and the fact that several other residential developers have looked at developing similar developments on the property, they have all concluded that the bottom 1 acre is not feasible to any residential user. If the 1 acre is not rezoned to office, it would likely remain single family residential which would probably not be a desirable location due to the traffic. It could also be developed as a daycare center which would put forth additional traffic. The office development would likely be a professional office where the impact to traffic would be spread out throughout the day. The other unique characteristic is that the 1 acre would be developed with shared easements to the north. Mr. Mamola stated the proposal would lessen the impact for development compared to other alternative developments.


    Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the rezoning request due to a number of reasons. He stated the proposal is consistent with the newly adopted Master Plan for Land Use. The property directly to the south is zoned for office use as well as the property to the east. Property to the north and west is a combination of multiple and single family uses that are existing or planned in the general vicinity. He stated the Master Plan states due to the unique characteristics of the location, the office designation should not be extended further than the subject parcel.


    In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo stated the property is currently zoned R-3, it is estimated that if it were to be developed under R-3 there could be up to 14 single family homes which would generate about 170 trips on an average day and approximately 20 trips during the p.m. peak hour. As a comparison, if the property were rezoned as requested, the assisted living facility is forecast to generate approximately 300 trips during an average weekday and 24 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The office use is forecast to generate about 360 trips on a daily basis and about 37 trips during the p.m. peak hour. He provided an overview of existing volumes on Haggerty Road and Nine Mile Road. In summary, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval.


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


    Mr. Christensen, 39624 Nine Mile Road backs up to the project on the north and east sides. He stated he would go along with the proposal as long as a 6’ brick wall is erected. He stated he has lived there for 81 years.


    Laura Barduca, 39630 West Nine Mile asked what types of buildings could be erected in an OS-1 district? She asked if a daycare could be built because she would not like to see one built there. She did not object to a small, one story office if a brick wall were put between the property line. She asked if her property would later be considered OS-1? She expressed concern with the second driveway that is proposed for emergencies. She stated there was a left turn lane on the south side of Nine Mile Road and thought this would cause congestion if someone were trying to use the driveway.


    Mr. Arroyo stated the uses that could be permitted within an OS-1 District is a combination of principal permitted uses and special land uses. Among the principal permitted uses are general office, medical office, facilities for human care, banks, credit unions, personal service establishments and churches. Under the special land use category mortuary establishments, daycare and nursing schools, indoor recreation and publicly owned buildings. The minimum screening requirement for RM-1 and OS-1 adjacent to residential is a 4’ 6" high berm or wall. In regard to the potential extension of Office to other pieces of property, the Planning Commission felt that it should not be extended because the depth of the Office zoning to the south off of Haggerty Road was approximately equal to the depth of the parcel. It would not be consistent to extend the Office designation further to the west.


    Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.




    Member Koneda asked if the parcel were split, could it cause the potential for two separate developments under different ownership. He then asked about curb cut issues and driveway spacing.


    Mr. Arroyo stated it would have to be done as a condition of site plan approval. As part of the Final Site Plan review, the applicant would have to provide the easements and have them prepared for recording, then they would move forward with their lot split approval.


    Member Koneda asked if the assisted living proposal would require a special land use approval of the Council?


    Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He stated the decision rests with the Planning Commission alone.


    Member Mutch asked how mobile are the people who will be living at the facility?


    Mr. Mayberry answered all of the residents are ambulatory, none are bedridden. The residents average in age from about 82-83 years old.


    Member Mutch stated it does not strike him as being the most desirable place for a senior to live.


    Member Mutch asked how storm water would be handled at the site for both projects?


    Mr. Bluhm stated at this point in time a detention basin would be proposed.




    Moved by Mutch, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.584 to rezone the 4.11 acre parcel from R-3 to RM-1 and 1.25 acres from R-3 to OS-1.




    Member Canup expressed concern with the corner parcel. He asked the applicant if it was his intent to develop simultaneously, the Office as well as the assisted care facility?


    Mr. Mayberry could only speak to the assisted care facility since he was not involved in the corner parcel. It was his intent that he would try to coordinate and develop at the same time.


    Mr. Mamola stated it was the intent to develop the parcels in a coordinated manner.


    Joe Locricchio stated it was clearly his intention to develop it simultaneously for a number of reasons. He stated for reasons of shared retention, shared ingress and egress provisions and the timing from both standpoints was compatible. He also stated there were certain efficiencies of developing together.


    Member Canup stated he would support the motion on the fact that the owner has made a pledge to the Commission that he would develop it simultaneously.


    Member Capello asked Mr. Locricchio if he was related to any of the Locricchio’s from Pine Knob?


    Mr. Locricchio answered, yes.


    Member Capello asked if he knew the Mussa family?


    Mr. Locricchio answered, yes.


    Member Capello stated John Mussa was his father-in-law. He stated Mr. Mussa has been deceased for several years and that it would not affect his vote in any way.


    Chairperson Weddington asked the Commission if anyone had a problem with Member Capello voting on the Matter?


    There were no Commissioners who objected to Member Capello’s voting on the Matter.




    Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

    No: None




This project is located in Section 18, west of Wixom Road and north of Eleven Mile Road. The 63.81 acre-site condominium containing 77 single-family detached units is located in the northeast portion of the approved Residential Unit Development. Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Woodlands and Wetlands Permit approvals.


Steve Robinson spoke on behalf of the Silverman Companies and Toll Brothers, Inc. to present Phase I of Island Lake of Novi a.k.a. Harvest Lake of Novi. He introduced Mary Jukuri.


Mary Jukuri stated the Phase 2A contained 77 single family detached homes. The sub phase provides a mix of lot sizes from 14,000 square feet to over of an acre. The average lot width is 105’ and all lots meet or exceed the required setbacks per City Ordinances and the RUD. The subphase has the same internal street network with two main entrances and significant open space at each entrance. The northern entrance has been shifted down slightly from the RUD plan so it misses the driveway of the neighbor to the north. Additional landscape screening has also been added on the neighbor’s side of the road. Ms. Jukuri stated a traffic study has been conducted and the required acceleration/deceleration and left turn lanes are shown at each entrance. She stated a acre neighborhood play lot has been included in the phase. It will have play equipment, benches and additional landscaping. Plantings for the perimeter landscape has been provided per the RUD, establishing a minimum 25’ setback along the Wixom Road R.O.W. It is planted with trees, shrubs and understory and is set back behind the wetland. The sub phase affects a small edge of the existing woodland and the required tree replacement is shown with plantings at the woodland edge and also in the secondary conservation zone for additional cover and habitat value. The site plan shows the required street tree plantings and sidewalks. The plan preserves all wetland areas, affecting only the non-essential wetland pockets. The storm water detention basin follows the intent of the RUD. It has been designed as a two celled, wet treatment basin, treating the first flush of storm water run off according to the principals of the RUD plan. Ms. Jukuri stated she agrees with and will comply with all of the Consultants conditions for Final Site Plan submittal. She stated she has received positive recommendations from all Consultants except for one site plan item which is the configuration of Lots 76 and 77. There are a number of possible options to consider and she stated she was open to direction from the Planning Commission. In summary, she requested approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, she stated they were very eager to move into final design on the project.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval of the Site Plan due to the fact that Lots 76 and 77 do not have access to a public street as required by Ordinance. If this issue is resolved by removing the lots or by the applicant receiving appropriate ZBA approval or some type of waiver, then he would be in a position to recommend approval. There were a couple of other issues that could be resolved at the time of Final. One being the 8’ bikepath, the applicant has only bound to construct a 5’ sidewalk per the RUD agreement. He suggested that he would like the applicant to consider an 8’ safety path to be consistent with the plan, however, he recognized that it could not be a requirement because of the RUD contract stipulation. Mr. Arroyo stated he would like to see clear delineation of the general limited common elements as well as the building units, clarification of appropriate conservation easements and dedicated open space, appropriate condominium documents will need to be submitted for review by the City Attorney. He reported there was a missing piece of sidewalk, internally, on the south side of Glenwood Drive between Wixom and Timber Trail and it needs to be added. In addition, the sidewalk built on the south side needs to be extended the full length of the sub phase.


In regard to the traffic review, Mr. Arroyo had a number of issues which he believed could be resolved at the time of Final. The southerly most access would be located right across the street from the elementary and middle school, he saw it as a potential location for a traffic signal due to the fact that it would serve a fairly large residential development on the west side and a fairly large school complex on the east side. He also saw it as a logical place for pedestrians to cross that would also aid as a school crossing. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval from a traffic standpoint.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the potential water problems and sewer access have been satisfactorily addressed and he felt they were ready to move on. Public water will be extended into the site via a looped system. A booster station is proposed which will be used for multiple phases of the development and will help service the proper pressures for domestic and fire suppression. The applicant will be extending the public sewers into the site to service all parts of the phase. The slopes fall from the south and east, the middle of the site falls to a wetland and then traverses south along the ditch along Wixom Road. Mr. Bluhm stated an 8’ pathway is required along the west side, he expressed concern with the path being maintained in the R.O.W. At the southern end, there is a ditch crossing where the applicant may want to explore the use of a boardwalk to minimize the impact into the low wetland area. There were a number of other comments that could be addressed at the time of Final. Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval. She stated there were a number of items in her letter dated May 14, 1999 that would need to be furnished at the time of Final.


Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Woodland Permit with nine (9) conditions; 1) Lot 1 clearing and forebay proposed west of Lot 1 be relocated and reduced in square footage to eliminate removal of trees and understory. 2) Moving protective fencing onto lots and preservation of additional trees and vegetation at the rear of Lots 4-6, 8, and 9 and south of Lot 77. 3) Reduce the square footage of Lot 77 and 76 so the building envelope has less impact on the trees and understory vegetation at the rear and on the south side of Lot 77. 4) Tagging trees 8" d.b.h. and greater to the west of Lots 9-10 within 50’ of construction. 5) Relocation of the open space area between Lots 9 and 10 and to preserve trees #160-166 on Lot 11. 6) Additional protective fencing from Lot 10 to Lot 15 and north of and along Island Lake Drive. 7) Reworking Lots 47-59 to preserve tree #307 by moving the open space play areas from the ends of this area to surround the tree. 8) Redoing portions of the tree survey. 9) Shortening Timber Trail, depending on when the next phase is planned to go forward, to reduce the impacts of woodlands and wetlands at this time in the development. Ms. Lemke stated she would be looking for the remaining regulated woodlands which are not included as part of future phases, to be placed into a Preservation Easement. In summary, she recommended approval for a Woodlands Permit with her standard four (4) conditions as stated in her letter.


Aimee Kay, Environmental Specialist stated there were four (4) interior non-essential wetlands of relatively small size that will be filled. The five (5) primary impacts are; 1) filling the four (4) interior non-essential wetlands; 2) 0.12 acres of fill to Wetland Area #1 for the installation of an 8’ bikepath; 3) Single Storm water outfall to the wetland adjacent to Wixom Road; 4) buffer disturbances that were unavoidable for construction of the roads; 5) crossing of the lineal wetland adjacent to Wixom Road for construction of the entrance road. Ms. Kay recommended approval stating that all conditions are relatively standard.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal; 1) provide a turn around at the end of the private drive for fire apparatus; 2) all roads are to be paved prior to construction above the foundation and should be noted on the plans; 3) all watermains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation and should be noted on the plans; 4) The building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3" high on a contrasting background and noted on the plans; 5) Street names on suitable poles shall be established and installed prior to construction above the foundation and noted on plans.


Chairperson Weddington 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 Mutch asked for clarification of the existing R.O.W. along Wixom Road and asked for the proposed R.O.W.


Mr. Arroyo answered the proposed R.O.W. was 120’ which was 60’ from the centerline.


Member Mutch asked if the 25’ preservation easement was from the existing or future R.O.W. line?


Mr. Arroyo answered, because it is a condominium, he believed they would have the dedication as part of the final approval and believed it would be 60’ from the centerline.


Member Mutch asked the applicant to address the issue because he wanted to be sure there was a common understanding.


Ms. Jukuri stated the 25’ perimeter landscaped area was shown to be adjacent to a proposed 120’ R.O.W. for Wixom.


In regard to the two streets that are to be extended to the west, Member Mutch asked if there was an overall traffic study for the entire project?


Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. As part of the RUD, there was a complete traffic study submitted. Every phase over 70 units will be required to have a separate traffic study.


Member Mutch asked what the traffic studies indicated in terms of traffic volumes on the two roads in terms of people trying to access Wixom Road?


Mr. Arroyo answered, a standard 60’ subdivision street would be sufficient to handle the traffic because although it is a large project, it is generally fairly low density and there are a number of different points of access.


In regard to the path along Wixom Road, Member Mutch asked for clarification of what would be installed, either an 8’ path or a 5’ path.


Mr. Robinson stated the revised plan shows an 8’ path and he has agreed to an 8’ asphalt path which is consistent with the new Master Plan.


In regard to the historic specimen tree on Lot 57, Member Mutch clarified that the lot must be moved in order to preserve the tree.


Ms. Lemke answered, it was a very large tree which has a wet area connected with it therefore, it would be a repositioning of open space areas.


Member Mutch asked if there would be any treatment done at the entrances above and beyond the proposed landscaping? He also asked if there would be any pedestrian scale lighting done at the points where children would be crossing Wixom Road to and from the school?


Mr. Robinson stated the internal pathways have not yet been designed, he stated they were looking to address it at the time of Final. In regard to the entrance treatment, he stated they were working on the balance of the project to come up with a theme that is consistent with what was shown before. The entrances would be designed to blend with the overall scheme. He stated it was the intent to have pedestrian scale lighting not only at the crossing but at other key points throughout the development.


Member Koneda asked why the roadway that services Lot 76 and 77 is not considered a public road?


Mr. Arroyo answered it was not designed in that manner, it does not have a designated R.O.W. associated with it. To be properly designated as a public road there must be 60’ R.O.W. and it must end in a cul-de-sac to meet the City’s Design Standards.


Member Koneda asked for the current width of the road.


Mr. Arroyo stated it was proposed to the width of a public road standard which is 28’. He stated if the applicant were to try to get them approved through a site condo, it does not front on a public road, therefore, there is a potential for the variance. They could also do a shared driveway if they were able to obtain a Design and Construction Standards waiver.


Member Koneda if the turnaround space was possible as required by the Fire Marshal?


Mr. Arroyo answered, it could be, potentially. He stated they could build a "T" turnaround which would take up less land area. He stated it was a possibility.


Member Koneda asked if Timber Trail were built as a stub street, what would be done about the temporary problem with fire apparatus?


Mr. Arroyo answered there was a standard in the Design and Construction Standards for a public road that is anticipated to be extended at a future date that requires a temporary "T" turnaround which is what the applicant has conceptually shown on the plan. He stated as part of the Final he would be looking for it.


Member Koneda asked if the cul-de-sac met the requirements for length?


Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.


In regard to the relocation of the open space between Lots 9 and 10, Member Koneda asked what was being preserved?


Ms. Lemke answered, she would like to preserve more of the trees located on Lot 111, trees 160 through 166. She stated she would like the open space to be moved from between Lots 9 and 10 up to the west side of Lot 11.


Member Koneda asked if the specimen tree on Lot 57 were deemed to be of quality worth preserving, with the realignment of the lots, would it also preserve part of one of the non-essential wetlands?


Ms. Lemke believed so.


Member Koneda asked if there was enough information to grant a Woodlands and Wetlands Permit?


Ms. Lemke answered it could be worked out at the time of Final. She stated there were some woodlands areas shown that would be preserved as part of the next phase. She did not think there would be a problem in working it out.


In regard to the north entranceway, Member Koneda asked if everything was satisfactory?


Ms. Lemke stated she would look at it at the time of Final to see what species were being used and whether they carry across. She was aware of the concerns in that area and would be looking for heavy screening at the entranceway.


Member Csordas asked if thought was given to converting Lots 76 and 77 to one lot which might make a driveway to the house and possibly avoid the need for the applicant to go before the ZBA.


Mr. Arroyo stated it could be a driveway if combined to one lot, however, the issue of frontage on a public road would still remain. In order for the lot to have frontage on a public road, the lot would have to be extended to Timber Trail which would go into a wetland area which would require a separate variance. He stated there was no way to get around a variance whether it were one lot or two. He stated one waiver or another would need to be obtained in order to make it work unless both lots were eliminated.


Member Csordas asked the applicant if he has given it any thought?


Mr. Robinson stated he did not realize that it would be an issue. He thought it might be appropriate to take 76 and 77 out of the first phase and address it in a future phase. That way he would have the time to go to the ZBA to seek whatever variances are needed.


Member Csordas asked if there was anything that could be done regarding tree #307?


Mr. Robinson stated thought was given to ways to shift the lots around to save tree #307 as well as some of the wetlands and adjacent trees. He proposed to come back with the alignment at the time of Final.


Member Csordas referred to Ms. Lemke’s letter which talks about Lot 1 and asked the applicant if he had any recommendations that would meet the request on that lot?


Mr. Robinson stated the forebay is at the intersection which is at the northeast corner of the pond. It is proposed to be moved to the rear of the pond.


Ms. Jukuri stated the area is to treat the storm water run off just from Timber Trail. I would be treated with a swale, predominant treatment for the whole site would be in the detention basin. She thought that alleviating some of the woodlands impacts for that location could be addressed at the time of Final.


Ms. Kay stated if it were to just be a storm water discharge to collect from the road, it would be considered not an actual forebay but just a storm water discharge area with some soil erosion controls to it.


Member Canup stated he would like to see Lots 76 and 77 included in the site plan and be a part of the approval because they would have to be addressed someday anyway.







Moved by Churella, seconded by Watza.




Member Mutch asked what the idea was behind the open space at the southerly end abutting Lots 59 and 47? He asked what the advantage was to retaining the open space at that location versus shifting lots to the south and consolidating the open space around the white oak?


Ms. Jukuri stated the purpose of the open space was, as part of the entrance feature there will be more of an entrance design, therefore, it is part of the setting when coming into the first phase. She stated Lot 59 could be shifted down slightly so a larger play area could be gained.


Member Mutch asked if there was any way to create a pedestrian path from the end of the cul-de-sac to the exterior?


Ms. Jukuri stated it could be looked into. She stated there was an open space easement at the end of the cul-de-sac that could allow for a path.


Member Mutch offered a friendly amendment to the motion. He wanted to clarify and specify the 8’ concrete bikepath along Wixom Road, shifting Lots 10 and 11 to the south and moving the open space to preserve the woodlands and pedestrian lighting at the crosswalks.


Member Churella accepted the friendly amendment with the exception of the lighting, as the maker of the motion.


Member Watza accepted the friendly amendment with the exception of the lighting, as the seconder of the motion.




Moved by Churella, seconded by Watza, CARRIED (5-4): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodlands Permit approval and Wetlands Permit approval to Island Lake of Novi SP99-10 subject to all of the Consultants conditions and comments and also conditioned upon the removal of Lots 76 and 77 from this phase as well as the adjustment in the vicinity of Lot 57 to accommodate the large specimen tree and to require an 8’ concrete safety path and adjustment of the open area between Lots 9 and 11.


Member Capello asked if there was anything in the plans that indicated where the power was going to come from?


Mr. Bluhm stated typically they do not get that detailed. He stated it was not a City utility, however, the engineer or architect might be willing to answer the question.


Tom Martung of Hennessey Engineers stated he has had some discussions with Ron Grey from Detroit Edison regarding pole locations at the north entrance. He stated they were shown on the plan and are the only locations for power that he was aware of.


Member Capello asked if there would be a trail system and asked why there were not any usable open spaces in Phase I?


Ms. Jukuri stated the usable open space was the acre neighborhood play lot. In regard to the trail system, she stated they were in the process of working out a Master Plan for the entire area. She stated they needed to finalize how the trails would be worked in through the secondary conservation zone. They have shown pedestrian paths and trails through the secondary conservation zone and looping through the forested wetland as part of the overall first phase.


Member Capello stated it seemed that some of the Commissioners would like to see Lot 76 and 77 included, he asked Mr. Watson if a motion could be made to approve the plan subject to ZBA approval and in the alternative, if they do not receive ZBA approval, approve the plan without Lots 76 and 77 so they can move forward.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney answered it was a possibility. He understood that the applicant proposed to remove the portion of property from the first phase leaving the determination to be made with the next phase.


Member Koneda commended the applicant on the entranceway treatments, he thought it was an attractive amenity. He asked what the motivation was to bring the 8’ bikepaths to concrete at this stage and who is responsible for approving it?


Mr. Bluhm answered, the City Council approves any changes to the Design and Construction Standards. The motivation was with a number of Councilmembers. He stated the issue of the smoothness of concrete was a real issue.


Member Koneda objected to constructing bikepaths out of concrete. He thought there was more concern being put on the quality of development which was forcing developers to put in amenities that the residents did not even want.


Mr. Robinson stated the original RUD agreement called for a 5’ asphalt bikepath. He stated he was willing to go along with a variance from the RUD and asked the Commission to reconsider the requirement for concrete on the project.




Yes: Capello, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup

No: Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Watza


Member Koneda stated most of the Commissioners voted "No" because of the requirement of putting in an 8’ concrete bikepath, not for any other reason.


Chairperson Weddington stated the issue of City Standards lies with City Council and encouraged anyone who wished to change the Construction Standards to address their comments to City Council.






This project is located in Section 23 at the southwest corner of Main Street and Market. The 13’ 6" x 34’ proposed band shell is located in the Town Center District (TC-1). The applicant, 50’s Festival, is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Bob McCann, President of the Michigan 50’s Festival introduced Jane Thomas, Festival Manager. He stated the bandshell is made with a brick retaining wall in the front and rear and will have no impact on the wetlands located behind the bandshell. It will have painted steel walls and hand and guard rails as well as a translucent plastic top. It is designed to be an open air facility. He stated it has handicapped access on both sides and pending all necessary approvals, the official groundbreaking will take place in about two (2) weeks.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the bandshell was intended as part of the Main Street streetscape proposal. It was proposed to be a gathering place at the corner of Main and Market Streets providing an opportunity for shoppers and patrons to have a place for entertainment. Mr. Arroyo stated there were no traffic issues associated with the bandshell. It was anticipated that the existing parking for the Main Street development would serve this amenity and no additional parking is required.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the plan was reviewed for Preliminary and Final. He had no concerns with the Preliminary, however, he had a number of comments with the Final that he felt were very significant. He stated there were some potential errors in the benchmark that were shown. There were several utilities in that area, two fairly significant storm sewers, water lines, Edison and a lot of underground utilities that are reliant on the benchmark being accurate to properly put in the significant footings. Mr. Bluhm stated he would like to see the revised Final Site Plan before it moves forward.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states that he has reviewed the plan for compliance with the Facade Materials Ordinance and all percentages of materials are in full compliance with the Facade Chart and the design is consistent with the requirements of Section 1602.9 of the Ordinance which requires that buildings in the TC District be primarily of brick and stone. Mr. Necci recommended approval.


Chairperson Weddington turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion




Member Canup announced that he sits on the Board of Directors for the 50’s Festival and asked if the Commission had a problem with his voting on the Matter.


There were no Commissioners who objected to Member Canup voting on the Matter.




Moved by Watza, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Main Street Bandshell SP98-09 subject to all of the Consultants conditions.




Yes: Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello

No: None














Chairperson Weddington announced that this was her last Planning Commission meeting. She and her husband are taking an early retirement and moving out of State next week. Her term was to end at the end of June 1999 and she will miss the next meeting. She thanked the Staff and Consultants for their support, patience and assistance since she has been the Chair. She announced she has been in the Community for 25 years and has seen a lot of changes. Chairperson Weddington encouraged the Commission to follow the Ordinance as it is the standard by which the Commission operates for the betterment of the entire community.


Member Csordas presented the gift of an engraved gavel to Chairperson Weddington, thanked her and wished her well.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning and Community Development read a proclamation on behalf of Mayor McLallan. Whereas the Mayor and City Council of the City of Novi on behalf of the entire citizenry wish to extend their gratitude and appreciation to Eda Weddington and Jim Antosiak in recognition of their outstanding service to the Community and whereas Eda and Jim have demonstrated a true commitment to Novi, working diligently on many City projects. Most recently as active member of the Novi Planning Commission and Novi Board of Zoning Adjustment furthering the ideas that contribute to the betterment of the total Community and whereas the City of Novi is fortunate to have the quality of citizens such as Eda and Jim that have stepped forward to civic service and executed their tasks with excellence and consideration for all. Now, therefore be it resolved that the Mayor and City Council being duly elected voice of the people of Novi do present this document in recognition of this distinguished citizen service and as an expression of the City’s appreciation.


Mr. Wahl echoed the sentiments of the Planning Commission to both Eda and Jim.






Moved by Churella, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:44 p.m.







Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None




Kelly Schuler - Planning Assistant


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

June 11, 1999


Date Approved: July 07, 1999