(248) 347-0475

Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Weddington.

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

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Canup, Churella

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, David Wickens Environmental Specialist, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Kelly Schuler

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Weddington announced she has been asked by the Department to pull off the approval of the November 04, 1998 Meeting Minutes as there are some errors that need to be corrected and they will be brought back at the next meeting. She asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?

PM-98-12-221 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED

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

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

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

Member Capello asked if the Public Hearing for Siemens Building Addition was already closed?

Chairperson Weddington stated the Public Hearing was closed but the issue was carried over, therefore, it should be moved to Matters for Consideration.

PM-98-12-222 TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO MOVE SIEMENS BUILDING ADDITION SP98-47 FROM PUBLIC HEARING TO MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Moved by Capello, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend the Agenda to move Siemens Building Addition SP98-47 from Public Hearing to Matters for Consideration.

VOTE ON PM-98-12-222 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

CORRESPONDENCE

David and Marcelle Chehade, wrote in regard to the senior housing project on Meadowbrook Road. As residents of the Meadowbrook Glen Subdivision they found the senior citizen housing project as a bad one. They thought the City of Novi was becoming too commercialized and increasingly congested year after year. There are not too many parks and recreation facilities for the welfare of the city residents. It is urgent that the Commission put on the brakes and slow down the projects that create density and population versus the geographic size of the City. Furthermore, they believed the objective was to create additional revenue to the City by creating the housing project. They thought it could be compensated by imposing some form of taxes on surrounding residents if the park is made available for their use. They thought the Commission should give the idea proper consideration.

Chairperson Weddington asked the Department to forward the letter to City Council as she believed it to be the correct body to receive the letter.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. JOHNSON GROUP SERVICES SP98-44

Project is located in Section 16 on the southwest corner of Taft Road and Grand River Avenue. The 4 acre-site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Special Land Use Permit approval.

Lee Mamola of Mamola Associates Architects introduced Art Johnson from Johnson Group Services. Mr. Mamola stated the site is bounded on the north by Grand River and on the east by Taft Road, thereby having to absorb a double front yard setback requirement. It is bounded by residential property to the south and to the west by Industrial property. The building was purposely sited in a manner to fit on the corner, it is approximately 25,000 square feet. He stated per the Ordinance, they were close to the Andes Court Street and believed a waiver was needed. He states the site is naturally at its highest point on the northern end and naturally goes to its lower point south towards Andes Court. This is where the proposed detention pond is proposed. Mr. Mamola stated there is a small pocket of wetland partially on the site as well as partially on the neighboring site to the west. It is an area that is not normally regulated due to its size and other conditions, however, within 500' to the south, there is a stream. Giving the amount of fill and disturbance that might occur in the wetland area, it would be determined a minor use permit and he has filed for this through JCK. In response to some of the environmental features on the property, he decided to make the building reflect a high-tech look. To comply with the Facade Ordinance, the facade materials are predominantly masonry materials. The use of the building is predominantly office, the design was done in a manner that the office floorplan surrounds a high-bay area. He stated the high-bay areas are typically used to bring in prototype testing, etc. In regard to the wetland issue, Mr. Mamola prepared an alternate site plan and in order to stay out of the newly defined wetland area. He stated it would cause the parking to be reconfigured to the south of the property. The same quantity of parking spaces remain. Mr. Mamola requested Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan approvals. He stated there were two issues that needed to be resolved; 1) the parking setback as measured from the rear yard and 2) the screening requirements for Andes Court which is not a public street. He requested Special Land Use approval subject to the Planning Commission granting a waiver of the greenbelt parking setback in the rear yard and the zoning variance of the berm.

Art Johnson highlighted the uses of his building. He asked that everything be taken into consideration for his project and asked that approval be granted.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval of the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan due to several issues. The most significant issues relate to the setback of the parking area and the need for the berm. He thought they were somewhat interconnected. There is a 100' setback required for parking from a Residential property line, however, the Planning Commission has the ability to grant a waiver down to 60'. He thought there were some unusual circumstances with the particular lot because it is a corner lot and some of the natural features, however, he was not in a position to make a recommendation at this time until the issues regarding the berming and screening have been addressed. If that issue can be resolved, he thought he would be able to support a positive recommendation. The berm requirement is related to the fact that the roadway serving Andes Hills is not a public roadway. The Ordinance states the screening requirements for a berm can be waived if a public road separates residential from non-residential. Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant provided a noise analysis and the recommendation was that the dumpster be shifted further to the north away from the residential area, Mr. Arroyo would like to see this addressed and stated it could be addressed at the time of Final. There were minor issues related to information on the plan that he would like to see provided at the time of Final.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant stated there are existing utilities to service the site, storm water will directed into a detention basin which is located on the south part of the site. The storm water will discharge at a restricted rate to an existing storm sewer. There are water quality controls proposed, there are also permanent water quality controls within the detention basin as well as temporary sedimentation controls. Ms. Weber stated it appears that there will be an amount of grading occurring along Grand River as well as Taft Road within the R.O.W. She expressed concern with the site distance and felt it could be addressed at the time of Final. Ms. Weber recommended approval.

In regard to soil erosion, Ms. Weber stated a Soil Erosion Permit will be required. She stated the comments of Mr. McAdams could be addressed at the time of Final.

In regard to wetlands, Ms. Weber stated due to the impacts, the wetlands fall under the Minor Use Category and can be reviewed Administratively.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan with the provision that a ZBA variance be granted for the berm along the southern property line. There are woodlands on the site in the southwest corner, the applicant is not disturbing them, therefore, no permit is required. She stated she would be looking at inspection fees and fence maintenance bonds at the time of Final. In regard to the berm, Ms. Lemke stated there needs to be a change in species and additional evergreen plantings to meet the screening requirements. Ms. Lemke would also like the applicant to look into the feasibility of saving the existing hedgerow along the southern property line which continues from the southwest corner all the way across to Taft Road. It provides a lot of natural screening. With these comments, Ms. Lemke recommended approval.

Doug Necci of JCK stated the facade review indicated an excessive amount of split faced block on the southwest facades of 64% and 55% and only 50% is allowed. He did not recommend approval based on those two deviations from the Facade Chart. He clarified that the last three lines in his letter appear by mistake, it addresses a Section 4 Waiver which does not apply at this point. Mr. Necci thought there were some adjustments that could be made to bring the building into full compliance.

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 condition; 1) the applicant shall provide a Hazardous Chemical Survey and Inventory for both the occupant and construction activity.

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.

DISCUSSION

In regard to the required 100' parking lot setback, Member Capello asked if the 100' were to begin from the R.O.W. line...

Mr. Arroyo stated if it were a public street, the berm would not be required. The parking setback is still 100' regardless if there is a public street or not, however, the Planning Commission could reduce it to 60' because it is adjacent to residential property.

Member Capello asked if there would be a problem with an 82' setback?

Mr. Arroyo stated he was willing to support it if the screening issues were satisfactorily resolved.

Member Capello asked the applicant what he intended to do with the facades?

Mr. Mamola stated he had the intent to comply with the Facade Ordinance, therefore, he was not seeking a Waiver.

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated if it were to be approved, it should be done so subject to a ZBA variance on the berm requirement.

Member Koneda asked if there was any chance of the private road becoming a public road?

In terms of the construction, Mr. Arroyo could not comment because he could not recall if it was constructed to public standards. However, he did not think there was any likelihood that it would ever be accepted as a public road because he did not think there would be adequate R.O.W. to be able to do so and maintain the setbacks.

In regard to the berming, Member Koneda asked Ms. Lemke if the berm were put in place, would it have an adverse affect on the existing trees?

Ms. Lemke answered, probably.

Member Koneda clarified that it would more than likely be detrimental to put the berming in.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes, to the existing hedgerows.

Member Csordas asked if mail merging and all of the other processes that go on in the building would create high noise levels?

Mr. Johnson answered, no. He stated it has actually become much quieter through the years. He explained it is an office type product such as the noise level of a laser printer.

Member Csordas asked what the applicant anticipated happening in the high bay area that was not to be leased out?

Mr. Johnson answered he was trying to draw a very high-tech tenant. He stated he would like to see an automotive prototype. He felt the exposure was very good for a high quality client and stated it would not be used for anything other than that.

Member Csordas asked Mr. Arroyo if the private road would have the same R.O.W. as a public road?

Mr. Arroyo answered, it would have no R.O.W., it would only have an easement because it is not a public road. He did not recall if the dimensions of the road were built to the 28' standard.

In regard to drainage to the west, Chairperson Weddington recalled that there was a resident who complained about drainage and flooding of his property and she wanted to make sure that the development did not have any adverse impact on other properties or worsen the flooding condition.

Ms. Weber stated the drainage on the site falls to the southeast. She stated there was quite a bit of grade on the site. The water would be detained on site, therefore it was to be treated as an agricultural flow coming off from the site, going into a storm sewer that was designed to pick up the off site flow. At this point, she did not foresee any problems with any drainage to the west.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Mamola to address the lighting issue along the south exterior. He asked if there were any flood lights or lighting intended in that area?

Mr. Mamola answered, there was a light at the south drive and a light toward the west in the island. Those were the only two light posts he was aware of at the moment that would light the south area. He believed them to be about 30' tall. He stated there were other lights along the westerly border by the entry of the drive. The only lights coming from the building would be a soffit light over the doorways. He stated there was bollard lighting along the pedestrian entries.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo if public R.O.W. standards for a typical subdivision street were 60'?

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

Member Mutch asked Ms. Lemke to clarify that the reason the applicant was not able to provide the berm was because of the need for the detention area.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Mamola if that was the only location for the storm water detention on the site?

Mr. Mamola stated it was the natural low spot on the site.

PM-98-12-223 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT APPROVAL INCLUDING REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND DRIVEWAY SPACING VARIANCE SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CITY’S CONSULTANT’S CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND ZBA VARIANCE FOR THE BERM AND FULL COMPLIANCE WITH FACADE STANDARDS FOR JOHNSON GROUP SERVICES, SP98-44

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval and Special Land Use Permit approval including rear yard setback variance and driveway spacing variance subject to all of the City’s Consultant’s conditions and recommendations and ZBA variance for the berm and full compliance with Facade Standards for Johnson Group Services SP98-44.

DISCUSSION

Member Mutch asked Mr. Mamola if he would be making the modification to the parking area to address the wetland issue?

Mr. Mamola answered, yes.

Member Mutch stated he would vote for the motion because Ms. Lemke stated she could address the screening issue, otherwise he would not support it because he thought there was a concern where a variance was being provided on the rear yard setback. Also, without the berming, the normal setback does not exist. He stated he trust’s Ms. Lemke’s good judgement and stated he would support the motion.

VOTE ON PM-98-12-223 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

1. SIEMENS BUILDING ADDITION SP98-47 (continuation)

Project is located in Section 35 on Nine Mile Road, east of Novi road. The 9.324 acre-site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Special Land Use Permit approval.

Chairperson Weddington announced that the Matter was postponed from the last meeting to resolve several issues raised by the Consultants.

Terry Bilovus represented Ari-El Enterprises. He explained that the project was a 16,500 square foot addition to the Siemens Building. He reviewed the issues that were brought up by the Planning Consultants. He stated there were truck wells on the west side of the building that have been long since filled in and are no longer used. The overhead doors have been removed and they are no longer loading areas. He stated the walls needed to be removed to facilitate the construction of the new building. There are other loading areas around the building. Mr. Bilovus stated deceleration tapers have been added, the entrance has been widened and a deceleration lane has been added to the plan. He stated he also pulled all of the existing front yard parking back at the front of the building. There was an issue with the required berm between residential and industrial property, he stated shrubs would be added to fill in any of the voids. In regard to the noise analysis, Mr. Bilovus stated he was in the process of trying to decide whether to go to the ZBA for a variance or to have a sound consultant do an analysis. He stated it could be resolved prior to Final Site Plan approval. The bikepath has been added to the plan and he stated the landscaping would be adjusted. There was a requirement for a 4' greenbelt all the way around the building, he stated there would now be parallel parking along the building to allow for an 8' greenbelt. In regard to the three fire hydrants that no longer comply to City requirements, he stated he has called for them to be upgraded to current standards. The engineer is also looking into the Fire Department connections and it can be resolved before the Final. In regard to the gazebo, he explained that there is metal roofing on an existing shed at the east entry, this metal will be continued on the gazebo roof. As far as the wood, the actual area implied surface is less than 25%.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated it appears that there a number of issues that are in the process of being resolved, some of which may require ZBA action. He stated there were some other improvements to the plans that were submitted that he has not had a chance to review, he stated as long as the traffic related improvements are shown on the Final Site Plan and they meet City requirements, then he would be in a position to support it.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant had no additional comments and recommended approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated it appears that all of her concerns have been addressed. She continued to recommend approval and stated she would look for those items addressed this evening at the time of Final.

Doug Necci of JCK asked the applicant if the existing building had a metal roof in addition to the one over the entrance? He explained that the approach he took was to use the language in the Ordinance which allows for a continuation of existing construction as the basis for the waiver. He stated the applicant has replaced the asphalt shingles with a standing seam metal roof which will tie it into the existing building substantially. Mr. Necci stated it was important that the color of the metal be the same as the existing metal. He commented that wood portion could be stained with opaque stain and the color could be tied into the masonry portion of the existing building. He stated these two things together would substantially integrate the gazebo with the existing building and he recommended approval contingent on these two items.

Mr. Bilovus clarified that the metal he intended to match was on the shed roof. He stated there is a metal band over a portion of the higher roof area that is not really noticeable from the road. He stated the smaller shed roof was more of a bronze color and he thought it made sense to tie into the metal that was more related to the structure. In regard to the wood, Mr. Bilovus was opposed to staining the wood an opaque color because he did not understand why he would try to hide the fact that it was wood when it falls well within the 25% requirement.

Member Koneda asked Mr. Necci if he proposed that the shed roof be changed as well?

Mr. Necci answered ideally that would be his choice, however, it would require painting it. Architecturally it would be the preferable solution.

Member Csordas asked how many issues would be required to be reviewed by the ZBA?

Mr. Arroyo stated the bikepath issue would be addressed, he stated the parking in the front yard would be addressed, therefore, the noise analysis was the remaining issue that would need to be resolved either through the applicant submitting a noise analysis or going to the ZBA.

Member Csordas did not see any sense in doing a noise analysis on the property to a cemetery.

Chairperson Weddington stated it was required by the Ordinance.

Mr. Bilovus stated he was looking into the noise consultant as opposed to going to the ZBA as to which was more expedient.

The owner of the property stated he was puzzled by the lengthy process that he has been put through for his project. He stated the whole issue came about primarily because of the cemetery. He stated the addition to his building is for offices, there would be no additional noise and stated he was going for a variance because he needed to and wanted to expedite the project. He stated there was no agenda that he was trying to escape, he was trying to comply with the Ordinance requirements that he had hoped could be resolved Administratively.

Member Csordas stated the comments of the applicant speaks to his point. Logically speaking he understood that it was a requirement of the Ordinance and asked if it was truly necessary? He asked if it set a negative precedent if the Commission does not require it and if it is required, does it put an unnecessary burden on the developer?

Mr. Weisberger answered the Ordinance requires it and until the Ordinance is changed they would have to comply. He stated it was being looked into by the Implementation Committee.

Member Watza understood that the Commission was requiring the applicant to spend money to find out how much noise it takes to wake the dead. He thought it was unfortunate and apologized to the applicant that he had to be put through it.

Mr. Weisberger added that the ZBA looks to the Planning Commission on their thoughts with regard to certain projects.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval and Special Land Use Permit approval for Siemens Building Addition SP98-47 subject to all of the Consultants recommendations including the bikepath and ZBA variance for Noise Analysis and also landscape screening in lieu of the berm.

VOTE ON PM-98-12-224 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

Moved by Capello, seconded by Piccinini.

The owner made some comments that were not picked up on tape.

Member Capello stated he included the roof comments in the motion to satisfy Mr. Necci, he stated he spoke to Mr. Necci several times regarding the issue and stated whatever the applicant could work out with Mr. Necci to satisfy him would also satisfy the Commission.

Mr. Necci stated the applicant was right about not being able to get an exact match, however, inasmuch as the materials do not touch each other, a close match would be fine.

Member Koneda understood the motion to say that the shed roof material must be changed, he thought what the applicant was asking and what Mr. Necci has agreed to was to leave the material as it is but to make sure that the color is compatible. He asked if the motion needed to be amended.

Mr. Necci clarified that the new roof touches the lower shed roof, therefore, they have to match each other, either by painting the existing or putting new product on both the new and the lower shed roof.

Member Piccinini asked Mr. Necci if painting the metal roof would work?

Mr. Necci stated painting was done as a maintenance solution to metal siding that has diminished in quality, he stated there were paint products that have almost the same durability as the original factory applied paint. He did not think it was a big issue.

Mr. Necci agreed to require that the color of the proposed new roof and the shed roof should be harmonious with the existing metal band and the color of the wood should be harmonious with existing masonry.

PM-98-12-226 TO AMEND THE MOTION TO GRANT A SECTION 4 WAIVER TO SIEMEN’S BUILDING ADDITION SP98-47 SUBJECT TO MR. NECCI’S APPROVAL OF CONSISTENCY OF COLOR BETWEEN THE EXISTING ROOF AND THE PROPOSED NEW ROOF AND ALSO THE WOOD TO BE HARMONIOUS WITH THE EXISTING MASONRY COLOR

Moved by Capello, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend the motion to grant a Section 4 Waiver to Siemen’s Building Addition SP98-47 subject to Mr. Necci’s approval of consistency of color between the existing roof and the proposed new roof and also the wood to be harmonious with the existing masonry color.

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

No: None

Member Mutch stated the Commission does not normally send recommendations to the ZBA, however, because of the unique nature of the site with the cemetery and recognizing that the waiver of the sound analysis is not going to create any kind of negative impacts, he thought it would be proper for the Commission to send a positive recommendation to the ZBA to waive the sound analysis for the site.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to the ZBA to grant a waiver of the sound analysis for Siemens Building Addition SP98-47 due to the unique situation of the site being adjacent to a cemetery and there being no other adverse impacts on residences.

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

No: None

1. PLANNING AND TRAFFIC BRIEFINGS BY ROD ARROYO, PLANNING AND TRAFFIC CONSULTANT

Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated the Department has been trying to present Commissioner briefings regarding various operations of the Commission and technical matters so that the Commission is aware of the latest planning practices. He stated this was a new way of getting information to the Commissioners and hoped it would be helpful.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant put together a slide presentation and then gave a brief introduction of the training series that he hoped to have at most Planning Commission meetings. He stated it was an ongoing training series where at the end of each Planning Commission meeting, five or ten minutes would be devoted to a single topic. He stated there would be a one page handout sheet at each session so that after time, each Commissioner would have a pretty good resource of information that could be referred to on a regular basis.

Mr. Wahl provided a draft report of the Planning Work Program for the upcoming year. He stated he would like to have an initial discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting. He also stated he would like to schedule a Planning Studies Committee Meeting as soon as possible to start the process.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

PM-98-12-227 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:30 P.M.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:30 p.m.

VOTE ON PM-98-12-227 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

_____________________________________

Kelly Schuler - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

December 14, 1998

Date Approved: January 06, 1999