HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-08-12MINUTES OF THE 9W REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 12, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 967" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel
Ashley Vartoogian Carol A. Srriley Ian Wilshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2008-07-08-08 RBS CONSTRUCTION
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-07-
08-08 submitted by RBS Construction, Inc., on behalf of
Advanced Marketing Partners, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exteriors of the
commercial buildings located at 27690 and 27700 Joy Road, on
property located on the north side of Joy Road between Inkster
Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 36.
August 12, 2008
24926
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exteriors of
the two commercial buildings located on the north side of Joy
Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue. The main
change to the exterior of the structure would take place primarily
on the south elevation. This side is the front elevation facing
Joy Road. To help create a consistent architectural
appearance, a new decorative parapet wall would extend the
rootline of the front elevation upward approximately 5 feel. This
new parapet would be constructed out of E.I.F.S. (Dryvil) and
have a decorative comice along the lop edge. To help
distinguish the main entrance at the east end of the building, the
parapet wall in this section would be off -set and stepped up
another 4 feel in height. The parapet feature would also project
out from the building 5 feet creating a uniform overhang over the
entire front elevation. The existing brick sections of the front
facade would be cleaned and the mortar joints would be re -
pointed. Re -pointing is the process of carefully removing
deteriorated mortar from the joints of a masonry wall and
replacing it with new mortar. New windows and door systems
would replace the existing windows and doorframes. The only
other side of the structure that would be refurbished would be
the west elevation. This side of the building is visible from
Cardwell Avenue. The end of the front parapet feature would be
evident on this elevation. Also a new roof screening material
would be installed to help conceal the existing rooftop
mechanical equipment. The existing brick and mortar joints of
this elevation would also be cleaned and re -pointed. The
remaining elevations (north and east) of the existing building
would be cleaned and painted. Proposed site improvements
noted on the plans include: (1) the sealing and restriping of the
existing asphalt parking lot; (2) the existing brick screen wall
behind the building along the north property line would have its
cap pulled and replaced and the wall re -pointed and painted; (3)
a dumpster enclosure would be assembled behind the building;
(4) the existing roofed open hoist on the east side of the building
would be removed; (5) the fencing securing the east drive that
leads back to the storage building would be replaced with a new
composite fence and gate; and (6) one of the existing pole
signs, the one near the westerly driveway, would be removed.
The plan also notes that all the existing landscaping and
amenities are to remain and all existing site lighting would be
used. The elevation plan shows a wall sign on the building. If
Advanced Marketing Partners occupy the entire structure, they
would be allowed one wall sign not to exceed 132 square feel.
The wall sign as shown on the building is 62 square feet so it is
a conforming sign. That is the extent of the proposal.
August 12, 2008
24927
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 17, 2008, which reads as
follows: At your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above petition. We have no objection to the
proposed petition. There are no additional right-0f-way
requirements. No legal descriptions were forwarded, however,
the parcels as shown agree with the City tax records with the
exception that the East property line of the West parcel should
be labeled as 160.00 feet rather than 116.00 feet. The site
location map is in error. The address of the easterly building is
27690 Joy Road. The addresses of the two westerly units are
displayed as 27712 and 27720 Joy Road, although the address
of the westerly parcel is 27700 Joy Road. The displayed
addresses are appropriate if separate addresses are desired."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., on behalf of the
City. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated July 24, 2008, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to renovate the exterior of the existing commercial
building on the property located at the above- eferenced
location. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated July 11, 2008, which reads as
foVows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with
Advanced Marketing Partners located at 27700 and 27690 Joy
Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans
as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated August 4, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of July 9, 2008, the above- eferenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) All
regular parking spaces are to be a 10'144de and 207n length and
double striped. (2) The weeds growing up in the parking lot at
the rear of the building and along the fence lines shall be
removed and controlled. (3) The existing parking lot shall be
repaired, sealed and re striped as necessary. (4) The number
of parking spaces for the proposed use is sufficient. Should the
building ever be used for retail sales the number of spaces
required would be 43. This would cause a deficiency of 10
spaces, thus without a Zoning Board of Appeals variance the
use must remain as it is. (5) Properties should be combined to
eliminate firewall requirements between 27690 and 27712. (6)
This is an existing non-conforming building. The side yard and
rear yard setbacks of 27690 Joy are deficient. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
August 12, 2008
24928
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the Planning Department before we
go to the petitioner? Seeing none, we will go the petitioner. If
you could please step forward to the podium, we'll just need to
start with your name and address for our record.
Joseph Hammond, RBS Construction, Inc., 2250 Genoa Business Park Drive,
Suite 100, Brighton, Michigan 48114.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the
presentation thus far?
Mr. Hammond:
Actually, the only items that were brought up at our work study
meeting were the louvers on the east side of the buildings. We
had called out for those to initially be painted to match the wall
of the building, and one of the commission members asked that
we explore finding a brick to match, which we have done. So
we will be happy to take that and make that change to the plan
as well as in the field. And then secondly, I think Mr. Taormina
brought up the fact that the parcel was adjacent to residential at
the east. Researching the City's zoning map, we have
determined that it is actually C-2 zoning all the way from
Cardwell Avenue east to Inkster Road. So we shouldn't have
an issue with this being a fence along residential zoning.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for Mr. Hammond?
Ms. McDermott:
Good evening. I have a couple questions. One, I noted when I
out there today that currently there's lights on the front of the
building and they're broken. I'm assuming since we're fixing
that area up, we're going to add some kind of lighting on there
or is that not the case?
Mr. Hammond:
No, there will be down lighting added in the soffit, but it will be
directionally down only.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. All right. Then also, behind the building, on the western
northwest side behind the building, there's a cement ramp that
appears to be quite crumbled and in disrepair.
Mr. Hammond:
That is going to be removed. I thought it was called out that
way on the plan. That entire structure will be taken out. There
was an old loading unloading ramp for trucks.
August 12, 2008
24929
Ms. McDermott:
That's good. I'm glad to see that the Inspection Department
mentioned the greenery and the weeds and everything that's
going to be cleaned up. I'm assuming you're okay with that.
Mr. Hammond:
Absolutely.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. And I'm curious. When I went around the east side of
the building to the back, there's an elevated structure. It sits
behind there. Not the one where if you drive through, I'm not
talking about the one that looks like it might have been an area
for something to park under. But it looks like it might have been
a little spot for a security person, or is that not on the property?
I was confused when I was there if that's on your property.
Mr. Hammond:
No. That's on the adjoining property. That's on the other side
of the masonry wall. So it would be to the residents to the west
of that parcel, or to the north of the westerly parcel.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. All right. Okay, and then one more thing. I noticed
mentioned that the landscaping would remain the same, but
there's really not any landscaping. It's just grass. Is there any
way maybe we could add a little bit to the front there?
Mr. Hammond:
Its the right-of-way area. The parking lot extends to the
property lines. I guess we were concerned about the amount of
parking that we already have, and the fact that if there ever is a
change of use, we are coming back before you again. So
removing lands or removing parking to put in landscape islands
didn't seem sensible. If I can put a couple of trees in your right -
of way, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Taormina:
If I can respond to that, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Walsh:
Please.
Mr. Taormina:
That is something that we were going to suggest this evening.
Rather than try to eliminate any of parking spaces in favor of
additional landscaping, because they are shy on parking, is
instead to make certain improvements within the right -of way.
So if he's willing to do that, we can work with our Public
Services Division for some kind of planting within the right-of-
way area. I think that would be a substantial benefit. There are
some other areas along the west side of the property where
some bumper blocks are dismantled. Some of them are even in
the sidewalk blocking the sidewalk.
Mr. Hammond:
That will all be cleaned up. The plan was to completely reseal
the parking lot and re -stripe it. The owner and I have even been
August 12, 2008
24930
discussing repaving the entire lot. So all of that will be cleaned
up at that lime.
Mr. Taormina:
That would be great. We can modify any resolution of approval
to include a condition relative to landscaping within the right-of-
way.
Ms. McDermott:
That would be great. And then one more thing, the brick wall
(hats in the back that we're talking about pulling the cap off and
foxing. Are we pretty comfortable that we can make that look
nice the way it is without totally redoing it?
Mr. Hammond:
I think so. I dont think that the brick has deteriorated at all. The
stone cap clearly is and (hats whafs showing all the abuse. I
guess it would be partly kids on lop of it, etc. So I have no
problem. In fad, that was on the plan that we intended to
remove the cap and replace the cap. I think that will help
immensely.
Ms. McDermott:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions or comments?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just one brief question to the Planning Department if I may.
Typically, we ask that the dumpster enclosure be of similar
material to the building. As the plan appears, it looks like ifs a
slated material of some sort. Does that fit within the character
of the building or is that acceptable?
Mr. Taormina:
Are you talking about the gates?
Mr. Wilshaw:
No, the enclosure itself.
Mr. Taormina:
I would say any type of masonry enclosure would suffice. Its
already going to be blocked on two sides. So all he really has to
provide for is a masonry wall on the south side and that would
complete it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Does that seem reasonable to you?
Mr. Hammond:
Well, we weren't planning on cutting any of that asphalt and
putting foundations in which would be required for a masonry
enclosure. There is nothing there now. Okay?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Right.
Mr. Hammond:
We were putting that structure up because we could utilize the
existing surface that is there. It is hidden. With the exception of
August 12, 2008
24931
driving north on Cardwell, you're never going to see that. So,
we just figured that 8 would be acceptable using a board on
board endosure. If you want, I'll use the same vinyl material
we're using on the east side of the building, if that's acceptable
to you.
Mr. Taormina:
That would probably be acceptable. We'll tum to the Inspection
Department. But he's correct. It's not a visible loca0on. So we
could probably get away with some other type of material to
avoid the need to put in a foo0ng or a foundation there, and that
would work.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That seems reasonable to me as well. I do want to say
that I appreciate you looking at briding in those screens that
are on the side of the building. I really do appreciate that, and I
do appreciate the fact that you have responded to all our
questions in a positive way and you're willing to accommodate
our requests.
Mr. Hammond:
You're welcome.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any addi0onal ques0ons or comments? Seeing none,
we have a very light crowd here tonight. It's all petitioners. So I
think we can move straight on to a resolution.
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-65-2008
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-07-08-08
submitted by RBS Construction, Inc., on behalf of Advanced
Marke0ng Partners, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to renovate the exteriors of the commercial buildings
located at 27690 and 27700 Joy Road, on property located on
the north side of Joy Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell
Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 36, be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP -1 dated July 7,
2008, prepared by RBS Construction, Inc., is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. Thatthe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet No.
A-10 dated July 7, 2008, prepared by RBS Construction,
Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
August 12, 2008
24932
3. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
4. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of building materials that shall complement
that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of
steel construction or durable, long-lasting fiberglass and
maintained and when not in use closed at all times;
5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated August 4, 2008;
6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
7. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for;
9. That landscaping shall be added to the road rights-of-way
at the direction of the Planning Department and subject to
approval of the Department of Public Services; and
10. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: If we might consider adding a condition that landscaping shall
be added to the road rights-of-way at the direction of the
Planning Department.
Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to Mr. Wilshaw and Mr. Morrow? Then it is so
amended. Ms. McDermott?
Ms. McDermott That was actually my comment. Thank you.
August 12, 2008
24933
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments?
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment to the petitioner. Any time a site is redeveloped
and makes it a good addition to the City and Joy Road, I just
want to thank you for the development.
Mr. Hammond: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#2 PETITION 2008-02-02-07 LAURELPOINTE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
02-02-07 submitted by Laurel Pointe L.L.C. requesting approval
of a landscape plan as required by CR #168-08 in connection
with a proposal to remodel the exterior, add outdoor sealing,
and increase the total seating capacity of the restaurant (Buffalo
Wild Wings) at 17050 Laurel Park Drive South, located on the
east side of Laurel Park Drive South between Six Mile Road and
Professional Center Drive in the Northeast one-quarter of
Section 18.
Mr. Miller: On April 16, 2008, the petitioner received waiver use approval
(CR #168-08) to remodel the exterior, add outdoor seating, and
increase the total seating capacity of the existing restaurant
(proposed to become Buffalo Wild Wings) located on the east
side of Laurel Park Drive South between Six Mile Road and
Professional Center Drive. As part of the approval, it was
conditioned that a fully detailed landscape plan for the
landscaped berm adjacent to the Six Mile Road right-of-way
line, including a cross-sectional profile plan for the proposed
lowering of the berm, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Planning Commission and City Council. On June 30,
2008, a landscape plan was submitted. The following list of
proposed changes to the subject site are construed from a letter
dated June 23, 2008, that was submitted with the proposed
landscape plan. (1) The planting areas around the existing
ground signs for both the Laurel Pointe building and the Buffalo
Wild Wings restaurant would be slightly expanded towards Six
Mile Road with ornamental grass and spreading carpel rose. (2)
Fifteen Junipers would be planted around the edge of the
outside patio of the restaurant to help screen the dining area
August 12, 2008
24934
from the surrounding parking lot and the adjacent neighborhood.
(3) Four ornamental deciduous trees (Serviceberry) would be
planted behind the restaurant along the right-of-way of
Professional Center Drive. (4) Two deciduous type trees
(American Hombeam) would be planted on the two sides of the
drive off Professional Center Drive. (5) To help make the
eastern drive off Six Mile Road more inviting, the existing
earthberm in that area would be tapered and graded down. The
height of the bene would be similar to the grading height and
tapering at the other end of the berm near Laurel Park Drive. (6)
To help better relate the two ends of the bene and provide safe
walkup access to the property, a sidewalk, mirroring the one at
the west flank of the berm, would be added along the eastern
section of the new tapered berm. (7) Because of the grading of
the berm, five existing pine trees would have to be removed. In
their place, two new deciduous trees (Littleleaf Linden) would be
planted. That's basically the extent of the landscape plan.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated August 4, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of July 3, 2008, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. All existing
and proposed landscaped areas should have a functioning
irrigation system installed. This should be detailed to the
Commission and Council's satisfaction. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing
none, we will go the petitioner. Good evening.
Sharon A. Ulmer, Laurel Point L.L.C., 37699 Six Mile Road, Suite 220, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the
presentation thus far?
Ms. Ulmer: I just would like to point out that the prior use of this building
was a Ground Round, and on the eastern end of the building, it
was the back corner of the restaurant. When we negotiated a
lease with Buffalo Wild Wings, restaurants today are smaller
and don't take up as much room, so we put in a jewelry on the
eastern end of the building. In order to do that, we're greatly
renovating that end of the building. We're doing a lot of
improvements to that end, including a clock. I brought along a
August 12, 2008
24935
copy of the elevation because it was included in our site plan
approval, our waiver use approval, but it's not in this
landscaping. I think it's important to see that. I can pass that
out. What we're trying to do is create an entrance. Instead of
having this curb cul be a back entrance to a restaurant, it's now
an entrance to a destination jewelry store. That's one of the
reasons we're putting the sidewalk in so that pedestrian traffic
can gel into the center and just have that view. I think it will be
a much better view. If you'd like, can I pass that out?
Mr. Walsh:
If you hand them to Mr. Miller, he'll make sure we see them.
While that's coming along, are there any questions for the
petitioner? We'll lake a look at this and see if there are any
questions. Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I appreciate the perspective elevation drawings that you
provided to us. That does help me a lot in understanding tie
tapering of this bene. At this point, I feel comfortable that the
tapering of the berm on that side is complementary to the other
side and does seem to be a good thing. The question I have,
though, is some of the trees that are currently there that are
going to be removed are pretty nice trees. Is there any
opportunity that you would have or potential for replacing the
trees that are going to be removed closer to the proposed
sidewalk?
Ms. Ulmer:
Are you talking about the new trees that are going to be
planted? You would like them planted closer to the sidewalk?
Mr. Wilshaw:
No. The new trees are fine. I'm just saying additional trees,
other than those two that are proposed to be on that side.
Ms. Ulmer:
Well, in laking a look at our neighbors on either side, I also took
some pictures. If you start at Six Mile Road and you head down
to 275, down Six Mile Road from 275 to Newburgh, you pass,
first of all, the Best Western Motel, which has no berm and
doesn't have any trees on it. Then you hit the Red Robin who
has four small crablrees but no berm. Then you have our
property which right now, we have a berth. The majority of that
berm, the height of that berm, would remain in place and we
have seven trees. We proposed four trees and the trade-off
there. What we thought we would do is enhance the garden
area to increase the beauty from the street with annuals,
flowering bushes, that type of thing. So past our property then
you hit the Evangelista office building, and they have two small
trees. They do have a berm. They have two small trees at the
curb cul and then there's a coif of a couple trees at the property
line. Then you hit Walgreens and there's no berth and no trees.
August 12, 2008
24936
We felt that our plan was pretty consistent with our neighbors. I
have some pictures detailing this too.
Mr. Wilshaw: This was a follow-up question that would be to the Planning
Department if they feel that the landscaping provided on this
berm is adequate based on their professional experience.
Mr. Taormina: There's wel over 400 feet of frontage between the two
properties with four trees. Typically, with new developments we
like to see a little higher concentration of trees. The little leaf
Linden trees they're proposing to add don't really pose much of
an obstruction to the retail building. So the Planning
Department staff would recommend that some of the same
trees be provided along the right -0f way to replace the several
pine trees that will be removed.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. That's kind of the feeling I had. I can
understand where you're coming from based on the landscaping
that your neighbors have, but you do have a very long berth
there, and certainly a lot of opportunity to put in some more
ornamental trees and so on. So I offer that just as a suggestion
for you to think about. The other question I had for you is
unrelated to this landscaping if the Chair will indulge me. The
building is pretty much gone at this point. Was that part of the
original plan to completely demolish the building or is that a
consequence of once you got into it?
Ms. Ulmer: Well, when you start renovations, some things don't always go
the way you expect. We had planned to take the majority of the
roof off, which you saw come off. We had planned to save the
cultured stone, okay, and up until last weekend, we had planned
to save even more of the cultured stone but part of it fell down.
So you know, there's more down every time I drive in there.
Every time I drive to work I'm thinking, what else is going to be
gone. I'm told that's part of when you take an old building, you
don't know what you're going to gel.
Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. I just asked that because I drive by it regularly and I've
been seeing the same things you do. Wow, pieces of walls lett
is about it, but I'm sure in the end it's going to be a very nice
facility and I look forward to seeing it open. Thank you.
Ms. Ulmer: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any otherquestions?
Mr. Morrow: The only thing I would add to what Mr. Wilshaw said is, as you
develop the new plantings, I wouldn't want anything to be
August 12, 2008
24937
planted such as to prevent the view of the new jewelry store
from the road. If you're willing to add a few more trees or
whatever you determine, I wouldn't like to see it planted in such
a way as to obstruct loo much of the new jewelry store.
Secondly, could you tell me a little bit more about these annuals
you plan on planting and where they would be?
Ms. Ulmer:
They're around the sign. If you drive by the office retail building
sign right now, we're basically laking and duplicating that
around the restaurant monument sign, plus to both sides we're
bringing the garden bed down towards the sidewalk. We're
pulling in flowering carpel rows and ornamental grasses.
Mr. Morrow:
I know those look very nice. I'm pleased to hear that you're
doing some of that color work along the bene there. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions or comments? Thank you,
ma'am, for being here tonight. I don't believe there is anybody
in the audience to speak on this item. Again, just petitioners in
the audience this evening. With that, we would go on to a
resolution.
Mr. Morrow:
I'll offer an approving resolution. The first one refers to the
Landscape Plan marked Drawing No. 1 dated June 24, 2008, as
revised. I would like that revised to work in those trees that we
indicated.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#08-66-2008
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-02-02-07
submitted by Laurel Pointe L.L.C. requesting approval of a
landscape plan as required by Council Resolution #168-08 in
connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior, add outdoor
seating, and increase the total seating capacity of the restaurant
(Buffalo Wild Wings) at 17050 Laurel Park Drive South, located
on the east side of Laurel Park Drive South between Six Mile
Road and Professional Center Drive in the Northeast 114 of
Section 18, be approved subject tothe following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Drawing No. 1 dated
June 24, 2008, as revised, prepared by 3-D Design Group,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to
additional trees being planted along the Six Mile Road
frontage at the direction of the Planning Department;
August 12, 2008
24938
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition; and
4. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#168-08, which granted approval to remodel the exterior,
add outdoor seating, and increase the total sealing
capacity of the existing restaurant, shall remain in effect to
the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing
conditions.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2006-03-08-07 GENERAL PROPERTIES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
03-08-07 submitted by General Properties Company, L.L.C., on
behalf of Sunset View Site Condominiums, which previously
received approval by the City Council on April 26, 2006 (CR
#186-06) and a one-year extension on June 18, 2007 (CR #289-
07), requesting a two-year extension of the Master Deed,
bylaws and site plan in connection with a proposal to construct a
site condominium development on property located at 30250
Modock Street, on the west side of Sunset Avenue between
Eight Mile Road and Fargo Avenue in the Northwest I/ of
Section 2.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting a two-year extension of the
approvals granted in connection with the development of the
Sunset View Site Condominiums. City Council approved the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan of the development on April
26, 2006 (CR #186-06). This property is located on the west
side of Sunset Avenue between Eight Mile Road and Fargo
Avenue. Sunset View would be made up of 10 lots or units, all
fronting on Sunset Avenue. On June 18, 2007 a one-year
extension of said approvals was granted (CR # 289-07). In the
recent request letter dated June 30, 2008, the petitioner
explains: 'The Michigan economy is poor, especially for real
August 12, 2008
24939
estate. The opportunity to develop the site successfully requires
that we need at least a two year extension." That's the extent of
the proposal.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
I'll just note that we received one letter of objection from Esma
Elmazaj, dated August 12, 2008, at 20218 Sunset Street. Each
of the Commissioners should have a copy of that email
correspondence in your packet.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Seeing none, we'll go to Mr. Schubiner. Good evening.
Elliott Schubiner, General Properties Co., LLC, Box 250966, West Bloomfield,
Michigan 48325. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would
certainly welcome the opportunity to be able to gel a two-year
extension, but if we could gel a five-year extension, I think it
would be more apropos. The Michigan economy is not going to
change in our opinion for a minimum of five to 10 years. The
question is, will there be some isolated situations perhaps that
might be able to be developed and sold? Yes, but its very,
very, in our location, particularly, I think, its doubtful. I hale to
be the voice of doom and gloom, but our apartment business is
so bad that its been frightening. People are just leaving,
unfortunately, for whatever reason, out of work, doubling up with
their brothers and sisters and going home to mama and being
fired, as we had two today. Its really quite sad. The
opportunity for new construction, I think, is minimal in my
opinion. Not that there aren't new properties being built and
sold, but I don't believe that in our humble opinion that it is the
right thing to do right now, other than to postpone. If you can
and if you can see your way clear to do that, we would
appreciate it very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you,
sir, for being here. There are no remaining members of the
audience, so a motion would be in order at this time.
On a motion by
Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-67-2008
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-03-08-07
submitted by General Properties Company, L.L.C., on behalf of
Sunset View Site Condominiums, which previously received
approval by the City Council on April 26, 2006 (Council
Resolution #186-06) and a one-year extension on June 18,
2007 (Council Resolution #289-07), requesting a two-year
August 12, 2008
24940
extension of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan in
connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium
development on property located at 30250 Morlock Street, on
the west side of Sunset Avenue between Eight Mile Road and
Fargo Avenue in the Northwest''/. of Section 2, be approved, as
amended, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the request for a second extension of Site Plan
Approval by General Properties Company, in connection
with Sunset View Site Condominiums, in a letter dated
June 30, 2008, is hereby approved, as amended, for a
one-year period; and
2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #186-06
in connection with Petition 2006-03-08-07, which approved
the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan in connection with a
proposal to construct a site condominium development,
shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in
conflict with the foregoing condition.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make, I know Mr. Schubiner asked
for a two year extension, but it's pretty much been this bodys
practice to extend it for one year. Perhaps you'll have better
luck at the Council level, but our approval will be for only one
year.
Mr. Walsh: I think you made a good argument today. I'm going to support
the one year extension that's on the table. I think we're inclined
by history to do that, but I think the news you've given us is
known to all of us. So perhaps it's something we'll have to start
considering as we move forward. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 966th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 966"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on July 22, 2008.
August 12, 2008
24941
On a motion by Vartoogian, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, 8
was
#08-68-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 966" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 22,
2008, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolu0on resulted in the following:
AYES: Vartoogian, Smiley, McDermott, Morrow, Scheel,
Wilshaw, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 967" Regular
Meeting held on August 12, 2008, was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary