Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-10-07MINUTES OF THE 971'' REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 7, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 971"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 Carol Smiley Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Membersabsenl: Ashley Vartoogian Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's 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 fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PET ITION 2008-09-08-10 14KJEWELERS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-09- 08-10 submitted by G.A.V. Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior of the commeroial shopping center (New Five Village Center) located at 37571 Five Mile Road (14K Jewelers), located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 19. Mr. Miller: New Five Village Center is made up of over 20 units, with some storefronts facing Five Mile Road and other storefronts facing in the direction of Newburgh Road. To the south of the property is St. Edith Church and the Villa Marie senior complex. 14K Jewelers occupies one of the corner units at the eastern end of the shopping center. This corner unit has 42 feet of exposure along its north (Five Mile Road) elevation and 36 feet of frontage along its east (Newburgh Road) elevation. The existing architecture of the entire shopping center is basically brick, ribbons of large picture windows and a metal seam mansard roof. The petitioner is proposing to install a 10 foot band of E.I.F.S (Dryvit) to replace the existing metal seam mansard roof. The roofine of the unit would be mised about 3 feet and adorned with decorative comice. An off -set brick tower element, approximately 34 feet in height, would be constructed over the northern entrance. A copper roofing material would crown the tower element. Cast stone columns would support the newly created overhang over the unit's two frontages. Cast stone would also cover the existing brick along the lower section of the unit's exterior. Thal is the extent of the proposal. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 9, 2008, which reads as follows: At your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above petition. We have no objection to the proposed petition. Then= are no additional right-of-way requirements. It is noted that the two 32" columns are being placed in the existing sidewalk area and are positioned with 4- 3" +/- clearance to the face of the building. Since this is a building exterior remodeling project, we have no further comments at this time. The address of 37571 Five Mile Road is correct." 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 September 25, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of a portion of the commercial shopping center (New Five Village Center) located at the above -referenced address. 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 September 9, 2008, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with 14K Jewelers located at 37587 Five Mile. 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 September 30, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 3, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking spaces are currently single striped. In the future, these parking spaces should be double striped per the ordinance. 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 for our Planning Department? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. Would the petitioner please step forward? Please give us your name and address for our records. At Valentine, G.A.V. Associates, 31471 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. Good evening. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add? Mr. Valentine: No, I'm just representing the owner of the jewelry store. We're trying to create his own identity and create a focal point on the corner. This center is a little outdated. We're just trying to bring it up to some current design and give him his own look, something that you would see from a distance. There's a lot of competition especially in today's market, so we're hoping this will do it for him. He's willing to sign a long -lens lease with the owner of the center. They're both chipping in to incur the expense of the remodeling. Unfortunately, the owner of the plaza at this time cannot continue the remodeling throughout the center. Hopefully, in the future he will. Time will tell. Any questions, I'd be glad to answer. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: I see that you are adding some brick above the main entrance. Is it all full face four inch brick or will there be any panel brick connected with that? Mr. Valentine: Its all full brick except when you get over the roof of the structure. Due to the weight of the brick, it would be the same brick but thin that would be adhered to sheeting. Mr. Morrow: That's because you don't have the proper support? Mr. Valentine: Correct. It would be quite an undertaking to create structure to carry full brick there. October? 2008 25010 Mr. Morrow: How do you intend to match the brick that's on the face? Mr. Valenfine: Itsthesamebrick. They just cut it thin. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? All right. Thank you, sir, for being here tonight. Mr. Valentine: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, ilwas #10-88-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-09-08-10 submitted by G.A.V. Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate a portion of the exterior of the commeroial shopping center (New Five Village Center) located at 37571 Five Mile Road (14K Jewelers), located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Blue Skies Avenue in the Northeast % of Section 19, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. A-1 dated September 2, 2008, as revised, prepared by G.A.V. Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet No. A-2 dated September 2, 2008, as revised, prepared by G.A.V. Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick up to the roof ine; after that, because of weight restrictions, a matching "thin' brick material (cultured) shall be permitted; 3. 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; October 7, 2008 25011 4. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 6. 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; and 7. 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 anydiscussion? Mr. Wilshaw: If I could ask a friendly amendment to the approving resolution that the condition be added that the brick shall be full face four inch brick up to the roofline so that we can insure that portion of it will be full brick. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Its acceptable. Just one comment. Are you saying, Ian, that what I'm looking at, they're not going to have it all the way up? Mr. Wilshaw: They'll have to use full face four inch brick up to the roofline, and then above that, they can use the panel brick, which seems to be what they indicated that they wanted to do. Mr. Morrow: Okay. I'm glad you caught that. I was not aware of that. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make one comment. Mr. Walsh: Sure. Well, first, are you accepting the change? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Please go ahead. Mr. Morrow: This is about the fourth pefition we've seen requesting panel brick. I had the opportunity to go out and sight check the first business that we approved the panel brick on. I'm a full supporter of the full face four inch brick. However, we're October 7, 2008 25012 starting to see people going into this remodeling mode, like we are here tonight, and structurally they just don't have the capacity to or don't want to incur the expense to use the full face four inch brick. The building, which is the one I think you're all familiar with, the party store on Middlebell, if you've seen it, it looks very, very nice. If we're going to gel some brick in the future, I think we're going to have to start looking a little more seriously at this panel brick if we're going to gel some brick as an architectural enhancement as we see heere tonight. So I'm very pleased with what I've seen so far. Like I say, this is our fourth request for it. I just wanted to add that to the record. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Are there any additional comments? Seeing none, would the secretary please call the roll? Ms. Smiley: Certainly. 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#2 PETITION 2008-09-08-11 McLAREN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 09-08-11 submitted by McLaren Performance Technologies requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with the construction of an addition to the industrial buildings located at 32205 Eight Mile Road, on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Road in the Northeast % of Section 3. Mr. Miller: The three buildings of McLaren Performance Technologies are; "Building No. 1" (32233 Eight Mile Rd.) which is located on the western part of the site and is the largest of the three at 38,000 square feet in area; "Building No. 2" (32205 Eight Mile Rd.) which is located at the northeast comer of the site, near the intersection of Eight Mile Road and Parker Avenue and is 9,730 square feel in size; "Building No. 3" (20503 Parker Ave.) which is located behind "Building No. 2" and fronts off Parker Avenue. This building is the smallest of the three and measures only 3,935 square feel in size. Adding up the square footage of the three buildings, McLaren Performance Technologies presently has 51,665 square feel of industrial space. The proposed addition would connect "Building No. 2" with "Building No. 3" and add 6,500 square feel of industrial area. Right now the October 7, 2008 25013 area between the buildings is a paved concrete corridor that allows traffic to access the large overhead doors that exist on the south elevation of "Building No. 2". The proposed addition would bring the combined building space up to 58,165 square feet. According to the submitted floor plan, the interior space of the proposed addition would be utilized for drivetrain testing. The proposed addition would be constructed out of building materials that would match that of the two existing buildings. Both east elevations (facing Parker Avenue) of Buildings No. 2" and Building No. 3" are constructed out of brick. To blend in, the east elevation of the proposed addition would be constructed out of a matching brick. The west elevations (interior, facing Building No. 1") of the two existing buildings are both painted block. In order to match, the west elevation of the addition would be constructed out of a similar painted block material. That is the extent of the proposal. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there any correspondence for the record? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 1, 2008, which reads as follows: At your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above petition. We have no objections to the proposal petition. There are no additional right-of-way requirements and the legal descriptions are correct. The address of Building No. 1 is 32233 Eight Mile Road. The address of Building No. 2 and the addition is 32205 Eight Mile Road and the address of Building No. 3i s 20503 Parker Avenue. The addition is being built where there is currently a paved concrete area so the runoff hom the site will be the same or slightly less than the current runoff." 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 September 30, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the industrial buildings located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations. (1) If subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (3) Access around building(s) shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches. A turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 30, October 7, 2008 25014 2008, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with McLaren Performance Technologies located at 32205 Eight Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted.." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 30, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 25, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. No landscaping plan has been provided. This may be reviewed at a later date. 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, I will ask the petitioner to come forward. Ronald Cieslak, Meritt McPherson Cieslak Architects, 33750 Freedom Road, Farmington, Michigan 48335. 1 represent McLaren Performance Technologies. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add? Mr. Cieslak: I would just like to reiterate the fact that the testing, which will take place in the proposed addition, is powertrain, not engine testing because I know that in the past there have been concerns related to that. Also, just note that in terms of the site plan, we are more than happy to work with the Planning Department on landscape elements that may be deemed suitable, particularly along Parker Street. In fact, just to point out that the existing paved area along the west side of Parker Street, between the building and Parker, that are shown as pavement right now have been changed. All that pavement will be removed and that will be green space now, so that will further soften it. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Walsh: Are there questions? Mr. Morrow: Just a comment that I'd like to bring out. With this particular plan, am I correct that you will be closing the Parker Street entrance? Mr. Cieslak: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: It will all be ingress and egress from Eight Mile Road. Mr. Cieslak: That is comect. October 7, 2008 25015 Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Cieslak, you stole my thunder a little bit on the landscaping and the design of the building. You talked about this at our study meeting, but explain to me why the building was designed to basically be just a slab wall, if you will, of brick as opposed to having any architectural features on it. Mr. Cieslak: Sure. The fact is, as you can see from the projected elevation, Building 2, which is on the right hand side, has large arches on it. Building 3, on the left hand side, has smaller arches. There didn't seem to be an element that worked well to connect those two because they're all vertical elements. They're not really horizontal elements. Our feeling was, and again, this is largely in part because the two bricks on the two existing buildings do not match. We're going to match Building 2 to the north, which our building aligns with. Continue that to the south and then it turns and returns to Building 3 and meets in a corner. So the two dissimilar bricks will occur at an inside comer, which is the best possible condition. Our feeling was, rather than to force something to connect the two buildings, which would be awkward, to just make it more or less monolith. And then it was suggested at our meeting to do some foundation plantings. We're certainly happy to work with the Planning Department to work those out. Mr. Wilshaw: That sounds excellent. That's kind of my thought process too. I like the idea of somehow being able to connect the buildings together architecturally in some way if you could. However, the arches, at least in some people's view, could be a bit of a dated element anyway. To continue that may not necessarily be appropriate. But the idea of using landscaping, trellis, and ground landscaping and other things to break up that monolithic structure sounds excellent. And the fact that you're going to grass in the paved area in front of it, I think will only enhance that even more. The one comment I do have, which is worth mentioning again, and Mr. Morrow already alluded to, was the fact that by closing this off, all truck traffic and deliveries and activity between the buildings will also be contained on the property and not exposed to the residential street in any way. Is that correct? Mr. Cieslak: That is correct. All activity will be between Building 1 and Building 2, 3 and our addition. October 7, 2008 25016 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I think it's a good enhancement. Thank you very much Mr. Cieslak: You're welcome. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time tonight. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Good evening. Steve Halchigian, 20420 Parker. Hello. I am the house right across the street from Building 3. I'm pleased to know they're going to cul off all access from Parker because the traffic is horrendous on Parker from the other places on Eight Mile. I like to see the brick match Building 3 to the new existing building. That's what I look at everyday. I know there's not going to be any windows in there but I like to see at least the brick match Building 3. It's my understanding all the cement will be pulled up from the east side of the new building, all the cement, the driveway and the make- shift parking lot they have will be removed, and grass will be planted and landscaped. That's what I'm assuming is going to happen. Mr. Walsh: That's what we understand. Mr. Hatchigian: Okay. Thank you. There's going to be testing in the new building. There will be testing? Mr. Walsh: Drive train. Mr. Halchigian: My concern there, is there going to be alarms in the building because I do have an issue with McLaren Engine regarding alarms. I don't now if this is the proper forum to voice it, but I'm willing to explain if anybody wants to listen. Mr. Walsh: External alarms? Mr. Hatchigian: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Fire alarms? Mr. Hatchigian: Some kind of alarm coming from Building 1, the east door, the pedestrian door, went off as early as last Sunday, this past Sunday. After everybody left, the alarm went off. That was probably early evening and it rang all night. I phoned the police. They came out and checked to make sure all the doors were secured, which they were, but the alarm rings until whoever comes in Monday morning. Its a little bit imitating in the neighborhood to hear that noise. The windows and doors have to be shut and the TV volume has to be elevated to block it out. October 7, 2008 25017 Now, it's getting cold out so the windows are closed and the doors are closed. But about six weeks ago, the same thing had happened and it happened Saturday afternoon and it rang all night Saturday night, all day Sunday until someone came and shut it off Monday morning. That was a long day and I had to sit in my house, and I could not open the door or open a window because that noise did not slop. Mr. Walsh: Let's see if we can address that with our ... Mr. Hatchigian: I don't know if they're going to have anybody on the complex 24 hours a day because of testing. I wish there was something ... I'd be happy to, if they provide a phone number, I'm happy to call anyone when this happens because I will make a call versus listening to it for 36 straight hours. If it's not a burglar alarm, it's not being sent to no one. I think it's a pedestrian door that goes off. This is now twice that it's happened. Mr. Walsh: I appreciate you bringing it up. What I'm going to suggest is if you have the opportunity, just for the people watching, I'm facing the petitioner, if you can speak with him after the meeting, maybe gel him that number or address the issue. Mr. Hatchigian: That's what I was going to suggest. Mr. Walsh: That would be great. Mr. Hatchigian: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Mr. Morrow: I might suggest, as far as giving out numbers, you might be better served maybe if the Police Department cooperates, give the number that they can reach a member of your staff to alert them to that fad and then that kind of takes the ... you don't have logo direct to whoever itis. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. In the absence of any additional questions or comments, a motion would be in order. Mr. Wilshaw: I'm really proud and glad to see that McLaren has been able to come up with this solution for their building. I think it not only is a huge investment in the community, but it also is beneficial to them as they're facing economic issues and maybe moving to another facility isn't in the cards right now. So this is a good interim solution and as a result of that, I'm going to give an approving resolution. October 7, 2008 25018 On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-89-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-09-08-11 submitted by McLaren Performance Technologies requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with the construction of an addition to the industrial buildings located at 32205 Eight Mile Road, on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Road in the Northeast % of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SPA -1 dated September 23, 2008, as revised, prepared by Merritt McPherson Cieslak, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 4 dated July 31, 2008, as revised, prepared by Anthony Pucci Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4")inch brick; 4. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the stipulations contained in the correspondence dated September 30, 2008; 5. That landscaping shall be added to the site at the direction of the Planning Department; 6. 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; and 7. 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? Ms. Smiley: I just wanted to echo what Mr. Wilshaw said. We're thrilled that McLaren is staying here in this country even, and I'm really, #10-00-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2008-09-08-11 submitted by McLaren Performance Technologies requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with the October 7, 2008 25019 really please with your plan and the changing of your traffic patterns. It should have a real positive impact on the city. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I want to second and third the comments that Ian Wilshaw and Mrs. Smiley made. We're pleased that they're slaying in Livonia, growing in Livonia, and in case somebody is watching on television and sees this plan, really it was brought out to us that the new equipment that's being brought in generates no noise whatsoever. The noise, there is none, but it will not transgress into the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments? Mr. Wilshaw: Just one additional comment. We had an opportunity to meet with McLaren prior to this meeting and learn more about this particular addition to their building. While it looks like it's basically a shell of walls, the reality is that the equipment that's going to be contained in this building is several million dollars in value, and also its going to bring something in the order of 40 new jobs to this community. With that, its a very nice investment and I very much appreciate that McLaren is doing this in Livonia. Mr. Walsh: Thank you Are there any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, would the secretary please call the roll? Ms. Smiley: Certainly. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Prior to discussion we had a week ago, I'm seeking a motion for a seven day waiver. It allows them to get on the Council agenda one week quicker. We understand that McLaren is moving forward in this economy, and we'd like to help you with that. On a motion by Mr. Morrow, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously approved, it was #10-00-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2008-09-08-11 submitted by McLaren Performance Technologies requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with the October? 2008 25020 construction of an addition to the industrial buildings located at 32205 Eight Mile Road, on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Road in the Northeast % of Section 3. 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 PETMON2003-02-08-05 S&N DEVELOPMENT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 02-08-05 submitted by S&N Development Company, which previously received approval by the City Council m April 23, 2003 (CR #183-03), requesting a fifth (5r") one-year extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast''/. of Section 6. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything additional to report, Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller: I'll just show it on the location map to familiarize the Board with the location. Mr. Walsh: Its a self-explanatory request. I believe the developer is here. Is there anything to add? It's a pretty straightforward request I think. (Inaudible response from petitioner) Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here tonight. I appreciate that. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #10-01-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02-08-05 submitted by S&N Development Company, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (Council Resolution #183-03), requesting a fifth (5'") one-year extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor October 7, 2008 25021 Parkway in the Southeast''/. of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request for a fifth (5r") extension of Site Plan Approval by Sam Shamie, managing member of S & N Development Company, in a letter dated September 15, 2008, is hereby approved fora one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #183-03 in connection with Petition 2003-02-08-05, which permitted the construction of a three-story office building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. 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 PETITION 2006-07-08-14 GALLAGHER GROUP Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006- 07-08-14 submitted by Gallagher Group Construction Company, which previously received approval by the City Council on September 13, 2006 (CR #449-06), requesting a second (2n°) one-year extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office building on properties located at 29945 and 29929 Six Mile Road, on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast % of Section 14. Mr. Walsh: Again, this is a very straightforward request unless the staff or the petitioner would like to address it further. Mr. Gallagher, its pretty straightforward but if you would like to address us further, you're welcome to do so. It's up to you. We understand your request. Mr. Gallagher: I do have some other people interested in this project right now too. Dilip Dey got a new liver back in April but he's been having all kinds of complications, so he's back in the hospital again. So we're almost back to square one again. Mr. Walsh: We understand the request and appreciate you coming out tonight. Mr. Gallagher: I appreciate you guys lelping us out. Thank you. If there are no additional questions or comments, a motion is in order. October 7, 2008 25022 On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, 8 was #10-02-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-08-14 submitted by Gallagher Group Construction Company, which previously received approval by the City Council on September 13, 2006 (Council Resolution #449-06), requesting a second (2"d) one-year extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office building on properties located at 29945 and 29929 Six Mile Road, on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast''/ of Section 14, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request for a second (2"d) extension of Site Plan Approval by Richard Gallagher, president of Gallagher Group Construction Company, in a letter dated September 1, 2008, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolufion #449-06 in connection with Petition 2006-07-08-14, which permitted the construction of a medical office building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict vith the foregoing condition. 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#5 APPROVALOF MINUTES 970th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 970" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 23, 2008. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-93-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 970" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2008, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: October? 2008 25023 AYES: Wilshaw, Smiley, McDermott, Morrow, Scheel, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: Varloogian 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 971s' Regular Meeting held on October 7, 2008, was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman