HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-01-13 15853
1--s MINUTES OF THE 756TH REGULAR MEETING
(I, HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 13, 1998, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 756th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Flail, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30p.m.
Members Present: Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi
Michael Hale Elaine Koons
Members Absent: James C. McCann
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. Alanskas informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use
fl' request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to
the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission
resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning
Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff
with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use then or not use them
depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-12-8-24 by
Woodhaven of Livonia requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
senior housing facility on property located at 29778 Wentworth Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Alanskas: This petition was tabled at our December 16 meeting.
On a motion duly made by Ms. Koons, supported by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it
was
1-01-98 RESOLVED that, Petition 97-12-8-24 by Woodhaven of Livonia requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a senior housing facility on property
located at 29778 Wentworth Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 be taken
,,,� from the table.
15854
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: John is there any new correspondence on this?
Mr. Nagy: No, there is no new correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Miller, do you want to give us a brief run through on this for the
audience.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Wentworth Avenue between
Middlebelt and Henry Ruff. This is the Livonia Woodhaven facility which
exists. They are proposing to build a two story independent living apartment for
senior housing in this area, which is a vacant lot to the south of the existing
facility. The facility would be a total of 39,922 sq. ft. and would contain 22
units. Parking for this site - they are required to have 22 spaces, they show 36
spaces so they meet the parking requirements. Landscaping, they are required to
have 15% and they show 50% so they far exceed the landscaping. Also, they are
proposing a new drive into the property. At the present time people have to
drive in and drive around the church into Woodhaven of Livonia. They are
requesting approval of a new drive onto the site. The facility will match the
original facility in materials.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you very much, Scott. I wanted the viewing audience to see in regards to
this petition, it has been before us various times and I think we have looked at
every possible thing that is feasible. They want to put in a new street and these
people are saying they will have more traffic/less traffic. They are going to
extend the width of the street by 6 feet. The petitioner has agreed to pay the
assessment costs that the neighbors paid. They have agreed to put in sidewalks
if the neighbors want them.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
Ms. Koons: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment to the neighbors. I would like
to commend them for their tenacity. For their ability to come at this issue which
I would consider always on the high road. Always presenting us facts. Stating
exactly what their concern was rather than letting it be muddied by a lot of other
things. What swayed me to support this motion really was the fact that all of our
departments that we asked for information, Engineering, Fire, Inspection and to
a lesser degree Traffic, supported a new driveway and I have to use their expert
judgment in helping me make this decision. I know one of you did a lot of
studies of how many cars traveled your road and I would like to tell you that
some of those cars were probably our cars which traveled your street. And I
hope that you remain good neighbors with Woodhaven and hope that what they
do is least disruptive to your quality of life on your street.
15855
On a motion made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#1-02-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 97-12-8-24 by Woodhaven of Livonia requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a senior housing facility on property
located at 29778 Wentworth Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 2 prepared by Beckett & Raeder
as received by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1998, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out
of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the steel
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all
times;
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 3 prepared by Beckett and Raeder
as received by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1998, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding.
5) 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;
6) That the Exterior Elevation Plans marked Sheets 4 & 5 prepared by
Architects Design Group, Inc. as received by the Planning Commission
on January 6, 1998, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7) That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire & Rescue Department's
satisfaction the requirements as outlined in the correspondence from
the Fire Marshal dated December 11, 1997;
8) That the cost of the proposed widening of Wentworth Avenue and any
public sidewalk that may be agreed upon shall be entirely paid for by
Woodhaven of Livonia.
15856
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Review of the Master
Deed for Petition 97-11-8-23 by Zef Ivezaj for Gruda Site Condominiums on
property located on the west side of Henry Ruff Road between Six Mile Road
and Puritan Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nagy, any new correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence other than what we indicated that the Law
Department submitted a letter indicating that they had reviewed the Master Deed
and find it satisfactory.
Mr. Alanskas: They find it satisfactory?
Mr. Nagy: Yes
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously approved it was
#1-03-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the Master Deed for Petition 97-11-8-23 by Zef Ivezaj for
Gruda Site Condominiums on property located on the west side of Henry Ruff
Road between Six Mile Road and Puritan Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 14
be approved.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 755th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on December 16,
1997.
On a motion made by Mr.Hale, seconded by Ms. Koons unanimously approved, it was
#01-04-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 755th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on December 16, 1997, are
hereby approved.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
15857
Mr. Alanskas: This concludes the pending items on tonight's agenda and we will proceed
with the miscellaneous site plans.
14110,
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-12-8-25 by
Newman Smith& Associates requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct an office building on property located at 38699 Seven Mile in the
N.W. 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nagy, is there any new correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: No, there is no new correspondence other than the reports we submitted.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Seven Mile between I-275/96 and
Haggerty Road. This property is part of the Seven Mile Crossing Office
complex, which is located behind the Cooker's Restaurant. Existing on
site at this time are two office buildings, Building A" which has 120, 572 sq. ft.
and "Building B" which has 140,195 sq. ft. They are proposing to build a
similar building a little bit smaller at 96,733 sq. ft. Because this will become
a part of this whole complex, the parking space is based on a need of all three
buildings. They are required to have 1,610 parking spaces. They show 1,336
available parking spaces with 148 landbanked.
Back in 1990 there was a proposal to build an office building on this site and at
that time there was a deficiency in parking. The Zoning Board granted a
variance for parking. That variance allowed them to be 308 parking spaces
short. This new proposal is deficient in parking but because they are only
deficient 274 spaces they are not increasing the deficiency, so therefore the
variance is still in place and is in effect for this site.
Landscaping: For their landscaping they are required to have not less than 15%
of the total area of the site and the landscaping provided is 19% of the site.
Elevation: The building is very similar to the two existing buildings where you
have a pre-cast concrete panels and a band of insulated glass and aluminum
framing. Since the study meeting, they have submitted a new revised elevation
plan to enhance the entrance of the facility and indent it into the building similar
to the existing building.
Mr. Alanskas: Scott, before you put that down, are there any questions from the
Commissioners? Since there are none, please go ahead.
Mr. Alanskas: On that recess - do they say how deep that recess is?
Mr. Miller: No, they don't.
15858-
Mr. Alanskas: Anything else?
Mr. Miller: No.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening? Please come forward and state you name and
address .
Gene Carroll, Architect, and I represent Prentiss Properties. I think Scott summed up pretty
much the general characteristics of our development. What I want to do is
explain what we have done to the front entrance. Before, when we met, we had
an entrance that was only 3 stories instead of 4 stories. We pushed it up to make
it more compatible to the other buildings we developed as well as cut this at a
45° angle and the artist brought this out to also develop this more in a way of the
color scheme so we could identify entrances and to make them look separate
other than an address on a building.
The landscape, again the materials are similar. I think Scott pretty much
summed that up. If you have any particular questions...
Mr. Alanskas: Just one question. Could you tell me how far it has been recessed?
Mr. Carroll: 8 feet
New
Mr. Alanskas: 8 feet? Any comments from the other Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: I just have a comment. Aren't you glad you came to us in the study? Don't
you think that's a better package by elevating that building? I think this is a nice
entrance.
Mr. Alanskas: I think you made a big change in the building by doing that. It now looks like
it's part of the other 2 buildings. I commend you for that. Any other questions'?
Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Ms. Koons. supported by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was
#1-05-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 97-12-8-25 by Newman Smith& Associates
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
property located at 38699 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
15859
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA-1 prepared by Newman Smith &
Associates as received by the Planning Commission on December 22,
1997, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of
the same brick used in the construction of the building and the steel
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all
times;
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP.1 prepared by Newman Smith
& Associates as received by the Planning Commission on December 23,
1997; is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
5) 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;
6) That the exterior Elevation Plans marked Sheets SPA-5 & SP-6 prepared
by Newman Smith & Associates as received by the Planning
Commission on January 13, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, I have one more question. What are you talking time wise to complete that
building?
Mr. Carroll: Start in the spring....
Mr. Alanskas: So it'll be done by the end of the year?
Mr. Carroll: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-12-8-26 by
Laurel Manor requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to both
the banquet facility and wedding chapel on property located at 39000
Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19.
,�„ Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nagy, is there any new correspondence?
15860
Mr. Nagy: No, there is no new correspondence received.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between
I-96 and Eckles Road. The petitioner is proposing to construct two storage
additions. One would be added to the west or rear elevation of the Laurel Manor
banquet facility. The other would be added to the west or side elevation of the
Laurel Wedding Chapel, which is located just to the west of the banquet facility.
The new storage addition to the banquet facility would be 2,000 sq. ft. in size.
The new section of building would be constructed out of materials that would
match that of the existing building. The building materials would be brick with
a cement band running through the middle of it. Once completed the entire
building should look as if it were constructed all at one time.
The new storage addition to the wedding chapel would be 1,690 sq. ft. in area.
At the study meeting the petitioner presented a rendering of the proposed
wedding chapel addition. The petitioner has assured staff that the building
materials of the new addition would match that of the existing structure. The
existing chapel is constructed out of painted block. When completed, this will
look as if it were constructed at the same time.
Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the Commissioners? At our study meeting, we thought there
would be no problems and advised the petitioner he would not have to be here
this evening. If there is no one else who wishes to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously approved, it
was
#1-06-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 97-12-8-26 by Laurel Manor requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct additions to both the banquet facility and wedding chapel
on property located at 39000 Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
19 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Exterior Elevation Plan marked Sheets A-3 prepared by Donato
Associates, Inc., in connection with the banquet facility addition, as
received by the Planning Commission on December 22, 1997, is hereby
approved and shall he adhered to;
2) That the Exterior Elevation Plan, in connection with the wedding chapel
addition, as received by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1998, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
15861
3) That the building materials of the two new additions shall match the
building material of the buildings they are being attached to so that upon
completion the structures shall look as if they were constructed at one
time.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Revision to Petition 96-9-
2-27 which received waiver use approval to construct an extended stay motel on
property located at 11808 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Miller: On February 26, 1997, Professional Engineering Associates was granted waiver
use approval to construct an extended stay motel. As part of that approval it was conditioned:
• That the exterior of the building shall have an all-brick finish
as stated in the petitioner's letter dated January 31, 1997.
In the letter dated January 31, 1997, Extended Stay America states that an all-brick finish
would be worth the expense if it improves our concept's appeal to the Planning Commission,
the neighbors and the City Council.
The petitioner is now requesting approval to substitute, in place of the brick, split face block on
the first story of the building and panel brick on the upper two stories.
The building is presently in the finishing stages of construction. The building exists with a
block first floor. As of January 2, 1998, the upper two floors are not finished and the exterior
walls are protected with tar paper. The petitioner explains in a letter dated 12/16/97 that
miscommunication between Extended Stay America and their architects caused the mix up.
Mr. Nagy: The only correspondence we have received is from the Inspection Department
with a copy of their notice of the violation issued on 12/17/97 advising the
applicant of their violation and noncompliance with their previously approved
building elevation plan and they indicate they shall install all brick finish on the
exterior of the hotel as per City Planning Petition 96-9-2-27 adopted on 2/4/97
and resubmit revised elevation plans to the City Planning Commission for
approval and they are seeking immediate compliance with the requirement.
That's the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Scott, you want to take this?
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth and
the railroad tracks. Back in February 1997, they received a waiver use approval to construct an
extended stay motel and as part of that approval it is conditioned by City Council that is shall
15862
have an all brick finish as per the petitioner's letter dated January 31, 1997, and as Mr.
Piercecchi stated, petitioner is requesting to substitute in place of the brick a split face block on
the first floor and panel brick on the 2nd and 3rd floor.
Garrett Power, 2354 S. Cannon Drive, Mt. Prospect, I1. and I work for Extended Stay
America. When I was at the meeting last week you requested photos of
properties that had this finish and I have those.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is this panel brick finish?
Mr. Power: It's brick finish.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anything else you want to add?
Mr. Power: Not at this time.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions to the petitioner?
Mr. Hale: Where is this located - the photograph that you supplied?
Mr. Power: Wisconsin.
Mr. Hale: Was this designed this way or was this something that came about because of
what we're facing tonight?
Mr. Power: That property?
Mr. Hale: Yes.
Mr. Power: Yes, that property has a split face block on the bottom and brick on the top.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: It doesn't seem to have any walkways around it like the ones you put in
here.
Mr. Power: No. The property we have here is an exterior corridor and it's the first of its type.
Because it's a normal proto-type it is vinyl siding.
Mr. Piercecchi: And this is panel brick or is it standard brick?
Mr. Power: It's brick!
15863
Mr. Piercecchi: Come on, is it standard or panel?
Mr. Power: It's brick!
Mr. Piercecchi: Is it 4"thick brick? Is it face brick?
Mr. Power: It is not a panel brick.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. I think we've got some questions to ask you. Any other
questions? Mr. Piercecchi, did you have anything you want to say?
Mr. Piercecchi: No. I'll make a comment after the motion is made.
Mr. Alanskas: Any other questions. All right, a motion is in order.
Mr. Hale: I'll make a motion to essentially uphold City Council Resolution#159-97
requiring all brick finish for this particular building.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously approved it was
#1-07-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that the proposed revisions to the elevation plans, to retain block
for the first floor and substitute panel brick for full brick, submitted in
connection with Petition 96-9-2-27 which received waiver use approval to
construct an extended stay motel on property at 11808 Middlebelt be denied.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: Discussion- Mr. Piercecchi.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have a few remarks that I put together. I'll begin by making a statement that
it's no secret that the City Council and City Planning Commission subscribe to
the philosophy that our job is to plan and seek the best for Livonia. This
includes striving for structures which are not only appealing but durable,
whether they be commercial or residential. From this end, the Planning
Commission has a rule, recommended brick to the City Council as a preferred
building material. What I mean by brick - standard 4" brick. Now we are being
presented with a case where an alleged mistake was made and the petitioner
wishes to substitute panel brick for the previous Council approved 4 sides with
4" face brick. Fellow Commissioners, I have concern about this granting of this
substitute panel brick because it may set a precedence, legal or otherwise, in
which panel brick can now be accepted as brick. In reality, panel brick is
polystyrene with a brick 1/2" or 3/8" brick veneer finish. Historically, this
�, product has been plagued with repairs due to water penetration. Our own City
15864
Hall, Wonderland and the bank on Five Mile and Farmington are examples of
the deterioration that can happen with this type of product, especially on the
lower areas. Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to vote yes in this area.
Now
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any other comments? All right, please call the roll.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, this is a vote to deny so a"yes" vote -- so an "aye" vote would
be appropriate if you wanted to support it.
Mr. Alanskas: It's approving again that we stick with condition#6 of the original City Council
Resolution 159-97 in which it is stated that it shall have an all-brick finish
around the entire building.
Mr. Piercecchi: You're saying this is an approving resolution?
Mr. Alanskas: It's an approving for that resolution. No block, strictly full brick and we stick to
that resolution. No panel brick, no block, strictly full brick which is stated on
the site plan that is presented to the Council. I've got the number here which is
#0496015 - Project No., 96-9-2-27 on 2/4/97. It states on the site plan it will be
brick. And I really believe my comments, in fact, as you know, I was out there
to see you today.
Mr. Power: Right.
Mr. Alanskas: I was out there to see you today, and saw the way they do install panel brick but
I was really shocked when I saw that the building and the panel brick, I would
say was at least 55% up already and in my mind if there was a discussion or a
problem with, if it is face brick, veneer brick, I don't see why you would go
forward and continue to complete the building until we have a resolution of how
it should be. Why did you do that? Why is that done?
Mr. Power: I guess there is a difference in semantics that we have.
Mr. Alanskas: Well, I guess if we approve this, it will go to the City Council and possibly the
Law Department.
Mr. Piercecchi: What is going to Council? I didn't quite catch that.
Mr. Alanskas: Semantics of what brick is. Please call the roll.
Mr. Alanskas: Approving resolution for City Council Resolution 159-97 states all brick finish
shall be upheld.
Mr. Power: Thank you.
15865
There was no one else wishing to speak and Mr. Alanskas asked for a motion.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 756th Regular Meeting
4`1a" held on January 13, 1998 was adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: % �l,�G� '�'' �
James C. McCann, Chairman
/rw