Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-09-19 17994 MINUTES OF THE 811th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 19, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 811th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Dan Piercecchi William LaPine * Elaine Koons H. G. Shane Members absent: None *Arrived 7:31 p.m. Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II and Bill Poppenger, Planner I were also present. Chairman McCann 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 turn, will hold its own public hearing, and will make the final determination as to whether a petition k 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 Neal. 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 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 of the proceedings tonight. We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda. ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-09-08-12 Victor Park Place Office Buildings (Pinnacel Auburn Hills, LLC) Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-09- 08-12 Victor Park Place Office Buildings by Pinnacel Auburn Hills, LLC requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 19301 Victor Parkway in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: If it pleases the Planning Commission, I'll just basically locate the site and let the petitioner give the presentation. What the petitioner is proposing to do is construct two office buildings on a vacant piece of property that is located 17995 within the Victor Corporate Park. This site is north of the Lone Star and Rio Bravo Restaurants and south of the Embassy Suites Hotel. `. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 13, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 5, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) As proposed this petition will need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following. (a) Land banking of required parking spaces. (b) Nonconforming size of garage parking spaces. (c) Utilizing shared parking spaces with Lone Star when those spaces are required to meet Lone Star's minimum parking. (2) All striping is not depicted as double striped and should be clarified (3) The barrier free parking size and dispersion of van accessible spaces may not be correct as depicted and should be clarified (4) All permanent grass areas should be denoted as sod, not seed. This department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 14, 2000, and reads as follows: "We have reviewed the described site plan and have the following recommendations and questions: Each exit of the parking lot should have a stop sign installed. A stop sign at the exit of the parking garage with clearly marked entrance and exit signs. The Phase One ti underground parking indicates five handicap spaces as required. The Phase e Two parking garage plans indicate four handicap spaces. The four spaces should be additional to the five handicap spaces from Phase One for a total of nine handicap spaces. The parking garage will require a total of nine individually signed handicap spaces when Phase II is completed. Pursuant to state law, each handicap space must be individually posted. The site plan does not address lighting. We would suggest that the Planning Commission ascertain the petitioner's plans for security within the parking garage i.e. lighting- dusk to dawn or on a timer. Will there be gates on the entrance-exit? Will the garage be locked between certain hours? Will access to the parking garage be restricted and if so, what method will be used?" The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated September 14, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct two office buildings on property located at the above referenced address. Based on the requirements for the fire protection and mechanical systems, we have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Joel R. Williamson, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Peter Burton, Burton-Katzman Development Co., 30100 Telegraph, Bingham Farms, MI 48025. I would just like to open and say we are very much looking forward to reestablishing our relationship with the City of Livonia. I am a third generation developer. My father, prior to me along with Matt Cheir, did an soft. extensive development in the Plymouth-Levan area in the light industrial 17996 corridor. As a matter of fact, folks sitting on your Commission remember my father. Sitting over here I have a fourth generation Burton, who is eager to get into the business too, my son, Chris. We are excited about the project. We y,,,,,. think we have something that will make the folks in Livonia very proud and we are looking forward very much to working and making this project a reality and something that we can all nod our heads to with a happy face. With that I brought along the professionals who probably can give you a better level of detail as it relates to this project's specifics. I have a comment that I am a little mystified, and maybe taken back a bit. I wasn't aware that we were in need of variances, but I guess we can take that up further. Again, I will leave it to the professionals to give you a little bit more detail on the project and I'll field any questions you might have in the future. Thank you. John Parker, Hobbs & Black Associates, 100 N. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104. We, as well, are very pleasured with being a part of this project. It is pretty exciting and a positive project for the City. It is a great project for us to be involved in. I know a number of you have been a big part of the development so far but I'll try to keep my comments brief but try to give a good overview about what this project is about. The Parkway is here, I-275 is here and that is the Lone Star. Our plan is to develop a 350,000 sq. ft. office development. It is a six-story building with ground level parking. As the site slopes from north to south across the property, there is a gradient that falls away which makes it a logical solution to develop some under-building parking and is also a good marketing tool for offering some executive parking. The main entrance from the project would be a boulevard developed off Victor Parkway and presenting the front of the building. The similar boulevard appearance comes from I-275 and it will give a real solid anchor to that edge of the Victor Park development as well as a great marketable image for our building. There was a comment that this is a plan for two office buildings. It is really one whole building but because 350,000 sq. ft. is a lot of project for the market to absorb at any one time. We are looking at developing the first phase of the project being one of the wings of the building and the central lobby piece. If the market dictates, then we can build it all at the beginning, we will build the whole 350,000 sq. ft. Each of the buildings will be about 175,000 sq. ft. of office development. In each of the phases we anticipate building what is a little bit over 100 parking spaces in the under-level parking. Each of the phases, for a number of reasons, is developed with appropriate parking all the way around. However, what we have developed is a set of service ports so that each of the wings can stand independent. They have their own delivery areas, as well as we recognize that with this large of development, you have a lot of people parking all the way around the project. We have developed it so that there can be entrancing for staff during the day. In the evenings, obviously, these whole ends would be secured. I heard some comment about how secure would the parking underneath be and certainly on evenings and weekends, that is a concern. So these will be gated as well as we'll have a card access system to get in that deck, or parking level even during a normal business day. There will be parking spaces that are really part of the tenant space up above. The building, as I said, is a six-story building. We are anticipating kind of a rotunda special central lobby and there will be two-story spaces within that lobby. We also 17997 anticipate the development, as the parking rises up to meet the building on the west side of the building, there will be an area to let light and air down into the parking level. It also gives us an opportunity to construct a continuous planter and put up some building images. This board is a vision of looking at the front of the building from Victor Parkway almost as if you are standing on the 3M site looking across toward the building. So you see the boulevard entrance and then a piece of the building, or the central piece that announces entrance to it. We are anticipating that it will be an all and glass building. We want it to look solid, but you have to have a little bit of a contemporary vision about it. I've got some samples I'll show you. We would like to go with a fairly neutral and natural looking kind of a product and with the glass that might have the slightest bit of a soft green tint to it, nothing that would be powerful or overwhelming. We are sensitive about these things and we are actually in the midst of studies about color schemes and what looks the most appropriate for the building. In this picture, I am really standing over at the Lone Star. Looking at that angle of the building there is a little angle coming off the south side of the building just to give a little piece of extra architectural character. You can see how the drives work their way around and start down the slope of the grade and the entrancing into the parking level is tucked around the side and there is a service court beyond that. This is a view of the building from the I-275 side looking across the parking lot toward the building. We have tried to incorporate some landscape islands as was previously mentioned. We are asking for permission to bank some parking because we think when you get upwards to the 1200 to 1400 car parking allotment, it is our history and I think it has been true in this community, that the efficiency of that parking model `.. starts to become such that you often get a lot of parking that isn't used and people put blacktop down just to meet requirements where lawn might be a better solution. In asking for such a deferment as part of Phase II, we would think that if we put in lawn but certainly if it was found that the parking was needed, we would put in the parking. I should say Phase I parks itself. We are not asking for any deferment as part of Phase I, or banked parking. That is another view, really right off the southwest corner of the building. I mentioned earlier that we are looking at a planter continuous along the building and the way the overall is developed is, we are looking at doing a articulation of masonry at the first floor with more traditional punched windows. It gives the building a real solid base to be sitting on and then to go to a brick and glass banded look with some large sections of glass across the center of each wing, it is really a picture window on the building. We try to keep in mind that as this building faces 1-275 that there is some highway architecture about it that we need to do a little bit larger scale on some of the visuals because that escapes when a car goes by at 70 mph at it looks at something. That is an overview of what the proposal is. I am sure you are going to have some questions and I think maybe it is best left to your questions at this point. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: At the study meeting it was mentioned that there was a possibility that you may want to put in a restaurant in the building? If you did, would that be on the first floor? What would your plans for that be? 17998 Mr. Parker: The best way to deal with a restaurant, in our experience, is to deal with it at the first floor. Especially if you are dealing with it in a traditional office building that has a 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. type ritual to it. Because if you get to 8:00 p.m. and you have people trying to go up inside your building, you have to worry about security and keeping people contained where you want to contain them. It is also very good for service because let's face it, restaurants and kitchens are dirty and you have to hustle all that stuff up and down through the building. Mr. Alanskas: In your past experience would that be a large size restaurant or just a small one? Mr. Burton: I am not going to be able to address that. There would definitely be a cafeteria. If you take some of our larger offices, in the Bingham office we have the Morel's Restaurant, and there is a deli for folks that don't want to spend that kind of money. It really depends to some extent on the client mix. If there are more entrepreneurial type clients, such as lots of law firms and accounting firms and folks that do a little bit more wine and dining, it would tend to be more of an upper end restaurant like the Morel's. We are going to meet and make that decision at the time we understand the tenant mix. Mr. Alanskas: Now you are saying that in Phase I you are going to build a 175,000 sq. ft. building? Now Mr. Parker: It is actually going to be 183,000 sq. ft. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any tenants as of right now to go into that Phase? Mr. Burton: We have no tenants at this time. Mr. Alanskas: So you are going to build without tenants and then go from there? Mr. Burton: By the way, we have some proposals out to tenants right now. Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed on some of the walls you have an extension going up there. I can't quite determine from the rendering what type of material that is or what it is for. Mr. Parker: If we do this piece that is standing up here, we are actually working on that right now and in fact, Peter and I have been back and forth a few times on that scheme. The idea of it is an aesthetic one. To put a little extra height in a few areas on the building just to make it a little bit distinctive. Also, if we do that, the idea would be that we would use it to do some of our mechanical screening. We have to do something attractive on it. We don't want a building with big rooftop units parked across the roof so there is some of that added to this. We know we have to do something substantive with screening of mechanical services for the building. 17999 Mr. Piercecchi: I noticed on some of your other renderings you have something like cubicles sitting on top of the roof there. �,,,, Mr. Parker: This piece? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. That is the atrium you are putting in there, right? Mr. Parker: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: On each side of that. What are those and I don't notice that those extensions go up there in that particular view. Mr. Parker: As we were talking about a few alternatives on how to do this, we have at the center of the building, we have two of the stairs occurring, one from each wing, as well as we have the elevator tower from it. What we are trying to do is envelop something that is a singular piece, or something that we can make into a significant piece of the building and have a symbol of the entrance of the building and where people should go, while at the same time have an attractive screening for the mechanical core services that it requires. Mr. Piercecchi: In that view, those cubicles are really quite in view. Is that your intent? Mr. Parker: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Or would they be hidden ultimately? Mr. Parker: When you look at it from a view like this, if I put myself in the perspective, I am across the street but in sort of a helicopter, fourth floor view looking at it. If I am down on the ground, I don't really see any of it. Actually the most current thinking is these two pieces aren't there and you just have the round of the glass rotunda there. Mr. LaPine: The Lone Star Restaurant, is that part of your property or are they a separate property? Mr. Parker: They are a separate property and the true fact is some of their parking as developed, has crossed onto our property. Mr. LaPine: That is what I couldn't understand. It looks like they are on your property but in reality that is a separate. We have discussed that you may need some of their parking or do they need some of yours? Mr. Parker: The way the plan is developed today, we are parking exclusive of that cross parking lot. So we are parking ourselves. Mr. LaPine: So you don't really need that parking but it is there in the evening when they have a lot of business and your people will be gone anyway. So there is no problem there with parking. 18000 Mr. Parker: Yes. And we totally meet our parking. Mr. LaPine: You do have a problem with the basement of the underground parking with nine foot spaces. To get those you've got to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to have them waive the nine (9) foot wide spaces. My gut feeling is we don't really like nine (9) foot wide spaces because the way cars are today, larger cars, when you open the doors, nine (9) foot wide spaces has a tendency to hit the car next to you. Can we get less parking spots down in the basement and make them 10' x 20' to meet the Ordinance? Mr. Parker: We could do that but the problem might be that it would push us over the edge on the number of cars we need. Mr. LaPine: You mean the total number of cars? Mr. Parker: Yes. That would be where the issue would come in. Mr. LaPine: But what we do have is the land bank parking if we need it. My problem is basically, because your tenant is going to be down there, they probably are going to be assigned parking spots where the same person parks there every single day. There may not be a problem but I am anticipating the City Council may not like the 9' parking spaces. I am just letting you know ahead of time you have a really hard sell to sell them on the 9'parking spaces. Is there going to be, from the parking lot from either side, is there going to be any kind of driveway where people can be dropped off at the door? Mr. Parker: Both at the front and back. Mr. LaPine: So there is a drive that comes in through here and they can come up and drop people off and go back through the parking lot? Mr. Parker: Yes. Mr. LaPine: We discussed my next idea, about the fountain. You know I like the fountain. Have you had any discussion about that fountain? Mr. Parker: We have had conversation about it. There is really a couple ways to look at it. We have anticipated, up at the front, developing a feature, in fact since the meeting last week we relabeled it "proposed feature". We would like to be able to do a little bit of study as to whether it is a fountain or a sculpture. I am a little worried about the maintenance and how you deal with a fountain in the wintertime. I am not opposed to fountains. That is my only concern. Mr. LaPine: Will you have any benches out there for people that want to come out? Mr. Parker: Certainly. That is very reasonable to anticipate. Mr. LaPine: Is this going to be a smoke free environment? 18001 Mr. Parker: You can't have smoking anywhere anymore. I don't know how that would work in our upscale restaurant. _ Mr. LaPine: Mr. Taormina, if we approve the site plan and the Council approves it, we are basically approving both plans. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Phase I and II are what you would be approving. Mr. LaPine: I always have a worry when we have Phase I, we build it and then things drop off and all of a sudden you sell off the second Phase and somebody comes in and builds something differently that I haven't approved and that worries me. That is always why I am assured tonight that once we approve the site plan, this is what we are getting unless it comes back to us and we revise it. Is that right, Mark? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mrs. Koons: I, as one Commissioner, prefer as much greenery as possible. That being said, I really need a little bit of help understanding why you think you don't need as much parking as the Ordinance would request. Mr. Parker: We have done hundreds of similar types of developments. That is what occurs when you get to a larger project and this project we are talking about, being in the 1200 to 1400 car class relative to parking, the efficiency model tends to go way up. That is just between how many people are in how much saw footprint. When you have that many people and you take the amount of people that are going to have business meetings, have days off or are sick, that you tend to get a lot of unused parking. Historically, it turns into having the drive- in lot and nobody has parked there. The first three or four rows from the building are parked and the back part is empty. Historically, we have seen that be. While we are looking at a 1400 car total parking demand, I think at the end of Phase II we are talking about a bank parking number of 262 cars. For Phase I, we are not talking about banking anything. We can build it because, frankly, we have the whole north side, or the north half of the site that isn't constructed. It is comfortable to put that parking. What will hopefully play itself out is Phase I parking is all that it needs so at the end of Phase I we are going to have a real good handle on how heavily the building is parking. When we go to proceed with Phase II we will know if we are parking full or if we have excess parking, which will be a real good indicator to ourselves and yourselves about these guys and if they need to park this amount. I am always, at this point and time, taking the opinion that we should put green in and only put the blacktop in if we need it. There is a project in Ann Arbor that we did in the early and mid '80s, a multi-piece large office park and we even deferred some parking there and look at it and the last three rows are still empty. Some of that comes from the users. If you have somebody that has a building full of people and 60 sq. ft. cubicles and just rows of them, they are going to use a lot of cars but if you have more professional organizations or major corporate offices they park plus. 18002 Mrs. Koons: Who would make the decision at the point when Phase I and Phase II that if there is a lack of parking, to take some of the parking out of the land bank? Mr. Parker: It may be a best question for the City to answer because the City has a control over it. We are certainly going to do it based on market if we realize we have people in the driveways, we are to raise our hand and say we think we do need the parking. But I think the ultimate control will rest with the City. Mrs. Koons: Will there be someone from your firm on site? Mr. Burton: Yes. Not having enough parking in a complex like this is a kiss of death. The way it works for us, as the owners, as anyone else because folks won't lease space in the building. So it is of utmost concern for us and they have been instructed from day one to make certain that there is adequate parking to meet the codes because there are times when those are required. On the other hand, we have also been told that complexes of this size, and as happened at the Arboretum and has happened at the Bingham Office Park that we have fields of vacant parking and the efficiency levels achieved in buildings of this type sometimes cause that to happen. If, in fact, we run into that problem sometime in the future, we will add the parking and fortunately we will plan ahead to make certain we have the space to do that. The market dictates that more than anything. Tenants won't move in if there is not adequate parking. Mrs. Koons: As you move forward with your project, it might behoove you to come up with some kind of ratio since you've got a couple other projects like this to help us to understand what you are saying about parking numbers because you do have that experience because, to me, it is very vague. We are going to say, "some parking". So as you move forward with this, I think that might be helpful. Mr. Burton: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: If and when you do have approvals for your first phase, what are you looking at time wise to build that first building? Mr. Parker: We are anticipating the start of construction the first of April of 2001. That basically is the day the frost laws come off and we can start playing around with heavy equipment. We might do some staking and things prior to that but it is a first of spring start and I believe the schedule calls for 13 months of construction to opening. Mr. Alanskas: Within that time, and when you get done, at the study they said it could be another three or four or even five years before you do Phase II, possibly. If that was true, the land that is vacant, you make sure that is all nice and green and not looking empty, with top soil and possibly some plantings? Possibly? Mr. Parker: Yes. 18003 Mr. Piercecchi: From your vast experience on building these types of projects, in the Midwest where we get a lot of snow, what is your estimate of how many spaces you lose in the winter time because of snow? You have to remove it and I am sure Saw you have to put it someplace. What is basically the lose of spaces because we are very concerned about parking here. Mr. Parker: If we do a good job on it and take the snow away from a maintenance perspective, we won't have any. Peter, what is your experience at Bingham, because that is always a clean lot? Mr. Burton: To the extent to where there is not enough spaces in the parking lot, we bring in equipment and shovel it away. Mr. Piercecchi: You actually remove it from the site? Mr. Burton: Yes. Sometimes there is enough greenbelt areas around the perimeter to pile some of it there and if not, then it is actually removed. That doesn't happen that often. I think in the last 20 years I can only remember two or three occasions when we needed to do that. But once again remember we are motivated by having full buildings which means we have happy tenants which means they have places to park and it is very important for us to do whatever is necessary to keep those parking spaces open. Mr. Piercecchi: My interest in that question was for future use that I could put in my bank, just when these type of structures are put up and we do have winter, what kind ,` of loss we are going to lose in parking. It was just for future reference is why I was asking it. Mr. Burton: I guess, and I don't mean to sound vague, we only lose as many as we can afford to lose. If we lose too many, because you do lose some, but if there is none to be lost then we just leave the equipment there. At our shopping centers, all year long we leave front-end loaders to shovel away the snow. We never lose any spaces because we can't afford to. Mr. Shane: The service court areas, are you using trash compactors? Mr. Parker: We are in a study right now as to whether we are using compactors or a large dumpster. We are giving serious consideration to having a compactor at both the north and south entrances, because they are large buildings. They are 175 feet away just junk paper builds a little mountain each week, in our electronic society. Mr. Shane: I was concerned that which ever one you use that it is not visible to the public. Mr. Parker: The plan shows right now that the space where trash is going to be handled be a dumpster or be a compactor, that there is a brick screen wall all the way around it so that it is totally non-visible. 18004 Mr. Shane: Are you going to have parking lot lights? And are you also going to have more decorative type lights in the boulevard entry? `.. Mr. Parker: Yes. I've got a little sheet that I brought along here. The majority of the base parking lot would be done in a standard pole, I guess you would call it a shoebox light, a down type light. What we are looking at along the entrance boulevard would be, and this would be a model of one of a hundred lights. We would like to think about doing a more expensive dressed up light to identify the entrance to the building and for aesthetic benefit,just to dress it up a little bit. Mr. Shane: Could you tell me the heights of the parking lot lights? Mr. Parker: We are looking at a 20 foot pole. Mr. LaPine: Do you want to show us the glass and the brick of what you are proposing? Mr. Parker: Yes. Mr. LaPine: While you are doing that, I have one other question to the developer. At our study session we brought up the fact, we know you would probably like this too and you are probably working on it, to see these two buildings go to a corporate headquarters. You've got two big companies in here. That is good for you and it is good for the City of Livonia. It gives us some good publicity that we are a corporate headquarter for so and so. I would hope that you would Sow pursue that. I keep reading in the paper about this big concern that Oakland County if fighting for and Wayne County is fighting for, this new company that is Diameler Chrysler would be a good selling point here. We've got a good City and a good location and good to the expressways and you should pursue that one. Mr. Parker: As I said earlier and as was presented last week, these are actually two samples. What we are looking at is a light to medium beige color brick. As you can see they are the kind of colors that picked up in the renderings along with, we are looking at a number of pieces of glass but the inclination at this point is to do an extremely soft green tint,just something very gentle, but a set of colors that will make this building a little bit distinctive and enhanced along the road. Mr. McCann: Thank you. I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience tonight who wishes to speak for or against this petition? I don't see anybody wishing to speak. If there is nothing else, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was #9-170-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-09-08-12 Victor Park Place Office Building by Pinnacel Auburn Hills, LLC requesting approval of all plans required by sow Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to 18005 construct an office building on property located at 19301 Victor Parkway in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: `v.. 1) That the Site Plans for Phase I &Phase II marked Sheets A-101 and A-102 both dated September 1, 2000, prepared by Hobbs & Black Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plans for Phase I & Phase II marked Sheets LI and L2 both dated August 30, 2000, as revised, prepared by Michael J. Dul& Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4) 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; 5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-200 dated September 1, 2000, prepared by Hobbs & Black Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 7) That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height; 8) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking and deficient size of parking stalls in the underground parking structure and any conditions related thereto; 9) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiencies as outlined in the correspondence dated September 13, 2000: that all the parking spaces shall be double striped that all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Code 10) That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 11) 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. 18006 12) That all roof top mechanical equipment appurtenances shall be shielded from view using colors and material compatible with the colors and material used for construction of the building. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I would just to say that most of us members on the Commission have been here since Victor Parkway first came into us probably eight to ten years ago when Mr. Johnson came in with this great plan with all of these big buildings. We have been really excited about that and we fought for that tooth and nail. Time went on and there was land was rezoned and commercial. We were going to get a Builder's Square down there and we were opposed to that. An Incredible Universe we opposed to that because we didn't want commercial down there. We just wanted this beautiful office complex down there and which I think it is a real asset to this City and to this part of the state. I want to thank you for coming in and buying this property. I am real happy with what you have developed here. I hope we may get a couple of good corporate companies come here and we will have two good corporate citizens and I applaud you for it. I applaud the members of this Commission and the City Council for standing by our guns and saying, "no, we don't want anything but office in here." I think it is for the best interest of the City. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no more comments, I just want to reiterate and say that Bill said it all. We are real pleased to have you and we hope the best for us. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of the agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-06-01-13 Joseph Trupiano Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-01-13 by Joseph Trupiano on behalf of the Marney Group requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue and Green Lane Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 (known as 27480 Five Mile Road and 27486 Five Mile Road) from R-1 to R-C. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #9-171-2000 RESOLVED that, Petition 2000-06-01-13 by Joseph Trupiano on behalf of the Marney Group requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue and Green Lane Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 (known as 27480 Five Mile Road and 27486 Five Mile Road) from R-1 to R-C be removed from the table. 18007 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is there anything additional? Joseph Trupiano, 37219 Fairfax, Livonia. Mr. McCann: Are there any changes since the last time we met? Mr. Trupiano: The only change, I think, would be that we have met with some of the homeowners, the residents, to get some input from them as to what they would like to see happen, the color brick, type of shingle, what to do with anfilliary property in the back, things like that. We want to be a good neighbor and keep them involved in the process. Short of that, nothing else has happened. The site plan remains the same. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 29, 2000 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-06-01-13 by Joseph Trupiano on behalf of the Marney Group requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue and Green Lane Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 (known as 27480 Five Mile Road and 27486 Five Mile Road) from R-1 to R-C, the Planning Commission does hereby *tow following to the City Council that Petition 2000-06-01-13 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends that the subject property be utilized in part for office uses and in part for the low density residential land uses; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the adjacent single family residential uses in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning represents a deep encroachment of a multiple family residential zoning district into a single family residential area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an unacceptable increase in the population density in the subject area; 5) That the proposal will have a negative effect on property values adjacent to said property. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? If not, I have a comment. I am going to vote against the denying resolution. I have looked at what is being proposed here. I have looked at the area around it. I visited it. This only really takes the southern part of the `°'� property. It leaves the back vacant. It won't be able to be built on. It really only 18008 effects two of the neighbors. I can't think of any less intrusive use for that property. We have looked at other plans. They don't want parking back there. They don't want the woods torn down. I just can't see a better use. I am going to .. vote against it. Will the secretary please call the roll? A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Koons NAYS: Alanskas, Shane, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann: It is a tie vote. The resolution does not pass. Do we have an alternative resolution? On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 29, 2000 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-06-01-13 by Joseph Trupiano on behalf of the Marney Group requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue and Green Lane Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 (known as 27480 Five Mile Road and 27486 Five Mile Road) from R-1 to R-C, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-06-01-13 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the %or surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with good land use planning principles of providing a buffer or transition zone between single family residential land uses and major thoroughfares; 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more of a variety of housing options in the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for development of the subject property in a manner consistent with its size and location. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I see your point but first of all I don't think that that is the best solution for that property. I would prefer cluster homes. Originally, this package came in at 14. You can put 12 cluster homes in there, which is much more compatible, and would not be two story. I have never seen a plan for it. If we are a Planning Commission, I think it is probably our duty to come up with such a plan. At least look at it and secondly, I don't object to seeing vacant land. We don't have to fill up every lot right away just because somebody wants to fill it up. I do believe, personally, that cluster homes would 18009 be a more effective and a better use for that property than one big two story building, that is going to over look the other houses. Mr. McCann: Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, I get the last comment. My comment, Dan, would be that cluster homes would be the same problem we had off of Schoolcraft and that is going to go back where the back of the houses are going to face the front of the house and you are going to have one street where there is going to be a road right behind somebody's backyard. It is going to be the same problem that we had before and this is going to penetrate into the residential area more and have a bigger impact on the neighbors by going with a cluster housing project than with this. Mr. Piercecchi: Jim, I could feel even better about it if it was single story but these are two story structures. They are going to be up in the 30 feet class. I did look at the package that was recommended at the last meeting here. I did go up Eight Mile Road and take a look at it. That is an entirely different atmosphere. There is no comparison. Mr. LaPine: My position is the same as Mr. Piercecchi. I went over and looked at the one off of Gill Road and I wasn't impressed, to be honest with you. I live right up there at Eight Mile and Gill Road. I probably would be a little bit more amenable to this petition if it was a one-story building but with two stories, I think it over dwarfs the houses, the single story family residential houses. That is my reasoning for voting against it. �.. Mr. McCann: Will the secretary please call the roll. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, Shane, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Piercecchi, Koons ABSENT: None Mr. McCann: Now we have a tie vote. If there is no objection, I am going to go to the petitioner. I am considering changing my vote to "no" to move you on to Council. It is a change of zoning. It would go automatically to the Council, if you want. But it wouldn't go with a split denying resolution or the other alternative, since we have two tie motions, it would automatically be adjourned to the next meeting. I am going to let you make the decision. Do you want us to battle it out or go to Council? Mr. Trupiano: I am a little at a loss. I apologize. I don't do this very often but I thought we lobbied up some support from the neighbors and I thought there were some letters that were written and that there was a petition that was sent. Mr. Alanskas: Yes. We got the letters and petition. Mr. Piercecchi: They are all against it. 18010 Mr. Trupiano: We invited them to an informational meeting. I guess the people that were for it attended. Mr. McCann: It is up to you. It is either automatically tabled or I can change my vote and that would allow it to go on to Council. Mr. Trupiano: I think I would just as soon go on to Council. I guess we would have a shot at it that way. Mr. McCann: If there is no objection, will the secretary recall the vote to deny. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 29, 2000 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-06-01-13 by Joseph Trupiano on behalf of the Marney Group requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue and Green Lane Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 (known as 27480 Five Mile Road and 27486 Five Mile Road) from R-1 to R-C, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-06-01-13 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends that the subject property be utilized in part for office uses and in part for the low density residential land uses; `. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the adjacent single family residential uses in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning represents a deep encroachment of a multiple family residential zoning district into a single family residential area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an unacceptable increase in the population density in the subject area; 5) That the proposal will have a negative effect on property values adjacent to said property. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is that within proper protocol? Mr. Taormina: To reconsider the previous vote to deny? Mr. McCann: I should ask Mr. Piercecchi. He is the master of Robert's Rules. Mr. Piercecchi: The motion was made to deny. It is denied so it goes to Council. Mr. McCann: The motion to deny hasn't been approved yet. The roll needs to be recalled. Please call the roll. 18011 On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was #9-172-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 29, 2000 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-06-01-13 by Joseph Trupiano on behalf of the Marney Group requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue and Green Lane Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 (known as 27480 Five Mile Road and 27486 Five Mile Road) from R-1 to R-C, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-06-01-13 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends that the subject property be utilized in part for office uses and in part for the low density residential land uses; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the adjacent single family residential uses in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning represents a deep encroachment of a multiple family residential zoning district into a single family residential area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an unacceptable increase in the population density in the subject area; 5) That the proposal will have a negative effect on property values adjacent to said property. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Piercecchi, LaPine, Koons, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, Shane ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-07-01-14 Brashear, Tangora & Spence, LLP (Durresi Restaurant) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-07-01-14 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence, LLP on behalf of Durresi Restaurant requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road north of Joy Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was 18012 #9-173-2000 RESOLVED that, Petition 2000-07-01-14 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence. LLP on behalf of Durresi Restaurant requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road north of Joy Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2 be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #9-174-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 29, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-07-01-14 by Brashear, Tangora and Spence, LLP on behalf of Durresi Restaurant requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road north of Joy Road in the S.E.1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-07-01-14 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning represents spot zoning in that the balance of the shopping center property would remain in the C-1 zoning district; 3) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to set a precedent of **.. rezoning a small part of a commercial development to a different, less restrictive zoning district so as to accommodate a proposed use which is contrary to good land use and zoning principles; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning would invite future requests for zoning changes from C-1 to C-2 for similarly situated properties and thus erode the local business character of shopping centers that were established in C-1 districts for the purpose of providing neighborhood type commercial services. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to the City Council with a denying resolution. ITEM #4 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING (C.R.#608-00) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion to hold a Public Hearing pursuant to C.R. #608-00 regarding notification to property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of public zoned lands, and within 500 feet of a proposed lease site within public zoned lands, for all proposed cellular tower installations on public zoned lands, and requiring notification signs prepared and posted by the City at locations on streets abutting said public zoned lands `�' and at entrances thereto. 18013 Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #9-175-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #608-00 and Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42A of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance relative to public notification requirements for all proposed cellular tower installations on public zoned lands. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Shane, LaPine, Koons, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 Approval of the Minutes 809`h Regular Meeting r.. Mr. Piercecchi, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 809th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 25, 2000. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #9-176-2000 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 809th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission of July 25, 2000, are hereby approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Koons, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 18014 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 811th Regular Meeting held on September 19, 2000, was adjourned at 8:28 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CL,ctAvcRux:CkzA6 • Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: %, ames . Cann, Chairman /rw So,