HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-06-0320439
MINUTES OF THE 866"' REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 866" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine Carol Smiley
Members absent: John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott
Miller, Planner III, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, 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 PETITION 200141-02-26 BOULDER PINES
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2001-
11-02-26 submitted by Michael Soave, on behalf of Boulder
Pines, requesting approval of the Master Deed and bylaws in
connection with a condominium development located at 32405
Seven Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 10.
20440
Mr. Miller:
This site is located on the south side of Seven Mile between
Merriman and Brookfield. On May 8, 2002, this site received
wavier use approval for a single-family cluster residential
development named "Boulder Pines" The develop will consist
of nine unitsflots fronting on a private north/south road. The
petitioner is now submitting the Master Deed and bylaws for
review and approval by the City.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, is there any addifional information?
Mr. Taormina:
There is no new correspondence related to this item.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Are there any questions
from the Commissioners?
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Chairman, just one question. Mark, does our attorney read
these things? Most of these things are done in lawyers'
language. Maybe Mr. McCann, being an attorney, knows these
things inside out, but are we sure this is up-to-date and
everything is the way it should be?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the Master Deed and bylaws are presented to the Law
Department prior to the Council's final action. They will review
those provisions in the documents that relate primarily to the
City's involvement, such as the storm water management,
dwelling size, percentage of brick, and, in this particular case,
under Arlide VII, the expansion of the condominium to induce
the adjoining parcels.
Mr. La Pine:
I'm refering to a lot of the other things in here. Is this what an
owner gets when he purchases a condo? Does he get a copy
ofthese?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
I hope they read them.
Mr. Taormina:
Oftentimes they don't
Mr. La Pine:
That's all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this? Hearing no
one, a motion is in order.
20441
On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#06-78-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request submitted by
Michael Soave, on behalf of Boulder Pines, for approval of the
Master Deed and bylaws in connection with Petition 2001-11-
02-26, which previously received site plan approval by the City
Council on May 8, 2002 (Council Resolution No. 241-02), for the
condominium development located at 32405 Seven Mile Road
in the Northwest '''/ of Section 10, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws comply with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Tifle
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fact the following shall be
incorporated:
- That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be
brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of
brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less
than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story
dwellings;
That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed or separate recordable instrument wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of
Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the
storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and
giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each
lot owners property prorata and place said charges on
their real estate lax bills in the event said charges are not
paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner)
within thirty (30) days of billing bylhe City of Livonia;
3. That the brick used in the construction of each
condominium unit shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no
exceptions;
4. That the petitioner shall induce language in the Master
Deed or a separate recordable instrument establishing a
cross access agreement between this development and
the adjacent developments that are being developed in
relationship to this development; and,
20442
5. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #241-02
in connection with Petition 2001-11-02-26, which permitted
the development of single-family cluster homes on the
subject property, shall remain in effect to the extent that
they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. It
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
k1=Ii4F:'YM9=k1YY[e]: DADYdr]:ErI:15[:�0NC4r1*91
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2002-08-08-18 submitted by Tn-West Development, on behalf
of Farmington Road Office Complex, requesting approval to
revise plans which were approved in connection with a proposal
to construct an office complex on property located at 19337
Farmington Road in the Southeast%of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Farmington between
Seven Mile and Norfolk. On October 9, 2002, this site received
Site Plan Approval in connection with a proposal to construct a
three -building office complex. Part of this site is the former
location of the City's Fire Station #3. The fire station will be
renovated and transformed into one of the office buildings. The
petitioner is requesting approval to revise the plans that were
approved. The changes are needed in order for the petitioner to
meet the needs of certain clients that are interested in leasing
the buildings. The renovations to the old fire station would take
place as approved; it is the footprint of the other two buildings
that are to be modified. Building "B," which would sit directly
south of the fire station, would more or less be positioned as
originally approved but would be enlarged from 4,004 sq. R. to
5,759 sq. R. It is still identified as being occupied by both
general office and medical type uses. Other than having the
elevations extended, the architectural look of the building would
be exactly as originally approved. Building "C" would remain
adjacent to the rear lot line but would be downsized from 6,003
sq. R. to 4,200 sq. ft. Originally, a detention basin was to have
occupied the space just north of Building "C." The new Site
Plan shows Building "C" shifted to the north and occupying the
space where the basin was to be located. The new plan does
not show any type of detention basin or mentions him site
runoff would be handled. Building "C" is still listed as being
20443
occupied by general office type uses. The architecture of this
building would look basically as originally approved. In order to
accommodate the changes to the buildings, the parking scheme
for the complex has been adjusted. They are required to have
90 parking. As they are showing 94 spaces, they meet the
parking requirements. On May 30, 2003, the petitioner
submitted a revised Landscape Plan. The new plan is basically
the same as what was originally approved except for the area
near and along the rear lot line. The landscaping in this area
has been modified because of the widening of the greenbelt, the
shitting of the building and the deletion of the detention basin.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 27, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The drive approach to Farmington
Road requires Wayne County approval and this site is subject to
the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. We
have noted that there is no above -ground detention area
referenced on the plan, and we therefore assume that detention
to satisfy Wayne County's requirement will be by an
underground enclosed system." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 22, 2003, which
reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an office
complex on property located at the above -referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal with the following
stipulation: An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be
provided where an access mad is a dead end and is in excess
of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum
centedine radius of 50 feet. T or Y turnaround arrangements
shall be permitted." The letter is signed by James E. Comoran,
Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police,
dated May 29, 2003, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the revised plans in connection with a proposal to
construct an oft complex on property located at 19337
Farmington. We would recommend that a fire lane be
established along the driveway between the existing building
and the future office/medical building, and stop signs be
installed at the exits." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated May 29, 2003, which reads as
20444
follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 20, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This site must have a protective wall or an approved
greenbelt where it abuts the residentially zoned property. (2)
The setback of the future 4,200 square foot building in the
northwest area must be a setback of 15.0 feet from the north
property line abutting residential. (3) These properties must be
separated with individual tax identification numbers. Cross
parking and easement agreements satisfactory to Planning and
Council must be recorded. (4) Landscaping is not detailed nor
are the required storm water detention areas. This Department
has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Balli, Tri West Development, 36800 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan.
As was mentioned earlier, we did revise the sizes of the
buildings because we have at this time tenants that are going to
be occupying both buildings. The tenants in the front building,
which is Parcel B, requested a little larger space and that is the
reason we came back with re -submittals. The front elevations
of the buildings are the last elevations that we used. We are still
using the full-back, scored block glass, and some of the
aluminum paneling that we had before. The difference between
this front building and the last front building is the last front
building was only 4,000. So it was like one-third of the front of
this building. The building in back is now smaller, instead of the
same length. But we are using the same kind of material, full
bnck. We are using on the back building tmsses to
accommodate the residential behind it, which shows the same
elevation, the same side yard. Its just smaller lengthwise
instead of the one we had before. The parking, as was just
mentioned, we do have sufficient parking to accommodate for
the three buildings, including the medical in the front building.
The landscaping will be done per plans. We do agree, like last
time, we're under the impression we're still putting the masonry
wall or the concrete wall in the back, in the rear property that
abuts residential. The rear building is 15 feet in the back. The
original plans came in at 10. But I caught it and revised it, so
you should have it on your plans. I believe ifs 15 feet, 11
inches. Is that what it is on your new plans, which is the back
building that backs into the residential? We do have 15.11.
Mr. McCann: Thank you
20445
Mr. Baki: With respect to detention, we did check with Wayne County.
Since we started the process last year with Wayne County, they
already gave us their revised plans for the front approach,
because that is a Wayne County detention. They waived it from
last year, and they are waiving it this year, so I dont have to put
in a detention for this site. That's why we didn't show any.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: How are you going to gel rid of your water? Where is it going?
Mr. Baki: There is already a manhole in the rear of our properly that was
added when the subdivision next door was built. It's going to be
dumped into that. It goes from that location from the back of our
property that was put in years ago; it goes into the manhole and
then into Farmington Road.
Mr. LaPine: Haveyoulalked tothe homeowner?
Mr. Baki:
I haven't had a chance until today. I did go there and talked to
his wife. They already knew about the project. They knew
about the revisions, and they said they were
just going to watch
it on TV. But I said, 'You're sure you knew about
it. Somebody
contacted you?" They said, yes. They received a call from
Mark, and I did stop by and shoe them what I had. They said
what they heard is that its a smaller building, and they have no
problem with it.
Mr. LaPine:
The person they talked to was me, because I went over and
talked to them. They do have one problem. They are not really
happy about it Before the building was here and then you had
the pond over here. Now we have parking closer to their
property line which they are not loo happy about. Beyond that,
they really don't have any big objections to it. Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
Let's get back to this manhole cover you say is going to be
dumped. Is the grading going to be going towards this cover?
Mr. Baki:
No. The engineering had already been discussed. We had an
original design. We had manholes all over the property that all
the water goes into it. Then from there, discharges to that. No
water is going to be dumped in there at all. It's all underground.
All the water is going to go to that manhole from underneath, not
from above.
20446
Mr. Alanskas: Oh, from underground
Mr. Baki:
From underground. We're going to have a catch basin here, we
have one here. We're going to have several catch basins to
accommodate all the properly and discharge to that manhole.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. So you are going to have catch basins to drain the
property.
Mr. Bad :
Yes, all over the property. But no storm detention.
Mr. Alanskas:
Question two: I'm looking at your landscape plan, which is a
very nice plan. You have over 114 shrubs and you've got two
different brands of Spiraea. They are very fast growing shrubs.
Are these going to be maintained properly throughout the year?
Mr. Baki:
Yes, they will.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
I notice that your landscape plan doesn't reflect the new
proposed office building being increased to almost 6,000 square
feel. I think you need to update it.
Mr. Baki:
You mean here?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Baki:
This is just a number because this is the right layout. The
square footage was probably not written on it correctly.
Mr. Shane:
It doesn't look that way according to the plan. It's a minor thing
but...
Mr. Baki:
Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry.
Mr. Shane:
The other thing is, you're still reflecting the protective wall on the
north side. I dont think you meant to do that, did you, on the
landscape plan?
Mr. Bad :
No, we're not putting that in. No.
Mr. Shane:
There's a note there that refers to it. You might want to change
that as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. La Pine:
You say you've got both Building A and B fully leased?
20447
Mr. Baki:
No. Building A does not belong to us any more. We had a
tenant who bought 0. Building B, we do have it sold and mostly
leased. We sold it to a dienl; it is being built to their
specifications.
Mr. LaPine:
Will it be a doctor's office?
Mr. Baki:
There is going to be physical therapist in the front. In the back
three units, there will be a doctors office, which is going to be
open between the hours of 9 and 5.
Mr. LaPine:
That was going to be my next question. Now, the smaller
building that is closest to the residents, what are the plans for
that?
Mr. Baki:
It is going to be a real estate office.
Mr. LaPine:
It's going to be a real estate office?
Mr, Baki:
yes.
Mr. LaPine:
It's going to be just for real estate. Its not going to be a school
for real estate where there will be a lot of traffic?
Mr. Baki: No, no. Just an office for real restate to mn business out of.
Mr. LaPine: Which means that it is going to be open on Sunday. Normally,
real estate offices are open on Sunday.
Mr. Baki: Until 5 p.m. Usually they are open on Sunday, yes.
Mr. LaPine: That doesn't make me too happy, but okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Anybody else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#06-79-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-08-08-18
submitted by Tn-West Development, on behalf of Farmington
Road Office Complex, requesting approval to revise plans,
which were previously approved by Council Resolution #536-02,
KIN,
in connection with a proposal to construct an office complex on
property located at 19337 Farmington Road in the Southeast %
of Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan dated May 16, 2003, prepared by
Landmark Engineering Company, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except for the fact that Building "C"
shall be shifted in order to meet all setback requirements;
2. That the Landscape Plan dated May 30, 2003, as revised,
marked sheet P1 prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet
P4 and P5, both dated May 20, 2003, as revised, prepared
by Tiseo Architects, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
5. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
6. That the petitioner shall cored to the Police Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated May 29, 2003:
- That a fire lane be established along the driveway
between the existing building and the future
office/medical building;
- That"stop" signs be installed atthe exits;
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolufion shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for; and,
8. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #536-02
in connection with Petition 2002-08-08-18, which permitted
the construction of an office complex on the subject
property, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are
not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
20449
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. ft
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
39201 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest%of Section T
Mr. Miller:
ITEM #3 PETITION 2003 -04 -SN -03 AMERICAN COMMUNITY
Mr. Pieroecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-04SN-03 submitted by Paul Varney, on behalf of
American Community Mutual Insurance Company, requesting
approval for ground signage for the office building located at
39201 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest%of Section T
Mr. Miller:
This site is located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and
Haggerty just north of the Schoolcreft College campus. Directly
across Seven Mile Road to the north is the Macaroni Grill
Restaurant. American Community Mutual Insurance Company
is requesting approval for two monument -type ground signs.
This office building is permitted two freestanding signs at 30
square feel because it has more than 200 feet of frontage along
two roads, which in this case are Seven Mile Road and
Haggerty Road. The ground signs would be located next to the
driveways this facility has off these roads. The design of the
signs would be that of a tier like construction. The sign
component would sit on top of a two -stepped tier base, made up
of retaining walls of block. Brick pavers would cover the top of
the upper tier and form a base for the sign. An aerial view of the
signs, as shown on the plans, illustrate they would have a
marquise -like shape. Both signs would be illuminated by
ground -mounted lights.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated May 2, 2003, indicating that they have no
objection to this petition. The Teter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Frank Pierron,
Architect, President, Lindhoul Associates Architects, 10465
Citation Drive, Brighton, Michigan 48116. 1 am the contact
20450
person. With me is Paul Varney, the petitioner representing
American Community Mutual Insurance Company. Mr. Miller
has presented our petition well. We're just here to answer any
questions.
Mr. McCann: Wonderful. Anyquestions? Mr. Alanskas?
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the lighting in your picture, where is your lighting
going to be?
Mr. Pierron: Along the front of 0, shining on R.
Mr. Alanskas: Is it around the whole length or just a certain part of it?
Mr. Pierron: Just the sign.
Mr. Alanskas: Just the sign. How many feet? How many lights will you have?
Mr. Pierron: Pardon me?
Mr. Alanskas: How many lights?
Mr. Pierron: Just one per sign.
Mr. Alanskas: Just one per sign. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? No?
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alankas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#06-80-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-04SN-03
submitted by Paul Varney, on behalf of American Community
Mutual Insurance Company, requesting approval for ground
signage for the office building located at 39201 Seven Mile
Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 7, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Plan marked sheet S7 dated April 24, 2003,
prepared by Lindhout Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
20451
2. That these signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this office building closes;
3. That no LED lightband or neon shall be permitted on this
site, including but not limited to the building or around the
windows;
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval; and,
5. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make one comment. I'd like to
commend American Community Mutual Insurance Company for
the outstanding job they've done with their landscaping and how
well kept the property is. Its one of the nicest large parcels I've
seen in Livonia, and I'm really proud knowing what they done.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. It
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
WITiFa=:1=k0 P]�f'kZrJCflJ, y.QrLlI��I�I6Y4] 1941MA/:i0]F=111
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-05SN-04 submitted by Heileman Signs, on behalf of
Tennyson Chevrolet, requesting approval for ground signage for
the used vehicle dealership located at 32720 Plymouth Road in
the Southwest %of Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth between
Farmington and Hubbard. On October 10, 2001, Tennyson
Chevrolet received waiver use approval to operate a used car
lot on the subject site. As part of the approval, it was
conditioned: "That no signs, either freestanding or wall
mounted, art; approved with this petition, all such signage shall
be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council." The petitioner is requesting
approval for a conforming ground sign. The sign would have a
20452
monument -type construction with a masonry base. It would be
located in front of the facility near the intersection of Plymouth
Road and the side street, Mayfield Avenue. The submittal does
not include a request for a wall sign. They are allowed one
ground sign at 30 square feet; they are proposing a sign at 20
square feet, so it is a conforming sign. The conforming ground
sign would be internally illuminated, and it sets back 10 feet
from Plymouth Road and alsofrom Mayfield.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated May 28, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of May 12, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted:
(1) This petition shows a ten (10) foot setback from Plymouth
Road right-of-way. It must also be ten (10) feet from Mayfield
Avenue right-of-way. This Department has no further objection
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tim Heileman,
Heileman Sign Company, 22901 Stadium, Sl. Clare Shores,
Michigan 48080. I'd like to answer any questions.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Just on illumination, again. How will this sign be illuminated?
Mr. Heileman:
Fluorescent lighting.
Mr. Alanskas:
Inside the sign?
Mr. Heileman:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
And it will be on until what time?
Mr. Heileman:
Whatever the dealership sets the time clock at.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions? I noticed Mr. Tennyson was in
the audience with you tonight.
Mr. Heileman:
Yes, he is here.
20453
Mr. McCann: Mr. Tennyson, do you have any comments?
Chris Tennyson, Tennyson Chevrolet, 32720 Plymouth Road. I think our sign is
3. That this ground sign shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour atter this business closes;
4. That no LED lightband or neon shall be permitted on this
site, including but not limited to, the building or around the
windows;
5. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
within all the regulations the City has.
Mr. McCann:
It looksjuslfine. I just wanted the opportunity to say hello and
resolution adopted. It
for the audience to see you on television.
Mr. Tennyson:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
You'rewelcome. If there is nothing else, a motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Pieroecchi, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#06-81-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-05SN-04
submitted by Heileman Signs, on behalf of Tennyson Chevrolet,
requesting approval for ground signage for the used vehicle
dealership located at 32720 Plymouth Road in the Southwest''/.
of Section 27, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Heileman Signs, as
received by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2003, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the approved sign shall meet all setback
requirements;
3. That this ground sign shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour atter this business closes;
4. That no LED lightband or neon shall be permitted on this
site, including but not limited to, the building or around the
windows;
5. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. It
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
YI1L4+1
k [=I Ai E:']",M9=k IY Ole]: DADkIIr]•4-97 U937184=W311 [9911 N k
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petifion
Pefition 2003-05SN-05 submitted by Carne Lynch, on behalf of
Advance Auto Parts, requesting approval for additional signage
for the commercial building located at 29201 Seven Mile Road
in the Northwest%of Section 12.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Seven Mile beween
Middlebell and Maplewood. On November 20, 2002, Advance
Auto Parts received Site Plan Approval to construct a store on
the subject site. As part of the approval, it was conditioned:
"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." Since then, the City of Livonia Building Department
has issued this store a peril for a conforming wall sign for the
front of the building and a conforming ground sign identifying the
business from Seven Mile Road. The petitioner is now
requesting approval for additional signage. Advance Auto Parts
would like to erect another wall sign on the east elevation of the
building and install lightbars along the entire north and east
elevations. A cutout detailing a cross-section of the lightbar
shows that they would be illuminated by fluorescent lamps
encased by rounded plastic lenses. The lightbars are
considered signage because they "attmcf' to the building in a
similar fashion as a sign. They are permitted one wall sign at 70
square feet and one ground sign at 30 square feet. They have
an existing sign on the building that is 68 square feet and a
conforming ground sign. The petitioner is requesting an
additional sign on the east elevation at another 68 square feet
and lightbars for a total of 98 square feet. Because the
additional signage is in excess of what is permitted by the sign
ordinance, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would
be required.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from
the properly owner, Trails End Holdings, LLC, dated May 1,
2003, which reads as follows: As the property owner of the
above -referenced property, please let this letter serve as our
approval for the proposed additional signage variance that
Advance Auto Parts is requesting. We authorize application to
be made to the City of Livonia by Allied Signs, Inc., 33650
Girton Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035. The signage
20455
proposed consists of one set of 27" neon channel letter (same
as front) and light bar on the entire length of the front and left
elevations." The letter is signed by Paul Bahm, Managing
Member. The second letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated May 29, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of May 12, 2003, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. This petitioner is not
allowed a second wall sign. The only wall sign allowed would
be on the Seven Mile elevation and could total up to 69.4
square feet. This Department has no further objection to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is the petitioner here this evening?
Patrick Stieber,
Allied Signs, 33650 Giflos Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan
48035.
Mr. McCann:
Is this your pefition this evening, sill
Mr. Stieber:
Yes, it is. We are here representing Advance Auto. We are
requesting to install a lightbar lighting system on the front and
side elevation of the building to architecturally enhance the
building. I do know that you do classify this as signage, but it's
not identifying the business in any sort. We're speaking an
architectural enhancement to light up the building itself. We're
trying to get your comments on that and what you think about
this.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi:
How can you justify all this extra lighting, sir?
Mr. Stieber:
We've already been denied the second sign on the side
elevation, so that's gone. But we are asking for the lightbar for
the enhancement architecturally to the building itself. That's the
jusfificafion - to architecturally enhance the entire building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You're talking about a neon -type light?
Mr. Stieber:
No. It's a fluorescent lighting system that is covered with a
plastic bar. It looks like a bar that goes across. Underneath it is
fluorescent lighting. So rather than have exposed fluorescent
lighting, basically there's a plastic cover over it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Why is this important?
20456
Mr. Steber:
Advance Auto has come up with this system to light up the area
on the side. That's why they want a side elevation, to light that
area on the side. Lighting issues, aesthetic issues, to make it
look better than just normal lighting. Those are the reasons
behind it as far as Advance Auto is concerned. We do have
some photos of an existing location that Kevin Booker has
brought. You can take a look at how that looks as far as
lighting. One is illuminated and one is not illuminated.
Mr. Piercecchr
Frankly, I dont know if you really need any more with that big
red that you have there.
Mr. Stieber:
On the front elevation?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Its very, very, very gaudy, as you know. You cant help but see
d. To justify more signage, I think you should have better
reasons than that. You say you're giving up on another sign?
Mr. Stieber:
Yeah. We're not even asking for the second sign on the side
elevation. As I said, really its not really even considered
signage; its not identifying anything. There's no trademark or
any writing of any sort on the signage on this Iighthar so to
speak.
Mr. Piercecchr
According to my records here, sir, you're asking for a wall sign
of 68 square feel saying "Advance Auto Parts" and then
Iightbars, for a total of 98 square feet.
Mr. Steber:
Right. Yes. Originally, yes, that was asked for. In the letter
dated May 29, 2003, that was thrown right out the window by
Alex Bishop, that the petitioner is not allowed a second wall
sign.
Mr. Piercecchi:
He's not the one to throw it out. The Zoning Board of Appeals
could approve that sign.
Mr. Stieber:
So that can be approved as well?
Mr. Piercecchr
And it goes through us, then it goes through them.
Mr. Stieber:
Okay.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I don't see where Iightbars are going to do you any good. It's
just going to make that red and those colors, really ... I see no
justification for it, sir. Personally, unless you can convince me,
20457
and I dont know how the other people feel, but I don't see any
justficaton for that.
Mr. Stieber:
I think it's justifiable on the side elevation as well as on the front.
It's going to give lighting to the side of the building and the
parking area there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You're talking along the east elevation?
Mr. Stieber:
Yes, and the front as well.
Mr. Piercecchr
It may make more sense on the west elevation, but on the east
elevation, that is where the Legion Hall is. Right? East of you is
the veterans building?
Mr. Taormina:
That's the VFW hall to the east.
Mr. Piercecchr
That is east of them, right?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchr
Okay. I'll pass, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have been in the parts business for over 30 years. Our
building was located on a residenfial street, and we had less
signage than you have now. I always found that if you have
good pricing, good people, good products, you don't need
Iighthars to have people look at your building. Look at your
building now. I mean, within 100 feet, you'd have to be blind not
to see your building. The Iightbar is not going to do anything for
you. We have rules and regulations. You're allowed so many
square feel. If we allowed every business to have additional
signage, this city would look like a lit -up pumpkin. And that's
why we limit the square feet of signage that you can have. If
you had a hardship where the building was hidden, H would be a
different story, but that's not the case here. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Can you make an argument for me how Iighthars enhance the
architecture of the building?
Kevin Booker,
I represent Commonwealth Sign Company. We're the
manufacturer of the said signage and Iighthar for Adance Auto.
Allied Sign Company is our chosen sub in this part of the
country and, in turn, they have filed and applied for this
variance. Maybe I could speak a little bit because I'm more
versed on the program than Patrick is. Just two things just to
20458
backtrack. Obviously, in reading the staff recommendation, the
second set of signage, which I'm in full agreement, is nothing
but signage and is not allowed; therefore it was stricken from
our application. However, we feel that the Iightbar is not
signage as such even though it is provided by a sign company.
Unfortunately, the illuminated red bar does not denote Advance
Auto Parts. So with that being said, we like to call it an
architectural embellishment. It also maintains that corporate
look if you will. Like you said, the red may be considered
gaudy, may be considered loud, however you wish to deem
that. However, that is their corporate look, same as the BP with
its green Iightbar around the canopy, Taco Bells, Wendys, all
buildings in that type thing have a certain look that they
maintain. So it's with that premise that we would ask for the
Iighthar because we perceive it not as signage but as a building
enhancement. Also, for what it's worth, it actually minimizes the
way Advance Auto used to illuminate their signage, which was
by huge floodlights on 25 parking lot lights. So you had, in
essence, something that looked like a football stadium at night
because they just flooded it with light. Realizing that is not
neighborly and its a little much, they've scaled away from fiat.
Yes, they still have parking lot lights but they have eliminated
channel letters and this Iightbar. So, for what its worth, they
really scaled back their nighttime visibility. And as you said, you
can see the red panels during the day, but at night, they go
away. There's no illumination on those red panels. We're
asking for the red accent bar. So I dont know if that offers any
explanation.
Mr. La Pine:
What are your hours?
Mr. Booker:
I believe their hours are from 8:00 a.m. until 9:00 at night,
Monday through probably Saturday.
Mr. La Pine:
So the only time that neon light would be any advantage to you,
in my opinion, would be in the winter months because it's still
light out at 9:00 at night now through September. I
just can't
believe that tie red light going around there is going
to attract
people to your location.
Mr. Booker:
I'm not saying ...
Mr. La Pine:
But just to say one other thing ... see, our ordinance dictates
that the neon tubing or lightband or whatever you want to call it,
is considered signage. That's our interpretation of our
ordinance. Other communities may have different
20459
interpretations as you well know. But basically, throughout the
country, I know you're in a number of states, do all the
communities allow you to have this Iightband?
Mr. Booker: Yes, sir. I was hying to think. I have, if you call it pleasure, I
have the joy of going around the country addressing these same
things. I was just in Gaylord, Michigan last week. Very rarely is
the Iightbar an issue. Usually, its all signage as we all deem
signs. You put a box around the letters and that's square
footage and that's signage. You know, with that being said, the
Iightbar has not been an issue. So to answer your question, no
we have not encountered any situations with that.
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me just go back. When you first made your application to
the Planning Commission and the City Council, at that time
there was no indicaton that there was going to be a fightbar.
Has this come up since you decided you dont want the second
sign? Now you want the band of red around the building?
Mr. Booker:
Oh, no sir. In all of our applicatons, the lightbar has been
shown. So this isn't an, "Oh goodness, we cant have signage;
let's go to plan two." And as you mentioned, the red bar does
not ... I mean it makes them visible, but its not signage. I
mean its their choice to erect that. I guess, not knowing the
background, I'm making an assumpfion here. But the BP
staton two miles down the road, obviously that's undergone an
image change. It has the green banding and all that on the
canopy which is no different than this. So with that being said,
and they may fall within a different jurisdiction, so I'm speaking
totally off the cuff, but you know its no more than their corporate
look and that's our contention.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
I think where Mr. LaPine was having trouble with your
application, and so was I, is that your picture here says
"lghtbar," but it doesn't show where i is. It doesn't identfy its
location. There's no arrow pointing to it at least in the material
we have.
Mr. Booker:
I guess the reason is, where do we draw the little black box line
with the red on the bottom in both elevations?
Mr.Shane:
Yes, l understand.
Mr. Booker:
That is lightbar, and like I said, its not an issue.
20460
Mr. Shane:
Some people can come to that conclusion, but in the future,
draw it out a little bit more. Then we'll know what we're talking
about.
Mr. Booker:
I'm not sure its one ofthose things...
Mr. Shane:
But you have either voluntarily or just because its not allowed,
given up the second sign. Period.
Mr. Booker:
Correct. The second signage is ...
Mr. Shane:
All we're left with is the lightbar?
Mr. Booker:
Correct.
Mr. Shane:
Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Booker:
And also, I'm not sure if you're aware that the parcel has
somewhat of a unique entrance. Its standard of their building,
but it has somewhat of a comer entrance. So as you notice,
they have Iighthar on both, as you said, I guess the American
Legion side and the Seven Mile Road elevation and that ties in
that front entrance there. So that maintains, once again, their
corporate look.
Mr. McCann:
Well, we knew when you came before us that this was a unique
piece of properly and you decided to build there. I guess the
problem you're having, and we're having, is we take it as that
entrapped either neon or fluorescent lighting creates a bar of
light. That's what we deal with as part of the signage. It can be
shaped; it can be configured. If there's zigzags, you can do
anything with it, but its an attention -getter for the building. If
you've got visibility problems with your building at night, there
are other types of lighting you can do - ground lighting. You've
got down -lighting on the side of the building now, which makes
the building brighter without affecting the neighbors. I think the
discussion is over. Mr. Piercecchi, you said you had a motion?
On a motion
by Mr. Piercecohi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#06-82-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-05SN-05
submitted by Carrie Lynch, on behalf of Advance Auto Parts,
requesting approval for additional signage for the commercial
20461
building located at 29201 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest''/.
of Section 12, be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the
requirements outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has not justified the need for any
additional signage for this location over what is permitted
by the sign ordinance;
3. That approving this signage request would set an
undesirable precedent for the area; and,
4. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the
City's best interest.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal the
decision in writing to the City Council.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2003-05-0840 INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-05-08-10 submitted by Rick Harding, on behalf of
Integrated Environmental, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to, and
renovate the exterior of, the office building located at 19849
Middlebell Road in the Southeast %of Section 2.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Middlebelt between
Bretton and Eight Mile Road. Integrated Environmental is
requesting approval to construct an addition to, and renovate
the exterior of, the existing office building located on the subject
site. Adjacent to the north of this site is Clarenceville High
School and abutting to the south is the Lighthouse Worship
Center Church. The proposed addition would be two -stories in
height and a total of 3,700 sq. ft. in area. It would be attached
to the west or rear elevation of the existing structure. Bordering
this property along the rear is an extension of the church's
parking lot. The existing building is one-story in height and
2,250 sq. R. in size. If completed as proposed, the entire
structure would become a total of 5,950 sq. R. in area. Along
with the addition, Integrated Environmental is also planning to
20462
renovate the exterior of the existing building. The existing office
building is constructed out of a grayish white brick. The addition
would be constructed out of a dark red brick. To make the
entire structure look as if it was completed at one time, the
existing building would be re -bricked with the same dark red
brick as the addition. They would be required to have 24
parking spaces; they will have 26 parking spaces available to
this office building. Integrated Environmental has stated that
they have a Cross Parking Access Agreement with Lighthouse
Worship Center Church. Notations on the Site Plan indicate
that during week, Integrated Environmental can "borrow' some
of the church's spaces. This arrangement allows Integrated
Environmental to meet their parking requirement should the
entire building be used as office space. The Floor Plan shows
that at this time, the petitioner is only proposing to use the
second floor of the addition as storage space. As long as the
upper floor was used only for storage, the on-site parking would
satisfy the parking requirement. According to the submitted
plan, additional landscaping would be added to the site.
Presently, there is very little landscaping on the property. By
converting two existing parking spaces into landscaping,
additional greenspace would be provided adjacent to Middlebell
Road. Even though converting these spaces contributes to the
site being deficient in parking, Integrated Environmental felt that
additional landscaping was needed and would enhance the site.
Landscaping is summarized as follows: required landscaping is
not less than 15% of the total site; existing landscaping equals
3% of the site; provided landscaping would be 8% of the site.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 13, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. There is no additional dght-0fmy
required at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J. Shron,
P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated May 22, 2003, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to construct an addition to the office building
located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated May 22, 2003, which reads as follows: 'We have
reviewed the plans in regards to a proposal to construct an
20463
addition to the office building located at 19849 Middlebelt Road.
The site plans indicate that all exterior lighting exists and is to
remain. On the rear/west side of the building, there are
currently two floodlights that illuminate the parking area. The
proposed addition will eliminate these lights. They will need to
be relocated or replaced. There is cumently no posted handicap
parking on the property. The handicap parking space needs to
be property posted. The new landscaping along the sidewalk
should use plant material that will not block the clear view of the
sidewalk for drivers exiting the property." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated May 29, 2003, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 8, 2003, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) The parking area needs repair, maintenance and
double striping. (2) This property abuts residential zoning along
the south and west property lines and requires a protective
screening wall or an approved greenbelt. (3) This space will
require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
deficient parking, 23 spaces are required and 16 are provided.
(4) The barrier free van accessible space should be eight (8)
feet wide with an eight (8) foot access aisle. (5) The
landscaping is deficient of the required 15%. This Department
has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the pefifioner here this evening?
Rich Henes, Comerstone Design, Inc., 25 Jackson Industrial Drive, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48103. We are the architects on the job representing
Dakota Office, LLC. Rick Harding, the tenant of the building, is
also in the audience. As Scott said, we have a parking
deficiency. However, we do have an agreement, signed, from
the Church.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you have the agreement?
Mr.Henes: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: You don't have to present it to us. We'll have it ready for the
Council.
Mr. Henes: Essenfially, this agreement allows Dakota LLC or Integrated
Environmental to use their len spaces on the back of the
property here and in return the church can use the 13 parking
20464
spaces that are on the Dakota LLC parking lot. And, of course,
because the two operations have business at different times,
this works out pretty well. Also, one of the comments was that
we have to relocate these two lights on the back on the west
side of the building. We plan on doing that so the lights will be
on the back of the building. We have increased the landscaping
as pointed out as much as we could in the front. There was
also a comment about the residential area to the south and to
the west and providing some sort of a buffer. Cumenfly,
because Lighthouse Worship Center and Integrated
Environmental are sharing this parking lot, to put up any sort of
a banner would impede that mixed use of the property. Let me
see if there is anything else. We did take care of the parking
space for the barrier free. There is a van accessible space and
an access aisle. That ft in nicely, and it's pretty easy to put a
sign up.
Mr. Piercecchr
Sir, pu touched on the landscaping. Is there any way that you
can revise it? You've pmdically got nothing. There must be
some wayyou can increase that - flower boxes orwhalever.
Mr. Henes:
On the building?
Mr. Piencecchi:
It looks a little bit tired when I went to this site a few days ago.
That landscaping looks a litfle bit fired. Will you acknowledge
that?
Mr. Henes:
Yeah. What we would hope to do with this properly is upgrade
this whole front area.
Mr. Piercecchr
Are you going to increase the landscaping or revise it or what?
Mr. Henes:
Yes. We are going to improve the landscaping on the site.
Mr. Piercecchr
And how is that improvement going to be brought about?
Mr. Henes:
Right now, these are two parking areas which we are going to
convert to landscaped areas.
Mr. Piercecchi:
These are on each side of the fronldoor.
Mr. Henes:
This is the existing landscape strip here. What we plan to do is
replant this to coordinate it into areas that are going to be
planted where the parking is going to be eliminated.
Mr. Piencecchi:
You're going to remove what is currently there?
20465
Mr.Henes: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchr Okay, so that will be renovated. You know, there are some very
bright people that know how to do landscaping, better than I
can. Perhaps they can show you a way that can make your
building look much better. Well, you are advantaged to have
nice landscaping.
Mr. Henes:
One of the goals here is to improve the whole look of the
building. That's why the owner wants all the existing brick on
that one story existing building, to move all that brick and
replace it. It's part of an appearance upgrade, so it would be
kind of foolish not to do landscaping.
Mr. Piercecchi:
How tall will the addition make that building?
Mr.Henes:
Twenty-four feet
Mr. Piercecchi:
Twenty-four feet. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Usually when you have a landscape plan, you will show on the
plan what you are going to be putting in. You have a picture,
but what are you going to be putting in the landscaping?
Mr. Henes:
We have a landscape architect who will be doing this whole
front area.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'd like to know what he's putting in there.
Mr.Henes:
Right now?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Henes:
I couldn't tell you right now.
Mr. Alanskas:
You already have a picture. It looks like you have four trees and
then these litttle... we don't know what this is. And we always
ask for the landscaping to be irrigated, a sprinkling system,
which does not show on the plan also. Is it going to be
irrigated?
Mr. Henes:
We can irrigate that. Right.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
20466
Mr. LaPine:
How many employees are in that building at this lime?
Rick Harding, Dakota Office, LLC, 19849 Middlebell, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1
am the properly owner and the current tenant. And the answer
to your question, the current number of employees occupying
the building is nine.
Mr. LaPine:
Nine?
Mr. Harding:
Nine.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, the second floor, according to the notes we have, is going
to be used for storage.
Mr. Harding:
My current plan is to use it for cold storage because I am
swimming in paper, and I need a place to put it, but not to say
that in the future I might not continue to expand and actually
occupy the area.
Mr. LaPine:
That's the next question I had. If he does expand and uses the
second floor for additional employees, does the required parking
at 200 square feel take that into consideration?
Mr. Taormina:
The parking calculation takes into account space throughout the
entire building, both floors. Twenty-six spaces are based on
both floors being fully occupied for general office use.
Mr. LaPine:
It's based on both floors being occupied?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. The 10 spaces you're leasing from the church, is that the
10 spaces where the new asphalt is going in behind there?
Mr. Harding:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Directly behind your property?
Mr. Harding:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
In the meantime, over the years, the church has always used
your parking lot on Sundays anyways. Theyre overflowing.
Mr. Harding:
Yeah, we've had a gentleman's agreement where I've allowed
them to use my parking lot.
20467
Mr. LaPine: Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Mr. Taormina: One question, if I may to the petitioner. Did you indicate that
you are both the owner and the lessee of the property?
Mr. Harding: Well, actually she owns the property. My wife, Andrea, and I
have an LLC that owns the property. Then we also run
Integrated Environmental, which is the tenant who currently
occupies the building.
Mr. Taormina: But the agreement will be between Dakota, LLC, the owner, and
the church. Presently, is there any sort of an agreement
between the parties for parking?
Mr. Harding:
That is that agreement.
Mr. Taormina:
This is an executed agreement?
Mr. Harding:
Dated May 30.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Harding:
For five years.
Mr. Taormina:
This is good for a period of five years?
Mr. Harding: Five years and automatically renewable unless one of the
parties objects within 90 days ofthe end ofthe five-yearterm.
Mr. LaPine: I just have one more question.
Mr. McCann: Sure.
Mr. LaPine: Maybe I'll ask it of Mark. Let's assume for a minute, Mark, that
after five years, the church decides they don't want to lease
them their parking anymore. Then what do we do? They'll have
insufficient parking.
Mr. Taormina: They will have deficient parking as it exists even with this
reciprocal agreement between the two property owners. Unless
the total parking for both sites is being met, then they will have
to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. So any
conditions that either the Planning Commission or be Zoning
P11111 :l
Board wants to impose relafive to the use of this building in the
event the agreement is terminated, then we ought to consider
that because that could present a problem if the church decides
ifs going to expand or no longer renew this, and then a problem
occurs with parking on this parcel.
Mr. La Pine:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just one question in regards to your landscaping. A lot of times
when firms have a problem and all they have is concrete and
sidewalks in front of the building, they put these huge big pots
on concrete and then you can put annual flowers in them. You
have to hand water them, but it enhances the building and
makes it looks a lot better. You might think about that.
Mr. Harding:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Anything else? A motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#06-83-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-05-08-10
submitted by Rick Harding, on behalf of Integrated
Environmental, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to, and renovate the exterior
of, the office building located at 19849 Middlebelt Road in the
Southeast ''/.of Section 2, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site and Elevation Plan marked Sheet G7 dated
May 15, 2003, prepared by Cornerstone Design, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
20469
4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
6. That there shall be no dumpster located outside of the
building, and all trash must be contained within the building
except on the day trash is scheduled for removal;
7. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
9. That the petifioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated May 29, 2003:
- That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed
and doubled striped;
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
10. That the petitioner shall submit legal documentation
describing a cross access parking agreement between this
site and the Lighthouse Worship Center Church;
11. That if the Inspection Department deems it necessary, this
approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
12. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition;
13. That no LED lightband or neon shall be permitted on this
site, including but not limited to, the building or around the
windows;
20470
14. That for the south and west property lines, the petifioner
shall have the option of either erecting a protective wall
immediately, going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
temporary wall variance or seeking the consent of the
abutfing property owner(s);
15. That the petitioner will submit a detailed Landscape Plan to
the Director of the Planning Department for approval; and
16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: I'm willing to second this motion, Mr. Piercecchi, with a
modification of your condifion number one, where you
mentioned the landscape plan being submitted to Mr. Taormina.
You didn't mention the approval oflhe Site and Elevation Plan.
Mr. McCann: I think that was an oversight. We can add that in there.
Mr. Piercecchr As you noficed, I changed condition one because we don't know
exactly what is in the landscaping plan.
Mr. Shane: I have no problem with that.
Mr. McCann: So we will add: "That the Site and Elevation Plan marked Sheet
C-1 dated April 30, 2003, prepared by Cornerstone Design, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to." Do you agree to that
part?
Mr. Piercecchi: That's fine.
Mr. Harding: May I ask a clarifying queston?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
Mr. Harding: I'm unclear on the wall on the south and the west because that
does not abut residenfial. It abuts the church. I'm just trying to
understand that we view the church as effectively residential?
I'm unclear on that.
20471
Mr. Taormina: The ordinance requires that wherever a non -residentially zoned
property abuts a residental zoned property, which the church is
Mr. Harding: The church is residential?
Mr. Taormina: ... that a separation wall or screening wall shall be constructed.
Mr. Harding: I didn't realize the church was residential.
Mr. Taormina: Yes. And thafs why you would be required to either build the
wall or obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals,
which may, in fact, be the case today given the fact that there is
no wall. You may want to check the Inspection Department
records to see if there is already a variance on file. It may have
to be renewed with this petition.
Mr. Harding: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM#7 PETITION 2003-05-0841 TOWN PEDDLER
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-05-08-11 submitted by Linda Macchiarolo, on behalf of
Town Peddler, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to renovate the exterior of the shopping center located
at 35323 Plymouth Road in the Northwestern %of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Wayne and Yale. The petitioner is requesting approval to
renovate the exterior of the Town Peddler Craft and Antique
Mall. The entire building is constructed out of painted brick,
except the rear elevation, which is block. The only part of the
building to be remodeled would be the north or front elevation.
Presently, the front of the mall is defined by a series of awnings
over large picture window and the front entrance. The plans
shay that the intended new look or architecture would be more
in line with an old western storefront. A section over the
entrance and in the center of the front elevation would protrude
out from the building creating an extended overhang. Wood
trim columns would support this overhang and help present the
20472
impression of a porch. This porch would have a false facade
over it and would give the outward appearance the structure has
a second floor. Shake siding, false windows and a metal roof
would complete the old fashion look. Small sections on both
sides of the extended overhang would also project out, but not
as much as the center area. These sections would also have
fake facades and continue the illusion of a second story.
Vertical siding would create a contrast and set apart the two
fake facades. The remaining portion of the elevation would
have horizontal siding and metal awnings over the existing large
picture windows.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 13, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. Our records indicate that the right-
of-way for Plymouth Road has not been dedicated at this time.
We recommend that the 60 feet of right -0f -way be dedicated at
this time. If the owner has dedicated the right-of-way directly to
the Michigan Department of Transportation, he should provide
the City with a copy of the dedication document." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 22,
2003, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the
exterior of the commercial building located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 22, 2003,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans
requesting approval to renovate the exterior of the commercial
building located at 35323 Plymouth Road. There are currently
four handicap parking spaces for this business. The parking lot
has a total of 119 parking spaces, which requires five parking
spaces to be posted as handicap. We also recommend that a
fire lane be posted along the north side of the building in the
area of the front doors to allow for easy access to the building in
case of an emergency." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated May 29, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 13, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The east drive approach needs repair and/or replacement.
20473
(2) The main parking area needs maintenance, repair and
possible repaving. Double striping is required. (3) The parking
light poles need maintenance and painting. (4) Parking
bumpers by the sidewalk are askew, loose and need to be reset
and re -anchored. (5) The rear access drive has potholes and
needs repair. (6) An unenclosed dumpster is placed at the
southeast comer of the building. (7) The east side of the
building needs to be repainted. (8) The sidewalk and walkway
at the immediate front of the building is severely deteriorated
and needs to be replaced. This Department has no further
objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Linda Macchiarolo, Town Peddler, 35323 Plymouth Road. I am the owner of the
Town Peddler Craft and Antique Mall, and Macch One, LLC,
who owns the building. We purchased the building just a few
years ago.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. You've got quite a bit of work ahead of you there it
soundslike.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Well, its not loo bad. Ask him.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. What would you like to tell us about the petition that we
haven't heard already?
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Well, just the building is pretty ugly right now, and I'm aware of
that. We would really like to change what we have into a more
modem/old-fashioned look to go with the look of what we are -
the craft and antique mall. We are aware of the deficiencies in
the parking lot, the sidewalk, the painting, that all has to be
done. I have enough equity now to do it. That's how it goes,
you know.
Mr. McCann:
Thats right. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
You own the business; he owns the building. Is that correct?
Ms. Macchiarolo:
No, I own both the business and the building, sir. He is my
construction manager. This is Mark Shubow.
Mr. LaPine:
When I went out for my inspection, the first thing I noticed was
the parking lot is in very bad condition. The side of the building
20474
the paint is peeling, and behind the building there are potholes
where you could lose your front end if you weren't watching. I
mean how long have you been at that location?
Ms. Macchiarolo:
We've been there 10 years, but we just purchased the building a
few years ago.
Mr. La Pine:
And over the 10 years, except when you look it over, you
changed from the purple to the other color.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Fluorescent pink.
Mr. La Pine:
Yeah, well, whatever it was, it was terrible. There hasn't really
been any upgrading of this building in 10 years.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Well, no. Mr. Saslow, the man who owned it, he wouldn't put
any money into it. Since then, we have replaced the roof. Its a
beautiful roof. We don't have any leaks any more.
Mr. McCann:
That was my question. I used to represent the prior owner, a
prior tenant, and that roof was always leaking whenever t
rained.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
It was like a rain shower in the store.
Mr. McCann:
Thalwas a big expense, I'm sure.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Yes, it was and we just paid it off.
Mr. La Pine:
Well, let me say, I'm really happy that you're going to upgrade
the building and do all the things
that are required under the
ordinance. When I went out and checked it out, it was the first
time I was in your store, and I was amazed al all the knick
knacks and things you've got in there.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Well, did you buy anything?
Mr. La Pine:
No.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Well, l didn't do my job, then.
Mr.Shane:
Notyet.
Mr. La Pine:
Notyet. I told mywife about it.
20475
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Well, good. See, that's a first step. Most men won't tell their
wives.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, would you explain just a little further what the
Plymouth Road Development Authority would be willing to do
with the landscaping at this particular area? Its mentioned in
the notes here that they're willing to continue their street
landscaping treatment.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we did have a discussion with the Executive Director, John
Nagy, and he indicated that as part of one of the future phases
of construction along Plymouth Road, what the Plymouth Road
Development Authority would consider is adding some sections
of brick piers and wrought iron fencing, probably limited to just
the entranceways. There are two entrances into the site: one
at the west end and one at the east end of the property. It
appears that there is some space available at those entrances,
but a couple of the parking spaces could also be removed to
provide additional landscaping. They would also consider that.
But that would be part of the design project that has not yet
been undertaken by the PRDA.
Mr.Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Anybody else?
Mr. Piercecchr
I want to say I think the theme that you're trying to show there
just goes perfect with what you have inside that building.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Thankyou.
Mr. Piercecchr
I'm looking forward to seeing it. My wife and I like to shop in
those places.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Oh, good. Thank you. I thought we hit the nail on the head.
This was our tenth try so we finally got it right. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
I just had one question. The canopy is going to be raised about
10 feel or so above the existing roof line. On the back side of
that, will there be any kind of screening material placed on the
side opposite? What type of material would you use?
Mark Shubow:
Yes. Some type of material will be installed on the back side of
the facade. Something thatwill not be objectionable.
20476
Mr. Taormina:
Right. The objective is to conceal the framing that's going to be
needed to support the extended facade.
Mr. McCann:
You can have some plans drawn before you get to Council of
what that's going to be.
Mr. Shubow:
The architect I don't think has reached a firm decision as yet.
Mr. McCann:
All right.
Mr. LaPine:
To the best of your knowledge, has the right -0f -way been
dedicated to the City or to the Stale Highway Commission?
Ms. Macchiaroto
I don't even know what that is, sir. So, is that part of the
Plymouth Road?
Mr. La Pine:
Mark will tell you what that is.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
That had to be a long time ago.
Mr. Taormina:
We can discuss that later. It's the area on Plymouth Road, and
whether or not the full right-of-way has been dedicated to the
highway department. We'll go over that in more detail.
Ms. Macchiarolo:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#06-84-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-05-08-11
submitted by Linda Macchiarolo, on behalf of Town Peddler,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior of the shopping center located at 35323 Plymouth Road
in the Northwestern %of Section 33, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site and Elevation Plan marked Sheet SP -1 dated
May 12, 2003, as revised, prepared by George J. Hartman
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
20477
2. That the east, west and south elevations of the building
shall be repainted in a color that corresponds with the
changes to the north elevation;
3. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
4. That an enclosed dumpster area shall be located on the
site and that the three walls of the trash dumpster area
shall be constructed out of the same materials as the
building or, in the event a poured wall is substituted, the
wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
5. That all light fxtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated June 29, 2003:
- That the east drive approach shall be repaired and/or
replaced;
- That the main parking lot shall be repaired, resealed
and doubled striped;
- That the parking light poles shall be repaired or
replaced and painted;
- That the parking bumpers shall be reset and re -
anchored;
- That the rear access drive shall be repaired;
- That the sidewalk and walkway at the immediate front
of the building shall be replaced;
7. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated May 13, 2003:
20478
That the 60 R. of right -0f -way for Plymouth Road shall
be dedicated; if the owner has dedicated the right-of-
way directly to the Michigan Department of
Transportation, a copy of the dedication document shall
be submitted to the City of Livonia;
8. That the petitioner shall cored to the Police Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated May 22, 2003:
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
- That a fire lane be posted along the north side of the
building, in the area of the front doors
9. That only conforming signage is approved with this
pefifion, and any addifional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council;
10. That no LED lighlband or neon shall be permitted on this
site, inducing but not limited to, the building or around
the windows; and
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.
Mr. McCann: I do have a comment. One of the problems in the City is when
we get buildings that are owned by out -0f lown owners and they
just lease them. They dont spend any time there. They really
don't see the condition of them. To have a local owner here
who is putting her life savings into the building, we know we're
getting something special, and that's why we're so happy to
pass on an approving recommendation. As a group, I think we
all wish you the best.
Ms. Macchiarolo: Well, thankyou.
Mr. McCann: This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our
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. Will the Secretary please call Items 8 and 9
together if there is no objection from the Planning
Commissioners?
20479
ITEM #8 PETITION 2003-03-08-06 Marketplace at College Park
Mr. Piemecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-03-08-06 submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, on behalf of
Marketplace at College Park, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a multi -tenant
commercial building on property located at 17370 Haggerty
Road in the Southwest%of Section 7.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Chairman, as stated before, on Pending Items 8 and 9 1 will
be stepping down due to a possible conflict of interest.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Mr. Taormina, did we receive any new plans or
correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There are new plans that have been submitted and should be in
your packets. I'll allow the petitioner to describe the changes on
the plans.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert W. Bednas, Etkin Equities, Inc., 29100 Northwestern Highway, Southfield,
Michigan 48034. 1 am representing Schoolcraft Commons, the
petitioner in this approval request.
Mr. McCann:
Do you wantto show us the plans?
Mr. Bednas:
I havesome plans and some graphics that I can lalkto, yes.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou.
Mr. Bednas:
In the interest of time, can I just pick up where we left off at the
Iasi meeting?
Mr. McCann:
Sure, why don't you grab a microphone and put your plans up.
Mr. Bednas:
If I may, there are number of open issues from the last Planning
Commission meeting that you asked us to consider and
hopefully resolve by this evening. One of them was the
question regarding the use of one of the buildings, which was
identified in the application as an office building or furniture
store. That has now been resolved, and we are no longer
seeking the option for a furniture store use. The building will be
used as an office building. Another item requested at the last
Planning Commission meeting was the addition of street trees.
This is the old graphic, but you have the correct plans in front of
you. We've added 14 Ginko trees along the Haggerty Road
frontage in the greenbelt between the right-of-way line and our
property line. Essentially, it's shown by the green markers on
this plan, and these are in addition to the 12 Norway Maples
that are shown here. Essentially, we have 26 street trees along
the nghtof-way frontage, along with the additional hedges and
ornamental trees that are shown in the plan. The overall
landscape design challenges and intent was presented to you at
the study session last week. I believe all the members that are
here tonight were there, so I won't go into the discussion that
was presented by Jim Eppink, our landscape architect. But I
think he reviewed fairly thoroughly the objectives he was trying
to achieve in developing that landscape plan, not only initially
but in this supplemental addition as well. Lastly, there was a
request that we provide a rendering of the main entry to the
campus. I have two renderings here that I would like to present
to you. I have copies that I will hand out right now. The first is
at eye level from across the street, primarily developed to show
you how the screening of the rooftop units on the Marketplace
building is screened by the parapet wall in the front of the
building. Now you did not have these in your packets because it
look a while to develop these plans, and they were just
delivered to us this afternoon. I should point out the fact that
these renderings were done using computer aided design, and
the specific locations of not only the buildings, the drives, but
the trees that are shown on the revised landscape plan in front
of you are represented in this rendering. Now, again, this is not
the most important one that addresses the question regarding
the boulevard entry. The primary purpose of this rendering was
to show you how the rooftop units on the building are screened
and give you some sense of what the landscaping looks like
from the street. This second rendering is an elevated view,
which we felt was the best way to depict what's going on with
the entry itself. As you can see, back to the other point, it does
show that the rooftop units are now exposed, but the only
reason you see them is because this is an elevated view. This
elevated view gives you a concept of not only the flow from
Haggerty in the foreground into the main entrance but leading
back into eastern portion of the campus with one of the office
buildings in the background. Some of the Ginko trees that we
added are shown in the foreground near the entrance,
approximately just a few feet oft the Haggerty Road right-of-
way, and then all the trees that were previously depicted on the
landscape plan are appropriately rendered and in color
representing some of the types of trees that are shown there.
20481
So you have the five flowering crabs in front of the Marketplace.
There will be similar crabs across the street on the other side of
the restaurant complex, some of the other Norway Maples,
some more ornamental trees with hedges and annual flowers in
the median and, again, a rather large annual flower bed on both
sides of the entrance in front of the hedge row. We are very
confident, our landscape architect is very confident, our master
site planning architect reiterates the fad that this is going to be
a very well done, well stated entrance that anybody could be
proud of. So we are confident that what we have done here
should satisfy your desires to have a well developed and stated
entry for this project. That's basically it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I have no criticisms of your plan. Even if I were to arrange the
building differently, I think its beautiful. But I have some
questions in regard to the ins and the outs of this particular
piece of property. Number one, I seem to be getting different
numbers all the lme on the blueprints you give us, and then you
give us this. How wide is that apron?
Mr. Bednas:
The apron from curblo-curb at the right -of --way line, which
would be right at, basically, the sidewalk, the right -0f -way is one
fool behind the sidewalk, is 40 feel.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It's 40 feel. See, your plans show 35 feel.
Mr. Bednas:
Well, okay, let me correct that. I'm sorry. I was leaping ahead
here. The maximum allowable opening is 40 feet. Let me go
back to your earlier comment. One of the reasons that you're
seeing a number of different iterations of the site plan, the
landscaping plan, bits and pieces of these development entries,
is because master planning and development is a ongoing
process. When we first presented this project to you, the
master plan was developed to the best of our knowledge as to
what we thought the development would reflect, what conditions
would be approved by the various jurisdictions that have the
authority to approve curb cuts, and initially, at not only this
entrance, but the northerly entrance to Schoolcrafl College, both
of these aprons were wider. They both had four 12 -foot lanes,
two in and two out, and as we went through the final
engineering process, going through in this instance Wayne
County for the Haggerty Road driveway cuts, they said that we
couldn't do what we were trying to do, primarily because ....
Mr. Piercecchi:
The question I was going to ask you, you're going on and that's
fine, and I'm glad to hear you say that it's getting better because
20482
the more questions we ask, the better this plan has become.
Okay? But I'm concerned about stacking on both the north exit
and the south exit. In the original plans that I had, it showed like
18 feet on the north and 15 feet on the other side. What is the
stacking going to be on the north and south? Like 22 feet is
what we generally consider a minimum for stacking. I notice on
this thing here you show 20. Is it possible to make those lanes
a little bit wider? And if so, how would you do this without
having too much manipulation in the islands? You can take a
foot or two perhaps, but not without any tremendous changes.
Those are my questions.
Mr. Bednas:
We really cannot make the lanes any wider than what's
indicated on the plan. When this was submitted, the County ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is this the latest?
Mr. Bednas:
That's the latest.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We're on the south one right now.
Mr. Bednas:
The south entrance.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You show that as 20 feet wide for the north and south turns, and
12 fool on the other lane. You dont think that's kind of skimpy?
Mr. Bednas:
Can I see what you're looking al?
Mr. Piercecchi:
This is what I'm going by. It was 10 feet on my drawings. I'm
glad to see it's up to 12.
Mr.Bednas:
Where is the 20 feet?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Right here. That's going to be your stacking here.
Mr. Bednas:
Okay. That's two 10 foot lanes that are 20 feet. These lanes
are 10 feel wide. Ten and 10. This lane eventually becomes,
although its a litlle wider at the throat, becomes 12 feet as you
go into property. This is the best that we can do in order to
satisfy the County because of what's going on across the street
at the Northville retail center. There's another intersection with
Haggerty, at both locations, that are really dictating what the
County will approve on our side of the street.
20483
Mr. Piercecchr
We generally have 20 feet in between parking lots and things
like that. Why can't you add ... cars are generally a little over
seven foot in width.
Mr. Bednas:
Actually, righlaroundseven feet, a little bitless.
Mr. Piercecchr
My car I think is like 88 inches, which is 7 feet, 4 inches. You
don't leave a heck of a lot of room between those two cars.
What if you gel snow? What are you going to do with that
snow?
Mr. Bednas:
The snow will be removed. If I may, first of all, this was
mandated by the County. The County came back with our
request trying to adjust what we were asking for with two in
bound and two outbound lanes, and they said, 'That's fine, but
you've got to keep this opening at 40 feel and you can have four
10 fool lanes" The County will accept 10 foot roadway lanes.
Most of the manuals that regulate and control the geometric
design of rural highways, freeways, city streets, indicate fiat the
standard lane width for roadways should be anywhere between
10 feet and 13 feet, and in exceptional cases, can be reduced to
9 feet. Now, what we did, because the inbound traffic will be
traveling at a higher speed than the outbound traffic, we strove
to maintain the inbound lanes at 12 feel so that they can
successfully negotiate that without any difficulty or any
interference. All the inbound traffic is really only one lane at this
point. As it gets further into the property, it continues in one
lane, but then we create a Teff tum storage lane further on so
they can get into the restaurants. The outbound lanes, on the
other hand, are a different story because people are coming up
to stop sign. At the north entrance, they will see a traffic signal,
and someday there may be a traffic signal at this location as
well, but this traffic is slowing down. As it approaches the
intersection, its virtually at a standstill. So 10 feet is not
uncommon to have in this situation.
Mr. Piercecchr
Okay. Well, I think you could take a couple feet off the islands
and...
Mr. Bednas:
We're trying to preserve as much green space and landscape in
the median.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I realize that, but the drawings that I have, anyways, shoe that
is like 20 feetwide.
Mr. Bednas:
Itis. It's 20 feetfrom curb to curb.
20484
Mr. Piercecchr
No, the islands. The island is 20 feet wide. I don't think its that
wide on Farmington Road between the north and south lanes.
Mr. Bednas:
I dont believe the island is 20 feet wide.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Pardon?
Mr. Bednas:
I don't believe the median island is 20 feet wide.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm just going by your drawings that you gave me.
Mr. LaPine:
It's 12 feel.
Mr. Shane:
It's 12 feetwide.
Mr. Bednas:
It's 12 feetwide.
Mr. Piercecchr
Something about the island.
Mr. McCann:
It is 12 feet.
Mr. LaPine:
Here is my problem. Last week when we were here, I asked,
"Are you going to have a deceleration lane on Haggerty coming
from the south?"
Mr. Bednas:
Yes. That was one of the requirements of the County as well,
and its also depicted in the rendering. Here you've got the
center lane for left turns, the two through lanes, and the
deceleration lane.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess my question is, because that road is only going to be 12
feel wide, you can only have one car pulling in there at a time.
Okay? A right hand turn. Then you've got the center lane
coming from the north.
Mr.Bednas:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
When you have two lanes, one could pull into the left, one could
in the right hand, so you could have two cars going in there. I
think we're going to have a problem with the backup, the traffic
coming from the north trying to get in there to make a left hand
tum. Number one, you don't have a light. Early in the morning
everybody's in a hurry to get in there. Very seldom anybody
wants to give you a break to get in there. How do we alleviate
that problem?
20485
Mr. Bednas: I'm not ready to answer that question. I'd go back to our traffic
study, because the uses that are being considered under this
site plan application are the retail center and the restaurants.
The restaurants are really closed. The retail center will have
some service related and coffee shops and whatever, so theyll
be getting some activity. But it's the ice development to the
east that will be generating most of the a.m. traffic. And as we
previously discussed, we expect most of that traffic to come in
off of Six Mile and up Fox Drive.
Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding that Fox Drive is not going to be a two-
way street. It's going to be one-way. Is that correct?
Mr.Bednas: No.
Mr. LaPine: It's going to be two-way?
Mr. Bednas: We anticipate that it will be two-way, yes.
Mr. LaPine: In the evening hours when people are leaving the office
complex, they can go out Fox Drive and make a Teff hand turn to
get onto the expressway?
Mr. Bednas: We don't know what the ultimate resolution of that will be. We
suspect that it will probably be naturally prohibited because
people will realize that they can't do it easily. If the City or
somebody else chooses to prohibit that movement during
certain hours, it could happen that way. The only reason its two
way is to let people .... I mean we have a lot of development
here that's existing already that is used to that exit movement
and some of that traffic will want to go west on Six Mile.
Mr. LaPine: Well, let me just say this. What you're here tonight on, the
restaurants and the one retail building, I don't anticipate a big
problem, but I do expect a big problem on the office building
that's in there. No matter how you look at it, if Fox Drive is
jammed up, people will go right up to Six Mile and make aright
hand tum and come in from that exit. In the evening, when the
people are leaving, assuming that you can't get a light at Fox
Drive, assuming they wont lel you make a left hand turn to get
onto the expressway, then they have to go west to Haggerty, up
Haggerty to Seven Mile, up Seven Mile and get on the
expressway there, which, again, is going to create a
tremendous amount of traffic. You know it. I know it. And
nobody wants to look at that in the future. All we want to do is
20486
get the project in and worry about the traffic problem at a later
date. I can't look at it that way as a planner.
Mr. Bednas: I agree with you. We acknowledge that problem. Unfortunately,
the physicality and the geometncs of what's at Six Mile preclude
a better alternative at this time. Counter to what you're saying,
we firmly believe that may happen two or three times or to the
new tenants in the areas, when theyll realize that there's a
better way to do this and that most of the traffic that's existing
that wants to get on the freeway will either come out through
this entrance or come out through the north drive and go up
Haggerty to Seven Mile and gel on the freeway that way.
They'll just avoid that entirely.
Mr. La Pine: So what you're doing, you're going to create more traffic on
Haggerty and on Seven Mile in the evening hours. I don't
anticipate that in the morning, but I do anticipate it at night. I've
got no problem with it. That to me is the biggest obstade I have
in approving this. I'll be honest with you. I still maintain we're
going to run into a real jag here. I look the time today and read
through some of the traffic study. They have some great ideas
that should be done and they recommended they be done. I
never heard about that. Is that being considered? Is that going
to be done? Are any of those recommendations that the traffic
study people made going to be instigated and taken care of at
this location? Like they said, there's got to be a second turn
lane at Six Mile Road. That was one recommendation. They
recommended another turn lane at Seven Mile Road. We can't
wait to have it done Ater all the buildings are up, and then say,
"Oh boy, we've got a problem here" just like they used to have
on Big Beaver and Livernols, out in that neck of the woods when
all the office buildings went up. I'm just anticipating problems,
and I think we need to address the problems now instead of
later. And this is one of the problems I see here, only having 12
feel and only one car can go in at a time. There's got to be cars
backing up here coming from the north, assuming they get off
the expressway at Seven Mile Road, go up to Haggerty, make a
lett hand tum, come up Haggerty, come in here. Let me ask
you this: if they tum into the main entrance, which they call the
south entrance to the college campus, is there a way they can
go up there and get over to this area?
Mr. Bednas: Is there a way they can do what?
Mr. La Pine: Let's assume this is the north entrance. They come in here. Is
there anyway they can get over in this area from this area?
20487
Mr.Bednas:
Oh, sure.
Mr. La Pine:
So there is a possibility that could happen?
Mr. Bednas:
Yeah. That's what this roadway is here. This drive is really only
a two-lane road between the parking areas for the restaurants
and this office building, but this is a three -lane roadway for left
Tums. So if they come in from the north, they will be taking this
drive, crossing over and then coming intothe development.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I love your drawing, and I'm hoping that's all I'm going to
see, is one little sign right there forlhe whole project.
Mr. McCann:
When he said one little itty bitty sign for the project, I'm going to
go in direct opposition to what he said. I'm not looking for any
signs, but one of the things that some of the other projects have
done is given us stone and water at the entrances. I think one
of Mr. Walkon's other projects at Merriman, they had marble
kind of signature things that they used at the entrance. Has
there been any thought of doing anything around it? It looks like
the yellow area around there ... the entrances kind of set up by
the garden. It looks like flowers, possibly, right where your
pointer is. Is that what that is?
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, those are annual flowers.
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Bednas:
They are shown in yellow because it's difficult to do on a
computer, but there will be a variety of Black Eye Susans, and
Day Lillies and things of that nature that provide a lot of color.
Mr. McCann:
As you know, my comments were about the entrance, trying to
make something more of a statement. To me, those flowers
could be brought out a little farther and maybe like marble or
something going around that's going to be year-round, kind of
give an effect, stones behind it maybe going around some type
of permanent fixture to give it some depth. There's been no
thought about anything like that?
Mr. Bednas:
No. There was some initial considerations for some walls and
fences, but they gave way to softening up the appearance
rather than using harder materials. And the entrance was to try
and bring in some color that's alive rather than a muted plain
that's the same color all the time.
Mr. McCann: Maybe mix something in with it, that's all.
Mr. Bednas: Let me yield to Doug Etkin.
Mr. McCann: Please identify yourself.
Douglas Etkin, Elkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern Highway, Southfield,
Michigan. I'm also associated with Mr. Bednas. I think it's a
good idea. I think some of the stone or perhaps a wall would
supplement where the hedge row goes at the entrance. I think
its something that we've been playing with and I think it's a
good thing to do. I don't know if going up in the air with some
kind of a high monument like some of the larger scale things
makes sense.
Mr. McCann: Right
Mr. Etkin:
But I think a wall made out of stone, something that
supplements the flowers, because flowers are wonderful half the
year. The other half year I think we need to have some yews
and sluff like that. So, quite frankly, I think the shape and the
location of what you're seeing here today is indicative of what
we want to do. But when I saw this today and we were of
course trying to get this here tonight for you folks in response to
last week, I think you're entirely right, and I think some of that
should be incorporated and will be incorporated.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Just a detail question. The drainage course that runs east and
west, just north of the restaurant C pad, is that actually an open
water course?
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, it is. Even in last summers draught, there was water
flowing through it because there's a subterranean aquifer across
the street that feeds it, and our intention is to enhance it to the
extent we can and just make it a natural asset to the property.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. That's what I was wondering; how you intended to
enhance it. You're saying there is water in it all the lime?
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, even though it's regulated by the DEQ. Unlike the
wetlands, a water course is a lot easier to plant things in so the
DEQ will allow you to put in cobblestones and wetland -type
P11111 Al
planflngs and some shrubs bordering it, just as long as you
don't interfere with its ultimate flan.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. So you're going to actually make that a feature that one
could see from the restaurant or enjoy when walking outside,
that type of thing.
Mr. Bednas:
One of the opportunities for the third restaurant, because all its
parking is to the north, is to have a small pedestrian bridge that
crosses over that water course and then, although this is the
incorrect plan for the people that we're talking to today, here's
alfresco dining on a porch or veranda planned for the area next
to the water course. This is a little more difficult to deal with as
far as doing some ponding and dams or waterfalls, but as we
get further into the properly, our intention is to do some of that.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
You're going to put a bridge up there for that road coming
through. Upfarther. Gofarther. Righlthere.
Mr. Bednas:
In fact, we cross itthree times.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I dont have any objection b your plan, I'm just very concerned
about your lanes. Have you cleared it with the Fire Department
to make sure they can get all their vehides in and make turns
and everything in that maze?
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, we have.
Mr. Piercecchr
You've been through that?
Mr. Bednas:
All the radii around the retail center, everything has been
coordinated through the Fire Department, Fire Marshal.
Mr. Piercecchi:
They can get all their equipment through there. So the 12 feel,
is that good for the big ladder truck?
Mr. Bednas:
When we submit for a building permit, they may have some
questions and issues, and we may have to revise something,
but the plan was developed consistent with their requirements.
Mr. Piercecchr
I'm not being negafive. I can see some problems at the south
entrance making a left tum over to those restaurants with a
ladder truck. I can't see how they can make that tum.
20490
Mr.Bednas:
Right here?
Mr. Piercecchr
But if they say they can, fine.
Mr. Bednas:
I forgot what the requirement was, it was either 35 feel or 45
feet, but that's what we have. It doesn't necessarily have to be
the radius right atthis location.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Like I said, I don't object, I just have some concems. I'd hate to
see these problems pop up. Like Mr. LaPine, I'd rather look at
the potential problems now and resolve them if they're
resolvable. It will be a great thing. As far as the location of your
building, you and SchoolcraR agree where they're going to be,
that's fine. It's their property and you're going to develop it.
Mr. Bednas:
We're all set with that. We're all in sync with the uses planned
here.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions. Would anybody else like to
speak? All right. A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and adopted, lwas
#06-85-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on
Petition 2003-03-08-06 submitted by SchoolcreR Commons, on
behalf of Marketplace at College Park, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a multi -tenant
commercial building on property located at 17370 Haggerty
Road in the Southwest % of Section 7, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2003-03-08-06 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plans marked S3 and S-0 both dated March
10, 2003, as revised, prepared by Atwell -Hicks, Inc., are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated May
30, 2003, as revised, prepared by J Eppink Partners, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
20491
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 Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
A5-1 dated February 14, 2003, prepared by Minoru
Yamasaki Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick or, in the case a precast concrete system is
used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
12. That the petitioner shall cored to the Police Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated April 23, 2003:
- That "stop" signs shall be installed where traffic exits
the lot onto the proposed road of the development;
20492
That "stop' signs shall be installed for traffic exiting the
proposed road onto Haggerty Road;
That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated April 3, 2003:
That if the subject building is to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feel from the Fire Department
connection (FDC);
That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants;
most remote hydrant shall floe 1,500 FPM with a
residual pressure of 20 PSI;
That any curves or comers of streets shall
accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius
of 45 feet wall-to-wall;
14. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
15. That a Master Sign Plan establishing ground signage for
the entire College Park development shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council; included in the application
shall be the location and graphics of each Business Center
Sign, all identification signs and any directional signage;
16. That no LED light band or neon shall be permitted on this
site, including but not Imiled to, the building or around the
windows; and,
17. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
20493
AYES: Shane, Smiley, La Pine, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Walsh
ABSTAIN: Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and adopted, it was
#06-86-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the
seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning
Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2003-03-08-
06 submitted by SchoolcmR Commons, on behalf of
Marketplace at College Park, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a multi -tenant
commercial building on property located at 17370 Haggerty
Road in the Southwest%of Section 7.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Shane, Smiley, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Walsh
ABSTAIN: Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2003-03-08-07 College Park
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-03-08-07 submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, on behalf of
College Park, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a building and obtain preliminary approval
for three restaurant pads on property located at 17600-17900
Haggerty Road in the Southwest%of Section 7.
(Note: Discussion on this item was combined with Item #8,
Petition 2003-03-08-06, submitted by Schoolcraft Commons, on
behalf of Marketplace at College Park.)
20494
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and adopted, it was
#06-87-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, on
Petition 2003-03-08-07 submitted by Schoolcreft Commons, on
behalf of College Park, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a building and obtain preliminary approval
for three restaurant pads on property located at 17600-17900
Haggerty Road in the Southwest '/.of Section 7, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2003-03-08-07 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plans marked S-3 and Sol both dated March
12, 2003, as revised, prepared by Atwell -Hicks, Inc., are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated May
30, 2003, as revised, prepared by J Eppink Partners, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
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 permanen0y maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan for the office
building marked Sheet A5-1 dated March 17, 2003, as
revised, prepared by Minoru Yamasaki Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick or, in the case a precast concrete system is
used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
20495
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
12. That the petitioner shall cored to the Police Departments
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated April 23, 2003:
That "stop" signs shall be installed where aisleways and
proposed road intersect, including "slop" signs at the
north and south end of the eastern most proposed road;
That ramps shall be installed for handicap access from
handicap parking areas to restaurants "A" and "B" as
shown for proposed office building;
That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated April 3, 2003:
That if the subject building is to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feel and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connection (FDC);
That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants;
20496
most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a
residual pressure of 20 PSI;
14. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
15. That a Master Sign Plan establishing ground signage for
the entire College Park development shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council. Included in the application
shall be the location and graphics of each Business Center
Sign, all identification signs and any directional signage;
16. That no LED light band or neon shall be permitted on this
site, including but not limited to, the building or around the
windows;
17. That more detailed plans for the restaurants shall be
required and shall induce, but not be limited to, the
number of seats and exterior building elevations during
waiver use review and approval; and,
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I think there is some work to do. I'm
voting in favor of both of these. I'm hopeful that these can be
worked out with the City Council. There are some issues that
need to be resolved. I'm sure that the Council will take a dose
look at this. So I will vole for it.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Shane, Pieroecchi, La Pine, Smiley, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Walsh
ABSTAIN:
Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the mofion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. This will go on to the City Council with an
approving resolution. We do have a letter that was sent to the
Planning Department requesting a waiver of the seven day rule.
Mr. Taormina, when you received this, did you check with the
20497
Council Office as to whether or not this would, in fact, help them
gel on the Council agenda any quicker?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the savings in time would be approximately two weeks by
moving them up on the Council regular agenda.
Mr. McCann:
I did talk to Mr. Engebretson this attemoon. He was not
informed about this. We've had an agreement with the Mayor,
and Mr. Engebretson would be acting as Mayor with the Mayor
out of the country right now. So I'll leave it up to the Planning
Commission. I dont think there would be an objection from the
Council, but Mr. Engebretson was not aware of it. If someone
wants to make a motion, we can vote on it. Normally, it's a
three prong test: one, that there has to be a hardship; two, that
the Council and the Mayors Office agree on it; and three, that
we vole on it.
Mr. Piercecchr
Mr. Chairman, since we've made motions in the past to delay
this for one reason or another, I think it's appropriate that we
waive the seven days if we get that opportunity.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Walkon was going to speak as tothe hardship issue.
Marvin Walkon,
30445 Northwestern Highway, Suite 320, Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48334. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm one of the
partners of College Park. As to the hardship, this process has
taken about nine and half months. There were two reasons for
delays. One, as you probably recall, Mr. McCann, the vacation
scheduling of the various members. That delayed it for
approximately two weeks. And then there was the tabling one
time. So it was approximately one month that it was delayed.
We also have an agreement with Schoolcrett College where
rent commences July 1. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Can you clarify that for me. My understanding was that rent
began once you have your City approvals, or is that the zoning
approvals? Is that what the catalyst was or is it stated certain
on the lease agreement? I'm a little confused.
Curtis Burstein,
Etkin Equities, Inc., 29100 Northwestern Highway, Southfield, MI
48034. It's no later than July 1, notwithstanding approvals. So
we thought we would end up having approvals maybe sometime
in the middle of June or the beginning of June when we first
started negotiating, and if that was the case, then rent would
commence then. But come July 1, its approvals or start paying
rent.
P11r111:,
Mr. McCann: All right. Thank you. That danfies it for me.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and adopted, itwas
#06-88-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Ranning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the
seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning
Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2003-03-08-
07 submitted by Schoolcmtt Commons, on behalf of College
Park, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47
of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a building and obtain preliminary approval for three
restaurant pads on property located at 17600-17900 Haggerty
Road in the Southwest%of Section 7.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Smiley, La Pine, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Walsh
ABSTAIN: Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM #10 PETITION 2002-04-02-07 CHRISTOPHER ENRIGHT
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2002-04-02-07 submitted by Christopher Enright requesting an
extension for a waiver use approval to construct an addition
onto an existing automotive repair facility at 19601 Middlebell
Road located on the west side of Middlebelt between St. Martins
Avenue and Bretton Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 2.
Mr. McCann: Please let the record show that Mr. Alanskas returned to the
podium. Mr. Taormina, I don't see the petitioner present tonight.
I think we discussed this. He is getting ready to proceed with
his building plans. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is my understanding. Through a letter presented to the
Planning Commission dated May 21, he is indicating that they
are prepared to submit those construction plans within the
month of June, but will not be able to obtain the building permit
20499
on or before the expiretion date of the Site Plan, which is June
19, 2003. Thus, they are requesting an extension.
Mr. McCann: Okay. And you are recommending a one-year extension?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. I think that would be appropriate under the circumstances.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#06-89-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request submitted by
Christopher Enright, RA, on behalf of Belle Tire, in a letter dated
May 21, 2003, for a one-year extension of waiver use approval
in connection with Petition 2002-04-02-07, to construct an
addition onto an existing automotive repair facility at 19601
Middlebelt located on the west side of Middlebelt between Sl.
Martins Avenue and Bretton Road in the Southeast '/of Section
2, be approved for a one-year period subject to all conditions
and requirements as set forth in Council Resolution #326-02
adopted by the City Council on June 19, 2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM#11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 863rd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of
the Minutes of the 863rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on April 15, 2003.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#06-80-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 863rd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 15,
2003, are hereby approved.
20500
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, Shane, LaPine, Smiley, Piercecchi,
McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Walsh
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 666th Regular
Meeting held on June 6, 2003, was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
nr