HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-03-10 15951
MINUTES OF THE 760TH REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
r.,. LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 10, 1998, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 760th
Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Daniel Piercecchi Robert Alanskas
Michael Hale William LaPine
Members absent: Elaine Koons
Messrs. John Nagy, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II,
were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request
and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public
hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions
become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has
reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and
denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome
of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 98-1-8-1 by
Danny Veri for cluster housing on property located at 9350 Newburgh Road in the
S.W. 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Miller: This cluster housing development was just recently approved by the Planning
Commission. As part of the approval, it was conditioned that they come back for
their landscape approval. As you can see, they have two 15' buffer or berm areas
separated by the drive. These offer screening from Newburgh Road. You also have
some landscaping within the development, which the Planning Commission
recommended. Parking spaces are screened off from Unit 9 by evergreens. Also
shown on the plan are deciduous trees throughout the development.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, is there any new
correspondence on this Mr. Nagy?
15952
Mr. Nagy: No, there is no new correspondence.
e— Mr. McCann: Thank you. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved it was
#3-32-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on March 10,
1998 by the City Planning Commission on Landscape Plan for Petition 98-1-8-1 by
Danny Veri for cluster housing on property located at 9350 Newburgh Road in the
S.W. 1/4 of Section 32, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Landscape Plan for Petition 98-1-8-1 be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1) That the Landscape Plan prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., as received by
the Planning Commission on February 27, 1998, 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;
4) That the entrance marker, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is sign plan for Petition 97-
5-8-11 by Doyle Signs Inc. for the Walgreens Drug Store located at 17700
Middelbelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. McCann: If there are no objections, we will allow the petitioner to speak to this.
Terrence J. Doyle, 232 Interstate Road, Addison, I1. Walgreen's has a new store opening shortly
at Six Mile Road and Middlebelt Road. Tonight we are requesting approval of one
building sign on the west elevation facing Middlebelt and one 30 square foot
ground sign at the intersection corner 10 feet off of each property line. Both signs
conform to the City ordinance and typical signs are used by Walgreens at other
stores.
Mr. McCann: Questions from the commissioners?
15953
Mr. LaPine: When I was out there Saturday looking at your proposal for your ground sign,
you've got your footings poured. Is there a reason why you didn't put that sign at a
..., 45 degree angle? That way you get visibility from all four areas.
Mr. Doyle: It is standard corporate policy for Walgreens to place the ground sign 90 degrees
to the road that is most heavily traveled. And a 45 degree angle only gets two-
thirds of the of the visibility in all directions. We felt that Middlebelt was the most
important road.
Mr. LaPine: I question that, in your thinking. If you are successful in getting two wall signs.
two wall signs anybody can see from Middlebelt or Six Mile. There would be no
problem at all. I'm just curious. I understand that it may be Walgreen's
policy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the City's policy. We have the
site plan approval process and to go ahead and pour footings when we may say we
do not really want it that way and that we want it at a different angle. I mean I'm
not making a big point of it. I think you would have gotten better visibility at the
45 degree angle. Thank you Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions?
Mr. Alanskas: John, in regards to Dave Woodcox's letter, have we figured how much square
footage they're saying their logos now take up?
',Nii•► Mr. Nagy: Mr. Miller will answer that.
Mr. Miller: They're each about 36 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas: They are each about 36 square feet so that's 72 feet. Are you aware sir of the
information we have from Mr. Woodcox from the Inspection Department?
What they are saying, your mortar and logos are part of the signage.
Mr. Doyle: That's what we found out a short time ago. Also, we are anticipating in putting a
panel over those logos before the standard signs would go up. We didn't know
they were going to be considered signs.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, what do you mean by a panel?
Mr. Doyle: It will look just like the side of the building. You will see one vertical line from the
top of the arch to the bottom of the facia.
Mr. Alanskas: And what are you going to block it out with? What type of material?
Mr. Doyle: It will be an aluminum material covered with some of the same dryvit facia that's
on the building now.
15954
Mr. Alanskas: All right, Mr. Chairman.
v.. Mr. LaPine: I think you are taking away from the building. I think the two inserts that are there
are probably molded at the same time that the panels are molded. To me I have no
objection, I think they look very nice. And now to cover them up, to me, is ....
You go to Zoning Board of Appeals to try and get a waiver on them, you are not
going to get those two plus the two signs. There is no doubt that you are not going
to get everything you want. Personally, I think it's a shame to do away with those
two things at this stage of the game.
Mr. Doyle: We agree with you but in order to get a sign, we have to do those things.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you discussed in regards to possibly getting less than 100 sq. ft. on both sides
of the building? Say 50 - 50.
Mr. Doyle: That's what we are attempting to do.
Mr. Alanskas: You're going to go back to originally 100 feet total for both sides?
Mr. Doyle: Well, we're permitted by ordinance 143 sq. ft total signage, and if we split it
between each wall.... We only asking for a sign that is much less than that and
we're hoping to go back to the Zoning Board for review on a second sign that will
also fit within the square footage limitations.
'.n.
Mr. Alanskas: Any how much square footage is that sir?
Mr. Doyle: On the total area?
Mr. Alanskas: No, on the south side of the building. On that wall, how many square footage?
Mr. Doyle: We're hoping to get a sign that is exactly the same that is proposed for the
Middlebelt facia. The way we figure the square footage is a little different than the
way the City does. I would propose to the Zoning Board to review exactly what
we're doing.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, what is your date to go to the ZBA?
Mr. Doyle: March 24.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm just looking over notes here that it was indicated to our staff to split the sign
proposal but decided to split the signs in two phases. Correct? Is that what you are
presenting here tonight?
15955
Mr. Doyle: Correct.
.,., Mr. Piercecchi: And the second phase will be a later request for a sign on the south elevation that
will be facing Six Mile Road. If the second wall sign would succeed, you would
have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and that is March 24. Inasmuch as the
signage is pretty much up in the air, I go along with the staff recommendation to
table this.
Mr. McCann: I've got a couple of questions. One of my concerns is that you are asking for 100
square foot now and you're asking for your monument sign. It doesn't leave us
any room for negotiation when you come back and want a sign facing Six Mile.
Now, my question is, are you first aware that you can get a temporary sign or a
banner sign that you can get to open up with?
Mr. Doyle: We are aware but feel that a temporary sign or banner sign looks like you are not
really in business. We don't want a banner sign for a store. The only reason we're
here tonight is to obtains permits for a sign that works with the code. We'd
appreciate the opportunity to come back to the Zoning Board. We understand the
Zoning Board may make a decision that will not permit us to have a sign on the Six
Mile Road side.
Mr. McCann: I've got a couple of questions for you. We've got a choice tonight I think from
the commissioners: (1) we don't want to see you cover your little sign, the etched
pharmacy signia. It does count within it. I think that's nice. It attracts to the
building and I think that the ZBA and we could live with it being beyond our
normal allowance of square footage because it does help the building out. But to
add 200 square feet of wall signs on both sides of the building, that might be a
problem. Would you be willing to table this at this time and wait for your ZBA
variance to come to us? If you're asking for a 100 sq. ft. wall sign tonight, most of
us, including myself, are going to deny it and send it on to Council with a denying
resolution.
Mr. Doyle: We would like to work with the Commission and the Zoning Board and to work in
conjunction with our store opening to have some kind of a sign. Now if you would
agree to a Walgreen and a ground sign, the pharmacy sign would go up later if it is
approved. It's not what we really want to do. We can't have a wall sign permit
because of the way the ordinance is interpreted because of the mortar and pestles on
the dryvit facia. We can't have a normal sign permit. We have to cover them up in
order to get a sign.
Mr. McCann: Well, unless the ZBA waives it and we waive it.
Mr. Doyle: But we have to go through the ZBA process I'm saying that's another six weeks
after the meeting of the 24th for the process between the ZBA, Planning
Commission and the City Council. We're out of time in terms of opening the store.
15956
Mr. McCann: Now, if we approved it tonight without the pharmacy under the Walgreens name,
,41.., first, John, how many square feet would it be or do we have an estimate without the
pharmacy underneath it -just Walgreens?
Mr. Nagy: 99 square feet.
Mr. McCann: That's with the pharmacy?
Mr. Nagy: No. That's just their sign. The proposed wall signs are 99 square feet.
Mr. McCann: I understand. But doesn't the sign itself say that, Walgreen Pharmacy?
They're saying that would just put up Walgreens and get rid of pharmacy
underneath it.
Mr. Nagy: I see.
Mr. McCann: Do we have an idea how much that is?
Mr. Nagy: Scott is making the measurement calculations now.
Mr. Miller: Approximately 39 square feet taken off. So that would be approximately 60 square
feet.
r..
Mr. McCann: That's what we're looking to. If you were to keep the two etchings on the wall and
the two signs. Are you going to be able to live without the word pharmacy up
there?
Mr. Doyle: Well, pharmacy is Walgreen's basic business.
Mr. McCann: So you can't live without it.
Mr. Doyle: What we're talking about is how you determine square foot area. That's what
we're really talking about.
Mr. McCann: No, let's not even go there. The City has an established way that we work with
100,000 residents and our business owners on how we size a sign. We're not going
to change it for you or argue about it. So the question is, if we approve the 60
square foot without the pharmacy underneath it, you're saying you wouldn't be able
to live with that anyway.
Mr. Doyle: I didn't say that. We have to live with whatever the ZBA and Planning
Commission permit. That's all I said. We're willing to do that. We're willing to
count on your good will and honesty in what you do.
15957
Mr. McCann: We want to see you do it but we think that 200 square foot signs and the etching is
just too much. We want you to keep the etchings and we want to work with you.
We'll give you the extra signage.
Mr. Doyle: I could make a suggestion for the pharmacy. The way you determine square
footage on the total highest and lowest point on the signage. We can fit a small
pharmacy sign the REENS that will fit within the square footage. It won't look as
nice as the original sign we presented but it will say pharmacy. Whatever the City
wants. We have to live with whatever you want.
Mr. LaPine: Is the Walgreen pharmacy sign constructed as one sign or is each one an individual
character?
Mr. Doyle: Each one is an individual piece.
Mr. LaPine: Then why don't we allow him the wall sign and if he want's the pharmacy, he
can go the Zoning Board of Appeals and get a variance on the additional word for
pharmacy.
Mr. McCann: My problem with that is what you've been told, John, I guess he can't open the
store until he puts the dryvit over the etching because he will be beyond his square
foot. Now with our proposal and 39 feet removed leaving 60 sq. ft so he could
open up without covering up...
r..
Mr. Nagy: The word pharmacy, because it is small, shouldn't be that much of a hardship
because that mortar and pestle is the universal symbol. That's the whole point of
our ordinance we recognize it as a sign so if in fact it is effective, he's got the
message. It is indeed a pharmacy.
Mr. McCann: Then you could make your other sign on the south side smaller.
Mr. Piercecchi: The pharmacy sign is just like a gas station putting up a sign"gasoline for
sale". Everyone knows Walgreen's is a fine operation and the pharmacy is their
specialty. So that's the least of our concern whether or not they have a pharmacy
sign.
Mr. LaPine: Could I ask just one more question. Your free standing sign is blank. It doesn't
say anything about Walgreen at all. Is this sign for specials?
Mr. Doyle: Yes. It is for specials?
Mr. LaPine: I still don't understand that.
Mr. McCann: They could put pharmacy on that as well.
15958
Mr. LaPine: You put pharmacy on that sign and there would be no problem.
v.. Mr. Doyle: In that sign there is a three line reader board. We could put a changeable panel that
says Walgreens pharmacy on the three line reader board at the top of the section. It
would be very small. It would be another way to identify the pharmacy. We also
have another item that's a problem and that is the drive-thru pharmacy that has
to go to the Zoning Board also. So when we go to the Zoning Board, what I hear
the Commission saying is that the pestles that are on the building if we were to
agree to do just the one wall and the smaller ground sign that we could conceivably
be approved plus the mortar and pestles that are already there.
Mr. McCann: And a third sign if the Zoning Board of Appeals waives it. That's my concern is
when you come back before us and want a Walgreen's pharmacy, you understand,
you may have to take down the sign you already put up but something a little lower
some day in order to get both of them or just work with the other sign being smaller
and say Walgreen
Mr. Doyle; We understand.
Mr. McCann: All right.
Mr. Alanskas: Question for you. What is your opening date?
vi... Mr. Doyle: The opening date that I have is the first week or the end of the first week in April or
the 9th of April.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Now when did you obtain that opening date? When did Walgreen's plan this
opening?
Mr. Doyle: I can't answer off the top of my head. Because it changes depending on the
weather. We've had a lot of wet weather. It's been delayed. Originally it had
an earlier date.
Mr. Alanskas: The question I'm trying to put for the public record is that I don't think it is the
Planning Commission's problem because you are on a tight schedule. If you had
come before us a month ago, you wouldn't be in this predicament.
Mr. Doyle: You're absolutely right. I don't see it as a problem for us and we understand that
you are going out of your way by hearing us tonight.
Mr. Alanskas: Well, it's a problem because you're asking for more signage and you have to go
before the ZBA to try and get this and for us to vote on this tonight for a large sign
this is the problem we're having.
Mr. Doyle: The sign that we are asking for though is the way it is now fits within the ordinance
15959
limitations.
Mr. Alanskas: If you size it down, that sounds good to me. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: John, if they want the first or second week of April, if we approve it tonight
seven from today would put them on the 17th of March, are they still going to have
time to go to Council and get approved?
Mr. Nagy: It will be close but the Mayor can waive his veto and it is a possibility.
Mr. McCann: Considering the Mayor's position on waiving the 7 days shouldn't be done unless
it is extremely important. Is this a case, John, do you think we should consider
it? You think it will work without us doing it? The extra work in trying to get
something waived or should we table it?
Mr. Nagy: I think, as we discussed last week, if it is demonstrated on the part of the petitioner
that this is indeed a hardship because of a fixed opening date it's not just trying to
accelerate something through the system process. They have declared an opening
date and due to that extent, its a reasonable request.
Mr. McCann: O.K. Are there any other questions. Hearing none, then a motion is in order.
Mr. LaPine: Can I ask just one question? John, we're talking about 60 square feet - that would
.., include just the word Walgreens and then he would be able to keep the two inserts.
Then his free standing sign would still stay at 29.8 sq. ft. Then that meets the
ordinance.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. McCann: Do we have a problem with the three wall signs, John?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. LaPine: I'll make a motion that we approve the signage package for the following changes
that he be allowed one wall sign not to exceed 30 sq. feet. Is that right? Because
didn't you say the two round signs have 36 sq. ft. So that is a total of 66 sq. ft and
you would be able to put up a Walgreen sign only not the word pharmacy then you
would be allowed to put up your free standing sign which would be per your
proposal you came to us which would be 29.8 sq. ft in side area and 6 feet
in height and 10 feet from the line.
Mr. Doyle: Correct, except Walgreen's letters themselves would be 66 sq. ft.
Mr. McCann: 66 sq. ft. so that comes within the ordinance. So that is your recommendation for
approval on that? Is there support?
15960
Mr. McCann: Second call for support?
Mr. McCann: I pass the gavel and support the motion.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman: Any discussion? Hearing none, will the Secretary please call the
roll approving the motion.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting have been held on March 10,
1998 by the City Planning Commission on the sign plan for Petition 97-5-8-11 by
Doyle Signs Inc. For the Walgreens Drug Store located at 17700 Middlebelt Road
in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 12, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that the sign plan for Petition 97-5-8-11 be approved to allow one
wall sign not to exceed 30 sq. Ft., and two mortar and pestle signs not to exceed 36
sq. Ft.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: McCann, LaPine
NAYS: Alanskas, Hale Piercecchi
ABSENT: Koons
NI..
Mr. Alanskas: The motion fails. A new motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Hale, it was
#3-33-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on March 10,
1998 by the City Planning Commission on the sign plan petition 97-5-8-11 by
Doyle Signs Inc. For the Walgreens Drug Store located at 17700 Middleelt Road in
the S.W. 1/4 of Section 12, the Planning Commission does hereby table the sign
plan for Petition 97-5-8-11 until the applicant is granted a variance for excessive
signage by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Hale and Piercecchi
NAYS: McCann and LaPine
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It's a tabling motion for a date to be determined by the chair.
..., Mr. LaPine: Can I just ask, you represent the sign company?
15961
Mr. Doyle: I just represent Walgreens.
Mr. LaPine: Do you work for Walgreens?
Mr. Doyle: I am here as a Walgreen representative. I'm not here as the sign company
contractor.
Mr. Piercecchi: May we encourage you not to cover them up, those emblems. Because you have
to go to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Doyle I have to go to the Zoning Board on the 24th that means 6 or 8 weeks delay in
having any signs. Is that correct?
Mr. Piercecchi: Whatever we can do to expedite. But those emblems do add some taste to that
building. The reason why I made a motion to table is because it is so chaotic here.
You know they say those emblems are part of the organization. But at 60
foot and 80 feet it is so chaotic. So you're going to go to Zoning Board
anyway. Maybe we can resolve the whole thing in one package. That would be
much better, wouldn't it? You go to the Zoning Board and find out exactly what
you are going to get and then we can see exactly where we stand and settle the
whole ball of wax in one shot.
r.. Mr. Doyle: We're opening the business. It won't be a problem for us. We understand .
Mr. Piercecchi: We're really on your side.
Mr. Doyle: We appreciate your time.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to rezone Lots 43 to 51, inclusive,
in the Dohany Subdivision on Harrison Avenue from RUF to R-1.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#3-34-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of
Ordinance #543 does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone property located on the east side of Harrison
Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue, known as Lots 43 to 51,
inclusive, in the Dohany Subdivision, from RUF to R-1 in the N.E. 1/4 of Section
12.
15962
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
Now amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted
to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the pending items of our agenda. We will now begin the
miscellaneous site plan agenda. People in the audience may speak for or in
opposition to these items.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-2-8-5 by the
Parz Group, Inc. requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and a site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal
for a site condominium development on property located at 37931 Plymouth Road
in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 30.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and
Jarvis Avenue. The development will consist of 28 condominium units or lots
which will conform to the R-1 zoning. Access to the development would be by the
north/south direction street which would end in a cul-de-sac. Each lot will face this
new street except for Lot 1 which will face Plymouth Road. There is a detention
pond on the site which is labeled as a"Common Area".
NN.. Mr. McCann: Any new correspondence, John?
Mr. Nagy: The Traffic Bureau indicates in their letter of February 23, 1998, they have no
objection to the site plan as submitted. The Engineering Department indicates in
their letter dated February 26, 1998, signed by Dave Lear, that they have no
objections to the proposal, although they would like to know whether the
developer intends to dedicate the road right-of-way to the City of Livonia or have it
remain private property. The answer to that question is yes. It is planned to be
dedicated to the City of Livonia.
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the site plan. They have no objections to the
proposal, however, their approval is contingent on adequate hydrants being
provided and located with a spacing consistent with residential areas. Most remote
hydrant shall flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 psi. Due to a lack of
parking facilities normally associated with condo complexes, we are requiring "Fire
Lane -No Parking", per City Ordinance, be provided along hydrant side of
Roselinda in its entirety.
Lastly, we have a letter from the Law Department stating they have reviewed the
Master Deed for the proposed condominiums for compliance with Sections 18.62-
18.64 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, being Ordinance No. 543 in connection with
..w the site plan condominium Master Deed and I think what they are saying is they
15963
have no objection to the Master Deed and mainly that it requires technical review of
the site plan itself which is outside the area of their expertise.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Hale: What did you learn about the surveyor's plat?
Mr. McCann: I spoke with Mr. Kavanagh and according to Mr. Kavanagh and reviewing Section
16.104 Michigan Bylaws Annotated states a plat may be one of the following
with the exception that assessors plat may not be plats. According to Mr. Nagy, he
does have an opinion from a staff member from the States Attorney General's
office stating that an assessor's plat and a supervisor's plat in terms of the
definition are equal, in his judgment are the same as a proprietor's plat.
Mr. McCann: O.K. So an assessor's plat and a supervisor's plat are exactly the same, within the
definition.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. McCann: And according to Section 104 an assessor's plat may provide approval for an
exception to the re-plat. I think there is still some confusion. I tried to get a hold
of Mr. Cummings who is suppose to be trying to work with the Attorney General's
office. I've not had an opportunity to see the Attorney General's opinion that
`" Mr. Nagy has. It appears, at least to me, that it is an exception to the re-
platting requirement. That's not what the opinion says, is what you're telling me?
Mr. Nagy: Right. Mr. Cummings is also representing Bill Roskelly in connection with his plat
for Stark School subdivision and that to is a parcel within a supervisor's plat and
they have to go through and vacate that. So it is no different than this case. This
too is a lot within a supervisor's plat. Mr. Roskelly's attorney got this decision
and they shared it with me and I will be happy to share with you now. It hasn't
been signed by the Attorney General. It was proposed by an assistant and he is
saying in terms of that ruling for vacating proprietor's plat, assessor's plat and
supervisor's plats are all one in the same letter meaning an applicability of that law.
Mr. McCann: O.K. I'd have to see that. In my discussion with Mr. Kavanagh on Thursday there
was a person in the platting department that turned down Mr. Roskelly who was
incorrect and that's why Mr. Cummings went to the Attorney General for an
opinion to determine whether or not it would come within the exception. Without
reading that letter, I can't make a determination tonight.
Mr. Hale: Do you believe there is an exception?
Mr. McCann: Yes. As a matter of fact, I'll pass this down to you. Look down at the bottom of
page 293.
15964
Mr. LaPine: All we're really voting on tonight John, is the Master Deed? When we get into all
'yaw these questions on the correspondence and the Department of Public Safety, what
we're talking about, we're talking about the hydrants, and we're getting easement
grants to the City that will all come later on in the process.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. McCann: I have had an opportunity to review the memorandum from the Attorney General's
Office. Without having sufficient time or the books to review it and discuss it with
Mr. Kavanagh, I really can't make an opinion as to how it affects tonight's
petition. Mr. Hale, do you have any input to that?
Mr. Hale: It's too difficult to render an opinion in light of the clear language of the statute. I
don't think we would be in a position to do that tonight.
Mr. McCann: I don't think so either. John, according to this, this meets all of the R-1
requirements. Mr. Fisher wasn't able to review this, but your staff feels it is
appropriate?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions, from the commissioners?
`r..
Mr. Alanskas: I have one question. John, now if we gave an approving resolution for what we
have here, could the latter problems be straightened out by our staff office or
whoever need be?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Would there be a problem with that?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I guess for discussion purposes, I have no problem with R-1 in this area. I guess we
get everything we wanted in R-1 with this site condominium. I'm not sure how this
is going to affect other developments in the area. Mr. Parz, when are you looking
to proceed with this? Did you want to put a shovel in the ground this week?
Would a two week adjournment hold you up?
Mr. Parz: 31153 Plymouth, Livonia. Let me express this. I already have the permit for the
water issued from the State of Michigan on this site. The only reason we're going
... for the site condo Court of Appeals ruling of September 1997 stated that all
15965
subdivisions such as supervisor's plat, assessor's plat and urban renewal plats, they
listed four or five of them, are considered a plat and you simply cannot replat a plat
and the ball is really up in the air. I don't want to go through three and a half to
four years in circuit court and suing the City of Livonia and everybody they tell me
I would have to sue in order to get this done. I already have four houses sold in
this particular site as it is. I do want to meet my obligations and I do want to start.
Mr. McCann: Let me ask you this. You were going for final plat approval when you learned of
this?
Mr. Parz: Yes. It was Mr. Schron, the City Engineer, who made this available and based
upon the three or four attorneys I spoke to, there is so much confusion that they
don't know and speaking with Mr. Roskelly who has a tremendous vested interest
in it because he was within 2 or 3 days of having his plat approved when the State
of Michigan turned him down. Since I don't have the legal obligations that Mr.
Roskelly had, my people, my counselors, my attorneys, my financial guys said the
best thing would be to go with a condominium and speaking with the City I would
meet everything that the City requires in the way of lot sizes and the setbacks, etc.,
and that I would comply with the City's request to turn over the roads, storms
and water, everything that the City requests.
Mr. McCann: Is there a requirement that these homes be all brick in your condominium
association bylaws?
Mr. Parz: No, the homes will be just like the homes across the street at Hunter's Point which
is a subdivision. They will have brick fronts, wood siding across the back. They
have vinyl siding. I have elected to go with wood siding.
Mr. McCann: O.K. I think we made a requirement of 50% brick over there didn't we John?
Mr. Nagy: Just on the first floor?
Mr. McCann: Just on the first floor. O.K. Could you live with that on yours as well?
Mr. Parz: I can look at it and review it and I can measure off what the brick would be
surrounded across the front of the house and wrapped around and the garage proper.
But this is the first time I'm hearing about 50%.
Mr. McCann: We've been doing it because of the damage to the siding.
Mr. Parz: That's the reason I went with wood siding versus vinyl siding. There is a problem
with vinyl siding because it is a product that has some problems with contraction
and expansion and the heat and cold. I know the problem you have with it is that
there is a tendency with heavy winds like we had recently maybe it will blow off
�► the building itself. The third item is that once a person selects a color of a vinyl
15966
siding the color is there for 20 to 30 years. I don't want to subject the next person
to that. What we elected to do that would give us some uniformity and continuity
on the site. I've hired a firm who are interior decorators and they have done all
my apartment complexes and several of my large buildings. What we have done is
develop seven pallets and they will be making the shingle selection, the paint color,
the entrance colors, the door selections and when the homeowner walks in they
simply select one of the seven pallets and go from there. So I'm trying to control
as much as I can and still turn out a nice product over there.
Mr. Hale: Please clarify for us again the extent of the brick.
Mr. Parz: The brick is a brick front, meaning the entire front depending in some cases upon
the elevations, the entire brick could be the front going up to the gables if it is a
colonial. But in the case of a ranch, the entire front is all brick with the exception
of where the gables are. But again the garage across the front will be done etc.
Mr. Piercecchi: The first floor will be all brick, all around.
Mr. Parz: The houses I design the brick will be just on the first...on the front... when you
drive across the front of the subdivision you will see brick there.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions?
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, being we're discussing the R-1 from a plat to this new ruling, I
will offer a resolution.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it
was
#3-35-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting have been held on March 10,
1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-2-8-5 by the Parz Group,
Inc. requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and a site plan required by
Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site
condominium development on property located at 37931 Plymouth Road in the
S.E. 1/4 of Section 30, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-2-8-5 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan by JMS Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors, as
received by the Planning Commission on February 13, 1998, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the Subdivision
Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04 -16.40 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinance, and Article XX of the Ordinance #543, Section 20.01 - 20.06 of
"%iimpr that ordinance;
15967
3) That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction the
following requirements as outlined in the correspondence dated March 3,
1998;
that adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a spacing
consistent with residential areas
- remote hydrants shall flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of
20 psi
that the hydrant side of Roselinda Road shall be posted"Fire Lane -
No Parking,"per City Ordinance.
4) That an entrance marker application and a fully detailed Landscape Plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their
review and approval.
5) That full face brick shall be used on all houses with 80% coverage on the
front elevation and up to 4 feet in height on the other three sides.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Parz: If you could go over items 3, 4 and 5, I understand the case of the subdivision
and I have given...
Mr. Alanskas: Well, (3) says that you shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction the
requirements as outlined in the correspondence dated March 3, 1998. Do you have
that copy?
Mr. Parz: I don't think so.
Mr. Alanskas: I'm sure we can give you one. (1) that adequate hydrants shall be provided and
located with a spacing consistent with residential areas, which is nothing new
(2) that remote hydrants shall flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 psi
and (3) that they hydrant side of Roselinda Road shall be posted"Fire Lane -No
Parking", per City Ordinance.
Mr. Parz: Is that what the City Ordinance reads?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes
Mr. Parz: I did not know that either.
Mr. Alanskas: Item(4), that an entrance marker application and a fully detailed Landscape Plan
shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review
and approval, but we don't have that tonight. That will come after.
15968
Mr. Nagy: We'll give you the Fire Marshal's letter right now.
r..
Mr. Parz: Do you need the landscape plan now?
Mr. Alanskas: No, we're not going to vote on it tonight. You'll have to come back before us for
the landscape plan. We've haven't had a chance to look at it.
Mr. McCann: We're looking for support at this time.
Mr. LaPine: I'll support for matter of discussion
Mr. McCann: Since you supported for matter of discussion, you get to discuss it first.
Mr. LaPine: I didn't hear anything about the brick. What did we decide about the brick? Is the
brick going half way up or is it going all the way around all four sides on the ranch
or 2nd floor on the colonials? What is the final decision?
Mr. McCann: I believe there is nothing in the condominium bylaws that requires any brick.
So if we approve this, it can go up without any brick and it is basically his
discretion. With a recommendation to the Council that we say that the front
should be 80%brick and that we have 4 feet to 5 feet of brick around the sides
and rear or we can say no brick that we just have one side brick. We can make a
'r- recommendation to the Council for whatever we feel is appropriate but at this point
there is nothing in the bylaws with regard to the brick.
Mr. LaPine: That's under the condo statute?
Mr. McCann: It's just like we would put if we had if we had deed restrictions.
Mr. LaPine: If this was a plotted subdivision and they came in for site plan approval in addition
to site plan approval, we could require brick on all four sides.
Mr. McCann: There is no site plan approval, it is final plat approval. That is the one advantage
of having site condominiums is that we have the control to say whether we have
brick or no brick.
Mr. LaPine: I like the brick, more brick than just on the front. I don't see any reason why it
can't come up to the window ledge on the front and the three sides. I like the idea
of the wood and I agree with you about the siding. I wish I could change the color
on my siding. I think the brick is especially important with people working around
the houses you're going to hit it with a shovel or you're going to break the wood or
something like that. I have no objection otherwise except for that.
15969
Mr. Piercecchi: I was going to offering a friendly motion in as much as these are one story
buildings.
Mr. Parz: They are going to be one or two.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to offer a friendly motion that the first floor, if it's a ranch and it it's
higher than a ranch then it will the be the first floor.
Mr. Parz: That is very toxic to what we are trying to do here. To do a brick house all the way
around will add an additional $15,000 to $20,000 cost to the house. The masons
today and $650.00 a thousand. The brick today is approximately to put a thousand
on the building it is going to be $1,000.00. A house that size is going to consume
15,000 to 18,000 bricks. On top of that you have special footings to contend with.
I would love to do what you are asking but the market is not requesting that. Even
today a 60 foot lot today that's going to run little over $200,000.00. Now you are
asking to push this house up to $225,000.00. I think that is harsh.
Mr. Piercecchi: We, here in Livonia, have been very cautious on the sights of our buildings.
We're very concerned about they are going to look like five years, ten years down
the road and it's been understood amongst us and prior to my time,that brick lasts.
Brick is the best looking and every builder I've talked to says that brick lasts. If
you are going to charge $200,000 for these packages $210,00 is only 5% change.
That is only a friendly amendment, Mr. Chairman, whether you accept it or not.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Parz, I allowed you to speak, unfortunately, we're bringing something on
afterwards and I'm trying to be fair to all parties, including yourself.
Mr. Hale: I have one more question. I actually live in a site condo similar to what you are
proposing. The brick that is handled in our unit is a wainscotting coat which is
around the back portion of the homes with more brick around the front. Have you
thought about doing something like that? It would something to what Mr.
Piercecchi is suggesting.
Mr. Parz: Again, this is the first time it has been suggested to me about brick. I knew
nothing about this. I would consider it. But to go with brick all the way around, 8
foot - 10 foot high, is very caustic. A wainscotting I could understand. A wainscot
being 2-1/2 to 3 feet high. It will take care of your problem, Mr. LaPine, it would
add brick to it etc. and I would consider something that way.
Mr. Hale: That seems like it is a nice common ground, you're worried a huge increase in cost
we want to get a little more brick on these homes if we can. I know they look
pretty decent in the subdivision I live in so I would make that friendly suggestion.
Mr. McCann: I think we've done that on every site condo that we've done that we have required
�- at least a wainscot and I think yours is a 4 foot, is what I recall, and I think we had
15970
80% brick on the front of the building and 4 foot wainscotting all the way around
on the other three sides.
`..
Mr. Alanskas: On my approving resolution, I would not go with the full brick, 80% on the front
and the wainscotting, I could live with that.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to make a recommendation of approval, Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine: I can go with that.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Parz, we approved that on several occasions. Is that something you can live
with? We're giving you 80% on the front instead of full and we getting four foot
around the building.
Mr. Parz: The alternative is, I can live with it. Right now, I can live with it. It is a situation
that when something is thrown at me right now, in the last 20 minutes, I know that
you are always trying to be accommodating.
Mr. McCann: We appreciate you patience and endurance.
Mr. Parz: I appreciate that.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-2-8-6 by JP
y.. Properties requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a hotel on property located at
38950 Six Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: The property is located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty and I-
96/276. J. P. Properties is requesting approval to construct a Fairfield Inn Hotel on
the subject property. A Fairfield Inn is a type of Marietta Hotel. The proposed
hotel would be 4-stories in height and would contain 103 rooms. Parking - 108
spaces are required and 113 spaces are shown on the site plan Therefore they meet
the parking requirements.
A fully detailed Landscape Plan has been submitted showing a wide variety of plant
materials throughout the site. A note on the plans reads "all lawn and landscaped
areas to be fully irrigated". Landscaping required - not less than 15% of the total
area of the site and 30% of the total area of the site has been provided.
The Building Elevation Plans show that the building material proposed hotel would
be a combination brick and dryvit. The first floor, on all four sides would be
constructed out of brick. The brick would continue all the way up to the third floor
of the peak sections of the front and rear elevations. The front entrance area would
also be brick up to the third floor.
15971
Mr. Alanskas: John, any new correspondence?
Now Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department dated March 9, 1998, which
states they have no objections to the proposed development, however, it should be
noted that the storm outlet for the property is to a 40 foot wide private drainage
easement owned by Schoolcraft College which needs a great deal of maintenance.
The Engineering Division will not issue site approval plans until the drainage ditch
in the easement has been re-established in good working order down to the Six
Mile Road right-of-way signed by John Hill.
A letter from the Inspection Department dated March 6, 1998, signed by Dave
Woodcox states that
(1) The landscape plan does not indicate any parking area lighting or if parking
spaces are double striped.
(2) The petitioner has received a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
for deficient rear yard building set back.
3) No signage was reviewed in conjunction with this petition.
4) The elevations do not indicate the type of building materials being
proposed.
Now
We also have a letter from the Fire Marshal which states: This office has reviewed
the site plan submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a hotel on property
located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-96/275
Expressway. This Division recognizes its limited authority in being able to dictate certain
issues during the site plan review state. However, a concern remains regarding
ingress/egress of emergency vehicles. Correspondence to the Planning Commission, dated
12-20-96 detailed those concerns and are subsequent and unchanged to date stands in
opposition to a lone access route, Fox Drive, as proposed. Enclosed is a copy of
referenced correspondence.
Fox Drive, in its entirety, shall be posted as a"Fire Lane -No Parking" per City
Ordinance.
A hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet of the Ph.D. (fire department
connection). Need and location of additional on-site hydrants may be determined at the
formal plan review stage for construction. Signed by Rocky Whitehead, Fire Marshal.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, that letter from the Fire Marhsal addressing the 24 foot versus the 34'
street. How will that be corrected?
15972
Mr. Nagy: There will be provided a secondary means of ingress and egress south of the
property to cross the intervening property which is owned by the petitioner. That
.,., drive will be developed in connection with that commercial development and when
finished there will be a direct access road direct to Six Mile Road. They will not
have to exclusively rely on Fox Drive. This will alleviate the concerns of the Fire
Marshal.
Mr. Piercecchi: What's the width of the road?
Mr. Nagy: The connecting road?
Mr. Piercecchi: The one that is going to come...where the restaurants are going to be put in
there.
Mr. Nagy: 22 feet wide.
Mr. Piercecchi: Does that meet with the Fire Department all right?
Mr. Nagy: It meets the City's standards for a parking lot driveway.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Al Jabber: 388 S. Main Street, Plymouth, Michigan
New
Mr. Piercecchi: Anything new from the last meeting?
Mr. Jabara: We have a lot more brick. We actually changed the brick. We changed the brick
requirement to what John marked up on the top. "Hang the cost". I totally concur
with you that when we went up three stories it looked very ominous. Because of
the cost factor we cut it off there, it would cost a lot more to put up the fourth
floor up than any of the other three. We are willing to do it because we want the
building to look nice. I'm glad you brought it to this point.
Mr. Alanskas: I have just one question on your landscape plan. It says all planting beds not
bordered by walks or walls or paving, shall be edged with black diamond or its
equivalent. What is the equivalent?
Mr. Jabara: Black diamond, is the edging -that's the brand name.
Mr. Alanskas: I know what it is - let me ask you. When you install the edging, how do you keep it
from rising up? After a year of hot and cold, all it has are those little metal pegs at
the bottom. You drive them down. Within a year it comes back up out of the
ground. What are you going to do to keep it from doing that?
�•- Mr. Jabara: I've had it at my home for six years. I haven't had a problem with it.
15973
Mr. Alanskas: Let me give you a little information that might help you. The six inch metal pegs
r.. you put into the ground, you put them in sideways. You have the earth to stop it,
it won't come up.
Mr. Jabara: I'll remember that.
Mr. Hale: You mentioned in our study meeting that there may be some engineering concerns
about the additional brick. Have these been satisfied? What has been done?
Mr. Jabara: For example, in the back where we have the atrium, we sized the beam to take brick
brick low down to carry the brick. It's a matter of engineering. We've taken care
of that.
Mr. Hale: What's the additional cost from your original plan?
Mr. Jabara: I don't know exactly. Tonight I don't want to know, I want to get a good night's
sleep.
Mr. Hale: O.K., it's certainly a big improvement, I think.
Mr. Jabara: We've put a lot of improvements into this hotel that normally don't go into these
hotels. We put in a second elevator so people don't have to wait. We put a
fireplace in the lobby, which is a little bit unusual. We're putting an
atrium in the back with a patio and landscaping behind the atrium. This has not
been done on a Fairfield. I hope we're setting a new standard for Fairfield Inn.
Mr. Hale: You're going to have a full service restaurant in there by the atrium?
Mr. Jabara: No, there is not going to be a restaurant. There is no food at all.
Mr. Hale: O.K.
Mr. Jabara: The atrium just serves the rear of the pool area that looks out over the patio.
It's going to be nice.
Mr. McCann: If there are no questions, a motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'll make a motion. My compliments on your building there. You're setting new
standards for Fairfield but this is the first one you are putting in Livonia. We feel
like we are a little bit a cut above, we deserve a cut above, right?
Mr. Jabara: Well, we are hoping that when Fairfield Inn sees the completed product, they may
want to change their prototype and incorporate some of the changes into their new
buildings.
15974
Mr. Piercecchi: Livonia is a leader.
Mr. Hale: See Dan, you really make a difference.
Mr. Jabara: Also, for your information, when the Town Place Suites comes in, they are coming
in for approval, on the other hotel site, this will be the only intersection in the
United States that has five Marriotts. The first one in the country.
Mr. McCann: Is there support?
On a motion duly made by Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#3-36-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on March 10,
1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-2-8-6 by J.P. Properties
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a hotel on property located at 38950 Six
Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-2-8-6 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Site & Landscape Plan marked Sheet 3 prepared by Arpee/Donnan,
Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on February 19, 1998, 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;
4) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of
the same full brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure
gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times;
5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A2.1 & A2.2
prepared by Fred Collins Architects, Inc., as received by the Planning
Commission on 3/10/98 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6) That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction the
following requirements as outlined in the correspondence dated March 3,
1998:
15975
that Fox Drive in its entirety, shall be posted as a"Fire Lane -No
Parking: per City Ordinance
a hydrant shall be located between 50 ft. and 100 ft. of the F.D.C.
(need and location of additional on-site hydrants may be determined
at the formal plan review stage of construction)
7) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the
plans.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to say when you first came to us, as you say, it didn't look quite right.
And Mr. Piercecchi did work really hard on this and I just want to say thank you to
Dan. Now we have a good looking building.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that you did an excellent job. We all had our
little piece in there Dan. We don't want to give you all the credit. I just wanted to
say you were the forerunner. You did a good job, Dan.
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm flattered, but it was a team effort.
Mr. Jabara: I would like to request a waiver of the seven days on this so we can go before
r•- Council next week.
Mr. McCann: We have talked to the Mayor and unless there is a demonstrated hardship, because
four of the City's departments put all other city work aside in order to do a variance
of the seven day rule and he said unless there was a real demonstrated hardship, if
you have some emergency need, then we would approve it.
Mr. Jabara: What do we loose? Seven days?
Mr. McCann: Seven days is all.
Mr. Jabara: All right. We can live with it.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-2-8-7 by
Angelo D'Orazio requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to
an existing building located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road, west of
Farmington Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southwest corner of Schoolcraft and Surrey Road. The
petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to an existing building. The new
•.- addition would be an addition of 6,720 square feet to the existing one-story
15976
building for a grand total of 8,715 square feet. The building elevations show that
the new and old buildings will both be remodeled so that the end result will appear
%Now as a one story building with a new roof line and full face matching brick.
All off street parking requirements are complied with. Thirty-five (35) parking
spaces area required by ordinance and 41 spaces are provided. With respect to site
landscaping, a real effort has been made to retain all existing desirable trees and
20% of the site has been set aside for landscape purposes.
Site lighting equipment as shown on the plan provides for a light standard and
fixtures that meet acceptable requirements.
Trees along Schoolcraft are buffering trees and shrubbery along the entrance way.
There will be a buffer of trees around the dumpster area.
Building Elevations - the existing building would be remodeled and the new
addition would be a combination of brick and dryvit so once it is completed the
entire building will look as though it were constructed at one time. You can see the
brick wall and decorative stripe across the top of the building.
Mr. Alanskas: Any questions?
Mr. Hale: For the petitioner, if he is here, it can wait.
r..
Mr. Alanskas: Would the petitioner please give your name and address.
Angelo D'Orazio, 35213 Vargo, Livonia.
Mr. Hale: Mr. D'Orazio, the notes indicate you are planning to use this building as a builder's
administrative office. Is that right?
Mr. D'Orazio: As a general office.
Mr. Hale: General contractor's type office? Is it going to be occupied completely by
builders?
Mr. D'Orazio: We've got some engineering and some lawyers. I'll occupy about 1,000 square
feet.
Mr. Hale: Are you going to have any outside storage? Any trucks or equipment?
Mr. D'Orazio: No.
Mr. Hale: Concerning the signage, I know that you said you plan on retaining the existing free
standing sign and I take it, John, that we don't have to address that tonight?
15977
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Hale: When he actually want to put the sign up, he will have to come back for that?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Hale: O.K.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else? I have one question Mr. D'Orazio. On your site plan it shows the
grading. Are you going to be putting in a whole new drive in or are you just
resurfacing it?
Mr. D'Orazio: No, I'm going to be eliminating one drive and put one in on the south. There is
a big tree there so we'll move in on the south of the drive right now.
Mr. Alanskas: What are you going to do with the existing drive that you have now in the back?
Of course, that is where the new facility will be going. So that will be all torn out,
correct?
Mr. D'Orazio: Yes. The one on Surrey.
Mr. Alanskas: John, do you have any new correspondence?
r..
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. a motion is in order.
On a motion duly made by Hale, seconded by McCann and unanimously approved, it was
#3-37-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 98-2-8-7 by Angelo D'Orazio requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to an existing building located on the south side of
Schoolcraft Road, west of Farmington Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 28, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet Al prepared by Forest Building
Company, as received by the Planning Commission on February 26, 1998,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of
the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure
gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times;
v.`.
15978
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet A-4 prepared by Forest Building
Company, as received by the Planning Commission on February 26, 1998,
`.., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
5) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A3 prepared by
Forest Building Company, as received by the Planning Commission on
February 26, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Doyle: Mr. Chairman. I reviewed the meeting schedule. I am down on the Zoning Board
of Appeals meeting for March 24 and there are no regular meetings of this
commission until 21st of April.
% .. Mr. McCann: No, that doesn't matter. We can put you down for the public hearing on March 24,
1998, the same night.
Mr. Doyle The ZBA meets before the Planning Commission?
Mr. Nagy: No, we meet at the same time. They meet on the fifth floor and we meet on the
first. We'll put you down
Mr. McCann: We'll put you at the end of the agenda on the same night.
Mr. Doyle: I want to thank the chairman and Mr. LaPine for their affirmative words and the
rest of the commissioners. Thank you.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 760th Regular Meeting held on
March 10, 1998 was adjourned at 8:44 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/
,l C. Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
.. James C. McCann, Chairman