HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-01-1121952
MINUTES OF THE 898"' REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 898" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh 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 filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 200442-08 22 ST. MARTINS CONDOS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-12-
08-22, submitted by Schafer Development, on behalf of Sl.
Martins Commons Condominiums, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a condominium
development on property located on the north side of Sl. Martins
Avenue between Middlebell Road and Melvin Avenue in the
Southeast %of Section 2.
21953
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to develop a multiple family
condominium project on property located on the north side of Sl.
Martins Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue.
The proposed development would be known as "St. Martins
Commons Condominiums" This property is in the process of
being rezoned (Petition 04-05-01-06) from RUFA (Rural Urban
Farm) and R-1 (One Family Residential) to RC (Residential
Condominium). The Planning Commission, after holding a
public hearing on July 7, 2004, recommended approving the
requested rezoning. Following a public hearing, the City
Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning at its
October 13, 2004 Regular Meeting. Second Reading and a Roll
Call Vole are scheduled at the time the site plan is presented to
the Council for action. Review of this petition is based on the
assumption that the property will be rezoned to RC. For this
development, all of the proposed dwelling units would contain
two bedrooms; thus, each unit is required to have a minimum
land area of 4,350 square feet. For this 7.29 acre site, a total of
73 units is allowed. Sl. Martins Commons would be made up of
six buildings, comprised of 12 condominium units each, for a
total of 72 units. Each two-story building has overall dimensions
of approximately 175 feel in length by 60 feel in depth.
Buildings No. 2, 5 and 6 would be oriented lengthwise from East
to West, while Buildings No. 1, 3 and 4 would be oriented in the
opposite direction, from North to South. According to the
petitioner, there would be four units on the first floor and eight
units on the second level. At this time, a copy of the Master
Deed and bylaws has not been submitted for review. Without
the appropriate documentation or floor plans, information as to
the square footages of each unit has not been supplied.
Required parking is 2%spaces for each 2 -bedroom unit, or 180
spaces for this development. Counting garages, driveways and
off-street parking, this development would provide 199 spaces.
Access to the development would be provided via two boulevard
entrance drives oft St. Martins Avenue. According to the
"General Notes" on the submitted Site Plan, all interior streets
will be private 28 fool wide. Vehicular access will be available
to all four sides of Buildings No. 2, 5 and 6, while access to
Buildings No. 1, 3 and 4 will be limited to only three sides. As a
result, dead-end drives would be created between Buildings No.
3 and 4 and on the west side of Building No. 1. Appropriate
tunrarounds are needed at the end of each of these drives to
accommodate emergency and service trucks. All the proposed
condominiums meet or exceed the setback requirements of an
RC zoning district. The Site Plan shows a portion of the
21954
northeast comer of the property that extends into fie R-1 district
would be utilized for storm water detention. The landscape
plans show that a variety of plant material would be established
throughout the site. The 35 foot wide greenbelt along St.
Martins Avenue would be planted with an assortment of
plantings creating a nice street buffer. The foundation
landscaping up close and around the buildings would be done
attractively. The outer rim of the detention basin would be
framed with a number of evergreen trees and a few deciduous
trees. Existing vegetation along the north property line would
remain where possible and incorporated into the planfing
scheme of the development. According to a note on the plan, "a
vinyl -coated chain link fence would be installed along the north
property line." Under "General Notes" listed on the site plan, "all
general common areas including entranceway and park areas
shall be irrigated with an underground irrigation system." The
architecture of the buildings would be contemporary. The design
includes shuttered windows, column -supported porches, and
asphalt shingled roofs. The Building Elevation Plan illustrates
that the buildings would be constructed out of brick on all four
sides of the first floor and a combination of both brick and vinyl
siding on the second floor. It was menfioned at the rezoning
that these buildings would look very similar to the townhouse
condominiums of Fountain Park. Fountain Park is the
commercial and residenfial development being constructed on
the northeast comer of Plymouth Road and Farmington Road.
The petitioner is also proposing an entrance marker along with
this petition. The sign would be located within one of the
landscaped islands of the boulevard entranceways. It is not
indicated if ground lighfing would illuminate the sign. The
proposed signage of one entrance market is conforming under
Secfion 18.50E:
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated December 9, 2004, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objection to the proposal at this time. Additional right-of-wayis
not required at this time. Each building needs to be served by
an individual sanitary lead, which will require changing the
services for buildings 1 and 3. The detention facilities will
require the approval of Wayne County. The following problems
were noted with the legal description. (a) In the fourth line, the
phrase `the Southerly 50 feet of should be deleted. (b) There
are bearings and distances missing starting in the fifteenth line."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
21955
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated December 14, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct a condominium development on property
located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If
any of subject buildings are to be provided with automatic
sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located between 50 feet
and 100 feet from the Fire Department connections. (2)
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing
consistent with residential areas. Most remote hydrant shall
flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI (3) Any
curves or comer of streets shall accommodate emergency
vehicles with a turning radius of 55 feet wall-to-wall. (4) Fire
lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able
to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of
13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (5) An approved
turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where an access
road is a dead end and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The
turnaround shall have a minimum centerline radius of 50 feet.
The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade,
surface, and location of the fire lane. Tumaround(s) shall be
posted. Fire Lane - No Parking. (6) T or Y turnaround
arrangements shall be permitted. (7) Fire lanes shall be marked
with freestanding signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other
traffic surfaces that have the words Fire Lane — No Parking
painted in contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by
the authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Andrew
C. Walker, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated December 28, 2004, which reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the site plans in connection with
a proposal to construct a condominium development on
property located on the north side of St. Martins Avenue
between Middlebeff Road and Melvin Avenue. We submit
the following recommendations for your review. (1) We
recommend the installation of a sidewalk along the north
side of St. Martins the full length of the proposed site. (2)
The construction of a cul-de-sac to allow delivery trucks
and emergency vehicles to tum around at the northwest
comer of building #1. (3) In order to assign the rigNt-of-
ways at the intersections, we recommend placement of
yield signs for southbound traffic between buildings #1 &
#2 and #3 & #4. Yield signs for east and westbound traffic
between buildings #5 & N. (4) Placement of stop signs
creating a 3way stop htersection at each entrance of the
21956
complex. Stop signs to require vehicles traveling east and
westbound to stop before turning onto driveway to exit
complex and for southbound traffic at the southeast comer
of building #2 and building #4. (5) Stop signs for exiting
vehicles at St. Martins Avenue. (6) Installation of a
streetlight on St. Martins Avenue for each entrance. (7)
There is no indication that there is any exterior lighting
within the complex. We recommend some type of dusk -to -
dawn automatic lighting throughout the complex to
enhance public safety." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated January 10, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 7, 2004, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) The color rendition provided shows no mot
penetrations, chimneys or ground utilities. (2) There are
currently portions of the property line abutting G21IC-1/0S that
may not have a protective screening wall or an approved green
belt and will have to be addressed. (3) General Note 14 in the
site plan states general common areas will be irrigated. Does
this mean that all areas with vegetation are irrigated? (4) The
road configuration around Buildings 1 and 3 appears
incomplete. Waste vehicles would have to backup to complete
their route, among other issues." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from
Lisa Wisdom, dated January 11, 2005, which reads as follows:
9 live at 29537 Bretton and 1 would like to see more trees,
shrubs, perennials and annuals put directly behind my fence
line. 1 am not looking forward to seeing the mall, businesses on
Middlebelt or lights from traffic. IF a six foot vinyl fence is
necessary, that would be fine. However, 1 still would like to see
more landscape." That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff before we go to the
petitioner?
Mr. Shane: Mark, the comments from the Fire Department with regard
turnarounds for the fire trucks, is that taken care of?
Mr. Taormina: The letter from the Traffic Safety Bureau references one area of
concern with respect to the dead-end street and the need for an
appropriate turnaround, and that the area west of Building #1.
That is the location here in the northwest comer of the site. The
applicant, upon receiving the correspondence, as I understand
it, did have a conversation with the Prblic Safety Division and
what they've done is widen the Y-tumaround arrangements at
21957
that location in order to accommodate service and emergency
vehicles. There was nothing done, as I understand it, between
Buildings #3 and #4 where a similar situation exists. It was
something that was noted during our study meeting, but
apparently there is less of a concem on the part of the Public
Safety Division for that area as there was at the northwest
comer of the development.
Mr. Shane:
If I remember right, if the road extended beyond 150 feet, they
want some kind of a turnaround? Is that coned?
Mr. Taormina:
That is coned and that situation does exist.
Mr. Shane:
It exceeds that by a bit, I think.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct. It's been addressed to their satisfaction, apparently,
and it was really only in the one area in the northwest comer
adjacent to Building #1. For Buildings #3 and #4, that has not
been completely resolved. It's still showing the original design
which is the road terminating without any type of a turnaround
provided. There is still the ability to provide a T-tumaround, but
thalwould affect some of the landscaping along the setback.
Mr. Shane:
That's the reason for my question. I didn't see any change in
that regards. Thank you, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the pelitioner here this evening?
Steven J. Schafer, Schafer Development, LLC, 25800 Northwestern Highway,
Suite 720, Southfield, MI 48075. Good evening. We had an
opportunity to get copies of the review letters of the Planning
Commission study meeting. Since that time, we have had an
opportunity to meet with Public Safety. Just to clarify, they
wanted to be able to have a turnaround because there was no
driveway. In this particular area, there is an opportunity to turn
around here and here. This isn't a portion of the building; this
would be a driveway skirt. So they felt comfortable with the
depth we were looking at in this particular area and we also
located a hydrant a little bit closer to that area to address that.
All of these other radius' around in this particular area do meet
the requirements of the Fire Department. So from the
standpoint of maneuverability through the site, it really isn't an
issue, and I think for the most part, we're right on St. Marlins,
not a residential street. These will be private roads. I think in
most cases it could even be, god forbid there was a fire there, it
could be fought from St. Martin's as well. We did make a few
21958
minor changes that were requested. On the landscape plan you
will notice there's a fixture diagram now for lights that have been
installed in these two islands also. We've added a pedestrian
area and a blow up of that area with some seeding and some
hard surface material where people can go and gather and relax
if that's what they would like to do. We've also included one of
those same types of lights back in that area. The units
themselves will have sensor lights on the buildings, on the
garages and on the ends and on the exterior of those buildings.
Those will all go on and off at the same time so there will be
additional lighting throughout the development as well as a
ground lit light that will illuminate the sign that will be placed in
this first island as well. We did thicken this area up as
requested by the Public Safety Department, and I think from this
standpoint we're in pretty good shape now with the comments
that were made. We did have several discussions with the
residents and the neighbors because there was some concern,
as was discussed during the zoning of the property, and we
have been able to work with them. As it was evident by the
many people that showed up earlier, and the number of people
at the zoning that didn't show up, we've done our homework
with them. I think they are safisfied that we are worlang on
preserving most of the vegetation. We also had a meeting after
we did the landscape plan, and they wanted to add some
additional evergreens and natural vegetation to just keep it well
screened through there. We've also worked with them to
remove all those dead Ashes too, and some of the neighbors
have some on their lots that they can access. We will pull them
out of there when we do our clearing. We are proposing to put
up a six foot uniform vinyl fence along this side. People were
concemed with lights and things shining through. Also, some of
the neighbors to the west were also concemed and that was
one of the reasons why you don't see those roads going all the
way around the building because they didn't want lights. Really
didn't need them because this is just one unit and to put roads
all the way around it was a little excessive we felt with the
number of people living here. We were able to save a lot of the
vegetation on the western edge as well. Without those roads,
we were able to thicken up this buffer substantially on the back
of these units and over to the west where Mr. Moskal, the feller
that has the trailer, he indicated he had some concerns. We
were able to give him access off of this little parcel here too
because he has a land locked piece of property behind his
house, so we are going to give him access to utilize that area.
Again, the project is going to cater to empty nesters we feel, and
that's primarily been the market here in Livonia for this type of
21959
product. If you have any questions, I've provided you with floor
plans, landscape plans and all that. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow: I just have one question. If I heard correctly, you're going to
have some units that are solely on the first floor?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And some units solely on the second floor. It's kind of a
combination. Do you have any up and down units?
Mr. Schafer:
No. We're finding that primarily we're dealing with empty
nesters. And one flight of stairs is really all, and they want to
live on that floor. Main floor living is certainly very marketable,
and we just feel that's the best way to go with these floor plans.
Mr. Morrow:
If I follow you correctly, there will be some units that are second
floor only.
Mr. Schafer:
Right, but theyre flat. You just go up one story and you're in
your complete unit. There are no stairs inside oflhal unit.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I follow. Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'm pleased to see the recreation area. I think that was a must.
Its unfortunate that we didn't get any of these letters from the
Fire or Police Departments prior to getting here, so I'm a little
fuzzy on this dead end business. We've got four streets here
that theoretically could be deadends.
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi: And going from west to east, let's go that way, around Building
#1. The Fire Department is perfectly content with that
arrangement?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. This radius complies for them to get a fire truck into this
area and they are okay with that.
Mr. Pieroecchi: But him about turning around?
Mr. Schafer: Well, theorefically...
21960
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Put the other plan up, Mr. Schafer. It shows it a little bit better.
Mr. Schafer:
They would have to back out or actually fight the fire from St.
Martin's where there is a hydrant right here, and they might just
set a truck up here. This is within the distance of where they
would typically pull a hose. It wouldn't exceed the depth of what
they would consider to be extraordinary hose length.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Thais 100 feet, isn't it? Scott, what is that distance?
Mr. Miller:
Through Building #1 here?
Mr. Schafer:
The typical length of hose thatthe Fire Marshal looks to pull?
Mr. Miller:
One hundred eightyfeet.
Mr. Taormina:
They indicate that no dead end roads in excess of 115 feet in
length shall be provided without a sufficient turnaround
arrangement. The buildings themselves, I think, are 170 feet in
length, so you can see that the road would be somewhere in the
area of 175 feel.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But the Fire Department signed off? I hale to ask these
questions over again because you read the letter, Mark, but this
is the first time I heard it. On my notes I had, do we have
verifcation that the Fire Department signed off on all these dead
end streets. Am I to understand that they have signed off on it?
Mr. Taormina:
We have not received written confirmation to that effect. This is
based on a meeting that apparently the applicant had with Fire
Department representatives as recently as yesterday.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You dont consider that an official communication?Thatletter?
Mr. Taormina:
I have not confirmed it. No, I don't have the letter from the Fire
Department confirming that they are okay with the latest plan.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I was under the impression that there was some leniency here.
Maybe we ought to read it again. Either than or get it into our
packets a little eadier.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Pieroecchi, the petitioner had a meeting just yesterday with
the Fire Department. And what you're saying, Mr. Taormina, is
that you dont have confirmation of that meeting.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
21961
Mr. Walsh:
The Fire Department has not submitted that yet.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Walsh:
So we have the petitioners representations this evening that he
has reached agreement with the Fire Department.
Mr. Schafer:
And actually, John Hill was there as well from the Engineering
Department. We had him attend along with us.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Did you have a problem with trying to link those roads?
Mr. Schafer:
No. It would just go into that greenbelt and the neighbors were
very concemed about preserving the greenbelts on this side and
this side. And really, we're talking one building off of a main
street. And I understand, it's not like we have several buildings
back behind it. We're almost to the maximum, but not quite and
we actually adjusted some hydrants with our discussions with
Public Safety, and they were satisfied with what we were
looking at. As long as we put this T on this side, they felt that if
there had to be something that would turn, you would have
these driveways. So there is an area where that could happen
within this particular area and then here there was no concem,
and over here there was really no concern as well. And here
they felt that since these driveways were across from each other
that they could maneuver through there if they needed to. But
most likely, they would probably just pull the hoses in.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is part of the linking problem because you're so close to the
stockade fence?
Mr. Schafer: No, not really. The original plan that you had seen during
zoning had roads all the way around. Its just that when we met
with the neighbors, they said, look, we want to keep as much
buffer as we can back there. And we fell, well, we could keep
circulation in this area and this area, and you're really get the
fronts of all these buildings. But the Fire Department fell that we
located the hydrants in close proximity and they could pull in
there, or they could just bring in a truck and then back out.
Mr. La Pine: Mr. Schafer, as you well know, when this first came up, I had
reservations. I wanted to see single family homes in there. I
still have reservations. I honestly believe we're overbuilding this
parcel. I think we have too many buildings on this small parcel.
Now you keep telling me empty nesters are going to buy these.
21962
It may be true or maybe not true. I really don't know. If I
remember what you told us, these are going to sell from
$180,000 to $200,000, which means young couples may want
to start out here. The problem I have. because you sit across
from the Livonia Mall and we don't have enough green space in
here, so if families do move here, and even if empty nesters
move in here who have grandchildren who come over, and they
want to take them outside and play, there's really no area to
play here. If we remove one of these buildings, either #6 or #5
and reconfigure the whole project, we may be able to get some
play area in. Instead, I just fear that kids are going to see
across the street, especially the older kids, and figure, hey,
we've got a big parking lot over there, we'll go over there with
our skateboards and inline skates and start using that as a play
area. I just feel that this project is just loo large at the present
time for this piece of property. Now, that's one opinion. If you
feel that empty nesters are going to buy these, that may be so,
but I feel that young couples may be able to afford these. Al
this point, I just cant bring myself to approve it the way it's set
up today.
Mr. Alanskas: I dont think I've ever heard of a site where a fire truck had to go
into a building and backup to gel out. To me, that's not very
safe.
Mr. Schafer: I think you have to really think of this as almost a private drive.
You know what I mean? They can pull into this development
and work their way around. It would just be like fghting a fire
from the front of house and not being able to get around to the
backside of it. I mean I think they feel there is enough distance
here. Remember, these are the depths of, you know, like you
say, regular single family lots, or actually a little deeper. These
are extraordinarily deep. These are 300 feet. We can put the
roads around there. I don't think that's an issue. I don't think
the neighbors really want It.
Mr. Alanskas: Well, actually the people behind that building, theyve got to be
appeased. They've got to be happy. And if they dont want the
roads, then we have to consider it. But I kind of lend to agree
with Mr. LaPine that its awful crowded in there. When I say
could you go with one building less, you're going to say, well,
the numbers don't do that. But that's not my problem or the
Citys problem. I just think it is very congested and I dont like
the plan. Thank you.
21963
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Ralph Williams, 18630 Foch. And I'd appreciate if the petitioner would provide
some assurances that he will comply with all the State laws
pertaining to soil erosion and sedimentation control. And also
included in the State law is a provision that citizens be allowed
to read his inspection reports that he prepares once a week, or
depending on the rein, it could be more often than that. So I'd
appreciate 9 if the petitioner would assure me that he will do
that.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Schafer?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes, we will comply with the NPDES permits for DEQ and I'd be
happy to copy you on anything, but its not something done
weekly. It is done periodically during reins and all that. It is
monitored. We also will be submitting a soil erosion plan with
this. We'll make sure that all soil erosion is in place. One thing
that we will be doing that the site currently doesn't have, is we'll
be providing retention which will actually hold the water and not
lel it get into the storm drains, have an opportunity to be
released at an agricultural rate, a slower rete. So we will be
very conscientious of that and I can assure you we will follow
the rules and regulations of the State.
Mr. Williams:
Mr. Chairman, I would still like a response to the question that
the site inspections will be available on-site tothe cifizens.
Mr. Schafer:
I don't know if I'd have them on-site, but I mean if you request
them, I would be happy to provide you with them. That's not a
problem.
Mr. Williams:
Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the State law says
they will be available on-site. Basically when the Inspector
prepares his reports, he usually has a copy in the field office.
All I'm saying is that, as a citizen, I should be able to go to the
site and read the report.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Williams, I appreciate the request, but you understand, and I
know you do, that we're the Planning Commission.
Mr. Williams:
I realize that.
Mr. Walsh:
And the Planning Commission is incapable of enforcing that.
What I head the petitioner say is that he will comply with the
21964
law, and so if you are right on your issue, you would take that to
the appropriate state authority.
Mr. Williams: I understand that, but I just wanted to hear the words of the
petitioner, that's all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Claudia Stanton, 19658 Melvin. I live on the west end of this house section that
Mr. Schafer is talking about. I'd like to thank Mr. Schafer for
meeting with the neighbors. We do appreciate it. But I too am
concerned with the amount of buildings you are trying to shove
in this little bitty area. I know that according to what all your site
plans and everything cover, that it is set up, that it fills in space
according to everything, but I still feel that you are putting in too
much in that area. We have talked to Mr. Schafer before about
the single detached condos, whichever you want to call ranch
homes. I think this is the way it should be. This is the way the
neighborhood is. I think it would comply better. I know it does
not fit in with everybody's else reasoning. I'm concemed about
fire trucks going in and out. I'd like to know how the garbage is
suppose to be picked up. Will it be picked up like the
neighborhood is picked up or will you have dumpsters like the
mall that we hear at 4:00 in the morning clinking back and forth?
One of the things that we did talk about was an area that if you
have empty nesters in there that have grandchildren, there's no
place for them to play. You are cutting out everything as far as
that goes. I see this area more for younger families. This is
what you want in the area. This is what you want to draw to
Livonia. I don't see a thing with all these buildings. I just hope
there is something that you can come up with that agrees with
the neighbors, the Planning Commission, the City Council, the
builders, everything, to make everyone happy to fill this area,
but I still think you need to look over the overcrowding on the
property. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience? Seeing no
one else, the petitioner has the last word.
Mr. Schafer: Just one thing I would like to mention is the master plan calls for
this property as high density residential. It's been like that for
some time. You know there was a proposal for commercial at
one point for Service Merchandise. It was denied on this
property. Apparently there was another developer in here that
had proposed over 100 units. The City wasn't real comfortable
with that, and it would have fit into a high density zoning
classification. We felt in the spirit of trying to bring it down, we
have brought it down to RC, and we didn't ask for a complete
21965
zoning of the property, if you recall. We look it up to this point.
This is all going to remain residential. I mean, there are ways
for me to provide some open space. I could provide a play area
in here. There's a 50-60 foot area between there and the back
of the property, but again, I've got some mature stands of trees
there. We could provide for that without impacting the plan
substantially. I would be willing to do that, but certainly I worked
quite a bit with the neighbors. We had at least three or four
meetings talking about how we should lay this out. If you
originally recall, the buildings were soldiered in before and then
we had the two on the end that were turned. We were able to
create a little more variation. So that's sort of what has driven
this plan dimensionally and everything else, and we're hoping
that you can see your way through to approve it under the
circumstances, but I hear what you're all saying.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Schafer, we both know that this is zoned RC, which is 10
units per acre. And you have just a little over seven there, plus
of course for the detention pond, but you will admit that you are
trying to utilize every bit of that seven acres. The suggesfion
that you minimize, that is cul back on the number of units, is not
an overly aggressive suggesfion. Taking one building out of
there would enhance the value of those units.
Mr. Schafer:
I dont know if I would agree with that because if you look at the
Fountain Park development, its a very dense development as
well. There really isn't any open space area, and that is selling
at four to six units per month, which is just a phenomenal pace.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You're talking about the Plymouth area?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, that's a different area. That's tied in with the commercial
development. This is strictly a residential package here, and I
think it has to be looked at in a little different light. Would you
consider taking a building out of there? Would you give it a
look?
Mr. Schafer:
I know what my numbers are if I took a building out of here.
This type of a floor plan just doesn't work for me because of
what we would have to sell these for. I would have to maybe try
to come up with some other unit configuration, probably
something with more stairs. We wanted to keep it very flat and
very livable, and that's why it is spread out a bit on the site. But
again, I'm telling you this is an empty nester product, and with
21966
the mall and the convenience and the grocery store and all that
there. I mean we've met with Clarenceville Schools. Theyre
very excited about it. There isn't much of this type of
development up in their neck of the woods, and they foresee
people maybe moving out of homes in their district. And you
know theyre struggling for students. I met with Mr. Kanyo and
they were very supportive of what we were doing here. They
saw this as being something good for the district as well. So,
we're trying to do the right thing. I know it's not what everybody
wants. I understand that, but we are trying to coming up with an
attractive layout. I can tum this building and I can put a road
around and we can move this thing all over. We could put in
some more open space, but again, what I've done is tried to
adjust and spread these things out to preserve a buffer for the
residents along the back. But I mean there would be a way for
me to create those open spaces with a little bit different
configuration, but again we thought long and hard and tried to
work with the neighbors to appease them. If you remember,
there were a number of neighbors here during the zoning that
did have some cencems.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You can see our concern and the neighbors because you are
utilizing this to the maximum. Just because its R -C and it
allows 10 units, it doesn't have to be 10 units.
Mr. Schafer:
I understand.
Mr. Morrow:
Just so I'm following this correolty. He's allowed 10 units per
acre in R -C and you're bringing it down to seven units per acre.
Is that what we're saying?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
No, it's still 10.
Mr. Schafer:
What we did is, we had some meetings with some Council
people and some Planning Commissioners and what was
decided is that we wouldn't rezone the whole parcel because it
would have allowed for even more density. So what we agreed
to do is tailor it to the amount of units that we're putting in and
put the zoning line up to this point, instead of going all the way
back. If we would have rezoned this whole property next to it,
this is never going to be residential, so theoretically this is
almost all and it is at seven units per acre for all this acreage
that is induced. But from the rezoning standpoint, to this point,
the density is 10. If we added this, it would be down to about
seven.
21967
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I can appreciate that because I wasn't on the
Commission at that time. So what you've done is land banked
some zoning in there that you didn't add as far as the RC is
concerned.
Mr. Schafer:
Right. We didn't rezone it.
Mr. Morrow:
You wind up with 10 units pre acre.
Mr. Schafer:
Yes, up to this point. But if you add this parcel in, we didn't
rezone this parcel right here. We just left it RUF or R-1, I think
is what it is.
Mr. Morrow:
As far as the open space as opposed to leaving the
landscaping, you've had many meetings with the neighbors.
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
So you've land of tried to serve a couple, three masters here -
the City, the neighbors and yourself, if I'm understanding you
correctly.
Mr. Schafer:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
So this is the result of those meetings. We've heard that the
Fire Department has agreed to the turnarounds. As you
indicated, I'm sure we'll get cenfirmaton on that before our
minutes become approved.
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
We look forward to that. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Taormina:
On the question of density, the gross site acreage, when you
include the area of the detention basin, is about eight and a half
acres. So with the 72 units he proposes, it is a gross density of
approximately eight and a half units to the acre. As he
indicated, when you induce only the portion of the property that
would be rezoned to RC, the density is right about 10 units to
the acre, and that would be the density limitation for dwelling
units with two bedrooms. But I do have a question for the
applicant. This is the rendering that was provided. If you look in
the comer of the building, my question, Mr. Schafer, is whether
or not the brick goes all the way up and includes the second
21968
story and whether or not this represents a plan that would be
the design of what you proposed, because you stated earlier
that these would all be main floor living units. If we look at the
floor plan, that's the case with all but two of the models - the
Brownstone 1 and the Brownstone 2 - both provide two-level
living space. My question is, with what you propose, will the
end caps of these buildings be brick, as I believe they are
shown on this rendering?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes. They will be identical.
Mr. Taormina:
And the brick will extend all the way up to the top?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
The only portions that have sding would be those portions that
are cantilevered?
Mr. Schafer:
That is cored. Yes, those comers in the front and the back.
Mr. Taormina:
Am I also to believe then that the Brownstone 1 and the
Brownstone 2 units would not be an option?
Mr. Schafer:
They will be modified. We have the option of building the two
story, but I just know in Livonia we're going to have an option.
We are configuring that inside of the same envelope to do that.
Its not an issue for us.
Mr. Taormina:
So it's not likely then that...
Mr. Schafer
Not likely that we will have the two-story unit unless we get a
request for it, then we would offer it.
Mr. Taormina:
Does that drop the density?
Mr. Schafer:
No. The same amount of units.
Mr. Taormina:
Regardless of how it's configured?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, aren't we suppose to gel a copy of the rules and bylaws?
21969
Mr. Taormina:
That will follow. We don't have that yet. That is something that
would typically be a callback item, something that we would
consider at a future date, all of the specifications with respect to
the Master Deed and bylaws.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Forthe percentage ofbddc and all that...
Mr. Schafer:
I actually did furnish the base of one, but the Exhibit B's weren't
in there. I did furnish the Master Deeds. If not, I can gelthem.
Mr. Walsh:
Mark, we're prepared to call that item back.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I believe the resolution as prepared would refer that matter
back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Schatte:
Does that go both to the Planning Commission and Council?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, it does.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Schafer, you've built a number of developments here in
Livonia - two or three jobs, and I've voted for every one of your
proposals. This one here I just have a problem. I think the six
buildings are loo much. Now, the ordinance says he's allowed
73 units on the acreage he has. He's getting 72. The ordinance
doesn't say you have to build the 72 units. That's the maximum
you can build. You can build less. You can build 60 units; you
can build 55 units. He's building the maximum he's allowed on
the amount of property he's got here. In my opinion, my biggest
problem is, I think there's just too many buildings on this small
parcel.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I've got a comment. Its been mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that
this whole package is eight and a half acres. That's true
because I scaled it off.
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It's ridiculous to say that you could have built more because you
have to have a detention area.
Mr. Schafer:
Absolutely, or you enlarge your pipes and put it underground or
you do something like that. Yeah, I mean there are other
altemative means of detention, but we wanted to have a one on
six basin. I didn't want anything with steep slopes or anything
like that. This is going to dry right out and actually will be a
pretty open green space area that if kids were running and it
21970
was a nice sunny day, there would be no reason why they
couldn't run in that area and play. It will be all grass, mowed,
maintained.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I know, but to put underground retention for 72 units, chats
prettycostly. Its much more economical to do it this way.
Mr. Schafer:
You're absolutely correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Maybe you're a good guy on this area and maybe you're not. I
don't know.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Piercecchi, anything else?
Mr. Piercecchi:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion at this point is in order.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was
#01-01-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-12-08-22
submitted by Schafer Development, on behalf of Sl. Martins
Commons Condominiums, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a condominium
development on property located on the north side of St. Martins
Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the
Southeast %at Section 2, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated January 10,
2005, as revised, prepared by Creative Land Planning
Commission & Design, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated
January 9, 2005, as revised, prepared by Nagy &
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -2 dated
November 24, 2004, prepared by Nagy & Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. 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;
21971
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. 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;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked A -7s
prepared by Guido Associates, as received by the Planning
Commission on December 2, 2004, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
8. That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick
or stone, on all four (4) sides, and the total amount of brick
or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 65%;
9. That all exterior chimneys shall be brick;
10. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face 4
inch brick;
11. 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;
12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
13. 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;
14. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated December 14, 2004:
- That if any of the subject buildings are to be provided
with automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be
located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire
Department connections;
21972
That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with spacing consistent with residential areas; most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,000 GPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI;
That any curves or comer of streets shall accommodate
emergency vehides with a turning radius of 55 feel
wall-to-wall;
That fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of
unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire
apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of
vertical clearance;
That approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be
provided where an access road is a dead end and is in
excess of 150 feet in length; the turnaround shall have
minimum centerline radius of 50 feet; the authority
having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface and
location of the fire lane; turnaround(s) shall be posted:
"Fire Lane— No Parking;"
That fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs
or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other traffic surfaces
that have the words "Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in
contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by
the authority having jurisdiction;
15. That the petitioner shall coned to the Police Departments
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated December 28, 2004:
That a sidewalk shall be installed along the north side
of Sl. Martins Avenue the full length ofthe site;
That yield signs shall be installed in order to assign the
right -0f -ways atthe intersection ofthe access roads;
That stop signs shall be placed at each entrance and
appropriately for each interior intersection;
16. That the entrance marker shown on the approved
Landscape Plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
21973
17. That the Master Deed and bylaws for this condominium
development shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within sixty (60) days of this approval; and
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
allhe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow:
There was a lady in the audience that asked about the trash. I
don't think we addressed that question. There will not be
dumpsters, but the trash will be picked up on a regular basis like
any other residential area?
Mr. Schafer:
There will be individual pickup. There will be no dumpslers.
They have garages. They can be concealed and they will go
out on garage day and be picked up.
Mr. Morrow:
I want to make sure that was clear.
Mr. Walsh:
Any other comments?
Ms. Smiley:
He had offered to put additional space for recreation or seating
behind that second building.
Mr. Walsh:
He had indicated that he had done that.
Ms. Smiley:
Do we need to add that?
Mr. Schafer:
It's a pretty heavy stand of trees. We're going to dean it all out.
There's a lot of debris that's been there. If kids are there, they
will be able to walk into these areas now. We're going to clean
all that underbrush out from underneath there and get it all
raked out. So we're going to want to leave it so people can walk
in there. There will be some type of recreation. It will be more
of a wooded type to go in, but we would like to try and keep it
natural because that was the consensus.
Ms. Smiley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
I'd like to take this opportunity first to thank Mr. Shane for
reading probably one of the longest resolutions I can remember.
I also want to indicate that I do intend to support the motion. I
think that Mr. Schafer has provided the best plan that we can
make of this property. This is your fourth development in the
21974
City, and you and I have had discussions, and I have confirmed
with residents that have lived there and those that aspire to live
in your products that they are looking for this type of home. It's
primarily empty nesters. You are going to have a variety of
people looking at them, but I see properties like this as a win-
win for the City. It allows our empty nesters a place to live and
stay in the City. It opens a three or four bedroom home for a
family to move into and that helps our City and our schools as
well. I appreciate your time this evening.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Shane, Morav, Piercecohi, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES:
Alanskas, La Pine
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2004 -12 -SN -13 SCHOOLCRAFT
COMMONS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
12Sh413 submitted by Schoolcratt Commons requesting
signage approval for the office and commercial development
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile
Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest%of Section 7.
Mr. Walsh: Consistent with the actions I've taken prior to this meeting, I will
be stepping down. This development is located on SchoolcreR
College property, a college of which I am employee. So at this
point, I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Miller: College Park is a developing commercial and office complex
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile
Road and Seven Mile Road. The commercial phase of the
development consists of three freestanding restaurants and a
retail building, all with frontage on Haggerty Road. Just to the
south of the restaurants is a multi -tenant commercial outlet
known as Marketplace. In addition, a series of office buildings
are planned for the remaining portion of the property east of the
21975
restaurants and extending to the 4275/96 Expressway. As part
of the conditions of approval for each establishment of College
Park it was specified: 'Thal 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. Induced in the application shall
be the location and graphics of each Business Center Sign, all
Identification Signs and any directional signage" This petition
involves a request for three Business Center signs along
Haggerty Road. Two of the Business Center signs would
identify the overall site "College Park,' and the other Business
Center sign would be used to identify the tenants at the
Marketplace. For College Park, the petitioner is proposing a
series of decorative walls that would define both the north and
south entrances from Haggerty Road. The entry gates would be
constructed out of a combination brick, limestone and wrought
iron fencing. Decorative light fixtures would adom the top of the
pilasters nearest the driveways. One of the signs would be
located on the wide sweeping arch portion of the complexs
south entrance wall. The lettering of this sign would be carved
in the limestone panel of the wall and then painted black.
Because of the size of the sign and the overall dimensions of the
wall, it appears as if the south driveway is being designed to be
the main entrance into the campus. The other sign would be
located on a section of the wall near the north entrance. This
sign would be made up of three interchangeable tenant panels,
with the top panel having the College Park graphic. It is not
known at this time if this sign would be internally illuminated.
The plans also shay a taller monument sign in front of the
Marketplace site. Marketplace has been split off from the rest of
the College Park development by way of the lot split process
and therefore is considered a separate site. This particular sign
would have nine (9) interchangeable tenant panels. It does not
appear from the drawing that the identification of Marketplace
would be represented anywhere on its proposed sign. Signage
permitted for this site under Section 18.50E includes two
Business Center ground signs for College Park and one
Business Center sign for Marketplace. The proposed sign for
Marketplace is nonconforming in that it is in excess of height,
square footage and deficient in setback. The sign for
Marketplace would require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
21976
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated January 3, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of December 7, 2004, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) All signage is assumed to be located on the site it is
assigned to and setback at a minimum of 10 feet from the
property line. Off site signage or signage at a deficient setback
would require a variance(s) from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
(2) The south Marketplace sign will require variances from the
Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive height (maximum 8 feet)
and excessive square footage (maximum 40 square feet). 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. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to check on the Marketplace sign. What is the
square footage of the excess?
Mr. Miller:
It is about four square feel.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We got this late today. In study, because of the terrain and the
slope, it was decided that in reference to the height, because of
the sloping terrain, we would measure that height from the lop
of the base. Ifs difficult to read here, but it looks like it's eight
feet high and five feet wide. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Are you refering only to the sign portion and not the base?
Mr. Piercecchi:
The sign portion meets 40 feet, doesn't it?
Mr. Taormina:
The sign portion is 40 square feet, but the additional four feet
that comes at the very lop portion of the sign where the address
plate would be mounted. Do you see the radius on the lop?
Mr. Piercecchi:
But where the Zoning Board gets involved here, it's going to be
strictly for the setback?
Mr. Taormina:
Height, setback and area, all three.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
21977
Mr. Robert D.
Wineman, Walkon-Elkin Partnership, 29100 Northwestern
Highway, Southfield, Michigan 48034.
Mr. Alanskas:
What would you like to tell us about the petition?
Mr. Wneman:
I think that Mr. Miller has addressed the north entrance and
south entrance signage. It is my understanding from the
feedback from the study session that there's relatively few
questions with regard to that. So with your indulgence, I think
I'd like to jump to the Marketplace sign.
Mr. Alanskas:
Go ahead.
Mr. La Pine:
I just have one question about the College Park sign. You've
got two panels that are vacant. What's going on those two
panels?
Mr. Wneman:
Are you referencing the north sign?
Mr. La Pine:
That's right.
Mr. Wneman:
It is our intention at some future point that they will be tenant
identification signs.
Mr. La Pine:
Tenants for the office buildings, the restaurants or what?
Mr. Wneman:
No. No restaurant will be on that sign. It will most likely be for
the pad site that we have remaining along Haggerty Road,
which will be a bank at some future point, and then the
remaining panel will be for an office user.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you
Mr. Wneman:
As you are aware, with regard to the Marketplace, we've had
some difficulty in firms of the placement of the sign given the
fad that there's a fair amount of falloff that occurs from the
sidewalk area going to the east toward the parking lot. What we
presented after some discussions with the Planning Department
is somewhat of a compromise in that we would like to revisit
what was originally presented at the study session, that being
the sign abutting the sidewalk area and shifting that to the east
by approximately five feet. In consideration for that, it's been
our understanding from some of the feedback we received from
the study session is that there's a willingness on the part of the
Commission to look at drawing a line, if you will, or a reference,
elevation if you will, at the sidewalk elevation and then from that
21978
point, continuing up with our sign. So it's our intention that we
would have approximately a two foot base followed by about an
eight foot sign area with about a ten inch cap, as indicated by
Mr. Miller. The sign itself, just to assure everybody, is going to
be in keeping in terns of its construction with both the north and
south signage that you currently see at College Park. It's a first
class, high quality sign. The base itself will be brick with a
limestone cap. The balance of the sign will be aluminum and
then to my right and your right as well, you can see how we
intend to display the tenants of the Marketplace in terms of
promoting them to the public along Haggerty Road. Each of the
panels, as it relates to the individual tenants, is about 9-1/2
inches in width, which when you lake into consideration the
margins that are necessary, gives you about a six inch letter.
Further to that, all of the colors and fonts and lettering will be
identical amongst the tenants, so you will not see a variation,
very much in keeping with what you see before you this
evening. That is our intention. There are nine panels in total.
Each one is separate and individual. And again, the idea
behind that is I'm negotiating another lease and the potential to
divide space down the road is there, so we need to preserve an
extra panel.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is that sign going to be illuminated?
Mr. Wneman:
The sign will be illuminated externally.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Like with the torpedo lights?
Mr. Wneman:
With up lighting at the base.
Mr. Shane:
As you travel north, does the grade change at all? Does it get
any flatter?
Mr. Wneman:
As you're traveling north along Haggerty Road?
Mr. Shane:
Between the sidewalk and the parlting lot, is that grade the
same as you travel north?
Mr. Wneman:
Its pretty much consistent.
Mr. Shane:
So it doesn't flatten out a bit?
Mr. Wneman:
No. And the challenge we have, loo, as you travel to the north,
we do have this radius wall sign which is the main feature. So
21979
we're trying not to clutter up vhat we consider to be the main
entranceway to the campus.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. I just wondered why you picked that particular location.
Mr. Wneman:
I think just a demarcation as it relates to the center itself. And
again, to stay away from what we consider to be the main
entrance to the campus.
Mr.Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, is there anything feasible that we could do in regards to
the five foot setback?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Alanskas:
Can we make it more than five feel?
Mr. Taormina:
I think the space is available, but you will recall from the profile
view, that as the setback increases from the sidewalk, the slope
drops and all things being equal, would require a taller base.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm just concerned with the safety factor. Being only five feet off
of the road, it's going to be pretty dangerous.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, it would be five feel off of the nghl-0f-way, or is d five feet
off ofthe sidewalk?
Mr. W neman:
It's five feet off of the property.
Mr. Taormina:
It's the five feet off of the property line, so it's six feel off of the
actual edge of the sidewalk which would provide sufficient
clearance for anyone utilizing the walkway.
Mr. Alanskas:
It would? To the petitioner, is there anything we can do in
regards to the lettering and the fonts to make it look kind of
fancy like handwritten font letters instead of block letters?
Mr. Wineman:
You know, ifs been our experience that the crisper and dearer
the lettering, the most visibility, which obviously is the goal of
ourselves and our tenants. When you start to, for lack of a
better word, I guess create a calligraphy kind of a font to it, it
becomes less legible and really somewhat defeatist. So it's our
preference and experience thatthis is whatworks the best.
21980
Mr. Alanskas:
I can understand that, but in our eyes, you know this College
Park is a first class development. I think the lettering would look
better if it was changed somewhat.
Mr. Wineman:
Well, I guess we could look at that certainly, but the other
aspect loo is, we wouldn't want to deviate significantly from
what we've done on the radius wall with respect to College
Park. I certainly wouldn't want to deviate significantly from that
font. Again, we're trying to continue a consistent theme here,
both with the sign physically as well as what we're displaying on
R.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, I as one Commissioner, am glad that you're not going to
have logos for all your tenants. I appreciate what you're hying
to do.
Mr. LaPine:
Just to give you some background here, I sold typesetting for 35
years, and believe me, you don't want script type. You don't
want italics type - anything that's hard to read. The block type is
your best type you can gel for readability. And believe me,
because there's all kinds of fancy types, but try to read it
sometimes, it's terrible. So I agree with you. I think the block
type is fine. This is my only question: I was out there
yesterday. I'm just trying to figure in my head, Mr. Pieroecohi
and 1, lined the sign up right. The sign lines up with the back of
the Potbelly restaurant. Is that right?
Mr. Wneman:
No, actually, I think it's a little bit south of that. It's more
oriented toward what is Caribou.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Well, Caribou is over there, but I'm saying basically, I
think if we go back any farther than five feel, you've got a little
berm there, and then you got all those shrubs along the bene.
Even with those shrubs, you're going to have a rough time
seeing that sign. Its hardly visible. Believe me. We looked at it
from every angle. People coming north, they're not going to see
that sign until theyre almost half way up Haggerty Road. So I
don't think we can go back any further. The other question I
have, why are you lighting it from below? Well, I guess the
reason is because you dont have to take out the panels every
time a fluorescent bulb breaks down. That makes sense. But
can you tell me what the color of the lettering is going to be?
Mr. Wneman:
Right now, as it's proposed, as you see.
Mr. LaPine:
Black?
21901
Mr. Wneman:
Yes, we're looking for it to be black, which again is consistent
with what we've done with the College Park sign.
Mr. LaPine:
The only other question I have is, I know up here on the curb
you're just going to have an address. Right? And it's called the
Marketplace, is d not?
Mr. Wneman:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
There's no way you can put the word Marketplace up there.
Well, @ would be awful small
Mr. Wineman:
It would be small. If it was a possibility, we would like to do it,
but we understand that there's some apprehension on the
Planning Commission's part to do so. We're comfortable Irving
with what we've proposed.
Mr. LaPine:
Now is the base going to be red?
Mr. Wneman:
The brick [self will match the existing entrance gate signs that
you see out there now.
Mr. Shane:
The height of the sign is figured, including the base, is @ not?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Wneman:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
If you look the front, the walk side of the sign, how close is that
to 10 feel? Do you have any idea? I dont see a dimension
there.
Mr. Taormina:
We would estimate that from the reference grade that they show
on their plan, which is the sidewalk, the height of the sign is
about 10 feel plus the radius on top, which is 10 inches, so
altogether the sign is 10 feel 10 inches.
Mr. Shane:
All right. I'm trying to figure out how to gel this sign down to the
eight feet without interrupting anything these folks want to do.
So you'd probably have to drop it about two feel, something like
that?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. Shane:
Is that loo much?
21982
Mr. Wneman:
I'm just making sure I follow you. Your suggesting that the sign
shift?
Mr. Shane:
No, that it be lowered slightly.
Mr. Wneman:
The problem with doing that is, we're going to create a situation
with regard to the individual panels, that the lettering is going to
be such that ifs a complete eye test.
Mr. Shane:
What I was suggesting is make the base smaller. I'm trying to
get you out of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but you have to go
there anyways, don't you, because of the setback?
Mr. Wneman:
Correct.
Mr. Shane:
All right. I was trying to get you there with one less variance.
Mr. Wneman:
Thank you. l appreciate that.
Mr. Shane:
You know what I'm saying? I don't know. Maybe two feet is too
much.
Mr. Wneman:
Well, you know, I've been told and my understanding is that's
about the minimum we need to do what we need to do there as
far as illumination and everything else. And by the time you
have plantings and shrubbery around it to give yourself enough
of an elevation for the tenants on the lower panel to be read.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I thought in study when we spent a lot of time on this particular
sign, that we were going to measure it, and the motion here
states that it would be from the sidewalk up. Now, its difficult to
see, but it looks like there's a line here. Because of the slope, I
thought, anyway, that we were going to use kind of the base.
We were going to use the sidewalk as a point of interest, but like
Commissioner La Pine said, it's going to be hard to see the sign
anyways. So I was under the impression that it would be a
service to this client that we measure it from the lop of the base
inasmuch as there's such a great slope on that property. Now if
you measure it from there, you're looking at roughly about an 8
foot high and a 5 foot wide. It would meet the 40 square feel. It
depends on what perspective you're looking at.
Mr. Alanskas:
Right.
21983
Mr. Piercecchi:
I was under the impression that the sidewalk was just going to
be a reference point.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to indicate that we've looked long and hard at this,
and I'm comfortable with what I'm seeing here tonight even
though we are recommending a variance. I say that for a
reason we haven't talked about here tonight, and that is the fad
that we have a building that is at right angles to Haggerty Road,
which they all have signs in the front. So sometimes a
permitted sign such as this is almost redundant because you
can see the signs on the building from the road. In this case,
the only way they know what's in that building is what's on the
sign. So when I say based on what the gentleman said about
being able to plant shrubbery and the lighting effect, I think he's
got it down about as far as he can go and still make it a nice
looking sign and come as close to the ordinance as he can, but
still serve his tenants to give them some sort of visibility of what
is in that building from Haggerty Road. So that's just my
opinion, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shane:
I agree with that, especially from the south. When you come
from the south, there are no signs whatsoever on the building.
So until you've got past it and either turned into College
Parkway, you're rot going to know who those people are. So I
think they've done the best they can do and I appreciate their
work on it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm looking over the prepared motion. and I'm wondering it that
should be modified here. We say here, "not less than 10 feet"
Maybe that should be changed to five? I'm making these
suggestions. I'm not making a motion here.
Mr. Alanskas:
We will address that when we gel to the mofion.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I just thought we could do it now.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, ilwas
#01-02-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-12Sh413,
submitted by Schoolcreft Commons, requesting signage
approval for the office and commercial development located on
the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and
21984
Seven Mile Road in the Southwest '/of Section 7, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Plan marked heel A2-1.1 dated August 11,
2003, prepared by Yamasaki, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the Sign Plan marked sheet A2-1.2 dated February 9,
2004, prepared by Yamasaki, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to, except for the following:
That the Marketplace Monument sign shall be setback
not less than 5 feet from the right-of-way of Haggerty
Road;
That the overall height of the Marketplace Monument
sign shall not exceed 10 feet 10 inches as measured
from the grade of the exisfing sidewalk closest to the
proposed sign;
That the combined area of all of the tenant panels on
the Marketplace Monument sign shall not exceed 40
square feel;
3. That these signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes;
4. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the window;
5. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
6. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Wreman: Just for clarification, we do want to maintain the cap?
Mr. Piercecchi: What is that then? How much does that add?
21985
Mr. Taormina:
That's the 44 square feet.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Unless of course you'll have to go through the ZBA. We can
NAYES:
only recommend it.
Mr. LaPine:
The tenants you have there now, or your future tenants in the
ABSENT:
Marketplace, are any of those going to be open later than 10:00,
11:00, 12:00? Do you know? Like Caribou Coffee. Are they a
24-hour operation?
Mr. Wneman:
They are not a 24-hour operation. They may be open later than
1000.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I'm just curious. I don't want to say shut the lights off at
12:00 or when the last tenant leaves if some tenants are there
until 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning.
Mr. Wneman:
I believe what I heard was, an hour after whatever the closing
hour is.
Mr. LaPine:
How does that operate? If the last tenant leaves, who shuts the
lights off?
Mr. Wneman:
We'll have it on a timer, so we'll shut it off. We know their hours
of operation.
Mr. Alanskas:
I would just like to thank the petitioners for coming forward
tonight with your changes. I think you've done a very good job.
Will the secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on
the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Piercecchi, LaPine, Shane, Morrow, Smiley,
Alanskas
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Mr. Walsh returned to the podium at 8:48
p.m.
21986
k d� Ai 1i$= 9� I Y 1 Ee7:1s1sIIrYIIrkIIrk� Yfl1J 7 Y 011719.1 N ;1
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefifion 99-02-
08-08, submitted by A.F. Jonna Development, on behalf of
Fountain Park, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to modify the plans approved for the development
located on the northeast comer of Plymouth Road and
Farmington Road in the Southwest%of Section 27.
Mr. Miller: Fountain Park is a mixed-use development blending commercial
businesses along Plymouth Road with residential condominiums
fronting on Farmington Road. On August 13, 2001, site plan
approval was granted allowing the development of the
commercial portion of Fountain Park. Six structures of different
sizes were approved, identified as Buildings "A" through "F."
Building "A" has been developed into a Walgreens Drug Store
which is located near the intersection of Plymouth Road and
Farmington Road. To the east of the drug store is Retail "B," a
multi -tenant building, and Retail "C," a single -use building. It
was generally understood that Building "D" and Building "E,"
located east of Retail "C," would be developed as restaurants,
subject to waiver use approval. Building "F" has been built and
is a full service bank (TCF). This petition involves a request to
modify the plans as they specifically pertain to Retail "B" and
Retail "C." On the original approved site plan, Retail "B" and
Retail "C" were shown as two separate buildings. The revision
to the plans proposes to combine the two buildings into one
large multi -unit structure. Originally, Retail 'B" was to be 12,000
square feet and Retail "C" was shown at 3,500 square feel.
Combined, the two buildings offered a total of 15,500 square
feet of retail space. The larger single building now being
proposed would be 19,580 square feel, which represents a net
gain of approximately 4,080 square feet of leasable space. The
proposed building would face Plymouth Road and have a
setback of approximately 150 feet from the right-of-way line. A
majority of its required parlang would be located between the
building and the road. One hundred twenty-six spaces are
required for a structure of this size. Other than a few
adjustments for the reconfiguration of the building, the proposed
landscaping would be virtually the same as originally approved.
Similar to the criginal plan, the landscaping along the Plymouth
Road frontage would conform to the Plymouth Road
Development Authority's improvement plan. Consistent with the
overall design concept of Fountain Park, the proposed
commercial building will have a residential character. Specific
21987
design criteria was established so that each building would
incorporate certain elements in order to correspond and blend.
The new building would have the vinyl sided chimneys and
dormers, the cast stone dimensional features, the multi -panel
windows, and the ornamentation over the windows and doors.
Corresponding with the other commercial buildings already built,
the proposed building would be constructed out of brick on all
four sides.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated December 9, 2004, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objection to the proposal at this time. Additional rightof-way
is not required at this time. Minor changes may be required to
the utility services at the rear of the building. The start of the
legal description should be changed to read as follows." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
December 17, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
revise the plans approved for one of the commercial buildings of
the development located at the above -referenced address. We
have no objections to this proposal with the following
stipulations: (1) If any of subject buildings are to be provided
with automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connections. (2) Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 55 feet wall-to-wall
and a minimum vertical cleamnce of 13-34 feet. (3) Hydrant
spacing in the commerciaUretail groupings shall be consistent
with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Fire lanes shall be not less
than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads
of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of
vertical clearance. (5) Fire lanes shall be marked with
freestanding signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other train
surfaces that have the words 'Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in
contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the
authority having jurisdiction. (6) East and west access drives
shall be marked as fire lanes." The letter is signed by Andrew
C. Walker, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated December 28, 2004, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
commercial building in the Fountain Park development. There
YSFI:i:I
are 105 parking spaces that require five handicap parking
spaces. Only four handicap parking spaces are proposed.
Each handicap parking space must be individually posted. We
recommend the installation of stop signs at the east and west
exits of the parking lot for vehicles exiting to the access drive."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
January 6, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of December 7, 2004, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This plan changes a
previously approved site plan and increases square footage
which required additional parking. This site may seem in
compliance, however, it may create a domino effect where
parking may now be deficient in the sites to the east. It also will
limit the number of assembly uses allowed in this site to
approximately 15% of the space or less. (2) The Barrier Free
Parking is drawn incorrectly. A van accessible space consisting
of an 84bot space with an 8 -foot aisle must be provided. This
may cause the loss of a parking space if the spaces cannot be
reconfigured. There are also a total of five barrier free spaces
required not the four shown. This could also alter the total
parking provided. (3) There could also be an issue as to where
the barrier free spaces are located and the accessibility of the
10 -foot concrete walk. These items will be addressed at our
plan review at the time of permit application should the project
move forward to fruition. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. Lastly, the Planning
Department received a total of 14 email letters addressed to the
Planning Commission. Each of the Commissioners should have
a copy of all 14 emails. And without reading all of them, I will
just indicate that neady every one of these letters is written to
express concerns with the changes to the site plan as proposed.
Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Arkan Jonna, A. F. Jonna, 4036 Telegraph Road, Suite 201, Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan 48302. Thanks for allowing me to speak tonight.
What I would like to start off with is regarding the parking
requirements of the site. My understanding was that we could
borrow from one site and give to the next site as far as what the
parking needs are. I'm personally very comfortable with the
parking as far as what I think I need for the development itself.
To meet the parking requirements, I'll go back and rework the
site plan and bring in a smaller building or come in with a plan
21989
shaving the property to the east that meets the parking
requirements because I believe we have some extra parking
with the buildings to the east. We're thinking that we can do this
as one comprehensive plan of all the buiklings that are there.
Mr. Taormina, I believe Mr. Miller was more involved with this. If
you can tell me if that's correct, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, do you have any response?
Mr. Taormina:
At the study meeting, staff provided the panning Commission
with a detailed parking analysis and breakdown comparing the
original plan with the current plan. I can get into the details of
that, but I'll just summarize and that is, he's cored. As we
looked at this site plan originally, it was considered a group
commercial center where we applied a single standard for all of
the retail space at the center based on one space for every 125
square feet of usable floor area. What we're doing now with this
new plan is, we're factoring in the increase in the retail space.
What was originally shown as a surplus of about 41 spaces
altogether for the site, inducing all six buildings, with the
changes as proposed, and assuming that there would not be
any further changes to Buildings D and E, then the surplus
would be reduced down to a single space. So it wouldn't really
give us any flexibility beyond the changes that we're looking at
this evening. It would be pretty much set. We would not be
able to increase any amount of retail space on the property as a
result of the change this evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you for the summary, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Jonna?
Mr. Jorma:
Also, I had met briefly with Mr. Miller regarding the elevation, the
rear wall of the property. What we had submitted originally
wasn't in keeping in what was planned earlier. We've made the
change to that northern elevation or the rear wall of the
property. Also, we'd be in keeping with the same building
materials that were selected prior with the brick colors, the
shingles, the block wall and the metal that was selected. One of
the main items that I changed throughout the site plan was in
the rear of the building. I gave myself more room to create a
bigger buffer from the residential area. In keeping, I kept a
sidewalk that was wide enough so that the property could be
serviced from the loading area in the rear of the buildings. Right
adjacent to the north, I plotted in a substantial landscape area,
screening area to put in evergreens so that the residents that
are adjacent to it, theyre further north, the homeowners there,
wouldn't see the back of a building or a service area. It would
21990
be completely screened. The whole service area of the retail
property would be completely screened. Also what I do with the
trash collection, I use a compactor unit where I have one
receptacle that services the whole building. These units are
completely selfcontained and something of this caliber,
approximately 20,000 square feet. Depending on the intensity
of the users, we would have to maybe unload it once every eight
to 10, maybe 12 days. probably a 10 day variable to pick up
and bring the can back itself. If there are any questions, I'd be
more than happy to answer them.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, question number one is, why did you take Building C and
move it over to one unit?
Mr. Jorma:
Simply because prior they had a user that was going to occupy
that building. They had a restaurant user that was going to
occupy that building. I don't have that user today. That's why
I've combined them and just created one building.
Mr. Alanskas:
But you know, if you look at the original site plan with Building C
being separated and what you're proposing, it looks entirely
different, entirely different. See, originally what we had
between Building B and C is a walkway where people could
come from where they lived and they could walk up to these
new stores that they would be putting in, like an ice cream shop
and coffee shop. And now we don't have that.
Mr. Jorma:
The thought is on the outside, you're talking a 50 fool wide
building. That's what I'm talking about. You're going around
and servicing the retail building from the east or the west portion
of d. I'm moving those two building together. It's a matter of 50
feel to walk around.
Mr. Alanskas:
Let me ask you a question. As I understand, you already have
most of your tenants in hand?
Mr. Jorma:
No, I don't.
Mr. Alanskas:
You don't.
Mr. Jorma:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
What type of stores are you attempting to put in here?
21991
Mr. Jorma:
What I develop is basically neighborhood convenience -oriented
shopping. This will house about the same types of tenants that
the College Park development had. You're going to get your
coffee; you're going to get your food, your service-oriented
tenants. You're going to have food; you're going to have
service, neighborhood shopping. Your daily needs - a cleaners,
possibly a hair salon, those types of users.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine:
We originally approved 15,500 square fool buildings here.
When you move that building over, you're going to 19,000
square feel. The City's concern here is that you gel more rental
space. It doesn't enhance the center as far as I'm personally
concerned. I Ike the setup we had originally, and I'm kind of
concerned. Now one lime I realize something other that
Building D was going to go in there. I don't know what's going
to go in there now. But at this point, are you still online with the
two restaurants going in there?
Mr. Jorma:
We have no one for those buildings at all.
Mr. LaPine:
But do you have any plans of changing your thinking and not
having restaurants and making those into retail stores?
Mr. Jorma:
Personally, I think that one restaurant is very feasible. Two
restaurants, I think, is a very hard push for this site. I think that
one of the buildings will tum into eventual retail and that the
second one will be a restaurant. I can't tell you what tomorrow
is going to bring, but that's my opinion of it right now.
Mr. LaPine:
Originally, the drawing we had, there was a 50 -fool building and
one other building with three 40 -foot tenant spaces. The Iasi
thing I saw here, you put the two buildings together. You're
talking approximately 13 tenants. There could be 13 tenants.
I'm not saying there will be 13 tenants. When we went over this
whole concept with the original builder, this was supposed to be
all oriented to service the area with coffee shops and ice cream
parlors. We weren't looking br cleaners. We weren't looking
for video stores or things like that. We wanted something
different. And I'm hearing from you tonight, you're talking about
cleaners. You're talking about video stores. You're probably
talking about a pizza place. You're probably talking about a sub
shop and things of that nature.
21992
Mr. Jorma: What I'm proposing is neighborhood shopping. What I do is, I
create the uses that we use everyday. As far as a video store,
there's a video store across the street. This isn't a video store
center. When I deal with neighborhood shopping, its services
and products that we use on an everyday basis. Needs that we
need on an everyday basis. That's what I develop. I think this
is very well located, and the intent is to service and complement
the housing that's adjacent.
Mr. LaPine:
One other question. The rear of the building - I'm looking at the
plan. It is my understanding that this portion down here - is that
going to be block?
Mr. Jorma:
Yes. It's a split face block or decorative block. Its not your
regular, everyday block.
Mr. LaPine:
It is my understanding from what I remember, the first building
we had, the back ofthe building was going to be all brick.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine, if I could interrupt. We have the original approval,
and actually on the rear of the building, it was a split face
masonry.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, maybe... I've got it right here.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, is that correct. The original approval was for a
split face masonry?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, it was a combination of both, and in fact, Scott has just put
up the renderings from the original approval. If you look at the
bottom graphic on the right hand side, that would be a rendering
of the rear of the retail B building. The one to the left is the rear
of retail C. There's two shades there. There's the darker
brown, which would be the brick, and then the lighter color band
on the lower portion of the building, which would be the split
face block. So, you really have two. Then you can see that it's
separated. Its in panels. It's separated by vertical brick
elements between each of those split face elements.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, and the other thing about the doors in the back. I got the
minutes out from the original meeting. Mr. McCann was very
emphatic that there would be no doors in the back because of
the residents in the rear. You know, we don't know what's going
in there. We dont know what time of the day deliveries will be
made. It could be 6:00 in the morning; it could be 10:00 at
night, depending on what's being delivered and what stores are
21993
there. I'm just trying to find the minutes here that said that.
Well, I can't look at it right now. I'll find it eventually, but I'm just
wondering why you have to have all the doors back there?
Because you strictly want to have all the deliveries from the
rear?
Mr. Jorma:
I wouldn't think that you would want deliveries or trucks or
stores to be serviced from the front entrances. If you look at
what I'm proposing versus what was there before, as far as the
rear, I created that landscape stripe that I spoke of just earlier to
plant heavy evergreens - just a screening wall of evergreens.
The intent is to completely block the rear delivery from the
residential to the north. The evergreens that are going to be
placed there, you're not going to see the delivery doors or the
walkway that services the rear doors.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Getting back to what you just said on the back of the building,
we spent a lot of time on this. All of us have. And for your
information, Mr. LaPine and I were out at the College Park and
the Potbelly building. They really camouflaged the door. So the
question I'm going to ask you is, what color is the split block
going to be?
Mr. Jorma:
The doors will be painted the same color as the split face.
Whatever the color that was picked. I'm willing to live with the
materials and the colors that were originally picked out.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In other words, you can really mask that door so itwill blend in?
Mr. Jorma:
Absolutely.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Another thing here, in between the doors in several places, they
had, like what you showed here, only you show two rows of
brick here two high. Theirs was roughly three and a half to four
feet, and it really looked presentable.
Mr. Jorma:
If I may, my original submittal for tonight was to have that whole
back wall as brick.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The second time you presented these plans they were all brick.
My original plans were brick. This is something different than
the second set of plans that I got anyway. There's a possibility
that if you could put some more of those towers ...
Mr. Jorma:
The piers that you're talking about.
21994
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yeah, and make them wider and then put in between those, I
don't know how much access you need for the doors - in
between those, put some large evergreens, and you wouldn't
even see that if the doors were painted to blend with the split
block. Is that possible to do that?
Mr. Jorma:
Absolutely. I think what I'm proposing is even more. I think it's
complementing what you're saying. In keeping the evergreens
in a hedge row, I think that @ completely screens the service
doors.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, the doors will have to be seen, but it they're painted the
same color...
Mr. Jonna:
Absolutely. I do that anyways.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. Some of these questions may have been reviewed, but I
want to review them again. Where are your utility boxes going
to be in this building?
Mr. Jorma:
What l normally do, you mean the....
Mr. Piercecchi:
The outside ... you're going to have some things outside for
water or electrical.
Mr. Jorma:
You mean the meters?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yes, the meters and that.
Mr. Jorma:
What I do is I'll create a meter room within the building and you
wont see any of that. There won't be any utility. Even the gas
piping, I create a cavity in the back of the wall so that the gas
piping goes up to the roof. You wont see any of that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Shane:
If I was reading Mr. Taormina comectiy, on the parking we are
just about maxed out if everything develops as the plan now
shows. If I heard him right, we're something like plus one.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. Jorma:
We have one to spare.
Mr. Shane:
You mentioned in your presentation that you might be willing to
make the building slightly smaller.
21995
Mr. Jorma:
What I would do, instead of 80 fool of depth, I would come down
to 78, 77. 1 don't want to the change the front. I think we've got
a winning design here. What I would do instead of 80 fool,
come down to 75, 74, or whatever it is, and that would cul the
amount of square footage off the building. You wouldn't notice
anything except that it's just not as deep.
Mr. Shane:
I think you might give yourself a Iitfle more flexibility by doing
that. If you have surplus parking, like you probably will, fine, but
at least the theoretical numbers will work better.
Mr. Jorma:
This is the type of product I develop day in and day out, and I
don't want to impose any ordinance. I live by ordinances.
personally, I feel that the parking field that I've developed here
is more than adequate for the use of this particular property. I
think when it's all said and done, that the cumulative parking
spaces will more than adequately service the whole property.
You know, you look at the Walgreen's building today. I bel you
a third of the space that is there is never used. I'm confident
that with the spaces I'm creating, and with the possible uses
that will go to the east, at the end of the day you're going to
have a comprehensive plan that will work for the ordinance, and
more important than the ordinance, I think, is making sure that
the property works and is a useable property for the customers.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Jonna, you said you've done other developments like this
site elsewhere. Where have you done this so I could go and
visit them and see what kind of tenants you have in these
buildings?
Mr. Jorma:
The closest one to here is 14 and M-5 at the northeast comer, in
Commerce Township, Commerce and Carol Lake Road; in
Bloomfield, at the southwest corner of Woodward and Square
Lake. the southwest comer of Long Lake and Telegraph.
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you name some of the tenants that you have on these
sites?
Mr. Jorma:
Al Woodward and Square Lake, it's a little big larger than this. It
has a RileAid; it has a Fudruckers, a Starbucks ...
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm sorry. What?
Mr. Jorma:
A Fudmckers restaurant, a Starbucks, it's got Boy and Country
Sports, Cold Stone Creamery, Rio Wraps. There's a
21996
Blockbuster in that particular one. Al Long Lake and Telegraph,
I've got a two-story development that's got Starbucks, a
cleaners, a bagel shop, a Rio Wraps, a pizza shop, a fancy lace
store. Al 14 and M-5, its got a Honey Tree restaurant, a
Caribou Coffee, a Rio Wraps again. Those are off the top of my
head.
Mr. Alanskas: Andthat's what you would want to put in here?
Mr. Jorma: What you create is the service, the food and the convenience -
Mr. Taormina: I think there is room for change as was suggested by the
applicant. I'd like to point out a couple of differences between
the plan we're reviewing this evening and the one that was
originally approved as it relates to the area behind the store, the
separation between the retail and the residential. The original
plan did show a setback of about 31 feet. The actual greenbelt
between the back of the building and the closest parking space
oriented lineup that would sermce the everyday needs again.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
When this was originally brought before the Commission, was
there input from the Plymouth Road Development Authority on
this particular project? Were we privy to their input before we
voted?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, do you recall? I know they're scheduled to
review it on January 20, but in the past was it reviewed?
Mr. Taormina:
Certainly. The Plymouth Road Development Authority had
great input in the original plan for the Rosedale Town Square,
which is what it was called at that time, not Fountain Park.
Mr. Morrow:
That input was part of our study?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, it was.
Mr. Morrow:
What I'm hearing is that they have not made any type of a study
on this?
Mr. Walsh:
No, they will see it for the first time on January 20.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess where I'm coming from, I'm a little uncomfortable or
reticent to move forward without their input unless someone can
convince me otherwise.
Mr. Taormina: I think there is room for change as was suggested by the
applicant. I'd like to point out a couple of differences between
the plan we're reviewing this evening and the one that was
originally approved as it relates to the area behind the store, the
separation between the retail and the residential. The original
plan did show a setback of about 31 feet. The actual greenbelt
between the back of the building and the closest parking space
21997
was over 30 feet, and that provided for a substantial amount of
landscaping that was shown on the original plan, inducing some
of the same material that Mr. Jonna is showing on the revised
plan, as well some full size Maple trees. Now, the plan we're
looking at this evening only provides about 9 feet between the
rear of the building and that sidewalk. So although there might
be room for a hedgerow or something to screen the back of that
building. It really wasn't the amount of green space that was
originally contemplated - that separation between the uses. So I
think his suggestion tonight that he can make the building a bit
smaller would go a long way to accomplish some of the original
design principles. Also, Scott can show us the comparison
between the original building elevation and the building
elevation that is being proposed today. You will see there's a lot
of similarity with the exception, of course, of the removal of
Building C. But if you look at the two designs, they do
incorporate a lot of the same features and elements. Some of
the differences that are apparent, however, would be the size of
the pediment. If you look at the pediment design on the west
side of the original building, which would be the top part, that
area is a bit larger than what is shown for the pediment down
below here. Also, there is a slight difference in the roof line.
Maybe there is something that can be done there to make it
stand out. I think the original plan was more varied and unique.
The offset in the building provided greater separation, some
more interest or variety in the building plan that we might want
to take a look at. Just a slight change would go a long way, I
think, to accomplish those original design principles. Also, we
looked at standing seam metal on the canopies, which provided
some color to the original design that isn't shown on this
proposal. He has indicated that he is going to stay with all the
original building materials, that is, cast stone, E.I.F.S., and full
face brick. The only portion of the shingles really being on the
roof portion of the building, not on the canopies. The one other
difference between this would be on the base of the building.
Originally, we were showing split face block along the lower
portions. He is shaving brick down to grade, which I dont think
is a significant difference unless the Planning Commission really
fell that the additional band of color is something that you would
like to see. So those are a couple of comments I would just like
to make with reference to comparing the original with the latest
plan. Maybe he can make some additional changes for review
by the Commission, following again the recommendation of the
PRDA.
21998
Mr. Morrow:
The reason I bang that up is because I know the Authority has
spent a lot of time and money along Plymouth Road. Of course,
that was their mandate. This would have been a major project
for that Authority and to move forward without their input, I think
would just put the cart before the horse, at least that's the way I
feel about it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Jonna, the two outlots to the east of Building C, do you own
that property?
Mr. Jorma:
No, I don't.
Mr. Alanskas:
You don't.
Mr. Jorma:
You mean the two outots?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Jorma:
I'm under agreement to develop them. My thought is I get
started with this and then move on. Unless we have users for
those two buildings, I would ...
Mr. Alanskas:
But you dont own the property?
Mr. Jorma:
I don't own any of d. I'm under agreement to purchase all the
properly,
to purchase the one parcel that we're discussing
tonight
as soon as we get all the approvals, and then in 12
months time, I have an option to develop that properly. Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
As you can see what Mr. Taormina said, that you're showing 9
feet in the north and we had 31 feel. That's a big difference, an
awful big difference. So I think we have a lot of legwork to do.
Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
Apparently, Mr. Schafer did appear before the PRDA and these
are the minutes from February 27, 2001. It was under
consideration, and there's probably minutes later on this, so I
assume they came back with some recommendations.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Amy Sloan:
I'm going to be a new tenant in Fountain Park. I don't have a
new address yet. I'm really disappointed when I read that in the
Livonia Observer on Sunday, and I think for safety issues. I've
lived in Livonia for 38 years. I specifically chose this area
21999
because of the convenience of what they were planning on
doing. I think when this development, and seeing this, looked at
the plans, I went to the Planning Commissioner and looked it
up, I think by not putting the sidewalks in and how big a building
R is, there's a lot of seniors in there too. I picked this building.
I'm also handicapped. Being seniors, this building is so big
now, you know, safety issues, the way they had that roof in the
back, you know, being flat. Who wants to look at that? Also,
my cousin, she has a daughter, she's also moved there too for
convenience. Little kids are riding bikes right in tie back here
when you're saying 9 feet and 31 feel. I think that the concept
of this whole development is gone. And also too, with all these
storefronts, you have an eyesore across the street that I know
Plymouth is working really hard on. Those people are having a
hard time leasing tenants. I've lived in Livonia 38 years, and I
see so many lease buildings all over the area, including Danny's
that's been empty forever. I hate to see Sheldon being, you
know, without stores either, because of added stores over here.
So that's my opinion.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate you coming in. We've had a
lot of discussion and we'll work our way toward a motion. Mr.
Jonna, I appreciate all your comments tonight. I do, and I think
I'm going to take some time to look at your properties, but it's an
uphill for me. We put a great deal of time into the original
buildings. We really did. We had a lot of neighborly input, a
great deal of input from people that were affected, and I was
very, very comfortable then and still am now with what we had
originally approved. We're not sure where we're going to go this
evening. There seems to be some possibility of a tabling so we
can get some input from the PRDA, but I do want to give you
the benefit of my thoughts. I look forward to working with you,
but I'm going to need some more time myself to gel comfortable
with it.
Mr. Jorma: If I may, Mr. Chairman, are you concemed about the size of the
building as far as being one building versus two? I just want to
gel a better feel of what you're looking for as far as design. Are
you looking for two separate buildings there? Are you loolang
for a jog in the building that protrudes to the south? I just want
to get a clarification.
Mr. Walsh: Others may have their own opinions. What I would prefer is
exactly what we approved. I couldn't be any more direct than
that. That's my opinion alone.
22000
Mr. Shane:
I think I'd like to see something besides just a straight storefront,
whether its two buildings or a jog or some other design
element. I'd like to see the back of the building returned to the
amount of area originally approved. I think you already said you
can do that.
Mr. Jorma:
Yeah, I mean I can squeeze ... I gave myself a lot of room in
the front. I think I've got a Iitlle bit more space in the front as far
as landscape area in the front. I can squeeze ... I think that
can be done. I dont know if I can get to the 31 feet, but I can
get real close to what we had there.
Mr. Walsh:
Any other opinions for Mr. Jonna's benefit?
Mr. Alanskas:
I don't like that word "squeeze" It doesn't sound good. As one
Commissioner, I would like to go back to the original plan where
we had these buildings separated instead of all one building. I
dont want to beat a dead horse, but it looks so much better. I
think it would look so much better on that comer of Plymouth.
Mr. Jorma:
You know, it becomes an issue of leasing then. You're going to
look for one tenant, one user, to have that size of space, and I
have a fear of developing space that's geared towards one
tenant. I think that's when we run into problems in having
vacancies. My belief in developing these is that if I can build,
and I know you don't want to hear this, but I want to develop
lease space, interior lease space, that's generic and that can be
converted to new users. We'd do ourselves a much better
justice and are able to lease that space much quicker than
having one building that's geared towards one user. My feeling
is that whatever the tenant is today, there's always life after that
one tenant. This building will be here a long time and in order to
control the vacancy factor, the more flexibility that I have in
creating a space that's 1,200 or 3,500 or 5,000 square feet to be
able to supply that particular tenant ...
Mr. Alanskas:
I understand. What you're saying is what you have to do to
lease a building. What I'm saying is what I have to look at for
the community. Further east we have the bank that is just one
building. That was taken care of. And I'm sure there's got to be
somebody that would like to have a freestanding building of their
own. Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine:
I notice on your plan that you were going to square off the front
of the building. Personally, I like the other Pan. It breaks up
that confinuous straight frontage. As other Commissioners have
22001
said, I like the idea of the two buildings like we originally
planned. We put a lot of work and time and effort and got a lot
of heat on this whole project. 1, for one, would like to see it stay
the same as close as humanly possible to the original plan, the
original way it was going to be constructed. And for that reason,
I'm willing to work with you, table it for another week or so, and
then come in with another plan or something.
Mr. Jorma:
I've got no problem. Just a comment. When you create lease
space with a space that protrudes further out, the tenant that's
in the back, all of sudden you are creating a visibility issue.
These tenants have got to survive, and tie main thing to do is to
develop a space that is conducive to helping them survive.
When you create than L, that one tenant that's shoved back in
with no visibility for the traffic that's headed eastbound. You
don't see that tenant until you get right up to the building. I try to
create the variations of different sizes or protrusions. I try to do
it with a roofline. There's some protrusions within the front
that's very minor. I try to do it with rooflines up and down.
Mr. LaPine:
I can understand that. Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Sir, the problem of one building or two buildings, it was
generated by you people. The original plan showed it that way,
and that's how it was sold. So you cant blame us for wanting to
go back to the original, which we were sold on.
Mr. Jorma:
I wasn't involved with that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, I can't help that.
Mr. Jorma:
I understand.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
This is something that we didn't create. We're trying to go back
to the original, and the original is better.
Mr. Morrow:
If there's nothing else, I want to offer a tabling resolution to a
dale subsequent to the Plymouth Road Development Authorilys
input.
Mr. Walsh:
Mark, do we need a specific dale?
Mr. Taormina:
I would like to set a date, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Can you suggest a date?
22002
Mr. Taormina: That would be the first regular meeting in February. The study
meeting will be February 1 and the voting meeting will be
February 8.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#01-03-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 99-02-08-08, submitted by A.F. Jonna
Development, on behalf of Fountain Park, requesting to modify
the plans which were previously approved by Council
Resolution #436-03 on August 27, 2003, in connection with the
development located on the northeast comer of Plymouth Road
and Farmington Road in the Southwest '/. of Section 27, be
tabled until the Regular Meeting of February 8, 2005.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. We look forward to working with you and appreciate
your comments this evening.
ITEM #4 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING PINETREE REZONING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a motion to hold
a Public Hearing, submitted by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution #514-04, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, requesting to rezone property
at 34451 Pinetree, located on the south side of Pinetree Avenue
between Stark Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 33 from RUF to R-1 (Petition 2004-11-01-16).
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-04-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #514-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a)
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property
at 34451 Pinetree, located on the south side of Pinetree Avenue
between Stark Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 33 from RUF to R-1
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
22003
amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 896TH Regular Meeting
Ms, Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 896"' Regular Meeting held on November 30,
2004.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#01-05-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 896" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on November 30, 2004, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 898"' Regular
Meeting held on January 11, 2005, was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman