HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-11-1522766
MINUTES OF THE 916"' REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 15, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 916" 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 Carol Smiley John Walsh
Members absent: H. G. Shane
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 haw 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 2005-09-0847 MARIO TARTAGLIA
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
09-08-17, submitted by Mario Tartaglia requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commeroial building
on property located at 37290 Six Mile Road in the Southwest
of Section 8.
22767
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a multi -tenant
commercial building on property located on the north side of Six
Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue.
This site is presently vacant and is situated between a bank and
a Kinko's facility. This properly is in the process of being
rezoned (Petition 05-06-01-05) from C-1 (Local Business) to C-2
(General Business). The Planning Commission, after holding a
public hearing on July 12, 2005, recommended approving the
requested rezoning. Following a public hearing, the City
Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning at its
September 14, 2005 Regular Meeting. Second Reading and a
Roll Call Vote are scheduled at the time the site plan is
presented to the Council for action. Review of this petifion is
based on the assumpfion that the property is rezoned to G2.
The proposed building would be one-story in height and a total
of 7,000 square feel in area. The multi -tenant structure would
be positioned right up next to the west property line, flanking the
Kinko's building. There would be a six (6") inch gap between
buildings. As indicated on the floor plan and the number of
doors shown on the elevation plan, this building could be
divided up into five tenant units. A single driveway of Six Mile
Road would provide access to the site. Parking would be
located in front and around the back of the building and along
the east property line of the site. The requirement of 45 parking
spaces is met by the petitioner providing 49 spaces. The site
plan shows that the site's enclosed dumpster and loading areas
would be located behind the building. The dumpster would sit
near the northeast comer of the parking lot. A cutout labeled
"site lighting detail" illustrates that the developments light poles
would be 20 -feet in height. An area symbolized by dash lines,
outlined in the middle of the rear parking lot, indicates that storm
water storage would be handled by underground piping. They
meet the landscaping requirement of 15% of the total site by
providing 15% landscaping. The south and east elevations of
the building would be constructed out of brick. Rows of solider
course and split -face stone would be incorporated throughout.
A brick overhang would project out over the storefronts. This
extension would be supported brick pillars and lopped with a
decomfive dryvil cornice. A Tile parapet roof would extend
across the south and east elevations. The north and west
elevations of the building would be constructed out of smooth -
face concrete block. Metal man -doors, one for each tenant
space, would be integrated in the rear elevation. These two
elevations would have a flat roofline and would be open to the
back of the other two parapets.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
22768
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 3, 2005, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time and the legal description
is correct. No additional right-of-way is required. Detention will
be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water
Management Ordinance and the drive approach to Six mile
Road will require a permit from Wayne County." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
September 28, 2005, which reads as follows: `This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct a commercial building on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) This Division
requests that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire
Lane - No Parking.' (2) An approved turnaround for fire
apparatus shall be provided where access is deadrended and is
in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a
minimum turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside
turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. The authority having
jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the
fire lane. (3) T or turnaround arrangements shall be permitted.
(4) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have
the words 'Fire Lane - No Parking' painted in contrasting colors
(on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority
having jurisdiction. (5) The east side of the building shall be
posted as a fire lane. (6) The Fire Department opposes the
proposed six-inch separation between the existing building
(Klnko's) and the proposed new construction. This area
provides a place for combustibles to collect posing a fire hazard.
This space needs to be made large enough to be accessible for
cleaning." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
September 30, 2005, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal by Northbrook
Plaza located at 37290 Six Mile Road. We have no objections
or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 12,
2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
September 26, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The actual parking
required for this site is 37 spaces not 38. (1) There may be an
issue with the location of the accessible parking. This
Department will review this at our building plan review. (3)
Another concem is the proposed 6 -inch gap between the
22769
buildings. How will this be maintained? The Planning
Commission and the Council may wish to address this. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. I will
add, Mr. Chairman, that there is additional correspondence that
has been provided to the commissioners this evening. That
correspondence really addresses the issue of the gap between
the two buildings, and if I may provide an update in that respect.
Mr. Walsh:
Please do so.
Mr. Taormina:
The Kinko's building was positioned on the site with a
separation from the property line of approximately six inches.
Added to that, the few inches that would separate this building
from the property line, the distance between those two
structures, would be about eight inches. There has been
communication between the city and the owners, as well as
their design representatives, regarding how to physically
attached those two buildings. We believe this issue has been
resolved. It will be done by means of a common or neutral pier
that would be positioned between the westerly most pier of the
proposed building and the coin on the easterly end of the
existing FedEx/Kinko building. Scott is showing on the
overhead how that will appear. The masonry connection
between the two buildings would actually fill in that eight -inch
gap that would separate the two buildings. It would be offset so
it actually appears behind the ends of the two buildings, and
then behind that and on by of the building and wrapping all the
way to the back would be a flashing material that would
completely seal off the gap that would exist between those two
buildings and would provide weatherproofing and would avoid
any debris from accumulating there or weeds from growing
between the buildings. There are some other issues that need
to be resolved, but these are issues that really would be worked
out between the owners of the two properties and their design
representatives. Other than that, we feel that this issue has
been addressed to our satisfaction. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Mr. Alanskas:
Will those concerns be okay for the Fire Department by doing it
that way?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I believe this does address their concerns in terms of
preventing any kind of debris from accumulating in there.
Mr. La Pine:
Bob asked the one question about the Fire Department. The
other question I have, this drawing we have shows how its
22770
Mr. LaPine: How about on the top?
Mr. Taormina: It would seal the top as well, yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Taormina, obviously you've been associated with the people
in regard to this area. The mutual pier does solve the safety
problems, but in looking over the design, would it not be more
aesthetic to have that Kinko top border be identical and just flow
right into the other building, or do they want to retain that these
are two separate buildings? Isthatparlofil?
Mr. Taormina: I think the idea ....
Mr. Pieroecchi: I'm tallang about the dryvit.
Mr. Taormina: The cornice?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, yeah. Would it be better if the brick stopped at the bottom
break line of that cornice?
Mr. Taormina: And attached the two cornices together? No, actually, I don't
believe so. I'm going to let the architect for Mr. Tartaglia
address the specifics of that area along the lop of the building.
I'm not sure that it accurately represents the actually space that
will be between that area. What you'll see more likely is a little
bit more brick than what is shoving on the drawing, but a
physical connection of the comice would be self-defeating. I
think it wouldn't achieve the goal. There's going to be some
slight variations in colors, in texture, in size and design, and
going to be done in tie front. Is that also going to be done in
the rear?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, because that area in the back would not be visible, I
don't think there's any brick proposed at the back, but there
would be a flashing material that would be provided at the back.
Mr. La Pine:
With that, let me ask this question. The Fire Department is
worried about debris getting back there and combustible
material that could start a fire. Will this flashing material be on
the back that will keep anything from blowing in between those
two buildings?
Mr. Taormina:
It would seal the area.
Mr. La Pine:
It would seal the area.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine: How about on the top?
Mr. Taormina: It would seal the top as well, yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Taormina, obviously you've been associated with the people
in regard to this area. The mutual pier does solve the safety
problems, but in looking over the design, would it not be more
aesthetic to have that Kinko top border be identical and just flow
right into the other building, or do they want to retain that these
are two separate buildings? Isthatparlofil?
Mr. Taormina: I think the idea ....
Mr. Pieroecchi: I'm tallang about the dryvit.
Mr. Taormina: The cornice?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, yeah. Would it be better if the brick stopped at the bottom
break line of that cornice?
Mr. Taormina: And attached the two cornices together? No, actually, I don't
believe so. I'm going to let the architect for Mr. Tartaglia
address the specifics of that area along the lop of the building.
I'm not sure that it accurately represents the actually space that
will be between that area. What you'll see more likely is a little
bit more brick than what is shoving on the drawing, but a
physical connection of the comice would be self-defeating. I
think it wouldn't achieve the goal. There's going to be some
slight variations in colors, in texture, in size and design, and
22771
because of that, I don't think an attempt to try and join those
would be aesthetically appealing. I think what you want to do is
separate them again through some kind of neutral pier or
element, which this is intending on doing.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I wonder why, Mr. Taormina, because according to the drawings
that I have here, only the lop section of this comice is identical
basically to Kinko, and below it, it shows brick. I don't know how
many feet that is. I'm just wondering. That's all. I don't want to
micromanage the architect. I dont know if you recall, but in the
study session, I made a comment on this. Because of the
changing roof here, it would look more compatible. That's all.
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I thought I had an overhead of that. Are not those two buildings
offset? I was looking in the package. Doesn't one set back a
ways? Its not depicted on that plan.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and that's another good point. What you're looking at is
the south elevation, the area where the two buildings would be
together but, in fact, the comice that you're looking at is actually
part of the overhead canopy for the proposed building as
opposed to part of the parapet or the face of the wall as is the
case with the FedEx/Kinko's building. Again, structurally these
two buildings will appear as a single building, even though
they're two separate buildings. Because there is a distinction in
the architectural treatments and styles and colors of these
buildings, the idea is to provide a visual separation and avoid
the apparent contrast that would occur if you actually tied the
two directly together. I'll let the architect describe it more fully to
you so it will make more sense.
Ms. Smiley:
I didn't understand it could be flush across the front, which
would be the south elevation. Correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. The walls will not. Only the pier on the proposed building
would be flush with the wall on the existing FedEx building.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. You also said that the two parties have worked out ... I
know Mr. Mazzoni complained about not having access to his
irrigation and things like that. They've worked all that out?
Mr. Taormina:
There are some details that will need to be resolved as part of
an easement agreement between the two property owners, but
the way we drafted the resolution in this case is that they would
have to work that out to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
priorto there being a building permit issued.
22772
Ms. Smiley: Thankyou
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Matt Ray, Matthew Ray, Architect, 3210 Coolidge, Berkley, Michigan 48072. I'm
the architect for Mario Tartaglia and would be glad to answer
any questions you might have and respectfully request your
approval.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? I guess we've
already answered all the questions. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, I would then ask for a motion.
On a motion by Pieroecchi, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#11-112-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-09-08-17,
submitted by Mano Tarlaglia requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building
on properly located at 37290 Six Mile Road in the Southwest
of Section 8, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA dated September
22, 2005, as revised, prepared by F. Matthew Ray,
Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet SP -2 dated
September 22, 2005, as revised, prepared by F. Matthew
Ray, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter pennanentiy maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2
dated September 22, 2005, as revised, prepared by F.
22773
Matthew Ray, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except that where the two (2) buildings attach,
the final design shall incorporate a distinctive column
similar in design to the sketch submitted by the F. Matthew
Ray, Architect, dated November 11, 2005;
7. That any gap that exists between the two (2) buildings shall
be closed along the front, lop and back in a manner
approved by the Inspection Department and the owners of
both properties, and that the method of attachment shall
prevent weeds from growing and debris from being trapped
and accumulating between the structures;
8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
9. 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;
10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
12. 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 properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
September 28, 2005;
14. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
22774
15. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
16. 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. Taormina: Al the time we drafted this resolution, we only had for our review
the sketch plan submitted by the adjacent owners architect.
Now we have more detailed information submitted by Mr. Ray,
the architect for the petitioner. So I'd like to change the
language on Item 6 to read: similar in design to the sketch
submitted by the petitioners architect, and we can reference the
date of that upon final wording.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have no objection to that but I thought the "as revised" covered
that. I'll accept that.
Mr. Walsh: Is there support for the revised motion?
Ms. Smiley:
Support.
Mr. Morrow:
I want to make sure that the south and east wall will be four -inch
brick and the other walls will be split face. Is that what the plans
indicate?
Mr. Ray:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And will the split face be painted in a color compatible with the
brick?
Mr. Ray:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow: I didn't see that addressed in the approving resolution. That's
why I want to make sure that we touch base on that.
Mr. LaPine: Kinko's is four -inch brick all the way around on four sides. Is
there any reason why we cant gel brick on all four sides here,
at least on three sides, which would be the north, the south and
the west side? I understand the east side because that's going
to be abutted against the other building.
Mr. Alanskas: The west side
22775
Mr. La Pine:
Yes, the west side. I'm only asking the question. Either you
can or you can't.
Mr. Ray:
There's no physical limitation to it, no.
Mr. La Pine:
I would like to see it that way. I'm not going to hold up the ruling
on the motion but I think @ would have been nice if we could be
consistent with the other buildings that are in that immediate
area.
Mr. Alanskas:
I agree with Mr. LaPine. I think especially on the east side of
the building, it should also be brick because there could be no
future growth there on that side of the building, and I think
would look much better if it had all brick on that side.
Mr. La Pine:
That would be the west side.
Mr. Alanskas:
No, the east side.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any other discussion on the motion? Would the
secretary please call the roll?
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 2005-70-08-78 SCHOOLC RAFT COMMONS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-08-18
00510-08-18 submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, LLC requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a higl+nse
office building on property located at 17440 College Parkway in
the Southwest Z of Section 7.
Mr. Walsh: As I have done before with Schoolcratt Commons issues, I will
be stepping down on this item as I am an employee of
Schoolcmtt College. I will tum the gavel over to Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please note that Mr. Walsh stepped
down at 7:55.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road. This new
building would be part of the ongoing College Park
development. The petitioner is proposing to construct a high
22776
rise office buildings on this property. The overall site plan
shows that Buildings "C" and "D" would be constructed jointly, in
what could be thought of as a two building office complex. The
section of land is in the extreme southeast comer of the College
Park development, adjacent to the expressway and north of the
existing Marriott hotels. Building "D", which would be the
regional headquarters of TCF Bank, is located on Parcel 2,
which is north and east of Parcel 1 or Building "C". Parcel 2
contains approximately 3.75 acres and measure 268.81 feel
along its southern boundary, approximately 350.0 feel along its
western boundary where it abuts Parcel 1, approximately 300.0
feet along an existing drive that would make up its north
boundary, and then along the west side of the F275 Expressway
for a distance of about 403.75 feel. Building "D" would be three
(3) stories in height and 62,000 square feet in overall size.
Access to this building would be by way of an interior drive that
is part of the College Park layout. Because the two office
buildings will be situated in dose proximity to each other,
available parking is provided on a shared basis; however, the
total required parking is calculated as the sum of each of the
individual uses. The parking requirement for Building "D" is 248
spaces, and they are providing 261 spaces. Parking spaces
shown on the site plans are only nine (9') feel in width. lire
zoning ordinance requires all parking spaces to be a minimum
len (10') feel in width. A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required. The amount of storm water
detention needed for these buildings, and any other existing or
future buildings, was calculated and engineered during the initial
stages of the overall development of College Park. There is a
large detention area, labeled Detention Basin "A", located west
of this site. There is also a fairly good size pond located
between the buildings, next to the Expressway. Landscaping
will cover 30% of the site, which exceeds the minimum 15%
requirements. The large percentage of landscaping is due to
the 50 -fool wide MOOT drainage easement that runs along the
edge of the Expressway, the pond area, and the drainage ditch
that runs between Buildings "C" and "D". The plans state that
an automatic inigalion system would be installed and that all
lawn areas would be sodded. The architecture of both buildings
would be very similar. The buildings would be constructed
mainly of brick on all four sides, with a base of precast stone up
to the first floor windows. A metal panel material would
encompass and screen all rooftop mechanical equipment.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 28, 2005, which reads
22777
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time at this time with regard to
traffic or points of ingress and egress. We believe that Wayne
County has denied requests for a traffic signal at Six Mile and
Fox Drive in the past due to the closeness to the 1275 exit
ramp. The legal descriptions are comect and no further right-of-
way is required at this time. Detention Basin: The detention
basin is required by the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance. However, because of the petitioner's
desire to serve his entire development with one basin, the basin
is large and the depth appears to be influenced by the fact that
the storm sewers from the east side of the existing drain must
cross under the drain to get to the basin. The slopes are gradual
(1 on 6 in the detention area near the bottom of the basin and 1
on 4 in the area above the design elevation). From an
engineering standpoint, we have no objection to the basin as
presented except for the proximity of the northwest comer of the
basin to the north/south-east/west driveway intersection and the
fact that the outlet for the basin is currently shown as a pumped
facility. Wayne County will require that the City accept the
maintenance responsibility for the basin if the Association fails
to provide maintenance, and it is not the City's desire to accept
responsibility for a pump station. It is our understanding that the
petitioner is investigating a gravity outlet. For winter driving
safety, we would recommend that the northwest caner of the
basin be graded to provide a 20 foot level area behind the curb
or that 50 feet of guardrail be placed in each direction at the
comer. Water Main Extension: While itis not required with this
phase of the development, the extension of the water main
system under 1275 in a previously positioned casing will be
imperative in conjunction with the next phase of the
development. 1-275 Bike Path: The Michigan Department of
Transportation, together with the Rails to Trails Consortium, is
planning to repair and maintain the 1275 Bike Path. In that
regard, they are looking for voluntary participation from adjacent
owners to provide access pathways to the bike path. In this
case, a pathway would provide an opportunity both for the
employees of the office uses and the patrons of the casual
restaurants." The letteris signed by RobertJ. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire 8 Rescue
Division, dated October 31, 2005, which reads as follows: `This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct office buildings on the properties located at
the above -referenced addresses. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building(s)
are to be provided with an automatic yrinkler system, an on
site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from
22778
the Fire Department connection. (2) Hydrant spacing shall be
consistent with City of Livonia ordinances. (3) Access around
building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a
minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches, a turning
radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29
feet 6 inches. (4) Any curves or comer of streets or parking lot
lanes shall accommodate emergency vehicles Wh a turning
radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29
feet 6 inches. (5) Fire lanes shall be provided for all buildings
that are set back more than 150 feet from a public mad or
exceed 30 feet in height and are set back over 50 feet from a
public road. (6) During construction, fire lanes shall be
maintained around the building. 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. Please submit a revised site plan to this
office with the stipulated changes." The letter is signed by
Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated November 10, 2005, which reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with TCF
Bank Headquarters located at 17430 and 17440 College
Parkway. The Police Department has serious concerns
regarding the additional traffic. The only avenues of ingress and
egress to this building are on Fox Drive from Six Mile, or
College Park from Haggerty. Neither of these access points is
capable of handling the additional traffic this business will
create. These areas are already overpopulated with vehicles
congestion during rush hours. We would recommend that the
Planning Commission require another avenue of ingress and
egress to help alleviate this problem." The letter is signed by
David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated November 10, 2005,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October
20, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) This proposal will require a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals for either deficient width
spaces (majority at 9 feet wide where 10 feet wide is required)
or deficient number of spaces if the required 10 feet width is
utilized or a combination of both. (2) There may be issues with
accessible entrances and dispersion of barrier free parking area
sites and marking of van accessible spaces and access aisles.
They will be addressed at plan review by this Department. 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 from the Commissioners for our staff?
22779
Ms. Smiley: It is my understanding that they are gang to build a bank
headquarters here and that for the deficiency, it won't be really
clients but employees that will be coming into those parking
spots.
Mr. Taormina: Predominantly, employees will be using the parking spaces
here.
Ms. Smiley: Are there any parking spaces provided that allow for what the
Zoning Board asks or what we have in our ... are there 10 fool
ones?
Mr. Taormina: They do have a certain amount of customer parking that will be
provided and designated, and those spaces will all be 10' x 20'.
Those would be positioned closest to the main entrance to the
building where Scott has shown on the overhead. These spaces
would be reserved for use by the general public or customers.
All the rest would be 9 fool wide spaces and those would be
used for the long term daily parking of the employees.
Ms. Smiley: Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas: As I understand it, there's only going to be nine parking spaces
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Taormina, inasmuch as our 10 footers, 18 inches are the
width of the double stripe, and 102 inches in the center section,
giving us 102 plus 18, if you split the double stripes, that gives
you 120, which is the 10 foot. So for the 9 footers, you would
just take 12 inches out of the center section and leave the
standard double stripes at 18?
Mr. Taormina: The standards of the striping would remain the same.
Mr. Piercecchi: Atthe 18?
that are 9 foot. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Much more than that.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm referring to the customer parking. There's only nine of them.
Mr. Taormina:
I think there are more than that.
Mr. Miller:
There's probably 20 on each side, at least.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Taormina, inasmuch as our 10 footers, 18 inches are the
width of the double stripe, and 102 inches in the center section,
giving us 102 plus 18, if you split the double stripes, that gives
you 120, which is the 10 foot. So for the 9 footers, you would
just take 12 inches out of the center section and leave the
standard double stripes at 18?
Mr. Taormina: The standards of the striping would remain the same.
Mr. Piercecchi: Atthe 18?
22780
Mr. Taormina:
At the 18. The only difference being that from center to center,
the dimension would be reduced from 10 feet to 9 feet.
Everything else would remain the same.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That sounds fine. Can this petitioner meet the Fire
Department's conditions and the Police Department's
recommendation for another ingress and egress?
Mr. Taormina:
There will not be any other points of ingress or egress onto
either Six Mile or Haggerty Road. What is being investigated,
however, are certain improvements to Fox Drive where it exists
out to Six Mile Road. There will be limitations on the turning
movements there. And then working with the county for
additional improvements along the Haggerty Road right -0f --way,
namely, possibly an additional signal at College Parkway. So
those are issues that are on-going discussions right now with
county officials and the City Engineering Division in hope that
those will be worked out in the near future. There will not be an
additional entrance on the other two major roads. With respect
to the Fire Department's concerns as far as the access around
the buildings and placement of fire hydrants, I don't see why
there would be any constraints.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you saying that the Police cencems can be eliminated or
remedied?
Mr. Taormina:
I think they can be mitigated with the additional improvements to
the drive approaches and the signalization.
Mr. Alanskas:
When we have the petitioner come forward, he can explain
more about the traffic flow. Are there any other questions for
the staff at this time? Would the petitioner please come
forward?
Robert Bednas,
Etkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern, Suite 200, Southfield,
Michigan 48034.
Mr. Alanskas:
What would you like to tell us about this project?
Mr. Bednas:
I think the Planning Department described the project quite well.
It's a 60,000 square foot, three-story headquarters office
building for TCF Bank. Even though it's a headquarters facility,
there is no banking per se that would occur on the site. No
drive-thru, no in-house tellers or people of that nature. Its all
administrative and execufive staff for the bank. I'd like to
respond to the questions that were raised first by the
Engineering Division regarding the northwest comer of the
detention basin. The engineer is presently redesigning or in the
22781
process of complefing the design, and that's not the basin that
you see here.
Mr. Taormina:
I have it shown here, Robert.
Mr. Bednas:
Okay. It's a very large basin directly west of the property and
the question is at the corner of the roadway. We will be able to
provide that 20 fool shoulder that the Engineering Division
requested. We will not do a guardrail because of the aesthetic
impact on that. With regard to the concern about the pump
being required to drain the basin, the engineer is quite
confident, when I last talked to him, that they will be able to
achieve a gravity runoff. It's a borderline situation but they think
they'll be able to achieve that. If they don't, certainly Schoolcraft
Commons will step up to the necessary agreements required
with the City for the maintenance and operation of that pump.
But the expectation is that it will be a gravity outfall. With regard
to the pedestrian path, if I may step up to the screen again, we
are willing at this time to at least make the connection to the
MDOT bike path and reserve a future area, if you will, to
accommodate a path to be constructed at a later dale. We
cannot build the path at this time for financial reasons. It was
not part of the project to begin with, and it's almost 2,000 feel of
pathway that we're talking about. We will make a connection at
this point for the bike path, bring it in through the property
across the ditch, and then reserve this area on the northern
boundary.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, there's a portable microphone that you might want to use. I
believe it's turned on for you.
Mr. Bednas:
Okay. So we would reserve basically an area approximately 8
feel wide for a 5 foot path to come across the northern
boundary, across the future extension of this roadway, which
will ultimately lead north and then come along the northern
boundary of College Parkway back to this point, and then we
have to figure out how you gel back over here. But we're
certainly willing to reserve the planning for that at this point in
time but are not in a position to build it because of the financial
impact involved with everything else that's going on. That
should cover the Engineering Division's comments. With regard
to the Fire Marshal, we see no reason why we can't comply with
the requested turning radii and other criteria as far as
clearances that they requested. As far as the Police and traffic
comment regarding means of ingress, Mr. Taormina was
correct. There is no means with which another means of egress
or ingress from Six Mile can be achieved because Fox Drive is
what it is, but there is another entrance that is intertwined in the
22782
roadway infrastructure for the park at the north end of the site
that we share with Schoolcmft College. Basically, we have that
roadway at the northern boundary of the campus that would
also provide some ingress and egress to the park, and further, if
I may add, they are very far down the road with tie county for
installing a camera controlled traffic signal at College Parkway
on Haggerty Road. This is a cost that we are bearing entirely.
We feel that its important and necessary to the campus, and
the county has given conceptual approval. The actual design
drawings are completed, and they are in for final review and
approval at this time. We anticipate that will be installed
sometime next spring or summer. Additionally, we are also
pursuing some improvements to the intersection of Fox Drive
and Six Mile to basically geometrically prohibit a left tum out
which would force exiting Fox Drive traffic to come around and
out westbound to Six Mile Road. There is recognition by the city
and county that the intersection right now can be very
hazardous at times with people trying to make a left turn out to
eastbound Six Mile. So as far as the roadway and traffic
improvements, we haven't turned a blind side to this. We are
actively involved in trying to make improvements to the system.
With regard to the comment about the 9 fool versus 10 foot
parking spaces, there are approximately 20 fool spaces in front
of the building that are 10 feet wide for visitors to the building
and the remaining spaces for 9 feel wide. What we are
requesting tonight is that you approve this site plan subject to
the 9 foot spaces being reviewed by the Zoning Board of
Appeals. We are requesting that favor, if you will, because this
project is on a very short timeline and we need to move forward
with site plan approval so that we can submit for building
permits. Our intention is to submit for foundations and structural
steel this week, with a ground breaking for those activities the
first of January of next year. The only way we can do that is
with a conditional site plan approval from you tonight. We are
aware that the City Planning Department is also pursuing a like
effort to review the present ordinance regarding the 10 foot
spaces. We have already drafted our ZBA appeal and there
was additional homework in that regard. I might point out that of
the 10 or 12 communities that we've idenfifed, only Rochester
Hills and Livonia require 10 foot spaces. All the other
communities require 9 footers. And we are only requesting that
the 9 footers be allowed in an office development project. We
are in agreement with the City that for commercial/retail uses
where there is a lot of in and out traffic, that the 10 fool spaces
do make a lot of sense, and we can understand the rationale
behind that. I think that's about all I have to cover.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
22783
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, in our study meeting when you made your first request in
reference to the 9 fool spaces, you stated that basically these
spaces are going to be for your permanent help in that facility.
Is that correct?
Mr. Bednas:
That's basically it - the employees of the bank.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you going to number them?
Mr. Bednas:
No, we're not.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. We're talking about Building C, right?
Mr. Bednas:
Right now we're talking about Building D.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Building D with 261 spaces. What percentage of those are
going to be for guests? Have you established that?
Mr. Bednas:
The only thing that we've done is identified the 20 some odd,
which include a half a dozen handicap, so basically probably 14
or 15 of the 260, so that's about 5 or 6 percent.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Soyou're saying roughly5 percentwill be 10footers?
Mr.Bednas:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It's one space for 25 for the handicap, correct? Is that correct,
Mark?
Mr. Bednas:
No. The handicap requirement is ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
One for 25, is it?
Mr. Taormina:
There's a varying scale depending on the total number of
spaces. In this case, I think Mr. Bednas indicated there was a
total of eight required.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So you're going to have roughly then, 5 percent is 10 footers
and 3 percent roughly then will be handicap. So that's going to
leave you roughly 243 then will be 9 footers. I cant hold you to
those definite numbers, but I'm interested in knowing what
percentage are going to be 10 footers because if we're going to
deal with this ordinance, we need a good reference to what we
should always shoot for, or else make the minimum for a
building such as yours because I don't see this Planning
Commission or the City Council saying 01 or C-2 can be 9
footers. I doubt that very much.
22784
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, Mr. Pieroecchi, that wasn't the intent.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Pardon?
Mr. Alanskas:
That is not the intent to do that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, I know. That's what I'm saying. I don't see that occurring,
so having that number, which you think is the proper set aside,
would be a good
place for us to start thinking about how we
should handle this
in the future. You're the first time we've ever
done this in mass.
Mr. Bednas:
I can see the merit of having a formula, but at the same time,
each situation is different. We're also going to be requesting the
same consideration for office building "C", which is immediately
adjacent to this site.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think its up to the staff and ourselves to look into percentages
and how we want to possibly approve the amendment to
Section 2.09 for 9 footers.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I agree.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's not up to the petitioner.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I was trying to get a reference point.
Mr. Alanskas:
But I don't think at this time it's necessary.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It's any time.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you through?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
This is not a spec building. This is a known parking requirement
of the tenant that will be occupying that building. In other words,
he knows exactly how many parking spaces are needed for
employees, and how many parking spaces he wants for his
customers. So whatever that percentage is, it would only apply
to this particular user.
Mr. Alanskas:
Exactly.
Mr. La Pine:
I have a number of questions. Number one, ever since this
project to the front here, I've always had a problem with too
much traffic in that area. Its going to get compounded and its
22785
going to get worse and worse. In your opinion, has every
avenue been looked at so we can get another way in and out of
there? Is there anyway you can come in from Seven Mile Road
to the campus area? Has that ever been looked al?
Mr. Bednas:
Its not been boked at, I think, beyond considering whether its
possible. The problem is that it would run right though the
middle of Schoolcreft College's campus. I'm sure they would
not want the traffic or lose the access or whatever sense of
privacy and security they have.
Mr. LaPine:
The bottom line is, the viability of this whole complex, this whole
project, is going to depend upon people being able to get in and
out fast. When they come here, they're going to be lined up at
these different exits trying to gel out. And believe me, if you go
there at 12:00 noon and try to make a left hand turn off of
Haggerty Road onto Six Mile Road, you're back almost three
quarters of a mile. I mean, its unbelievable the traffic there, and
it's going to gel worse. The bank is going to have more traffic.
I'm just asking that you look at it and see if there's any way you
can gel that additional way in and out of there because, believe
me, I believe its going to be to your benefit because when your
tenants in there find out oulomers complain, "You've got to do
something about this traffic', it will hurl the business. The
second question I have, the exit into this building, you talked
about the far north exit, and then you come in off of Haggerty
Road and the far north entrance into the College Park. Al this
north entrance you can come in and you said you can drive
through the complex.
Mr. Bednas:
You can use either entrance off of Haggerty, either the north ...
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. How wide is that road? As you come off of Haggerty to
the farthest northern road, right there, then you have the road
come down and then around here. Is that a 20 foot, 30 fool?
Mr. Bednas:
I believe it's 33. Its three lanes, and its basically four lanes up
by the college with a turning lane up to the point where the taper
is right at that location.
Mr. LaPine:
There's room for cars, at least two lanes, one going north, one
going ....
Mr. Bednas:
Or for turning movements, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
The last question I have, I'm curious about the bike path. Once
this bike path is put in by you or whoever puts it in, who
maintains it? Will that be owned by Schoolcreff College or will
22786
the Michigan Department of Transportation have control over
that bike path or the Rails to Trails consortium? Who has
control over that piece of land?
Mr. Bednas:
I'm not sure where the request originated. Unfortunately, the
current landowner or lessee would be responsible for it, so just
like College Parkway is a private roadway, that pedestrian path .
. I don't think it's a bike path. It only needs to be 5 feel wide
instead of.. .
Mr. La Pine:
It says here, a bike path.
Mr. Bednas:
They wanted it connected to the bike path.
Mr. La Pine:
Oh, I see.
Mr. Bednas:
But it would be our responsibility to maintain it.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Bednas:
I'm not sure if I'm going to shoot myself in the fool here, but if I
may address your concerns about traffic. We've done a few
things. One of the things that directed the activity at Fox Drive
being a forced right hand no left turnout, is the ... I'm sure your
Police Department and traffic people will tell you that if you go
east on Six Mile and exit to go south on 1-275 to try and
continue east on 96, that merging or crossover maneuver to get
onto the ramp to 96 is a very difficult and sometimes
treacherous maneuver that they recommend people don't do.
And they say if people want to go east on 96, they should go up
to Seven Mile and get on the Seven Mile interchange and come
down. That's one of the things that we advocate to our people
as well. But more importantly, one of the severe bottlenecks, I
think as you're all well aware, is the Six Mile and Haggerty
intersection. At the same time, we are pursuing a privately
funded traffic signal at College Parkway. We also, together with
Comerica Bank, approached the county about doing camera
controlled signals at Six and Haggerty. Al that time, we were
given a low ball budget number where the camera controls
could be done for about $35,000 or $40,000. Both Comerica
and we were willing to step up to that and in the process, also
pursued design documents for that only to find, as the details
unraveled from the county, it became $135,000 - $140,00
project estimate. We are unprepared to do that. We think there
are a lot of other developments and communities that are
responsible for what's going on at Six and Haggerty, but we're
still prepared to kick in our $40,000 that we were originally
prepared to do if the initiative can be taken with the other
22787
appropriate governmental jurisdictions to pursue contributions
from people like Northville, maybe the City of Livonia, something
from the county. The county says they have no money, but
that's their standard response.
Mr. La Pine:
Just one more thing, Mr. Chairman, the thing that wories me,
as you well know, I don't know if it's a done deal yet with the old
psychiatric hospital property that's been sold, unsold. But when
that properly gets developed, all that traffic coming up off the
expressway, got to come up Seven Mile Road or Six Mile, and
that's just going to compound the problem. You probably
realize that as much as I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas:
One thing I would like to see myself, if it's possible, is after we
get this building built and the bank is in there and after the
Fleming's restaurant is open
for like six months, it might be a
good idea to have a traffic
study taken for the added traffic. Is
there a possible way, Mark, that we could make Fox Drive wider
with more lanes to alleviate this problem?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure. I'm not prepared to answer that. I know that there
is some real physical constraint in that area as far as available
land and possibly some other legal constraints. So I'm not
prepared to answer that.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have two others questions. Bill, you can reftesh my memory.
We've had so many meetings. Weren't we talking about putting
park benches by the retention pond?
Mr. La Pine:
That's where he says the pump is going to be.
Mr. Alanskas:
Right, but we've discussed that. Are you going to do that - have
a fountain and some park benches around the one retention
pond?
Mr. Bednas:
This pond?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, there are or there will be.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Scott, would you please put up on the screen the color of
the building. Is it going to be a dark brown, light brown,
because this doesn't show too well.
Mr. Bednas:
I just happen to have a brick sample here.
22788
Mr. Alanskas:
Good. Do you have a sample of the glass too for the color of
the glass?
Mr. Bednas:
The colored elevations were done basically to detect the
distinction between the brick and the stone and the glass. This
brick range is very similar to the brick that Ford Field has, if
you're familiar with whafs down there. This sample doesn't do
itjustice.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Bednas:
The glass, unlike whafs shown also, chats done because it was
necessary to depict the distinction between the brick and the
glass. The glass is intended to be lightly tinted in reflected
bronze. If it was shown bronze on the color rendering, the
whole building would look bronze.
Mr. Alanskas:
It looks almost like its green.
Mr. Bednas:
Depending on the lighting ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing none, a
resolution is in order.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#11-113-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-08-18
submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, LLC requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a high-rise office
building on property located at 17440 College Parkway in the
Southwest % of Section 7, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Overall Layout Plan marked Sheet SP -03 dated
October 14, 2005, prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ou0ines
the terns of how the subject property(s) would share
parking, be supplied to the City;
3. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP1.01 dated October
17, 2005, prepared by Bowers & Rein, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
22789
4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP1.01 dated
October 17, 2005, prepared by Bowers & Rein, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. 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;
6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
7. 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;
8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
A5.01 dated October 17, 2005, prepared by Bowers &
Rein, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
9. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch bride;
10. 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;
11. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building, and the endosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
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 the Developer shall submit for approval an ongoing
mosquito control program, as approved by the Department
of Public Works, describing maintenance operations and
larvicide applications to the City of Livonia Inspection
Department prior to the construction of the stormwater
retention facility and common element pond;
22790
14. That the owner shall provide annual reports to the
Inspection Department on the maintenance and larvicide
treatments completed on the stormwater detention pond
and common element pond;
15. 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;
16. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated October 28, 2005;
17. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
October 31, 2005;
18. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for nine (9')
foot wide parking spaces and any conditions related
thereto;
19. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
20. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
21. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Bednas: If I may, I'd like to make one editorial change or request.
There's a statement made about using full -face four -inch brick.
We will be using full -face brick, but because of the delivery
required for the building and the time in which we start
construction and need to enclose the building, the decision was
made to use precast panels on the building with imbedded face
brick.
Mr. Alanskas: But it's not panel brick?
22791
Mr. Bednas:
Typically when you look at panel brick, it's probably even thinner
than what you see here and that's glued on. What the
conventional precast with imbedded brick is, they'll take a full
brick and cut it in half and imbed the inch and three quarters in
the precast concrete leaving enough of a reveal to show the
joints. So from that aspect, I have a concern with the way the
motion is worded.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would that still be four inches when they gel through with the
precast?
Mr. Taormina:
It's a solid masonry unit, as I understand R. It doesn't have the
problems associated with the thin brick that we've seen on
many buildings where it has peeled off.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you're okay with that change?
Mr. Taormina:
As long as the Commission is okay with it. It's been used in
other applications in the city.
Mr. Alanskas:
How large are these sections?
Mr. Bednas:
If you go back up to on the elevations that were shown. In most
instances, there will be a panel that's about 30 feel long, and
then the columns, but the detailing will be as depicted here.
The brick is embedded in the precast panel which is nominally
about 6 to 8 inches thick and at least three-quarters of the brick
is embedded in the concrete so it has a secure bond.
Mr. Morrow:
Apparently this is new information. I'm certainly on the fly trying
to approve that. I don't feel like I'm in position as a Planning
Commissioner to be able to approve that.
Mr. Alanskas:
What I might suggest is we stick with our approving resolution
with the full -face four -inch brick, and then when you get to City
Council, you can make that change.
Mr. Morrow:
That was where I was heading, Mr. Chairman. The building is
such that I don't want to table this thing, but I dont feel I'm
qualified to give that waiver. By the time you get to City Council
and make that change and they go along with it, I'll go along
with it, but I'm not going to do that tonight.
Mr. Bednas:
We could show examples of it.
Mr. Morrow:
When was this decision made?
22792
Mr. Bednas:
This was done very early in the process because we recognized
the delivery that was required to do that.
Mr. Morrow:
I wish we would have known about it earlier in the process so I
don't feel like I'm floundering around here with exactly what
we're approving. I know you've explained it, but panel side
bricking is kind of negative type of input.
Mr. Bednas:
But this is not panel brick. It's precast...
Mr. Morrow:
I'm willing to let my resolution stand and if you're willing to meet
with the Council and persuade the Building Department, City
Council and the Planning Department that this is satisfactory,
that's fine.
Mr. Alanskas:
Before we finish the motion, Mr. Pieroecchi?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Did you say due to timing is why you're making this request?
Mr. Bednas:
That's correct. We need to deliver this building to the tenant in
December of next year.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But you said this was way in front that you were going to do this.
Mr. Bednas:
Way in front?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You said this has been going for a long period of time. This has
been your concept of this building.
Mr. Bednas:
When we were aware of the tenant's needs for the delivery of
the building, we went through in detail to figure out what the
critical pass, along with these approvals that we're going
through now, were to deliver the building. Recognizing that we
would have a steel structure up probably in April and be wanting
to enclose the building, and weather being what it is, when you
do conventional brick laid up by masons, we would be severely
jeopardized in the schedule, where as we can manufacture the
precast panels under control conditions in a shop, they're
delivered out to the site and they're erected as quickly as the
steel is. So we could have an enclosed building by June or July,
which is imperative in order to delivery this space to the tenant.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
What's your time flame if you did it in the standard brick?
Mr. Bednas:
Assuming we had perfect weather, it would add at lead two and
half to three months to the schedule.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Three months?
22793
Mr. Bednas:
Yeah. First you have to do the framing and the brick frames to
carry the brick, which is another trade that precedes it. And
then you get the mason out there with scaffolds. It takes a long
time, especially on a multi -story building.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I want to compliment Commissioner Morrow on bringing up this
point. I think he's right.
Mr. LaPine:
I agree with Mr. Morrow. To be honest with you, I remember at
one of our meetings you discussed you were going b be on a
fast track and all that. But from the word go, I always thought
we were going to have regular brick here.
Mr. Bednas:
It is real brick.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, I understand that but it isn't what I call real brick. Each
individual brick is not laid. Its embedded in concrete. I know
we've done these types of buildings in Livonia before, but it
came as a shock to me when I heard it tonight. I only hope that
if the Council approves this, that in the future buildings you're
going to have, tell us ahead of time that this is what you're going
to be doing
Mr.Bednas:
We will do that.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm hoping that because you're doing it on this building, that
you're not going to set a precedent for the other office buildings.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.
Mr. Bednas:
Well, this is at a premium. This is costing us considerably more
dollars to do it this way. And ignorance is no excuse but,
candidly, I wasn't aware that there was a full -face four -inch brick
requirement.
Mr. Alanskas:
We've always had that Let's go back to the maker of the
motion.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the thing that you've
come up with as far as larger strips of brick. I'm not saying
that's negative. I'm just saying that I, as a commissioner, its
new information. If you can leave it with the four -inch brick, and
between now and when it gets to City Council, because I don't
want to start tabling this, I want to keep it moving. If you're
comfortable with that, that's what I would like to do.
Mr. Bednas:
That fine. We can do that.
22794
Mr. Morrow:
Then you'll have plenty of lime to demonstrate what the
construction is, the longevity and all those types ofthings.
Mr. Bednas:
As part of this, we're also requesting the seven-day waiver so
that we can ...
Mr. Alanskas:
We'll get into that.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll take care of that.
Mr. Bednas:
Then I have one question, which is sort of the same issue. I'm
not sure if any of you remember, but I think Mark Taormina
might. We at one time when we first started the first phase of
the retail component of the park and dealing with the 20 foot
light poles, beg the question about using 30 foot poles in the
office development when it came along, and I believe the
comment at that time was that the department would consider it.
I've seen so many of these drawings. I think somewhere buried
in these drawings is an indication that the light fixtures were to
be 30 feel above grade rather than 20. You may want to
approve the resolution the way you read it and have it changed
at Council.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, are you aware of the 30 foot lights?
Mr. Taormina:
We've used that on some of the larger retail projects, but I can't
recall if we used it here at College Park at all.
Mr. Morrow:
Was it on the plans?
Mr. Taormina:
Were the 30 foot poles shown on the plans?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina
I'm not sure. Scott would have to look.
Mr. Alanskas:
There again, I think what I would like to do is leave it as a 20
foot light pole, and when you get to Council, you can also make
that request for a change.
Mr.Bednas:
That will be fine.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is that okay with you, Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
That's fine.
22795
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any more discussion? Would the secretary please call
the roll on the approving resolution with four -inch brick and 20
foot light poles.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, LaPine, Pieroecchi, Smiley, Alanskas
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
ABSENT: Shane
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. Morrow: I would make a motion forthe seven day waiver.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and approved, it was
#11-114-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the
seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning
Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2005-10-08-
18
00570-08-
18 submitted by Schoolcratt Commons, LLC requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a higl+nse
office building on properly located at 17440 College Parkway in
the Southwest '% of Section 7.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, LaPine, Pieroecchi, Smiley, Alanskas
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
ABSENT: Shane
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
22796
ITEM #3 PETITION 2005-10-08-22 SCHOOLCRAFT COMMONS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-08-22,
00510-08-22, submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, LLC requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a higl+nse
office building on property located at 17430 College Parkway in
the Southwest % of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road. This new
building would be part of the ongoing College Park
development. The petitioner is proposing to construct a high
rise office buildings on this property. The overall site plan
shows that Buildings "C" and "D" would be constructed jointly, in
what could be thought of as a two building office complex. The
section of land is in the extreme southeast comer of the College
Park development, adjacent to the expressway and north of the
existing Marriott hotels. Building "D", which would be the
regional headquarters of TCF Bank, is located on Parcel 2,
which is north and east of Parcel 1 or Building "C". Parcel 2
contains approximately 3.75 acres and measure 268.81 feel
along its southern boundary, approximately 350.0 feel along its
western boundary where it abuts Parcel 1, approximately 300.0
feet along an existing drive that would make up its north
boundary, and then along the west side of the 4275 Expressway
for a distance of about 403.75 feel. Building "D" would be three
(3) stories in height and 62,000 square feel in overall size.
Access to this building would be by way of an interior drive that
is part of the College Park layout. Because the two office
buildings will be situated in dose proximity to each other,
available parking is provided on a shared basis; however, the
total required parking is calculated as the sum of each of the
individual uses. The panting requirement for Building "C" is 240
spaces, and they are providing 264 spaces. Panting spaces
shown on the site plans are only nine (9') feel in width. The
zoning ordinance requires all parking spaces to be a minimum
len (10') feet in width. A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required. The amount of storm water
detention needed for these buildings, and any other existing or
future buildings, was calculated and engineered during the initial
stages of the overall development of College Park. There is a
large detention area, labeled Detention Basin "A", located west
of this site. There is also a fairly good size pond located
between the buildings, next to the Expressway. Landscaping
will cover 30% of the site, which exceeds the mnimum 15%
requirements. The large percentage of landscaping is due to
22797
the 50 -foot wide MDOT drainage easement that runs along the
edge of the Expressway, the pond area, and the drainage ditch
that runs between Buildings "C" and "D". The plans state that
an automatic inigalion system would be installed and that all
lawn areas would be sodded. The architecture of both buildings
would be very similar. The buildings would be constructed
mainly of brick on all four sides, with a base of precast stone up
to the first floor windows. A metal panel material would
encompass and screen all rooftop mechanical equipment.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: The correspondence read into the record for the previous item is
the same as this time. There are four items of correspondence.
The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October
28, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time at
this time with regard to traffic or points of ingress and egress.
We believe that Wayne County has denied requests for a traffic
signal at Six Mile and Fox Drive in the past due to the closeness
to the 1-275 exit ramp. The legal descriptions are correct and no
further right-of-way is required at this time. Detention Basin:
The detention basin is required by the Wayne County Storm
Water Management Ordinance. However, because of the
petitioner's desire to serve his entire development with one
basin, the basin is large and the depth appears to be influenced
by the fact that the storm sewers from the east side of the
existing drain must cross under the drain to get to the basin.
The slopes are gradual (1 on 6 in the detention area near the
bottom of the basin and 1 on 4 in the area above the design
elevation). From an engineering standpoint, we have no
objection to the basin as presented except for the proximity of
the northwest comer of the basin to the north/southreastWest
driveway intersection and the fact that the outlet for the basin is
currently shown as a pumped facility. Wayne County will
require that the City accept the maintenance responsibility for
the basin if the Association fails to provide maintenance, and it
is not the City's desire to accept responsibility for a pump
station. It is our understanding that the petitioner is
investigating a gravity outlet. For winter driving safety, we
would recommend that the northwest comer of the basin be
graded to provide a 20 foot level area behind the curb or that 50
feet of guardrail be placed in each direction at the comer.
Water Main Extension: While it is not required with this phase
of the development, the extension of the water main system
under 1-275 in a previously positioned casing will be imperative
in conjunction with the next phase of the development. 1-275
22798
Bike Path: The Michigan Department of Transportation,
together with the Rails to Trails Consortium, is planning to repair
and maintain the 1-275 Bike Path. In that regard, they are
looking for voluntary participation from adjacent owners to
provide access pathways to the bike path. In this case, a
pathway would provide an opportunity both for the employees of
the office uses and the patrons of the casual restaurants." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire 8 Rescue Division, dated
October 31, 2005, which reads as follows `This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct office buildings on the properties located at the above -
referenced addresses. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building(s) are to be
provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on site hydrant
shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire
Department connection. (2) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent
with City of Livonia ordinances. (3) Access around building
shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum
vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of
53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6
inches. (4) Any curves or comer of streets or parking lot lanes
shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of
53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6
inches. (5) Fire lanes shall be provided for all buildings that are
set back more than 150 feet from a public road or exceed 30
feet in height and are set back over 50 feet from a public road.
(6) During construction, fire lanes shall be maintained around
the building. 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. Please submit a revised site plan to this office with
the stipulated changes." The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated November 10, 2005, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the plans in connection with TCF Bank
Headquarters located at 17430 and 17440 College Parkway.
The Police Department has serious concems regarding the
additional traffic. The only avenues of ingress and egress to
this building are on Fox Drive from Six Mile, or College Park
from Haggerty. Neither of these access points is capable of
handling the additional traffic this business will create. These
areas are already overpopulated with vehicles congestion
during rush hours. We would recommend that the Planning
Commission require another avenue of ingress and egress to
help alleviate this problem." The letter is signed by David W.
Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated Nowmber 10, 2005, which reads
22799
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 20, 2005, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This proposal will require a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals for either deficient width spaces (majority at 9
feet wide where 10 feet wide is required) or deficient number of
spaces if the required 10 feet width is utilized or a combination
of both. (2) There may be issues with accessible entrances and
dispersion of barrier free parking area sites and marking of van
accessible spaces and access aisles. They will be addressed at
plan review by this Department. 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 from the Commissioners for our staff?
Seeing none, would the petitioner please come forward?
Robert Bednas,
Etkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern, Suite 200, Southfield,
Michigan 48034. The only thing I might add is the intention for
this building is to be an almost twin of the other building for TCF
Bank, except you will notice this building does not have any
recesses at the corners. It's basically a rectangular shape.
Although the intention is to use the same identical brick and
stone and glass so that they do look like twins, they're intended
to be dissimilar twins so there's a specific identity associated
with each building. That was something that was at the request
of TCF Bank. This one, we'd be happy to lay up in back
conventionally.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the petitioner? Do you have a
tenant for this building as of yet?
Mr. Bednas:
No, we do not.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you have no plans for building this in the near future?
Mr. Bednas:
Not immediately. The reason we're doing this is because the
site is basically landlocked by the roadway to the north, the
development to the south, the retention basin to the west and
the stream on the east. The plan makes sense being a twin,
and it always helps to have some preliminary approvals
completed when you're dealing with a tenant as we just saw
with TCF Bank. Sometimes time is of the essence and there's
none left. So since we know what we want to do with this site, I
thought it prudent to pursue site plan approval so we're ready to
submit for building plans when the tenant comes along.
Mr. Alanskas:
On this site also you're still asking for the 9 foot parking spaces?
22800
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, we are.
Ms. Smiley:
Do you have some 10 foot spaces for this also?
Mr. Bednas:
Yes, there are, on both sides of the building.
Ms. Smiley:
Great. And then you can enter from either side of the building
as opposed to north and south.
Mr.Bednas:
Correct.
Ms. Smiley:
Good. I want to tell you I'm also excited. I think theyre very
attractive buildings and we're very excited to have TCF
headquarters here.
Mr. Bednas:
We are as well. They're going to be a nice lead tenant for the
office development.
Mr. Morrow:
As I recall, the pond that the building faces, is that part of the
delenfion basin or is that just aesthetics?
Mr. Bednas:
The pond shown on this plan, to the right of the plan, is purely
an architectural feature. It will only be three, may four feel
deep.
Mr. Morrow:
Just aesthetics and not anything to do with runoff?
Mr.Bednas:
No.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what l thought. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing none, a resolution is in order.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, in reference to the resolution, I looked over this
resolution as compared to the previous one. The only real
difference that I can see is in the sheet numbers, like 1.01. This
one is 1.00. And SPA A5.01, this is 5.00. So if that's correct, I
don't see any reason why we should have to read R.
Mr. Alanskas:
I still think we should put it in the record.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. Well.
Mr. Alanskas:
Who would like to do that?
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Piercecchi, and adopted, it was
22801
#11-115-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-08-22
submitted by Schoolcmft Commons, LLC requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a high-rise office
building on properly located at 17430 College Parkway in the
Southwest % of Section 7, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Overall Layout Plan marked Sheet SP -03 dated
October 14, 2005, prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and outlines
the terns of how the subject properly(s) would share
parking, be supplied to the City;
3. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP1.00 dated October
17, 2005, prepared by Bowers & Rein, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP1.00 dated
October 17, 2005, prepared by Bowers & Rein, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. 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;
6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
7. 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;
8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
A5.00 dated October 17, 2005, prepared by Bowers &
Rein, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
9. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
10. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
22802
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
11. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary stomp water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
13. That the Developer shall submit for approval an ongoing
mosquito control program, as approved by the Department
of Public Works describing maintenance operations and
larvicide applications to the City of Livonia Inspection
Department prior to the construction of the stormwater
retention facility and common element pond;
14. That the owner shall provide annual reports to the
Inspection Department on the maintenance and larvicide
treatments completed on the slormwater detenfion pond
and common element pond;
15. 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 properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
16. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering
Division's safisfaction the items oufiined in the
correspondence dated October 28, 2005;
17. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
safisfaction the items oufiined in the correspondence dated
October 31, 2005;
18. That this approval is subject to the pefitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for nine (9')
foot wide parking spaces and any conditions related
thereto;
19. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
22803
20. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
21. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, would the secretary
please call the roll on the approving resolution.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Smiley, Alanskas
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
ABSENT: Shane
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. I'm sure on this one you don't need a
seven day waiver.
Mr.Bednas: Well, we don't but it would be nice to go at the same time.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I would offer a seven daywaiver.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you need a seven day waiver on this also?
Mr. Bednas: The two projects go hand-in-hand, so it would be nice.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Pieroecchi, and approved, it was
#11-116-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the
seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning
Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2005-10-08-
22, submitted by Schoolcrett Commons, LLC, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a higl+nse
office building on property located at 17430 College Parkway in
the Southwest Z of Section 7.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Piercecchi, LaPine, Smiley, Alanskas
22804
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
Shane
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 200540-0849 TISEO ARCHITECTS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-08-19,
00510-08-19, submitted by Tiseo Architects requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
property located at 29029 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of
Section 1.
Mr. Alanskas: Would the secretary please note that the Chairman Walsh
returned at 8:58.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a medical
office building on property located on the south side of Eight
Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Brentwood Avenue.
This site is located between the Mid 8 Plaza Shopping Center
and the Clarenceville Cemetery. The site consists of three (3)
separate properties whose addresses are 29005, 29009 and
29023 Eight Mile Road. The combined land area of all three
parcels is approximately 2.07 acres. Altogether, the site has
334.52 feet of frontage on Eight Mile Road and is 268.48 feel
deep along its east property line. This property is split zoned,
with the easterly half zoned OS and the westerly half zoned G7.
The proposed building would be two -stories in height and a total
of 27,050 square feet in total floor area. The floor plans show
that the proposed building would have a basement. Because
the sub floor would only be used for storage it is not included in
the gven square footage of the building. The structure would
be positioned approximately in the middle of the site. A single
boulevard driveway off Eight Mile Road would provide access to
the site. Parking would be situated on all four sides of the
building. Even though this building is being categorized as
medical, there would be some general office scattered
throughout the building. The following parking calculations
reflect that. Required parking is 157 spaces, they are providing
158 spaces so they meet the panting requirements. The site
plan shows that the site would have a single endosed trash
22805
dumpster area located behind the building, near the southwest
comer of the parking lot. Because there is no above ground
basin shown on the plans, it is believed storm water would be
handled by underground piping. They are required to have 15%
of the site landscaped and they show 20% of the site
landscaped. The interior of the proposed office site would be
landscaped with parking islands and planting areas near the
building. A 16 fool wide landscaped greenbelt would be
installed along the Eight Mile Road frontage. The east property
line would have a confinuous row of Arborvitaes along it. The
west property line would be planted with six deciduous type
trees. Because this site abuts residential to the south and along
the southern 64 feet of the east property line, a screening wall
or greenbelt is required along these zoning lines. The petitioner
is requesting approval to substitute a permanent greenbelt in
lieu of the protective wall along the south property line. The
landscape plan shows that this proposed greenbelt would be 16
feet wide and planted with grass. The abutting residential
properties to the south consist of very deep lots with the houses
fronting on Modock Road. These houses are generally over
200 feet away from the rear property line of the proposed site.
Between the houses and the back of the subject property is an
existing creek that is surrounded by a dense wooded area. The
petitioner believes that because of this natural barrier, a
protective wall would be of no value. The small section along
the east property line does not qualify for permanent status
because the greenbelt is not a minimum of ten (10') feet wide.
A wall would have to be erected or a variance granted from the
Zoning Board of Appeals. The rendered elevation plan shows
that the exterior would be finished with an outer shell of silver or
gray metal panels on all four sides. A narrow band of finted
glass windows would be installed on the first and second floors
in order to allow some natural light into the exam rooms and
office space.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, would you read in the correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 1, 2005, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above- eferenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description is
correct and no additional right -0f -way is required at this time.
This portion of Eight Mile Road is under the jurisdiction of the
Road Commission for Oakland County and the drive approach
and any work within the mad right -0f -way will require their
approval. Detention will be required in accordance with the
Wayne County's storm water management ordinance. The floor
22806
plain elevation of the Upper Rouge River in this area is 643,
which is off the petitioner's property. There are no wetlands
shown adjacent to the drainage course south of the property on
the Federal wetlands inventory." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 31, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a new
medical office building on property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) f subject building is to be
provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on-site hydrant
shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire
Department connection. (2) Any curves or comersofparking lot
lanes shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning
radius of fifty-three feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius
of twenty-nine feet six inches. Please submit a revised site plan
to this office with the stipulated changes." The letter is signed
by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated February 4, 2005, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with the
proposed Medical Plaza located at 29023, 29009 and 29005
Eight Mile Road. Inherently, a medical building is frequented by
persons who may have a decreased mental capacity and/or
attention span due to illness orpending treatment. As a result,
reaction time may be increased while turning into this facility.
Eight Mile is a high volume traffic roadway and this may create
an unnecessary point of confiict at the entrance. It is our
recommendation that a deceleration lane be included west of
the proposed driveway to help alleviate this point of conflict. A
deceleration lane of 200 feet would allow a normally alert driver
traveling at 45 miles per hour to react and tum safely into this
business without creating a through -lane traffic conflict.
However, with the clientele anticipated to frequent this business,
a better alternative would be to amend the driveway to the far
east end of the property and create a deceleration lane the
entire length of the property's frontage. This would allow a safer
window for persons in a lesser state of awareness." The letter
is signed by David S. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November
10, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
October 20, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The retaining wall noted at
the rear of the property mayor may not require a guardrail. This
Department will further address this issue at time of inspection.
(2) A protective wall must be installed or an approved property
executed property separation agreement on file or a greenbelt
installed and approved where the property abuts residential. A
22807
greenbelt cannot be substituted where 10 feet of open space is
not available such as the east property line, south end. 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. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, what is the distance? It doesn't have a 10 foot area width
to put in a greenbelt. How much width is there?
Mr. Taormina:
There is 6 feet 2 inches.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Six feel.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, at the narrowest point of that greenbelt along the east
property line where it abuts residential.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Benedetto Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48152.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Tiseo:
I did want to discuss one item that relates to Mr. Pieroecchi's
comment about the greenbelt on the east side. There is actually
about 20 feel of area on this side right here that does not have
the 10 feet requirement from the back of the cemetery property
to this point here. Ifs approximately 20 feet. It might be 25.
And part of the reason for not doing that is the fact that we have
this stream going along the building and it goes further down
and is enclosed several hundred feet down. All that area back
here is woods, so it doesn't make any logical sense to put in a
screen wall because there will never be any residential property
even within several hundred feet of that site. With this property,
these houses are way down here on the following street, and
that why we did not pursue the wall. We're going to go back to
the ZBA for a variance on that wall.
Mr. Morrow:
Relating to that, did I hear the Inspection people say that without
10 feet, you're precluded from waiving the wall?
Mr. Taormina:
No. There are two options available to him in this case. He can
go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to have them waive the
requirement for the wall in that area or, as an altematve, he
could execute a separation agreement with the adjoining
property owner. If the adjoining landowner has no problem with
ry�:ust
waiving the wall, they could have an agreement between the
two parties that would be recorded. It would be something that
they would provide to the city, and the city would keep that on
file. I believe that can go on for periods of five years at a time.
So he can do that as an altemative to going to the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you. I must have misunderstood what the
Inspection Department said.
Mr. Tiseo:
We would pursue that.
Mr. Morrow:
As long as there are ways for relief, that's fine.
Mr. Alanskas:
Al our study meeting we were discussing the appearance of the
building because its 27,000 square feet. There was discussion
about this blue window that you have all the way around it. We
thought you might need something more than just that.
Mr. Tiseo:
If I could explain a little bit about the design of the building that
might help in understanding the materials that are being used.
This building is primarily going to be used for medical use, a
doctors office for seeing patients. In doing that, one of the
things that we thought there would be great need for would be
to protect the elderly people and the people that might be sick
by providing some parking underneath the second floor, giving
them prolective cover during the rain and the winter months. So
we have 20 some spaces around the perimeter of the building
that is actually covered from the second floor. It gives them that
protection. In doing that, it also then gives the feeling that the
building needs to be lighter. Brick would be more difficult to
hang from this continuous band of about nine and half feel of
open area. Also, it being medical, one of the things that we try
to convey is that this is going to be a high tech land of building.
By the way, we have some samples with us tonight of the actual
panels. Thirdly, one of the items that you're always concerned
with when you're inside an exam room in a doctor's office is
privacy. And if you have any windows, the first thing you do is
pull all the blinds and make sure no one is peeking in. In this
case, what we've done is we've taken a full band windows and
put it at the top of the ceiling. It comes down two feet, so there's
no chance for anybody to look into the window while you're
being examined or waiting for the doctor to come in. If we were
to make it larger, then the first thing the doctors would do would
be to close the shades so that you couldn't have any value to
the window. So it made no sense from a design standpoint to
add more windows. We did it on the comers because those will
22809
be the areas that would be either a conference area or a
doctor's office or maybe a break area for the employees.
Mr. Alanskas:
Another question I have is, have you thought about having valet
parking there for the people that come in?
Mr. Tiseo:
Thalwould be up to the doctors.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason why I ask is because, just for example, my wife
always goes to Sl. Marys Hospital an awful lot on a walker and
at times she'll have to go there and park and wait for up to an
hour before there's a handicap space available. Either there is
not enough there or people park there that don't belong there.
So I think if you had a valet parking for people that needed that
type of parking it would certainly help.
Mr. Tiseo:
Again, we would look at that if the doctors would like to do that.
I know we have one more, if not two more, handicap parking
spaces that are required under the ordinance. We try to
accommodate more than that. I know we do have one parking
space to give. Its a good point. We tried to accommodate as
much as we could and that's why we have all the handicap
spaces at the side where the entrances are, and hopefully those
people would be entering the building at that point.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because I'm sure you're going to find that in any medical office.
You're going to have a high percentage of people that are over
60 years of age going here for medical services. Thank you.
Mr. Tiseo:
One of the things we're looking as a result of that is ... one of
the things that we want to do is also get a variance on the
address of the building. I think the maximum you can put is 12
inches, and we'd like to get something larger because of the fact
of the age and population that will be going there. You'd be
able to seethe building clear with the address on R.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
First, I'd like to ask you a question now. This is your building.
What's high tech about that? I'm not an architect, and maybe I
don't know what high tech is. To me, high tech is way ad in
space,
real crazy looking. That's just a square building. What's
high tech about it?
Mr. Tiseo:
It is metal looking. I guess it's no different than the 4pods. It's a
high tech look when computers go into metal. I dont know how
to describe it other than that's the design concept.
22610
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. We have a bank coming into town, Franklin Bank, and
they came in with a design and I would say it was high tech. It's
really out of this world, I'd say. Well, anyways, I like the idea of
the parking but how do you control who parks there? Is that
going to all be for handicap only?
Mr. Tiseo:
No. Its going to be an accommodation of handicap and
patients. We have a clause in the lease that forbids any
employee from parking in those spaces. We're going to design
employee parking along the rear side where the 16 foot bene is
on the back.
Mr. LaPine:
Can the doctors park underneath it?
Mr. Tiseo:
No. They cannot. It is restricted strictly for patients.
Mr. LaPine:
Can you gel another panel? Do you see this blue up here?
That's a window.
Mr. Tiseo:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
To me, it sure doesn't give much light inside the building. Down
here, if you had another panel of blue going around there, I think
might break @ up more.
Mr. Tiseo:
We did study that and, frankly, we look it out. We fell that it
started to detract from the building and became a racing stripe
on the building.
Mr. La Pine:
Well, okay. It doesn't do anything for me.
Ms. Smiley:
This is a two story building, right?
Mr. Tiseo:
That is correct.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Is that window at the top of the first ....
Mr. Tiseo:
That window is at the bottom of the ceiling on the second floor.
The first floor has a banded window also and that's under the
covered area. It's in the shaded area as well.
Mr. Taormina:
If I might add something, Mr. Chairman. Maybe its not
represented here with this rendering, but the roof of the building
is actually a few panels below the top of the parapet. That
parapet projects probably a couple of panels above the roofline.
Mr. Tiseo:
Yes, it does. That was deliberate. Rather than on a regular
building, you have the core, you have the mechanical units and
22811
you screen that. What we decided on this building is to extend
the building up around he whole perimeter so it doesn't look like
an add-on. So those panels are two panels higher than the roof
of the building itself. It helps act as a screen wall as well to hide
the mechanical units on the roof.
Mr. Taormina:
So what that does is, it almost gives the illusion that there's
another story on the building without any windows but, in fact,
that's not the case.
Mr. Tiseo:
And the windows on the first floor are here also. The first floor
is about 9,000 square feet, while the second floor is about
17,000 square feet. We have a reduced first floor because of
the fad that we have parking on all four sides underneath the
second floor.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just to further Mr. LaPine's question about this parking, how do
you say doctors cant park there? How are you going to patrol
who parks there and who doesn't park there?
Mr. Tiseo:
It's in the lease.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, I know its in the lease but how are you going to stop them
from parking? For example, a doctor gels a call and he's got a
bad patient. If he's in a hurry to get up to his office to take care
of somebody, he's going to pull into that parking space.
Mr. Tiseo:
Our leasing agent and building manager manage several
hundred thousand square feet of medical, and he assured me
that they enforce that and they do abide by it.
Mr. Alanskas:
You might think about possibly who works there and doctors
have a sticker on your windshield and that way if you saw them
parking there, if you saw that car with a slicker parked there,
you'd know that it does not belong there.
Mr. Tiseo:
That's a good point. We'll put that in the lease.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I've got a comment on that, Bob, if I may. On vacation this year,
I was at a very touristy city, and everybody that wanted to get up
and they had real narrow streets. Everybody who lived in those
upper areas on the streets had a remote and they would push a
remote and it was like a pillar. The pillar would go right dawn
flush with the road, they would drive in, theyd hit the remote
again, it would go up again. No cars could get down there. You
could put that type of system very cheap into this to stop ... if
22812
you didn't have the right frequency on your remote, you couldn't
activate that. I thought it was very clever and it was very
effective. Just a suggestion.
Mr. Tiseo: Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine: Getfing back to trying to break up this building with the blue stip
around it. There's a blue panel around here on this building. It
doesn't look like a racing stripe to me.
Mr. Tiseo: It's also a single story building.
Mr. LaPine: What difference does that make? All I'm trying to do is kind of
break up the mass. You've got no windows in this building
except for that one window up there.
Mr. Tiseo: We have windows on the frstfloor as well as the second floor.
Mr. LaPine: Well, first floor but nothing down here. The window goes from
here to here, right, where the entrance is? Right?
Mr. Tiseo: That's coned, because we have elevators and stairs.
Mr. LaPine: I understand. I just don't see why you can't put another blue
band around it.
Mr. Taormina: If I might also make a suggestion. The largest expanse of the
use of these panels on this building is right here. What they
might be able to do through the use of either some type of
fenestreflon, if he chose to do that, or through landscaping, help
to break that up. So what we could possibly do is introduce
some additional landscaping in this area so to break it up a Iitfle
bit as you're suggesfing, Mr. LaPine.
Mr. Tiseo: We attempted to do that with the landscaping. That's a good
point. We could add some more there to reduce that mass of
that wall on that plane.
Mr. Alanskas: I agree with Mr. LaPine. What you're saying about landscaping,
that's doing the bottom of the building. But I think what Bill and I
are refening to is from the first floor up to the lop of the roof,
that's where to me it's very bland. We need something. Either
that or you could take that roll of windows on the second floor
and make them wider like you're showing here on this one
picture where the band is very wide. This is a much wider band.
You could make those windows wider.
22813
Mr. Tiseo:
Again, we looked at that and, again, for the privacy issue, we
opted not to do that.
Mr. Alanskas:
What's the difference? I mean you still got windows there
anyways.
Mr. Tiseo:
But the windows are high enough to afford you the privacy when
you're in the examining room. If they become lower, you'd have
to close the curtains.
Mr. Alanskas:
Make them higher.
Mr. Tiseo:
Pardon?
Mr. Alanskas:
Go up higher with it.
Mr. Tiseo:
Well, we're up to the ceiling now.
Ms. Smiley:
How big is that window?
Mr. Tiseo:
It's two feel wide.
Mr. Alanskas:
Oh. Its two feet, 24 inches?
Mr. Tiseo:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
The architect seems to have considered a lot of the things that
we brought up and decided that's the way he wants the building,
so I'm comfortable with that.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? With no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I have to agree with everybody here, Mr. Tiseo, on the
appearance, but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I think
you've demonstrated fairly well about the privacy issue, and its
your building and I'm not going to tell you how to design it. And
when I'm reading this motion, Mr. Tiseo, in reference to "as
revised,' is what they were just talking about filling in that blank
on that lower area.
Mr. Tiseo:
Oh, with landscaping?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes. Iwant that understood under that as revised.
22814
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#11-117-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-08-19,
submitted by Tiseo Architects, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with
a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 29029
Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 1, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet P1 dated October 18,
2005, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated October
18, 2005, as revised, prepared by E.J. Kleckner &
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except that additional landscaping shall be added to the
front in order to break up the mass of the building;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet P5
dated October 18, 2005, as revised, prepared by Tiseo
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7. 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;
8. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of concrete with a simulated brick finish
and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not
in use closed at all times;
22815
9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary approvals for
the drive approach and any work within the Eight Mile
Road right -0f --way from Oakland County Road
Commission;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
October 31, 2005;
13. That the landscaped greenbelt along the south property
line, as shown on the approved site and landscape plans,
is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the
protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
14. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's
effectiveness as a protective banner, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
15. That for the southern 64 feet of the east property line, the
petitioner shall have the option of either erecting a
protective wall immediately, going to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a temporary wall variance or seeking the
consent of the abutting property owner(s);
16. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
17. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to the building or
around the windows; and
22816
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the petitioner for giving
us some examples to look at. Mr. Tiseo, when I first saw the
drawing it was very difficult for me, as a nonarchitect, to
visualize what you were doing, but I think Mr. Rencecchi staled
that beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, but I think you
are achieving a high tech look and I'm very pleased at the
prospect of having the doctors located there and this building
constructed. We look forward to it.
Mr. Tiseo: So do we. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2005-10-05-20 ARM 3, LLC
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-08-20
00510-08-20 submitted by ARM 3, LLC requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
restaurant located at 36480 Plymouth Road in the Southwest '%
of Section 29.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of
the vacant restaurant that is located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Market Street. Over
the years this site has accommodated a number of different
restaurants, including "Silverman's" and most recently, "Lucky
Family." The exterior facade of the restaurant would be
completely redone and given a new look. The building is
presently a mixture of back, block and siding. A 5 -foot band of
dryvil, projecting slightly out from the building, would ran along
the lop section of the south and elevations. To cast a glow and
shadowing to the building, recess lighting would be installed
underneath this overhang. Decorative shapes, stone medallions
and wall sconces would accent the top section of the restaurant.
The restaurant's wall sign would also be framed and displayed
across this dryvil band. The rest of the south and east exterior
walls would be covered in dryvit completely, all the way to the
ground. With the synthetic material being exposed in some
places to the daily grand of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and
the possibility of adsorbing moisture from the ground, there are
22817
concerns of deterioration. A geometric pattern would be etched
into sections of the wall dryvit. Elongated ornamental pilasters,
with lighting shining upward, would be installed between the
windows. A cable suspended trellis would be installed over the
main entrance area. New gooseneck or 'Warehouse' lamps
would shine down though the suspended trellis. A radial pattern
framework element would fan out and extend off the roof of the
front (=h) elevation. New wrought iron fencing would be
installed along the front of the building and next to the entrance.
The rear cooler would be endosed with the dryvit in order to
make it blend in with the new look of the building. The petitioner
does not plan on increasing the sealing count established for
the previous restaurants so waiver use approval is rot needed.
This restaurant was previously approved for 78 seats. The site
plan shows an enclosed dumpster area for the restaurant.
Potential locations are behind the building, next to the cooler or,
if a space were deleted, near the northeast comer of the parking
lot. The existing landscaping on the site would remain as is;
13% of the site is landscaped. The plans do not suggest any
type of signage for the new restaurant other then a generic type
wall sign shown on the south elevation. For reference, they
would be allowed one 30 square foot wall sign and one 30
square footground sign.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: We have several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated October 24, 2005, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second prier is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 31,
2005, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the
exterior of the restaurant on property located at the above -
reference address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 2,
2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with a proposal by the owners of 36480 Plymouth
Road in connection with their restaurant remodel. We have no
objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by
David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated November 10, 2005,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October
20, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) This building will require a complete
22818
interior inspection in addition to permitted inspections. (2) The
cooler and shed at the rear are in disrepair. There is no
apparent room to the property line to access the cooler. (3) The
parking lot needs repair, maintenance and double striping. (4)
The existing nonconfomning pole sign is reviewed as being
removed. (5) The existing flagpole is leaning out of plumb, is
too close to the property line and should be removed. (6) The
roof top vents, drains, equipment, etc., appear to be in disrepair
and may need to be replaced. (7) Barrier free accessible
parking needs to be property sized, signed, located and marked.
(8) There is no evidence of a permit ever being issued for the
accessory building. In addition, our records do not show the dog
out' in the property for said shed. The Commission and/or
Council may wish further documentation on the actual property
line. (9) The maximum occupancy previously granted to this
site was 78. (10) The E.I.F.S. is detailed as extending to the
ground level area where it may be susceptible to damage. (11)
The painted 2 x 12 radial design and painted 2 x 12 trellis
system would seem to require intensive maintenance to
maintain it property. This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. The next letter is from Mike's
Construction, dated November 10, 2005, which reads as
follows: `Regarding the procedures and preventable water
hazards for E.I.F.S. Divert all water traps with kick -out
Flashings, rubber membranes, and details with at least a 15
degree angle for proper waterproofing where applicable. Start
Track System on bottom E.I.F.S. for water damage. Caulking of
all joints where E.I.F.S. material meets another material.
Capping all tops with metal where E.I.F.S. is exposed at roof to
prevent water infiltration. Also kick proofing E.I.F.S. four feet
above grade level with a high impact Panzer mesh. If you
should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
call." The letter is signed by Micas Mike) Dukic. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Rasko Perkouic, ARM 3, LLC, 1740 W. Oakley Park, Commerce, Michigan
48390.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to whafs been presented so
far?
Mr. Perkouic: No.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
22819
Mr. Alanskas:
I used to go to that restaurant years ago, a lot, when it was
Silverman's. They had good food there and they did a good
business. Ever since they left, why that restaurant there has
kind of gone downhill. What type of food are you going to have
in this restaurant?
Mr. Perkouic:
As of right now, I'm considering to have a deli and a coney
island, but also have some dinner menu items. Basically, it will
be like a breakfast, lunch, which will include sandwiches,
salads, and then maybe for dinner we will some home cooked
meals.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you hoping to get some business from the Ford Motor plant
right across the street?
Mr. Perkouic:
I'm hoping that I'm going to get business from the surrounding
area, including Ford Motor Company.
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you explain to me these painted 2x12 patterns that are
going lobe slicking how far over the sidewalk?
Mr. Perkouic:
Well, I believe those will be sticking in the lop of the building for
about four feel at most.
Mr. Alanskas:
And its going to be wood?
Mr. Perkouic:
It's going to be 2x4 wood trowels, yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
You know wood always from rain it warps and rots. From the
heat of the sun, it always loses ... what color are you going to
painllhese?
Mr. Perkouic:
Those I believe are going to be a white color.
Mr. Alanskas:
And how are you going to maintain these for wear?
Mr. Perkouic:
I was thinking to clean them and paint them maybe every couple
years. And wash them maybe.
Mr. Alanskas:
I've seen canopies on them, but I've never seen 2x4s.
Mr. Perkouic:
Basically, what I will try to do there is to kind of reflect the sun,
kind of sun shining over the building basically. Just some land
of maybe weird design.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where they come up four feet, what's going to hold these 2x4s
up?
22820
Mr. Perkouic:
They will be attached to the lop of the roof. It will I believe leave
eight feet behind the existing edge.
Mr. Alanskas:
On top of the roof?
Mr. Perkouic:
On top of the roof, yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
And they are going to be nailed into the roof or glued?
Mr. Perkouic:
I believe they are going to be nailed and be attached to the roof.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is it a necessity to have this?
Mr. Perkouic:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Its not. Because I just don't think it adds anything to your
restaurant. I'd rather see a nice canopy there or something. So
you'd have no problem by taking these out of your plan?
Mr. Perkouic:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you very much.
Mr. La Pine:
You've heard our City Planner read the Inspection Department
report. Are you willing to fix all these things that are in this
report? Do you have a copy of this report?
Mr. Perkouic:
I received a copy from Mr. Miller, and I'll be able to comply with
it.
Mr. La Pine:
Are you renting this property or do you own this property or
what?
Mr. Perkouic:
As of right now, lease option to buy. My intentions are to buy
the property and ran it as a restaurant.
Mr. LaPine:
Have you been in the restaurant business before?
Mr. Perkouic:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you have a restaurant now?
Mr. Perkouic:
As of right now, my family owns two restaurants that are ran by
my brothers and I help them out once in a while. One is called
Embers Deli, it is located on Orchard Lake. Another one is on
Maple and Coolidge. And I recently sold a restaurant which was
in Commerce Township at Maple and Haggerty.
22821
Mr. La Pine: You have researched this and you think you can make a go of it,
because I think you're be third owner. Nobody seems to be
able to really make a go of it. I have no problem with it as along
as you can take care of all these violations that the Inspection
Department has cited.
Mr. Perkouic: My predictions are that I will do extremely well here and how
I'm going to back up that is to give 100% of my time and my
knowledge and experience in the restaurant.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you looking for a large carryout business?
Mr. Perkouic:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because you don't have that many seats in the restaurant.
Mr. Perkouic:
I believe 78 seals will probably be enough to support a nice
business. I believe so.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? A motion would be in order.
Mr. Perkouic:
I might have one question more?
Mr. Walsh:
Sir?
Mr. Perkouic:
About the sign which is on the board right now saying
something should be removed? Is that correct?
Mr. Walsh:
That's correct.
Mr. Perkouic:
Is there any chance that I can reuse that existing sign?
Mr. Walsh:
Well, sir, our practice has been when we have the opportunity to
make the signage that currently exists to conform with laws that
have been changed over the years, we take that opportunity to
bring it into conformity with other businesses along Plymouth
Road. So I predict that our group will vote to have that removed
and then you would be able to come forward with a sign
package that is conforming. Mark, is there anything you would
like to add?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. According to Scott, the pole sign that's there now is about
20 feet high. That would have to be replaced with a sign no
higher than 6 feet. So you could have another monument sign.
You could actually move it doser to Plymouth Road. The one
limitation, quite different than what's there today, is the height
22822
would have to be reduced down to a maximum of 6 feet from
grade. That's something that would be permitted.
Mr. Alanskas:
I would just like to correct ...our site plan shows here 2x12's
and you're saying 2x4's.
Mr. Perkouic:
I guess it was my misunderstanding.
Mr. Alanskas:
There's a big difference between a 2x4 and a 2x12.
Mr. Perkouic:
A 2x12 will be like a ... yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
About this wide?
Mr. Perkouic:
yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
But you have no problem removing this one section?
Mr. Perkouic:
The one that goes over the lop? No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-118-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-08-20,
submitted by ARM 3, LLC, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
restaurant located at 36480 Plymouth Road in the Southwest
of Section 29, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet At dated
November 10, 2005, as revised, prepared by The Foresta
Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. 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;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
22823
Department and thereafter pernanenfly maintained in a
healthy condifion;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A2,
dated September 22, 2005, prepared by The Foresta
Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except
for the fact that the painted 2x12 radial pattern element
shown extending over the front of the building shall be
removed;
6. That the lower four (4') feet of the E.I.F.S. material shall be
reinforced with high impact Panzer mesh;
7. 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;
8. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of concrete with a simulated brick finish
and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not
in use closed at all times;
9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary stone water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
10. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated November 10, 2005;
12. That this approval is subject to the removal of the existing
nonconforming ground sign and flagpole;
13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petifion,
and any addifional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
14. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to the building or
around the windows;
22824
15. That the maximum customer sealing of this restaurant shall
not exceed 78 seats; and
16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Ms. Smiley:
Do I have to state something in here that he's going to amend
it?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, I'd just like to say that Item 13, if I may Mr. Chairman, that
you remove the nine 2x12's. This will not be on the site plan. It
will not be approved. The trellis part is fine, but you're going to
take those out. Is that correct?
Mr. Perkouic:
That's fine.
Mr. Walsh:
Is that acceptable, Mrs. Smiley?
Ms. Smiley:
Thatfine.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'll support that motion.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow:
The petitioner seemed a little confused about the pole sign and
what he can do. I would recommend that any questions you
have talk to our staff as it relates to where you can place the
sign and what the size can be relative to our ordinances. Thank
you.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, I'd like to thank you for coming before us and making this
investment. I think this is sizeable. The building looks to be
very attractive, and you have impressed me with what sounds
like a sound business plan. I wish you the best of luck as you
move forward.
Mr. Perkouic:
Thank you. I'm looking forward to working in the City of Livonia.
I hope I can work here for a long fime.
Mr. Taormina:
What will the name of the restaurant be?
Mr. Perkouic
As of right now, I'm debating between a few names.
Mr. Taormina:
Oh, you dont have a name.
Mr. Perkouic:
I have it but I kind of don't have it at the same time.
22825
Mr. Morrow: Do you have a target date for when your restaurant will open?
Mr. Perkouic: As of right now, I'm shooting somewhere for March.
Mr. Morrow: Thankyou.
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#6 PETITION 2005 -09 -SN -07 INFINEON
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
09-SN-07,
00509SN-07, submitted by Tyson Sign Systems, on behalf of
Infineon Technologies, requesting approval for additional
signage for the office building located at 19111 Vidor Parkway
in the Southeast % of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: The applicant is requesting approval to install an additional wall
sign on the office building located on the northwest comer of
Seven Mile Road and Victor Parkway. This property is located
at the southern most boundary of the Victor Corporate Park
development. This office building is two -stories in height and
20,000 square feet in total area. An office building in an OS
district is permitted only one type of identification sign, either in
the forth of a wall sign or a ground sign, not both. On October
27, 2004, this building was approved for one wall sign and one
ground sign. On November 16, 2004 this site was granted a
zoning variance for excessive number of signs, excessive
square footage and deficient ground sign setback. Now the
petitioner is asking for a similar wall sign as the first at 45
square feet to be located on the south elevation, which faces
Seven Mile Road. Because the proposed signage would
increase the deficiencies, the applicant would be required to go
back before the Zoning Board of Appeals for another variance.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated September 22, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 2, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
This site is cunentfy affected by Zoning Grant 2004-11-151 for
excessive number of signs, excessive square footage and
deficient monument sign setback. Therefore, this request must
go before the Zoning Board of Appeals to increase their
22826
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Tyson Sign Systems,
as received by the Planning Commission on August 29,
2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this building closes;
3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to the building or
around the windows;
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
5. 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
deficiencies." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Jeff Fellon, 19111
Victor Parkway, Livonia, Michigan. I am representing Infineon
Technologies.
Mr. Walsh:
Do you have anything to add to the presentation?
Mr. Fellon:
No, other than this office is a sales and marketing office and is
the headquarters for the automotive business. What we've
seen in the sign facing 1275 is easy to view our business, but
we'd like to add the sign facing Seven Mile so then when people
exit I-275, they could find our office location pretty easy.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the commissioners? Seeing that
our audience is empty, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Alanskas, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#11-119-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-09SN-07,
submitted by Tyson Sign Systems, on behalf of Infineon
Technologies, requesting approval for additional signage for the
office building located at 19111 Victor Parkway in the Southeast
%ofSection 6, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Tyson Sign Systems,
as received by the Planning Commission on August 29,
2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this building closes;
3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to the building or
around the windows;
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
5. 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
22027
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section
of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item
section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at
length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary
please read the next item?
ITEM #7 PETITION 2005-09-0140 STEVEN SCHAFER
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
09-01-10, submitted by Steven J. Schafer, on behalf of David
and Paula While and Crystal Sickels, requesting to rezone the
properties at 9229 Newburgh Road and 9350 Stonehouse
Avenue, located on the west side of Newburgh Road between
Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31
from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, the petitioner was here earlier this evening. I
don't see him currently.
Mr. Walsh: He might be out in the hallway. Mr. Miller, would you mind just
checking?
Mr. Taormina: We do have new information. Unfortunately, it will take a minute
to be able to present it on the screen. I'll allow Mr. Schafer,
while I'm selling this up, to describe the conceptual plan that
was presented along with this rezoning application, which in
essence shows how this development may tie into the adjoining
development to the south. That was land previously reviewed
by this Commission and approved to be rezoned to the R-1
zoning classification, the same zoning classification that Mr.
Schafer is proposing. With bat, I'll allow him to describe his
plan more fully.
Mr. Walsh: If we can wail just a moment on a procedural issue. We need to
remove this from the table.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it
was
22828
#11-120-2005 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-09-01-10, submitted by Steven J.
Schafer, on behalf of David and Paula White and Crystal
Sickels, requesting to rezone the properties at 9229 Newburgh
Road and 9350 Stonehouse Avenue, located on the west side
of Newburgh Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in
the Southeast 114 of Section 31 from RUF to 1-1, be removed
from the table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Would the petitioner please come forward?
Steven J. Schafer, Schafer Development, 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite
720, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening. I'm here
before you tonight on the rezoning of this section of property.
There had been a request that we show the Soave property w@h
his proposed configuration. Actually, at the study session, we
had shown up with one of the neighbors. She couldn't come
tonight. Her mother was ill. She did call me and nothing has
changed with the residents other than they'd like to see us try to
do some improvements and pathway, maybe with some natural
materials, some benches, things like that, within the park area
because of some of the open space issues that we have in
here. I think this would be some very meaningful open space.
Also, there was a concern from the Stonehouse residents that I
mel with on a straight cul through into Stonehouse and creating
a way for traffic to cut through the neighborhood. So what we
did was set up five lots on Stonehouse street, as well as
orienting the rest of the lots on this ring route through here.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Schafer, if I heard you correctly, you're kind of like in
negotiations with the city in reference to that land?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So you incorporated at lead a part of it for open space for your
project. Is that correct?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes. I don't believe that the city is going to sell the land. We've
already researched that to see if they would sell that, but I think
it's dedicated parkland. I think we would have to put it on a
roster, but we would work with the Parks department to do some
type of a natural pathway with some benches and things like
that because right now its really not used at all. A lot of the
neighbors just thought it was a big vacant lot.
22829
Mr. Pieroecchi: So you will make it useable as open space?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine: Have you and Mr. Soave decided who's going to develop them
or are you each going to develop your own housing?
Mr. Schafer: I provided him with a plan at this point. Al this point, we're each
going to develop our own, but I would like to sit down with him
once we get a little bit further along. Tonight is a pretty big
milestone for us, but I would give Mr. Soave a call in the
morning and try to set up a meeting with him to try to button up
loose ends. I've indicated my willingness to work with him in
any capacity, whether he wanted to develop the whole thing or if
we're both outthere building.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, there is nobody in
the audience to come forward. A motion would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#11-121-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 25, 2005, on
Petition 2005-09-01-10 submitted by Steven J. Schafer, on
behalf of David and Paula White and Crystal Sickels, requesting
to rezone the properties at 9229 Newburgh Road and 9350
Stonehouse Avenue, located on the west side of Newburgh
Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southeast
114 of Section 31 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 200509-01-10 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with existing developed lots in
the area immediately to the west of the subject property;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning
districts in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
family residential development similar in density to what is
existing in the neighboring area; and
22830
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
land use recommendations of the Future Land Use Plan.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to thank Mr. Schafer for getting on a fast track
and getting that site plan to us. I'm glad to approve this with
you.
Mr. Schafer: Thankyou.
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 #8 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING PARKING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a notion to hold a
public hearing, submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant
to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 2.09, Definitions of Parking Terms, of Article II of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, so as to reduce the minimum size
requirement for parking spaces devoted strictly for the use of
employees of commercial establishments.
Mr. Walsh:
This is simply a motion to hold a public hearing. Mr. Taormina,
is there anything for us to consider other than establishing the
date?
Mr. Taormina:
Just a technicality, and that is the amendments will likely affect
not only Section 2.09 but also 18.37.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
I see we have commercial establishments. Does that include
office? I thought it was the office we were considering.
Mr. Taormina:
The center of the discussion at our study meeting next week will
be this issue of exactly what types of establishments, zoning
classifications, etc., this amendment will apply to.
Mr. Morrow:
So that's a broad interpretation.
Mr. Taormina:
As it stands now, it would apply to all non-residential
developments. It would apply in the case of retail, office
service, commercial, anything, even industrial, anywhere where
22831
AYES:
employee panting is provided and it's designated for employee
use only, that's how the draft has been presented to the
NAYES:
Commission. We can more narrowly define that to office,
ABSTAIN:
industrial, etc., and I think, again, that this is what we're going
ABSENT:
really focus on at next week's study session.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou forlhat clarification.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just one question to Mark. As we go through this process, will
we have it done in time for it to go forward to the Council for the
two office buildings or will they still have to go to the ZBA?
Mr. Taormina:
They will proceed along to the Zoning Board of Appeals first.
There is no way we can get this amendment complete in time.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
If there are no further comments, a motion would be in order.
On a motion
by La Pine, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#11-122-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not
to amend Section 2.09 of Article 11, Definitions, and Section
18.37 of Article XVIII, Supplementary Regulations, of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, so as to reduce the minimum
parking space size for designated employee parking spaces.
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
amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Alanskas, Pieroecchi, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Shane
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
22832
ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 914TM Public Hearings
and Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 914" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on October 11, 2005.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Piercecchi, and adopted, itwas
#11-123-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 914" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October
11, 2005, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES:
LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Shane
ABSTAIN:
Alanskas
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 918"' Regular
Meeting held on November 15, 2005, was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman