Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-09-29 16413 MINUTES OF THE 772ND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 29, 1998,the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 772nd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James McCann Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale Elaine Koons William LaPine Members Absent: None Messrs.'s Al Nowak Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner III were also present. Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning of vacating request,this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and makes 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 approval. 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 is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing,to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolution#134-98 requesting the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on whether or not to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road between Orangelawn and Richland Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1. Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to hold a public hearing? On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #9-158-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543,the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held on whether or not to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road 16414 between Orangelawn and Richland Avenues in the N.E. '/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in section 23.05 of Ordinance#543,the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. LaPine: Can I ask just one question? In the staff notes, they talk about additional lots that they believe should be rezoned. Will they be part of this petition? Mr.Nowak: Yes they will. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-8-2-16 by Dale T. Culver d/b/a Culver Custom Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct a detached condominium project on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Park Avenue and Fairway Drive in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. McCann: Mr.Nowak, is there any new information on this? Mr.Nowak: Yes,we have a letter from Mr. Michniak, dated September 29, 1998, addressed to the Members of the Planning Commission which states: "I am writing to you to express my opinion in regards to the proposed detached condominium project identified as Petition 98-8-2-16. I am sorry, but I was not able to appear in person at the last planning commission meeting and I find myself in the same situation this evening. However, I did attend the meeting held with the concerned homeowners and Mr. Tye Culver this past Thursday evening. My wife and I have lived at 14097 Park for the past thirteen years or so and have enjoyed the area greatly, not the vacant land,but the neighbors and general area. I find the issue of this vacant parcel of land pulling at me from multiple sides. Personally, my wife and I feel the property behind our home is a disgrace. The north end of the property is cut once in a while but immediately behind my home is left as a jungle. Animals which live in this "jungle" have destroyed my lawn, both front and back. My large evergreens are being choked out by vines and weeds. On the other hand,I am currently vice-president of the local homeowners association and I feel the obligation and need to support the surrounding homeowners in regards to their concerns. I understand their concerns and agree with many of them. However, I am also a realist, and I know eventually something will be built on this parcel of land. Mr. Culver and his associate, I felt,were very cordial 16415 and willing to address concerns with this proposed project. The changes he has made in regards to his original plan have been well thought out and show, I believe, a genuine concern to try and make this project the best it can be for the surrounding homeowners. Being a licensed Realtor, I have seen far worse proposed projects become reality. With regrets, my wife and I will support Mr. Culver's proposed development. I don't remember which planning commission member said it, but it fits in this situation. Paraphrasing him, he said, "If everything that had some negative issues to it had been turned down over the past many years, Livonia wouldn't be what it is today." We agree. Respectfully submitted, John and Janet Michniak. Mr. McCann: I also received a hand written letter from John Michniak,which states: "Please understand that my letter of support for this proposed project is based solely upon my being a homeowner. I do not speak as vice president of the homeowners association. I think that was clear but I just wanted to be sure the Commission understands this. Signed—Respectfully—John." Is there any additional correspondence? Mr. Nowak: That is the only additional correspondence since the last meeting. Mr. Piercecchi: I have a question. Al,the only problem I can see really with this property is the 15.4' between Lot 74 and I asked the question if we eliminated Lot 3 and rotated that cul-de-sac, would that solve the problem or would it just create another problem for units 4 and 2? Mr.Nowak: I tried a sketch of what you are suggesting and it didn't work. When you offset the cul-de-sac and move it further eastward,then you have to put the 25' setback for the building which is a 65' radius,then you have a house setback of a 35' rear and I just couldn't make it work. Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the petitioner had a meeting Thursday night with the homeowners. I would like to hear from the petitioner what was said there and maybe then we could ask one member of the audience who was there to speak. Mr. McCann: We'll start with the petitioner. Is the petitioner here tonight? Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft. I am the associate that was mentioned in the letter. I wasn't at the meeting two weeks ago but I was at the meeting last week. We were there about two hours. They came up with some good questions. Just to go over and I hope I'm not burdening you, each site in this area would be 60' X 125'. The minimum rear yard would be 30'. The minimum front yard 16416 is 30' the berm is 42' wide. It will be 4' to 4 '/2' high with pine trees and other shrubs, sprinkling system, additional trees to the north and east and all of this will be maintained by the condominium as a limited common element. The drive is 27' wide, curb to curb as illustrated. About 1 V2 years ago you saw a bona fide subdivision try to come in here. Because of the shape and configuration of this land, it is quite difficult to get a bona fide subdivision with a 60' right-of-way. What we've done is we've created at 27' back to back of curb street which would be per your City specs. Any of the storm sewer that is now running or is being drained on this property will be accommodated in our system. And certainly these people can be assured in view of the fact that this is a condominium that all of the shrubs will be maintained by the association. It won't be left like some berms—unattended and they all will be sprinkled. Other than that, I will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, everything you said tonight we've heard. I am interested in what was said or what was discussed at the meeting you had Thursday night. Mr. Roskelly: One of the major comments was the fact that in view of the fact that most of the houses are brick and are almost exclusively ranch homes. One of the biggest suggestions was to limit this to all ranch homes. That was one of the big ones. The other one was regarding the berm and I went over that. It would be maintained by the association. We've added some trees around the entire perimeter of this property. I suggested perhaps a homeowner representative would be able to address what other questions they might have. We were there for two hours and I'm only hitting on a couple of the highlights. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, if I may. What is your client's feeling about going just strictly with ranches because some of the people who called me were upset because of the big colonials that close to their property lines. Mr. Roskelly: Through the Chair to Mr. LaPine. I suggested the idea that it should be all ranches but I am only the gentleman's engineer and I can't make that decision. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: I have something similar, Lot 3 and Lot 64 are only 30' from the property line. Mr. Roskelly: They are at minimum. Mr. Piercecchi: If you put a ranch in there, couldn't they gain a little space between the back of that house and the property line? Mr. Roskelly: No. On the contrary, when you get to a ranch to get the number of sq. ft. you use almost a larger amount of ground area, if you will. 16417 \Mr. Piercecchi: You're talking about width, I'm talking about depth. Mr. Roskelly: We are trying to maintain 30' but certainly it would not be mandated under a condominium and yes, we could perhaps encroach, if you will, and that is the wrong word because really there is no minimum. We were trying to hold the minimum 30' back yard which is normal through most developments. Mr. Piercecchi: So you are telling me a ranch sitting in#3 would not give me more distance? It would not increase the 30'? Is that what you are telling me? Mr. Roskelly: My suggestion to Mr. Culver was to re-design a ranch that would fit in that envelope. Now if by chance if somebody would agree or the person behind would agree that if they encroached another 4', perhaps a normal ranch could be placed there. Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you. Mr. McCann: Mr. Roskelly, I have a couple of questions. Two concerns I have (1) is the closeness. If it's a 30' setback and you have a 28' home,the height of the home is almost to the rear yard. #3 comes extremely close and#1 the sideyard set back to the back yard. I looked at this. The original proposal came in at 9 homes and at that time seemed feasible. Would it be possible to remove home#3, move 1 & 2 around so that#1 is not so close to the rear yard? It would eliminate the problem of having a home within 30' of the rear yard line? Mr. Roskelly: To address the 30' to the rear yard, we would not have to encroach on any of them for that. We could hold the 30' on all of them. I think one of the situations, I hate to use the word economics,because certainly that is not in your chapter; in view of the fact that we have this many units we in turn have given them this very exclusive beautiful berm, sprinkled,trees, etc. and certainly we will follow through with a complete landscape plan and I believe that the minimum between buildings is at least 16' which is certainly equal to or better than the adjoining properties. The setbacks, again, are adequate. Incidentally, on Lot 1 we were too close to the property line because of a 30' easement that goes through there. That house has been moved over and tweaked so that we are completely out of that 30' Detroit Edison easement. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Any questions for Mr. Culver? Mrs. Koons: Mr. Culver, if we did go with all ranch and you have shown us one prototype of a ranch,would you stick with that one or would you have a couple different ranches? Mr. Culver: If were forced to go with all ranches,we would have to modify the plan on the ranch because the ranch I submitted would not fit in a couple of those sites if you want to maintain that setback of 30'. When you get into a ranch 16418 tio to obtain the square footage, it covers a greater land mass because you are going out instead of up. So if we were to go with all ranches, we would have to offer a different floor plan or a different ranch. In addition to the one that is proposed right now, but if I may add,the 30' setback although it looks like a shallow setback, it does meet the minimum requirement. It is very similar to the other homes in the area and their back yard and if I might point out the homes directly behind Lot 3 right now have existing pine trees that are 15' to 20' high. So the fact that the idea of a colonial would be bearing down on the homes behind them really isn't accurate. Mr. McCann: It is a concern of the neighbors because those neighbors have made it very clear that they are concerned about it. Mrs. Koons: Backing up, if there were a ranch and a colonial option, would there still be only the two plans? What I'm looking for is something other that what looks like a cookie cutter kind of development. How much difference are you going to have? Mr. Culver: We would offer more than one elevation or outside design for each floor plan so although you've got one home of each as shown to you,there would be a bigger variety offered. In addition, we have staggered those homes so they don't have the same exact set back. So if you look down the street, you don't see one home perfectly in line with the one next to it. We've staggered them back and forth. I think we've offset them about 5' or so, so there is a slight variation there. The reason we did that was to avoid the effect that you were just speaking of because what we did do, of course, was increase the width of that road by a foot to address the Fire Department's concerns of parking and to straighten that road out, not only were we able to widen it a foot, we were able to increase the width of that berm by 12'. Not only being able to make it wider,we were also able to make it higher. There is a diagram here which shows that with the berm at 4 Y2' with no plantings on it at all, a 6' man's eye of vision would actually be 4' over the furthest point of road which would be the curb on the opposite side so that road would be completely out of site for a 6' man with no plantings on it at all. Mr. McCann: Any other questions at this point? Is there any objection by the Commission to hear from the audience. Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition. Since we've already held a public hearing, we're going to limit it to only additional new information. If someone from the association wants to come up and give us a report on the meeting,that would be helpful or anything that is relevant to this. Jerry Pfeifer, President of SMB Estates Civic Association, 14515 Ronnie Lane. I acted as the moderator. We passed out flyers, I reserved the room at the school. We had the meeting last Thursday on the 24th. We had about 20 residents along with the builder. We met for about 1 V2 hours going over the details about the ranch vs. the two story and where most of the residents were in favor of going with the ranches and/or accepting one or 2 two story homes but the 16419 builder was pretty adamant about not putting anything like that in writing. We also talked about easements and we would like to see exactly where all the utility poles are located now in the plan. How they would fit into the greenbelt areas and if there would be any underground wiring put in and where that would go and would there be any opportunities for the residents to take advantage of that without any additional expense to them. We talked about drainage on the site and they discussed how they would handle the drainage and our initial reaction was it probably was satisfactory but we would like to see detail plans of that The turn around was also discussed. The location of it and although they have moved it away from the property line about 10',the plan they showed us was about 15' away. But again, the residents are still concerned that it is still too close to the property line. The road widening was discussed which allows for parking on one side of the street. Fencing was discussed. There are a few open spots around the property. If this goes through, we would want to make sure the fencing was closed by the contractor. There is also major concern over the berm although they have increased the area by 40'. There is major concern on the berm especially by the residents along Fairway because this double frontages to them in the front and the rear and how it would be landscaped. There are a lot of existing trees in that berm area but the question is if you put 4' of dirt over the top, what is going to happen to the tree roots. There are concerns about how that would actually be landscaped and when you get close to the turn around,the berm area would only be about 2' high which would allow for car lighting to distract neighbors when cars are turning around. How that is structured and maintained and treed is a vital critical question to all the residents and there isn't enough information being presented for them to know whether they can fully accept that. I know the residents do have other concerns and if you have the time, I would appreciate it if you would let them speak. Thank you. Cathy Heath, 14169 Park. I am Lot 63. House#3 backs up to my house 30'. My concern is having a house that close to my property line. From what we have heard a colonial seems to be the only house that can fit that site in the envelope. I would say that is not true. He could remove one of the homes and fit in the ranch that we need to have back there. It isn't consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. We have no colonials back there especially 30' from the property line. I am against this plan. I don't think we should be concerned with his profitability. A plan is feasible where we don't have a road 10' from Zatto's back yard where I don't have a colonial towering over me 30' from my property line and to depend on my evergreen that's dying anyway. To me this is not a good plan. Denise Carnello, 14073 Park. We don't live there right now,we are renting. We bought another home in Livonia. You've done a great job with all the planning in Livonia. We were here about 5 years ago talking about another developer. I think this is even worse to stick a bunch of condos in a subdivision. I feel if you let this proposal go through, Livonia is going to start looking like 16420 Canton. You know you can only park on one side of the street in Canton. I think this will lower the standards of our City and I just hope you continue to plan our city as you have been. Robert Wenderski, 14193 Park Ave. I would like to state my opposition to this plan. One thing that came out of the meeting last week was the size of these homes. It was mentioned they would be from 1600 sq. ft. to 2100 sq. ft. with a two car garage. I am assuming to be attached. My house is on a similar lot but is only 1,000 sq. ft. with a one car attached garage. That would be very much imposing on the houses on Park. Another item that came up in the meeting last week was the material used in the homes and if my notes are correct the colonial would be 60%brick on the 1st floor and a different material on the 2nd floor. It would not be aluminum siding but a second type of material. In a ranch home there would be 8%brick and again the houses all along Park are virtually all brick. I think they look much more esthetic than to have a combination of different kinds of materials. I don't think that would look good at all. Also,the area behind the homes that Mr. Michniak mentioned that is not being maintained. That could be remedied by the current owners maintaining that in a proper way. And just to mention again the frontage of the houses on Fairway is quite unusual and perhaps not at all permitted up to this point in the City even with the berm you would still have that road on either side. This might not be very attractive to someone thinking to perhaps buy those homes. Thank you. Gerald Grysko, 35733 Middleboro, Lot#70. Good evening. First, I must say this plan presented by Mr. Culver covers most the of the concerns raised by the residents and is one of the better plans submitted however an engineer involved with this project did take time to meet with us and go over the plan and clarify some of our concerns. I did appreciate this. However, I think we all agree a project like this requires a certain amount of trust on our part. I would expect that the Planning Commission would not settle because this plan was the best plan that was offered. We are under no time constraints to rush to develop this land. When the City agreed to develop the SMB Estates leaving it land locked,they must have considered we would be faced with such a situation. We have grown accustom to the quality, design and development in Livonia and would hope this plan would go through the same scrutiny as any other development in Livonia both past and present. Mr. Culver lead us to believe that he owned this land and that it was his land to develop. We have learned that his purchase is contingent upon approval of this plan. I feel the residents were mislead. Again, the road behind the home on Fairway, apparently this issue cannot be resolved even with a 4 '/2' berm and planted trees. How long will it take these trees to mature. Will it be before the children living in these homes are grown and gone. The neighbors on Fairway are the most impacted and this road behind their homes is a major concern. Thank you. Zoltar Antel, 14216 Fairway, Lot 72. I am concerned about what the Planning Commission is going to do about the property I own. I want to remind and ask the 16421 Commission if you received a letter from our president Jeffry Pfeifer and not the letter form the vice president dated September 14, 1998 stating his views that the rejection of Culver to build in our area was unanimously approved to reject. I just wanted to remind the Commission of that fact. I have another objection and I will read this part ...that"Pine Hollow is not consistent with the character of the existing subdivision in the surrounding community". Further it is not consistent with the City of Livonia. This is part of the rejection we had before. Mr. McCann: Sir, I did ask earlier—everyone was at the public hearing last time. This is suppose to be new and additional information regarding the changes. We were all present. We had the letter. We each got a copy of the letter. It would be unfair to start now going through that hearing again. Mr. Antel: I do want to say I object to the so-called road. It resembles more of an alley that is going to go behind my house. The association does not think that this proposal as laid out is compatible with the surrounding subdivision. Thank you. James Borrusch, 14048 Fairway, Lot 75. I just wanted to reassure the Planning Commission that this was turned down two years ago because it was detrimental to people on our street. I would like to see that you think that way again because we don't want two streets. I would like to say that the person who signed that letter also signed the petition against this development too. So he is on both sides of the fence. Thank you. Susan Willis, 35669 Middleboro (Lot 67) I am not sure if a colonial or a ranch would be put in back of our house. I don't have any trees to block our view and our neighbor doesn't either. That's a major concern of mine. If this plan does go through, I would like for them all to be ranches to be standard with the neighborhood. I don't like the idea of a colonial towering into my backyard. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there any final comment from the petitioner? Mr. Roskelly: Just one or two comments. I suggest if you lived in the first 9 lots,the cars they spoke of in the cul-de-sac, wouldn't be using the cul-de-sac, only the last 3 lots would use the cul-de-sac. If this was an all ranch neighborhood, the brick would be 80%meaning only the eves or a few other items would be other than brick. One thing that I just wanted to note,we have two car attached garages. A lot of these homes have a two car garage in the back yard with perhaps 10' to 15' from the rear yard and we certainly would not encumber this backyard with any out buildings or garages. I think Mr. Culver wanted to address the ownership. Mr. Culver: I just want to clarify one point. That the property was purchased with no contingencies. I don't know where that gentleman got his information but 16422 that is incorrect. Although I would like to see this go through,the purchase of that land is not contingent on this approval. Mr. McCann: If there are no further comments, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on September 15, 1998, on Petition 98-8-2-16 by Dale T. Culver d/b/a Culver Custom Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct a detached condominium project on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Park Avenue and Fairway Drive in the S.E. '/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council and that Petition 98-8-2-16 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the proposed project will not be in character with the existing residential development in the area; 1 3) That the proposed project will have a detrimental effect on abutting residential properties; and 4) That the proposed project will overburden the subject land with more dwelling units than would ordinarily be possible with conventional subdivision platting. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: AYES: Mr. McCann, Mr. Piercecchi, Mr. Hale NAYS: Mr. Alanskas, Mrs. Koons, Mr. LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Mr. Piercecchi: I move the petition be tabled to the next meeting. Mr. McCann: This petition was received August 13 so we can go to the October 13 meeting to be within the 60 days limit. It will go to the meeting of the public hearing instead of a special meeting. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, it was RESOLVED that,pursuant to a public hearing having been held on September 15, 1998, on Petition 98-8-2-16 by Dale T. Culver d/b/a Culver 16423 Custom Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct a detached condominium project on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Park Avenue and Fairway Drive in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 98-8- 2-16 to the meeting of October 13, 1998. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: AYES: Mr. Piercecchi, Mrs. Koons, Mr. McCann NAYS: Mr. Alanskas, Mr. LaPine, Mr. Hale ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on September 15, 1998, on Petition 98-8-2-16 by Dale T. Culver d/b/a Culver Custom Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct a detached condominium project on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Park Avenue and Fairway Drive in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-8-2-16 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc. as received by the Planning Commission on September 24 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick on each unit shall not be less than 55%on two-story and not less than 80% on one-story homes; 3) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 4) That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following requirements as outlined in a letter from the Fire Marshal dated August 31, 1998: • That a hydrant be provided at or near the cul-de-sac. Due to exposure distances being less than 30 feet, the dead-end hydrant shall flow 1,000 G.P.M. with a residual pressure of 20 P.S.I. . That an additional hydrant be provided at normal spacing for residential area(s)between cul-de-sac and Schoolcraft Road. 16424 5) That the private road serving this development shall be at least 27 feet in width, and 6) That an Entrance Marker plan and a fully detailed Landscape Plan including the berm areas shall be submitted for approval within 30 days following approval of this petition by the City Council. For the following reasons: 1) That the proposed plan is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; 3) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 4) That the proposal represents a reasonable and well designed land use solution for a parcel with difficult site limitations. A roll call vote was taken with the following results: AYES: Mr. LaPine, Mr. Alanskas NAYS: Mr. Piercecchi, Mr. Hale, Mrs. Koons, Mr. McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declares the motion fails. The petition is automatically tabled to The next regular meeting which is October 13, 1998. Mr. Alanskas: I think this is a very difficult piece of land. I think this plan before us is about the best thing that we can do that makes it feasible for both the citizens and the residents and the petitioner. The only concern I did have was the 15' turn around and I did hope that can be heavily screened more so than what you show. If by chance a fire truck is called in or a police car and if there were young children living in lots 74 or 75 and they heard sirens they might try to jump the fence to see what is happening and if you put more screening there that might ease my contentions of possibly having a problem there. That's why I won't be supporting this. Mr. Piercecchi: Bob, I really appreciate your opinion and I have great respect for it. That's why I wanted to table this thing, especially on Lot#3 which is only 30' away. Perhaps that can be relieved a little bit and perhaps that cul-de-sac can be moved a little fit. That's why I voted to table it, unfortunately it failed. I wanted to resolve the same problems that you have. Mr. Alanskas: Mr.Nowak said that wouldn't work. 16425 Mr. Piercecchi: Maybe so. Mr. McCann: My concern against this plan is that it isn't an R-2. It is a unique piece of parcel. I think it is reasonable that it is going to be developed at some time however, I don't think cluster housing is appropriate. I think it needs to meet the R-2 standards. It came in under site condos. There may only be 9 homes but that would match the existing area. It would eliminate having the problem of a 30' set back to the rear property line. I could live with a narrower 50' road. There are other things that could be done but I think it is two intense— 11 homes in this small unit. Mrs. Koons: Doesn't it go on to City Council with a denying? Mr. LaPine: No, it was not approved or denied. It just lays there until we can come up with either a denial or an approval. Mr. McCann: So I think it is automatically tabled since we've had all resolutions proposed and everyone has failed. It goes automatically to the next regular meeting which is October 13, 1998. We will address this matter as a pending item on October 13. Again, discussion from the audience will require unanimous consent from the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-8-2-17 by Kole Zekaj requesting waiver use approval to remodel and expand an existing building in connection with a proposal to operate a full service restaurant on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. McCann: Is there any additional correspondence? Mr. Nowak: No. Mr. McCann: Sir, you were to bring in the materials. Mr. Zekaj: Yes sir. I have them for the Commissioners to see. Mr. McCann: That looks like panel brick. Is it? Mr. Zekaj: No sir. Mr. McCann: The red is for the sign? Mr. Zekaj: Yes sir,just the sign. Mr. LaPine: The neon—you're going to have three stripes on each side? Mr. Zekaj: Yes sir. 16426 Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mr. LaPine: I would just like to say I am glad to see that old restaurant gone and something finally going in there. It has been a real eye sore for a long time. Mr. Alanskas: What are your hours going to be there? Mr. Zekaj: We will be open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Mr. Alanskas: Is that seven days a week? Mr. Zekaj: Yes sir. Seven days a week. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to have the lighting turned off one hour after closing. Mr. Zekaj: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #9-160-98 RESOLVED that, a public hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 15, 1998 on Petition 98-8-2-17 by Kole Zekaj requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 28,the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-8-2-17 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet S-1 prepared by Antonino Scavo & Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on September 10, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets 7 and 8 of 21 prepared by H.C. Raptoplous, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on September 14, 1998, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the maximum number of customer seats to be provided is 124 seats; 4) That the three walls of the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of poured concrete with simulated brick pattern and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 16427 5) That all light fixtures as shown on the Site Plan detail shall be shielded from adjacent properties and all light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height; 6) That the Wall Sign and encased neon shown on the color rending, which are consistent with the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with Appeal Case No. 9808-106, are hereby approved; 7) That the other conditions imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with the above referenced Appeal Case shall be complied with; 8) That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted for approval within 30 days following approval of this petition by the City Council; 9) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 10) That all signage for this restaurant, including the encased neon, shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after closing. For the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. Zekaj: Could I ask you one more question please? I am having a lot of problems with people dumping debris in there. Is there anyway I can expedite this so I can get this started before the weather gets bad. Mr. McCann: You will have to call the Planning Department tomorrow and see what you (heare allowed to do. Mr. Zekaj: I spoke to Al Nowak and John Nagy. 16428 Mr. Nowak: He's looking for you to waive the 7 day rule. Mr. McCann: Did anyone contact Council to see if it would benefit him if we decided to do it? Mr. Nowak: Not that I am aware of. Mr. McCann: In order for us to waive the 7 days we have to contact the City Council and the President of the City Council, Mr. Jack Engebretson, has to tell us affirmatively that it would be put on his agenda quicker because it has to go through a lot of City process and creates a lot of extra work for us to waive the 7 day rule. Mr. Zekaj: Sir, I am pleading with you because honestly when the rain comes in and the cold Mr. McCann: I understand that but the problem is you have to get on City Council agenda and in all likelihood waiving the 7 day rule will not advance you any time and will create more work for the people in the City. O.K.? If it would have helped you, I would have been glad to put it forward but I don't think it will. Mr. McCann: Mr. Piercecchi, please call the next item. toy Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-9-8-28 by William Ditzhazy requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct the Laurel Village Site Condominiums on property located at 18981 Laurel Road in the N.W. '/4 of Section 9. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Laurel between Seven Mile and Curtis. The property is zoned RUFB. The size of the area is 1.36 acres. The petition is requesting approval to develop a site condominium development on the subject property. The submitted Site Plan shows that the new development would consist of three (3) condominium lots. Each lot would be only 0.45 acres in size, whereas, an RUFB zoning classification requires a minimum V2 acre lot. If this petition is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, a variance would be needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals before any unit could be constructed. As with deficient lot splits, the Zoning Board would be the last step of the approval process. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Tom Nemes, 37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 390, Farmington Hills, MI. His son, Darrell Ditzhazy is here tonight. William Ditzhazy had heart surgery and couldn't be here tonight. He is doing fine. Darrell is here to answer any questions. Mr. Piercecchi: I have a couple of questions. I notice that you gave me the Sterling Plan. Is that going to be the sole unit in there? 16429 (iime Darrell Ditzhazy: The three (3) units will look similar to that. Mr. Pierceehi: They are all going to be two story? Mr. Ditzhazy: Yes sir. Mr. Piercecchi: What percentage brick are these two stories? Mr. Ditzhazy: Probably 50/50. The bottom will be all brick on the front, as you can see— 70/30. Mr. Piercecchi: The brick is going to be 70%on these homes? The houses that are there, are similar to this. You do understand that you have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals after our approval because each lot will only be 0.45 acres in these lots and you need V2 acre to clear without any problem. Mr. Ditzhazy: Yes Sir. Mr. Piercecchi: This is 3100 square feet. What's going to be the size of the other ones? Mr. Ditzhazy: The same size. Mr. Piercecchi: They're all going to be 3100 square feet? Mr. Ditzhazy: Yes sir. Mr. Piercecchi: What type of tab is going to be on these? Have you come up with that yet? Mr. Ditzhazy: No sir. Mr. Piercecchi: What range? Mr. Nemes: Consistent with other homes in the area developed north of the property, closer to 7 Mile. Mr. Piercecchi: Normally, when I ask this question, they say it is going to be $125.00 square foot. That would put these up close to $400,000. Mr. Ditzhazy: It's close to that. Mr. Piercecchi: We're in that ball park? Mr. Ditzhazy: Yes. (10„ Mr. Piercecchi: I have no more questions. Mr. McCann: Will you be building these yourself? 16430 Mr. Ditzhazy: Yes. Mr. McCann: You will be the general contractor? Mr. Ditzhazy: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Mr. Alanskas: You have built homes before? Mr. Ditzhazy: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: Where? Mr. Ditzhazy: My father built homes in California and Michigan. Mr. Alanskas: Any in Livonia? Mr. Ditzhazy: I believe one or two, yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. (tie Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak to this petition? Seeing no one,a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #9-161-98 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-9-8-28 by William Ditzhazy requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct the Laurel Village Site Condominiums on property located at 18981 Laurel Road in the N.W. '/4 of Section 9 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Master Deed complies with the requirement of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.045-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance #543, Section 20.01-20.-06 of the ordinance, except for the fact the following shall be incorporated: that the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each unit shall not be less than 55% on two-story and not less than 80% on one-story homes; 2) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 16431 3) That the Site Plan prepared by Metco Land S.E.A. Corporation, as received by the Planning Commission on August 25, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That no portion of any site condominium may be sold or offered for sale, nor shall a permit be issued for construction and the development shall not be recorded with Wayne County until a variance, for deficient lot size, has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 5) That the petitioner shall meet to the Engineering Department's satisfaction the matter of backyard drainage and storm sewer runoff as outlined in the correspondence dated September 14, 1998; 6) That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-9-8-29 by Darmik, Inc. requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct the Whispering Pines Condominium Subdivision on property located at 35345 Seven Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Miller: The location for this petition is on the south side of Seven Mile between Wayne and Gary. The zoning is R-4B, One Family Residential (90' X 130'). The size of the area is 11.04 acres. The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a site condominium development on the subject property. The submitted Site Plan shows that the new development would consist of twenty-two (22) condominium lots. According to the submitted documentation the new neighborhood would be called"Whispering Pines Site Condominium Subdivision". Access would be achieved by a proposed north/south 60 foot wide street that would end in a cul-de-sac. The petitioner has also submitted a Landscape Plan and Entrance Marker Plan. The green landscaping shown is for the 30 ft. common area along Seven Mile Road and within the boulevard island of the entrance of the development. Then plan also shows that the petitioner is proposing a wooden fence with stone pillars along the entire front width of the greenbelt. The entrance marker shown on the plan is conforming at 20 sq. ft. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Michael Garavaglia, 34250 Ford Road, Westland. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us. 16432 Mr. Garavaglia: No sir. I'm just anxious to get this project finished since it has been going on for quite a few years. Mr. McCann: How long after you get Council approval do you think you will have the lots up? Mr. Garavaglia: I would imagine as soon as we get Council approval, within a few weeks we will be applying for building permits. Mr. McCann: O.K. Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Any one in the audience? Richard Schmidt, 35320 Danbury Court. I am one of the adjacent homeowners of this development and also speaking on behalf of Sheffield Estates. There is an association meeting this evening or there would be more here. They asked me to attend this meeting and talk to Mr. Garavaglia. As you know, Pines of Winfield, as this was formally called, has been in front of City Council for several years now. At this point, Darmik represents to us a new developer, which is news. The renaming of the project, "Whispering Pines Site Condominium Subdivision"raises questions of basically what exactly it does and when it will begin. The question we have really comes to, what is a site condominium development? What type of construction will take place. I believe we heard here tonight it will be 22 units. Again, what are the lot sizes, square footage of these units. Basically,price ranges, so we can have a feel for what type of construction will be done there. Mr. McCann: Let me answer a few of your questions. To begin with, site condominiums have become a relatively popular type of development in the City of Livonia. There has been recent intepretations by the Michigan Court of Appeals and the State's Attorney's office stating that if you have a Supervisor's Plat which this one was, I believe, or an Assessor" Plat, that you need unanimous consent of the adjacent property owners to change that plat or go to Court and what they have developed is a site condominium project which meets all the requirements of the R-4B. This will have the same yard setbacks. The individual owners will own their own homes. To drive through the subdivision, you would notice no difference between what you see in a normal R-4 B subdivision and the development in this instance. For legal reasons this is a different avenue to approach the development. We have them all over the City of Livonia now. There are some advantages. The City has more control over a site condo inasfar as we control how much brick, as you will notice in the resolution in that we can say how much brick has to be on all four sides of a home, that there shall be a certain percentage of brick. I think what you are going to find is that what you and many residents of the City of Livonia have been waiting to see this subdivision developed, including myself. I think the change is that they will remove the cul-de-sac. Instead of having the cul-de-sac at the north end, which was in 16433 the original preliminary plat approval,they have removed that and made it a straight road with a cul-de-sac at the end of the road. This reduces the number of homes. They will still have the same lot sizes, the ones that are remaining which are very large lots. Other than that, I don't think there will be any changes which will affect the neighbors other than the construction will finally begin. Mr. Schmidt: Is there a way that we can at least see these plats? Mr. McCann: We have one here. Can we put it on the board again, Scott. And hopefully Channel 8 will put it up so everyone at home can see. It should be on that monitor right above your head. Mr. Schmidt: We are pretty familiar with the layout. Mr. McCann: The layout for the majority has not changed whatsoever. Mr. Schmidt: One of the questions we had would be this. As you know, City Council has directed the Department of Public Works,the City Engineer has been involved, they continue to monitor the project now for time line for development and if it continues to update and through City Council a time line for construction, will that continue? Mr. McCann: That is something that we have no control over. That is a preview of the different departments within the City and the City Council. Mr. Schmidt: Basically, what I am asking, is can status reports be provided right to the City Council from the City Engineer regarding when construction will be completed. This was when it was Pines of Winfield. What I am asking is, will this continue? Mr. McCann: The City Council would have control over that, not the City Planning Commission regarding this particular site condominium project. Mr. Schmidt: So I would have to take this issue back to City Council. Mr. McCann: Yes sir. Mr. Schmidt: All right then. Not a problem. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, is there any reason why I can't give him my set of plans? Mr. McCann: Not at all. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Schmidt, you can have my set of plans Mr. Schmidt: I appreciate that. Thank you. 16434 Mrs. Koons: Mr. Chairman, we have had all of our questions answered except the square footage and the price range. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner care to comment at this time? Mr. Garavaglia: The way the site condominium documents are drawn up,there is a minimum of 2700 square feet for a story and a half and 2200 square feet minimum for a ranch. Mr. McCann: These are going to sell in the $100,000 to $150,000 range? Mr. Garavaglia: A lot—yeah! We would probably imagine most of the houses will be 3000 sq. ft. give or take 100 feet either way and would be $350,000 to $400,000. Mr. McCann: If there is no further discussion, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #9-162-98 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-9-8-29 by Darmik, Inc. requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct the Whispering Pines Site Condominium Subdivision on property located at 35345 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 'A of Section 9 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Master Deed complies with the requirement of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.045-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance#543, Section 20.01-20.06 of the ordinance, except for the fact that the following shall be incorporated: that the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each unit shall not be less than 55% on two-story and not less than 80%on one-story homes; 2) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full face 4-inch brick,no exceptions; 3) That the Site Plan prepared by Ambit Land Surveyors, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (0, 4) That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following requirements as outlined in the correspondence dated September 21, 1998; 16435 • fire hydrants shall be provided on Aspen Drive with spacing consistent with residential use group • the most remote fire hydrant shall flow 750 GPM with a 20 LP residual pressure 5) That the Landscape Plan as received by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the plant material listed as "Flame Amur Maple"shall be a minimum of 2" caliper as required by Section 18.45©of the zoning ordinance; 6) That the Entrance Marker shown on the Landscape Plan, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7) That his approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient setback of the decorative wooden rail fence along Seven Mile Road and for the entrance marker within the public right-of-way, and any conditions related thereto. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Is there any further discussion? Good luck! Mr. Garavaglia: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Assuming you get approval from Council, and just to ease the gentleman's mind,when would you get started? Mr. Garavaglia: With the calls we've been getting,the sales should be done within 18 months and another 6 months after that. Mr. Alanskas: So, another two years of construction. Mr. Garavaglia: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-9-8-30 by Holy Transfiguration Orthodox Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the church located at 36075 Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Miller: The church is located on the south side of Seven Mile between Wayne and Fairway Avenue. Holy Transfiguration Orthodox Church is requesting approval to construct an addition to the west elevation of their existing church. The new addition would be 10,505 sq. ft. in size. The existing 16436 building now sets at 9,438 sq. ft. If approved,the church would become a total of 19,943 sq. ft. in area. The submitted floor plan shows that the new addition would be utilized as the assembly area and also a new kitchen area. The existing building would contain classrooms and a gathering place. According to the petitioner, it is specified in the Orthodox religion that the altar area shall face east. Presently services are held in the gathering area of the existing structure. A raised platform, that faces north, is used as an altar. The new addition would allow the church to have their altar face east and would also permit the gathering space, of the existing building, use as a meeting place after services. Because the church would only be transferring the same number of seats to their new assembly area, no additional parking would be required. The existing parking lot is a combination blacktop and gravel. As part of this proposal,the church would square off, pave and restripe the entire parking lot. The building materials of the new addition would match the building materials of the existing church. The addition would be construction out of brick and have an asphalt shingled roof. On top of the new assembly area would be an 18 foot diameter pre-fabricated cupola. To help blend in the new with the old, a smaller version of the cupola would replace the steeple on the existing building. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Michael Blanek, 27172 Woodward, Royal Oak. Mr. McCann: Do you have anything additional? Mr. Blanek: No. McCann: Dan, you had a question? Mr. Piercecchi: Is this structure 100%brick? Mr. Blanek: It's all going to be brick and then roof Where the gable ends are the brick will continue on up to meet the roof lines on all four sides. Mr. Piercecchi: It looks white there, which indicates it might be vinyl. Mr. Blanek: On the rendering it was but on the package I sent you, we wanted all brick. Mr. Piercecchi: So it is all brick. I was just wondering if you changed it. This new package is going to be for the assembly and I understand the building is going to be used for classrooms and for different gatherings. Is that correct? Mr. Blanek: Right, they use that right now where they have their worship and their functions are in the same space. What we are doing is building a new addition for their worship and the gathering space would be where the kitchen is and the classrooms are the existing wrap around that would be for 16437 their multi-purpose functions at the church. Mr. Piercecchi: This new addition will have no affect on your parking? Mr. Blanek: No. As a matter of act, we have enough parking now. We are cleaning it up. I don't know if you've been out there. Part of it is gravel. We are going to pave it and stripe it like Scott mentioned. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to re-stripe the whole parking lot? Mr. Blanek: Because it is gravel now they just have the bumper blocks designating the spaces, so by asphalting that in and striping it, it will be better managed. Mr. Piercecchi: Is the other part of the parking all asphalt too? Mr. Blanek: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: We do now require double striping. Mr. Blanek: Whatever we have to conform to,that's not a problem. Mr. Piercecchi: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Is there going to be a cross on top of that? Mr. Blanek: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: How tall is that cross going to be? Mr. Blanek: I can scale it from the elevation plan. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nowak, the cross is in compliance? Mr.Nowak: The cross is exempt from height regulations. Mr. Blanek: The cross is about 4 feet. Mr. Alanskas: O.K. That's fine. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I just want to ask Mr. John Caroll, being an ex-inspector, we know that you've looked this over and everything is fine. From audience: (inaudible) Mr. McCann: If there is no further discussion, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was 16438 #9-163-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-9-8-30 by Holy Transfiguration Orthodox Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the church located at 36075 Seven Mile Road in the N.E. '/4 of Section 8 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 prepared by Stucky-Vitale Architects, as received by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-4 prepared by Stucky-Vitale Architects, as received by the Planning Commission on September 21, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 4) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 5) That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following requirements as outlined in the correspondence dated September 21, 1998; • should any fire area exceed 12,000 sq. ft., an automatic fire suppression system is required and a fire hydrant shall be located between 50-100 feet of the Fire Department Connection • entrance drive off Seven Mile Road and along the drive on the west side of the building shall be posted"Fire Lane-No Parking" per City Ordinance. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Sign Permit Application by Metro-Detroit signs, on behalf of Residence Inn, requesting approval for an additional will sign for the hotel located at 17250 Fox Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Miller: The location of the Residence Inn is on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and I-275. Residence Inn is requesting approval for an additional wall sign for their hotel. As the Planning Commission will recall, this hotel was recently approved for a conforming wall and ground sign. The petitioner would 16439 now like a sign on the east elevation of the building. The petitioner has explained that this elevation would give them visibility from the expressway. (check tape for Scott's comments regarding what ZBA granted) Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Mr. Morris Tate, Marriott International, 5151 Beltline Road, Dallas, Texas 75240. Mr. McCann: Thank you for coming. Are there any questions? Mr. LaPine: The sign over the top, how is that lit? Is it back-lit? Mr. Tate: It is internally lit. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no questions, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was #9-164-98 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Metro-Detroit Signs, on behalf of Residence Inn, requesting approval for an additional wall sign for the hotel located at 17250 Fox Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package submitted by Metro-Detroit signs, as received by the Planning Commission on September 15, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Mrs. Koons: This is slightly irrelevant but since he came all the way here from Dallas, I would like to thank Marriott for being such a good corporate citizen. I am an employee of the school district and they are very supportive of many of our community efforts. Thank you. Mr. Tate: Just a quick comment. Our hotel has actually been open for about a week now. Thank you. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 16440 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 772"d Regular Meeting (ibe held on September 29, 1998 was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION C-6,tuYtRilx.C14-e—tiL Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: _ ;' "'es C. McCann, Chairman /rw