HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-05-18 16866
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
`.... OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 18, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
785th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale
Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons William LaPine
Members absent: None
Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, and Bill Poppenger, Planner I were
also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request,this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
hold its own public hearing, makes the fmal determination as to whether a petition is
approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
'..1r preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the fmal 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 becomes effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption.
The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions
upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight. We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans section of our agenda.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Request for a One-Year
Extension of all plans in connection with Petition 97-11-8-23 which received
site plan approval to construct a site condominium development (Gruda Site
Condominiums) on property located on the west side of Henry Ruff between
Six Mile Road and Puritan Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Henry Ruff between Six Mile and
Puritan. The petitioner is requesting a one-year extension of the approval
granted in connection with the construction of the Gruda Site Condominium
development. The City granted approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site
plan on April 8, 1998. In a letter received by the Planning Commission on
May 5, 1999, the petitioner explains that he is awaiting approval from the
Livonia Engineering Department to begin construction. The project is
scheduled to commence once he received authorization. Staff has requested a
report from the Engineering Department explaining the reasons for the delay.
16867
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Scott, did we get the report from the Engineering Department as to why they
are holding up the approval? Did they get approval yet?
Mr. Miller: Not as far as we know.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#5-87-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Request for a One-Year Extension of all plans in
connection with Petition 97-11-8-23 which received site plan approval to
construct a site condominium development (Gruda Site Condominiums) on
property located on the west side of Henry Ruff between Six Mile Road and
Puritan Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 be approved subject to the
following condition:
That the request for an extension of Site Plan Approval by Zef Ivezaj,
Owner/Developer of the Gruda Site Condominiums, in a letter received by the
Planning Commission on May 5, 1999, is hereby approved for a one year
period and shall be subject to all conditions and requirements set forth in the
`.... original resolution.
Mr. McCann: It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-8-15 by
Investico Development Corporation requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a condominium development on property located at 9204 Middlebelt
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Miller: This location is on the east side of Middlebelt between Joy and Grandon. The
petitioner is requesting approval to develop a condominium development on
property that is located to the north and east (behind) of the Mid Plaza Strip
Center and a 7-Eleven Store. The submitted Site Plan shows that the new
development would be made up of seven(7) buildings and would consist of
twenty-seven(27) units. Five of the buildings, containing between 6 and 4
units each, would be located on the large section of the property to the north of
the strip center. These buildings would be 2-stories in height and contain a
combined total of twenty-five (25) two-bedroom units. On the section of
property behind the center and 7-Eleven would be two buildings each
consisting of a single two-bedroom unit. These buildings would also be 2-
stories in height. Access to the site would be achieved by a single east/west
drive off Middlebelt that would branch off each/west to provide a street to the
condominiums. Parking required is 67 spaces and 67 spaces for parking are
provided. The Landscape Plan shows the project would be screened from
16868
Middlebelt Road by a large 3 foot high landscape earthberm. This berm would
have 15 trees planted throughout it. Plant materials would also be provided in
front of each condominium's entrance. A roll of trees would be planted along
the east property line to help screen this site from the adjoining residential
neighbors. The Elevation Plan shows that the new condominiums would have
their first floor constructed out of brick on all four sides. To provide a bit of
privacy around the back porch area, some of the units would have 7 feet high,
8 feet long brick walls extended off their rear elevation. The second floor of
each building would be covered by siding. The roof would be covered with
asphalt shingles.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated May 12, 1999, from the Inspection Department which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 5, 1999, regarding the
proposal to construct a condominium develop on the east side of Middlebelt
Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue in the southwest 1/4 of Section
36, the site plan has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The existing
buildings as shown on site plan CE-1 (4-27-99) are to be removed from the
proposed site. (2) The proposed monument sign as shown on the site plan
appears to be conforming but was not reviewed as part of the site review. (3)
A brick veneer is shown on buildings to the belt line but does not show type or
quality of veneer. (4) An 8'X 6-1/2' to 7'high brick privacy wall is shown
extending from the rear building line of all units. This is resulting in a
... deficient front yard building set-back for the three buildings affronting
Middlebelt Road. Proposed is 67 feet; required is 75 feet; deficient 8 feet.
Also the southerly building at the south end of the site would have a 3 foot
deficiency into the required 25 foot side yard. A variance would be required
from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the deficient building set-back yard
spaces." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building
Inspector. There is a letter dated May 12, 1999, from the Department of Public
Safety which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with Petition 99-5-8-15 on property located at the
above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal provided:
(1) All access roads will become designated fire lanes and posted as such. (2)
Placement landscaping shall not interfere with turning radius of vehicles. (3)
Turning radius in critical areas of driveway be increased from 10' to 15'." The
letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Inspector. We have a letter
dated May 17, 1999, which reads as follows: "In response to the captioned
petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted."
The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. That is
the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Would you repeat that in regards to 67 feet to 75 feet that you referred to?
Mr. Nowak: Yes, the units show a 6-1/2' to 7'high brick privacy wall is shown extending
from the building wall of the units. I believe because the wall has footings it is
16869
considered a permanent wall so you have to measure your set-back from that
point, from the end of that wall. That would make a deficient set-back. It
would be 67' rather than the required 75'. They would have to get a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals to have those walls the way they are shown.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ron Kashman, Building Design Associates, 330 East Maple Road, Troy, MI. representing
Investico in regard to this matter.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project?
Mr. Kashman: What we are proposing to do is construct 27 townhouse type units,
approximately 1300 sq. ft. each. The site is surrounded by offices. We have
some residential and some commercial and some residential over here. We
came up with a layout on this particular site. It maximizes the amount of green
area that we could use by putting the units with front to front and providing as
much greenbelt between the back of the unit to the residential and also to
Middlebelt and we have also constructed an earthberm that will also help cut
down some of the sound and also some of the visibility and light shining into
the back of the units. I believe that the site will be well landscaped. As you
can see we planted a sufficient number of trees across the front of the site.
And we will also plant some trees across the back of the site. We have a little
layout of how we would plant in between each of the units which we would
have a tree, which is this area here. In regards to the wall, it is an oversight on
my part, I did not realize that by putting a privacy wall in the back here that
would create a problem with a set-back. If it creates that much of a problem
we could go to a privacy screening type fence we could use between the two
units. I just thought this would be more in tune with what the design of the
building with the brick and so forth it would look nicer. It is more my problem
that this became a problem with the set-back. On the first floor we have a one
car garage, we have a laundry room with a half bath, a kitchen area with a
small great room. You would be able to come right up into this unit and go all
the way up to the second floor to which we have two bedrooms and a shared
bath on the second floor. This will also have a full basement under each of the
units. We are proposing to have brick to the second floor line, we have vinyl
side or regular siding, we haven't finalized the materials, it will be beige in
color. We would have a reddish color brick, lower part and a dark brown roof
with asphalt quality shingles. We will paint the doors a teal color or something
to that effect to give it a little better look to it. I believe in this area with the
amount of units that we have provided that we are will within the code and we
feel that this will not overly crowd the site because as you can see we have
quite a bit of greenbelt, the closest unit over here is 58 feet away and this will
be 50 feet at the closest unit over here, to the surrounding which will give the
neighbors over here a little bit more buffer and we would also maintain a
fence, or a wall, that actually is in our property that was there before that we
will also maintain that. We will put a fence along this area to screen the
commercial from our site. I think this complex will be an enhancement to the
area and will not be a detriment to the neighbors, too.
16870
Mr. Alanskas: On the 15 trees that you are planting, all the trees, what is the height you are
r.. planting?
Mr. Kashman: I believe they are all 2 -1/2" to 3" caliper trees, so they are going to be pretty
good size trees.
Mr. Alanskas: What type of tree is it?
Mr. Kashman: We have little leaf linden and snowdrift crabapple.
Mr. Alanskas: I am just trying to figure out within five years how tall they will be.
Mr. Kashman: The three inch caliper is a pretty big tree. They are probably 14'to 15' high
now.
Mr. Piercecchi: I like your layout. The only question I have, has the Fire Department
concurred on all that street layout referenced to turnarounds and things of that
nature?
Mr. Kashman: I believe the way we have this layout with having the additional parking, that
they would be able to pull the truck in and back. I lived in a condominium
complex that had similar conditions in Clinton Township and they didn't have
a problem with the truck getting in and out. That is why we did these little
... areas also that would help the truck back and around and get out.
Mr. Piercecchi: I can see where that one where you've got the two buildings that are sort of
segregated, I can see where the turnaround is. It is just that the main line down
there, hopefully this will be screened by the Fire Department.
Mr. Kashman: We will make sure if we have to meet with the Fire Department if we have to
provide more paved area to maneuver a truck around in there.
Mr. Piercecchi: Whatever they need?
Mr. Kashman: Right.
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand you to say that the units are going to be face to face otherwise
the bedrooms face Middlebelt? Is that correct?
Mr. Kashman: Yeah. We'll have one bedroom and the living room along here will be across
the back.
Mr. LaPine: You enter where?
Mr.Kashman: You enter right off of here.
Mr. LaPine: So the back of the units face Middlebelt.
16871
Mr.Kashman: Correct. The back of the units face that and the residents.
Mr. LaPine: The back facing Middlebelt, is that going to all brick?
Mr. Kashman: That will be brick until the second level will be just like this?
Mr. LaPine: So what the people see from Middlebelt is no doors, no windows and some
brick and some aluminum siding. I don't think that is very good planning. The
next question I have is, you have here, where the two existing buildings are,
you've got 237 lineal feet of new brick wall to match the existing wall and I
thought I heard you mention fences going up.
Mr. Kashman: I meant a brick wall.
Mr. LaPine: So you are going to have a brick wall.
Mr.Kashman: Right.
Mr.LaPine: So this back unit to going to have a back unit starting on Middlebelt Road
going east then it swings west and them goes south and back around. So that
whole thing fenced in is a brick wall.
Mr.Kashman: Right.
r.. Mr. LaPine: So that is going to look from the street is not even a part of the units on the
north side of the property?
Mr.Kashman: Correct. We are just basically doing it to screen it from the commercial part
from our side so there will be no cutting through our site.
Mr. LaPine: Is this the only configuration you could come up with this? There is something
that doesn't hit me just right. I understand you are within the ordinance. I just
don't like the way it is laid out.
Mr. Kashman: With the restraints of the property we have, and the shape of the property we
have and the set-backs of the property that we have, this is the most efficient of
utilizing the property and also providing the most greenbelt. There are other
ways of turning the buildings and so forth but then the greenbelt and the roads,
you are allowed a certain percentage of paved area on the site. We had one at
time that came in and had a road this way and had back to back to units but it
had too much paved area around the site and trying to keep the same amount
of units.
Mr. LaPine: Maybe that is the problem. Maybe we have too many units. Maybe you could
eliminate some of the units and come up with a better configuration than what
we've got here to night. Have you considered that?
�.. Mr. Kashman: We were before the ZBA and at one time trying to get 30 units. Actually it
was a half unit too much and there was too much paved area. We cut three
16872
units out and reduced the density because by ordinance you can go to 30 units
on this site. We cut it down to 27 to maintain as much green area around the
perimeter for the neighbors and all. Front to front is not a problem as long as
we have the 75 foot greenbelt we can do a lot of things with it. We can plant
more trees. You won't even be able to see Middlebelt. We can put some
evergreens and things like that to screen the residents from Middlebelt. You
can do it with landscaping rather than doing it with doing with changing the
configuration of the buildings.
Mr. LaPine: Are these condos?
Mr. Kashman: Correct.
Mr.LaPine: You are going to install underground sprinklers?
Mr. Kashman: Correct.
Mrs. Koons: You have to have a common area, correct?
Mr. Kashman: Basically the whole back of these units are a common area right through here.
Actually the whole thing is a common area?
Mrs. Koons: I have a question for the staff. Is there a certain area of common that they
need and have we met that?
Mr. McCann: On this condominium site plan, we don't have the designated traffic of the
owners so most of the greenbelt is the common area. I don't think we have the
5% like we do on the others.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Kashman, do you know that? Is there a certain amount or is it just up to
our discretion as to how much green there is?
Mr. Miller: There has to be some but there isn't any percentage. That is why we
sometimes accept the island inside the cul-de-sac. On his plans everything but
the buildings and roads are the common area.
Mr. Kashman: That is why we try to keep the buildings close together and provide as much
green area which is a common area, around the complex.
Mrs. Koons: And you alluded in your answer to Mr. LaPine another one of my questions.
You told Mr. Alanskas that we have linden and snowcrab. Are there any
evergreens?
Mr. Kashman: We have linden, snowdrift crab, royalty crab, Colorado blue spruce, gold
moundspirea, plum fern. That is just your decoration inside of this area, black
eyed susan and doro daylily.
... Mrs. Koons : Where do we have blue spruce?
16873
Mr. Kashman: This is blue spruce here and here. That is used for screening also for people
coming into the first unit. They are a good height. They are a six foot height.
Mrs. Koons: The picture, the site plan, that is on the back of that one, the elevations. I know
we have concern about more brick, I also have concern about the second floor
and not too many windows.
Mr. Kashman: The problem we have is that these are small narrow units and we provide the
proper ventilation for each unit. They are actually 4 X 8 and 3 X 4 windows
here and you only have one bedroom. That is all you have. There is not going
to be a lot of upstairs windows. If you put too many windows along here you
lose wall space for beds and dressers and so forth. Since this is a dead corner,
so to speak because of the closet, and we had the bedroom window will
provide us with the proper ventilation. We also have one off the front,the
same thing, 4 X 8 and 3 X 4 and we put this by the stair to light the stair as it
goes down.
Mrs. Koons: The front has a relatively nice look to it but I think the back looks really barren
and it needs something. Even if it were more creative with higher windows or
just one opinion. I have two more questions. What is the price range of the
condo's?
Mr.Kashman: Probably $120,000 and up depending what options, fireplaces, etc.
�.. Mrs. Koons: Do you know what you are going to name your development?
Mr. Kashman: I'm not sure what he is going to name it.
Mrs. Koons: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I've got some questions. I have some of the same concerns as Mrs. Koons.
You say these are going to be two story and a total of about 1300 sq. ft. You
use the term small, narrow units. I realize you are trying to take a site and
make it economically feasible but I am also looking at it and saying what are
we building here? We are going to put these people in so tight that is just
going to get trashed and become an eyesore in the city. Each unit will have a
one car garage, correct?
Mr. Kashman: Correct.
Mr. McCann: There is very little space between them.
Mr. Kashman: Most of these are for empty nesters and they don't need much more than what
we have here for space. A 1300 sq. ft. home is not really that small. That is
what we really have is 1300 to 1400 sq. ft and a full basement.
... Mr. McCann: In order to maintain it in that intensity, having them so tightly together, it
would appear to me that you would need the privacy. Number one, to put up a
16874
wood fence, like you said, I think your original idea you need a privacy fence.
You are so close to your neighbor that you've got to have a brick fence.
Mr.Kashman: You have that in every condominium. I've lived in a condominium and it
was a 2,000 sq. ft. condominium. You have the same problem, your next door
neighbor is right on the other side of the fence.
Mr. McCann: I owned a condominium. I still own a condo but I don't live in it anymore. It
is something that we could look at to make this project the best as possible.
Mr. Kashman: That was my thinking with the masonry wall.
Mr. McCann: I think this is something you need to maintain even if you go to the ZBA just
so the neighbors do have some privacy and it is not a wood fence that is going
to deteriorate. Would you consider going to 100% brick? One of my concerns
is if one of the neighbors starts to let his look bad then the whole thing looks
bad.
Mr. Kashman: You are under an association and everything is maintained by the association.
At least the one I lived in, the association painted the buildings.
Mr. McCann: I've lived in a condo. They won't have to paint them if they are 100% brick.
The cost per unit is not that much since they are narrow. Also I am concerned
about the elevation of the building. I agree with Mrs. Koons, you are going to
have some plantings and the first floor isn't going to be as much of a problem
but for the people living there, how big are the windows in the bedroom
upstairs?
Mr. Kashman: They are 4'8" X 3'4" high.
Mr. McCann: Four foot wide?
Mr. Kashman: Yes.
Mr. McCann: People will put windows above the beds, above the dressers, whatever, but to
broaden or put in a second window, I think would make appearance sake
better and you wouldn't have the vast blank wall. It will help sell the condo
because it won't be as dark in it. As you say, it is narrow and long so you have
a long spance with no windows. I think it is one investment that will pay for
itself. Any other questions? I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the
audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously denied, it was
#5-88-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table Petition 99-5-8-15 by Investico Development Corporation requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on
16875
property located at 9204 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36
to May 25, 1999.
..
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
We would like for you to take into consideration the comments that were made
to you tonight. Also take into consideration the comments from the Fire
Department and the Police Department and incorporate whatever you can to
comply with those and with the recommendations of the Commission.
Mr. Kashman: That is the 25th of this month?
Mr. McCann: It will be the 25th of this month. Will you need more time because you are
going to have to get the plans redrawn?
Mr. Kashman: Oh no. I've got an order to get an approved date. Will I be able to get the
comments from the Fire Department and all that from Scott?
Mr. McCann: Yes. Give him a call during regular business hours and they will make sure
that you get all those comments.
Mr. Kashman: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is sign Permit Application
by Huron Sign Company requesting approval for signage for the office
Nil,, building (Seven Mile Crossing) located at 38695 Seven Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Seven Mile between I-275/96 and
Haggerty Road. The applicant is requesting approval for a wall sign for the
new 4-story office building recently constructed in the Seven Mile Crossing
complex. On the submitted Site Plan the subject building is identified as
Building "C". The proposed sign would be located on the east elevation of
Building "C" and would face out toward the I-275/96 Expressway. This sign
would be internally illuminated. Signage permitted for this site under Section
18.50G is 1-wall sign- not to exceed 95 sq. ft. in sign area. The proposed
signage is 1-wall sign- east elevation- 95 sq. ft. in sign area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated May 12, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request the sign package for 38695 Seven Mile Road has been reviewed.
As proposed, no problems were found to exist. I trust this has provided the
requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Gene Carroll, Architect with Newmann Smith Architects, 400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 555,
Southfield, MI 48034. I am here representing both the owner, Prentiss
16876
Properties and the new tenant, Unigraphic Solutions. Almost a year ago we
started this project and we are very excited to bring this final signage package
i" before you to night. We have completed our project, as I am sure you are well
aware and our proposal tonight is to provide one wall sign which would be
located on the east facade which along 275 on our newly constructed building.
The tenant, Unigraphic Solutions, is a primary tenant in the building. They are
a leader in the cat-cam software design practice and we are excited that they
have decided to call this building home. Our project sign would be fabricated
and installed by Huron Sign Company who is also with us tonight. The intent
of the sign is a satin aluminum sign which is similar to the metal which is
found on the building. We would provide some back lighting for it so it could
be seen both day and night. We have it located on the upper stories of the
building. It is within the ordinance for size and we believe we have identified
the proper size for both highway and visual connectedness to the passerbys that
would be using 275. If you have any questions of myself or others here
tonight, we would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Alanskas: Would the letters be a white color?
Mr. Carroll: They will be a satin aluminum which is very close to a white. It is a silvery
aluminum color.
Mr. Alanskas: The building turned out very nicely, the addition that you put on.
r.1. Mr. LaPine: Is this the only signage that we will have for this building?
Mr. Carroll: It would be the only wall sign. There may be some additional ground pylon
sign to identify some additional tenants within the building, but this would be
the only wall sign.
Mr. LaPine: How much space is this tenant taking?
Mr. Carroll: Just over 50%.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: You meant monument sign, not pylon sign, right? That's a bad word.
Mr. Carroll: A ground sign. We have a development sign at the entrance boulevard.
Mr. McCann: Pylon is a bad word around here.
Mr. Hale: The other adjacent buildings that were there previously, they don't have any
tenant identifier signs on the building, do they?
Mr. Carroll: Currently, they do not.
16877
Mr. Hale: Is it because this tenant is taking up such a large portion of the building that
they demand it as part of the lease package that their name is on the outside of
"' it and because they are by the highway.
Mr. Carroll: They are a majority tenant but I can hear the owner stepping up to this one so I
would like to let the owner answer this.
Dan Cushing, Senior Vice President, Prentiss Properties. I can answer that question. You are
absolutely correct. This is a concession we made as part of the least
negotiations to attract Unigraphics to the property. To the extent since they are
greater than 50% of the occupant of the building, we thought it was appropriate
that they be identified as such.
Mr. Hale: How long is the lease?
Mr. Cushing: Ten years.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, it has always been sort of a policy here in the City that when the lights
are terminated, you implied that you are going to back light those and that they
will be lit day and night. We have always requested that one hour after the
building closes that the lights be turned off. Do you have a problem with that?
Mr. Cushing: Our thoughts were, and we have similar concerns from another standpoint, that
it is tastefully lit and that it is appropriately lit and it doesn't cause any
�... distraction to the neighborhood properties. This sign would face the toll way,
275-Interstate, and again with the back lighting, I know there are examples of
plastic back lit signs that perhaps are not quite as tasteful as this. Our
preference would be, and our clients preference would be, if we could be if we
could extend the hours that the sign could be illuminated.
Mr. Piercecchi: What time were you planning on terminating the office operations?
Mr. Cushing: It would probably turn off at midnight something like that just from an energy
conservation.
Mr. Piercecchi: According to our rules, you could shut off your lights at 1:00 a.m. and that
would fit in with what we have always asked everyone else to do.
Mr. McCann: Dan, that is not what he said. He said they would like to keep the lights on to
midnight.
Mr. Cushing: I apologize, I didn't speak clearly.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
16878
#5-89-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Huron Sign Company
requesting approval for signage for the office building (Seven Mile Crossing)
located at 38695 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package submitted by Huron Sign Company, as received
by the Planning Commission on April 29, 1999, 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 any additional signage shall come back before 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 the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-8-16 by
Abington Development, Inc., requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws
and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection
with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on property
located at 29505 Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11.
�.. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Clarita between Middlebelt and
Melvin. As the Planning Commission will recall this developer was before
you about a year ago this month with a smaller site condominium development
for this area. At that time, the petitioner was asking approval for an 8 unit
condominium project. The Planning Commission recommended approval but
the petition is being held in Committee at the Council level for further study.
The Council feels that this area would be better served if a larger area were
developed. The petitioner is in the process of rezoning the properties to the
east and west to accommodate more condominiums. The rezoning petition has
been approved by the Planning Commission and is now awaiting at the
Council level for the site plan to catch up. The petitioner is requesting
approval to develop a site condominium development on the subject properties.
The submitted Site Plan shows that the new development would consist of
sixteen(16) condominium lots. The development would have two similar
north/south streets parallel to each other that would end in cul-de-sacs. Each
street, identified as Court A and court B, would have 8 lots apiece bordering on
them. According to the submitted documentation the new development would
be called "Clarita Avenue Site Condominiums". Each lot conforms to all
requirements of an R-2 zoning district. A 10 foot wide common area between
this property and Clarita Avenue is shown and noted on the plan. A copy of
the Master Deed and bylaws for this new development has been submitted for
review by the City.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
16879
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated May 10, 1999 which reads as follows: "this office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with Petition 99-5-8-16 on
'` property located at the above referenced address. This division has no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire
Inspector. There is a letter dated May 12, 1999, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of May 5, 1999,to construct a site condominium
development on the south side of Clarita Avenue between Middlebelt Road
and Melvin Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the site plan for the
above subject petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The
entrance marker shown to be at the southwest corner of Clarita Avenue and
Court B appears to be at a deficient set-back from the Clarita Avenue property
line. Required is 10 feet, shown to be approximately 2 feet, deficient 8 feet
and requires a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for sign location.
(2) The sites conform to "R-2" single family residential zoning per Ordinance
543, section 4.04. (3) Article VII of the master deed does not grant any access
to easements to "The City of Livonia' in direct language. See Page 11, Section
7.3(b)., "Developer reserves the right to assign any such easements to
governmental units...." The language does not meet the requirements of Ord.
543, section 18.64." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior
Building Inspector. There is a letter dated May 17, 1999, which reads as
follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no
objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs,
Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of our correspondence.
,... Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Larry Linchtner, Abbington Development, 770 S. Adams Road, Suite 210, Birmingham,
Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little bit about your development?
Mr. Linchtner:Originally I had approached the Commission for doing an 8 unit development
approximately in the center of what you see here now. The Planning
Department came back to me and suggested that I try to acquire the parcels on
either side of that parcel, which was an 8 lot development which I was able to
acquire. What happens is you have an exact mirror image of what you say
approximately 11 months. As far as the issue of the sign goes, I'm not sure
how that works,the marker sign. I don't think it is imperative that a marker
sign goes there versus a normal type street sign, that is o.k. The 10 foot
landscape strip was always, from the last meeting, one of the things that ,you
wanted to see prior to construction, the landscaping plan. Since I was last
here there is a note in the bottom right hand corner that would be submitted
prior to construction for your approval. As far as any other nuances of this
piece of property it fits exactly within the R-2 zoning. From my information,
there were no variances required.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mrs. Koons: Will the homes be all the same elevations or different elevations?
16880
Mr. Linchter: They will be different elevations.
110.
Mrs. Koons: One and two story?
Mr. Linchtner:Some of both. There might be some walkouts because the topography of the
land seems to dip down a little bit low so there will be a mixture of different
types of houses. Whether it will be ranches, at this point I don't know.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions?
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, what will the homes be selling for, roughly?
Mr. Linchtner:I would say in a market of this you would be looking at a price on the low side
of$189,000/190,000 to $230,000 range and up if I am looking at it today.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved it was
#5-90-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
,W, the City Council that Petition 99-5-8-16 by Abington Development, Inc.,
requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by
Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a site condominium development on property located at 29505
Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance#543,
Section 20.01-20.06 of the ordinance, except for the fact the following
shall be incorporated:
that each condominium unit shall be constructed entirely out of
brick or stone
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 marked Sheet 1 prepared by Stenrose Associates, as
received by the Planning Commission on May 4, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
16881
4) That an Entrance Marker Application and a fully detailed Landscape
Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council
.rr for their review and approval.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Piercecchi, Hale, Koons, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-8-8-15 by J.
D. Dinan Company, on behalf of the James Town Offices, requesting
approval to amend the site plan that was approved in connection with this
petition for property located at 37777 Pembroke Street in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Pembroke between Newburgh and
Victor Parkway. On September 28, 1994,the City of Livonia granted Site
ti.. Plan Approval for an office building on this site. The approved Site Plan
showed a sidewalk along Pembroke Street. In a letter dated November 27,
1996, the petitioner requested that the sidewalk requirement for the James
Town Office Building be waived. He explained in the letter that he would
like to delay the installment of the sidewalk until the other adjacent properties
are developed. He went on to state that the sidewalk would definitely be
installed when they would provide pedestrian access to and from the site. On
March 12, 1997,the City waived the requirement of the sidewalk for a period
of two years. The two years have passed and this matter is being brought
back before you for further review. Since the waiving of the sidewalk two
years ago, two office buildings, developed by Mr. Dinan, have been built
adjacent and to the east of this office building. The Site Plan for those two
office buildings show a sidewalk along Pembroke Street.
Mr. McCann: Nothing on this Al?
Mr. Nowak: No.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Hale: Is it going to be the case that two years down the line he is going to see all this
area developed and maybe say he doesn't want any sidewalk at all?
N.
Mr. Miller: That could possibly be.
16882
Mr. Hale: He says there is no destination and the sidewalk would go nowhere.
'`. Mr. Miller: Basically it would stop here and here. Now he has a new development
towards the east that is supposed to have sidewalks. You could have
sidewalks but that is his property too.
Mr. Hale: So there really would be a destination to the sidewalks?
Mr. Miller: Right, eventually heading down to Newburgh.
Mr. Hale: The building to the east is developed. It is already built.
Mr. Miller: Yes. This one is built and the one next to it, more to the east, is under
construction.
Mr. Hale: We don't have any idea why he is requesting an additional two years.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner in the audience this evening? I don't see anyone.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I feel like Mr. Hale does. Eventually the sidewalks will have to go in, and to
me if he is building two more buildings why doesn't he go ahead and put all
the sidewalks in at the same time and get it done with? If we put this off, I
slew have the feeling that the same thing is going to happen. He may use the same
argument that you've got the other buildings out there, Valassis and a couple
of other buildings and most people coming to those buildings are driving in
the parking lot or are workers but down Pembroke you have people who may
be walking down Pembroke to go to the post office. To me a sidewalk is
needed there more than it is needed in the other project and the other
buildings. I've got no objection to giving him a waiver but with the
understanding that this is the last one. We're not going to give him anymore.
I personally feel this sidewalk should have been put in. If you put this piece
in then the next guy will build and he will know that he has to put a sidewalk
in. I just think he is trying to buy time. In the long run it is going to cost him
more money because every year he puts it off the cost of concrete goes up and
it is going to cost him more money. I have no big hang-up at this moment
maybe, I might maybe give him a year, go along with a one year waiver, but
let him know that this is the last one and we expect the sidewalks to go in.
Mr. McCann: Any other comments?
Mr. Alanskas: I just think we have already had two years, and I agree with Mr. LaPine, and
if he waits another two years, and if he has to put them in, it is going to cost
him more money so why not just do it now and get it over with so I would
like to give a denying resolution.
r.. Mr. McCann: Any discussion? I have a comment. I think along the lines of Mr. LaPine's
point of view, it doesn't go anywhere. He is in the middle of construction and
16883
I think at one point he is eventually going to have to put the sidewalk in as
you said, Mr. Alanskas, I would be inclined to give him a year. That would
'r give him the opportunity to decide when his other construction is up and
maybe do all the sidewalks at one time or do it as he sees fit but with the
intent that he is eventually going to put them in there. So I am going to vote
against the denying resolution.
Mr. Hale: The point of discussion I would add is that it sets a precedence somewhat for
the area. He has had a two year extension and I think it is important to put the
sidewalk in at this time. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale, and denied, it was
#5-91-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby to the City
Council that Petition 94-8-8-15 by J. D. Dinan Company, on behalf of the
James Town Offices, requesting approval to amend the site plan that was
approved in connection with this petition for property located at 37777
Pembroke Street in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That the request to waive the sidewalk for this site is hereby denied and
the sidewalk shall be installed immediately, to the satisfaction of the
.r.. Engineering Department, for the following reasons:
- that because of the recent development in the area sidewalk
would now provide pedestrian access
- that waiving the sidewalk for any additional amount of time
would set an unwanted president for the area and the City as a
whole
- that denial of the request and the installing of the sidewalk is in
the best interests of the City of Livonia.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Alanskas, Hale, LaPine, Koons, Piercecchi
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann: The petitioner has ten days in which to appeal if he wishes to do so. The next
items on the agenda are pending items and 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.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is discussion regarding a
proposed language amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would control
customer accessibility to the types of alcoholic beverages allowed for sale in
connection with the use of a SDD licenses.
16884
Mr. McCann: This is a petition by the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing. The
r... Planning Commission has determined that we need to review how alcohol is
sold through businesses and we put together some language that we would like
to hold a public hearing on. Is there a motion to do so?
Mr. LaPine: First I would like to thank you. I think that was a good suggestion that you
came up for this ordinance change. I think it is way past due and should have
been done years ago.
Mr. McCann: I think it should be noted it was over concerns that Mr. Piercecchi brought
forward. We worked together and came up with a good idea I think. A motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#5-92-99 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 Sections 10.03 and 11.03 of the Livonia Zoning
Ordinance to add controls with respect to customer accessibility to the types of
alcoholic beverages allowed for sale in connection with the use of a SDD
license.
__ FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given as
provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, and that a 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. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is to Rescind Planning
Commission Resolution#1-01-99 approving Final Plat Approval for
Camborne Stark School Subdivision as final approval was originally given by
Planning Commission Resolution#8-140-97.
Mr. McCann: This is a situation where there was a change in ownership. We voted again
because of the change in ownership and it wasn't necessary, if I am correct Al?
Mr. Nowak: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: So this is just to withdraw one of the approvals, not both. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#5-93-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby rescind Final
... Plat approval as given by Planning Commission Resolution#1-01-99 adopted
on January 12, 1999, which granted approval of the Final Plat for Camborne
Stark School Subdivision, provided, however, that such action to rescind shall
16885
not be construed as affecting the validity of Planning Commission Resolution
#8-142-97, adopted on August 27, 1997, which had originally granted final
`w.. plat approval for the aforementioned subdivision.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes
of the 782"d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 23, 1999.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it
was
#5-94-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 782❑d Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on March 23, 1999, are hereby
approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes
of the 783rd Regular Meeting held on April 20, 1999.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was
#5-95-99 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 783rd Regular Meeting held by the City
_,guy_ Planning Commission on April 20, 1999 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Alanskas, Hale, Koons, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 785th Regular Meeting held
on May 18, 1999 was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
e
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:`,,`L,
James C. McCann, Chairman
f
/rw