HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-06-08 16886
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 8, 1999, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
786th Public Hearing and 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
Elaine Koons William LaPine
Members absent: Dan Piercecchi
Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II, and Bill Poppenger, Planner I and
Robby Williams 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 final determination as to whether a petition is
approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has
ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted
by the City Planning Commission 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.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-2-1-3 by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, proposing to rezone
property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between I-275 Expressway
and Fox Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C to OS.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated April 20, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
... your request,the Engineering division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal, and the
following legal description should be used in connection therewith: That part
16887
of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne
County, Michigan; described as beginning due East 909.98 feet and N.0°32'50"
W., 60 feet from the Southwest corner of Section 7 and proceeding thence N.
0°32'50" W., 310.67 feet; thence due East 40 feet; thence S. 0°32'50" E.,
310.67 feet; thence due West 40 feet to the point of beginning. We trust this
will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John
P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Since this is our petition, I am going to start with the audience. Is there anyone
in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I
will close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#6-96-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing have been held on June 8,
1999, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-2-1-3 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, proposing to rezone
property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between I-275 Expressway
and Fox Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C to OS,the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 99-2-1-3 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for one uniform
zoning classification for the subject property and would have the effect
of adjusting the zoning lines so as to make the zoning district
coterminous with the property lines;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; and
3) That the strip of land proposed to be rezoned could be utilized under
the proposed OS zoning to satisfy requirements pertaining to the use of
the overall parcel.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-4-1-4 by
American Four, L.L.C. proposing to rezone property located on the north side
of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 33 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the exiting zoning of
the surrounding area.
16888
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated May 18, 1999 which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this
time. The legal description is only acceptable from the standpoint of
advertising for change in zoning. The legal description does not dedicate the
full width of 60' right-of-way north of the centerline of Ann Arbor Trail as
called for on the Master Thoroughfare Plan and as indicated on the site plan.
Furthermore, it is impossible to fit the site plan shown within the legal
description's boundaries as provided. We trust that this will provide you with
the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Charles Tangora, 33000 Five Mile Road and Dennis DeLuca, representing American Four
L.L.C., 6447 Earhart Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan. I am one of two members
of American Four,the other being my brother Gerald, in the audience and
Chuck is here and my brother and myself.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us about your project and what you are planning to do?
Mr.DeLuca: We are planning to build some residential homes in this location here
providing that we are successful in getting the rezoning. Our intention is to
build homes that fit in with the surrounding areas, compatible to the east and
``" the south side. They are going to be a mix of ranch and colonial with brick and
would range in the mid-$200,00 price range.
Mr. McCann: Do we have any type of plat that we could put up?
Mr. Tangora: While we are waiting for that, I've known the family, his father Oliver DeLuca,
for a number of years. These boys were raised on Fitzgerald, went to Livonia
schools. Although you don't know them they have been long time Livonia
residents and have been involved with their father in a construction business
that used to be up on Eight Mile Road in Farmington Hills, the Oliver and
DeLuca Company.
Mr. McCann: Want to explain how it is going to tie in?
Mr. DeLuca: This is the entrance here coming in and it does show the 60 foot right-of-way
coming in off of Ann Arbor Trail going in to the cul-de-sac and coming
directly back out.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. DeLuca on the two properties to the east and west, 2A and 5A, you tried
also to buy that and incorporate the whole thing?
Mr. DeLuca: Yes sir, that is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: And you had no luck?
16889
Mr. DeLuca: On the east side no, on the west side we are presently talking to them and we
have not made much progress..
r..
Mr. Alanskas: But there is a possibility?
Mr. DeLuca: There is a possibility.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. DeLuca. are you aware of the Engineering report that says your site plan
won't fit?
Mr. DeLuca: Well actually I found out just a little while ago when I came here earlier, I
wasn't aware of it prior to that point. I've had two phone calls into the
Engineer. He didn't get back to me today. As far as the 60 foot is indicated, it
is indicated that we have the 60 foot right-of-way so I have to verify that with
the Engineer. Obviously if it doesn't comply, I have to change it. But I
believe that it does and whatever meets and bounds are required, we will meet.
Mr. LaPine: On Lot 1, 13 and 14, 14 and 1 I assume the houses are going to face Ann Arbor
Trail, is that correct?
Mr. DeLuca: That is correct, sir.
Mr. LaPine: How about Lot 13?
Mr. DeLuca: Los 13 is going to face to the drive in.
Mr. LaPine: It is going to face the main drive in?
Mr. DeLuca: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: I don't really have a problem with the rezoning, but I do have a problem,
especially with Lot No. 1. As it is now, starting at the east going west, you've
got approximately 461 feet. You are going to have a driveway at 14 then the
main 60 foot drive and then another drive in at Lot No. 1. So we've got three
approaches in a 461 foot length of property. Is there anyway you could
eliminate No. 1 and make Lots 4, 3, and 2 deeper?
Mr. DeLuca: I would be happy to look at that.
Mr. LaPine: I wish you would. I just don't like the configuration of that one lot or that
corner. It looks kind of off beaten. To me to make these other lots deeper,
maybe there is another solution, I don't know, I'm not really happy with#14
but I guess I can go along with#14, I don't know but it just bothers me.
Mr. DeLuca: In the surrounding areas there are others, and I'm not saying that is why this is,
but with that in mind, that is how I can of laid this out and engineered it. We
would certainly look at it.
16890
Mr. LaPine: I went out and site checked it. That No.1 lot looks out of place. It backs up
behind three different lots. It me if you could extend those two lots and
`' number two you could pie shape it a little bit. Let me ask you, will these
houses be all brick?
Mr. DeLuca: Yes sir. They will be all brick.
Mr. LaPlne: And full basements?
Mr. DeLuca: Yes sir. When I get with the engineer I will get him on that and see what we
can do.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Marian Parnell, 34161 Ann Arbor Trail, directly across from the property you are speaking
about. I have no problem with the zoning but I have questions about what is
going in there. I have been living there since 1957 and we as a neighborhood
have been wondering what you are going to do with this property and how it is
going to relate to our subdivision. Those are the questions I have. How many
homes are you going to build there?
Mr. DeLuca: As petitioned right now, it would be 14.
Mrs. Parnell: And they are going to be compatible with the homes that we live in now.
Mr. DeLuca: Absolutely. Bricked, ranch and colonials, mixed.
Mrs. Parnell: How do they relate to the property that is down by the tavern there.
Mr. McCann: Questions are to be directed through the chair but we are going to let you go.
Mrs. Parnell: I am new at this but I am concerned.
Mr. McCann: I'm not suppose to let you two have a conversation but these are valid
questions so I am going to let him answer.
Mr. DeLuca: They will be compatible. We have studied the area . We have been in
business, my father, for over 40 years. We are going to have this fit in this
with surrounding community. We are not going to try to do something that is
not going to fit int. It will be compatible and fit in with the surrounding
homes.
Mrs. Parnell: That driveway that now exists is directly across the street from my driveway
and I am wondering, you indicated that this will be a cul-de-sac?
Mr. DeLuca: Yes mam.
16891
Mrs. Parnell: Because the property behind is Wayne County and there will be no outlets to
the park area?
r..
Mr. DeLuca: No mam.
Mrs. Parnell: What time element are speaking of in relation to when these homes will be
started?
Mr. McCann: Al, is this going to have to go site condo or preliminary plat?
Mr. Nowak: I believe he is talking about conventional subdivision or it will be preliminary
plat.
Mr. McCann: So you've got another year.
Mr. Tangora: I will probably be nine months.
Mr. McCann: It will probably next spring before they do anything.
Mrs. Parnell: Then we've got time to do something then. I am just concerned because I've
been watching this property for a long time and I knew the people that were
there and then when the for sale sign when up and.it was grabbed up so fast we
thought maybe there might be some dirty pool going on around here. But I see
everything seems to be credible and I'll be there probably when you start
�.. unless the good Lord sees fit to take me. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Mam, would you want to take this plan, it gives you an idea of what is planned.
Mrs. Parnell: Yes, I would. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Chuck are you going to correct this or you haven't made that decision yet.
Mr. Tangora: From what I understand this will be a subdivision plat not a condominium.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition. Are there any more questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I think you mentioned, but I am just curious what did you say the price range
would be?
Mr. DeLuca: In the mid-$200,000s - $225,000, $260,000.
Mr. LaPine: Just one other question, are they going to be a combination of colonials and
ranches?
Mr. DeLuca: Yes sir.
16892
Mr. McCann: Al, if the petitioner decided to remove Lot No. 1, I guess this is a rezoning
issue tonight so we don't even have to look at that issue, so it is just the zoning
issue.
Mr. Nowak: Yes, we would look at that when he submitted a preliminary plat.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, sir, do you have any last comments to make?
Mr. DeLuca: No,just that we are available and if you have any questions at any time, please
feel free to call.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#6-97-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 8,
1999, on Petition 99-4-1-1 by America Four, L.L.C. proposing to rezone
property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and
Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1,the
City Planning Commission dos hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 99-4-1-4 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with recent zoning
�.. changes in the area;
3) That the proposed zoning district will provide for development of the
subject property for single family residential purposes in a compatible
manner with other developed properties along Ann Arbor Trail; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
character of the area.
5) That the zoning be changed to R-1B which would make it consistent
with the zoning to the east.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543 as
amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Does the petitioner know what R-1B means?
Mr. DeLuca: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: When you come back before, take a hard look at that No.1 lot, would you?
Mr. DeLuca: You have my word on it.
16893
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to the City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-4-2-12 by
Rite Aid of Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for a proposed
transfer of SDD and SDM licenses for use in connection with an existing Rite
Aid store located at the southwest corner of Six Mile and Inkster Roads
(27401 Six Mile Road) in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated May 5, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this
time. The following legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable
to this department and should be used in connection therewith: Being a part
of the Northeast quarter of Section 13, T. 1S., R.9E., City of Livonia, Wayne
County, Michigan being Lots 153 and 154 of Park Woods Subdivision, as
recorded in Liber 67 of Plats on page 13 of Wayne County records. We trust
that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed
by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated May 10,
1999, that reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with Petition 99-4-2-12 (Rite Aid) 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. We have a letter
dated May 17, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
May 4, 1999, the site plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted as of site visit May 7, 1999. (1) Most deciduous trees
at east end are stressed and are possibly dying and/or diseased. (2) The
parking lot needs to be re-striped. (3) The dumpster enclosure gate was open
and trash was strewn about the enclosure. The store manager was notified to
resolve. This site will also require a waiver from Council in regards to
Section 11.03r(1) as there is another SDD/SDM establishment within 1,000
feet. We trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is
signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent
of our correspondence.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? This Rite Aid can't be over a year old,
or two. Didn't they stripe it originally? How in the heck can the striping be
wore out already?
Mr. Nowak: You are right. I think it was constructed approximately a year and a half ago
or maybe two years at the most. The inspection indicates that it does need to
be restriped.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? I don't see the petitioner. Is there anybody
in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition?
16894
Jana Noshi, I own the party store next door to the Rite Aid. They tried to get beer and wine
and liquor license in there. I have been there for 18 years. I was planning to
get a liquor license because Howard Drug Store was across the street and I
couldn't get it at that time. After Howard Drug Store closed, I did buy his
license and I got it now and I don't know how they can apply for another one
right next to my store. So, like he said, there is 1,000 feet to having one and it
is not even 150' in there.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further persons coming before us tonight, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously denied, it was
#6-98-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 8, 1999, on Petition 99-4-2-12 by Rite Aid of
Michigan, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for a proposed transfer of SDD
and SDM licenses for use in connection with an existing Rite Aid store located
at the southwest corner of Six Mile and Inkster Roads (27401 Six Mile Road)
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-4-2-12 be denied for the
following reasons:
(1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use of a SDM license and a SDD license is in compliance 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 proposed uses fail to comply with the Zoning Ordinance
standard(s) set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) with respect to (the
requirement that there be at least a 500 foot separation between SDM
licensed establishments and the requirement that there be at least a
1,000 foot separation between SDD licensed establishments;
(3) That this area of the City is currently well served with SDM licensed
and SDD licensed establishments selling packaged alcoholic beverages;
and
(4) That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a need in the area
for additional sales of packaged alcoholic beverages such as are
permitted by the utilization of SDM and a SDD license.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petition has been denied. The petitioner has 10 days in which to appeal
the decision to the City Council.
16895
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-4-2-13 by
Phoenix Land Development Corporation requesting waiver use approval to
""w construct a planned residential development on property located on the east
side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 27.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus existing zoning of
the surrounding area
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated May 17, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this
time. The legal description provided with the site plan is acceptable to this
department and should be used in connection therewith. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P.
Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated May 28, 1999, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a planned residential development on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to
this proposal. However, our approval is contingent on adequate hydrants being
provided and located with spacing consistent with residential areas. Most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI.
Hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail groupings shall be consistent with
City of Livonia Ordinances. If any of subject buildings are to be provided with
automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located between 50 feet and 100
feet from the Fire Department connections. Access around buildings shall be
provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty feet curb to
curb." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That is the
extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Steve Schafer, Phoenix Land Development, 32000 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills,
Michigan. We are before you tonight for the approval of the site plan that we
put together for the residential portion of the Fountain Park development.
Initially over here was the original concept that we were before you and
Council initially and we have gone through the process now of the site plan
approval with the commercial, as you are aware, that is being held at the
Council level in order for this portion of the site plan to catch up and at that
point we anticipate being able to move forward and starting the project. The
current site plan that you are looking at reflects the zoning that we came before
you probably several months ago. Our request was for the R-8II and we are
were given the R-8I designation. That was confirmed at the Council level and
as a result this plan has been modified to reflect 220 residential units. We have
had an opportunity to talk about the units initially. They are townhouse type
units with a ranch unit with some stairs with a stacked townhouse above with a
one car garage. We have had an opportunity to meet with some of the
residents here locally and we have come up with a couple of other floor plans
that will be incorporated into the development that is reflected in this plan and
16896
those units are essentially a stacked ranch unit which is a larger style unit
which is about 1600 sq. ft. some of them will have two car garages and others
slaw will have one car garages. Basically we'll now offer four different types of
housing units. The units are oriented in a fashion where the streetscapes and
the fronts of the building are oriented out to the street. This is the elevation.
You have seen this before. These buildings will have very friendly pedestrian
oriented walkways as well as on street parking and garages in the rear. All the
rear elevations of the units are oriented toward the outside of the project to the
existing industrial zoned areas, or in this case, to the retail areas. These
courtyards here have all the buildings have the backs facing to each other. As
you travel through the development, you get the feel of passing by all these
buildings that are very urban feel to them and close to the roadway. The
landscape plan reflects the central spine here which is the main focal green
space of the development. In that we have been able to do a little bit of a blow
up. There will be a gazebo with quite a bit of seating area around in the center
with a flower and some type of elevated garden in the rear with our fountain
located here at the head of the park as it leads through this spine to the
commercial area. As we talked about last time, these walkways that are
incorporated here into the commercial also incorporate into all the sidewalk
ways inside the development itself. One of the main differences you are going
to see is initially when we able to go out with some of the Council people and
Mayor and view the units, the chimneys, there were comments that some of
the materials we should take a look at changing. We have since met with the
Building Department and we are looking at something with more of a tongue
�.. and grove type of material. We really wanted to stay away from the panel brick
type of material and things like that because it is very hard to hang brick
because these chimneys aren't masonry all the way through the buildings
themselves. We are looking to change the feature of that on the units. If there
are anymore questions, I think that basically explains where we are at, I would
be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Alanskas: When I revisited Dearborn again, I noticed that on the front of all the buildings
the electric meters are on front instead of the back of the building. It really
takes away from the appearance of the building. Is there a reason why you did
that?
Mr. Schafer: I think the electrical meters are on the sides.
Mr. Alanskas: There are some on the front too.
Mr. Schafer: I know in the new development in Farmington Hills, they are located on the
sides. Certainly I think that is where they should be. I'm not sure of the
situation of where those meters are located. There are some air conditioning
units. Maybe you are looking at a disconnect box.
Mr. Alanskas: I am talking about electric meter itself, where you read the meter for the
electricity.
16897
Mr.Schafer: That may be somebody's, you know how people get separate meters? I would
have to check.
Mr. Alanskas: I just want to make sure they are not going to be on the front of the buildings.
It doesn't look good.
Mr. Schafer: We will certainly look to put those on the side.
Mr. Alanskas: Go back, you said you are going to have a ranch with a two car garage. Won't
that eat up a lot of your space?
Mr. Schafer: Yes they have already been designed into this site plan.
Mr.Alanskas: Are they are on the ends?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. They are the end units.
Mr. Alanskas: What are you going to do for people that cannot walk up those stairs to get to
their apartments?
Mr. Schafer: Well, there is a unit with no stairs.
Mr. Alanskas: But that is on the end, isn't it?
`'■- Mr. Schafer: Yes. The other units people would have to walk to.
Mr. Alanskas: How many are you going to have on the ends?
Mr. Schafer: Approximately 27 of each.
Mr. LaPine: At our study session, we looked at this and some of us thought 220 units was a
little over saturated and we would like to see some more greenery than the
units. Can this thing be scaled down? I realize that you paid a lot of money
for the property but from my point of view you've got to get a little bit more
greenery around these townhouses? Can't you scale this down to 210 units and
get a little more greenery in here?
Mr. Schafer: Actually, the module we came up with for these stack ranches that we are
doing can fit on other buildings. They fit within the two. What happens is that
each one of those modules we put on the end of the building affects four of the
typical units and reduces it to two ranch units. What we wanted to do is to,
depending on where the market is, and as we start selling, we would like to
have the flexibility to potentially add some more of that type of unit to the
development if the market demands. So essentially the amount of units that we
could have on this development could be reduced by another 15 units or so but
we are picking up the square footage and the cost of those units we are
recouping because of the size and with the two car garage and so on and so
forth.
16898
Mr. LaPine: Let me ask you this question, with the 26 units you are putting in now with the
,` two car garages, have you reduced this to anything?
Mr. Schafer: No. We have moved on from 240 than actually when we were working on the
commercial plan there were some comments and there were another 6 units
eliminated and in order to accommodate the plan and some of the suggestions
from the commission here. From that point we continued to reduce down to
the 220 which would be reflective of the R-1 A zoning and again, yes I mean
the economics are very key here. What the side units have done they have
actually added some court yard areas back into these areas where these
buildings are but I think it would be from a practicable standpoint to start
reducing and not being able to increase coverage or picking up that coverage
would be difficult for us to do that.
Mr. LaPine: Then let me ask the Chairman this question. Jim, say we go along with this
and there is a possibility that he could eliminate 15 units because of the fact
that he may be able to sell these units with two car garages. We would have to
approve a plan that is there and he would have to come back and have the plan
revised, wouldn't he?
Mr. McCann: Yes. Well, let's ask Al. You are asking whether he can come back and change
the plan because he has two units sold. Yes he would have to come back
through site plan process.
Mr. LaPine: Say he added two or three more and then he sold those and he had an
opportunity to sell more he would have to come back to us?
Mr. Schafer: Even if it remains in the same footprint because these were designed to go over
the same footprint.
Mr. McCann: The footprint would be the same but wouldn't be creating more court yards?
Mr. Schafer: Well yes. Essentially you would be creating this detail versus were you don't
this detail on the side of these buildings but not on the sides of these buildings.
Mr. McCann: Al?
Mr. Nowak: The building elevations would be slightly different too. I think we would have
to have some certainty as to what is being approved here. I know the
maximum number that you could have would be 220 but then as far as
adjusting it depending on many of these ranch units are sold I think that it
would have to be worked some how into a plan so that they would know what
we are approving.
Mr. Schafer: We have that unit there. We know what the elevations are. They would be
identical elevations. We are doing similar buildings the same way. We would
just want to carry that through. If it meant having to come back, I don't think
at that point it would be to move you to have less units would probably be
something that would be relatively well embraced. At this point, we are not
16899
sure where the market is. We have really tried to make efforts to tailor this
r thing down to make it work. We are doing substantial downsizing of industrial
and commercial in trying to make it work with the residential. Again, in order
for us to do that our density was the key in doing that. We found in another
development that we are doing very close proximity, four units, backed up on
another project, people just like this type of living. The streetscape is very
friendly and I think the retail is going to add an extra convenience for the
residents.
Mr. LaPine: Another concern that we have is the rear of these buildings. I think that you
indicated to us that you are willing to change the back to some extent, put
some windows in there. I went out and checked out Dearborn one more time
and they don't look any different from the front or the back. Either way is the
front or the back and we would like to see that incorporated into this plan.
Mr. Schafer: What we are looking at doing is adding some shutters to the windows at the
rears of the elevations. They will be brick up to the first level. Unfortunately
on these units they cantilever right out. I have a cross section here of the
building. This is the front,the elevation that you are looking at, the two story
all brick, sides all brick, then we wrap around. This is the rear elevation which
faces to the rear either to the industrial properties or to the interiors of each
with the garages. These are bricked up to the first level and then this level and
this level are sided materials. We would be willing to set just a regular siding,
do a Dutch layout. I know Livonia, we've built here before, a lot of brick is
required. But we have a practical difficulty on these buildings hanging that.
The only other alternative would be panel brick and I have a real problem with
that product because that is a product that you can hand out over overhangs
and it doesn't have to have a foundation under it. Again that could become a
real maintenance problem for the residents But again, the full three sides and
the first level on the back will all be brick and will have limestone materials,
and the Vipon materials and the detail that you see here on the fronts. That is
really what we have tried to focus on and focus within the site plan. I think if
you look at the design, we have made an effort with these court yards and
things to try and conceal these things behind the units when we designed the
site plan. But as far as the materials and dressing it up, I agree with you.
Mr. LaPine: The next question I have is, the inside of the complex, both commercial and
the residential, the walk ways. Are you going to have lighting in there?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. There will be street lighting.
Mr. LaPine: Would they be ornamental lights?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. There will be some ornamental lights and then what we would do on the
porches themselves would all be synchronized or they would be one of those
light sensitive timers. The same thing would be on back the sides of the garage
sides so all those lights do go on. We would like to pull in some decorative
lighting something similar type of fixtures that is on Plymouth Road and pull
in what they have done on Plymouth Road into the development.
16900
r..
Mr. LaPine: In the parking lot, what type of a light fixture is going to be in the parking lot?
Mr. Schafer: As of right now, similar type of fixtures that are on Plymouth Road.
Mr. McCann: Is there a detail on your plan?
Mr. Schafer: I believe there is one on the commercial plan, but on the residential there is
not. I would be happy to amend the residential street plan and get the
photometric plan done. We don't want to through too much light out there.
We would be happy to make that a condition of our plan.
Mr. McCann: Do we have a cross section. You show one unit basically, or one row of the
rear of the building. Two weeks ago we had a full view of the back of the
building.
Mr. Schafer: A cross section of the back?
Mr. McCann: I've got it here on my plan. I notice these plans are dated 11/26/96. In
Dearborn you have full brick on the back. How come you change these plans?
Mr. Schafer: Dearborn is not full brick on the back of the townhouse. Is it on the carriage
home. The carriage homes back up to the commercial property. So those were
brick on the front and back. Those are a totally different type of unit.
Mr. McCann: What about the homes where they back up to your garden areas? In the square.
Mr. Schafer: These are the rear elevations of the building.
Mr. McCann: They are going to be the exact same?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. They will be the same as what you see in Dearborn except we are going
to add shutter details to the windows. Which I think would add quite a bit the
rear.
Mr. McCann: You added some windows to the back too, didn't you?
Mr. Schafer: No. It would be what you see there.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition? Do you have any last comments, Mr.
Schafer?
Mr. Schafer: No,other than we are very exited about bringing this project to the community.
Schostak has had a sign up. We should be announcing within the next two
weeks, before we come to Council, several of the tenants that we have
finalized leases with. We are very close on a number of them. Some new
surprising names and again I will keep you apprised of as soon as we are ready
to release that information. The residential we have had an overwhelming
16901
response. Schostak even had to put on their sign later, "no residential
responses please". We haven't put a sign up yet because we wanted to get
through the process with the Planning Commission and we will get a sign up
and field calls. I think this will be a hugely successful residential development
and hopefully something the City can embrace.
Mr. McCann: If no one else wishes to speak, I am going to close the public hearing. A
motion is in order.
Mrs. Koons: Although I share Mr. Schafer's enthusiasm, I feel we don't really have enough
detail. We are voting on "what ifs" and "what abouts" and I would recommend
we table this for further information.
Mr. McCann: Is there support?
Mr. Hale: I support.
Mr. McCann: When did you want to table this to?
Mrs. Koons: As soon as possible.
Mr. McCann: Our next regular meeting will be June 22, 1999.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale, and approved , it was
#6-99-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 8, 1999, on Petition 99-4-2-13 by Phoenix Land
Development Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a
planned residential development on property located on the east side or
Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition to the
next regular meeting of June 22,1999.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Koons, Hale, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, Alanskas
ABSENT: Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Schafer: Can I ask what type of detail you would expect?
Mrs. Koons: I think there are some questions, at least among some of us, as to whether we
can or cannot vote on the ranch with this footprint. Is it the footprint we are
voting on or is it the ranch versus the stack versus those kind of things. From
my understanding from Al, we cannot or you would have to come back.
Mr. Schafer: We would want it approved as is and come back.
16902
Mr. McCann: You would also have to come back for the back of the building and the
chimneys and solutions for those items. Is there anything else? If there is
nothing else, would the secretary please call the next item.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-2-16 by
GMRI, Inc. on behalf of Darden Restaurants, Inc., requesting waiver use to
construct and operate a full service restaurant (Bahama Breeze) on property
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile
Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Poppenger presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated May 18, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to the
state law, the handicap spaces located on the south side of the building must be
individually posted with R7-8 signs (page 2B-26 of the Uniform Manual of
Traffic Control Devices. The Traffic Bureau has no other concerns with
respect to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs,
Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated May 12, 1999, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with Petition 99-5-2-16 on property located at the above referenced
address. This division has no objections to this proposal provided adequate
hydrant placement, consistent with spacing for commercial areas is achieved."
‘41ar. The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Inspector. That is the extent
of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Jack DeGagne and Chris Fortmueller, 5900 Lake Ellenor Drive, Orlando, Fl.
Mr. McCann: There is a portable mike, why don't you come around and tell us about your
project and concept..
Mr. DeGagne: First of all I would like to thank the Commission for letting us present Bahama
Breeze to you this evening. I would like also to show you a three minute video
that we would like to show to you that would visually give you a very good
picture of the Bahama Breeze concept. It will be introduced by the Bahama
Breeze President, Mr. Gary Heckel.
(A video was shown to the viewing audience and Commissioners.)
Mr. DeGagne: After that nice video either myself or Fortmuller, or Gary Jonna, the developer,
will be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Alanskas: In Tennessee, how many months usage do you get out of the outdoor seating
because of the weather.
16903
Mr. Fortmueller: Right now, probably eight months, give or take. We did have about three
or four months that we did slowed down quite a bit on the deck. There is
'` actually something I want to present to the board later on how we did plan to
address that. Something we are looking in to right now is some covered patios
that basically matches the gazebo structure with a cedar shake roof, wood
columns, it would match the structure of the gazebo but it just provides a cover
over the deck from the rain and snow . Hopefully we will get more use out of
it.
Mr. Alanskas: In Florida and Tennessee those are warmer climates. Here in Michigan you
would only get June, July, August and September, four months. To have 131
seats for what you are asking for outside, for only four months usage, it doesn't
make any sense.
Mr. Fortmueller: We have taken into account your concerns about the number of seats on the
deck and we are willing to reduce that down somewhat.
Mr. Alanskas: To what,two?
Mr. Fortmueller: No sir. On the main deck, the plans we have presented 100 seats for the
main deck and we are willing to reduce that down to 72. That is fixed seating
to hopefully ease some of the concerns the board has about the sound and noise
coming off the deck. The sunset deck that is on the rear of the building, what
we call the sunset deck, strictly is for dining so you are right, probably in the
winter months that would not be utilized at all.
Mr. Alanskas: Why would you want to have the rear of the building, the decks, facing
Haggerty Road where you have private homes on the other side of the street
instead of having it flipped around and facing the theaters?
Mr. Fortmueller: Really the rear of the building is the trash enclosure area which we do have
facing towards the movie theater. We wouldn't want to have that facing the
main road.
Mr. Alanskas: I was just concerned in regards to your outside entertainment facing Haggerty
Road. You know how sound travels.
Mr. Fortmueller The design of the building is our signage. I know we did show a site sign
on our site plan but typically we do not use site signage unless we feel we need
it. We feel that the deck is a large part of that with the yellow umbrellas and
the white seating and a festive atmosphere and hope people will see that and
want to come and join us.
Mr. Alanskas: The concept of your restaurant is fantastic. I had a chance to look at your
menu and you have a very large menu. I am just concerned in regards to noise
levels because I'm sure you are going to have steel bands out there with the
steel drums and that type of music. That sound of music is very loud because I
have been to places like yours in Miami and the Bahamas and the noises are
16904
very loud because that is the ambiance of going there. But here in Michigan
I think that could be a big problem.
r..
Mr. Fortmueller: We are prepared to address that. There are a couple of things I could run
through for you as to how we set up our music and the entertainers that we
have. It is a single entertainer usually a steel guitar or keyboard or something
like that playing island type music, Jimmy Buffet type tunes, things like that,
there is never more than one entertainer and usually just one instrument, so
there is never a group type band out there.
Mr. Alanskas: Electronic speakers?
Mr. Fortmueller: There are electronic speakers and amplification but the amplification is
provided only by Darden Restaurants. The entertainers are not allowed to
provide their own and we calibrate the music based on local ordinance and
codes which we are aware of the decimal level that is allowed by your City
here. We are willing to accept those levels and work with those.
Mr. Alanskas: I did not know that you were going to have just one entertainer. That makes a
big difference.
Mr. Fortmueller: One entertainer. If I could carry on about the music because I know that is
a big issue for the board. so I prepared best for that area of the staff comments.
The management team does have hand held decibel readers that they calibrate
the system periodically to make sure it's not getting off key or too loud.
Mr. Alanskas: How would it get too loud?
Mr. Fortmueller: Well actually, the music company that we use, they set up our systems
nationwide. It is the same company each time and not just a general contractor
that is coming in and setting up the music system and it is different every place
that we go. They know what the local codes require. They know what decibel
levels they want to be set at. The volume control, they set at a certain level and
management cannot exceed that level. They can lower it but they cannot
exceed it. If the code requires 55 decibel levels at the adjacent property they
can max it out at that decibel level and when they set up that system they can
stand on the property line with a reader and test that and adjust the volume to
that so management cannot exceed that volume.
Mr. Alanskas: So they can adjust it lower but they cannot exceed it?
Mr. Fortmueller: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Do I understand you to say that you will scale down the deck seating along
Haggerty Road from 100 to 72?
Mr. Fortmueller: If I could clarify that. We had presented 100 seats on the main deck which
faces Haggerty Road, 30 of those seats were actually on the rear of the building
16905
which are strictly dining seats and like you said in the winter months they
won't be used at all.
Mr. LaPine: So it's only 100 on Haggerty and 30 in the back and now you are going to scale
down to 172?
Mr. Fortmueller: No. We are going to scale down the main deck to 72,the one that is facing
Haggerty will have 72 seats on it and the deck to the rear will have 30 on it.
Mr. LaPine: The 72 seats along Haggerty will not be used in the winter months because it is
not heated out there, I assume, is that correct?
Mr. Fortmueller: We are hoping to propose something that will allow our guests to enjoy
that through the winter months?
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us about it?
Mr. Fortmueller: Absolutely. This is a revised elevation and is very similar to the colored
elevation we submitted to the board but it has an additional roof element that is
covering over the deck. Right now we are not sure how we'll I want to say
enclose but we come up with a temporary enclosure that will hold some heat
in, a roll-down vinyl windows, we're not sure yet.
Mr. LaPine: On the deck along Haggerty Road you serve the full dinner menu out there?
Mr. Fortmueller: No sir. I like to call that a waiting area. Basically that is where our guests
will wait until their table is available.
Mr. LaPine: The 30 seats at the rear you will serve dinner out there?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: Why wouldn't you have the entertainment inside at the main dining room while
the people are dining instead of outside where, in my opinion, it's going to be a
nuisance to the residential property owners across the street?
Mr. Fortmueller: We do have an entertainer occasionally inside, as well up at the raised bar
area. Usually they are either inside or outside, we usually contract with one
entertainer at a time so if he is playing outside, his music would be amplified
inside and vice versa. If he is inside playing, his music would be amplified
outside.
Mr. LaPine: What would be the latest there would be entertainment outside along Haggerty
Road?
Mr. Fortmueller: We play as long as is allowed by the local code. Typically 12 to 1 o'clock
they will play.
Mr. LaPine: Is this 7 nights a week or just on weekends?
16906
Mr. Fortmueller: I would say mostly on weekends. Mostly on Friday and Saturday nights is
when they will play later. During the week they will probably shut down
earlier.
Mr. LaPine: I like your concept and I have no problem with the restaurant but I do have a
problem with the entertainment when you are that close to a residential
neighborhood. I grant you those residents do not live in Livonia but they are
our neighbors and they have a$300,000 investment in their home and that is as
much as your $6 million dollar investment here. I wouldn't want to be going
to bed at 1 o'clock or 12 o'clock and hear some band playing across the street.
That late at night you will not have as much traffic on Haggerty Road and the
noise is going to travel across the road and you are going to have to prove to
me that this isn't going to be an intrusion into their privacy, otherwise I can't
support it. At least I can't support the music out there. If you want to move the
music inside and move this whole thing around and have the deck face the
theater, fine, we can find a way to take care of your garbage. You can build a
garage with a door on it, an overhead door and put your garbage in their and
people wouldn't even know what's in there. But for me to approve this with the
music out there, you are going to have a hard sell.
Mr. Fortmueller: What would it take sell you on it? We are aware of what the ordinance
reads. I think it is 48 decibels after 11:00, 55 prior to. I have talked with our
music engineers. We do consult with a sound engineer who says they can live
with those decibel levels and that we can calibrate the system accordingly.
Mr. LaPine: If people are out there on the deck eating hor doves, what is the latest you
serve dinner on the inside.
Mr. Fortmueller: I believe it is about 11:00.
Mr. LaPine: Basically why couldn't you not have music after 10:00?
Mr. Fortmueller: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question.
Mr. LaPine: Why not cut it off at 10:00?
Mr. Fortmueller: We do have guests that want to listen to the music after they finish their
meal and maybe buy a cigar at the shop and smoke it out on the deck.
Mr. LaPine: People across the street want to sleep too. There has to be a give and a take
here.
Mr. Fortmueller: Right. There are ordinances that are set up to protect those individuals.
Mr. Hale: Being that is part of a big campus, that is the way it has been sold from the
beginning to all of us, I kind of agree with Mr. LaPine, it would be nice if we
could have the music on the other side. Is there any way we could refigure the
16907
site plan so that you can have your outdoor entertainment but it is more
integrated within the campus?
1111111,1
Mr. Fortmueller: Certainly, we could look at the studies but based on the depth of the
property, typically we would try to place our, what we call our 10/8 center
prototype which would have our porte cochere coming straight off the front
facing Haggerty. As you can see by our submission the porte cochere goes off
to the right hand side. Because of the depth of the property and the size of our
building which is quite large compared to typical restaurants going into a pad
condition like that. That is why we turned the building that way. It seemed to
fit the site much better and we actually are at minimums all the way across
from front to rear. As you can see our trash enclosure right now is very tight.
I think we've got the minimum required drive out behind it now. I'm not
saying a study couldn't be done but I believe we actually did look at trying to
fit that prototype on that site plan before we started.
Mr. Hale: You have different types of prototypes though from the video. It looked like
you had different buildings.
Mr. Fortmueller: They are basically all the same building but we have what we call the tank
center where we have the porte cochere comes off the front of the building and
then we have a left and a right.
Mr. Hale: They are all the same square footage?
Mr. Fortmueller: Let me reiterate, there are two prototypes , there is a 9500 version and there
is a 10/8 version. Each one of those buildings has a center left and right.
There are six versions that we have.
Mr. Hale: O.K. Could you scale this down to accommodate more of turning it around
or is this somewhat of a square footage that you need for the seating that you
want?
Mr. Fortmueller: Right. Basically from the studies they have done, and based on the number
of seats they feel they can fill they need a 10/8 building here.
Mrs. Koons: I am familiar with decibels of sound. Tell me where is the 48 and the 55? Is it
48 at the property line of the receiving property?
Mr. Fortmueller: Of the receiving property.
Mrs. Koons: Of the property line?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: Where is the 55?
Mr. Fortmueller: At the receiving property. Again it is based on the time. It is 55 decibels up
to 11:00 at the receiving property line and 48 decibels after 11:00.
16908
Mrs. Koons: Because in my mind 48 decibels is not very loud. It is not as loud as you
might think. If you could demonstrate that to us somehow, it might be helpful.
Although I do prefer the plan that Mr. Hale and Mr. LaPine are talking about
because it would enhance the whole complex to have music. I don't want
people to think it is screaming loud music. Speech is about 20 decibels. So
48 decibels is not really that loud. But I think we would need to hear that in
order to proceed with our decision making.
Mr. McCann: I guess I have a point to make. I have a client. I was sitting at his restaurant
and listening to a calypso band and was really enjoying it. He told me this is
the last weekend he is having it. I said "why"? I said you've got this beautiful
deck because he said about 200 yards away are all those homes over there and
he's got 30 year old trees between him and the homes, that they could hear the
music in the summer when it was quiet and still, you like to have your
windows open. If you've got a new home and you are less than 100 yards
away from 130 people eating, drinking, talking and listening to music it is
going to carry in very intrusively. The only one way I see to keep that noise
from coming in and disturbing the neighbors, for people sitting with their kids
late at night, they are entitled to quiet. I love the concept. This is the type of
place I would be a great customer for. I love calypso music. I love Jimmy
Buffet. The noise has to be directed away from the residents and not directly
towards them. What you have you've got your building set up so that
everything is pushed towards the residents and not towards the park. The
building itself would block the sound.
Mr. Fortmueller: The deck, you are right, does face the residents and Haggerty Road. We are
approximately 160 plus feet, I think more close to 180 feet from the bandstand
to the receiving property line. Of course the residents are actually set back off
that property line some further distance.
Mr. McCann: I said 100 yards, so that is close from your building to their home.
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir. The speakers are mounted facing towards the building so that will
help defuse the music some as well. I also think the patio cover that we are
proposing will defuse it even further by some of the sound getting caught up
in the structure. So it will help to know some of that noise level down as well.
We can also put acquisital panels up in the ceiling too.
Mr. McCann: There are a lot of things you can do but I don't think it will take away from the
impact on your neighbors. But I do want to see if there is anyone in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this petition tonight? Seeing no one, I
am going to give you the last opportunity to say anything you like.
Mr. Fortmueller: Is this for a denial, or tabling?
Mr. McCann: No. There is no motion yet for tabling, denying or approving. Listen to our
concerns and if you have any comments before we vote or make a motion.
16909
Mr. Fortmueller: I guess I would ask what the board would ask for us to prove that the sound
levels would not be Is there any possibility with the site plan that we have,
is there something that we have provide that would allow approval of that site
plan?
Mr. Alanskas: This is just an idea but I would like to see you people and the commission go
out to that site and hook up whatever you have with a 50 decibel and play it
and let us see how it sounds. The only way you can tell is by listening. You
can't say that we will put a buffer here and do this or that and make it smaller.
I would actually like to hear it.
Mr. McCann: My problem is to, that if you have a deck with a 130 people, people become
louder when they are drinking, number one. Number two when you have 100
people talking they become louder so they can talk over other people. The
noise from 130 people eating and drinking on a deck is enough to disturb a
family within 100 yards. No matter what you do, it is not even the music. It's
all the entertainment going on. I think there is a lot you can do. I think where
you are people will see you coming north and south on Haggerty. The traffic
you are getting between the theaters, the traffic you are getting between the
other two restaurants and the traffic you are getting from the hotel. The road
as you know, rises and comes down towards the project. I don't think the
problem of fmding your restaurant is ever going to be a problem. I just have
some extreme concerns about directing the deck towards the residents and the
open air. The enclosed area, it's not a problem. To me, I think you would
want all the attention, all the people coming from the entertainment complex.
That is the basis of what Mr. Joanna designed here was an entertainment
complex. That everybody is going to be around you. You are going to see
things that are going on. There are going to be people coming and going.
They are going to be able to walk around the campus and go to different
restaurants, come to your restaurant for a drink, go to Champps and I think it
would interface better with your project but to use your deck as an
advertisement along Haggerty Road I don't think it is fair to the neighbors.
Mr. LaPine: Is there anyway you can leave the deck the way it is but make that into a dining
room, instead of a dining room you've got in the back for 30 people, and take
the 31 in the back and make that larger for the whole 75 people and have your
entertainment back there and the front what was in the back. Just reverse the
back and front. Isn't that feasible? Can't that be done?
Mr. Fortmueller: Some similarities of that, I guess the circulation inside the restaurant would
have to be taken into account. Right now when you come up to the porte
cochere you can go right onto the deck or you can go into the vestibule and
wait to be seated. Yes, there is a possibility that a deck could be configured on
the side.
Mr. LaPine: I don't want to lose your restaurant. I like your concept and I like everything
about it. Believe me as Mr. Jonna knows,tis whole project I haven't been
keen on it from the day it went in there. I }Aw it is there and something is
going in there. I like this concept. I like tw lyay it is designed. The only
16910
thing I don't like about it is the music along Haggerty Road. I am willing to
table this and see if you guys can come up with some additional ideas. to
change the concept or else somehow, as Mr. Alanskas as pointed out, you can
convince us that the noise isn't going to cause any problems. At this point I
don't know how you can convince us the noise is going to be a problem
because I don't live across the street. The reason nobody is here from over
there is because they don't get any notification because they live in Northville
and his is Livonia. But it seems to me that there has to be someway to
accomplish what you want and still make us happy. Is that feasible? I am
willing to give you a tabling motion to give you guys some time to see if you
can come up with some alternative plans.
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir. We will look at some configuration of the site.
Mr. LaPine: If we table this to June 22, 1999, will that give you enough time?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes that will give us enough time.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#6-100-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 8, 1999, on Petition 99-5-2-16 by GMRI, Inc.
on behalf of Darden Restaurants, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a full service restaurant (Bahama Breeze) on property
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile
Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 99-5-2-16 to June 22, 1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-6-2 by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance No.
543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Sections 10.03 and 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance to
set forth controls with respect to customer accessibility to the types of
alcoholic beverages allowed for sale in connection with the use of an SDD
license.
Mr. McCann: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission with respect to the
availability of alcohol without being dispensed by a person of at least 21 years
and that is placing liquor on the shelf open to the public. The ordinance would
require that it would only be sold to customers by an individual of at least 2'1
years of age. Since this is our petition, I will go directly to the audience. Is
there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. McCann: Any discussion?
16911
Mrs. Koons: I would just like to mention Mr. Piercecchi, who is absent tonight, was
instrumental in bringing this in and I would like to give him credit.
Mr. McCann: He saw the problem and it worked out great.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-101-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 8,
1999, on Petition 99-5-6-2 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 10.03 and
11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance to set forth controls with respect to customer
accessibility to the types of alcoholic beverages allowed for sale in connection
with the use of an SDD license, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-5-6-2 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more
standards and control over the display and dispensing of the types of
alcoholic beverages allowed for sale in connection with the use of a
SDD license in the City of Livonia; and
2) That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the intent
and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to
protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
These items have been discussed at length at prior meetings therefore there
will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commissioners.
Mr. Hale, Acting 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.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
... #6-102-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-5-8-15 by Investico Development Corporation
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58of the zoning
ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium
16912
development on property located at 9204 Middlebelt Road in the southwest 1/4
of Section 36 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Is there any discussion? Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ron Kashman, Building Design Group, 330 East Maple, Suite B, Troy, Michigan. As I was
before you about a month ago we went over this and reviewed some of the
comments and concerns of the Commission and the Fire Marshal. I think we
have come back and resolved, I believe, most of the concerns. We have added
the concerns of the Fire Marshal, larger turning radiuses. There will be a fire
lane and none of the landscaping will impair the truck from turning. We are
still going to leave the masonry wall behind the building which will encroach
into the front yard set back about 8 feet. That is the only thing we will have to
get a variance on. The concern of the brick, this would be a similar brick that
we are presenting that we would want to use on the exterior of the building.
We have increased more of the pine trees or the blue spruce throughout the
perimeter of the area which will give us a little bit more screening to the
property line and add a little bit more color into the site. Wheat we have also
done is taken your concerns with the rear elevation of the building. We have
changed the exterior and provided and some light that you wanted in the back,
we have now provided brick across the whole back of the building and the two
ends of the building, we have brick all the way up to the roof line. What we
have done is we have now provided a sliding door off the master bedroom
upstairs with a little deck coming out about 4 feet that will add a little bit
character to the building and allow the people inside to come out and enjoy the
sun and so forth. So I think with what we had done with the exterior of the
building, I think we have resolved the concerns of the Commission and the
only thing we really have is the "Y" in the front where it would be hard to put
it on. Simply because it would be sitting over the garage we might have a
problem and it might crack so that it why we kept the vinyl, like the people
before us. We moved the building in, the overhand, the second floor forward
so we could put the brick all the way up to the second floor. I think this should
meet the requirements and what you are looking for.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions?
Mr. LaPine: No, I am happy with the improvements he has made.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved , it was
#6-103-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that 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 be approved subject to the following conditions:
16913
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet CE-1 prepared by The Building
Design Group, as received by the Planning Commission on May 25
1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by The Building
Design Group, as received by the Planning Commission on May 25
1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-1 prepared
by The Building Design Group, as received by the Planning
Commission on May 25, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
6) That the brick used in the construction of the buildings shall be full face
4-inch brick; no exceptions
`�► 7) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the
Subdivision control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04 of the Livonia
Code of Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance #543, Section 20.01-
20.06 of the ordinance;
8) That an Entrance Marker Application shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
9) That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction the
requirements as outlined in the correspondence dated May 12, 1999:
all access roads shall become designated fire lanes and posted
as such
placement landscaping shall not interfere with turning radius of
vehicles
turning radius in critical areas of driveways shall be increased
from 10 feet to 15 feet.
10) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient yard setbacks as
defined in a correspondence dated May 12, 1999, from the Inspection
Department.
NNW
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
16914
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-3-8-13 by
�..- Suburban Eye Care requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to alter the building
elevations to the building located at 32415 Five Mile Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to remove this item from the table?
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-104-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-3-8-13 by Suburban Eye Care requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to alter the building elevations to the building
located at 32415 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 be taken
from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
John Jacobi, 31330 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia. This is our current business address.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about your project.
`► Mr. Jacobi: We are submitting the plans tonight for consideration to relocate our
optometric clinic which is currently location on Schoolcraft at Merriman. I
believe the plans are before you at this point and time with the designated
elevations.
Mr. McCann: Are you the optometrist?
Mr. Jacobi: Yes , one of the optometrist. There is a partner of mine and this is Frank
Tarwacki, same business address and he is our optician. He has been doing a
lot of work in getting our project ready.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little bit about your business.
Mr. Jacobi: Yes. It is an optometric clinic. There are actually two doctors, full time, two
semi-retired doctors at this point and time. The project will entail a building
that is approximately 4800 sq. ft. on the top level and 4800 sq. ft. on the
basement level.
Mr. McCann: Will the basement level be offices?
Mr. Jacobi: No. It will be for storage purposes. At this point and time we believe the
move will be important to our business and to become more of a fixture to the
community and at this time our current location is actually a negative as far
as marketing goes for our clinic. The majority of our patients are ambulatory.
We serve a wide range of patients anywhere from infant to geriatic
16915
+.. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I think he has come up with a better plan for all things concerned. He has
cooperated with us quite well.
Mr. McCann: I have a couple of questions. Me and a couple of partners own the building
next to it. The entrance is all going to be from the south. There will be no
entry ways from the north anymore or from the east, the doors will the sealed?
Mr. Jacobi: I believe those will remain open. I thought you meant as far as the driveway.
Mr. Tarwacki: The north entrance will be closed. That is a library that is located out in front.
Where there is an enclosure there now, there will still be a steel entry door
however it is not an entrance for patients.
Mr. McCann: The new profile, this is going to be the existing brick on the back. This is the
correct one you that are going with?
Mr. Jacobi: Yes.
Mr. McCann: This is going to be the existing brick, you show it as a gray but it is red.
Mr. Jacobi: It is going to be painted.
Mr. McCann: You are going to paint the brick gray?
Mr. Jacobi: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Why did you decide the roofing which comes around here, you centered it
around the doors. Is it for esthetic reasons that you didn't continue it?
Mr. Jacobi: We were hoping to make it look less retail and more in line with the
neighborhood. To give it more of a shingled effect and drop a lot of that
vertical siding which makes it look a bit more industrial and commercial. It
give it more of a professional character.
Mr. McCann: You don't show any signs, monument signs or any signs out front, you are just
going to have the wall sign?
Mr. Jacobi: At this point and time, yes. We will possibly go before the Zoning Board for
a monument sign which would be on the north east corner.
Mr. McCann: This has an underground sprinkler system?
Mr. Jacobi: Yes, it does.
Mr. McCann: Did you look at the lighting fixtures on that too, Al?
16916
Mr. Nowak: Scott, are you familiar with that?
Mr. Miller: You're not going to add any, are you?
Mr. Tarwicki: No. We are going to refit the existing light poles in the back of the property
which will give more light to the parking lot.
Mr. McCann: I have no more questions.
Mr. Alanskas: What are your hours going to be?
Mr. Jacobi: We will have two late evenings until 8:00 p.m. Monday and Thursday
currently and Saturdays until noon and then the rest will be regular working
hours, basically 8 to 5 at night.
Mr. McCann: When do you plan on starting construction?
Mr. Jacobi: It is going to be based on what your decision is.
Mr. McCann: As soon as you get through the process?
Mr. Jacobi: Yes. We have a contractor in line and he already has his subcontractors.
Mr. McCann: If there are no more questions, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-105-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-3-8-13 by Suburban Eye Care requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to alter the building elevations to the building
located at 32415 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-27 prepared by Oadbe Associates,
as received by the Planning Commission on May 11, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Equinox, as
received by the Planning Commission on April 13, 1999, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
... satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
16917
5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-16 prepared
by Oadbe Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on June
1, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-17 prepared
by Oadbe Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on May
11, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to
7) That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped
to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department;
8) That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the
correspondence dated April 9, 1999:
- that the sidewalk along the site shall be repaired in
conjunction with this project
9) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the
correspondence dated April 15, 1999:
- that the privacy fence on the south property line shall be
repaired
- that the barrier free parking location and striping shall be
N'"' corrected
- that all new parking light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in
height and shall be shielded from all abutting residential
properties
10) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with
this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Hale: One question that I have in light of the motion there is a sign. Am I
understanding that correctly on your plans? So that would have to be an
amendment then?
Mr. Alanskas: But that can't be a monument sign or a freestanding sign.
Mr. McCann: No,that one is not approved with this.
Mr. Miller: You can't approve that sign, it's nonconforming.
Mr. Hale: So this particular plan is part of the motion so I think we need to amend that
•� Mr. Alanskas: We'll take the signage out of there.
16918
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. We will now begin
the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Greenbelt Review
Application by Pierson Center requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt
for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for
property locate at 32625 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Seven Mile between Loveland
and Mayfield. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt
in lieu of the protective wall that is required between an office zoned property
and a residentially zoned property. According tot he City Law Department,
when a protective wall is required a property owner has one of three choices;
to either install the wall, obtain a temporary variance from the Zoning Board
of Appeals or have the wall permanently waived by the substitution of a
greenbelt. Such substitution shall be subject to approval by the Planning
Commission and/or City Council. The applicant is requesting that the
existing landscaped greenbelt along the south property line be accepted as an
appropriate substitution. The submitted Site Plan shows that the south
property line is presently planted with a row of mature trees. The applicant is
proposing to plant additional trees to increase the buffer.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
`OW
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated June 1, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of May 19, 1999, the above referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Paint is peeling on the exterior of
building. (2) Headlights will easily shine onto adjacent residential property.
(3) Existing parking is not as depicted on drawing. (4) There are no
established trees as indicted on drawing at southwest area of parking lot
(north of south property line). (5) This plan does not address Zoning Board
of Appeal letter dated September 1, 1998 (8308-115) for a 10 foot greenbelt.
I trust this provides you with 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?
Dawn Taylor, 32625 West Seven Mile.
Mr. McCann: Basically you want to tell us why you want the greenbelt as opposed to the
wall.
Ms. Taylor: Well, I think for one thing, a protective wall would be somewhat not very
appealing, I mean 550 feet of protective wall. We would rather enhance this
area with some additional trees, perhaps build the dirt up. It is in poor shape I
have to admit. This is an old piece of property that we have been in for 15
years. We would like to add the trees and do anything else that will enhance
16919
that property. But I think the protective wall would really be, besides it is not
cost effective, it would be not very appealing to the neighbors.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: The cyclone fence that is back there. Is that yours or does that belong to the
property owner?
Ms. Taylor: You mean the chain link fence?
Mr. LaPine: Yes.
Ms. Taylor: We had a survey done and that chain link fence is waved in between the
whole line as are the trees, what 30 Siberian elms that are probably 40 to 60
feet tall back there. Some are on our lot line and some are on theirs. That lot
line is, what would you say. It is old.
Mr. LaPine: Do you own the property?
Ms. Taylor: I am the property manager.
Mr. LaPine: I have been opposed to granting these variances but in this particular because
of the trees, but the property is not in the best shape. On the east side of the
building you've got shrubbery. I guess they are shrubbery, but they are almost
yr.. two story high now.
Ms. Taylor: No kidding. Where are our contractors? I signed a contract probably three
months ago for them to come and do those.
Mr. LaPine: I don't know. The whole property needs some upgrading on it. If we should
waive this. You are saving a lot of money. That wall is going to cost you a
big chunk of money. I think you should invest some of your money
especially on the east side there where those shrubs. How anybody can they
let those things grow for this many years. They are almost two stories high.
Ms. Taylor: I agree. They have been difficult. They have to bring in a crane and we had
wet conditions in the fall.
Mr. LaPine: If you have been there for 15 years, why hasn't something been done in 15
years?
Ms. Taylor: Why, do you think we should take those down?
Mr. McCann: No I don't think you should take them down? Don't you ever trim your shrubs
at home.
Ms. Taylor: Those were trimmed. Actually those were trimmed two years ago. I'm
serious. We just had Davy Trees, as our contractor. But I agree,the property
does need some enhancement and we are certainly going to do that.
16920
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak? Seeing no one, is there
anything else you would like to tell us?
Ms. Taylor: Just that we would like to please the neighbors and the City with this. This is
not a big money making building. We have really put a lot into it. So we
would like to have some consideration that it is an old school. It has taken a
lot of money. We have an old boiler in there. We have tried to enhance this
property a lot over the years. I think it has made a considerable come back
under Hugh Leavell. I think we've done a lot with it.
Mr. Alanskas: What have you done to enhance it?
Ms. Taylor: We've upgraded the landscaping system. We've put in a sprinkler system.
Almost anything the City has asked for, we've come across with. We
enhanced the parking . The back parking lot, we've closed off the back
driveways and added parking spaces. Just about anything the City has asked
for, we have complied with.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, a motion is in order.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I am going to make a motion to table this at least a month and
see what you see to make the place look more presentable, supported by Mr_
Hale. Is July 27, 1999, is our regular meeting. Is that all right with the
petitioner?
Ms. Taylor: Yes, that is all right.
Mr. McCann: Is that all right with you Mr. Hale?
Mr. Hale: Yes, that is all right.
Mr. McCann: We'll see you back here on July 27.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was
#6-106-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table the Greenbelt Review Application by Pierson Center requesting
approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section
18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 32625 Seven Mile Road
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 to July 27, 1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-8-17 by
Benchmark Centre 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 office building located at 31500 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 22.
16921
Mr. Miller: The location of this property is on the north side of Schoolcraft between
Merriman and Berwick. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an
addition to the north elevation of the office building located in the Benchmark
Professional Centre. The new addition would be 2,100 sq. ft. in size. The
existing building is 5,365 sq. ft. in area. If this proposal were to be approved,
the entire structure, once completed, would become a total of 7,465 sq. ft. in
size. Because of the addition, the existing parking lot to the rear of the
building would have to be reconfigured. A note on the plan states "existing
asphalt parking lot to be resealed & restriped per plan". Parking is
summarized as follows: Parking required - 30 spaces/Parking provided - 51
spaces.
A new trash dumpster enclosure area would be located in the northeast corner
of the site. The Exterior Building Elevation Plan shows and notes that the
new addition would be constructed out of materials to match the existing
building. The new addition would be constructed out of 4" brick with dryvit
in the peak area of the roof. The roof would be asphalt shingles to match
existing. According to the plan, even the window treatments and gable vent
would match the existing. Once completed the entire structure should look as
if it were constructed all at one time.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
r..�. Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated May 25, 1999, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request,the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this
time. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The
letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. We have a letter
dated May 25, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the
office building on property located at the above referenced address. We have
no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.Corcoran,
Fire Marshal. We have a letter dated June 1, 1999, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of May 19, 1999,the above referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Existing parking lot needs to be
resealed and double striped. (2) Some existing landscaping needs
maintenance and cleanup. (3) The right-of-way along Schoolcraft does not
appeal to have irrigation. (4) Several sidewalk sections need repair or
replacement. (5) Drainage along the west side of subject property appears to
drain onto the adjacent property. (6) Barrier free parking as depicted on
drawing is incorrect. If 51 spaces are provided, then a total of 3 barrier free
would be required, one of which must be van accessible (8' space with 8'
aisle). At least one of the spaces should go nearest the next north entry door.
(7) Egress must be reviewed on existing building as this addition blocks an
exit. (8) No provision has been made for any lighting that may be required in
parking lot. (9) A dumpster enclosure is not addressed, only a proposed
location. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter
16922
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 McGee, 23609 Warner and Farmington. I am the owner of the building.
Mr. McCann: Tell us why you need the addition.
Mr. McGee: My tenant that has two thirds of the building is either going to have to move
or I have to add on so the idea is to add on and to make him happy and that
way I can keep him as a tenant. I don't want to see the building vacant and I
can meet all the requirements that are necessary to add on to the building as
far as parking and anything that is required.
Mr. McCann: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: If you have this addition, will he come two years from now can he come to
you and say that he needs more move or I am going to move out, or will that
be sufficient for him or will he be leaving?
Mr. McGee: I don't think I would be able to add on again.
Mr. Alanskas: That is what I mean.
`" Mr. McGee: At this point he requires more room. As a matter of fact, he is leasing down
the street, he is running back and forth, he is leasing 1800 sq. ft. from down
the street from Don Summers, I am sure you are familiar with him, in a
complex down there. He has people running paper work back and forth so he
is either going to go fmd a bigger place or if I am add on, he will be happy.
Mr. LaPine: So what you are going to do, you are going to tie him up with a 10 or 15 year
lease so he can't move out on you.
Mr. McGee: I'm not sure I can get that lucky.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this petitioner? Seeing no
one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-107-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-5-8-17 by Benchmark Centre 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 office building
located at 31500 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
16923
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 prepared by AZD Associates, as
received by the Planning Commission on May 17, 1999, is hereby
-' approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan submitted by Gene McGee, as received by the
Planning Commission on June 4, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 prepared
by AZD Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on May
17, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face
4-inch brick, no exceptions;
7) 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 used, closed at all
times;
8) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the
correspondence dated June 1, 1999:
that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double
striped
- that the existing landscaping shall be cleaned up and maintained
- that the underground sprinklers are to be provided in the right-
of-way along Schoolcraft Road
that the drainage along the west side of the property shall be
reviewed by the Engineering Department
- that the sections of the existing sidewalk that are in disrepair
shall be repaired or replaced
- that the required accessible parking spaces shall be installed
according to the current Boca codes
- that all new parking light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in
height and shall be shielded from all abutting properties
9) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with
this petition.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
16924
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
r,. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 786th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on June 8, 1999 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
"/ (I/7 -(
Michael Hale, A Secretary
ATTEST: - '-`- c .
• s C. McCann, Chairman
/rw
`r•