HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-08-01 14296
MINUTES OF THE 708th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COPM'IISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 1, 1995, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 708th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann Robert Alanskas
R. Lee Morrow Patricia Blomberg William LaPine
Daniel Piercecchi
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and
Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson 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 can public hearing and decide the
question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is
denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City
Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the
only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning
Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are
adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and
`1w have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
94-8-1-18 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone property
located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-140-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-8-1-18 by Haggerty Road Investments
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty
Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from
OS to C-2 be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: This was tabled approximately a year ago while the Council was
determining the status of land surrounding this property. I see
the petitioner is at podium. Would you please give us your name
14297
and address and make whatever comments you care to.
Arthur Carmichael, 19450 Haggerty Road: I am the General Partner of Haggerty Road
Investments, a family partnership. We are now surrounded by
`�. commercial, which was recently rezoned, the 35 acres around us.
Opposite us is Home Depot, commercial. Down the road from us is
a Target store and a Home Quarters and across the street is
Meijers Thrifty Acres. In short, the whole area has become
commercial, and we would like to stay consistent with the zoning
around us, and it gives us greater flexibility in any future
planning we might have. I think it is a logical step we are
asking for on that basis.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence regarding this petition?
Mr. Nagy: We have received no new correspondence on this petition since our
hearing in October of 1994.
Mr. Morrow: What is the size of your site sir?
Mr. Carmichael: It is less than an acre. It is about 7/10ths of an acre, very
small.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#8-141-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 on Petition 94-8-1-18 by
Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone property located on the
east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest
err. 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-8-1-18 be
approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning district;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with a recent
change of zoning approved on adjacent property; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which
are consistent with those permitted on adjacent property.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
�.v
14298
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
95-5-1-i1 by J-P Properties requesting to rezone property located
north of Six Mile Road, west of the I-96 Expressway, in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 7 from R-9III and OS to C-4; OS and R-9III to C-2; AG
`ow. to OS; R-9III to PO; and R-5C to C-2.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, have we received any new correspondence regarding this
petition?
Mr. Nagy: We have not received any additional correspondence since the
hearing, although we have received more than a dozen phone calls
in our office from area residents stating their opposition.
Mr. Engehretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-142-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-5-1-11 by J-P Properties requesting to
rezone property located north of Six Mile Road, west of the I-96
Expressway, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-9III and OS to
C-4; OS and R-9III to C-2; AG to OS; R-9III to PO; and R-5C to C-2, be
taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Does the petitioner have any new information?
``r.. Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: We have no additional information
or new information. We have been before you five times, and we
are here for any questions you may have for us.
Mr. EngPhretson: Mr. Tangora, the issue was tabled, as you will recall, last time
to deal with the matter of a traffic survey to study the
anticipated impact of traffic that would be generated by the
proposed zoning change as compared to the traffic that could
potentially be generated by the existing zoning. We also were
interested in the status of Fox Road, a very narrow concrete
drive, 24 feet wide I believe, without curbs, if my memory serves
me correctly, which we had concern producing a potential
difficult situation getting emergency equipment in and out of
this location, and even though we may have had the opportunity to
discuss some of those issues at the study meeting, I think it
would be appropriate to have you or your client review those
items once again for the people that weren't at that study
meeting.
Mr. Morrow: I was reading my notes here but also as I recall, they removed
the C-2.
Mr. EngPhretson: There are significant changes that have occurred since the public
hearing.
14299
Mr. Tangora: The most significant change since the last public hearing was
this area. (He pointed this out on the plan). Originally we had
a three-story office building there and then this was proposed to
be rezoned to C-2 for use of a potential restaurant, and this was
a proposed three-story hotel, and then the C-2 zoning up in
front. The hotel and office stays the same. The thing that has
been changed is this rezoning that was proposed to be C-2 has now
been changed to PO, which would utilize a 30,000 square foot
office building. So this entire piece is proposed to be PO
rather than split the PO and C-2.
Mr. Engebretson: If my memory serves me correctly, I think you changed it from
being proposed to C-2 to PO and parking.
Mr. Tangora: Yes and that is indicated on the plan here. There is parking
down below. Fox Drive is proposed to be a collector type road,
which would be a boulevard at the entrance of Six Mile and then
going to a 40 foot wide drive all the way back to the end of this
property. Fox Drive, as you know, is owned by Schoolcraft
College. We have talked to Dr. McDowell, and he has no objection
to the road being used and being widened to whatever use we need.
On the new plan that is different than what you saw before.
Mr. Ehgebretson: What is it?
Mr. Tangora: It is 60 foot wide up in front. There is a 40 foot right-of-way,
and a 34 foot pavement, which would utilize a three-lane road,
and then four lanes up here in the boulevard.
New Mr. LaPine: One of the other things that was brought up was the possibility
of having access to Haggerty Road off there and your client was
going to talk to Schoolcraft College. Was anything resolved on
that issue?
Mr. Tangora: We talked to Schoolcraft College, primarily Dr. McDowell, and at
this point in time he does not see any possibility of permitting
a road to go over to Haggerty Road.
Mr. LaPine: So the road now will be 40 foot wide, which will be 34 feet of
pavement. There will be a lane going north and south plus the
turn lane. Is that what the third lane will be?
Mr. Tangora: Yes it will be a turn lane.
Mr. Alanskas: On the second office building, what size would that be?
Mr. Tangora: 30,000 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas: I know we had possible plans for the first one. Do we have any
plans for the second one?
Mr. Tangora: I don't think there are any plans at the present time that I am
aware of.
14300
Mr. Alanskas: And the restaurant is going to be a high-use, family-style
restaurant?
Mr. Tangora: Yes.
`.•
Mr. Engebretson: Do you have your Traffic Consultant with you this evening Mr.
Tangora?
Mr. Tangora: No we don't. I could comment on it just from my memory of what
he discussed with the Commission.
Mr. Engebretson: I am looking right at it. Do you want me to comment on it
because I can basically read it.
Mr. Tangora: Yes because I don't have the traffic figures.
Mr. Engebretson: I will be glad to lend you my sheet. I think that would be more
appropriate.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Tangora, did I understand you to say it was going to be a
family-type restaurant or a gourmet-type restaurant? We were
under the impression it was not going to be a run-of-the-mill
restaurant.
Mr. Tangora: It is not going to be a run-of-the-mill restaurant. It is going
to be a tablecloth type restaurant. I don't know if you would
call it gourmet or family-style, but it certainly is not
fast-food or a restaurant in that type of nature. I think what
we recognize there is this particular location is directly
'N.• adjacent to the Comerica building, which is certainly white
collar workers; directly across the street from two large office
facilities, which also have the same type of people, professional
people and people that work in offices, the white-collar type and
secretaries, but in this particular location on this particular
corner, there is no other restaurant, in fact whatever restaurant
goes in there will be aimed toward the business and professional
person.
Mr. Marrow: Mr. Tangora, I think the term we used in the prior meetings was
upscale, but that is subjective. When the waiver comes through
we will determine what is upsacle.
Mr. Tangora: I think this corner will be a very desirable corner for an
upscale restaurant. There certainly is enough business to
support it.
Mr. Engehretson: Let's go to the traffic study.
Mr. Tangora: The traffic study was prepared by Reid, Cool & Michalski, who are
recognized in the area as being one of the prime traffic
engineers. What they did was they took the area the way it is
presently zoned and using whatever formula they use, which is
14301
accepted nationwide, and generated the number of trips that would
be used by the occupants or the people that would be using the
particular property the way it is zoned now to the maximum
zoning. The way it is zoned now, it would allow 4 single family
homes on the Six Mile Road area where the proposed restaurant is,
a 30,000 sq. ft. office building, and a 240 apartments for
elderly, which would generate approximately 2,131 trips during a
24-hour period. We compared that to the proposed rezoning, which
is a 92 room hotel, a 30,000 sq. ft. office, a 45,000 sq. ft.
office building, and a 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant, which would
generate approximately 2,374 trips during a 24-hour period. So
you have approximately a 10% increase from the present zoning to
the proposed zoning in the number of cars that would be moving in
and out of this particular proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience that has new information
regarding this proposal. New information only sir. We don't
want to rehash anything that we have covered before.
Tom Malcolm, 38952 Reo Drive: That is in the Quakertown Subdivision, which is
directly south of this proposed rezoning. I want to make one
real quick comment because it is not new news, but I want to
question the study, again it is showing what traffic would be if
the current situation was fully developed, which it is not, and
it is far from being fully developed, so this 2,131 figure is not
a realistic number. That number most likely is much smaller than
that number right now, and we are experiencing severe traffic
problems as it is right now with what it currently is. I have no
idea what that number is. We were thinking they were going to do
an actual visible type study versus just calculations. What we
are concerned about is if this thing is rezoned and fully
developed, which I am sure the developer would like to do, the
percentage increase in traffic would be quite a bit because it
won't be 2,131 to the 2,374 figure. It would actually be a lower
number to the 2,374 figure. On top of that you compound it with
the existing development that is already around that area plus
what Northville is proposing, and that adds even more traffic
volume. These numbers will only reflect what comes and goes f um
the site itself. I just wanted to bring that up. I am sure you
already realize that but I want to make sure you understand I
don't believe these numbers are realistic numbers, at least not
with what is currently happening.
Mr. Engebretson: You are right sir. They weren't intended to address what is
happening presently. It was intended to illustrate what would
happen if the land were fully developed in its current zoning
districts versus what is being proposed. That is where the two
numbers came from.
Mr. Malcolm: I understand. I just wanted to make sure you understand that
currently the traffic volume is nowhere near that. If it was
fully developed, I am sure we would be experiencing more of a
14302
traffic problem than we have right now. Otherwise, we do have
some people here that again with nothing new but we just want to
let you know there are several residents that again are concerned
about this and do oppose it.
'41111. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
#8-143-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 on Petition 95-5-1-11 by J-P
Properties requesting to rezone property located north of Six Mile
Road, west of the I-96 Expressway, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7
from R-9III and OS to C-4; OS and R-9III to C-2; AG to OS; R-9III to
PO; and R-5C to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-5-1-11 be approved, as
revised, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for a variety of
uses for the subject properties;
2) That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the
area;
3) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for uses which
are consistent with the location of the properties near a major
freeway interchange; and
4) That the proposed changes of zoning are in keeping with the
developing character of the area.
'taw 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. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment to the people that
are concerned about the traffic. It is very true that there is
going to be a lot more traffic if this gets developed in
comparison to what it is right now, and if the Planning
Commission had it in their power to do something about changing
the traffic, we certainly would, but as I suggested at previous
study meetings, I highly recommend that you go to the Traffic
Commission. Perhaps a light, something could alleviate the
problems you currently have right now. Unfortunately, we have to
decide whether this type of zoning is good for the City. This
particular individual made a lot of revisions, and I think it is
going to be good for the area there. As Mrs. Blomberg once
pointed out if you get that senior citizen high-rise in there,
the traffic problem and safety problems would only be worse.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: McCann, Engehretson
ABSENT: None
14303
Mr. Ehgebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is letter dated July
17, 1995 from Jerald Gottlieb requesting a one-year extension of
Petition 94-5-2-14 by Jerald Gottlieb which received waiver use
`r.y approval to construct single family cluster homes on the north side of
Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 11.
Mr. Enge.hretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence regarding this petition?
Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence. Of course, we do have a letter
from the petitioner stating the reasons why he was unable to
commence construction within the year, the status of the project,
and he respectfully requests a one-year extension. He is in the
process now of trying to obtain his building permits.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe we told him it was not necessary for him to appear here
tonight.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: In that case, a motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-144-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated July 17, 1995 from Jerald
Gottlieb requesting an extension of approval of Petition 94-5-2-14 by
Jerald Gottlieb which received waiver use approval to construct single
Nft,, family cluster homes on the north side of Six Mile Road between
Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the date of
this resolution subject to the same conditions as set forth in Council
Resolution #549-94 dated July 20, 1994 for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that the
project has not been started due to circumstances not under his
control; and
2) That the project has sufficient merit as to continue to encourage
its construction by the approval of an extension of time.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
approval for Oakcrest Villas Subdivision proposed to be located north
of Six Mile Road between Louise Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 11.
14304
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any new correspondence regarding this
petition?
Mr. Nagy: We do have a letter from the City Clerk indicating that all
financial assurances required in connection with the subdivision
have been deposited with their office. We also have a letter
from the City Engineer, Raul Galindo, recommending approval of
the final plat.
Mr. Ehgchretson: So everything meets with all the requirements?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Ehgebretson: Does the petitioner want to add any comments?
Dave Gerish, Gerish Building Company, 9450 South Main Street, #105, Plymouth: I
don't have any comments.
Mr. Engebretson: This is more of a formality than anything else. A motion would
be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-145-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Oakcrest Villas Subdivision proposed to be located
north of Six Mile Road between Louise Avenue and Middlebelt Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, for the following reasons:
r.. 1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the previously
approved Preliminary Plat;
2) That the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Final
Plat; and
3) That the City Clerk has indicated that all of the financial
obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been
satisfied.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat
approval for Fargo Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the
southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and Merriman Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I presume we have the same correspondence.
Mr. Nagy: We have the same correspondence that we had in the previous file.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly, do you have anything to add?
14305
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I am representing Cummings & McClorey. I
just wanted to point out a couple of things. It is an eight lot
subdivision. If you will notice there is a note which indicates
that the County mandated that we not have, six of the lots are
fronting on Merriman Road, so in order that we will not be
backing up any cars into Merriman Road, there is a note on the
plat that allows Lots 1 through 6 will either have a loop or a T
turnaround so you will always be coming out in a front direction
and not backing out onto Merriman, which incidentally will be
widened in another year or two. I would also note that Lot 7
would only access on Fargo Avenue. Other than that, we also have
a 50 foot wooded area we preserved in the rear. They are deep
lots, 266 feet or more. I think it is a nice sub. And in the
event, being optimistic, and you do grant approval, would you
please waive the seven days so I may proceed as soon as possible
to the Council.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-146-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Fargo Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the
southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and Merriman Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 2, for the following reasons:
1) That the final Plat complies in every respect with the
Preliminary Plat;
2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat; and
3) That the City Clerk has indicated that all of the financial
obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been
satisfied.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
#8-147-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period
concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in
connection with Final Plat approval for Fargo Woods Subdivision
proposed to be located on the southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and
Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
o..
14306
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #418-95, to
hold a public hearing on the question of whether 41.5 acres of the
Greenmead property which lies west of the U.S. Post Office and north
,,` of Pembroke Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, should be rezoned
from PL to R-4.
Mr. Engebretson: The purpose of this item is to set a public hearing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-148-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #418-95, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does
hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone 41.5 acres of the Greenmead
property which lies west of the U.S. Post Office and north of Pembroke
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, from PL to R-4.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided
in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a
report and recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 707th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on July
18, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#8-149-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes the 707th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on July 18, 1995 are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-4-8-7
by Las Brisas Development Company requesting approval for all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with
a proposal to construct an apartment complex on property located at
28808 Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13.
14307
Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-150-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-4-8-7 by Tas Brisas Development company
requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an apartment
complex on property located at 28808 Five Mile Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 13 be taken from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled a number of weeks ago primarily because of a
letter prepared by the Fire Marshal expressing great concern over
a number of safety issues. We tabled the issue so the petitioner
would have an opportunity to work with the Fire Marshal to see if
those concerns could be mitigated some way. With that we will
ask the petitioner to come forward and tell us haw you proceeded
on those matters.
Mr. Piercecchi: Have we any additional communication from the Fire Chief on the
proposed changes that I assume are going to be given by this
gentleman?
Mr. Nagy: We did meet with the company representative from las Brisas,
myself and Scott, and also with the Fire Marshal, and at that
meeting we came to a consensus of opinion as to how to correct
ti.. the site plan to overcome those conditions. The site plan was
just revised today and submitted to our office. We did
communicate with the Fire Marshal that we do have a revised plan.
The Ass't. Fire Marshal did review the plan and indicated that he
found it acceptable, but again it was just this afternoon and did
not have sufficient time to get that in writing. I can tell you
from a phone conversation they were satisfied.
Mr. Morrow: So John what we are saying is by the time this becomes formally
approved, that the letters and necessary documents will catch up?
Mr. Nagy: As you know, this isn't official until seven days, and we will
hold it until we actually get a letter to that effect.
Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner is standing there ready to explain the changes.
Richard Sommerville: I am a General Partner in Tas Brisas Development Company. We
came in and had a special meeting with Mr. Nagy and Mr. Whitehead
and he basically suggested to us that we change the plan that you
see reflected on this site plan. He wanted the emergency
thruway here and have us extend our pavement to the property line
so if in an emergency situation, they can service this through
the other apartment complex, which is all blacktop back
14308
here. Also, we added the handicap ramp. There was a comment
about that too. We also added an additional fire hydrant up
here.
Mr. Engebretson: At the rear end of your property there is a fence plan back there
if I recall correctly? Or am I not recalling correctly?
Mr. Sommerville: There is a fence proposed, but the architect said access drive
provided to adjacent property to the north. We are going to have
some kind of gate there that can be serviced in an emergency.
Mr. Engghretson: But not a locked gate?
Mr. Sommerville: He first told us of a chain with two poles but that got revised
to a removable panel or a gate. I don't really know exactly
which one he wanted.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that your recollection John? They were that loose with their
definition of haw they would break into this property?
Mr. Nagy: Their first thought was to go east when they talked about the
chain and the gate to either loop onto Carrollton Arms Apartment
site on the east or Carrollton Arms would access onto this site
in the event that an emergency would occur on their site, but
upon further reflection, they decided the better way to make the
connection directly to the north, they would have more capacity,
in that case they hadn't resolved the actual design of whether it
will be a gate or a panel. In any event, it will only be done to
their satisfaction. They will make the Fire Marshal make the
final decision as to whether it will be a gate or knock-down
panel.
Nifty
Mr. Engebretson: I am sure in an emergency situation they will move through
anything they have to, but I would imagine that there are gates
that are constructed to anticipate that kind of thing.
Mr. Nagy: Yes there are. It just has to be fine tuned to that extent.
Mr. Engebretson: You are satisfied that everything is under control?
Mr. Nagy: With a new meeting of the minds. It is just a matter of the
exact detail.
Mr. Alanskas: Is that area going to be serviced both from Five Mile Road and
from the north end of that property? I understand the original
problems with that was the Chief of Police said the vehicles
couldn't pass plus they couldn't put the lines dawn there. The
new hydrant and the opening in the back eliminates that passing
problem and things of that nature?
Mr. Nagy: And they are posting it as a No Parking Fire Lane. That is also
an added condition that every 50 to 75 feet they have to post it
as Fire Lane No Parking.
Mr. Engebretson: Does your plan show that?
14309
Mr. Sommerville: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: And where does it show what those signs say? I am not trying to
be difficult. I just want to make sure we cover the bases.
4111.
Mr. Sonunerville: He
( pointed it out on the plan)
Mr. Engebretson: Does that answer it Mr. Piercecchi?
Mr. Piercecchi: Well I would feel better if we did not have to just rely on signs
because that is a potential problem if that street does get
blocked off.
Mr. Engebretson: We will have a new access also, and a fire hydrant there that
they didn't have before.
Mr. Nagy: Also, the sidewalk is right next to the curb so they will
actually go on the sidewalk if they had to. The Fire Marshal
indicated that with the width of the lane plus the five foot
width of the sidewalk, they will get their apparatus through
there one way or another.
Mr. Alanskas: Didn't we have the dumpster right behind that accessory building?
Mr. Engebretson: Is it still there or did you move it?
Mr. Sommerville: It is still there.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-151-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 95-4-8-7 by Las Brisas Development
Company requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of
Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an
apartment complex on property located at 28808 Five Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 7/26/95, as revised,
prepared by Jon Sarkesian Architects, P.C. is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated 4-20-95,
prepared by Jon Sarkesian Architects, P.C. is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3) That the Landscape Plan by Tag Brisas Development Company,
received by the Planning Commission on July 17, 1995, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered top
4) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage
shown on the plans.
14310
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
95-7-8-15 by D. Rea/L. Shoemaker/R. Hinshon requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at
35951 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Miller: This property is located south of Five Mile Road and west of
Golfview. Levan would be to the west. This site is zoned OS.
Next to it here we just approved a dentist office, and next to
that would be the credit union that is just being constructed at
this time. This plan calls for an office building to be built.
The office building will be 4,300 sq. ft. in size. It will be
utilized by an accountant and a financial planner. The parking
is shown to be on the west side of the site. They are required
to have 17 parking spaces. The parking shown on the site is 21
so they meet the parking requirement. As you can see, the
building is located approximately in the middle of the site. To
be more specific it is about 175 feet from Golfview, and because
of the configuration of the lot, the furthest point of the
building is 150 feet from the south property line and from the
nearest point it is 95 feet. The site also has a tree line along
the south property line. This would be untouched, and the
landscape plan shows they will be adding new landscaping to the
site to buffer it from the residents that live in Rennolds
Ravine.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott, is that primarily in the area of parking?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Miller presented the landscaping plan.
Mr. Miller: The entrance of the building is located to the south facing the
residential. The back of the building faces Five Mile Road, and
the architect tried to buffer this more from view of the
residents. The elevation plan shows that all four sides of the
building will be brick and will have an asphalt shingle roof.
Mr. Engebretson: We will turn it over to the architect.
Mr. Morrow: While we are waiting, I just noticed here that the landscaping
required by ordinance is 15%, and I see they are providing us
with 79% landscaping.
Robert Allen: I am the architect of this project, with John Allen Architects of
Farmington Michigan. We are coming before you this evening for
an office building to be constructed on this site as we have
reviewed with you on a preliminary basis at the study meeting
last time. Our clients, who are currently business owners in
14311
Livonia are interested in building a very high quality, a very
comfortable building for their awn business, which consists of a
CPA practice and also a financial planning service. As a result,
they were very intrigued by this particular site, which has a
'tory very bucolic appearance as it is right now, and they were very
interested in preserving the character of that site as they
integrate their building as well on there. In order to achieve
that, one of the things my clients are very much aware of is the
fact that this site has been vacant for many years and borders a
very nice residential district. Accordingly, it was consistent
with their rather low-key image to locate in some residential
looking building, which would be set as far away from the
residences to the south as possible. In addition, they were very
concerned about the impact the parking would have on the site.
So in looking at different parking configurations for the site,
we came up with a site plan that essentially put the building
towards Five Mile and located the parking along the west side of
the site so it really had very little impact. With regard to
this site size. I think it is important to note in terms of our
building size, we are only approximately 4,000 sq. ft. By the
zoning district they could build well in excess of 20,000 sq. ft.
on a site this size. That is really a very law impact
development with regards to this size. With regards to the
appearance of the building, the building will be done all in
brick. In terms of glass to be used, we are using residential
units, basically Pella windows, even on the larger window side.
In terms of landscaping, I think the comment was made in terms of
the quantity of landscaping. Certainly we are aware that this
site currently is well screened from the residences, and that is
this existing tree line that you see right here. However, it was
noted at the study meeting as well that during the fall when the
leaves drop, that there is some visibility towards the site.
Accordingly, we have taken a very heavy screening approach
towards the parking lot, and in the original site plan we have
shown a number of evergreens all along here, 8 to 12 feet in
height, very substantial green barrier, In response to some
suggestions after the meeting that we had last week, we adjusted
this area here and added a few more evergreens here, and traded
off a couple of canopy trees up there. Essentially this corner
of the lot, and all the park really, is completely screened from
the residents all year around. With regard to the existing
topography, of course you are probably familiar with the history
of this site. There was a small amount of fill that was put on
this site in order to bring the area that is above this line here
above the 100-year flood plain. All of our construction will be
occurring in that area northward. We will have no impact on the
existing vegetation that is there now. So with regard to the
impact on the vegetation and haw the residents view this lot, it
really should seem, if anything, even more rustic with the
additional landscaping. Finally, in regards to the use, in terms
of a proposed use, this is a very law impact. A very quiet use.
It is in operation five days a week with the exception of tax
14312
season, and then it is open six days a week. It would have very
little evening traffic. It is probably a friendly use to the
adjacent residential district. If you have any questions, I will
be happy to address them.
(Mr. Allen presented some building materials to the Commission)
Mr. Morrow: The only question I would have in addition to what you presented,
the entryway on the second story, would it be safe to assume that
will not exceed the height of any two-story home in the area?
Mr. Allen: It is less than that.
Mr. Alanskas: Where are the air conditioning and heating units?
Mr. Allen: There will be no rooftop equipment whatsoever. There will be a
couple of condensing units which will be located along here and
will be screened by the trees and bushes.
Mr. Engebretson: Our notes indicate that your plans indicate that all refuse will
be stored inside the building.
Mr. Allen: That is correct. Again, they would not generate any large
quantity.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this proposal. Mrs. McIntire appeared at our study meeting. She
was concerned about the screening for her home from the parking
lot. I am sure she will be pleased to see that you intensified
r,`,, the screening there. She was going to be away on vacation this
week and we don't have any communication from her but I suspect
she would be pleased and she has another shot at this.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann, and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-152-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
Petition 95-7-8-15 by D. Rea/L. Shoemaker/R. Hinshon requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance
#543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
property located at 35951 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 20, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 7/18/95 prepared by
John Allen Architects, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except for the fact that the required handicap
parking space be relocated to the east side of the parking lot
and that a handicap ramp near or adjacent to the handicap space
along with a barrier free route to the building be provided;
2) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double
striped;
14313
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated 7/18/95,
prepared by John Allen Architects, Inc. , is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
`„ 4) That the Landscape Plan by Michael J. Dul & Associates, Inc. ,
dated July 31, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded lawn areas, and all planted materials shall be
installed prior to final inspection and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
6) That the ground sign shown on the approved elevation plan is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7) That the greenbelt along the south property line shall be
substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of
Zoning Ordinance #543.
Mr. Ehgebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
95-7-8-16 by Medora Building Company requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with
a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the building located
at 34957 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: This is the Commercial Lawnmower site which is located on the
south side of Plymouth Road just west of Wayne Road. To
familiarize you with the site, right now there are a number of
uses on the site. You have the Commercial Lawnmower business
located here, and a rental equipment building located here on
Wayne Road. You also have a warehouse located behind the
Commercial Lawnmower and a warehouse located behind the rental
equipment place. Also, here you have a transmission shop. The
new proposal is to add a warehouse to the back of the
transmission shop. This new warehouse wculd be 3,880 sq. ft. in
size. Also, to the south of the new warehouse you have a
truckwell and a loading dock area. Parking, because of all the
uses on the site, they are required to have 74 parking spaces,
and they show they will have 66. Even though they are deficient,
they have a variance for deficient parking, and because the new
use and the added parking lessens the deficiency, the variance is
in effect and therefore they are not short on parking by virtue
of the variance. Landscaping on the site is 9% where they are
required to have 15% so they are short on landscaping. The
elevation plan shows that three sides of the new warehouse will
be painted block which will match the existing building. The
loading dock area will be in the rear, and there is an overhead
door there to assist the loading dock. This is the east
elevation, or the elevation facing Commercial Lawnmower, and
14314
there is an overhead door located in that with the entrance door
in that elevation, and then the west elevation facing the new
parking lot will just have an entrance door.
1411. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here.
George LaForest, 44500 Woodland Park, Northville: Basically we want to just add on
warehouse storage space behind the Multi State building to be
primarily used by Commercial Lawnmower. That will eliminate the
need for the outside storage they are using right now on the used
machinery, etc. I think it will clean up the lot. I have been
paving the remainder of the lot. We have had an ongoing thing
going where we are going to pave it, etc. and we have been trying
to find out when they were going to add onto the building, and we
would intend on paving that part and then repaving and put a cap
on the front of the building. That asphalt is worn. It has been
cut through many times, and restriping that, of course.
Basically that is the program to just add on to the building and
hopefully clean up the whole site.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, when I went over and looked at your site on Sunday, I was
very disturbed with your outside storage and your housekeeping.
Is this extension going to eliminate that problem?
Mr. LaForest: Yes, I don't own the business. Commercial Lawnmower and Multi
State are tenants of mine, and that is one of the intentions to
get rid of all that old machinery, number one. Multi State has
done a pretty good job of getting rid of all the unlicensed
vehicles they had, and the intention here is to eliminate the
outdoor storage.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is one other thing Mr. Chairman. I noticed in our notes
here the site plan says existing enclosed trash dumpster. There
are no gates on that dumpster.
Mr. LaForest: We will take care of that also. That is no problem. The problem
being in the lawnmower business is the incredible amount of waste
of cardboard, etc. that they generate during the summer months.
It is really to keep up with that, and they really have to put a
larger dumpster in there to get that stuff moved out. I agree.
Mr. Piercecchi: Behind that building it looks like a dump.
Mr. LaForest: It is primarily used machinery that I have been working with. I
have been trying to either sell it or junk it. That is something
they have to definitely address. By putting that addition up,
number one I am not going to let anyone park all the machinery on
new asphalt and ruin it, and they will have more roam inside to
store these things and that is part of the goal also.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, is there an allowance made for any outside storage in
the original site plan?
14315
Mr. Nagy: No, it should be all enclosed.
Mr. Piercecchi: Can we count on you to take care of that?
Mr. LaForest: Yes, I will definitely get on them for that.
Mr. Morrow: That basically was what I was going to say is they are your
tenants and we look forward to this new warehouse to clean that
up. Please just stress with your tenant that we look forward to
all that type of storage inside the warehouse and to try to keep
things fairly neat and tidy outside.
Mr. LaForest: Yes, I agree with you.
Mr. Morrow: At least it is a good step forward to clean up that outside
storage.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any plans on the south wall to put security lighting
on all night long?
Mr. LaForest: I have no intention of doing that at all because the building
already has the overhead doors and it has an alarm system.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-153-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approved
Petition 95-7-8-16 by Medora Building Company requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the
building located at 34957 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 33, subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SD-1 dated 1/11/95 prepared by
Kurmas & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 1/11/95,
prepared by Kurmas & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3) That the new warehouse addition shall be painted to match the
existing building.
4) That the parking spaces shall be double striped.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Perkos Children's Quality Shoes requesting approval for
one wall sign for the commercial building located at 33426 Five Mile
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16.
14316
Mr. Miller: This is located on the northeast corner of Five Mile and Surrey
Avenue, which is kitty-korner across the street from City Hall.
They are proposing one awning wall sign on their building. They
are allowed a 40 sq. ft. wall sign, and they are proposing a 38
`,,, sq. ft. sign so they are conforming in signage and size. The
sign will read "Perkos Children's Quality Shoes". Everything is
conforming.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is at the podium. Would you give us your
name and address.
Beverly White, 19245 Farmington Road, Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson: We did have an opportunity to look at that up close a week ago.
Whatever comments you care to make.
Ms. White: The awning is going on a mansard roof. The establishment has
been there for 30 plus years. It is upgrading a very outdated
mansard roof. The building is set back behind the bank area when
you are going west on Five Mile Road so it is going to have a
good appearance for him and be good visibility for him. It is
going to be easier for people to find his place, which is a
little difficult because it is a confusing sign right now and it
is difficult to read, so that will help trafficking and confusion
in that area. It goes down from three lanes to two lanes and
people are watching signs, and it will be easier for that. The
sign area where the words are will be the only part that will be
lit on the awning. The rest of the awning will be opaque, which
I understand is conforming with the City. The clearances are
N .. well above minimum clearances for height from the ground. That
is pretty much all I have to say.
Mr. Morrow: As you will recall we mentioned the hours the awning would be
lit. It would be our intent to probably limit that to one hour
after the close of business.
Ms. White: I have discussed that with the owner and that is not a problem.
Mr. Morrow: The other thing, you had mentioned that your client would sign a
maintenance agreement. Could you just give us a little bit of
insight of what that means.
Ms. White: If you are familiar with typical awnings, which is one of the
things as a person who sells this type of product, it looks very
fine for the first six to nine months, and then the rain starts
coming down and you start seeing the drip lines, so it was
suggested to the owner before he made a commitment to purchase
that he does maintain it because it can start looking bad. It
also extends the life of the awning to power wash it as long as
he continues to do this every six months.
Mr. Morrow: The reason I ask this is because we see a lot of awning signs
14317
come before us as well as awnings, and this is perhaps something
we should address in future awnings to find out what their
maintenance intentions are to not only extend the life of them
but to keep them looking nice as far as the City goes.
Ms. White: This was something we agreed on before the City mentioned it.
Mr. Morrow: I just had not heard anybody mention maintenance before and it is
something we will probably pay attention to in the future.
Ms. White: It is just something they should do for themselves because once
those stains are in, it is very difficult to get them out. It is
probably something that should be required.
Mr. Morrow: Or at least questioned.
Mr. Alanskas: When we discussed about only having the sign lit one hour after
closing, you mentioned he had two lights that came down on the
building.
Ms. White: It is a stream of fluorescent under his mansard overhang, which
he has always had. His mansard comes down in front of that so
you really can't see it. He uses it basically for security. As
far as how long he keeps those on, I think he does keep those on
after hours.
Mr. Alanskas: But those lights will not show through that sign?
Ms. White: No, not at all.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-154-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Perkos Children's
quality Shoes requesting approval for one wall sign for the commercial
building located at 33426 Five Mile Road in the the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 16 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Package by Graphic Visions, Inc. , received by the
Planning Commission on July 10, 1995, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after
closing.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
14318
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 708th Regular Meeting
held on August 1, 1995 was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
CITY PLANNING CCHMISSION
/d/440. s.w
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
r
dridl-N
JacEngebre3on, Chairman
jg