CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMMERCE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, July 13, 2015
2009 Township Drive
Commerce Township, Michigan 48390
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Haber, called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
ROLL CALL: Present:
Also Present:
Larry Haber, Chairperson
Tom Jones, Vice Chairperson
Brian Winkler, Secretary
Bill McKeever
Jay Czarnecki
John Hindo
Jay James, Engineer/Building Inspector
Amy Neary, Planning Consultant, McKenna Assoc.
Jason Mayer, Township Engineer, Giffels Webster
Mark Stacey, DDA Director
Susan Averbuch, DDA Board Member
Randy Thomas, Insite Commercial
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Jones, supported by Czarnecki, to approve the Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2014, with three minor typo corrections:
1. Page 1, Winkler, 3rd bullet, "The Director was authorized to enter into a
contract…"
2. Page 2, Neary, "… and I am always available by phone or email."
3. Page 4, Resident commentary, Langan, "…different utility metering…"
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
UPDATE OF ACTIVITIES
Bill McKeever – Zoning Board of Appeals
 Nothing to report.
John Hindo – Township Board of Trustees
 At the last meeting, we approved the medical marihuana ordinance, which the
Planning Commission recommended for approval. It was passed exactly as
presented.
Brian Winkler – Downtown Development Authority
 At the June 16th meeting, we welcomed Susan Averbuch.
 We extended the due diligence period on Hunter Pasteur II which is the
development across from here on Martin Parkway. The extension was primarily
because of the hydrogeological testing that's been taking place on the water
table.
 Mark Stacey, the new DDA Director, talked about taking the initial steps to
getting the lighting system repaired within the DDA area, along Martin Parkway.
Mark, if I missed anything, or if you have anything to add, please do so.
Mark Stacey - I think that was it. We've got some lights on now, which was helpful, but
not all of them yet.
Page 2 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
Haber - On behalf of the board, to Mark and Susan, I'd like to congratulate you both.
Susan, welcome to the hot seat.
Susan Averbuch - Thank you.
Haber - You will see what the other side is like. I wish you both well and do the best
you can.
Jay James – Building Department
 Permits are very busy in the Department.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
>>Chairperson Haber suggested that Item 5 be reviewed immediately following Item 1.
There were no objections by the Commissioners.
ITEM 1: PZ15-0005 – BAY POINTE PLAZA – REZONING – PUBLIC HEARING
Jerry Hack representing Geoffrey Eaton of Dearborn MI is requesting the rezoning of a
parcel of land consisting of approximately 3.7 acres from OR (Office Research) to B-3
(General Business) located at 4052-4100 Haggerty Road (Bay Pointe Plaza).
Sidwell No.: 17-13-426-011
Amy Neary, Planning Consultant, gave a review. She explained that one of the main
issues with the request is that it is a nonconforming use in the OR District, so as such,
getting a tenant to go into there, they would have to either comply with the OR District,
or be the same use that was in there before. She also noted that at this time, staff is
also in the process of the amending the Master Plan, and this is an area that does need
further evaluation. One standard regarding the demand for uses was not documented
in the report; however, the applicant could address that to the Commission's
satisfaction. He has stated that there is a demand for tenants, but the fact is that it
cannot be filled because it is a nonconforming building.
The petitioner, Jerry Hack, 6837 Wyoming, Dearborn, MI, was present as Agent for
Geoffrey Eaton and family members, Bay Pointe Plaza property owners and the original
builders of the center 30 years ago.
Jerry Hack - We still have three original tenants in the building, including Jennifer's
Café. I appreciate all of the help that Amy Neary has given me in trying to understand
this process. Unfortunately for us, we were not aware of the zoning change. We
weren't interacting with the Township because we had a stable group of tenants. It was
only in the last year that it occurred to us that something had changed and we missed it,
wherever it had been advertised. As such, it has been impossible for us to find tenants
to fill the vacant spots in the storefront, notwithstanding some of the details of the
overlay district that, depending upon how you interpret them, might have allowed a
Page 3 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
couple of these tenants. One tenant had been told no by the Township, yet I was told
yes when I initially inquired, then later I was also told no.
For 30 years, we've had the same purpose and basically the same footprint, aside from
some upgrades and improvements. We have no expectations of making any changes
to the center. We would just like it to be fully occupied. We would like to get the
commercial flexibility back so we can put in tenants that are appropriate in the shopping
center and allow them to serve the needs of the residential community surrounding the
center, as well as the business community.
Haber - Yes, we would certainly like to see it filled. I don't like to see empty stores
either. You are aware that we're planning to revisit this OR designation. Somehow
when we did this Master Plan years ago, that got by us. That did not work out well and
we are going to fix it.
Chairperson Haber opened the public hearing.
No comments.
Chairperson Haber closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments:
There were no questions or comments from the Commissioners.
Amy Neary - Any motion is a recommendation to the Township Board.
MOTION by Jones, supported by Winkler, that the Planning Commission recommends
approval, with conditions, to the Commerce Township Board of Trustees, of Item PZ150005, Bay Pointe Plaza Rezoning, the request by Jerry Hack representing, Geoffrey
Eaton of Dearborn MI, for the rezoning of a parcel of land consisting of approximately
3.7 acres from OR (Office Research) to B-3 (General Business) located at 4052-4100
Haggerty Road (Bay Pointe Plaza). Sidwell No.: 17-13-426-011
Approval is recommended subject to the conditions and recommendations as required
and stipulated in the Planner's report.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Haber - Before we proceed, Randy Thomas, how are you? Is there anything you’d like
to say to us while you're here?
Randy Thomas - You'll have an update on the DDA. Hopefully in the next 90 days or
so, we'll be back in front of you with another development.
Haber - Thank you. Good to see you again.
ITEM 2: PSP15-0024 – DOGTOPIA OF COMMERCE
Dogtopia of Commerce LLC of Clarkston MI is requesting site plan approval for a dog
daycare use in an existing building located at 3050 Union Lake Road.
Sidwell No.: 17-12-401-015
Page 4 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
ITEM 3: PSU15-004 DOGTOPIA OF COMMERCE, SPECIAL LAND USE – PUBLIC
HEARING
Dogtopia of Commerce LLC of Clarkston MI is requesting a Special Land Use to allow a
dog daycare use in a B-3 General Business District located at 3050 Union Lake Road
(Commerce Towne Center Plaza). Sidwell No.: 17-12-401-015
>>Chairperson Haber proposed that Items 2 and 3 be reviewed concurrently, but acted
upon separately, and there were no objections from the Commissioners.
Amy Neary, Planning Consultant, gave a review. She noted that action should be taken
first on the Special Land Use and second on the site plan. The applicant has submitted
their application consistent with the recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, which
they initiated.
One standard in the Ordinance as it was adopted states that any outdoor play area shall
be set back a minimum of 150' from the nearest residential zoning district. After
extensive discussion with the applicant and the attorneys regarding drafting of this
amendment, the intent was that it would be residential dwelling and not residential
district. Everybody knew that the country club was located right next door to this site,
but it is zoned residential. As proposed, their outdoor play area is within that 150' of a
residential zoning district. For any approval granted this evening, essentially there are
two options with regard to the outdoor play area; 1, an amendment be initiated to allow
it to be setback from a residential dwelling, or 2, relocate the play area consistent with
the ordinance as written. Based upon the conversations, it was not from a district but
from a dwelling.
The applicant needs to submit additional information regarding sound and odor
measures, and general operating procedures for the site. In addition, it should be noted
that the maximum number of dogs that will be accommodated for overnight boarding,
and use of the suite rooms, should be explained to ensure that complies with the
requirements.
Mark Wayne, 8863 Hunters Creek, Clarkston, MI, was present along with Arkan Jonna,
4036 Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Hills, MI to address the request.
Mark Wayne - I apologize for any confusion with multiple drafts that went back and forth
between dwelling and district. The discussion was we wanted to stay away from homes
in the area and we've accomplished that. In the discussion, the pool area at the country
club did come up. It was determined it wasn't going to be an issue, but the ordinance
was written the way it was and so it needs to be addressed.
Chairperson Haber opened the public hearing.
No comments.
Chairperson Haber closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments:
McKeever - My only issue was figuring out what the setback needs to be.
Page 5 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
Haber - For the play area?
McKeever - Did you say they're looking to change that to dwelling?
Amy Neary - There are 2 options. They can comply with district, which there is room to
do it but it does make for an awkward configuration for how far back the play area would
have to be from this tenant space in the building. The other option would be to initiate
an amendment to the zoning to correct it. It's my understanding in looking at the file that
we weren't intending they'd have to be 150' back from the country club property.
There was a lot of focus on the southern property line and making sure it was setback
far enough from the homes to the south. A text amendment would be necessary to
correct the wording from district to dwelling.
McKeever - I couldn't vote in favor of it if it's left at district, but if it's changed to dwelling,
what happens if Edgewood goes the way of all the other golf course in Commerce
Township and then that becomes a dwelling?
Amy Neary - Then they would be in a nonconforming use at that time, so they couldn't
get any closer.
Haber - I don't know what the answer is.
Hindo - I don't have an issue. I think that we should have a text amendment to make it
a dwelling. I think that was the intent and I'm in favor of it.
Czarnecki - I think we need a text amendment, definitely. If we get that, I'd be in favor
of it.
Jones - I have a question regarding the 150'. What is the distance we are talking
about? Is it 120', is it 100', is it 23'? Is there a possibility that dogs will be barking and
bothering people on the golf course?
Amy Neary - It's going to be by the pool, not by the golf course. They are about 75'
from the property line as proposed. I would also point out that the dogs will be outside
15 minutes of each hour. They won't be out for hours on end.
Haber - How many will be out for 15 minutes of each hour?
Amy Neary - 20 at one time.
Mark Wayne - Yes, we take out a maximum of 20 dogs for about 15 minutes per hour.
They're never allowed to go out on their own, so they're always with a human. If there's
any excessive barking, that dog is brought inside.
Haber - Are you saying there will be continuous dogs outside for the whole hour?
Page 6 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
Mark Wayne - No, 15 minutes per hour total.
Haber - So you can control the dogs for 15 minutes if you have to.
Mark Wayne - They're actually much quieter outdoors. And the pool is actually quite a
distance back from the property line.
Haber - I don't want to get a lot of phone calls. Are the doors kept closed on the play
area and the exercise area?
Mark Wayne - Yes, and the play area has a 7' tall block wall.
Jones - How far is it from the property line to the swimming pool?
Amy Neary - In looking at the aerial, I'm guessing that it would be 80+ feet from the
property line, so all together, it's probably in excess of 150', close to 170' between the
two.
Arkan Jonna - Adjacent to our property, where Edgewood starts, there is a major berm
that is about 6' tall and plantings above that. It's screened very well.
Haber - When complaints come in, I will route them to your cell phone.
Arkan Jonna - Not a problem.
Jones - We will revisit this if we do get a significant number of calls.
McKeever initiated further discussion regarding the text amendment with Amy Neary
and the Commissioners. Policies and procedures were clarified for taking action on the
request, along with the timeline for the text amendment, noticing and recommending to
the Board for approval. Upcoming meeting dates were reviewed accordingly.
Jay James - How is the waste disposed of?
Mark Wayne - The solid waste is immediately picked up and double bagged.
Haber - Okay, so that would eliminate the odor issues also.
Amy Neary - One of the standards is that the applicant is required to submit the floor
plan and written operating procedures.
Mark Wayne - We have those and will submit them.
MOTION by Hindo, supported by Jones, that the Planning Commission approves, with
conditions, Item PSU15-004, the request by Dogtopia of Commerce LLC of Clarkston
MI for a Special Land Use to allow a dog daycare use in a B-3 General Business District
Page 7 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
located at 3050 Union Lake Road (Commerce Towne Center Plaza). Sidwell No.: 1712-401-015
Approval is subject to the Planner's Report dated July 9, 2015, and to the following
conditions:
1. The condition of the text amendment being approved to the Zoning Ordinance
which will clarify that the setback for the outdoor play area location shall be a
minimum of 150' from an adjacent single family residential dwelling and not the
district as discussed herein;
2. Written operations procedures such as those recommended by the American
Boarding and Kennel Association (ABKA) or American Kennel Club (AKC) must
be provided and should also address:
a. Open doors to the play area.
b. Cleaning and odor control measures
c. Disposal of dog and food waste to not create a litter, insect, rodent, vermin
or offensive odor nuisance
3. Information will be provided to specify and explain the following items:
a. The maximum of number of dogs that will be accommodated for overnight
boarding and the use of the suite rooms.
b. The length of stay and revenue for overnight boarding.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
MOTION by Hindo, supported by Jones, that the Planning Commission approves, with
conditions, Item PSP15-0024, the request by Dogtopia of Commerce LLC of Clarkston
MI for a dog daycare use in an existing building located at 3050 Union Lake Road.
Sidwell No.: 17-12-401-015.
Approval is subject to the conditions of the Special Land Use approval for PSU15-004
as indicated above.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ITEM 4: PSP15-0026 - BARRINGTON
M. Shapiro Development Co., LLC of Farmington Hills MI is requesting site plan
approval for a multiple family rental development located west off of the Martin Parkway,
north of Pontiac Trail. Sidwell No.: 17-24-300-070 & 071
Amy Neary, Planning Consultant, gave a review. As proposed there are two types of
buildings; the ranch style and the multiple family building. As noted, additional building
styles or facades are encouraged to avoid the cookie cutter appearance. Parking is in
excess because of the garages and the additional parking areas throughout the
development, so the Planning Commission would need to approve the additional, which
is actually not excessive. In front of buildings 10 and 18, and the clubhouse, there is
parking between the building and the road. Typically in the Towne Center District, front
yard parking is strongly discouraged, and is encouraged to the sides or rear of
buildings.
Lighting and signage will be in accordance with the DDA's unified theme that is being
designed by the landscape architecture team, GMA. The site will have sidewalks
throughout the development on both sides of the road. They will have the internal paths
and the proposed pathway along Welch Road. One item noted, in the cross-section for
Page 8 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
this Towne Center area, it is encouraged to have sidewalks a little further off the curb to
allow for planting area.
In terms of access management, they have their permit from the RCOC for their drive,
connecting to Welch Road and Martin Parkway.
She deferred to Giffels regarding landscaping and utilities.
A clustered mailbox will be placed near the Martin Parkway entrance and details will be
provided.
Finally, there is an area of this unit in the condominium that they are reserving for future
commercial development. That is the area that has the frontage on Martin Parkway.
They are not requesting approval for any of that commercial development at this time.
She suggested that all references be removed to any sort of development on that
property to avoid any misunderstanding as nothing is being approved for that portion,
even the access drive, until evaluated by the Commission.
She added that the regarding the proposed roads, while they are private roads, the PUD
does require that they be accessible to the public and be open to the public. If there is a
recommendation, it should be conditioned upon an amendment to the overall condo
document being approved by the Township which would establish these easements, or
some other instrument in terms of a deed for form of declaration of easement be
prepared by the Township and the DDA. The attorneys provided language for the
Commission's review in this regard.
Jim Galbraith, M. Shapiro Group, 31550 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, MI,
was present to address the request.
Jim Galbraith - Amy's last comments came out of a conference call I had this morning
with Phil Adkison, Township Attorney, Tom Rauch, DDA Attorney, and my attorney. We
are in full support of this language that Tom, Phil, Wayne and I had worked out and we
provided that to the Township concerning the reservations of appropriate easements
over the private roads within the development.
As Amy indicated, this represents the major portion of Unit 5 of the Commerce Towne
Place condominium. It's about 58 acres. On this parcel we propose to build 299
upscale rental units. All with 2-car garages. It's intended to be situated in 21 ranch
buildings, which are all 4-unit buildings except one.
There's 83 units of ranches, and there's 216 units in a stacked ranch configuration
which is a more traditional 2-story apartment development, with 4 units down and 8 up.
There are garages on the ends of those buildings and parking courts between the
buildings.
Jim Galbraith continued his detailed review, citing the plans in the submission package,
explaining the boundaries of the site, and showing the undeveloped portion which would
be planned later as the commercial development evolves across Martin Parkway. He
reviewed the private drives, road connections to Welch and Martin Parkway, the
configuration of roads to the buildings and the community building. He explained the
excess parking as mentioned, reviewed the streetscape elevations, touched upon
landscaping, and presented materials boards, color renderings and proposed
elevations. He understood that there was concern over having just 2 building types. He
Page 9 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
offered to have a 3rd option, alternate elevations, drawn up for each of the building
types so that they could be interspersed and varied throughout the development.
Commission Comments:
Haber - Why would you prefer private roads as opposed to public? I live on a private
road and we are responsible for replacing it when the time comes. If you designate
these as public roads, it absolves you of that problem.
Jim Galbraith - The expense is exactly the same, and it only absolves you if they've got
the money, which they don't often have. This community will be under one ownership,
in terms of a master association, if and when it's ever condominiumized, as long as it's
operated as a rental community. The road will be built to the RCOC standards and the
Township standards from the beginning. That takes the burden of the maintenance off
the RCOC and puts it on our shoulders. That's where we prefer to have it. Once it's a
public road, I don't have the right to go in and make repairs myself.
Haber - One thing that comes to mind is snow removal.
Jim Galbraith - We do it all. First of all, the RCOC does not have the means or the
financial resources to plow some of these roads. Even when they are subdivision
streets, the lion's share of the time, they're private contracts that the HOA enters into so
that the snow is removed in a timely fashion.
Winkler - I would like to see Jim follow through with preparing alternative elevations to
ease the color and the potential for the cookie cutter appearance. I have one other
suggestion, which is not a requirement for approval, but Jim, if you look at your 3 color
schemes, maybe there should be a little bit more variation.
Jim Galbraith - Yes, these may be a little too close together. I don't disagree with that,
Brian.
Winkler - Yes, just a little bit more variation.
Jim Galbraith - Yes, some lighter and softer brick tones in here. That will also run with
the complementary materials of the trim colors and the siding as well.
Haber - If this goes forward, Jim, will you update that board?
Jim Galbraith - Yes.
Winkler - Other than that, this represents a great effort to maintain green space. It's
intimately connected to the pathway system, which if you recall was an issue in the past
in the Towne Center Overlay. The assistance and cooperation of the petitioner has
already been expressed regarding the Overlay District design standards that are
currently under development, so that's something we should take into account as well.
Page 10 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
Jim Galbraith - Brian, you mentioned the pathways. Aside from the safety path which
runs the full distance of Welch Road, which is inherent in any consideration and
approval, the pathway system for the Overlay, the DDA area and the DDA's Master
Deed, we pick that up on the north side of what's now called Library Drive, which I
suspect will change if the Library moves. The pathway is picked up and taken through
the back side of the units.
Jim continued reviewing the exhibits, showing a large stand of trees that would be
preserved and the winding direction of the pathway through the development. He also
explained the storm water system, discussed the wetlands and stated that the DEQ
permit has already been received.
Jones - I am in agreement with Brian about varying the colors and minimizing the cookie
cutter appearance. Are there other things you can do such as trim and fascia, that front
doors be slightly different with different colors so they don't all look exactly alike?
Jim Galbraith - Yes, that's one of the things we would do in terms of the final color
palette. I'm not an architect, but we would come back with a couple of options to these
elevations that will still blend well.
Jones - My wife previously lived in Maple Crossings. For safety, all of the coach lamps
on the garages were lit at night at that development. I recommend having that same
type of illumination here.
Jim Galbraith - That typically is the type of the lighting that we use. The DDA recently
hired GMA to work on having continuity between throughout the various developments
in the area. All the stakeholders are working with them on the designs related to street
lighting, signage et cetera.
Czarnecki - I definitely think there is a need for the multi-elevations. My main concern is
just the number of units. I think if you get the multi-elevations, I'd be okay or better with
the number of units proposed as long as they look different.
Hindo - I don't have anything. I'm good with this.
McKeever - Is there any need for a traffic study with this many units and the limited
access to and from Welch Road?
Amy Neary - There have been studies of the DDA area that are currently being
evaluated and worked on. In terms of this project, there hasn't been a study per say
just for this particular project, but this road has been approved by the RCOC. In
addition, Jim will be back with the commercial development and we will have a better
understanding at that time of what improvements, if any, will be needed for the whole
project area. At this point, no improvements have been specifically suggested outside
of what's being proposed.
Page 11 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
McKeever - As far as approval of the amount of different materials and alternate
facades, moving forward from tonight … If we approve this, what control do we have
over the building materials?
Haber - Jim, if you're going to change that material board, we would like to see that.
Jim Galbraith - We possibly have a couple of options in that regard. One, the decision
could be left to staff administratively, or two, invite me to come back in two weeks.
Haber - I agree with Bill. This would need to be contingent upon seeing the final
materials.
McKeever - I do have concern about putting in the curb cuts into property that is
undeveloped.
Amy Neary - I would agree with that, only because we don't have a site plan to evaluate.
I understand the developer wanting to have some assurance that he's going to have
access to these roads, but at the same time, I have a hard time recommending to this
body that we approve curb cuts without a site plan to evaluate where those go and how
they will work. I suggest we don't approve anything on that area and just limit it to the
multi-family.
McKeever - Yes, because the development shows as future, but the curb cuts say
proposed. My take is that you intend to build those roads.
Jim Galbraith - That's correct. We do intend to build the approaches. Quite honestly, if
you're hesitant to incorporate those in there, I would take them out, but I will be back
with a site plan with those curb cuts in it. They are very important to me.
Haber - What is your time frame for the project?
Jim Galbraith - I have commitments to the DDA from a timing standpoint, but I am
ahead of the curve at the moment.
Discussions took place regarding Jim returning in August to the Planning Commission,
and this would not present an issue, making arrangements to have a traffic study
conducted by the Traffic Engineer prior to the next meeting, the road configurations and
access. Other details of the project were also addressed, such as the required bike
racks, avoiding the cookie cutter appearance, providing multiple elevations, sidewalks,
signage, landscaping and screening. Jim noted that the development may not even be
named Barrington in the final phases. Jones discussed snow removal and where the
snow would be pushed to. Jim reviewed the areas on site, and also stated that it could
be exported offsite when necessary. He added that the site is not overly dense; it is
barely over 5 units to the acre, and per the ordinance, it could be more.
Page 12 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
Chairperson Haber asked that Jim return with updated renderings and alternatives,
along with the results of the traffic study. Jim agreed and noted that if the traffic study is
delayed, he may request a special meeting in mid-August to maintain the timeline.
Eric Nagler, Campbell Creek Drive, Commerce Township - My back porch faces the
south, toward the project. What am I going to be seeing on my back deck if I look
across the Walled Lake School property, to the south? Will I see the homes or the tree
line?
Jim Galbraith - You're going to see the rear yards of the ranch units. That school district
piece probably has a frontage of 700 or 800'. These yards will of course be landscaped,
and these units will have either door walls or French doors coming out the back and a
small courtyard. You're a good, long ways from this with the school parcel between
you.
Haber - If you're interested to see how he shields things with landscaping, go to one of
his other projects.
Eric Nagler - Also, on the southbound Welch Road with no left turn, is that a sign there?
Will there be enforcement?
Jim Galbraith - We will get the Sheriff's Department to patrol it. I don't want cut-through
traffic there.
Amy Neary - It can be difficult if the drive is configured in such a way too.
Discussions continued regarding traffic control and enforcement.
MOTION by Hindo, supported by Jones, to table Item PSP15-0026, Barrington, the
request by M. Shapiro Development Co., LLC of Farmington Hills MI for site plan
approval for a multiple family rental development located west off of the Martin Parkway,
north of Pontiac Trail. Sidwell No.: 17-24-300-070 & 071
The item is tabled to allow the petitioner to return with updated renderings and
alternatives, along with the results of the traffic study, for review and consideration by
the Commissioners.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
ITEM 5: PSP15-0025 – TWIN ACRES GROUP
Martin Smith representing the Twin Acres Group of Commerce MI is requesting
approval for a façade change to an existing building located at 2605 East Oakley Park.
Sidwell No.: 17-13-300-081
Amy Neary, Planning Consultant, gave a review. The request is to cover a significant
portion of the building with EIFS which exceeds the amount that is permitted by the
ordinance in the chart of percentages for these materials. They are asking to cover
more than 10% of the south and east facades with EIFS. This is proposed to address
issues they are having with the building in terms of moisture. The building as proposed
would look the same way as it currently does, but it would be EIFS instead of block.
Page 13 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
Brian Burke, Burke Agency, 2605 Oakley Park, Ste A, Walled Lake, MI was present
along with Marty Smith, Siegel Toumaala Associates Architects, 29200 Northwestern
Hwy # 160, Southfield, MI.
Brian Burke - I'm the owner of the building, representing the partners. The building was
built in 1988, and prior to that we were on 3150 Martin Road for about 10 years. We've
been in the area for quite a while. There's a glazed block on the building and that's the
blue that you see. After the building was complete, the glazed block started turning
cloudy. We inquired with our contractor as to what was happening. Basically, there
was moisture penetration because of the way the block was installed. After working
with the manufacturer and the contractor, it was determined that there was no repair
option other than to rip out the block and start over. There was insurance legal action,
including arbitration after two years. We were awarded a sum of money to repair the
building which involved a lot of control joints for expansion and contraction that the
building lacked. Then we were told to paint with different kinds of coatings. Over the
last 25 years, we've tried 5 or 6 times to paint the building, and each time we've
consulted with specialty sealant and coating manufacturers. We have very earnestly
tried to fix the problem with sandblasting. Every 4 or 5 years we have a major
renovation on the exterior and then we coat it with a sealant. Nothing has worked
because moisture gets behind that block and then the sealant coating peels off. After a
rainfall, the paint is basically blistering all over the building. Finally, we hired an
architect and asked him to figure out a way to give us some sort of uniform façade that
would prevent any kind of moisture penetration and still maintain the overall look of the
building.
Marty Smith - Thank you for moving us up on the agenda. That was very kind of you.
As Brian said, they've been in the building 25 years. They've tried many times to
correct the situation and it has not worked. They asked us to find alternatives. They
like the look the building with the horizontal lines, the gray and blue, the image, et
cetera and they want to maintain the look. The issue is structural and we need to do
something lightweight. There aren't many products that you can add, beyond a coating,
that is light. The problem is that the building is taking in water and something has to be
done. EIFS seemed to be an appropriate product because it is lightweight, and
therefore, and no expensive structure would need to be added to the existing building.
The proposal is for close to 30% EIFS, and the ordinance only permits 10%.
I noticed around here, there are a lot of hodge-podge buildings, mostly metal and
concrete block, and there are some brick, all of the industrial and office buildings around
this area. They are not a whole lot different that this building, but metal would not
accomplish the look of the smooth, horizontal façade, and EIFS is actually a more
expensive solution. The goal is to keep the business looking appealing from the road.
Commission Comments:
McKeever - Beyond coating contractors, have you also dealt with waterproofing
contractors?
Page 14 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
Brian Burke - Yes, that was part of our solutions. I can provide the names of the
contractors if you'd like.
McKeever - Yes. I've been a builder for 30+ years and I've never seen a building
deemed as un-repairable. I would be interested in seeing what waterproofing
contractors you've consulted with and what their findings were.
Brian Burke - The last two times that we coated the building, it involved sandblasting,
then applying a waterproofing coating, followed by painting.
McKeever - Is there any kind of dehumidification going on in the interior of the building
to remove the moisture that existed in the block before you put a coating on it?
Brian Burke - No, and we don't typically have big problems until there's a driving rain
from east to west. That's where we get the most moisture penetration. The coating
lasts about 3 years and then it looks like we never did it. We've had specialists out and
each contractor we spoke to gave us their best shot at resolving the issues.
McKeever - Are you proposing just to have the EIFS to the top of the window?
Marty Smith - Yes, the top of the window is approximately 8' above the slab grade, and
about 12' above it is currently the split-faced and the smooth-faced block. We are going
to tuck a new piece of metal under the existing coping. We don't want to mess with the
roof or coping as both are fine. We want to apply the EIFS with about 2" of foam from
the top of the window to the coping on the south and east sides of the building.
Hindo - No comments.
Czarnecki - No comments.
Jones - How far down does the EIFS go? I didn't quite get that from the drawings. I'm
not in favor of EIFS being anywhere near the ground level.
Marty Smith approached and reviewed the drawings, explaining where the grade is, and
showing that the EIFS starts at the top of the window at about 8'. Marty Smith, Jones
and McKeever further discussed the plans, the potential waterproof properties of EIFS,
synthetics that are a polymer, and maintenance of the materials.
Jones - Bill, you're our expert on this process. Do you feel that EIFS is a suitable
material to be used like this, as requested?
McKeever - It's suitable for the use they're requesting.
Jones - Okay.
Haber - Is there an alternative material that would be superior to EIFS?
Page 15 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
McKeever - I don't know. That's why I'm interested in what the waterproofing expert had
to say.
Jones - Do you feel as though you should have your questions answered before we
take action on this?
McKeever - I would like to. I didn't want to hijack the meeting, but I would like a report
from somebody who specifically deals with this type of problem.
Jones - That answers my question.
Winkler - This is one of two times when I think that the material being proposed is
appropriate, only because of the structural issue that the petitioner raised. I wouldn't
have any objections as long as the EIFS does not extend to grade.
Haber - The problem I have with the ordinance is that we allow 10% and I don't think we
should allow any. I see so many buildings that look bad with EIFS on them. Over a
period of time, they stain, they discolor. It's not the material of choice and I really have
an objection to it. I personally would like to see some other material and I'd like to see
some alternatives.
Brian Burke - I do want to mention that the insurance money is long gone. It wasn't that
big of a settlement; it was half of what was recommended and after legal fees and
investing into the building, it is gone.
We are actually in the construction industry and we did try diligently to find a way to
repair the building. Sealants just don't adhere to the building. We want to maintain the
look of the building with the lines, texture and the architectural design.
Marty Smith - We did look at many alternative materials. The biggest issue is the
weight of the materials and adding to the existing structure. There really aren't many
lightweight options and we did not want to go with wood as we are already living with
extensive maintenance now.
Haber - To be frank, other than the fact that I don't like EIFS, we've discouraged many
people from using it and now you're asking us to allow you to exceed the ordinance
10% limit and go to 30%. This puts me in a bad spot as somebody else will come to us
next month and say well, you let them put up all that EIFS and why can't we? I have a
lot of problems with that and I'm not sure how to rectify it. I'm not in favor of it with the
bad results I've seen with EIFS. I hope you will consider other options.
Jones - If we were to go along with the EIFS proposal, is there any way to improve on
the exterior coating of the product, such as to minimize or eliminate the staining that
Larry has noticed?
Marty Smith - Any building material will stain over time, whether it is stone, block or
concrete. The problem with EIFS is near grade, it will wick water, like a lot of materials
Page 16 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
do. The acute problem here is this is an existing structure and the material has to be
lightweight.
There are different coatings that can be applied to EIFS and we can provide additional
information.
Jay James - I'm curious, as I'm hearing most of this for the first time as well. It sounds
like the moisture issue is primarily due to east/west rain. Is it on all the brick, or just the
glazed blue brick?
Brian Burke - The worst problem with paint peeling is on the glazed block.
Jay James - And the initial moisture issue came from where? From the roof or
elsewhere?
Brian Burke - No, it's penetrating the block itself, it's the split-faced block with a
variegated surface.
Jay James - From what I've heard here, I do understand why they would want EIFS
structurally. As far as the appearance, I know that is not a preferred material in the
Township, so you've got an interesting dilemma.
Brian Burke - Again, we've owned the building for 25 years. My company is located
there as well as other businesses. If we didn't care about how the building looked, I
would not be sitting here now.
Haber - I like the building. I drive by it every day.
McKeever - I agree with Larry. I think we'll be opening Pandora's Box as far as what's
going to come up in front of us.
Haber - Honestly, I don't know what to do on this and I'm really uncomfortable with it.
Hindo - I'm not saying that I would vote for or against this, but I would at least like to
give them the opportunity to bring us alternatives. I'd like to work with them to fix their
building, but I think I'm hearing that the Commissioners would like to know if there are
alternatives.
MOTION by Hindo, supported by Czarnecki, to table Item PSP15-0025, the request by
Martin Smith representing the Twin Acres Group of Commerce MI, for approval for a
façade change to an existing building located at 2605 East Oakley Park.
Sidwell No.: 17-13-300-081
The item is tabled to give the petitioner the opportunity to present detailed alternatives,
as discussed herein, to the Commission for careful consideration, and to provide
information on the contacts and opinions of the previous contractors/specialists who
were consulted regarding waterproofing and potential solutions to correct the moisture
issues with the building.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 17 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
ITEM 6: DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Office Research Zoning District
Amy Neary gave a review. This District was recently reviewed in a meeting where
Chairperson Haber was present, along with the DDA Director, the Township Attorney
and some other folks. The discussion was sort of a visioning session for the area.
She explained that this is still being developed and she is not yet prepared to present an
amendment to the Commission. She feels it will be more than just an amendment or a
review of the permitted uses; it will be an overall plan for what is envisioned for the area.
She will return within the next month or two with more information.
Single-Family Residential Design Standards
Amy Neary gave a review. At the last Township Board meeting there was a motion
directing the preparation of a zoning amendment to address the cookie cutter issue in
single-family residential neighborhoods. In order to do a zoning amendment, the
assistance of the Planning Commission is necessary.
She had reviewed what other communities had done in terms of avoiding monotony in
residential developments to get an idea of how to craft regulations for consideration.
She explained that Van Buren had drafted zoning regulations in this regard, and it
seemed that the other communities in Michigan followed suit on their guidelines. The
Van Buren regulations were in the packet for review.
In addition, she consulted PAS, the Planning Advisory Service with the American
Planning Association, and they provided other examples.
She asked that the Commissioners review the examples and give their feedback over
the next few months. She added that if the regulations are really strict, it will create
difficulty for the Building Department as they review permits.
Haber - I think we all agree that we don't want to see barracks. We want to see multiple
elevations, but how many needs to be determined.
Jones - I think we need a minimum of 4 variations.
Amy Neary - Do we want to look at combinations of materials? If it's the same building
elevation, but there are variations of the building materials, is that different enough? Or
is it more of the physical structure of the building that needs to be changed?
Winkler - In my subdivision, there are 4 different building models, and each of those
buildings have 3 elevation variances. Then of course, the different finishes and paint
colors. A mix like that would seem to work best versus having all of the houses
different.
Czarnecki - Is this just encompassing the single-family homes, or can we add condos
and apartments to it?
Amy Neary - We were directed to do single-family, however, I don't think anybody would
be opposed to including other types of residential.
Page 18 of 18
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, July 13, 2015
Hindo - I like the two examples, the ones from Byron, Illinois, and New Lenox, Illinois,
pages 7, 8 and 9 of Byron. Particularly, I like the similarity standards because it gives
you some flexibility. There are 7 different standards and if you meet any of the following
3 characteristics then you're too similar. Also in New Lenox, I like the administration,
enforcement and appeals section. I think we have to have some type of a standard.
I initially like Page 6 as well, but I think it's too vague. The others give 7 characteristics
from roof type, height, dimensions, shape of elevations, sizes of windows and front
doors, garage doors, types of siding. It gives us a lot of flexibility to work with.
Haber - I think I like that one best too.
Amy Neary - It's a base to work with.
McKeever - John has covered it all.
Haber - Amy, have you got some direction?
Amy Neary - Yes, I will craft something and bring it back and we'll go from there.
OTHER MATTERS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION
Haber - I will not be at the next meeting on August 3rd, but Tom will fill in.
Hindo - Larry, if you're not going to be here, and we have to vote, how many votes do
we need because then we're down to 5 members?
Jones - We need 4 out of 5 votes.
Discussions took place regarding filling the vacancy on the Commission. Chairperson
Haber is working with Supervisor Zoner on this matter.
The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be Monday,
August 3, 2015 at 7:00pm.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Haber, supported by Jones, to adjourn the meeting at 8:54 pm.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
______________________________
Brian Winkler, Secretary