A developer whose new downtown building is encroaching on public property was ordered by the Oxford Village Council last week to correct the situation.
Council voted unanimously to require the Orion-based Promark Properties to remove the south and west footings for the new Centennial Commerce Center from village property.
‘I would think anybody that was going to put up a building in a community would want to make sure that building was on his own property,? said Councilman Tom Benner. ‘Somebody goofed in the layout of this building and I don’t want part of his building being on village property.?
Currently under construction on what was the site of Parkside Dairy and Pat’s Place, the two-story, nearly 14,000-square-foot building is expected to house a restaurant, ice cream shop and offices above when completed.
On the south side, bordering Centennial Park, portions of the building’s footings extend between 1? to 2? feet onto village property under the sidewalk..
To the west, portions of the building’s footings extend onto village property at an angle that goes outward from zero to 4 feet.
‘His construction crew made a terrible mistake when they put part of their footings (on village property),? Benner said. ‘If they (had) surveyed the property and the construction people built the way they should (have), he wouldn’t have these problems.?
‘It embarasses me that the village allowed this building to be erected without a survey,? said Councilman Chris Bishop, noting there’s ‘no way? it should have been allowed to go forward without one. ‘I think we’ve got some problems in the (village) building department that need to be addressed,? Benner noted.
Council was adamant the developer keep his building on his own property.
‘He needs to get his building on his own property because I could see maybe 20 (or) 30 years down the road, if he was to sell that building and a new property owner comes in, they’re going to assume that property is all theirs,? Benner said.
Council members also expressed opposition to any encroachments on the park by development.
‘I believe there are people out there in the community who have the same view that I do ? they don’t want things intruding into their park,? said Councilman Dave Bailey. ‘I will probably oppose any features of development that will be perceived . . . as intrusion into our park.?
‘I have had several phone calls from residents that highly oppose the encroachment into the park in any shape or form,? Benner said.
Promark Properties? proposal to build and maintain at its expense an outdoor patio/plaza area to the south of its building on public property (i.e. within Centennial Park) was not really discussed nor was it acted upon by council.
Manager Joe Young noted for the record that the idea for the patio/plaza area did not come from the developer.
‘We came to them saying the downtown master plan calls for an extended park patio area, plaza area. Would you consider that?,? he said. ‘We asked him to come back for that … So don’t put all this on him. The DDA and our master plan calls for this plaza area as well. Not all these things came from the developer. Some of them came through the DDA or our master plan.?
Council also debated over what do about some power lines which are too close to the new building’s second floor.
Proposals ranged from raising the height of the existing power poles by up to 15 feet at a cost of approximately $30,000 to removing four existing power poles and replacing them with three new poles in the southwest parking lot for approximately $43,000.
Promark Properties asked the village to share the cost of either moving or raising the poles, but council opposed the idea of contributing any taxpayer money.
‘All these things do not necessarily constitute a resident of 32 Moyer footing the bill,? said Bishop, referring to his own home address as an example.
Bishop noted the developer’s architect or engineer should have picked up on the fact that the building’s second floor would be too close to the power lines.
The idea of moving three poles into the parking lot did not sit well with some council members who feared it would result in the potential loss of three parking spaces, each of which is valued at $6,000.
Moving the poles into the parking lot would require council approval.
In the end, council voted unanimously to require the developer to comply with DTE regulations and all local ordinances regarding the electrical poles.
This motion basically leaves the developer the options of raising the existing power poles, shrinking the buildings? west and south walls to move them away from the power lines or down-sizing the building to only one story.
Finally, council was opposed to the developer’s request for a ‘five-year tax freeze on property tax from all taxing authorities? in order to ‘relieve financial stress so that the proposed elevation of (the) building can be realized.?
‘Why should the taxpayers give up the tax (on the building) to solve his problem ? a problem his construction people created?? Benner said.
‘I have a business in Oxford Marketplace,? said Bishop, who works as general manager for Groves True Value Hardware. ‘We would have loved that.?
‘I just assume he keep his building on his property. We keep our park on our park property and then we all go on living,? Bishop said.