Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-12-1719914 MINUTES OF THE 856° REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, December 17, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 856" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane William LaPine John Pastor John Walsh Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Scott Miller, Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing m a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. Mr. McCann: We are going to step out of order tonight. I see Mayor Jack Kirksey is with us tonight. He has asked to make some comments. Mayor Kirksey: Thank you, Chairman McCann. I'm here this evening for two very important reasons. The first one is to recognize you, Mr. McCann, for 15 years of service with the City of Livonia. We have your 15 year pin here tonight, and I'm going to present it to you in a just moment. But while I'm at the microphone, I also want to recognize John Pastor, vho will be silting in tonight at his last meeting as a Livonia Planning Commissioner, at least for this decade I would assume, John. He's on his way to a well-deserved spot in the Michigan Legislature, and we congratulate him on his victory and the support he's received from his constituents and wish him well. John, we appreciate your service on the Planning Commission and 19915 all that you've done for Livonia to date, and we look forward to working with you in the future. So Jim, in just a moment I'm coming over to give you your pin, and congratulations and thank you again for the great service that you've given to the City. Mr. McCann: Thank you, Mayor. Its been a real privilege. ITEM #1 PETITION 200242-08-24 PARK PLACE Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-12- 08-24, submitted by Pinnacle Auburn Hills, LLC, on behalf of Park Place Office Buildings, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 19301 Vidor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Vidor Parkway between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads. On November 8, 2000, this property received Site Plan Approval in connection with the construction of two six -story office buildings. These buildings were to be built in two phases and upon completion would have had the appearance of one building. Phase I would have consisted of an 183,186 sq. R. building positioned towards the south half of the properly. The Phase II building was basically a mirror image of the first building. This building was to be 166,814 sq. ft. in area and constructed to the north and adjacent to the first structure. The petitioner is now asking approval to construct one large office building that would be a similar looking project. The new proposed structure would be six -stones in height and a total of 355,000 sq. R. in gross floor area. The footprint of the high rise would be somewhat like an elongated rectangle with a slight elbow bend in the middle. The building for the most part would sit in the middle of the site and have parking lots all the way around it. To help alleviate some of the massive blacktop coverage that a building of this size requires in parking area, the project would include the construction of a two-story parking deck. Some of the required parking is also proposed to be land banked. This banking, for all practical proposes, renders the site deficient in parking. Parking is summarized as follows: required parking is 1,420 spaces; provided parking is 1,348 spaces; parking is deficient by 72 spaces. The Site Data Table on the Site Plan indicates that the petitioner, in order to meet their parking requirement, is counting on sharing 103 parking spaces with the adjacent Lone Star Steakhouse Restaurant. For this arrangement to work, the restaurant would need to have 103 19916 parking spaces over and above what they are required to provide in parking. According to our records, Lone Star in actuality has to share parking with the Rio Bravo Restaurant to help meet their parking requirement. Therefore, Lone Star does not have additional or extra parking spaces to share. The Site Plan also shows that the parking spaces around the entire perimeter of the site would only measure 9 R. wide. Parking spaces in Livonia are required to be 10 R. wide by 20 R. in length. Because the site would be deficient in parking and have some spaces only 9 R. wide, the pefifioner would be required to be granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. There is no information indicating the dimensions of the spaces within the parking deck, so staff can only conclude that those spaces would be to code. The Landscape Plan shows that the site, including the banked parking areas, would be landscaped with a number of deciduous, evergreen and flowering trees. A note on the Landscape Development Details Plan reads, "All lawn and landscaped areas shall be watered ty an automatically operated sprinkler irrigation system." Landscaping is summarized as follows: required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; provided landscaping is 15% of the site. The Elevation Plan shows that the proposed building would look very similar to what was originally approved. The building would be constructed out of a combination of brick and glass. The cylinder atrium located in the center of the building would be constructed out of glass and have a metal sunscreen crown around the lop of it. The building's main entrance on the west elevation (facing Victor Parkway) would be defined by a stepped lattice -type awning. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 10, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal, points of egress or the legal description contained therein. It should be noted that the developer is required to meet the requirements of the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance for the proposed project. Further the Engineering Division will require sufficient head clearance for E.M.S. Fire Department response vehicles within the parking deck. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated December 6, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an office building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) An on-site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 19917 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (3) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 X feet. (4) Contingent upon final driveways and parking configuration fire lanes may be established." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated December 11, 2002, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to develop property located at 19301 Victor Parkway. The proposed parking spaces appear to be below the required number. The proposal includes 103 spaces from the Lone Star restaurant to meet the parking requirement. A check of parking availability at the Lone Star on Monday, December 9, 2002 at 6 p.m. found the parking lot 80% occupied. We include the following recommendations for your consideration: (1) Stop signs should be installed at each exit from the property. (2) Recommend a deceleration lane for southbound Victor Parkway traffic be constructed. (3) Recommend the installation of a sidewalk along Victor Parkway to enhance pedestrian safety and to promote pedestrian traffic rather than vehicular traffic to area restaurants. (4) Installation of stop signs on the property where crossing traffic intersects with the main driveway/aisles. (5) Handicap parking spaces must be individually marked and posted per city ordinance. (6) Recommend security features for the parking structure, i.e., pass key access to structure, video monitoring of parking, etc. (7) Recommend that the lighting for the parking lot be shielded in order to reduce light spill and glare." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 12, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 3, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A parking variance, which is still in effect, was granted to this site November 21, 2000, (No. 2000-11-153). As long as the Petitioner stays within the parameters set by this Grant, their only requirement is to appear before the Zoning Board with a final proposed parking plan before the plans for the Phase Two are submitted to the City. (2) The Petitioner should be aware that all plans will be reviewed under the Michigan Construction Codes currently in effect. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? 19918 Larry Goss, Executive Vice President of Burton -Katzman Development Company, 30100 Telegraph Road, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025. We are the developer of this project and also a member of the Pinnacle, LLC. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you again. As many of you know, the reason for our change is driven by the fad that we believe we are very close to signing a deal with a major corporation who would like to make this their headquarters. So that has given us the opportunity to build the building in one phase, which I think would have been our preference as long as the market is there for it. Mr. McCann: Sir, I'm going to ask you to do one thing. If you will take the hand held microphone and stand in the footprints so that the cameras can shoe it. You can take us through your colored renderings so the people at home watching tonight can get a better impression of what we're doing here. Mr. Goss: If I may, I'd like to introduce Tom Phillips from Hobbs+Black, our architects. I would ask him to take you through the drawings if that's all right. But we're all here to answer questions, including our engineering firm. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Thomas L. Phillips, Project Manager, Hobbs + Black Associates, Inc., 100 N. State Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104. Good evening. As Scott alluded to, originally this portion of the building is what we were proposing to build. We're now coming back to construct the building in its entirety, fully parked and with a single level drive -on parking deck to the south here. We believe that the deck is basically going to be a low visibility deck. Mr. McCann: You're going to have to put the board up so people at home can see it. Mr. Phillips: Sure. You can see the deck. This is a view coming from the Seven Mile ramp onto 1275, which is about at grade where you will see the deck and the entrance of the building. This is another view, an effort to show the entrance to the building itself with the new metal panels, curtain wall, and so on, and the brick and glass bands. Here you're at a higher perspective looking directly at the entry. This is an extensive upgrade from the previous design in order to make it more accommodating to Alcoa and to make it feel like more of a building conceptually aligned with Alcoa's corporate image. There has been some substantial improvements to the design. Mr. McCann: There's one more board behind you. 19919 Mr. Phillips: This is the view from Vidor Parkway. As you know, the side of the building facing Victor Parkway has quite a bit of brick. On this elevation towards the Parkway, we added more brick to accommodate the other buildings and to be more contextual with the park itself. This may or may not have signage. We didn't really determine signage. We treat signage as a separate issue. Mr. McCann: Have we determined where the restaurant is going to be in the atrium? Mr. Phillips: We have not. We're still working on that. Theres a couple different places. There's going to be a food service venue. It's either going to be in the first floor here or possibly we're looking at up in the center rotunda facing towards Vidor Parkway. We haven't resolved that yet. We're working with Alcoa on that one also. Mr. McCann: We do have a few questions. Mr. Pieroecchi? Mr. Pieroecchi: I noticed in the latest drawing, which is dated the 13r", that there is a change in the number of parking spaces in the garage. You picked up 22 spaces. I just wondered how that came about. Mr. Goss: The initial change was created because Alcoa has asked for the lower level of the building to be used as high tech space. We had originally planned that to be subterranean parking. So we converted that space with 16 foot height ceilings, if I'm not mistaken. Tom, is that correct? Mr. Phillips: That's correct. It was 12 feet. Mr. Goss: It is for research space for them to use as part of their operation, and then that led us to the discussion about adding more parking to the site. We decided that the best way to do that would be with a parking deck. So we have actually moved those spaces out from under the building to a lower level below the deck grade. That's how that occurred. Mr. Pieroecchi: Are they nine footers or ten footers or what widths? Mr. Phillips: We received a variance for the lover level of the entire building for nine foot spaces. We basically assumed that tie variance would travel out underneath the deck, so those are nine foot spaces. In the original submittal early on for the study session, they were graphically shown as ten foot. We discussed this in the study session and were intending to request that variance be transferred. We basically caught up with that request and show them as nine foot. 19920 Mr. Pieroecchi: In other words, the deck parking will all be nine footers? Mr. Phillips: As its shown here and as it's presented, the lower level of the deck is at nine foot, because those will be assigned. The upper level is at ten foot. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. I was just wondering about the 22. I've always been concemed about the perimeter there. I know they may not be used that often, but I like to always try to get the ordinance enforced because I know people like Jack Engebretson worked hard to get 10' by 20' spaces. Are those still nine footers around the perimeter? Mr. Phillips: They are. And pursuant to some discussion with Mark, we did some research. If we went with nine foot on the upper level of the deck as well and we changed these from nine back to ten foot, the site would lose nine parking spaces. Mr. Piercecchi: In other words, if you made all the perimeters ten foot and put the upper deck all in the nine, you would lose nine spaces? Mr. Phillips: Thats coned, sir. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. LaPine: Wouldn't it make more sense, though, to have the nine footers all in the two-tier parking garage? It is my understanding that lower level is going to be assigned parking for executives. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the nine footers on the top, then whoever is in the building can assign those parking spaces to middle management people, people with long-term seniority. They know everyday they come to work theyve got a place to park. And then we get all ten footers on the outside? I would think that they would love that. That would be a perk. At least I would think it was a perk if I worked for a company and I knew everyday I've got a parking space there. Number two, why I like that is the fact that whoever is parking next to me, if my car is banged up, I can find out whose car is being parked there and complain about the banged up car. Is that feasible? Do you think that they would go for something like that? Mr. Goss: If I could answer that. We certainly would be willing to look at that. I think it's a little bit more difficult to control it on the upper surface of the deck, as you can imagine, because we'll have guests driving through and they may inadvertently park in someone's assigned space. So there's a little bit of an issue there. However, our main goal is to get some of the spaces at nine feet so that we can increase the number of spaces, the count. Even though, by the 19921 way, the parking study that was done by Birchler Arroyo last year shaved that the ordinance probably overestimates the number of parking spaces required. Unfortunately, there's still a perception in the marketplace when major corporate clients are looking for space, it's one of the first questions they ask you. "How many spaces are there?" If we could speak to the fad that we have the number of spaces that we're proposing, whether it be on the perimeter or on the deck, it would go a long way towards landing some of those big corporate accounts. Our feeling is that we should then land bank them and make them green rather than asphalt because, frankly, I don't know that we'll ever need them. But if we do, we can safely advertise that we do have that number of spaces. So it's kind of a balance between the reality of parking and the perception of parking. Mr. La Pine: Mark, maybe you can answer this question. I'm kind of confused. The way I figured it out when I look the number of spaces on the perimeter, look a fool off of each one to make them nine fool, I figured out that we're going to gain some parking. How did you come that we're going to lose nine? Mr. Taormina: We had asked Hobbs + Black to go through the analysis because I'm not sure we had a parking layout for the deck. So the numbers that were provided to you this evening were what they determined to be the net change in spaces as a result of the reduction in size. Mr. Phillips: We literally look what was proposed, and that is ten foot spaces on the upper level of the deck. We changed those to nine graphically on the design. Now, it's possible that given the geometry of this deck, that you cant necessarily say, you know, add 10 percent to the count and get nine bot spaces. You know, reduce it by 10 percent. So that might have had something to do with when we changed the upper level of the deck to nine foot; we didn't get total efficiency in that number increase. And then we went around. There are 256 spaces around this perimeter. Should those shift to 10 fool spaces, we would have 230 spaces, which is a net loss of 26 spots. So that's how we figured it out. Mr. La Pine: But how many would you add to the second floor of the parking garage? According to your notes, you had 300 and some spaces between the lower and lop deck. I have to assume that we're going to gain some parking up there. Mr. Phillips: Absolutely. We pick up 17 and that's how we have a net difference. Mr. LaPine: We actually lose nine spaces. Mr. Phillips: That's cored, sir. 19922 Mr. La Pine: I understand what you're saying. Mr. Shane: I just want to make sure I understand the usage of the deck. Part of it is for employees only? Is that correct? Mr. Phillips: Yes, we're intending thatthe lower level will be assigned spaces. Mr. Shane: The rest of it is for dients or guests. Is that correct? Mr. Phillips: Al this point, it is open parking. It hasn't been assigned to specific individuals. Mr. Shane: It just seems to me that the best place for nine footers are on the outside because it's the least likely spot for anyone to park. And it seems to me that the best place, therefore, for the ten footers are in those areas that are most likely to have you park in them, which would induce the deck, except for the lower level where the employees are. Mr. Phillips: Actually, the nine foot perimeter spaces came as a result of our introductory meeting with the City, where a group of us met early on with Building, Fire, and Planning. We sal around and talked about some of the needs of the building and its strengths and weaknesses. There was a proposal that came out of that meeting to say that given that we are looking for spaces on the site, that exactly as you say, going to nine foot around the perimeter of the site, these are likely to be the least used spaces, the ten footers being the most commonly used. That's kind of what led us in this direction originally. It would actually be more convenient for folks in that respect. Mr. McCann: Your clients shay a real interest in the number of spots provided. I agree with the perimeter being nine foot. Its the lead used. But the deck ends right here. It seems to me that if this is all on one plane, what would be the additional cost to just extending the deck back here like this? It would be just grading out the surface and extending the deck. Coned, or are there more complicated problems than that? Mr. Phillips: It's a little more complicated because this is an open deck by code, which means it's not a ventilated deck. It requires 50% of free area around the perimeter of the deck, that we would be into sprinkling and mechanically ventilating the deck. Mr. McCann: That answers my question. 19923 Mr. Pieroecchi: I was under the impression that there were only 100 perimeter spaces. That's why I went through the calculations, and I said, "Geez, you need space. Let's make them all nine in the garage because they'd be the least in and out spots." So I acknowledge the lots of nine. Mr. La Pine: I don't want to belabor the point, but I have to disagree with you somewhat on who is going to park on that deck. At the Prudential Center off of Northwestern Highway, which has a number of decks, the least parking in that whole complex was on the top floors basically because people don't like to park there in the summertime because of the heat beating down on their cars all day. Secondly, in the wintertime, they get snowed in if they are there during the day and a heavy snowfall comes, and they have to plow up there. There's nowhere to plow the snow. So I don't really buy that argument that that's going to be used more than the outer perimeter of the site. I'm not going to vole against it based on just the parking, but that's my personal perspective. Mr. Phillips: I see. And actually, with the folks parking at the surface level, when they drive across here, they wont even know that this is the top of the deck, hardly, unless they've been here before because this is a very slight grade increase. If you're driving down this way, you'll see some little monuments limiting the height of vehicles. But other than that, you won't even know its a parking deck. Mr. La Pine: I assume your tenant is going to have suppliers coming and going. Do they have a special area for suppliers' parking like they do at most big corporations? Mr. Goss: Actually, we haven't got to that point. I would imagine they would probably bring that up before they're all done. Mr. Walsh: I just want to mention to the petitioner that I think you did a nice job with the plan. We did spend some time with this last week in our study session and, obviously, had some more discussion tonight. Its an important issue. 1, for one, really think you did the best that you could. I think its innovative. It wasn't just the deck. It wasn't just the nine feet around the perimeter. It was also your willingness to land bank some property for parking spots, so it makes it look more attractive. It's a good plan, and I appreciate you coming to Livonia with it. Mr. Goss: Thank you very much. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. 19924 On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #12-151-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-12-08-24, submitted by Pinnacle Auburn Hills, LLC, on behalf of Park Place Office Buildings, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 19301 Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP -002 dated December 2, 2002, as revised, prepared by Hobbs + Black Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheets Ll and L2 both dated December 2, 2002, as revised, prepared by Michael J. Out & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet SP - 200 dated December 2, 2002, as revised, prepared by Hobbs + Black Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four inch brick; 7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light 19925 trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated December 6, 2002: - That an on-site hydrant shall be located between 50 ft. and 100 ft. from the Fire Department connection; - That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 ft. between hydrants; most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI; - That access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five (45) R. wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13A.; - Contingent upon final driveway and parking configuration, fire lanes may be established; 10. That the petitioner shall incorporate the following items as outlined in the Police Department's correspondence dated December 11, 2002: That slop signs shall be installed at each exit from the property; That slop signs shall be installed on the property where crossing traffic intersects with the main driveway/aisles; That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Code; 11. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted any variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals that may be required for a deficiency in the number of parking spaces and nonconforming size of parking spaces and any conditions related thereto; 12. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 19926 13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to tie Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. Pastor: I believe that the plans are dated December 2; we just received them on December 13. Is that not correct? Mr. Phillips: There were some revisions made based on the study session, and that's what you're seeing there. Mr. Pastor: I am asking because I dont see the revision dates on the plans. I just wanted to make sure we had the right dated plans. So December 2 is right? Just received December 13? Mr. Phillips: That's correct. Mr. Pastor: So I think what was in this is right. We received them the 13"'. Mr. Piercecchi: There was some difference. Mr. McCann: The staff will make sure it's corrected before it gets to Council. Mr. Piercecchi: But there were some differences, such as the number of parking spaces in the garage. Mr. McCann: Okay. Mr. Walsh: I want to give some credit where credit is due. Bringing Alcoa to the City is a very, very big deal, and it is allowing the developer to move forward. I think tie Mayor, several members of the Council, some Planning Commissioners and ZBA members, representatives of the school district ... we had a person from Schoolcreft joining the group meeting with Alma representatives to try and let them know we want them here in Livonia. Obviously, it had some success with all those people participating in that. I appreciate the developer also joining in, and we're glad that we could help. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 19927 ITEM #2 PETITION 2001 -05 -PL -01 ROSATI INDUSTRIAL PARK Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001- 05 -PL -01, submitted by Enrico Rosati, requesting to revise the conditions of approval for the Rosati Industrial Park located on the west side of Stark Road between SchoolcmR and Plymouth Roads in the South YY Section 28. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the west side of Stark Road, just north of Plymouth Road, between Plymouth Road and the railroad tracks. On August 27, 2001, Rosati Industrial Park received preliminary plat approval. On April 24, 2002, a Landscape Plan was approved for this industrial development. As part of that approval it was conditioned: (13) That a sidewalk shall be installed on the south side of the mad from Stark Road west to the residential Lot 1. The petitioner is requesting permission to modify this condition. On the new submitted plan there is no sidewalk shown along the south side of the industrial access road. What the petitioner is now proposing is a more direct public sidewalk between the foreseen Rosati residential development and the existing residential subdivision, Alden Village, to the south. The petitioner believes this connection would be a safer arrangement. He gives the example of the children from the Rosati subdivision having to walk the entire length of the industrial access road out to Stark Road to catch their school bus in the morning. He feels it would be much safer and convenient if they were able to cut straight through to the Alden Village Subdivision and catch their bus on a residential street. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is no correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? William Roskelly, 33177 SchoolcraR, Livonia. I am representing Mr. Rosati who is also in the audience. I guess we've been going at this for about two years. As we go back over the study period on this, ifs really a two phase situation. One, being N41 industrial, which we now have all the utilities in, etc., and the future proposed 12 lot residential subdivision. We're all aware of the fad that an industrial subdivision does not, by ordinance, require a sidewalk. I understand now the latest idea was to put a sidewalk along this road to Stark Road, meaning there would be a sidewalk over 900 feet long through an industrial paved road, which is 36 feet wide with a 7 fool to 8 foot masonry wall on me side, and also shrubs every 20 feel or trees, which were required. So there would be 19928 really no room. The other idea was to put it on the north side. On the north side, we have the City water and sanitary sewer, and they each have to be 10 feet apart. So we're sort of stymied simply because I see the only use for this sidewalk would be for the children or people in the future 12 lot residential subdivision. Now checking with the school, they indicate that presently the bus picks the children up from Arden Park on the local roads, such as Boston Post. We are willing, as you see on the drawing, to put a public walk through the new proposed residential sub so that these children will only have to walk approximately a couple hundred feel rather than 900 feel. I wouldn't want my grandchildren walking on a sidewalk that's about six feet away from a 36 fool industrial road in the winter when the road is wet. The plows are going to come. It's going to be difficult to keep that sidewalk clean. And when the children get out there, there's no sidewalk or any spot to wait for the bus. Now, a logical area in my mind would be to allow them to get to Boston Post Road where the bus for the school district presently picks up all the kids in that subdivision. Mr. McCann: Is there anything else? Mr. Roskelly: Not at the moment, sir. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: Where exactly did the school district tell you they would pick up these kids? Mr. Roskelly: They indicated to me and I'm sure I could get a letter indicating that they service all of Arden Park by picking them up on the various streets. I didn't ask specifically what comer, but I suggest it would be on the nearest intersection, which I believe would be on Boston Post Road. We don't go far enough. Its just down right near the bottom of the page, which would be maybe four or five lots. Mr. Shane: They never would pick them up on Stark Road? Mr. Roskelly: They indicated they do not pick up any on ... not anybody, but they don't pick up anybody on Stark Road right now from that subdivision. Mr.Shane: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: I think it would be helpful, Mr. Roskelly, if you could nail that down. I think we need to move this on for the Council to review, but it might be helpful for you as you move on to have a letter from the schools indicating where they do intend to pick up students if you build this. I drove out to the site when we studied this last week. 1, 19929 along with other Commissioners, felt strongly that the sidewalk should go through. But when I made a site visit out there, what I determined is the sidewalk leads to Stark. There are no other sidewalks. It leads to a major road. I have re -thought my position. I'm not certain that it would be wise to run it down to Stark, which is a major road. And I'm more comfortable not requiring it if I know that the schools are going to pick up students from these 12 lots off of Boston Post Road. I think that's probably the more ... I can't speak for the schools, but I think that makes more sense. I don't think they're going to want busses stopping on Stark Road. That's all for now. Mr. Pastor: The schools do pick up on Stark Road. They pick up right in front of my building. As you know, I'm right across the street from this on Beacon, but I dont like it. Mr. Roskelly: That's why I hesitated and said ... Mr. Pastor: North of us there's not that many houses. Mr. Roskelly: And no collector area in that.... Mr. Pastor: Right. Again, with the way you have it, I would prefer that the sidewalk be there and have the kids going to Boston Post through the subdivision as opposed to diverting them down that industrial belt to a sidewalk. There are no walks on Stark Road. So I wouldn't have a problem just as long as the School Board and everybody else is happy with it. And you know what, Bill? We normally don't agree on a lot of things. So, hey, this is kind of scary, isn't it? Mr. Roskelly: Through the chair, Mr. McCann, thank you. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to have sidewalks in front of the 12 homes in the sub? Mr. Roskelly: In the residential sub? Yes, sir. That's required by ordinance. Mr. LaPine: Well, you know, I have mixed feelings on this. I'm just wondering, we know we're going to have people in this subdivision going off to Stark Road. The older kids, I'm not saying the younger kids, but I can't believe they're going to go all through the sub and out this way. Theyre going to cut down this. If there was a sidewalk there, they're going to go all through there to Stark Road to the store or wherever they may go on their bikes. It seems to me we went through this thing so many times, this situation about the sidewalk and about where it should be, the shrubbery and everything. Now 19930 Mr. Roskelly: Wouldn't it be more passive to walk through this pleasant walkway into a residential district than walking your dog along Stark Road or along this road to gel out to Stark Road, which has no sidewalks? I certainly wouldn't want any of my grandchildren even thinking of going on that industrial road. I guess we're all entitled to an opinion. I think first of all and most important, your ordinance does not call for a sidewalk in an industrial sub. We've taken a landlocked piece of land, and perhaps our mistake was, we should all of a sudden we got a revised site plan. I don't know. I can't make up my mind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Mr. Roskelly, you've absolutely convinced me of one thing, and that is, we need the sidewalk to Boston Post Road. But what you haven't convinced me of is that we don't need the sidewalk going out to Stark. Even if the school busses are picking up the kids at Boston Post, there are going to be kids riding bikes to Stark to go across the street to see other kids over there or coming down. And I just picture, and I know you're not going to have a gravel hauler, but you're going to have some big trucks coming down that kids can't hear. As you say, with the winter conditions and the slush, any kid going down there, they need access. You need a sidewalk. You just dont leave a subdivision without a main access sidewalk. I cant think of one subdivision in the City, even when they bound out to streets that don't have sidewalks. I think that's a problem that we need to cure in the City with time to get the sidewalk leading up to Plymouth Road. I don't think the solution is to just abandon the idea ofsidewalks completely. Mr. Roskelly: If I may, Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCann: Yes, please. Mr. Roskelly: I would suggest perhaps that rather than just having a sidewalk though this area that we're now indicating is 10 feel, perhaps we could have a walk and a bike path. I don't believe if I lived here I'd want my teenagers or anybody riding a bike along this side. Mr. McCann: Bulthey're going to do it. Mr. Roskelly: You're not supposed to ride on the sidewalks anyway. Mr. McCann: But they're going to do it or people are going to walk. People will just want to go for a walk, and they'll walk down there and they'll be forced to walk in the road. Now a bike path or a winding sidewalk, whatever, just a place for people to gel between the subdivision and Stark Road, because if people are walking at night or if lheyre coming in, running or walking their dog, its going to happen. Mr. Roskelly: Wouldn't it be more passive to walk through this pleasant walkway into a residential district than walking your dog along Stark Road or along this road to gel out to Stark Road, which has no sidewalks? I certainly wouldn't want any of my grandchildren even thinking of going on that industrial road. I guess we're all entitled to an opinion. I think first of all and most important, your ordinance does not call for a sidewalk in an industrial sub. We've taken a landlocked piece of land, and perhaps our mistake was, we should 19931 have just proceeded with the industrial sub and not mentioned the other, and perhaps this would have never been an item for a sidewalk. Mr. McCann: But Mr. Roskelly, you said previously that residential subs require a sidewalk. Mr. Roskelly: Yes, I did but ... Mr. McCann: Well, this is a residential sub that's going in here. Correct? Mr. Roskelly: Itwill have sidewalks. Mr. McCann: Yes, but not leading to it. It's like putting a residential sub out in the middle of nowhere and not having sidewalks. Now, you're saying we're going to go between two houses and we're going to throw a sidewalk in and lead you to somebody else's sub. But your main residential end has no sidewalks. People are going to use it. Whether pu think its right or not for them to use it, they are going to use it. Mr. Roskelly: Would it not be discouraged by not putting in a sidewalk? Mr. McCann: No. Not to a 14 year old kid whos on his bike and this kid lives across the street on the other sub. Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, 100%. The sidewalk down Boston Post Road at a later date is a great idea, but ... and the point is, young people are going to take the path out to that main road. Now, I understand that part of your problem is ... out to Stark Road, they're going to do that. Mr. Roskelly: No sidewalks on Stark. Where are they going to go when they gel to Stark Road? Ride on the road there loo? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. Sure. But I thought that some of your problems that were associated with the sidewalks and the landscaping was that you didn't really have enough space there. Mr. Roskelly: Basically, that is the big reason, sir. Mr. Piercecchi: I'd be willing to say forget the landscaping, but get the sidewalk and have a three or four foot distance between the road and the sidewalk. Mr. Roskelly: Through the Chair, to Dan, I had suggested that, but then it came back and says you got to beef up your landscaping. We want a tree every 20 feel. I think Mr. Taormina can attest to that. Now, 19932 Mr. Roskelly: Evergreens and various tees. If you look at the nomendature of the differenttrees, yes. Mr. Shane: The deciduous trees I have no problem with, but the flowering trees, there's hardly enough room now. Mr. Roskelly: That's correct. Mr. Shane: How wide would this path you mentioned be that you're talking about? You mentioned a bike path. Mr. Roskelly: No, I was indicating that if we went over the residential sub, rather than just have a 10 foot, maybe we could make that 20 feet to get to Boston Post. Not along this road. when we get involved in this 36 foot pavement, a seven fool, 1,900 foot long masonry wall, along with trees every 20 feet on both sides, plus a sanitary sewer, a water line, a storm sewer and all these shrubs and the masonry, and a wall, there isn't a heck of a lot room left to put a sidewalk. How are we going to keep these shrubs alive? How are we going to keep... it's just too dam tight. Mr. Piercecchi: But if landscaping was not put on the south side, then you'd have no problem putting a sidewalk in? Mr. Roskelly: We would have room then to put the sidewalk. Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: You'd have room. Mr. Roskelly: But the Council was very vehement and insisted not only we put the landscaping there, that there be trees every 20 feet. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Shane: How much room do you actually have, Bill? Mr. Roskelly: Twelve feet on the south side. Mr.Shane: Twelve feet? Mr. Roskelly: Yes, sir. Mr. Shane: If you put in a public sidewalk, that's five feet. Mr. Roskelly: Five. Out of the 12, excuse me, if I may. We have a one foot wall, so take a fool off, so we have 11 feel, a five foot sidewalk ... Mr. Shane: And you're planning to put evergreens in there? Mr. Roskelly: Evergreens and various tees. If you look at the nomendature of the differenttrees, yes. Mr. Shane: The deciduous trees I have no problem with, but the flowering trees, there's hardly enough room now. Mr. Roskelly: That's correct. Mr. Shane: How wide would this path you mentioned be that you're talking about? You mentioned a bike path. Mr. Roskelly: No, I was indicating that if we went over the residential sub, rather than just have a 10 foot, maybe we could make that 20 feet to get to Boston Post. Not along this road. 19933 Mr. Shane: Oh, I understood you to say maybe you could put a bicycle path down Stark Road. Mr. Roskelly: Not down Stark. I was speaking of the proposed entrance to the residential sub to Boston Post. Mr. Shane: But I agree with you. You dont have room. Mr. Shane: With the landscaping you proposed, there is not enough room. Mr. Roskelly: No, sir, there isn't. Mr. Shane: If you put a sidewalk in there and to maintain landscaping ... Mr. Roskelly: We have to do one or the other. Mr. Shane: Personally, I'd rather have the landscaping. I think we deal with the wide sidewalk the way you want to do it. You know, I was convinced the other way around until ... if I'm convinced that the school district is going to pick kids up within the subdivision. Mr. Roskelly: I will get a letter indicating that. Its hearsay to dale. I'm just standing here telling you what I heard, but I will definitely go to the School Board and get a document indicating where these children are picked up and what is the most desirable place to be picked up. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, do we ever waive the width of the sidewalk to maybe three feet? Mr. Taormina: Well, the Subdivision Rules and Regulations actually specify a four foot wide sidewalk. Its my understanding that the Engineering Department is considering a five foot sidewalk in this instance, although that might be modified to four feet. I'd have to discuss that with them. If I may, Mr. Chairman, the Subdivision Regulations do require sidewalks where they front on lots. What's unique about this property is that the access road that leads from Stark Road to the industrial subdivision fronts on parcels that are outside of the plat. So as a couple of those parcels are developed on the north side of this road, which are not within the plat, they will be required to have sidewalks, as I understand it. I believe that sidewalks will be a requirement of those developments, or could very well be. The regulations in that case do not differentiate between residential subdivisions and commercial or industrial subdivisions. It just states that they are required. Four foot sidewalks are required where they front on those lots. But in reviewing this, the Commission felt that the sidewalk was something that was reasonable and attached that condition to the approving resolution, 19934 along with the landscaping on the south side of the road. What we find ourselves with, though, is a situation where you could have one or the other, but not both because of the space constraint. Mr. Roskelly is being a little generous when he states that there is 12 feet or 11 feet between the wall and the curb. Staff measured that today and I think it's doser to 9 or 10 feet in some cases. So if you subtract from that a setback of two or three feet from the back curb for the leading edge of the sidewalk and then take away a four or five foot sidewalk, you're really left with only four feet, maybe even three feet, for a planting strip. And that's just not sufficient for the type of landscaping we had required in this area. The other option is to put the sidewalk on the north side or eliminate the landscaping altogether on the south side and require the sidewalk. Mr. Pastor: I'm going to give you my two cents; you might give me some change back after I'm done. But when we were on Council, the trees were a very important issue to the neighbors. And I believe that's one of the reasons why we added more trees down there. Also, what was important to them was the height of that wall. They actually wanted it higher. I think they wanted it about 9 feel high. Mr. Roskelly: Eight or ten. Yeah. Mr. Pastor: So we did a lot of negotiations with the neighbors and with the developer. I, for one, would not want my kids ... I know that they are prone to going down streets and stuff, but theyre going to be more or less going into the truck wells riding their skateboards and stuff like they do over at our place. I think the best thing to do is what he's recommending. And again, I will state that Mr. Roskelly and I usually don't see eye to eye on things, but I think this is the best plan for what's at hand because of the deals that we had made with the residents when I was on Council at the time. So, I think that's what I would be leaning towards. I surely would like to see the letter from the School Board representing that's where the kids are going to be picked up most likely. I surely wouldn't want them being picked up on Stark Road. On my side of the street, there's only one house in the very back. That's where the one kid gets picked up on Stark, but I just don't like that, especially with the traffic. So with that being said, maybe we need to table it to wait for that letter from the school, or I'll wail for my change. Mr. McCann: Here's your change. You don't mind if its Canadian, do you? Mr. Pastor: Yes, l do. Mr. McCann: Correct me, Mr. Pastor. Your building is on the east side of Stark. I believe there are sidewalks along the east side of Stark. 19935 Mr. Pastor: No. Mr. McCann: Are there sidewalks north of the railroad tracks gang down by the dentist building? There are none down on the south side? Mr. Pastor: No, there's not. At least not in front of our building and several on eitherside. Mr. McCann: Okay. S there anybody in he audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefilion? Hearing no one, a motion is in order. Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we table this item until we can be absolutely sure about a plan for the school bus in the area. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #12-152-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001 -05 -PL -01, submitted by Enrico Rosati, requesting to revise the conditions of approval that was previously approved by Council Resolution 228-02 on April 24, 2002, for the Rosati Industnal Park located on the west side of Stark Road between SchoolcraR and Plymouth Roads in the South Y�of Section 28, be tabled until the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2003. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Pastor, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann NAYES: LaPine ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Alanskas Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #3 PETITION 200241 -GB -04 FRISCO HOLDING Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002 -11 - GB -04 submitted by Frisco Holding L.L.C. requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as out fined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 16880 Middlebell Road in the Northwest%of Section 13. 19936 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebelt between Grove and Six Mile Road. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between office zoned property and residential zoned property. Just north of this property is the Manns -Ferguson Funeral Home. To the south and east are properties zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. The Sacred Heart Church, which is zoned RUF, borders along the entire length of the east or rear property line. It is this rear property line where the petitioner is requesting approval to retain an existing greenbelt. Even though the south property line also abuts residential property, there is not a continuous 10 fool wide greenbelt along it. Therefore, the petitioner does not have the option of a permanent substitution for this property line. Frisco Holdings would either have to erect a wall along it or seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals waiving the requirement. The existing greenbelt is 20 feet in depth, bermed and is planted with a variety of trees. According to the submitted Landscape Plan, the trees range in size from 12 R. to 24 R. in height. In a letter submitted with the plan the petitioner explains, "The greenbelt was planted in accordance with the attached illustration with subsequent growth providing a dense screen." The plant material consists of four Poplar trees, two Maple trees, six Crab trees and four Austrian Pines. The ground cover throughout the bed is shredded mulch. Part of the Sacred Heart Church building sets back approximately 135 feel from the subject site. Between the rear lot line of the office building and the nearest part of the church is an open grass field. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: There is no correspondence related to this item. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Is the petitioner here this evening? Dennis Stockemer, Frisco Holdings, LLC, 30821 Barrington, Madison Heights, Michigan 48071. Mr. McCann: Do you have a business address for the record? Mr. Stockemer: 16880 Middlebelt is the property in question. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Mr. Stockemer: I purchased this property in 1997 and was not aware that there had been a variance or waiver provided for this greenbelt area at the rear of the property. So just a month or so ago I became aware of the fact that there had been a temporary variance, or whatever, granted, until some plantings had grown and so on and so forth. 19937 So that's basically what we're dealing with at the rear of the property. At the south side of the property, there was a temporary waiver, I guess, regarding the installation of a wall. I was advised by the City that if I obtained an agreement with the residential property to the south of me, that a five-year agreement could be established between the two parties. I do have a copy of that agreement today. I was just able to secure it today. So, I'm open to any questions you may have. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? I think now that you have the agreement with the property owner to the south that takes care of one of our biggest questions. Mr. Slockemer: Right. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #12-153-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pelifion 2002 -11 -GB -04, submitted by Frisco Holding L.L.C., requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as ou0ined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 16880 Middlebell Road in the Northwest % of Section 13, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscaped greenbelt along the east property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2002, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 oflhe Zoning Ordinance; 2. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective banner, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 3. That for the south property line, the petitioner shall have the option of either erecting a protective wall immediately, going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a temporary wall variance or seeking the consent of the abutting property owner(s); and 19938 4. That an enclosure dull be erected around the site's dumpster and the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall matdi that of the building and the endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Slockemer: Should Ijust submit the agreements l got today to the... Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina? Or do you want him to submit them to the Building Department? Mr. Taormina: If you have copies you can just ... Mr. Stockemer: Okay, great. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carted and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item? ITEM #4 PETITION 20024 0-01 4 5 TACS Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002- 10-01-15, submitted by Toni Alm and Charles Sergison, on behalf of TACS, L.L.C., requesting to rezone property at 14881 and 14891 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 21 from R-2 to OS. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #12-154-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition 2002-10-01-15, submitted by Toni Aloe and Charles Sergison, on behalf of TACS, L.L.C., requesting to rezone property at 14881 and 19939 14891 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast %of Section 21 from R2 to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-10-01-15 be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Is there any new correspondence, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No, there is none. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Creighton, is there anything additional? Carl Creighton, 33300 Five Mile Road, Suite 210, Livonia, Michigan 48150. There is nothing additional. I think the Commission is well aware of what has recently transpired and has had a chance to look at our drawings at some length at your study session. Mr. McCann: For the record, I think it should be known that there was a meeting between the developers and the Mayor, Council Members, the Chairman of the Planning Commission, as well as some representatives of the Engineering and Planning Departments. Theyve looked at that site area as a whole. One of the concems we did have was the access off of Lutheran Village Drive. Was there any contact between the developers and the Lutheran people? Mr. Creighton: We've made every effort to have discussions with the people at Lutheran Heritage Park, but they've referred any inquiries to their architect, who has been less than receptive to our approaches. We would continue to explore those things, but it takes two to tango. Mr. McCann: One of the other concerns I had regarding the meeting was the ... do we have the building elevations? You've got some colored renderings, I believe. You're the architect, correct? Your name and address, again, sir. There's a microphone over here foryou. Frank DiMattia, DiMalfia Associates, 4241 Maple, Dearborn, Michigan. As you're looking at the building from Farmington Road, if you notice, we have designed what we consider very atractive buildings very much in harmony with the local architecture. The very first building would be occupied by, of course, Centennial. If you have any comments, any questions? 19940 Mr. McCann: One of the questions that was reported back to us was that you were going to attempt to make the east end of the building appear more like the front of the building. Mr. DiMalfia: Yes, I think that can be accomplished right at this one point here. If you notice on the floor plan, we have a slight recess. That could be accomplished. We will definitely consider that. Mr. McCann: All right. One of the other concerns before I go on, is that the broad face of the building ... can you put the building elevations up? Yes, I want the audience to be able to see. But this long building here is the rear and you'd be seeing that as you're driving north on Farmington Road. Is there any way of putting a couple of the peaks Ike across here and here to kind of break up that side of the building as well? Mr. DiMalfia: The only reason why I didn't do that ... in fad, under Michigan building code, based on the setback from the property line, it will determine the wall grading and the amount of penetration that you can have on that one wall. So the height of the wall, from this point here, and right now we are averaging 25% of the wall itself with windows. Now by increasing the height of that wall, and creating something like that, I will have to investigate and see if we can do thalwithout requiring a special rating on thatwall itself. Mr. McCann: Would you be able lodo thatthrough the ZBA? Mr. Taormina: Well, actually, that would be something we would look at with the Building Department. I'm wondering whether or not there might be an exception, given the fad that this is bordering on a private road. Mr. DiMalfia: I think we both would like to consider that. In fad, it could make it a lot more attractive if we can do it with no problem. Mr. McCann: I'm very concerned about that. Mr. DiMattia: Yes, we would definitely consider R. If we do have to have it.. . sprinkle the whole building ... they are very concerned to actually have a very attractive building. It's going to be the headquarters and so whatever we have to do ... Mr. McCann: What would you call those peaks? City scape? Mr. Taormina: A decorative peak. Consideration might be through the Construction Board of Appeals in this case for any waivers or variances that might be considered regarding the code. 19941 Mr. McCann: I'd want something in our resolution if we're going to pass it on to Council that would include at least two on each building . . . something to break up the view. Mr. DiMatfia: We would want to try and consider that. Mr. La Pine: Can you go back to the original plan? Now, at the meeting we had upstairs with the Mayor, I was under the impression when I left there that we had agreed that on the east side, the roof and the pillars you've got right there, we were going to have that over here so it would look like that was actually part of it. Mr. DiMattia: Yes, we can add that. The same look that we can achieve at this point here. Mr. La Pine: That's the way l understand R. Mr. DiMattia: Yes, if we retain this also, and we can have that, so it creates more of a front. Mr. LaPine: It creates the illusion that that's the front of the building. Mr. DiMalfia: Yes. Mr. Taormina: If I may just remind you, this plan will be returning back to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCann: Its a zoning issue tonight. Okay. Thank you. That does dear things up if we just realize what we're looking at. Right? Mr. Creighton: Well, it's a catch 22. We came here for a rezoning. We tried to bring you as complete a package as we can so that you can see what you're getting, and we make representations to you knowing full well that we're going to come back here for site plan approval. Mr. McCann: That's fine. It was actually me who look everybody oft track and I apologize. This is a rezoning and not site plan. I got a little ahead of myself. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against the proposed rezoning? Sir, please come down and give us your name and address. First, since this is a pending item, I have to ask if there any objections from the Planning Commissioners to him speaking? None? You have unanimous consent. Name and address, please. Lyman Mathewson, 14905 Farmington Road. I'd like to add some information that I didn't state at the November 26 meeting. And that is, if that property south of me is rezoned, my property will diminish in value to practically zero. My property will be valueless as a residential 19942 piece of property, and it will be valueless as a commercial piece because it's loo small. I will be literally trapped in that little section. And that colored drawing that was presented, that's very distorted. It doesn't show the screen wall that would be on my south side. It doesn't show that screen wall. It shows a very spacious piece of property. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Can we get the drawing back up again on the site plan? I just want to look at the proposal to see how much space there would be between the parking lot and property line. How much space is there? The parking is abutting the wall. Is that how they have it, right on the property line? No. The parking lot looks like it goes directly ... zero setback, zero room for a greenbelt. Mr. Miller: No. No room. Mr. McCann: Do we have an estimate of how far Mr. Mathewson's house is from the wall? Mr. Miller: About 25 feet. It looks like he has an asphalt drive there that goes to his garage. So his garage is right ... the way this is drawn, here's his house and this is the garage. 35 feet. Mr. Shane: This is a very worthwhile discussion, but I for one don't want the petitioner going away thinking that I'm enamored with this site plan. This is the kind of discussion we're going to have later. Mr. McCann: Well, it is but I ... Mr. Shane: About walls and greenbelts and so forth. And taking in this gentleman's comments, we may have a lot more work to do than is indicated. So I just wanted ... I'd rather get the zoning issue over and then we'll deal with these details. Mr. McCann: I agree with you, Mr. Shane, except I'm just considering whether or not it's appropriate to change zoning right up next to somebody's house, and how much of an impact that zoning is going to have on his home. Mr. Shane: I understand that, but fiat's what we discuss in that way instead of worrying about what this plan is telling us. Mr. McCann: Well, no. I want to see how dose the buildings are right now. I agree absolutely with what you're saying, but the buildings are long and narrow because of the amount of property he has. Right now, the only way he can build this site is to put long, narrow buildings up. So there's going to be absolutely no room for a greenbelt unless we push the buildings up on his side, and I just want to know 19943 before I vole on a zoning change what kind of impact it's going to have on his neighbor, because his neighbor is not inclined to sell and not inclined to change his business at this lime. Anybody else? Mr. LaPine: I have to agree with Mr. McCann. We discussed this at the meeting we had. The ideal situation is that these two parcels, plus the property Mr. Mathewson owns, plus the property Mr. Phipps owns, would be one site. That makes more sense to me. I would like to hold out and get this as one site, instead of having two or three buildings on this site. I dont know if we can do that, but that would be my preferred way of doing it, because there's no way in the word that parcel is going to build houses or anything in there. And I never would go with commercial, so it has to go OS in my opinion. When we rezone these two, that leaves Mr. Mathewson in an awkward position because if Mr. Phipps can't buy him out and we go ahead and rezone this OS, Mr. Mathewson is surrounded. He can't move. Mr. McCann: Its a tough problem. Mr. LaPine: It's a tough problem. Mr. Walsh: I've spent a lot of time with this petition as well as the other adjacent requests, and having done my own studying and then in collaboration with Mr. LaPine and others at the meeting with the Mayor, I really think OS is the proper zoning for this and the other properties that we were discussing. In an ideal word, all pieces would fall into place, but it appears that is not going to occur. For much of the land that's in this area, we are contemplating OS for all but a single piece. So an argument can be made equally that there are homeowners in the area that I think we have a consensus, at least that's my feeling, that this should be OS. We have homeowners that would like to sell their property and have it developed and move on with their lives, and they are being prevented from doing so potentially out of concem for a single homeowner. So the argument goes both ways. I support the rezoning. Mr. McCann: Current Future Land Use Plan is for office. Is it not, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No. In fad, the Future Land Use Plan presently shows this area as medium density residential. Mr. McCann: What was our proposed change? Mr. Taormina: The change to the Future Land Use Map that the Planning Commission acted on about a year ago really affected the group of parcels to the south of this. I believe there were four or five 19944 ownership units over seven lots or parcels that lie north of the Time Warner property and extend to the limits of Luther Lane or the Martin Luther property, which is the driveway which is just south of this site. So really the action of the Planning Commission at that time was to extend the medium density residential to the south. Mr. McCann: The south part of this is for office, south of Heritage Drive? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. That's what the Future Land Use map had shown. Mr. Piercecchi: I think we're backed into the same comer that we were in some time ago when we were discussing this package, and that's why I and others suggested that really the only way to put OS in there, which probably belongs there, is to make sure that the whole package gets developed. I don't know whether this gentleman would ever be willing to sell his property if somebody came in and wanted to develop the whole package, including your lot. Would you be willing to accept a sale? Mr. Mathewson: I would certainly consider it Mr. Piercecchi: You'd consider it then. That's the way we talked originally, Mr. Chairman, that we want a comprehensive plan for this, not just one and two lots at a time. Do you remember that? And that's what we're kind of backed into right now. Now we got a homeowner that is really concerned about it, and I sympathize. Your home is your castle. So Ithink it may not be a bad idea to take another look at this and see if we can get a comprehensive plan. I was always under the impression that there were a couple of them in the mill. One concerned a hospital on the south part of the property. Isn't that correct? Maybe we can get them to take the whole ball of wax. I mean I hate to see this gentleman just destroyed. You can see he's very upset about it. Mr. Walsh: I agree with Mr. Piercecchi based on the comments that we've made. You are upset and he's entitled to be that. There are other property owners involved though. And we have resolved several of the properties with what I believe to be reasonable assurances that several properties will be developed for some medical facility. The petition before us will fall in line, and I'm sure we all have questions regarding the site plan, but zoning is consistent with what we're contemplating for other parcels in that area. I'm prepared to move forward on the zoning tonight because I'm comfortable with that area going to OS. We have two or three homes in that area that are vacant at this point in time. Is that correct, Mark? Do you recall from our meeting? Two or three homes have been abandoned? Mr. Taormina: That's my understanding. Mr. Lee had indicated that. Correct. 19945 Mr. Walsh: And that's troublesome. I find abandoned property troublesome. And these people are desirous of selling their property for office use which, I for one, think is an appropriate use in that area. So my intention would be to ... I'll allow that conversation to continue before I'll offer an approving resolution, but I would be willing to do that tonight. I'm not certain that it will pass tonight, but I dont want to deprave anybody from any further comments before I dothat. Mr. La Pine: Just one point. I agree with what Mr. Walsh is saying to a point. The only difference . the paroels that we're talking about for supposedly the medical center, we're going to take all four lots and we're going to have one building. Up here we have a possibility of two buildings on this lot, plus whatever Mr. Phipps does with his lot, and that I have a problem with. Now the other parcel from here up came in as one paroel. They all get together and be partners in developing the property. I would feel more comfortable than I am going with these two lots alone. I mean it's the way I feel about it. Mr. Shane: I'm comfortable having the rezoning tonight, but you know there may be some things they can do when it comes to site plan to help this gentleman out. There are more than one way to do things. We have to take his lot into consideration and how it may develop in the future as it is next to these buildings. So, that's not a zoning question. That's a site plan question. So, I'm comfortable with the rezoning. I can deal with the site plan as it comes along. Mr. McCann: All right. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Piercecohi, and approved, it was #12-155-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition 2002-10-01-15, submitted by Toni Aloe and Charles Sergison, on behalf of TACS, L.L.C., requesting to rezone property at 14881 and 14891 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast %of Section 21 from R2 to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-10-01-15 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional office services to serve the area; 19946 3. That the proposed change of zoning represents a logical extension of an adjacent existing OS zoning district; 4. That the proposed change of zoning is complementary to the adjacent OS zoning district in the area; and 5. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developed character of the Farmington Road frontage properties on the east and west sides of Farmington Road south of the subject property. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Walsh, Pastor, Shane, McCann NAYES: LaPine, Piercecchi ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Alanskas Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 MOTION TO HOLD A SIX MILE ROAD REZONING A PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a Motion to hold a Public Hearing, pursuant to C.R. #591-02, requesting to rezone property located at 33400 Six Mile Road, on the north side of Six Mile Road between Farmington Road and Fmncavilla Drive from C- 1 to OS in the Southeast%of Section 9. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #12-156-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 591-02, 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 certain property located on the north side of Six Mile Road (33499 Six Mile Road) between Farrington Road and Fmncavilla in the Southeast''/.of Section 9, from C-1 to OS, such property legally described as follows: 19947 A parcel of land located in the Southeast'Lof Section 9, T. 1 S., R. 9 E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, being more fully described as follows: South 360 feet of East 360 feet of the Southeast ''/.of Section 9, Town 1 South, Range 9 East, except the South 185 feet of East 185 feet thereof, also except the east 60 feet deeded for Farmington Road and the south 60 feet deeded for Six Mile Road. Tax Parcel 46-036-99-0004-001 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #6 MOTION TO HOLD A OPEN AIR BUSINESS USES A PUBLIC HEARING Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the first item on the agenda, a Motion to hold a Public Hearing pursuant to C.R. #601-02 to determine whether or not to amend Article XI, 11.03(1)(1) of Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, Subsections a, b & c regarding Open -Air Business Uses. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #12-157-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolutions #601-02, 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 amend Article XI, 11.03(1)(1), subsections a, b and c, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance regarding Open -Air Business Uses. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ILLS, I ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 853rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 853rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 22, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, 8 was #12-158-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 853rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 22, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Pastor, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: Alanskas Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 854`" Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 8W Regular Meeting held on November 12, 2002. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #12-159-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 854" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ASBSTAIN: Pastor ABSENT: Alanskas Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19949 Mr. McCann: This condudes the agenda tonight. I'd like to thank the City Channel 8 volunteers for their service in the year 2002. Its been wonderful. I want to say goodbye to my good fiend, John Pastor, who has been serving the City. Its a great loss to the City but we're gaining you in Lansing. Right, John? Mr. Pastor: Thank you. I appreciate that. Its really been an honor and a privilege to serve with such distinguished gentlemen such as yourselves, and I mean that wholeheartedly. The time that I've had here on the Planning Commission makes me a better person to hopefully serve up in Lansing for the City of Livonia. I want to thank every one of you. You mean a lot to me. You're near and dear to my heart. Mr. La Pine: Could you keep close to your phone in case we need some information about building materials and things like that? Mr. Pastor: Not a problem. Dan already has my hot line. Just remember to keep your sense of humor, and we want to wish everybody a Happy Holiday Season and a great New Year. Mr. McCann: That right. Many Christmas, Livonia. Happy New Year. Happy Hanukkah. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 856th Regular Meeting held on December 17, 2002, was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman nr CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary