The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-10-2621773 MINUTES OF THE 890 REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 26, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 894th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh 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 tum, 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 on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission 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 fling. 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. ITEM #1 PETITION 2004-09-08-18 JOHN COLUCCI Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-09- 08-18, submitted by John Colucci, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the office building located at 10811 Farmington Road in the Northeast % of Section 33. 21774 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Farmington Road between Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth Road. Two freestanding office buildings are located on the property. One building, 2,710 square feet in size, sits out front towards Farmington Road. The other building is situated behind the first building and is 725 square feet in size. It is on this smaller rear building that the petitioner is requesting to construct an addition. The office building to be added to is located at the rear of the site near the northwest comer of the properly. Because of its position behind the larger office building, it is barely visible from Farmington Road. The parking lot for both buildings is located in front of the first building, between the building and Farmington Road. Access to the rear office building is achieved by way of a pedestrian walkway around the north elevation of the front building. The proposed addition would be 390 square feel in size and would be added to the rear, or west, elevation of the small office building. Upon completion, the total size of the expanded building would be 1,115 square feel. The required rear yard setback for a building in an OS, Office Services, District is 15 feel. The rear wall of the new addition would conform in that it would sit 16 feel 8 inches from the properly line. This properly abuts residential zoned property along its entire west property line. The abutting residential properly is zoned R-9, Housing for the Elderly, and is the location of the Senior House, a senior living development. Fifteen parking spaces are required, and they are providing 13 spaces. Because the site would be deficient in parking by two spaces, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. As to landscaping, a note on the plan explains, "all trees and shrubs are existing and scheduled to remain. No new plantings are proposed." The existing landscaping of the site is not very well maintained; it is overgrown and in need of refurbishing. There is an old rickety gazebo located near the proposed construction. Currently, this gazebo seems to be utilized as a makeshift storage shed. The plan does not indicate what is to become of this gazebo. Required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site, and they are providing 55% landscaping. Presently, the architecture of the building to be enlarged can best be described as somewhat modem or deco. Along with the addition, the petitioner is planning on renovating the exterior of the entire building. The outside of the structure is in very poor condition and is in need of an overhaul. Horizontal vinyl siding would be installed on all four sides of the building up to the roofiine. The front peak area would be adomed with vinyl shakes, whereas the rear peak area would just have the horizontal siding continued up. A small porch overhang, 21775 supported by simple columns, would be introduced and protect the front main entrance area. Asphalt shingles would cover the peak roof. The remodeling would give this small office building a more residential look. The larger office building in front of this building is constructed mainly out of brick. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Taormina, I know we have several item of correspondence. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 5, 2004, which reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal. An additional 27 feet of right-of-way should be dedicated at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 30, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the office building on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal and have no concerns with respect to traffic, points of ingress and egress, site capacity to accommodate the proposed use as related to offatreet parking or any other safety matters." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 15, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to construct an addition to the office building located at 10811 Farmington Road. We have no objections to the plans as submitted. Please remind the petitioner that the handicap parking space must be properly posted per Livonia City Ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 7, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 27, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The sign is located south of the driveway, not north as drawn. (2) The parking lot is in poor repair. Repair, repaving in certain areas, sealing and double striping is needed. The accessible parking needs to be property sized, property marked and posted property. (3) There is a dead tree in the front yard north of the driveway. (4) The landscaping is in poor repair. The landscape 'boxes' along the north property line appear to have never been completed. (5) There is an uncompleted drainage ditch at the south property line. (6) No mention is made of the deteriorating gazebo and attached storage area at 21776 the west end of building number 2. It is assumed these will be demolished and removed. (7) The building itself has some deterioration, which will need repair prior to covering with aluminum and/or vinyl. (8) Office building number 2 will need to meet all current accessible and building codes in its entirety due to the increase in size of more than 50%. (9) A protective wall must be installed or a property separation agreement filed for the south and west property lines. This site has ignored several letters to that fact and currently has been issued a violation with no response as of yet. (10) The underground irrigation system referenced on ZBA 8311-169 should be demonstrated to be working and in good repair." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Please state your name and address for our record. George Hartman, George Hartman Architects, 6905 Telegraph, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301. Good evening. I'm representing Mr. Colucci. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Hartman: This is Mr. John Colucci, property owner, and his son, Paul Colucci, owner of the neighboring properly. Mr. Walsh: Good evening. John Colucci, 10811 Farmington, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. Paul Colucci: Good evening. Mr. Hartman: I'd like to briefly run through Mr. Bishop's letter here, error on the drawings and sign localion. The parking lot will be resurfaced and repaired. Item 3 is the dead tree that was brought up. That is actually on the neighbor's properly to the north. That's not on the subject properly. Landscaping will be updated throughout the site once the building project is completed. The drainage ditch along the south property line is actually on the neighboring properly, but my understanding is that once the home construction is completed there, that ditch will be cleaned up and improved. The gazebo and the storage area will be demolished as part of this project. The deteriorated portions of the building will also be removed. Of course, the new facility will be brought up to barrier -free standards for accessibility. A property separation agreement will be initialed 21777 between the adjoining property owners on the south and west, and the irrigation system will be replaced. That was damaged during some tree removal so that will be rectified. The Engineering letter is requesting the 27 fool right-of-way. If you take that 27 foot right -0f --way, that's going to remove several parking spaces from the front of the properly. Al this time, we don't have any intention of providing that. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: Good evening. Our notes at our study meeting show that two commissioners mentioned that they had mel with the petitioner on site. During this conversation with the petitioner, he revealed that he would prefer tearing down the building in the back, which is really in pretty rough shape, the small one, and puffing up a new one in its place. But he said that the City would not lel him do that. Have you been advised that is not true? Thal building can't be tom down? I don't see any reason why you can't add to that beautiful gray building that you have there and make it all one building. Is Mr. Colucci here? John Colucci: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Have you been informed, sir, that the City has no objection to doing what we suggested when we met with you at your site? John Colucci: Well, what I would like to do ... I don' t know if you can put that back up on the screen so I can demonstrate what I propose to do. The existing building number 2, what I really would like to do is dig a footing all around it so that I can have a solid brick ledge. Then I would frame it. Essentially, the building would be pretty much as was shown on the diagram except it would be bricked, and the brick would match the existing brick. Now, when you look al this for the first time, it sounds like a back alley shop. I've got to tell you that for 19 out of the 20 years, this properly was in excellent condition. However, this year we had to lake down 19 ash trees and one weeping willow. It just denuded the entire site. When all the heavy equipment came in, it lore up the irrigation system. It has to be replaced. There was no point in taking care of the landscaping because it's going to be redone anyway. Then on the south side, I owned that property. It was residential. My son, Paul, who is here, is building the house in the back of that particular lot. That lot is 647 feel deep. He will be back roughly 400 feet from Farmington Road. The house immediately south of my office will then be razed and the landscaping will be integrated to 21778 cover all of the property so that we have a very wide greenbelt. Al that point, we're going to resurface the parking lot, and we should end up with one additonal parking place because there was a turnaround that we won't need. There was also a little greenbelt on which sal a couple elms - not elms, ash trees. When that is redone, we could end up with at least 15 parking spaces, if not 16. So that's the overall plan that I would like to accomplish. When we came in initially, it was my understanding that the City would lel me add to the building, but really did not want to tear it down and rebuild. From a common sense standpoint, it is better to permit me to put in a new fooling around the perimeter of the existing structure and the proposed structure. That will give me a 42 inch fooling, and then I would build up from there. I would match the brick to the existing building. Building 2 is used by a CPA. He is in the building maybe four out of five days. He has part-time help around tax season, but the bulk of the building is used for file storage. I have files that go back 50 years. I have a building in Novi and I have my files stored there. So every time I need a file, which isn't that often, I have to gel in my car and go down and gel it. I would like to use that whole back end of the extension for storage, both for myself and the CPA. The CPA's name is David Giandilelti. He's been there 10 years. He's a very good tenant, and he lakes care of our books besides. So I would like to be able to continue to integrate the operation. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to request that the City then split the property so you can both have your individual ID lax number? John Colucci: No. I'll pay the taxes. Mr. Piercecchi: No, no. The point is, they don't like two buildings on one site. That's probably one of the reasons why they said you cant take it down. Our staff checked into that. They said the way to resolve the whole problem, and I'll read right from the notes: "This is easily remedied by splitting the property so that both building sites would have their own tax ID number. As long as both sites would meet the ordinance, such as lot size, lot coverage and setback, the Building Department has no objections." John Colucci: What about parking? Where does Building 2 park if it's a separate parcel? They don't have any parking. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi, is there anything else? 21779 Mr. Piercecchi: Would it not be simpler building to add that 390 feet to the existing office and make one building out of it? John Colucci: Well, we looked into it. The one that is better able to answer that is Mr. Hartman. You have the technical knowledge; that's why you're here. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm not trying to tell you what to do. Its just that you brought up a point on parking if they are individual sites. Well, how is the parking handled now? John Colucci: Well, the building is mine. If the CPA were to move, that would become part of my file storage system, and it would probably be used as a conference room. The parking is all up front. We have never had a problem with parking in the 20 years that I've been there. Our practice is a good practice. I have many loyal clients. In two more months, I will have been in practice 50 years, and I want to keep going. Mr. Piercecchi: We wanlyou to keep going loo. John Colucci: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: The thing is,l'mjusttrying to simplify this package about getting a Iol split. You have to go through the City Council for that. Mr. Hartman: I think one of the detriments is we would not be able to conform with the required setbacks and clearances. We'd run into the setback issues, plus we'd run into a building code issue on two buildings on separate properties and their proximity to each other, which we don't encounter on the same parcel. Mr. Piercecchi: Isn't it a greater problem having two buildings for parking than one? Mr. Hartman: The square foolages are the same, so it really makes no difference. That's a square footage base calculation. Mr. Piercecchi: Thanks, John. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Colucci, do you remember us? We talked to you out at the site? John Colucci: Yes, I remember you very well. 21780 Mr. LaPine: You told us that you would prefer to demolish the building and start from scratch because the building is in terrible shape and it is. There's no doubt about it. What has changed? Now you say all you want to do is put footings down. John Colucci: Nothing has changed. Mr. LaPine: I want to know, can you demolish the building and start from scratch and build a building in conformance with the same color of brick and everything as the existing building? John Colucci: If you will lel me, I will do it. Mr. LaPine: The next question I have is about the parking. No matter if you split the parcel or not, as far as the parking requirements, they're not going to change because if the building goes up right as it is now, you're still going to be deficient one parking space. If you're not going to change the size of the building or if you start from scratch, the parking is not going to change as far as I can understand. John Colucci: It won't change. Well, actually, I should pick up one space because I had some shrubs and an ash tree which we look out. Now, I think with that additional space, we can get in one more parking space. Mr. LaPine: Now if I could ask Mark a couple questions. Mark, let's assume that he agrees to tear the building down and he doesn't split the property. Can he build a building there? Mr. Taormina: Can he build a new building there? Mr. LaPine: A new building. Mr. Taormina: Sure, as long as it meets all the requirements and setbacks. Mr. LaPine: Okay. My next question is based on the square footage and the widths and depths of the building he's proposing to add on here. Mr. Taormina: The setbacks for the addition fully conform to the OS District regulations. Yes, this building complies with respect to setbacks from the outside property lines. There may be an issue regarding the separation of the two buildings, a division of the property between the two. I understand what he's saying because it's not likely to have a firewall or a certain rated wall for each of those buildings that would allow a reduced setback. 21781 That might require a variance. But back to the issue of parking, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Where parking facilities are not on the same premise or the use to which they pertain or they're under different ownership, one parking facility can serve both uses where there's a recordable legal instrument that's sufficient to notify anybody that the parking lot is for the use of both buildings. So, in other words, we could have a reciprocal parking arrangement between the two properties and that would fully conform to the ordinance as well. So he wouldn't be prohibited from splitting the property based on parking. Mr. LaPine: So the bottom line is, he could demolish this building, rebuild it in the same configuration he's proposing there with the widths and depths and meet all requirements of the ordinance. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: With regard to setbacks, I believe that's the case. The one issue I'm not sure about is the distance between the two buildings. I'm not sure if there's a code issue there that would come into play. But in all other aspects, the answer is yes. Mr. LaPine: Okay. So now you've heard you could demolish the building, and build a new building there. It looks like you can meet all the requirements, except the one we're not sure of. So would you then build a new building there and start from scratch instead of trying to refurbish something here that's just in pretty bad shape? John Colucci: The old adage, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Gelridofil. Do it right or don'ldo it. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thankyou. John Colucci: Also, I'd like you to meet my son, Paul, who is also an attorney. He is building the house on the adjoining property to the south. That's why we don't have any problem with the fence. I wouldn't want to inconvenience him from going from the house to the office by going around a fence. There's no reason to be Tale. Mr. Walsh: Its less billable hours. John Colucci: Well, not really. Mr. Shane: I'd like to ask the question that I thought Mr. Piercecchi was asking you. Did you ever consider tearing Building 2 down and 21782 adding that square footage, plus the new square footage, to Building 1? John Colucci: Yes, we did, and we ran into substantial obstacles. Mr. Hartman looked into that possibility initially. Mr. Hartman: Several issues. First, the design of these two buildings is somewhat unique. Years ago an architect lived in these. It was his home. It was his wife's ceramic art studio and a greenhouse. They are somewhat unique in their roof structure and how they're put together. To go in and try to add on to the building and bring functions through the existing space on the west end of the existing building would require redoing the whole interior, tearing off the roof structure on the existing building to be able to lie into it. It's a system of laminated beams running at various angles. So it's somewhat complicated. We also run into a situation where we go beyond what was originally termed as a minor addition into a full blown site development project. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Piercecchi: Inasmuch, Mr. Colucci, that it seems like you're able to gel everything you wanted, how do you wish us to go with this? To table this and you submit a new elevation plan for the building and everything that's required? John Colucci: I would prefer not to table it inasmuch as I would like to gel this in before the hard weather sits in. I really can't stand to look at that site the way it is for another year. I can do that now. All I need is permission to dig a fooling around the existing building and the proposed addition. You see where that dotted line is? If I could put in a 42 inch fooling, pour it, then tear the building down, put down a new slab, put in all my underground, and then build a structure up, I could gel my brick layers in there before Christmas. Mr. Piercecchi: Is there a problem giving us the elevation of what it's going to look like? John Colucci: No. Mr. Piercecchi: Right now you've got vertical vinyl siding. That's the plan we have. John Colucci: Right. 21783 Mr. Piercecchi: Those plans obviously are not what you are going to end up with. Correct? John Colucci: No. It would be brick instead. Mr. Piercecchi: Its not that difficult to gel us another set of plans. Mr. Hartman: No, it's not. Mr. Piercecchi: Then we know exactly what we're responding to and you can check with the City then about splitting the lot or work some arrangement so they both have their own tax ID number. Okay? Mr. Chairman, I think the best way to handle this is to table it pending a new site plan. Mr. Walsh: Lel me go to Mr. Morrow. He had asked a question in the middle and I think it's pertinent to what you're suggesting. Mr. Morrow: I'm going to make a comment and I hope I'm on firm ground here, but inasmuch as we're a recommending body, whatever we send forward has to be indicative of what you're going to do. We just can't do it on the fly. John Colucci: I understand that. Mr. Morrow: So one possible solution is, because we're certainly very supportive of what you're trying to do. The site will be beautiful and you will get it the way you want it. But you want to move forward. I don't know if this is possible but we might be able to, if the architect can bring the plans forward as we discussed, perhaps the Chairman would call a special meeting of the Planning Commission next week so we could forward this on and get it advertised and not hold him up. I dont know if that's possible or not, but I would put that up to the Chairman and the Planning Director to see if that's possible. Mr. Walsh: We're not scheduled to meet next Tuesday because of the election. City Hall will be closed that day and staff members will be off. If it is tabled, we'd be looking at consideration on the 9th at a study session. Is that correct, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Yes, but it's a full agenda. Mr. Walsh: Yes, it really is a full agenda, isn't it? So we wouldn't be able to consider it unless we had a special meeting. 21764 Mr. Taormina: The special meeting could be held on the V. We've done that in the past. We don't do that often but it's been done before to have a voting meeting the same evening that we have a study session. That would avoid the item coming back on the 16t for the public hearing, which is when we're really going to be pressed for time with all the items we have on that evening's agenda. Mr. Walsh: I'd have to seek a motion. I don't have an objection. As a Chair, I don't know that I can call that. Mr. Morrow: I was just making an inquiry. I'm not giving you direction. Mr. Walsh: No. I understand. Mr. Shane: There is one other possibility. I don't know if it would work. If I'm hearing this right, what we're looking for is a new building elevation. Right? Mr. Walsh: Yes. Mr. Shane: We're not looking for a new landscape plan. I guess we have it here. The only thing we don't have is the proper building elevations. Is it possible that we could structure this approving resolution and hold up the plans going to Council until we gel that building elevation if that's all we need to have? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, I'm looking to you for direction. Mr. Taormina: I don't know if it would be any different if you hold up their going to a study meeting before the Council until we get the elevation plans. I fail to see where that would save time. If we wanted to treat it as a callback item, that would be another thing. They could then proceed onto Council, which would likely be a mid- November hearing. Then they could come back to us probably at the end of November for a review of the elevation plan and landscape plan if you wanted to treat it as a callback. Mr. Walsh: A callback allows it to move forward. Mr. Morrow: My own opinion is that I would like this to go to the Council as a full package. So if we don't save any time by what I suggested, let's go ahead. 21785 Mr. Walsh: If there is no objection from the Planning Commission members, we could add it to the agenda for the 9` , the study session, but we're going to have a very long evening. I'm not sure procedurally how to do this, Mark, but we could do a special meeting that night and vote on it the same evening. Mr. Taormina: Good. Mr. Alanskas: I just need a little more clarification from the petitioner. What you say you want to do is gel an okay to put a 42 inch foundation in first and then tear the building down? Is that correct. Mr. Colucci: Well, it doesn't really matter. I could tear the building down and put in a footing, but because the weather is closing in on me, I could have the trench dug and the concrete poured. Mr. Alanskas: But wouldn't it be easier to tear the building down first? Mr. Colucci: I could do that. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Colucci: I don't have a problem with that. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Morrow, did you want the floor? Mr. Morrow: No, I just wanted to make one more comment that the Petitioner here is trying to upgrade his facility and it looks like we have a common ground here. I'm just trying to speed it along, and the fact that my fellow commissioners don't have an objection to that special meeting, we may have to go long into the night, but that's the price we pay when you serve on this body. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding when I talked to you out on your site, once everything is done, you're tearing down the house to the south, and then you're landscaping the whole area. Mr. Colucci: Absolutely. Mr. LaPine: I'd like to see a landscaping plan on the whole area, not just what I'm seeing on here because I assume your son's house, when he gets done, he's going to have a new driveway. He's going to be landscaping, and the front of your house will be all green grass. I'd like to see a plan of the whole project. zeas Mr. Piercecchi: Maybe the best solution is to table it until a date that you choose, Mr. Chairman, where we get the complete building elevation, landscape plan, inasmuch as that's very important to us. I think that's the way to handle it. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, if we give them the 9th as a dale to shoot for, are we tabling this until the 9t? Mr. Taormina: Yes, we would table the item to the 91h with direction to the applicant in terms of what additional information to provide. From what I'm hearing, a revised landscape plan that includes the entire property as well as the area to the south, which is contiguous to this site, and revised elevation plans. I don't know if it's a new building or if he's still planning on going with the addition, just adding a brick ledge around the exterior and then putting a brick face to it. I'm not 100 percent certain on that. And then lastly, a revised site plan, which I would suggest address some of these issues identified in the Inspection Department letter. Mr. Walsh: If we do that, in terms of creating a special meeting that evening, how do we go about doing that? Mr. Taormina: We would call the special meeting to order at the beginning. It would have to be recorded, and then we would treat it as any other meeting, a review by the commissioners followed by a motion and resolution and a roll call vole, and then close that hearing. We would then go on to the study meeting immediately following. Mr. Alanskas: Now you're saying that you don't know. As I understand it, it would be a brand new building. He would demolish the old one and put up a brand new building. Mr. Taormina: I guess we need clarifcation because the petitioner indicated something about just constructing a brick ledge around the existing building. Mr. Walsh: Lel me go right to Mr. Hartman. Mr. Hartman: When we began this process, our understanding was that if we tore this building down, this would necessitate a full site plan engineering review, which is why we approached what I'll call addition and selective reconstruction of the existing building, tearing out deteriorated portions, replacing those and then pulling the addition on. If we go ahead and put the brick on the 21787 Mr. Walsh: A motion is in order facility, it's not going to change the use or the layout of the building. We simply will take the vinyl siding off and add the brick on to it, so we're not looking at making a significant change to the building. The building size is what we need. It will be a minor change because we'll have to build our new brick foundation outside the existing foundation. But other than that, the layout will be the same as what it is now. We'll simply change the material. Mr. Alanskas: But you would have a new exterior with an old building? Mr. Hartman: No, we will tear down the existing portion. Its simply a wood frame structure with wood siding on it now. A lot of that wood framing has deteriorated, so rather than tearing out just the deteriorated portions, we'll tear it all out. We'll do all new framing, all new roof, and the brick veneer on it. Mr. La Pine: Well, that's demolishing the building. Mr. Alanskas: That's demolishing the building. Mr. Hartman: Yep. Mr. Walsh: I think what Mr. Taormina has suggested meets all of our goals here. Tabling, we give him a date certain. You have until the 9th to give us your plans. We're going to do a special meeting for you. We can't guarantee that it will go up or down, but we are trying to accommodate your timeline. Mr. LaPine: Just one question. Just to accommodate the petitioner, the way he talked to me out there, the landscaping plan is going to be quite extensive. Maybe he can't get all those plans done in time for this meeting on the 91h. I'd be willing to go along with the suggestion that he come back with the landscape plan at a different lime. Mr. Taormina: I think that's a very good recommendation considering the fad that we would like to see these plans sometime early next week so we can forward them on to at least the Inspection Department for comment. So the earlier we get the plan, the better prepared we are to take action on the 9t. Mr. Walsh: A motion is in order 21788 On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-135-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2004-09-08-18, submitted by John Colucci, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the office building located at 10811 Farmington Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 33, be tabled pending new site plans until the Special Meeting to be held on November 9, 2004. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. IN 0:1i4 FYM9=k 111 Y [a]CMET, ffrYE,)t&4-�I_plN=10:10 ONO = Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 84-07- 02-26, submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to modify the landscaping at 37655 Six Mile Road and 17050 Laurel Park Drive South in the Northeast %of Section 18. Mr. Miller: Both subject properties are located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway. One of the properties, 37655 Six Mile Road, is the location of the Laurel Pointe commercial/office building. This building is two -stones in height. The lower half of the building is utilized as commercial and the upper level is occupied by office uses. The other site, 17050 Laurel Park Drive South, is the location of the Ground Round Restaurant. Both buildings front along Six Mile Road. The petitioner is proposing to modify the greenbelt that runs along both these properties. The section of greenbelt runs parallel to the right -0f --way of Six Mile Road and extends east from Laurel Park Drive South all the way to the first drive that offers access to the Ground Round Restaurant and the office buildings of the Laurel Park Professional Center. The distance is approximately 450 feet. Presently this greenbelt is bermed at a height of roughly three feet and planted with a number of large mature evergreen and deciduous trees. In an effort for more visibility, the trees lower branches have been significantly trammed over the years. The revised landscape plan shows that some of the existing trees would be cut down and removed. These trees are mainly the ones that sit along the front of the 21789 berm and have been severely trimmed so they do not interfere with overhead utility wires. A couple of other trees, believed by the petitioner to be the most concealing, are also slated to be removed. New trees and more low profile type plant materials, such as ornamental grasses, yews and junipers, would then be planted throughout the bene. The petitioner is also proposing to lower the bene in the sections surrounding new ground signs. These signs would require separate applications for review and approval (see Petition 2004 -09 -SN -11 and Petition 2004 -09 -SN - 12). In front of the Ground Round Restaurant, the berm would be lowered to a height of 1Y to 2 feel. In front of the Laurel Pointe building, the bene would be lowered to a height of 2 feel. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 29, 2004, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal. No additional right-of-way is required at this time. The petitioner should be aware that their sanitary leads might pass under the proposed landscaping." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 30, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 27, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) At 17050 Laurel Park Drive South, several areas of the parking lot east and west of the restaurant need to be repaired. 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. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Sharon Ulmer, Laurel Pointe, LLC., 2085 E. West Maple, Suite 101, Commerce, Michigan 48302. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Ms. Ulmer: Yes, I have some pictures that I'd like to hand out. Mr. Walsh: If you just hand them to Mr. Pieroecchi, he'll pass them down. Ms. Ulmer: I wanted to give a little more description about our properly. We have on it the Ground Round restaurant and a brand new retail 21790 office complex that we constructed about three years ago. We tore down the office that was onsite and put up a new two-story building with retail on the first floor and office on the second floor. I have been heavily involved in the leasing of all that office and retail space. Every tenant that we have has complained about the lack of visibility from Six Mile Road to the site. If you look in the pictures, the first couple pictures are of the retail office building. You can see that its pretty well masked by trees. You can't read any of the signs on the building. The second pictures are of the Ground Round as you're traveling west on Six Mile where you come up to the corner to turn around. Again, it is masked by trees. I also included in the packet two of our neighbors. Our neighbor to the east is an office building, and the only landscaping they have is a grass berm. To the west is the brand new Red Robin. Although it's not all that clear from the picture, you have to look carefully, they only have four trees in front of their building. There is no bene in front of their building. Its actually kind of a depression. So that grants a lot better visibility to both of our neighbors. To address this problem, actually there's three petitions up here. One of them is for signage. Both of our neighbors have signage, so we're proposing a sign for the Ground Round as well as a sign for three of the retail tenants in the retail building. And then Mr. Miller pretty well described what we're planning to do with the landscape. The only thing that I might add is, the landscaping on this site, the trees on this site, have been there about 20 years. The trees that we're proposing to take down are directly under the electrical wires and have been either topped off or chopped and they're not very pretty looking trees. So that's part of the reason we chose them. We also believe it will help increase the visibility. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Alanskas: I really have no problem with you wanting to take these pines down. You have two and you've got seven, but all the things that you want to replace, which is like a day lily, forest grass, these are plants that only grow 12 inches high. So taking those trees down and replacing them with 12 inch plants, there's no reason to cut that berm down, to even taper it down, because you're going to have very low landscaping replacing it. Ms. Ulmer: Part of that thought was to lower the sign so the sign silting on top of the berm would be higher. Mr. Alanskas: Thatwould give you more visibility forlhe sign. 21791 Ms. Ulmer: Il would also block the signs on the building too. Mr. Alanskas: Buldon'lyou wantthe sign higherwhere ilsays Ground Round, or whatever ft's going to be, to be seen off the street? Ms. Ulmer: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Wouldn't that do that if it were higher? You'd have more visibility for that sign than if you cul it down low and had it down IoW? Ms. Ulmer: Its going to be kind of gradual, so what I was hoping is that we would see more of the building on either side of the sign by cutting it down. Mr. Alanskas: What you want is visibility so people can see that the Ground Round is there. Ms. Ulmer: That's correct. Mr. Alanskas: By taking those big pine trees down, you would increase your visibility 1,000 percent. By replacing your landscaping with low landscaping, which will not be more than a fool high, you're going to see that building very well without cutting that bene down. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I tend to agree with Mr. Alanskas. These flowering shrubs that they are proposing to plant in front of the sign, wont they hide the sign? Mr. Alanskas: No. They won't be more than a fool high, total. Mr. LaPine: Looking at these pictures, as I staled at the Iasi meeting, you remove some of these trees along here, you'll actually be able to seethe front of that building anywhere along Six Mile Road. I don't know how many of these trees you're taking down. How many of these trees are coming down? Mr. Taormina: There are a total of 17 trees existing. They would remove 10; seven would remain. They would plant three new trees. So they would go from 17 to 10. Mr. LaPine: Okay. That was my next question. If we have a problem with trees now, why are we adding additional trees? Are they going 21792 to be in an area where they wont in any way block the front of the building? Mr. Taormina: Yes. That was the intent. We mel onsite. We selectively chose the trees that were giving them the most visual interference, particularly for westbound traffic. That seems to be where the biggest problem is, although the area where Jimmy John's is located is a little bit different. But the intent was to remove the large grouping of evergreen trees, particularly in the northeast corner that blocks the view of the Ground Round. Then because we were removing so many trees, it was suggested that we could place back a few trees that would have a much narrower crown so they wouldn't have the same visual impact to that area but would still provide some element of planting along that berm but without having the blocking effect that the existing trees have. Mr. LaPine: Okay. The only other problem I have, what are we accomplishing by laking this bene down from three to two feet? I have to agree with Bob. If the sign is on lop of the bene as the berm sits today, they're going to have better visibility from the road with that sign than if its down. If you're going to take a foot off the berm, it's going to be down on the ground. One foot is going to be lower. It can be six fool high. Its only going to be five foot high? Mr. Taormina: The idea behind lowering the berm wasn't only to provide an area for the sign. Il was to reduce or to improve the visibility for selected areas of the frontage of each building. The berm sits up probably about five feet above the road bed, so it does have some impact on your ability to see the buildings. We didn't want to open up the view to the parking lot. That was a concern that was expressed at the study meeting. We wanted to make it appear as natural as possible. We wanted to provide a level area for the signs. We didn't want the signs to appear out of scale with the area, so lowering those a bit did make sense. So its a combination of factors. They have a belief that the berm really affects the visibility of the buildings. Our objective wasn't to remove the beim in its entirety but to keep that in tact as much as possible, and also provide them with much better views of the building. Mr. LaPine: The small sign that Ground Round has there now, its a real small one. Is that considered a second sign? 21793 Mr. Taormina: That would be removed. There is no need for that sign to remain. Mr. La Pine: How about the sign that's in the back of the building? Mr. Taormina: We discussed the one directional sign on the front of the building. We never came to a resolution on what would have to be done for that directional sign to remain. It may have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review for a second sign. We really didn't address that fully. Mr. Morrow: I can't really see the topography here. Are we saying that in some areas, we are retaining the height of the berm but we're tapering or sculpturing it along Six Mile? Is that pretty much what I'm seeing there? Mr. Taormina: Correct. Scott is going to try and highlight the area as best as possible where the berm would be lowered. If you see the two existing Maple trees that would remain, those two trees would frame the sign which is in the middle. The area between these two trees would be lowered about 1.5 feet and that would do a couple of things. It would lower the berm for better visibility of the building and also provide an even grade for the sign and some of the landscaping - not an even grade but an area where they could then re -landscape. That would be the first area in front of the Laurel Pointe office building. The second area has two or three sections where the berm would be lowered. The first would be where the sign is proposed. Off to the left is an area where some concern was expressed regarding safety. This is where the concentration of evergreen trees is located, most of which would be removed. That area also provides some obstruction for traffic at that corner, and it was suggested that they lower than a few feel in order to improve visibility not only for the building but for safely purposes. Mr. Morrow: I'd like to ask the petitioner, are your tenants and you as the landlord comfortable with this landscape plan? Ms. Ulmer: Yes. Mr. Morrow: One of the reasons I wanted to bring that up is that I've site checked Six Mile, your location and other locations along the way. As you know, my opinion is we're not asking to remove the berm but only to lower it in certain portions. I know we didn't put a bene in front of Red Robin. Whether it's right or wrong, its not there. I noticed driving east past the Red Robin, those 21794 trees in front of their building actually screen your facility. As I go up and down Six Mile, outside of the office building to your east, there's really no berms in front of the Newburgh Square where we've got two or three restaurants in there. Across the street we dont have one where Boston Market is. As aforesaid, the Red Robin, and we have a relatively new full office building. Ms. Ulmer: Its 100 percenlfull. Mr. Morrow: We now have a new franchisee who is going to make a considerable investment in his restaurant and bring it up-to-date to increase his business. Ms. Ulmer: That's correct. Mr. Morrow: As one commissioner, I would like to see the Commission support the amended plan for your bene. We won't talk about the sign, just the amended plan from the standpoint it's kind of a compromise between what you originally wanted and what you're able to work out with our staff. As one commissioner, I support the new plan. Thankyou. Mr. Shane: I have no problem with lowering the berm for safety purposes over on the east side. If it is indeed a safety problem, Tel's lower that. After hearing Mark's explanation of the purpose for lowering the berm, I'm pretty much with Lee on this one. I think it would add some character to it, a little bit of undulation of the berm and while maintaining the integrity of it. I don't have a problem with that. If we're only talking 1.5 feet, I would go along with that. Ms. Smiley: This is not so much a question but a compliment to the Planning Department and to you. I think you've done a really nice job. I'm real excited to see some more than just green there, adding some color to that area. I would go along with Mr. Morrow and Mr. Shane on the wonderful job you've done on making it have some character rather than just the old green wall. Ms. Ulmer: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: How long has the Ground Round been at that location? Ms. Ulmer: Well, I would say 15 - 20 years. They've been there ever since I've been involved with the property. 21795 Mr. Piercecchi: Has it had a great number of cycles of profits and losses? Has it been a cyclic type business? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi, I'm not sure that she would know as a landlord. Ms. Ulmer: I dont know. Our lease doesn't require ... Mr. Walsh: If she gels her rent, she's not going to have any knowledge that they'd had losses. Ms. Ulmer: I do know that it is a new franchisee. He acquired the franchise rights about a year ago. I know that he has some extensive plans that he wants to do on renovafing the inside as well as the outside of the restaurant. I've very pleased to see that. It's nice to see buildings updated and that's an older building. Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with just about everybody. They've had some good reasons here. Unfortunately, I wish in the future if you ever give us another plan that you would put some scale on it. Ms. Ulmer: Okay. Mr. Piercecchi: We don't know whether its 2 feel or 20 feel. But looking at this thing, the bottom line is visibility. Perhaps cutting down the berm a little bit is going to help, but its also going to expose cars in the parking lot, which I mentioned in study I think. Red Robin is a fine operation, but I think seeing cars silting in front of them is not aesthetic to the City, and I think we have to look at that aspect when we make judgments here. But you said they were not pretty trees, and I say, we'll, they're not pretty parking lots. You see, I don't really understand this plan here. Mr. Shane mentioned safety. If there's safely problems, by all means. Nobody questions that. But I think that cutting the big trees down, as Mr. Alanskas said, isn't going to resolve any visibility problems. You brought the pictures in. You can see that the heads of those trees, if they weren't there, you'd see it right? So I can't understand why you can't accept that and leave the bene alone. I can't. I can't understand that. Mr. Walsh: Anything else, Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Piercecchi: No, sir. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pettion? 21796 Cheryl Doelker, 19369 Fairline Court. I'm a resident of Livonia and also a franchise owner at Jimmie John's. I just want to augment what Sharon had indicated, in particular to address your question about visibility. Having been there since November, 2002, and as a new business owner, we get a multitude of calls from other businesses trying to sell us a variety of advertising opportunities and things like that. Very conveniently, I try to set up meetings at our restaurant and explain to people that we're located on Six Mile Road nghl in between Newburgh and 1-275. Probably eight out of every 10 people that come to see me on an appointment basis, drive by, whether they're coming from the east or the west because they cant see the building and they all tell me it's because of the trees. To the issue of the berm and sculpting the berm, I was telling Sharon before the meeting that it would have been nice to have taken a video camera and shot footage as a driver drives by, westbound particularly, on Six Mile Road. Part of the berm that may not be evident in the plan is obstructing actually where the berm is high and there are some bushes that are maybe three or four feet tall, particularly in front of the Ground Round. Because of the height of the bene there, those bushes, even though they're only four feet tall off the crest of the berm, actually obstruct the office building to the west. So I think part of the planning in terms of sculpting that bene out a little bit would have also added visibility to the office building coming from the west and vice versa. Mark had pointed out centering the sign on the office building and perhaps sculpting out the bene there also adds some visibility to the Ground Round from traffic proceeding eastbound on Six Mile Road. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: But madam, Mr. Alanskas pointed that out in the beginning, that those shrubs and that can be removed. Ms. Doelker: The shrubbery on lop of the bene would not be removed Mr. Piercecchi: Pardon? Ms. Doelker: Would not be removed Mr. Piercecchi: You can. In study, we had no objection when we discussed it that it can be removed and the trees. We want to cooperate. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi, we do have a petition before us. Now we're getting into a debate on an individual basis. What I'd like to do is proceed with any new questions. But we do have a petition 21797 before us that they presented. They've shown no willingness to change that and what I want to suggest is that we move forward. Mr. Alanskas: Mark, you're saying the bene is at least five feet tall? Mr. Taormina: Well, I would say from the grade of the sidewalk, although I didn't measure it, is probably about 3.5 to 4.5 feet. Mr. Alanskas: So they want to cut it down to two feet in height. So if it's four feet, they want to cut it by half? Our notes say the bene would be lowered to a height of 1.5 to 2 feet. Mr. Taormina: If I may, Mr. Chairman? I think they want to lower it two feel. In the first area, which is in front of the Ground Round, the note on the plan says, "grade to be lowered two feet." If you go the profile view on the second sheet of the plans, he's showing the berm height at three feet. Again, from the sidewalk, it's a little taller than that. I think it rises up a little higher. In front of the Laurel Pointe office, the plan reads: "grade to be changed 12 inches." So it's going to be lowered between one to two feet; one foot on the west side in front of the office and two feet on the east side in front of the Ground Round. Mr. Alanskas: We'd have at Ieasttwofeet of berm left? Mr. Taormina: I would say there would be at least two feet left. Ms. Ulmer: Actually, the parking lot is below the sidewalk level, so the berth is actually probably about five feet above the parking lot, which definitely covers the tops of cars. Mr. Alanskas: Before this started, I was really against lowering this berth at all, but by lowering it only two feet, as long as we have at least two feet left of the berm, I can go along with that. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other comments? I believe there is no one in the audience wishing to address this. Seeing no one, I'll seek a motion. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-136-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the proposal submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, requesting to modify the landscaping at 37655 Six Mile Road and 17050 Laurel Park Drive South in the 21798 Northeast % of Section 18, which previously received waiver use approval by the City Council to construct a restaurant and office building on March 27, 1985 by Council Resolution 205-85, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Landscape Plan dated October 26, 2004, prepared by Horizon Lawn Maintenance, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 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 petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated September 30, 2004: That several areas of the parking lot, east and west of the restaurant, shall be repaired; 6. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 7. That the Planning Department shall be contacted prior to the construction so that it can monitor the construction activities; and 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I think what we're doing here is defeating the reason we put in berms in the first place, and that is basically to hide parking lots 21799 to the best of our ability. But I'm going to vote for the proposal because I'll be out here in left field if I vote no. Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would make relative to that is, we're not removing the bene. We're only changing the height in a few areas. If we were going to totally remove the bene, I probably would not be supportive of it, but I think we have a good compromise here. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Anyone else? I do intend to support this. I think it's a very nice plan. I find some architectural relief in what you're describing. Having driven by there a number of times, while no site plan engineer, I think lowering the bene a couple feet will still provide protection to drivers from the parking lot. That's my two cents. Mr. Taormina: If the Commission would consider a friendly amendment, that being that the Planning Department be contacted prior to the construction so that we can monitor the construction activities. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and second? Mr. Morrow: Very much. Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Then it is so amended. The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2004-09SN-11 LAUREL POINTE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 09 -SN -11, submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, requesting signage approval for the commerciatioffice building located at 37655 Six Mile Road in the Northeast %of Section 18. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway. The Laurel Pointe building is two -stories in height. The lower half of the building is utilized as commercial and the upper level is occupied by office type uses. The petitioner is requesting approval for a business center sign. This building is classified as a Business Center because it is occupied by a group of four or more contiguous businesses or offices. The sign would be located directly in front of the Laurel Pointe, out towards Six Mile 21800 Road, within a newly created landscape area. It should be pointed out that each unit of this Business Center have, and are permitted, wall signage. An on-site inspection shows that this site already has an existing ground sign. This sign is located on the south side of the entrance drive off Laurel Park Drive. If the petitioner plans on keeping this sign, then a variance for excessive signage would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 30, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 27, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site currently has a monument sign reflecting the Title Company and the Real Estate Firm. This is not noted on the application. Is this sign to be removed or was the exclusion of it an oversight? (2) If current monument sign is to remain, then this petition will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number of monument signs and excessive square footage. 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. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Mr. LaPine: Mark, just to get things straight in my mind, after the berm is lowered, the height of the sign will be where this gentleman is standing up here, the bottom of the base and the top of the sign will be six feet, so basically it will be two feet below the berm. Is that right? Mr. Walsh: That should be the depressed area. Mr. LaPine: I know that's going to be the depressed area, but it will be flat. If they put it on the top of the bene as it is now, the six feel will be from the top of the berm. Now we're going into the ground. Mr. Taormina: Yes. It will be less than six feel measured from the lop of the berm because the berm on either side of this sign will be a little bit higher, but the height will be measured from the grade at the base of the sign, which will be slightly lower. So it will appear a little bit lower than it would be. It wouldn't be measured from the top of the bene. I know that there was discussion about 21801 lowering the sign two feet from eight feel to six feel. This plan does not reflect that change, but I do believe the resolution stipulates that the height of the sign not be over six feet in order to match the adjoining sign. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Is the existing monument sign going to be removed? Sharon Ulmer, Laurel Pointe, LLC., 2085 E. West Maple, Suite 101, Commerce, Michigan 48302. We have a couple options there. We can go to the Zoning Board and gel a variance for it. Right now it has the two tenants listed on it. It was intended as a directional sign. In fact, I have a picture. It directs the traffic off of Laurel Park South to the back of the building, which is where the entrance to the offices is. It's a little confusing to find without it. Another option that we proposed is if it wasn't acceptable to get a variance, that we take the tenants names off of it and just put "office entrance" on it with an arrow pointing backwards. Mr. Walsh: So your intention is to go to the ZBA? Ms. Ulmer: Yes. Mr. LaPine: I'm just curious. Were the other two tenants offered an opportunity to go on this sign? Ms. Ulmer: Yes, they were. Mr. LaPine: Thank you Ms. Ulmer: Every tenant in the building was offered ... Mr. Piercecchi: In study, I was under the impression that you would accept both signs being six feel high. Is that correct? Ms. Ulmer: That's correct. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Mr. Walsh: I don't see anyone in the audience. A motion is in order. 21802 On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-137-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004 -09 -SN -11, submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, requesting signage approval for the commercial/office building located at 37655 Six Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 18, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Thal the Sign Package submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, as received by the Planning Commission on September 13, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the following: - That the area of the sign shall not exceed 40 square feel; - That the sign shall not exceed 6 feet in height; 2. That this ground sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 3. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto; 4. That the brick on the base of the sign shall match that of the existing building; and 5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina: If we could have an additional condition, Mr. Chairman, that the brick on the base of the sign shall match that of the existing building. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable, gentlemen? Mr. Piercecchi: That's fine. Mr. LaPine: That's acceptable. 21003 Ms. Ulmer: Excuse me. You mentoned 30 square feel, and I thought the sign area we proposed was 40 square feel. Mr. Morrow: We're just talking about height, aren't we, and not the size of the sign? Mr. Walsh: Mark? Mr. Taormina: We agreed to lower the height to six feet. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi confirmed the height. Ms. Ulmer: But the square footage remains the same as on the sign. Mr. Walsh: We approved a resolution for 30 square feet. Ms. Ulmer: For30? Mr. Morrow: I thought we were going to take the height out of the base and not out of the sign? Ms. Ulmer: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Because it is conforming, isn't it, at 40? Ms. Ulmer: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Isn't that what we agreed? Mr. Walsh: You are, I believe, cored. Mr. LaPine: I was the one that asked for it to be lower. I had no problem with the 40. Mr. Morrow: Your comment, Bill, was to take it out of the base. Mr. LaPine: That's right. Mr. Walsh: What we will need then is a motion to reconsider. Mr. Piercecchi: So moved. Mr. Walsh: Do we have support? Mr. LaPine: Support. 21804 Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 PETITION 2004-09SN-12 GROUND ROUND Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 09 -SN -12 submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, on behalf of Ground Round Restaurant, requesting signage approval for the restaurant located at 17050 Laurel Park Drive South in the Northeast'''/ of Section 18. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway. The petitioner is requesting approval for a ground sign. The sign would be located directly in front of the restaurant, out towards Six Mile Road, within a newly created landscape area. The petitioner has also submitted a request (Pei 04090&17) to modify the section of greenbelt along the Six Mile Road right-of-way of this restaurant and the building adjacent to the west, the Laurel Pointe building. They are proposing conforming signage with one ground sign not to exceed 30 square feel in sign area and not to exceed 6 feet in height. An on-site inspection shows that this site already has an existing ground sign. This sign is located on the west side of the entrance drive off Six Mile Road. If the petitioner plans on keeping this sign then a variance for excessive signage would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence. Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 30, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 27, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The site currently has a non -permitted small sign off Six Mile near their east drive. This sign must be removed. (2) This site would be permitted a 30 square feet monument sign, 6 fool tall, so what is proposed is acceptable. 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. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? 21805 Sharon Ulmer, Laurel Pointe, LLC., 2085 E. West Maple, Suite 101, Commerce, Michigan 48302 Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Morrow: I notice it's a non -illuminating sign meaning there will be no lights on the sign. Ms. Ulmer: That's correct. Mr. Morrow: The prior sign was internally illuminated. Ms. Ulmer: No. The prior sign is a small wooden sign. Mr. Morrow: No. I'm talking about the one on the prior petition. Ms. Ulmer: The prior one is illuminated. Mr. Morrow: I'd just like to know the rationale. We've been trying to get you more visibility and then we gel a sign that's not lit up. Ms. Ulmer: This sign was designed by the Ground Round's architect. Mr. Morrow: Okay. I will go along with it, but I just thought that perhaps they might want to light it up, particularly during the winter. Ms. Ulmer: Yes. I was surprised it wasn't illuminated loo. Mr. Morrow: Anyways, that was just a point of curiosity. Mr. Shane: My question is, why not use brick instead of masonry block on this? Ms. Ulmer: I asked the Ground Round's architect in regards to that, and they wanted to match the new facade of their building. They're updating the facade of the front of their building and they wanted the sign to match that. Mr. Shane: All right. And the color will match as well? Ms. Ulmer: Yes. Mr. Shane: Fine. Thank you. Mr. La Pine: Doyou knowthe hours of the Ground Round? 21806 Ms. Ulmer: They're open for lunch. They're open for dinner, and I believe that they're a bar, so I imagine that they're open to 2:00. Mr. La Pine: I have to agree with Mr. Morrow. It's make no sense not to have the sign lit up at night. We're worried about visibility here. I think we should talk to these people. Maybe they're going to have a light in the ground shooting up. I don't know. Its something I think we should double check with the petitioner. It makes no sense. For people coming by in the evening, you'd think they would want the sign lit. Mr. Walsh: In our approving resolution, we could certainly permit it. Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Yes. I would suggest that we reference the approved sign plan, except for the fact that the sign may be illuminated. Some language to that effect I think will do it. Ms. Ulmer: Excuse me. Is ground lighting permitted in that area? Mr. Walsh: As part of the package that's approved. Mr. Piercecchi: The illumination of that sign is part of the original motion, wasn't it? Ms. Smiley: That the ground sign not be illuminated beyond one hour after closing. Mr. Walsh: Yes, its inferred, but since the petition itself does not include a reference to the illumination, I think we need to be affirmative in permitting it. Mr. Piercecchi: They can always put a spotlight on it. Mr. Morrow: Give them a chance to re -think R. Mr. Walsh: Is there any other discussion on this item? Seeing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-138-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004 -09 -SN -12 submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, on behalf of the Ground Round Restaurant, requesting signage approval for the 21807 restaurant located at 17050 Laurel Park Drive South in the Northeast'''/ of Section 18, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by Laurel Pointe, LLC, as received by the Planning Commission on September 13, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that it may be illuminated; 2. That this ground sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 3. That the existing non -permitted ground/directional sign off Six Mile Road near the east drive shall be removed; and 4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Y 0:1 kS F, i,M 9 :k I It 1 N] O f'I1I1F I SrgEH =IIrL'm p I ATA 2\ I =K Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 09-G&05 submitted by Newburgh Associates, LLC, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at 16824 Newburgh Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 17. Mr. Miller: The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the prolective wall that is required between office zoned property and land zoned residential. This site is the location of the Newburgh Professional Park and is located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Munger Avenue and Six Mile Road. Adjacent to the north of this property is the Newburgh Plaza shopping center. This property abuts residential zoned property along its entire south property line. Located on this property are two separate office buildings. One building, 4,700 square feet in size, is situated out close to Newburgh Road. The other much larger office building, 13,800 square feel, sits back behind the first building. The abutting residential property is zoned R-3, One Family Residential, and is the location of the Sl. Timothy YSf:IR:I Church. The subject greenbelt is already in existence. The petitioner was most recently granted a seven year temporary wall wavier (Appeal Case #7908-104) in 1997 from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This waiver has expired and now the petitioner is seeking a permanent wall waiver. The greenbelt measures 10 feet wide and runs the entire 665 feet of the south properly line. The submitted landscape plan shows that the existing plant materials of the greenbelt consist mainly of Austrian pines, with Colorado Spruces, Scotch Pines and a few Crabapple and Honey Locust trees. Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated October 7, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 27, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) There may not be the required 10 feet width of greenbelt. The plan scales at about 6 feet. The 10 -foot width of greenbelt must be confirmed as being there or else this does not apply. (2) Trees designated as 47 and 51 appear to be dead. (3) The rear (east) parking island is weedy. The parking lot east of said island needs repair. (4) All parking needs to be double striped. (5) The signs are missing for the barrier free parking at the west end of the parking nearest Newburgh. All barrier free parking needs to be signed property, marked property and posted property. 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. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mort Friedman, 2377 W. Long Lake Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Friedman: No. Just in reference to the letter, the first item says that the greenbelt may not be 10 feel in width. In fact, it is 10 feet in width. It scales out at six feet. I think its just the landscape architectwhen he drew the plan, just drew the scale wrong. But it is 10 feel. Il was designed and built that way. I know because I built the property, and I am one of the owners for approximately 23 years. The second item refers to two trees that appear to be dead. In fact, they are dead. In fact, prior to receiving the letter, we removed those two trees because they were dead. The east parking lot is weedy. That's been taken care of already. The weeds have been removed. And I need to discuss the repairs that he talks about behind there. I'm not 21809 sure what he means, but if there are repairs needed, we will do that. There are, in fad, two signs. There are three locations there that designate barrier -free parking, and somehow two signs did gel knocked down. They're gone. So we will replace those, certainly, as soon as possible. I've already ordered the two signs. Other than that, we're ready to go. Mr. Walsh: Very good. Are there any questions or comments from the commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, with having a greenbelt back there, how will you maintain that? Mr. Friedman: How do we maintain it? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Mr. Friedman: There's no lawn on the greenbelt. Mr. Alanskas: I understand that. As far as weeds are concerned and things growing? Mr. Friedman: Well, we have a landscape company that's contracted on a seasonal basis that goes in and maintains and trims the trees and, in fact, cul down the two dead trees. They were the ones that brought that to my attention prior to this letter. So it's maintained regularly. Mr. Alanskas: Do they remove the weeds? Mr. Friedman: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Theydo? Mr. Friedman: Yes. The only place that he referred to that weeds were was a small island in the rear of the properly, and I, in fact, removed those weeds about 20 minutes after I got this letter. So there are no more weeds there. Mr. Alanskas: How often do they come out to maintain it? Mr. Friedman: They cul the lawn on a weekly basis, and inspect at that time any trees or bushes that need to be trimmed. Mr. Alanskas: And they take care of it? 21810 Mr. Friedman: And they do lake care of it, yes. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions or comments? Seeing no one in the audience, a motion is in order. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Piencecchi, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #10-139-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 2004-09-G&05, submitted by Newburgh Associates, LLC, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 16824 Newburgh Road in the Northwest % of Section 17, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as shown on the plan marked L-1 dated September 10, 2004, prepared by E.J. Kleckner & Associates, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That using a combination of tree species, along with other landscape materials, not only provides a superior buffer but also contributes to the site's aesthetic attractiveness, helps reduce visual monotony, and offers year-round appeal; 3. 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 for their review and approval or immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; and 4. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated October 7, 2004: - That the trees designated as 47 and 51, if dead, shall be removed and replaced; That the rear (east) parking island shall be weeded; 21811 That the parking lot east of said island shall be repaired; That the enure parking lot shall be doubled striped; That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Code and Livonia City Ordinance. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: If ever there was justification for a greenbelt, I think this site certainly fits that. To put a wall up there, would really be putting a wall between two parking lots, the church's parking lot and that. It's very well in order that we approve this and hopefully Council will concur with it. Thank you. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #6 PETITION 2004-09-01-11 CB SWIM CLUB Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 09-01-11, submitted by Joel Elliott and Marty Kozyn, on behalf of CB Swim Club, requesting to rezone properly at 28200 Lyndon Avenue, located on the east side of Harrison Avenue (part of the CB Swim Club Site) between Lyndon Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the Northeast %of Section 24 from RUF to R-2. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #10-140-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 12, 2004, on Petition 2004-09-01-11, submitted by Joel Elliott and Marty Kozyn, on behalf of CB Swim Club, requesting to rezone property at 28200 Lyndon Avenue, located on the east side of Harrison Avenue (part of the CB Swim Club Site) between Lyndon Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the Northeast I/ of Section 24 from RIF to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2004-09-01-11 be removed from the table. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 21812 Mr. Taormina: We don't have anything additional to add at this point, Mr. Chairman. Al the study meeting, we did continue our discussions on this topic. In particular, we analyzed the future development of the remaining portion of the site if, in fact, it gets developed. The graphic on the overhead illustrates how the site might be developed in the future. This is the area in red which shows on this particular scheme eight potential single family lots that would be consistent with the size lots that are proposed along Harrison Avenue, which under the R-2 zoning would be 70 feel in width by 120 feet in depth. I will point out that Section 4.03 of our Zoning Ordinance does peril privately owned and operated neighborhood community or club swimming pools within the R-1 through R-5 zoning classifications. So if it pleases the Commission, we could proceed in the future toward the rezoning of the balance of this property to the R-2 zoning, which would have no effect on the nonconforming status of the swim club. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. We certainly have had a great deal of discussion of this, and I know that we do have petitioners in the audience. Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff or for our petitioners? Seeing none, we will move for a motion. On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-141-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 12, 2004, on Petition 2004-09-01-11, submitted by Joel Elliott and Marty Kozyn, on behalf of CB Swim Club, requesting to rezone property at 28200 Lyndon Avenue, located on the east side of Harrison Avenue (part of the CB Swim Club Site) between Lyndon Avenue and Oakley Avenue in the Northeast I/ of Section 24 from RUF to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-09-01- 11 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a single family residential development similar in density to what is existing in the neighboring area; 21813 3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation on the subject property of low density residential land use; 4. That the proposed change of zoning represents an extension of an existing zoning district occurring on adjacent properly to the north; and 5. That the petitioner has indicated a willingness to move forward in the near future to rezone the balance of the properly to the R-2 classification, as suggested by the Planning Commission. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I'd like to make another condition, that the petitioner proceeds with the rezoning of the balance of the property to the R-2 classification, which we discussed at the study session. Mr. Walsh: Do you want to add that to the motion as a requirement? Mr. LaPine: I'd like to see them go ahead and proceed with it. Our original idea was, we wanted to rezone the whole parcel. We decided at the time, because he needed to get moving on this one piece, so they can get their money to operate, but I'd like to see them go ahead and start the proceeding so we can rezone the other portions so we know in the future that's what it's going to be. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable, Mr. Alanskas? Mr. Alanskas: Sure. Mr. Morrow: We're going to make that part ofthe resolution? Mr. Walsh: Yes, that's the suggestion. Mr. Morrow: A suggestion? Mr. Walsh: Well, it's actually now been amended. It's now part of the resolution on the floor. Mr. Morrow: So that will require them to move forward? 21814 Mr. Walsh: Thats correct. Ms. Smiley: They can still have it as a swim club if it's rezoned as an R-2. Mr. Morrow: No, I understand that. I just wanted to make sure we weren't mandating something that maybe they changed their mind on. Mr. Shane: I'm not sure I like that way to handle it, but I don't want to tell the petifioner to file a petition. I'd rather suggest it. Maybe as part of a discussion after a motion, Bill, you give your speech again. Mr. LaPine: Okay. If you want to put it on the motion, we would make a suggestion that the petitioner move forward to rezone the balance of the property to the R-2 classification. Mr. Shane: That's better. I like that better. Mr. Alanskas: But at oursludy, he said hejuslwanled to getthis portion zoned R-2 now, but he did want to agree to rezone the rest of it R-2. Mr. LaPine: That's right. Mr. Alanskas: That's correct. Mr. Walsh: I'm going to look to Mr. Alanskas and Mr. LaPine to describe what you want the motion to read. Mr. Alanskas: I want the motion to read just what I read, plus the fact that he will in the near future go forward with rezoning the rest of the properly to R-2, which is what he said he was going to do. Mr. LaPine: We're making a suggestion that he proceed with rezoning the balance the properly at some later dale. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Alanskas, are you comfortable with the suggestion? Mr. Alanskas: Yes, that's fine. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other comments on this matter? Mr. Piercecchi: Originally, I was reluctant to approve this petition, which is based really entirely on the possibility of this club failing somewhere down the road. However, it's been shown that the remaining property can be developed with or without the 21815 Harrison lots concurrently with them or individually as has been shown by our able Director. So I will support this. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Piercecchi. I'd like to just state that I'm certainly in support of this. I really do believe, Mr. Elliott, in particular, I think you made such a wonderful presentation, and if you're indicative of the membership in your club and you continue to work with them, I think you have a good chance of succeeding and I wish you well. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 892nd Regular Meeting Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 892otl Regular Meeting held on September 28, 2004. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was #10-142-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 892nd Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Pieroecchi, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 894th Regular Meeting held on October 26, 2004, was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh. Chairman