Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-01-1722900 MINUTES OF THE 9W REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 17, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 9W 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 tonighfs 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 len 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 oflhe proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION 200540-0821 SPECTRUM BUILDERS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-10- 08-21, submitted by Spectrum Builders, on behalf of Harrison Square Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial strip center located at 28400 Five Mile Road in the southwest % of Section 13. 22901 Mr. Miller: Harrison Square Plaza is an approximate 12,275 square fool mule -tenant commercial shopping center located at the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison Avenue. The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the south exterior elevation of the existing building. No other elevation changes or site improvements are proposed at this time. Other than the building elevation plan, no other plans (i.e., site or landscape plans) have been submitted. The petitioner is requesting to increase the height of the parapet wall along the entire south side of the building facing Five Mile. The new vertical extension would increase the height of the building by approximatey 2% feel, making the overall height of the building just over sixteen (16') feet. The parapet would be constructed out of dryvit and would be utilized as a backdrop for the tenant's wall signs. A pitched overhang would also be created over the existing flat beam shelf that slicks out over the storefronts. The new overhang projects approximately six (6) feet from the parapet above. Asphalt shingles would cover and protect this new storefront overhang. The petitioner believes that with the added height the wall signage would be more visible. Dryvit would also be installed over the brick boxouts located along the wall between the units. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 4, 2005, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. There is no additional right-of-way required." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 1, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of the commercial strip center on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 7, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Harrison Plaza located at 28400 Five Mile Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 13, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 28, 2005, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This facelift presents the owners an opportunity to upgrade 22902 the barrier free parking and disperse the required spaces. (2) The front (south) parking areas need sealing, repair and double striping. The rear (north) parking areas have deteriorated and merits repaving and double striping. (3) The wood dumpster enclosure (in the rear) is in poor repair. (4) A junk/abandoned car was parked in the rear and should be removed. (5) The rear building gutter needs to be refinished and several rear doors need to be refinished also. 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? Mr. Taormina, have we received any correspondence or calls from the petitioner? Mr. Taormina: No, we have not. Mr. Walsh: I'll defer to my colleagues. Are there any questions or comments regarding this item? Ms. Smiley: Will there be uniformity with the signs in front of the building? Mr. Taormina: I think that question was asked at the study meeting. Its not indicated on the plans whether or not the signage will be replaced. We dealt with these types of renovation projects in the past where often times they'll place the old signs back up along the parapet. There are other limes when the changes meat a complete and consistent sign package. They might go with all channel letters and prevent the box signs from going back up, but we are not aware at this stage of what the plans are as far as signage. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: There are some things I would like to address based on the Inspection report to see if the petitioner concurs with them. I don't know what the Chair feels, but in the event that perhaps the petitioner is held up somewhere, that we could maybe defer this item until later in the meeting. Mr. Walsh: If there are no objections, we can defer this to later in the meeting. If he doesn't show up, I would suggest a tabling resolution. Mr. Morrow: That would have been my next suggestion, to table this item. Mr. Walsh: I think that's a good suggestion, and that's how we will proceed then. We will move this to the end of our agenda. 22903 Mr. Alanskas: Through the chair, was he nofified to be here this evening? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: He was. And he said he would be here? Mr. Miller: We sent him an agenda. When I receive the petition, I always give the petitioner the dale of the meeting. So he's aware of the meeting. Mr. Alanskas: When was the Iasi time you spoke to the petitioner? Mr. Miller: Probably last week. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you. Then it should be tabled. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-01-2006 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2005-10-08-21, submitted by Spectrum Builders, on behalf of Harrison Square Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial strip center located at 28400 Five Mile Road in the southwest % of Section 13, be tabled. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#2 PETITION 2005 4 1-08-2 3 VILLAGE GREEN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 11-08-23 submitted by Detroit Home Improvement Group, on behalf of Village Green Florist, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 33239 Eight Mile Road in the northwest % of Section 3. Mr. Miller: Village Green Florist is located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Road. It is zoned G2 as is the property to the west. The pefitioner is requesting approval to renovate the north (facing Eight Mile Road) and east exterior elevations of the existing building. No other elevation changes or site improvements are proposed at 22904 this time. Other than the building elevation plans, no other plans (i.e., site or landscape plans) have been submitted. The proposed renovation project involves replacing the existing exterior plywood material along the lop of the building with standing seam metal and switching the existing sloped greenhouse windows with typical framed windows. A pitched overhang, extending 51/2 feet out from the building, would also be constructed above the new windows. This overhanging roof would be covered with the standing seam material. Peaked roofs, covered with the standing seam material, would crown the two entrances on the east elevation of the building. The plan also shows that the existing doors would be replaced with ones that match the new window treatments. The submitted color rendering shows that the metal seam roof material would be dark green in color. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 28, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time since it involves an exterior renovation only. No additional right-of-way is required. Future development of the property to the east will require the installation of storm sewers for the new development and the current building and parking lot" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 10, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of a commercial building on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to the information provided by this plan." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 4, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 7, 2005, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The plans submitted do not detail several outstanding site issues as follows: (a) Deficient parking, 66 spaces required. No striping noted. There may be space for 38 spaces, plus or minus. A detailed plan should be submitted. (b) Trailer and debris4naterial stooge in the southwest area. (c) Unpaved driveway utilized near Eight Mile. (d) Nonconforming signage near Eight Mile. (e) Unpaved area with temporary structures east of main building. (f) Property has been poorly maintained. (2) If la is not connected, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required for deficient parking. (3) We would 22905 recommend that a detailed site plan be submitted for review. 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? Abe Kadushin, Kadushin Associates, Architects/Planners, 1202 Packard Road, Ann Arbor, MI 49104. I'm representing the petitioner this evening. We've drawn the alteration and renovation plans for the project. With us tonight, Jack Essad from Detroit Home Improvement Company, Terry and Jamie Goers from Wayne Oakland Washtenaw, Patty Baker of Village Green Florists and owner of the property, and a friend of Patty's is here to support her this evening. Basically, there's been a little further evolution on the elevations, but it will be essentially a replacement. No additional space is being added to the project, and this is essentially phase one of what is conceived to be the future development of the entire properly. We haven't totally selected the material colors. This is somewhat accurate but not really accurate rendition. We have detailed architectural plans which changed the profile a little bit, but it's essentially the same look. There may be a different masonry color, slightly tinted glass and the color of the metal roof ... I favor a greenish, a metal roof color that might simulate copper after it's weathered, so it's kind of a greenish that you often see on other projects. It would be a little greener than the dark blue shown here. One comment on the site plan and the parking requirement. I think there's been some subsequent discussion of the actual current used retail area, which is 3,000 of the total 12,000 square feet in the building. So the existing parking on-site will meet the existing parking requirement. The rest of the building is storage currently. The current parking requirement based on the used retail area is sufficient. As more spaces are filled within the building, the parking will be increased. And again, over time, the entire property is going to be developed with additional C-2 uses. Thank you. If there are any questions, we're available to try and answer them. Mr. Alanskas: I have a few questions. Number one, you said that this roof will be green and it will turn into a tarnished gold. Are you using a new product or are they used products? Mr. Kadushin: Its actually an existing color. It's a factory applied color Mr. Alanskas: Is the roof you're putting on new or used? 22906 Mr. Kadushin: Oh, it will be a new metal. Brand new. It won't be copper so it wont ... it's a finish. What's called a factory applied finish that will simulate the look. I guess I just wanted to point out we're considering a lighter bluish green than what you see there. Mr. Alanskas: When you say the glass is going to be tinted, it that going to be a green tint. Mr. Kadushin: No. Mr. Alanskas: What color? Mr. Kadushin: Clear, much clearer. Not like the current glass that's on there. It will be a more updated commercial look. Mr. Alanskas: Are you saying a white glass? Mr. Kadushin: More of a clear glass, but maybe a slight lint for energy conservation. Mr. Alanskas: As you enter your approach, you have an existing landscape island. How do you say that's landscaped? It's got a bunch of dead kale on lop of that little area, which is an annual flower. Mr. Kadushin: Its on the survey. Mr. Alanskas: And you say it's landscaped. What do you mean by its going to belandscaped? Mr. Kadushin: I wasn't the surveyor. Basically, it's an existing survey provided by Greg Ash, GLA Surveyors. Mr. Alanskas: Can someone address that? Terry Goers, Wayne Oakland Washlenaw Contracting, Inc., 5505 S. Sheldon, Canton, Michigan 48188. The existing landscape areas are perennial and annual beds that are planted with annual flowers and perennial flowers in the spring and summertime. Mr. Alanskas: What I'm referring to, it says existing landscape island. Mr. Goers: Yes, the little island. Mr. Alanskas: That's not a perennial. Kale is an annual. Mr. Goers: Kale is both a perennial and annual. Mr. Alanskas: There's no perennials in there. 22907 Mr. Goers: At this time there is not but there will be. Mr. Alanskas: Like what? Mr. Goers: Outdoor lilies, maybe Maiden Hair Grass, along with geraniums. Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to come back with a complete landscape plan before you do this? Mr. Goers: For the alterations permit, absolutely not. Mr. Alanskas: No, for the landscaping. Mr. Goers: For the landscaping, once we do our landscape project, absolutely. Mr. Alanskas: You will come back with a landscape plan? Mr. Goers: Correct. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: First, I'd like to ask Mr. Taormina one question. This building right here is part of this whole parcel, is it not? This development we're talking about tonight is separated from the rest of the properly he owns. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: So shouldn't we be looking at this as an overall plan? Now, when you talk about the parking, how about when you fix up this building? You're still going to be selling the outdoor flowers in the summertime. Where's the parking for the outdoor flowers? There's never been parking there. It's not paved. Mr. Taormina: This plan does not reflect the additional gravel parking lots or the ... Mr. LaPine: I'm well aware of that. That's what I'm asking. Shouldn't we be looking at this as an overall plan of how he's going to handle that? Mr. Taormina: That part isn't changing. What they're requesting this evening strictly relates to exterior modifications to the building. Mr. LaPine: If they're only talking about strictly the modifications to this one building, why are they here? We've had a number of occasions 22908 in Livonia where we've had modifications to buildings where they went to the Building Inspection Department and never came through the Planning Commission. Mr. Taormina: The difference here is the fact that in 1982 when this project was approved, there was reference to a specific building elevation plan and adherence to that building elevation plan. Because this is a substantial deviation from that plan and the properly is located in a control zone, it warrants reconsideration. That's the reason its before you this evening. Mr. LaPine: Well, I can give you an example. There's a building on Merriman Road that was renovated and they put a big addition onto it. We never heard that case. I mean it was three times what the building was. Mr. Walsh: I think, Mr. LaPine ... Mr. LaPine: Its a storage place. Mr. Taormina: I'm not aware of what you're talking about. If you're talking about the facility that's on Merriman just south of SchoolcraR Road ... Mr. LaPine: Exactly. Mr. Taormina: That is in an industrial zoning classification and does not require Planning Commission review unless it's adjacent to residential. In that particular case, the property is not adjacent to residential and that's why it did not appear before you. Mr. LaPine: The second question I have, I was out there site checking it again. Where the parking lot is, where does the storm water go? I didn't see any storm drains or anything out there. Mr. Taormina: This site does not have an engineered storm water detention system that I'm aware of. In reviewing the old plans, there is reference to sheet drainage from the parking areas onto the lawn. As you can see from this drawing, the substantial portion of the site to the east of the parking lot is undeveloped. So I believe most of it is just sheet drainage at this present time. There's no question, though, as future development occurs on this site, there will have to be some kind of underground or surface stormwater detention system. Mr. LaPine: In the letter we got from the Inspection Department, where they talk about the "trailer and the debris/malenal storage in the southwest area," the trailer is still there. There's all kinds of old 22909 lumber still there. The nonconforming sign near Eight Mile Road is stll there. The "unpaved area with temporary structures east of the main building' is still there. Is all that going to be taken care ofwhen this alteration is done? Mr. Taormina: I'm not aware of the trailer still on site. Mr. LaPine: Well, I'll take you out there and show it to you. Mr. Taormina: The signage is something that has been referenced on this plan, and it will be removed and a new sign will have to go in its place that would be conforming. I think when he indicates temporary structures, its probably the greenhouse structure that is located just east of the parking lot. That's pretty much it as far as what was referenced in his letter. Mr. LaPine: My question is, is that going to be taken care of? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Kadushin, are you able to answer that question? Mr. Kadushin: Does anyone want to help on that one? Mr. Goers: The referenced trailer has been removed. Mr. LaPine: When? Mr. Goers: Two months ago. It was cul up and taken off site. Mr. LaPine: The trailer in the back ... Mr. Goers: The existing storage trailer is a weathered trailer, and it is in perfectly good condition. Mr. LaPine: I know that. Its been out here for years. Why can't it be removed? Mr. Goers: Because they utilize that to store any of the fertilizers or pesticides needed to grow any of their annuals. The trailer that's on-site is back against the wall. Its covered with the greenbelt area in the existing area. Mr. LaPine: Greenbelt? You mean a bunch of weeds. Mr. Goers: No. You're talking about the sumac. I mean it's a native plant of Michigan. It has a natural effect along the back wall. As far as the lumber, there's $40,000 worth of tiered timbers that are going to be utilized as a boardwalk for our future expansion. They are covered and they are hidden by a wooded area. 22910 Mr. LaPine: They weren't covered when I was out there. Mr. Goers: Right now, any of the foliage and plant material has left, of course, but generally the ... Mr. LaPine: It looks like it's all weathered. It looks like it's just lumber that never can be used for anything. Mr. Goers: No, its all banded and palleted. All that lumber is banded and palleted. Mr. LaPine: Maybe you and I are not looking at the same thing. Let me ask you one other question. You mentioned to us at the last meeting that this building was going to have maybe one, two, three or four, I believe you said, tenants. Mr. Goers: Future uses could handle that many. Once they do, there will have to be accommodations made as such for parking, and that is all going to coincide with the future development of the site. Mr. LaPine: Are you still negotiating with Mr. Grace about buying back that parcel? Mr. Goers: As things are standing right now, we're under negotiations with different retail outlets to see if we absolutely need the Shadyside piece or not. Mr. LaPine: But you told me you wanted to buy that back and you were negotiating with it. Are you or are you not? Mr. Goers: Al this present time, no. Mr. LaPine: Because that's what Mr. Grace told me. He said its not for sale and he's not going to sell it. Mr. Goers: Well, that's the word I got back. That's why I haven't approached him. Mr. LaPine: Now you say you're negotiating for another restaurant. Mr. Goers: Correct. Mr. LaPine: I'd like to know exactly ... that's why I want a comprehensive layout of the whole project. I'd like to know where a restaurant is going to goon this properly. 22911 Mr. Goers: As soon as we decide how we're going to do it, we'll have a site plan and we'll submit itfor approval. Mr. La Pine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kadushin: We have the same sort of question, frankly, as to why we needed to go through a site plan procedure. I work in other municipalities and normally if we're not adding space, we wouldn't need a site plan procedure. It would go through building and safety. Mr. Walsh: I think Mr. Toarnina has addressed that anomaly dating back to 1982. Mr. Kadushin: Right. Mr. Morrow: As far as what we're looking at there on the screen, when you follow the line for the parking lot east and then north to where the sign is going to be, that's primarily what we're looking at tonight. Everything else on there is not part of this petition. Is that what you're saying? Mr. Kadushin: That's correct. Mr. Morrow: Also, you mentioned something about some changes to what we saw earlier. Normally, we don't like to move on anything unless it's right. Mr. Kadushin: These were submitted actually with the petition originally guess they just didn't get photographed like the previous one I looked at. The colored rendering is a semi -accurate rendition. Mr. Morrow: Okay. So in other words, you have plans as a part of this petition to start it. Mr. Kadushin: That's right. Mr. Morrow: The color rendering is varied a little bit but ... Mr. Kadushin: Its illustrative. Mr. Morrow: But it will be incorporated in the actual plan. Mr. Kadushin: That's correct. This supersedes that. Mr. Morrow: We were troubled that we didn't have plans matching what you want to do. 22912 Mr. Kadushin: I guess I would have preferred seeing the photos of this. Mr. Morrow: That thing, as you indicated .... Mr. Kadushin: There you go. Okay. That's good right there. That's what I'm talking about. Mr. Morrow: So in other words, you're going to alter the building material colors. Mr. Kadushin: That's correct. Yeah, we're going to use masonry that's more in keeping with existing, and then I see a little softer metal standing seam roof on there. An example, I drove out earlier from Ann Arbor, Canton Center Road and St. Joe's. The medical dinic there has a standing seam, sort of a greenish tinted roof that I think would be part of it. So that would be more along the lines that I would select. Mr. Morrow: And as far as the parking lot that has to be repaired, has that been concurred? Mr. Goers: (inaudible) Mr. Taormina: You have to use the microphone. Mr. Kadushin: Possible seal coating and striping as part of the renovation. Mr. Morrow: The repair, reseal and double striping. Mr. Kadushin: Okay. I think I hear a commitment to do that. Mr. Morrow: That's been committed lo? Mr. Kadushin: Okay. Mr. Morrow: And we've already covered the storage versus the floors type of thing. You're amenable to that? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shane: I just wanted to make a comment briefly. The audience may be getting the impression the Commission is sounding somewhat skeptical about things that may be in the future or things in the past, and that's because this particular properly owner and the City have not been on the best of terms over the years to make a long story short. And I think what this Commission is hoping to do in this whole process is to reverse that trend and have this property be properly developed in the future with proper landscaping and all these maintenance items taken care of. And I think that's why, sir, that you may gel the feeling that 22913 there's some reluctance here on our part to be very enthusiastic. But having said that, I like your idea of redoing this building, and I hope that in doing so that this parking lot will be properly maintained, that the striping will be out there, the landscaping will be properly maintained, and that you will take a good look at this letter by the Inspection Department and begin to start rectifying some of these problems. I think if you do that, then I think a more positive solution can be found here. So I am not at all opposed to what you're trying to do here with this particular building. I'm hoping this will be a trend towards the future. Thankyou, Mr. Chair. Mr. Piercecchi: Good evening. Sir, to properly develop this site, I loo am very concerned about not obtaining a time sequence, though I realize it probably wouldn't be forthcoming in this particular meeting. Have you any handle at the current time in regards to the future plan to gel, let's say, tear a fence down and get rid of the Quonsets and do all the things that my colleague, Bill, is very concerned about? That's been a bad site. It's an entrance into the city. I would really appreciate, and I'm sure every board member here loo would, some time framing. I heard the term mentioned, phase one. Fine. When will phase one be started? When will you start repairing that building? Mr. Kadushin: I think that's immediate upon approvals. Basically we had filed to the Building Department to do that. Mr. Piercecchi: So as soon as you get all the clearances from the city, you'll start on that? Mr. Kadushin: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. What about the fencing and the Quonsets and the awful signs on Eight Mile Road? Mr. Kadushin: What I was just clued to, was an 18 month schedule for total development, finding new tenants, build out, occupancy, so that will get rid of all the riffraff sluff. Mr. Piercecchi: Can we have that? Mr. Kadushin: What? Mr. Piercecchi: Can you make a presentation? I know you can't hold it 100 percent. Mr. Goers: Site plan approvals, negotiations, and build out - approximately 12 to 18 months, depending on how long it takes to get through 22914 the City, but my expectations are to have this site readily available for retail within the next 12 months. Mr. Piercecchi: Within 12 months? Mr. Goers: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: And that can be forthcoming? Mr. Goers: We're already working on 9. Mr. Piercecchi: Already working on it? Mr. Goers: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Thank youvery much. Mr. LaPine: While you're up there, let me ask a question. What's your interest? Do you own part of this properly? Mr. Goers: Its a joint venture between myself and the owners. I will be handling the day -today . I will be handling all the development decisions, build out decisions and as far as the site redevelopment decisions. Mr. LaPine: Do you have to gel permission from the property owner to do any of these things? If the City comes up there and wants something taken care of, do you make that decision or do they make that decision? Mr. Goers: We make the decision together, but I've already been given the go-ahead to accommodate the city. Mr. LaPine: You mentioned also at the meeting that you used to and maybe you still own a landscaping business on Eight Mile Road. Is this correct? Mr. Goers: It used to be located at Eight Mile and Merriman Road. Mr. LaPine: But you don't have it anymore? Mr. Goers: No. Its in Canton now. Mr. LaPine: It's in Canton now. And you have no plans of moving any landscaping business onto this location Mr. Goers: No, no. 22915 Mr. La Pine: Are we getting a new roof on that building? Mr. Goers: Its a new roof. Mr. La Pine: A new roof? Mr. Goers: He just put it on. Mr. La Pine: You just put a new roof on? Mr. Goers: He did that two years ago. Mr. La Pine: Two years ago. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: While you both are up there, you are aware that if this is approved this evening, it will be approved for use as a flower shop only. You cannot put any other existing retail places in there without coming back with a site plan. Do you understand that? Mr. Goers: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion is in order. Mr. Pieroecchi: Although I would like to see this whole parcel with a site plan, but even without it, I think just in cleaning up that building and taking care of the signage and some of the trash, is a step in the right direction. So therefore, I'm going to offer an approving resolution. On a motion by Pieroecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, was #01-02-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-11-08-23 submitted by Detroit Home Improvement Group, on behalf of Village Green Florist, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 33239 Eight Mile Road in the northwest''/. of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 22916 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 1 dated January 13, 2006, prepared by GLA Surveyors & Engineers, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That compliance with the City's parking requirements shall limit the amount of retail space available to customers of the florist shop to approximately 5,000 square feet, with the balance of the building, approximately 7,000 square feel, to be used primarily for storage. Any substantive change to the interior layout of the florist shop, or change in tenancy, which increases the amount of customer accessible retail area within the building, shall first be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. That the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department, and all other items in the letter from the Inspection Department dated January 4, 2006, shall be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued; 4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-4 dated November 4, 2005, prepared by Kadushin Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 6. That all existing nonconforming signage, including both wall and ground, shall be removed; 7. 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; 8. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including but not limited to the building or around the windows; 9. That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; and 10. 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. 22917 Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I would like to add to Condition 3 where we have "Thal the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department' and all other items in the letter from the Inspection Department dated January 4, 2006, be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. I would like to add that if the maker of the motion and the second of the motion would agree. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Piercecchi: Well, I have no problem with that. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: I have no problem. Mr. Walsh: We've agreed, so the motion would stand as amended by Mr. LaPine. Mr. Piercecchi: If the trailer and debris are still there, to eliminate it. The .'unpaved area with temporary structures east of the building' should be gone. I know there's deficient parking at 5,000 square feet, and the 7,000 that would be lett over is exactly what 37 spaces .... Mr. Walsh: Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Piercecchi: And that's what you have. Mr. Walsh: Let's continue on. Mr. LaPine, anything else? Mr. LaPine: No, that's it. Mr. Walsh: Is there any other further discussion? Mr. Alanskas: I just think that the Planning Commission is trying to say we're going to give you another chance. I mean what's been done in the past, is in the past. I think doing this building makeover is a step in the right direction, and I hope, and I really say I hope that before you wart to do anything else, we must see site plans and gelapprovals. Thankyou. Mr. LaPine: If what I added in under Condition 3 is acceptable to the other members, I can vole for this, although my personal opinion is, that we should have insisted upon a complete comprehensive layout of the whole project before we even approve this. And 22918 I'm not saying that because we haven't done that in other instances. I can tell you two instances right off the top that we did it. First, at the Wonderland Center when Mr. Schostak came in and we were unhappy. We wanted to see what the whole area was going to look like before we went ahead and made any approvals. We did the same thing on Plymouth Road and Farmington Road with Mr. Schafer's project with the condos and the commercial in front. Unfortunately, the commercial in front later on was sold to another developer. He wanted to change all the things and we went back and said, here, this is what we looked at. This is what we thought we were going to gel. Go back and change it and make it more like this. After a number of negotiations, we were successful in doing that. We've had bad vibes with this owner of this property for a long time. I don't have a lot of faith in it, that what they say is going to happen is going to happen. I hope to pray it does. This is a first step. I hope that it's done right. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: I'd like to indicate that I do intend to support the motion. I think you can sense a great deal of anxiety amongst us all. I think Mr. Shane stated it quite succinctly and I need not repeal it. What Mr. LaPine has said is equally true about other items that we've taken under way. For me personally, Terry, I appreciated the conversation that we had last week. You're struggling with the unknown, but I think there's some good opportunities here. I'm going to vole on the petition that is before us and look forward to receiving the rest in the future. So with that, unless there's any additional comments, we will move to the Secretary calling the roll. 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 #3 PETITION 200541-08-24 SCHOOLCRAFT COMMONS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the mxl item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 11-08-24, submitted by Schoolcraft Commons, on behalf of College Park, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building and obtain preliminary approval for a restaurant pad on properties located at 17400 and 17410 College Parkway in the southwest''/. of Section 7. Mr. Walsh: I will be stepping down. This properly is owned by SchoolcraR College, and I am employed by that college. I will tum the gavel over so that Mr. Alanskas can chair this portion of the meeting. 22919 Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will the Secretary note that Mr. Walsh stepped down at 8:15. Ms. Smiley: Yes, sir. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval for the development of a new single -story office building and to commence site development for what will ultimately be a new full service restaurant. This site is located between the Schoolcraft College campus and the Comerica Operations Center located on the east side of Haggerty Road just north of Six Mile Road. Both proposed buildings are part of the ongoing College Park Development. To proceed as expeditiously as possible with development of the restaurant, the petitioner is seeking approval of the "pad" which would allow for the installation of the underground utilities and construction of the surface parking before final waiver use approval is granted. More detailed plans, including site, landscaping, floor plans and building elevations, have been submitted and are scheduled for the Planning Commission's public hearing at the end of the month. The section of land where the restaurant would sit is in the process of being rezoned from PO, High Rise Office to G2, General Business. Access to the restaurant would be from College Parkway, which is the main circulation drive that extends off Haggerty Road and is located just north of the Marketplace and south of Mitchell's Seafood restaurant. The proposed office building would be one-story in height and contain a gross floor area of 15,500 square feet. The site where the building is proposed is currently zoned PO, Professional Office. Buildings in a PO zoning district are required to be over two stories in height but cannot exceed four stories. Therefore, either the parcel of land to be developed for this office building will have to be rezoned to OS, Office Services, or a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for deficient building height. The proposed office building would be located east of the proposed restaurant pad along the north side of College Parkway where it intersects with Fox Drive. Required parking for the office and restaurant use is 227 spaces. They are providing 302 spaces, plus 59 landbanked spaces, for a total of 361, spaces which far exceeds the requirement for both buildings. The submitted Landscape Plan shows a variety of proposed plant materials for this specific development. This site is part of a much larger development and landscaping will extend beyond and merge with other parts of the College Park campus. The Building Elevation Plan shows that the office building would be constructed out of brick on all four sides. A 22920 ribbed metal panel material would screen all rooftop mechanical equipment. Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 12, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time with regard to traffic or points of ingress or egress. The legal description is correct and no further right -0f --way is required at this time. The detention basin grading and exit to Six Mile Road via Fox Drive were addressed in our review of the TCF Bank headquarters." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 29, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an office building and obtain preliminary approval for a restaurant pad on property located at the above -referenced addresses. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (2) This Division requests that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking.' (3) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (4) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words 'Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 13, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 18, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Office Building BB -1 actually only requires a total of 62 parking spaces, not 78 spaces as detailed on SP -01, 11-26-05. (2) Office Building BB -1, at one story in a PO District, does not meet the minimum 3atory basic requirement. The petitioner will need either a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals or to rezone the site to OS. 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. Alanskas: Are there any questions for the staff? Hearing none, is the petitioner here? Will you please stale your name and address? 22921 Robert Wineman, Walkon-Elkin Partnership, 29100 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200, Southfield, Michigan 48034. As Mr. Miller outlined for you, the intent of our presence here this evening is to receive site plan approval for the development of a restaurant pad site which will eventually accommodate about an 8,000 square fool restaurant and the related infrastructure that needs to occur associated with that, as well as a single story 15,500 square foot office building, which at this point is speculative in nature. More than that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. I'd like to add that I know during the study session and the course of our dialog, there was some discussion related to the zoning of the single story office building. It is fully our intent to cooperate with the City in whatever regard is necessary to accomplish the eventual development of that building on site. The only stipulation to that is, we have some pretty hard and fast delivery dates that we need to achieve with respect to the restaurant pad site, and we don't want the rezoning or variance petition with regard to the office building to hold up that process. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the commissioners? Mr. La Pine: Before you start the restaurant and the office building, will you be bringing in material to show us exactly what the building is going to look like? Mr. Wineman: Yes. I believe the end of this month is when the restaurant operator will be before you with respect to the waiver petition. At that time, they will share some elevations of the building as well as a landscape plan. Things of that nature will be presented for your approval. Mr. La Pine: If you talk to them during that time, make sure he brings in material so we at least have an idea of what it's going to be constructed out of, photographs from other restaurants and other areas and things of that nature. Mr. Wineman: I will make sure they have a material board with them as well as probably some pictures of existing product from which we're using as a reference point for this development specifically. Mr. La Pine: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Smiley: Actually, maybe this is for Mark and Scott. The entrance to that restaurant, would that be on the south side of that pad? 22922 Mr. Taormina: Because of the way the building is oriented, the main entrance to the building will face both south and west. Is that correct, Mr. Wineman? Mr. Wineman: Correct. Where Mr. Miller is moving the hand is the primary entrance to the building. Ms. Smiley: And how many parking spots are actually around the restaurant? Do you have an idea? Mr. Taormina: We didn't actually do a count. As far as the total parking requirement, I think the plan does breakdown some of the numbers for parking. Maybe Mr. Miller can bring up a more detailed site plan that shows that. Ms. Smiley: Are they thinking of valet parking? Probably you don't know. Mr. Wineman: I think most likely there will be valet parking, particularly since this is predominantly an evening operation. That is, in fact, all that they do. And Mark, if I had to guess, they require a total of about 170 parking spaces. Mr. Taormina: Yes, 165 parking spaces to be exact. Mr. Wineman: Okay. Mr. Taormina: If I can answer that. That plans show 17 parking spaces in the front of the building, directly across from the main entrance. Then on what would be the east side of the building, there would be a total of 26 spaces, 13 on each side of the drive aisle. Along the west side of the building, there would be a total of 33 parking spaces, 16 on one side of the drive aisle and 17 on the other side. When you move behind, which would be the north side, there is a larger parking area. That's where the majority of the spaces would be provided for surplus parking for the restaurant. That's probably where you'd see most of the overlap in parking between the dayfime users of the office and the restaurant patrons in the evening. Ms. Smiley: Thank you very much. Mr. Alanskas: While we're talking about parking, I think it would help if Fleming's had the employees park way in the back there so you would have more parking spots available for the customers. I think that would be a big help. 22923 Mr. Wineman: We agree. I think Fleming's is on the same page as well. It's fully their intent to make it as convenient as possible for their patrons. Mr. Morrow: The office building is strictly speculative. There are no plans to proceed. Would it be possible in the future that it might come back as a two-story building depending on the tenant? Mr. Wineman: That is a possibility. Mr. Morrow: As far as seeking any type of ZBA action or rezoning, I see no reason why we cant hold that in abeyance and not hold up this project until we address that at the time the office building actually looks like it's going to proceed in a buildoulslalus. Mr. Wineman: That seems reasonable to us. We're agreeable to that. Again, the imperative here is delivering the restaurant pad site and doing some of the related infrastructure that will serve that building, and some of the utility work that would potentially at some future point serve the office building. Mr. Alanskas: Is there a chance that even if you do gel a variance from the ZBA, you would still possibly change it to OS for the office? Mr. Wineman: You know, I sense in my conversations with Mr. Taormina and amongst our team that the reality is we would probably like to have the appropriate zoning for this development versus getting a variance from the ZBA. So I think it's a function of having some further dialog relative to what we could potentially have there if it wasn't a single story building and if there's a rezoning that's necessitated from that point. Mr. Alanskas: I know you are in a hurry for an approval. If this Board approves it and you get the approval from the City Council, would you have this building for the restaurant done by August? Mr. Wineman: I think the reality for them ... bearing in mind, we're delivering the pad, and then the restaurant is going to come in and they're actually going to vertically construct the balance of the site. The timeline that we have right now is, we'll deliver the pad to them with utilities in place in April of this year, and I think that will accommodate probably a mid-October opening. Mr. Alanskas: I go by that site at least once or twice a week, and it's amazing how fast Franklin Bank is going up. So a building can go up quickly if they want to. 22924 Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with Lee. As a matter of fad, I'm sitting here and I'm writing a question here, and Lee got on it. The question is, as much as this office building is speculative, I'd like an open discussion on the merits of rezoning versus a ZBA variance for this structure. I'd like to have the staff, if they could start the discussion on it, because we do have a choice here. There's no panic here as Lee pointed out. Mr. Alanskas: No, except this evening, he would like to get an approving resolution going for a variance from the ZBA, and then after that, go for the OS. Is that correct? Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't understand that. Is that true? Mr. Alanskas: In our approving resolution, it says that this is approved with a variance from the ZBA. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. So you want to go the ZBA route then? Mr. Wineman: To be clear, what we would like from you this evening is approval to move forward subject to City Council's approval with the site work necessary to at a minimum deliver the restaurant pad site. I think that we probably would want to go in the other direction, that being a rezoning at some future point with regard to the office building, versus going in front of the ZBA. Mr. Piercecchi: So we don't have to touch the office building. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Pieroecchi, they need the approval tonight, by stating with an okay from the ZBA. That lets them go to the Council with approvals, and then down the road they can still change it to OS for the building site. Mr. Taormina: I think Mr. Wineman has explained it as far as the discussions we've had with him. Because theyre only asking to proceed with the site preparation work necessary for the office, and not actually obtaining building permits or beginning any type of vertical construction on that building, there would be sufficient time for them to proceed through the rezoning process. That's how we have advised them in this case. This evening's action would, and you can refer to Condition 19, which indicates that prior to vertical construction of the office building and/or restaurant, all appropriate zoning classifications shall be obtained. We can eliminate Condition 15 which references the need to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient buildingheighl. Hopefully that explains it. Mr. Piercecchi: For Condition 15. 22925 Mr. Taormina: We would eliminate Condition 15 and 19 could lake care of it. Mr. Alanskas: Dan, Condition 19 we're going to keep. Mr. Piercecchi: Keep Condition 19. Mr. Wineman: I'm sorry for interrupting. Could you reread 19? Mr. Taormina: Yes. It would say, "prior to vertical construction of the office building and/or restaurant, all appropriate zoning classifications shall be obtained." So in the case of the restaurant, that area would have to be rezoned to G2, and in the case of the office building, as long as its two stories or less, it would have to be rezoned to OS, Office Services. So we can rephrase that condition so that its a little bit more succinct, but I think you understand what we're getting at. Mr. Wineman: The intent is to say that the restaurant portion is rezoned, which we've currently applied for, and then we can move forward with that. That seems acceptable. Mr. Taormina: That is what we're saying. Mr. Wineman: That's acceptable. Mr. Piercecchi: If I understand what you just said Mark, then unless its three stories, it will be rezoned to OS. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Fine. Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else? A motion would be in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was #01-03-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-11-08-24, submitted by SchoolcraR Commons, on behalf of College Park, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building and obtain preliminary approval for a restaurant pad on properties located at 17400 and 17410 College Parkway in the southwest I/ of Section, be approved subject to the following conditions: 22926 1. That the Overall Layout Plan marked Sheet SP -03 dated November 16, 2005, prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Layout and Paving Plan marked Sheet SP -01 dated November 16, 2005, prepared by Alpine Engineering, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and outlines the terms of how the subject property(s) would share parking, be supplied to the City; 4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated November 14, 2005, as revised, prepared by J Eppink Partners, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe lop leader; 6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 7. 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; 8. That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A.201 dated November 11, 2005, prepared by Biddison Architecture & Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 9. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick; 10. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 11. 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 22927 building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 13. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray Ight trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 14. That the pefitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated November 29, 2005; 15. That only conforming wall 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; 16. That prior to the construction of the office building, an area around and including the proposed building shall be rezoned to OS, Office Services; and 17. 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. Alanskas: Before I ask for support, Mark, on Condition 13, are those light fixtures all 20 feet? Aren't they higher? Mr. Taormina: All of the retail and restaurant portions of the development have 20 fool high light poles. The high-rise office buildings, the ones that we've recently approved, including the TCF Headquarters, those are 30 fool standards. In this case, we're probably going to go with 20 footers around this portion of the site. There was no intention of increasing the height in this area, was there? Mr. Wineman: You're correct, Mr. Taormina. There is not. Mr. Alanskas: Is there support for this approving resolution? Mr. La Pine, all right. Is there any discussion? Will the Secretary please call the roll on the approving resolution? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 22928 AYES: Smiley, La Pine, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow, Alanskas NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Walsh ABSENT: None Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you very much for coming in. Mr. Wineman: Thank you for your consideration. And Mr. Chair, if I may, you asked in the study session if there was a location in South Carolina. Mr. Alanskas: I already looked it up. Mr. Wineman: Okay. Mr. Alanskas: And by the way, speaking about that, if anybody wants to go on the inlemel, which I did, you can call Fleming's restaurant and they will show you the building. You can call up the menu and see their beautiful menu. It's going to be a first class restaurant. Thank you. Will the Secretary show that Mr. Walsh came back at 8:40. ITEM#4 PETlTION200542-08-25 LIVONIA ST. MARTINS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005- 12-08-25, submitted by Livonia Sl. Martins LLC requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office building on property located at 19731 Middlebelt Road in the southeast % of Section 2. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a medical office building on properly located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and Bretton Avenue. The subject site is made up of a single piece of properly, which has a land area of approximately 0.58 acres. The site has 123.0 feel of frontage on Middlebelt Road and measures 204.27 feel in depth along its north properly line. The property is zoned OS, Office Services, and is presently vacant. The proposed building would be one-story in height and a total of 6,300 square feel in floor area. The structure itself would be positioned on the northern half of the site, with parking situated on the southern 22929 portion. A single driveway off Middlebelt Road would provide access to the site. According to notes on the site plan, the building's interior tenant space would be evenly divided, 50% office and 50% medical. Required parking is 36 spaces; the site plan shows 37 spaces. A note on the plan indicates that management of the site's storm runoff would be handled through the existing storm water detention pond located at St. Marlins Commons Condominiums. The Sl. Martins development abuts the subject property to the west. The basin was designed and developed with excess capacity and to include the subject office properly within the drainage district. Landscaping required is 15% of the total site; 27% of the site will be landscaped. Because this site abuts residenfial on three sides (south, west and north) screening walls or greenbelts are required along these property lines. The petitioner is requesting approval to substitute permanent greenbelts in lieu of the protective walls along both the west and north property lines. The greenbelt along the north property line, which would abut a side yard of a single family home, would be 15 feel wide and would be landscaped with five sparsely planted deciduous type trees and a row of Hick Yews. The greenbelt along the west property line, which would abut the back yard of a single family house and the detention pond of the Sl. Martins Commons Condominiums, would be between 10 and 15 feel wide and would be planted with five deciduous type trees adjacent to the detention pond and grass next to the residential home. The south property line does not qualify for permanent status because the greenbelt is not a minimum of len (10') feet wide. The site plan notes that a six (6') high screen wall would be erected along this property line. The proposed building would be constructed out of brick on all four sides. Ribbed metal panels would be incorporated as an element in the middle of each elevation. The roof would be asphalt shingled. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated December 22, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time with regard to traffic or points of ingress or egress. The legal description is correct and no further right-of-way is required at this time. The detention basin on the condominium site to the west has been sized to include this development. The drive approach to Middlebelt Road will require a permit from Wayne County." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated 22930 December 29, 2005, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a medicaMoffice building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Hydrant shall be provided and located at the southeast comer of the property. (2) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is dead -ended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fin; lane. (3) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. (4) The Fire Department objects to the nine -foot spacing of the parking spaces on the south side of the parking lot. Please submit a revised site plan to this office with the stipulated changes." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 6, 2006, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with Middlebelt Medical located at 19731 Middlebelt. We have two cencems. First is the area in front of the handicap parking spots. There does not appear to be a curb between the parking spot and the building. There must be a curb or parking block placed in this area. Second is that a stop sign needs to be erected at the exit to Middlebelt Road." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 21, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 19, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The protective wall noted on the south side does not extend to the west or east property line as required. (2) The proposed greenbelt along the west and north property lines does not appear to fulfill the screening intent. (3) The barrier free parking is incorrectly sized, without required access aisles, and when done correctly may result in the loss of a parking space(s). (4) No provision for a dumpster with enclosure has been made. (5) The maximum medical use this building will support is 50%; over that amount would make the parking deficient. (6) This plan has been reviewed as though this is a slab building with no basement. (7) Signage has not been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from Sheldon Strang, received by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2006, which reads as follows: 9 am the property owner at 19715 Middlebelt. 1 consent to Schafer Development to install a six foot vinyl fence, like the one at Nottingham Village aka St. Martin Condos, along the north property line as required by the 22931 city. A six foot concrete wall would not be a good idea in this location. Thank you for your consideration." That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the pelitioner here this evening? Steven J. Schafer, Livonia St. Marlins LLC, 25800 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 720, Southfield, Michigan 48075. Good evening. The discussions that we had at the study session we've been able to address. All the spaces now are 10 feel. We did not have a loss of any more parking spots. We were able to add two more handicap spaces at the request of the Commission. The reason we were able to achieve that is down at the west end there, we would bring the parking lot up almost to the property of the edge of the basin, and then we're going to do some offsite planning. We have the right to do some additional planning there. So we thought we would put the screen wall at that particular area. That way we were able to comply with all of the parking spaces, including the employee parking. So that worked out well. I did have an opportunity to meet with the neighbor to the south and he agreed. He liked the vinyl fence that was put up and he thought that was fine at that location. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them, but I think we're pleased with the changes that have been made and hopefully the Commission is as well. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. La Pine: Mr. Schafer, I'm glad to see you put in the extra handicap space. Where is the dumpster? How are you getting rid of your material? Mr. Schafer: Its actually going to be kept in the building. They'll have a service that comes and picks it up. If you notice the floor plan, there's quite a bit of storage, and medical waste also has to be locked in the building. So we just chose to have a service handle itfrom inside the building. Mr. La Pine: So medical waste plus the building and the business will all be taken care of inside? Mr. Schafer: Yes. Mr. La Pine: That's all I want to know. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Schafer, did you indicate that you will not be building this? That the doctor will lake over the construction? 22932 Mr. Schafer: We're going to be building it, but it will be owner occupied by the doctor. We're not looking to lease it. We're basically looking to delivery a turnkey to a medical practice. Mr. Morrow: So you will sell the building when you complete it? Mr. Schafer: That's correct. Mr. Alanskas: Have you gone over all these things with the Inspection Department? Mr. Schafer: Yes. One of the things that wasn't clear... Mr. Alanskas: The barrierfree parking? Mr. Schafer: Yes. With the curb? And the banner? I think it complies. Actually we made a change just prior to us coming to see you. This is actually the third change. Those comments that were originally there - we made a change for you to look at. I believe we have accomplished that, and then there was an additional suggestion at the last minute to add the other barrier free spaces. Mr. Alanskas: Number five, it says the "maximum medical use this building will support is 50%; over that amount would make the parking deficient." Mr. Schafer: Yes, that's what they had commented on. I also provided a email that was exchanged with the physician. I think it should be in your package. Essentially, their peak parking they feel is about 18 even as a medical practice. So that would actually split the existing parking in half. If we do get another medical user in there, I mean how do we address that issue? Do we have to come back and apply for a variance or are we okay with the parking as it is? We are a little bit over, but I don't know how I would have to address that at that point. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, do you have any comments that we can share? Mr. Taormina: As it stands right now, this plan only provides sufficient parking for about half of the building to be used for medical because of the increased parking requirements for clinic -type operations. There are certain other medical uses that may not require the same ratio of parking spaces, but that would be determined when he finds a tenant for the balance of that space. 22933 Mr. Walsh: You looked puzzled. Mr. Schafer: Yeah. I mean if I have someone there now that says basically they need 18, and then there's another 18 and another medical operator comes in and says we're satisfied with that, is that something that we'll be able to proceed with or would we have to come back and ask for a variance for parking al that point? Mr. Taormina: No. A medical dinic or physician would require parking at a ratio of one space for every 110 square feel of useable floor area. So I don't think you'd be able to fill the balance of the building with a medical user under that definition. You'd have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Schafer: Would that be something I should proceed with at this point or just wait and see? Mr. Taormina: I think that you would probably wail until you find a user for that space. Mr. Schafer: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Is it conceivable that you will be turning this building over to the doctor before you have leased the balance of the building? Mr. Schafer: No, I'm going to try to gel the whole building filled up before it's constructed. Mr. Morrow: In the event that you don't, lets say you dont gel it filled up. As long as he understands that once you're out of the picture, he may have to come back to us as it relates to the parking requirements. Mr. Schafer: Well, I think I would be responsible for that when the second tenants fills in. The first tenant would only buy their half of the building. Mr. Morrow: Oh, so he's notbuying the whole building. Mr. Schafer: Thalcorect. Mr. Morrow: I thought he was getting the whole building. Mr. Schafer: No. Mr. Morrow: Okay. So you're responsible for the balance? Mr. Schafer: Right. 22934 Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: It says in our notes, that on the south properly line, the greenbelt is not 10 feet wide so you have to put up a cement wall. Mr. Schafer: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Isthatcorrect? Is that want you're going to do? Mr. Schafer: No. We met with the neighbor. The neighbor requested and agreed that a six foot vinyl fence would be more appropriate next to his property in that particular situation, similar to the one that was installed at the St. Martin Condominium development right next to it. Mr. Alanskas: Will that suffice with us, Mark, as far as not putting in a wall? Mr. Taormina: As long as you approve this plan showing the substitute, which is the fence, that would be subject to either a variance being granted or a property separation agreement with the adjoining property owner to the south. From all indications with this letter that was read into the record this evening, a property separation agreement would be the case. And I believe that is reflected in Condition 9 of the prepared resolution. Mr. Alanskas: Mark, also, would you go over once again, you said there's partial walls along one side and not on the other? Mr. Taormina: We did take a look at the condition of the commeroial properties along this side of Middlebell Road extending north from St. Martin's Avenue. The first building would be the Belle Tire facility and they're required to construct a wall. Although they don't have a wall along the west side of that property where it abuts the condominium development, their latest approval to expand that facility did, in fact, require the construction of a wall. Unfortunately, they lel those plans expire, so they have not expanded that facility, but they are under notice from the Zoning Board of Appeals office that they either have to come back and amend the site plan or construct that wall. Next to the north of that is the recently developed swim shop and retail building, Different Strokes. If you recall, we required a wall be constructed on that property along the west side of the site where it abuts the condominium. So that wall is in place. And then extending to the north from there, would be the Corey Dinette property. This evening you're going to consider an extension to the site plan that would upgrade that building. It 22935 was shown on the site plan that a wall would be constructed along the west side of that property. And then the next parcel to the north is the residential homeowner that lies immediately to the south of this property so there's no wall on that site. Then this proposed development, which would either require a wall along the west property line or not, and then lastly, we have the residential properly to the north. In response to your question, there seems to be a developing pattern of the walls along the west side of these commercial properties where they abut St. Marlin's Condominiums, and although we have not yet secured all of the necessary perils and approvals to complete those walls, it is our recommendation that we continue that pattern. Mr. Alanskas: I think we should have a continuous wall, not just one part and then open and then have like a greenbelt or a fence. I think 0 should be all wall. Mr. Taormina: The resolution as it's prepared this evening would require the wall along the west property line on this project. What's unique about this properly, and this plan reflects that, you'll see that adjacent to the parking lot to the west is the storm water detention basin of Sl. Marlin's Condominiums. Then the northerly half of the property, where it abuts the residential district to the west, is the rear yard of a single family residence that maintains a six foot high wood obscuring fence along that portion of the property line. Again, it's not actually consistent in that area. If we required the wall, then I guess it would solve the problem with this property. We'd still have to get the wall completed on the parcels to the south to make it a continuous wall. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Mr. Walsh: If there are no additional comments, a motion would be in order. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #01-04-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-12-08-25, submitted by Livonia Sl. Martins LLC, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office building on property located at 19731 Middlebelt Road in the Southeast I/ of Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 1 dated January 12, 2006, as revised, prepared by Creative Land Planning 22936 Commission & Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated January 14, 2006, as revised, prepared by Nagy & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. 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; 6. That the landscaped greenbelt along the north property line, as shown on the approved landscape plan, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 7. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective barrier, 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 protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 8. That along the west property line, the Petitioner shall be required to construct a six (6) fool high prolective screen wall in accordance with Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 9. That along the south properly line, the petitioner shall have the option of either: a) erecting a protective wall in accordance with Section 18.45; b) obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals; or c) execute a separation agreement with the abutting properly owner(s); 10. That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated December 15, 2005, prepared by Siegal/Tuomaala Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 22937 11. That the back used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick; 12. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 13. That there shall be no dumpster located outside of the building, and all trash must be contained within the building except on the day trash is scheduled for removal; 14. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary stone water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 15. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 16. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated January 6, 2006; 17. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated December 29, 2005; 18. That the entrance marker shown on the approved landscape plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 19. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including but not limited to the building or around the windows; and 20. 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? Ms. Smiley: On Item 4, page 4, is Condition 18 different? Mr. La Pine: She has something in red. I don't have that. 22938 Mr. Taormina: Yes, "that the entrance marker shown on the approved landscape plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered to." That was one of the changes made with the latest plan. Mr. LaPine: All right. Well, make sure that's included. Mr. Walsh: Is that permissible? Does the maker and the second agree? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, basically it was covered. Mr. Morrow: That's what I was going to call attention to. Ms. Smiley: I want to tell you that's an attractive medical building. Mr. Schafer: Thank you. Ms. Smiley: Its very, very attractive. Thank you. 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#5 PETITION 2004-08-0845 API Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 08-08-15, submitted by Keith A. Lutz of Anthony Patric, Inc., which previously received site plan approval by the City Council, requesting a one-year extension of all pans to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 19711 Middlebell Road in the Southeast % of Section 2. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, is there anything to report on this? Mr. Taormina: We received a request from API to extend the permit. In their letter dated October 10, 2005, they indicated that they would like to request to extend the site plan approval located at 19711 Middlebell Road. So we have prepared two resolutions. One that would grant the extension for a six month period and another resolution that would grant the extension for a one year period. You'll note that in both resolutions, we do modify Condition 12 of the approving resolution so as to require a protective screen wall where the subject property abuts the residential district. Mr. Alanskas: He did not mention in his letter when he will commence with the starting of this if we give him the year extension? 22939 Mr. Taormina: I think a year would be appropriate in this case. I did have a discussion with him and they are still prepared to move forward. It all depends on tenancy for that building. It's still in negotiation. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments, or is there a moli on? On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-05-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-08-08-15, submitted by Keith A. Lutz of Anthony Patric, Inc., requesting an extension of the site plan, which previously received approval by the City Council on October 13, 2004 (Council Resolution #484- 04), in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 19711 Middlebell Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request by Keith Lutz of Anthony Patric, Inc., in a letter dated October 10, 2005, for an extension of Site Plan Approval to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 19711 Middlebell Road, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #484-04 in connection with Petition 2004-08-08-15, shall remain in effect, except that Condition #12 shall be modified so as to require the protective screen wall where the subject property abuts the residential district to the west in accordance with Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 #6 PETITION 200441-08-20 JOE'S PRODUCE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 11-08-20, submitted by Joe's Produce, which previously received site plan approval by the City Council, requesting a one-year extension of all plans to construct an addition to and renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 33152 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 3. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, is there anything to report on this item? 22940 Mr. Taormina: This request was in connection with the planned expansion of Joe's Produce. Because of delays in the road construction, that is the widening of Seven Mile Road where it abuts this property, the petitioner has been unable to commence construction. For that reason, he is requesting a one-year extension so that he can time that appropriately with the road construction project. Mr. Morrow: If the chair is ready for a resolution, I will offer it. Mr. Walsh: I am ready. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-06-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-11-08-20, submitted by Joe's Produce, requesting an extension of the site plan, which previously received approval by the City Council on December 20, 2004 (Council Resolution #590-04), in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to and renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 33152 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request by Joe's Produce, in a letter dated November 28, 2005, for an extension of Site Plan Approval to construct an addition to, and renovate the exterior of, the commercial building located at 33152 Seven Mile Road, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #590-04 in connection with Petition 2004-11-08-20 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: I talked to Joe and he really wants to get this done. He's been trying to get this done for three tears and they never seem to get Seven Mile widened. He thinks he won't get it done this year, although I understand its supposed to be done, but there are still some problems with right-0iway. As soon as its done, Joe will start construction. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. 22941 Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolulion. ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 916'" Regular Meeting Ms Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 916"' Regular Meeting held on November 15, 2005. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was #01-07-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 916" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2005, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolulion resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Morrow, Alanskas, Piercecchi, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Shane Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9174h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 917"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 13, 2005. On a motion by Piercechi, seconded by Alanskas, and adopted, it was #01-08-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 917" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2005, are hereby approved. 22942 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Morrow, Smiley NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Walsh Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 918'" Regular Meeting held on January 17, 2006, was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman