Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-02-19MINUTES OF THE 958° REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 19, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 958" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ashley Varloogian Ian Wilshaw 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 pefition 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 2005-10-0849 TISEO ARCHITECTS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-10- 08-19 submitted by Tiseo Architects, which previously received approval by the City Council on December 21, 2005 (CR 601- 05), requesting a two-year extension of all plans in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 29029 Eight Mile Road, on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Brentwood Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 1. February 19, 2008 24588 Mr. Miller: This is the second request for an extension of site plan approval granted in connection with a proposal to construct an office building. Originally City Council granted site plan approval on December 21, 2005 (Council Resolution #601-05). A one-year extension of that approval was granted on February 14, 2007 (Council Resolution #47-07 Mr. Walsh: Okay. This is a straightforward request for an extension. I know the petitioner is in the audience. Sir, if you could please step forward to the microphone. Good evening. William Ditzhazy, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening. I'm a partner with Tiseo. We hope that you can see and grant us this two years we're asking for. The only activity we've had, today some gentleman called and said he was interested in the property but until he goes through the realtor, we don't know any more. At least it's one activity. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Thank you for being here this evening. Mr. Ditzhazy: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Directed to the staff, I know at the study session we queried about a two-year extension versus our usual one-year extension. Is there any precedent for a two-year extension? Mr. Taormina: We cannot find any. It doesn't mean it has never been done, but in reviewing our records, we could not locate any. So we drafted the resolution for a one-year period. The ordinance really does not speak to that. It grants site plan for one year and then references any extensions thereafter. So I think that's why it's customary to make it for one year. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Varloogian, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-12-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-08-19 submitted by Tiseo Architects, with regard to a request for a two-year extension of the site plan to construct an office building on property located at 29029 Eight Mile Road, on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Brentwood Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 1, which previously February 19, 2008 24589 received approval by the City Council in Council Resolution #601-05, adopted on December 21, 2005, and extended for a one-year period by Council Resolution #47-07, adopted on February 14, 2007, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request for an extension of Site Plan Approval by Tiseo Architects, in a letter dated January 7, 2008, is hereby approved, as amended, for a one-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #601-05 in connection with Petition 2005-10-08-19, which permitted the construction of an office building on the subject properly, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: Just to comment on what Mr. Ditzhazy said. I certainly hope that the inquiry he had today will lead to good things for you next year. Good luck. 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#2 PETITION 2008-01-08-02 PARKVIEW BAPTIST Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 01-08-02 submitted by LVM Architectural Services, on behalf of the Parkview Baptist Church, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to expand and renovate the exterior of the existing fellowship hall and expand the parking lot of the church located at 9355 Stark Road, on the west side of Stark Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Plymouth Road in the Southwest % of Section 33. Mr. Miller: The subject properly consists of three parcels that have a combined land area of 3.66 acres. The building that is utilized as the church is situated on the southern parcel. The fellowship hall, which is the subject of this petition, is located behind the church near the site's rear property line. A residential house, utilized by the church, is located in the middle of the site approximately 50 feel back from Stark Road. The entire site is zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. This property is surrounded by February 19, 2008 24590 residenlial homes on three sides. To the west, north and across Stark Road to the east are RUF districts that contain single- family homes on acreage parcels. Immediately to the south is the Middle Rouge Parkway. The proposed additions would be constructed on the west and north elevations of the fellowship hall. The existing fellowship hall is 4,200 square feet in size. The additions would more than double the size of the structure and add 4,668 square feel to the building. Once completed the enlarged fellowship hall would become a total of 8,868 square feet in overall size. According to the submitted floor plan, not only would the expansion increase the floor area of the fellowship hall but would also provide space for a couple of classrooms, some interior storage space, a kitchen area, men and women bathrooms, and a reception area. With respect to building setbacks in an RUF zoning district, the minimum required setbacks are 50 feel for the front yard and 10 feel for both side yards. The rear yard setback is 50 feel or 20 percent of the depth of the lot, whichever is larger, but it need not exceed 60 feel. With the lot depth of the property being 664 feel in length, the required rear setback for this property is 60 feel. The proposed addition to the west elevation of the fellowship hall would extend into the required rear yard setback and would only be approximately 41 feel from the rear lot line. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for deficient building setback. All other building setbacks are conforming. Parking for churches is based on the number of seats in the main assembly area. Since the proposed additions do not alter the seating arrangement of the church, the current parking situation of the church would not change. With that said, the petitioner is proposing to enlarge the existing parking. The parking lot would be expanded to the north and the pavement area would approximately double in size. In order to more efficiently access the expanded parking lot, an additional driveway out to Stark Road would be created along the north side of the existing residential house. Storm water runoff for this development would be handled by a newly created large detention basin. This aboveground detention basin would be located within the northwest comer of the north parcel. According to the grading and storm sewer plan, the basin area would be sloped approximately five to six feet deep and for the most part be a dry basin. Only under extreme conditions, such as a 100 -year min, would it contain water. The entire exterior of the fellowship hall would be remodeled. The exterior of the fellowship hall would be covered with split faced concrete masonry blocks on all four sides. The peak areas of the gabled roof would be finished in an E.I.F.S. material. Architectural shingles would cover the roof. Overhanging structural porches February 19, 2008 24591 would be created over the two entrances on the east elevation. That is the extent of the proposal. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated February 19, 2008, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The submitted legal description closes. However it should be noted that the description includes all land going out to the centerline of Stark Road. Therefore, the description should be modified to reflect the Stark Road Rightof-Way. The address according to our records is 9375 Stark Road, which is the address indicated on the plans." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 16, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to expand and renovate the exterior of the existing fellowship hall and expand the parking lot of the church 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 January 23, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Parkview Baptist Church, located at 9355 Stark. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Stuck, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 7, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 14, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The required setback on the westem side of the property is required to be 60'. The plans submitted by the petitioner show the setback to be 37.44' at the South end of the structure and 40.92' at the North end of the structure. An approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the deficiency. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening. Louis V. Margilan, LVM Architectural Services, 15126 Woodworth, Redford, Michigan 48239. Good evening. I represent LVM Architectural Services on behalf of Parkview Baptist Church. I'm also here tonight with a member of the Deacon Board of the church, Mr. Thomas Smith, and Mr. Dave Lear with Midwestern Consulting, February 19, 2008 24592 the civil engineer the church has retained for this project. I'd like to thank the City of Livonia for the opportunity to present this project. There is really not a whole lot I can add to what Mr. Miller has indicated. I would like to place on the easel, if I can, a colored architectural site plan that might help you to see better what's happening on the site. As you can see by Mr. Millers presentation, the color site plan represents exactly what he indicated, Stark Road being on the right hand side and Hines Park being to the south. The orange colored shapes represent the buildings as they exist today, with the red being the proposed additions to Fellowship Hall, as well as a new proposed covered pavilion, similar to what you might see in a public park. The shaded gray areas represent the additional parking over and above that which is not shaded, which is the current parking; then in the far upper left hand comer, the northwest comer of the property, the proposed detention basin. Architecturally, the floor plan exists just as you saw in the presentation today. Again, the orange areas being the new additions, essentially doubling, just slightly more than doubling the size of the building as it is exists today. These are some pictures just to give you an idea of what the building looks like today. This is the view that you see from Stark Road as you approach the building from the east. This is the view to the residential properties to the west of the church property, and the view looking out onto Hines Drive through the trees. The proposed project, if approved, would look something like this, as you saw in the overhead presentation. I do have sample materials available upon request if you'd like to see what those specifically would look like. It is two tones of split face concrete masonry in beige tones. Some of the color rendering on these plots came out of a little more red than we'd like to see it, but the intent is to be very neutral in color and blend into the landscape. I think you can see fairly cleady that its going to be a major improvement to what exits there today. Mr. Walsh: If you dont mind, why don't you bring the materials up. I'm sure at least one of us will want to see them. Mr. Margitan: To my extreme right, the split face concrete block that we're proposing is dark for the field with a lighter material being the band. This material being the E.I.F.S. that Mr. Miller spoke of in the gable end area. The shingle, while that color may not represent the actual color that is selected, it will be an architectural shingle, which is similar to what's on the building today, which is a very outdated shingle style that is very flat. The new architectural shingles that are available come with 30 and 40 -year warranties and provide some shadowing texture to enhance the appearance of the building, vdlh something in the February 19, 2008 24593 way of a dark bronze for the metal copings on the gutters, downspouts and fascia of the building. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions? Ms. Smiley: I was just wondering in your classrooms, are you going to do something everyday or is that for special religious classes or any kind of child care? Mr. Margitan: It primarily will not be for childcare. One the things that you might have noticed on the plans that were submitted, is in addition to this space saying "fellowship hall,' it says "deaf church." One of the ministries of the church currently is a contingency of deaf people that attend and they have their own fellowship area. Those classrooms would primarily be Sunday school rooms for the deaf ministry. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Morrow: On the elevation that faces your neighbor to the west, where you have the deficiency, have you augmented that yard with any kind of landscaping to maybe soften the rear elevation or I guess we call it the west elevation? Mr. Margitan: That's a good question. As you can see, this is what the neighbors to the west see today. The proposed elevation is this. We've added just some very generic landscape screening there for the purposes of this elevation for this presentation and primarily to screen some grade -mounted mechanical air conditioning equipment that would be there. We feel, however, its a far improvement to what's there today. Mr. Morrow: Could you share with us the plantings that you're putting in? Mr. Margitan: Al this time, we foresee that being arborvitaes, evergreen materials, something that will not lose its leaf in the winter to where the equipment would be screened in the summer but in the winter itwould be seen by everybody. Mr. Morrow: The approximate heightwhen they go it? Mr. Margitan: When lheygo in, six feet. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mrs. McDermott: I was wondering, will the fellowship hall be rented out to the general public for weddings or anything like that? February 19, 2008 24594 Mr. Margitan: At this time, the plan is not to do that other than for parishioners. Mrs. McDermott: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: On the layout of your property, there s a lot here to the east off of Stark Road, 9487. Do you own that lot? Mr. Margitan: Are you speaking of this lot, sift Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Margitan : Yes. This is owned by the church. This is the church parsonage. Mr. LaPine: That's what I thought. Okay. So that's the parsonage? Mr. Margitan: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: Okay. That's what I thought but I wasn't sure. I wanted to make sure because I was kind of saying, why don't they include that as part of the diagram. Okay. That's all I want to know. Mr. Wilshaw: I think you answered the question to some extent when you mentioned the deaf church operation, but my question was going to be, does the church itself and the fellowship hall both have full activity going at the same time basically concurrent with each other? Mr. Margitan: That's a good question. No, they do not, other than the deaf ministry, which functions right around 30 to 50 people on a Sunday morning while the church building itself is in full use. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And when church is over, people may go over to the fellowship hall to socialize or what have you? Mr. Margitan: Correct. There may be an activity after the service or on a Saturday night, but dont foresee it being used simultaneously. Mr. Wilshaw: My point in asking the question is, do you believe with this expanded parking area that it is adequate to handle any function that the church may have at any given time. Mr. Margitan: I do believe its adequate. Right now, I believe the parking that is on the site is somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 spaces, and that's increasing to 137. Currently, the church holds as many people as we're hoping to bring into the fellowship hall once this project comes to life. While it's a little cramped for us on the site right now, as you can imagine getting about 400 February 19, 2008 24595 people on the property on any given Sunday for services, this will I think help that effort a great deal. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Now you mentioned that there's going to be some grade - mounted mechanical equipment in the back of this building. Is it that going to produce noise that any of the neighbors would be hearing? Mr. Margilan: We don't believe it will be at a decibel level where it will be a problem between the screening and its distance away from the property line and from the location of any residences beyond on that property line to where they sit. Mr. Wilshaw: The reason I ask is because you do have a deficiency in your side yard setback or your rear yard setback. Mr. Margilan: This here? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, that area there. Although you don't have a tremendous amount of neighbors behind you, you do have some that I guess would be more or less considered kitty comer to your property. I'd be concerned that they don't want to hear air condifioners running. Mr. Margitan: Yes, sir. Just for your information, and it is valid point that we're going to take a look at. The only thing that is going to be pad mounted outside the building will be condensers themselves for the air conditioning equipment. The units themselves, which generate the bulk oflhe noise, will be indoors. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments or questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-13-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-01-08-02 submitted by LVM Architectural Services, on behalf of the Parkview Baptist Church, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to expand and renovate the exterior of the exisfing fellowship hall and expand the parking lot of the church located at 9355 Stark Road, on the west side of Stark Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Plymouth Road in the February 19, 2008 24596 Southwest % of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated January 11, 2008, prepared by Midwestern Consulting, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That all parking spaces shall be conforming at len (10') feel wide by twenty (20') feet in length and doubled striped; 3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A- 1.02 dated January 11, 2008, prepared by LVM Architectural Services, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That this site shall meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance and shall secure the necessary permits, including storm water management permits, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; 5. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 6. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient rear yard building setback and any conditions related thereto; 7. 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; 8. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan showing the grade -mounted mechanical equipment adequately screened with the use of landscaping and/or a masonry screen wall shall be submitted to the Planning Department for it's review and approval, and 9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained this February 19, 2008 24597 approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wilshaw: I have one question and one comment. Let's start with the comment that the building materials definitely look a lot better than what we saw on the renderings. Now that I can see them in person, they're attractive. I appreciate that. My question is, if the maker of the motion would be willing, can we add a provision that the grade -mounted mechanical equipment shall be properly screened either by landscaping or a masonrywall? Mr. La Pine: Mr. Wilshaw, I have no objection. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Ms. Smiley? Ms. Smiley: I have no objection. In fact, there's not really a landscape plan with this, is there Mark? Mr. Miller: No, there was landscaping shown on the site plan, but there is not a landscape plan. Ms. Smiley: Doesn't that have to go through? Mr. Miller: Because this is zoned residential, we don't really get into landscaping too much. Ms. Smiley: Then absolutely, I would agree to that. Mr. Morrow: I know on the plan there is some arborvitae. Does the staff feel that what is represented there is adequate, or should it be augmented. Did you make any study on that, Scott or Mark? Mr. Miller: On the plan, it seemed fine because there's not a house behind them. I'm trying to get the plan up here just to show you. They are showing some plantings along here. You can see it behind the building. It says six foot arborvitae, but if you look at the aerial, you can see that there's a house located here, but this is more of the backyard. I didn't think the sound would be a problem. Mr. Morrow: I guess the way I would sum it up, I'd go along with what Mr. Wilshaw said. If at the time it's installed and there doesn't seem to be adequate screening, I'd like to see it augmented. February 19, 2008 24598 Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, we can modify that condition to state that prior to the issuance of a permit, the landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Department for its review and approval. That would address the issues. Mr. La Pine: I have no problem with that. Mr. Walsh: The resolution shall stand as amended. Ms. Smiley: Okay. 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. Sir, the amendment was simply to ask you to work with our Planning Department on your landscaping plan so it's satisfactory to you and the city. ITEM#3 PETITION 2008-01-08-03 DESIGNERS GROUP Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 01-08-03 submitted by Designers Group Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a multi - tenant commercial building on properties located at 27420, 27434 & 27458 Joy Road, on the north side of Joy Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 36 Mr. Miller: The subject site consists of three separate properties whose combined land area is approximately 1.26 acres. All parcels are vacant and are zoned 02, General Business. Adjoining the subject property to the west is a C-2 zoned district that contains a mix of commercial uses, including a beauty studio and medical clinic. Adjacent to the east are two vacant properties that are zoned C-2 and a residential RUF zoned parcel that is also presently vacant. Immediately to the north are RUF, Rural Urban Farm, districts that contain single-family homes on acreage parcels. Directly to the south, across Joy Road, are several commercial businesses under the jurisdiction of the City of Westland. The proposed building would be one-story in height and contain 11,275 square feel of gross leasable floor space. The storefront of the building would face Joy Road. The rectangle shaped building would measure 205 feel across in the east/west direction by 55 feel in depth. The proposed strip center would sit right on the east property line and extend February 19, 2008 24599 towards the west property line. According to the floor plan and the number of doors depicted on the elevation plan, the building could be divided into a maximum of 9 separate tenant spaces. Parking would be available in front of the building, directly behind the building and within the northern section of the property's western parcel. Required parking for the building is 72 parking spaces; the site plan shows that it will provide 73 parking spaces. For two-way traffic to maneuver smoothly, the minimum width of a parking lot aisle is required to be 22 feet. The aisle between the parallel parking spaces of the extreme north parking lot is shown at only 20 feet wide. Because of this deficiency, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. The dumpster enclosure area would be located behind the building. The plans do not describe how or where the site's storm water detention would be handled. Because this site abuts residential along both the north and approximately 100 feet along the northern east side of the westerly parcel (27458 Joy), a screening wall or greenbelt would be required along these sections of lot lines. The plans indicate that a greenbelt area would be created at the north end of the rear parking lot. This greenbelt would occupy the northern 49 feet of the westerly parcel (27458 Joy). Along the remaining 51 feet of the east property line where the property abuts residential, the petitioner would either have to erect a screening wall or be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals waiving the wall. Required landscaping on the site is 15 percent, and the plan shows 15 percent would be landscaped. Most of the landscaping for this site would be installed in either the northern greenbelt area, a planting area along part of the west property line or along the frontage of Joy Road. The proposed strip center would be constructed primarily out of face brick on three sides (south, east and west elevations) and masonry block on the rear elevation. The front and side elevations would have a two feet four inch (2' 4") base of rock face block. The remaining upper portion of the walls would be constructed out of four (4") inch brick. The westerly end unit, which is significantly larger and presumably an anchor tenant, would extend six to seven (6'-7') feet above the rest of the building. This heightened area would be covered in E.F.I.S. and separated from the lower portion by a band of soldier coarse brick. Over the entrance areas would be decorative elements made of E.F.I.S. Large storefront windows would provide interior display visibility and allow in natural light. The entire rear (north) elevation of the building would be constructed out of standard 12 inch block. That is the extent ofthe proposal. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? February 19, 2008 24600 Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 19, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a retail strip center on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject budding(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall Flow 1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (3) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of fifty- three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twe my -nine feet six inches. (4) Any curves or comer of streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty- three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (5) North drive shall be posted as a fire lane on building side only. (6) West drive shall be posted as a fire lane on both sides (at building). (7) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (8) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is deadrended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the fire lane. (9) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. (10) 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 Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 25, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with New shopping Plaza, located at 27458 Joy Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 31, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 18, 2008, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) There are conflicting notes as to parking space size on sheet SP -1. Parking must be 10 feet wide and 20 feet deep and double striped. (2) The aisle at the north parking area is February 19, 2008 24601 deficient in width and will require a variance from he Zoning Board of Appeals for this deficiency (20 feet width proposed, 22 feet width required). (3) Although a green belt is proposed on the northem end of the parking lot, there is an approximate 50 foot section of property line abutting residential zoning in that area that will require a protective screen wall or will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (4) The proposed monument sign is deficient in several areas. A ten (10) foot setback is required. If this center has four more tenants, a freestanding business center sign not exceeding eight (8) feet in height, ten (10) feet in length with a forty (40) square feet sign areas would be allowed. As proposed the sign would need at least three variances: (a) Deficient Setback, (b) Excessive height, (c) Excessive square footage. (5) This center may be required to have other rated walls depending on tenants and usage. This will be furthered addressed at our plan review should the project move forward. (6) The plans submitted to us make no provision for storm water issues. This should be clarified to the Commission's and/or Council's satisfaction. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questons for the staff? Ms. Smiley: It's an unusual shaped piece of property. What would be to the right as you're looking at it on Inkster Road there, those three lots? Mr. Taormina: Those are vacant properties currently. Mr. Miller: Correct. Mr. Taormina: Well, two are vacant and the northerly is developed for a single family home. Mr. Miller: I believe it is vacant. Mr. Taormina: Yes. That one may or may not contain a home on it. I don't know. The corner property, which was a former Sinclair gas station, is now vacant. To the north of that is vacant, commercial zoned properly, and then to the north is residential zoned properly that we're not sure if there's a structure on that or not. Ms. Smiley: That's a very unusual piece of property and there's a lot of problems with it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you Mr. Morrow: I guess I would pose the question that there's a couple of things in correspondence from the departments, as Mr. Wilshaw said. It would appear, if I'm following correctly, that whatever action is taken here tonight, that plan could really not go forward because it sounds likes there's some concerns about it, not only in the area of safely, but also there's a reference to the storm water. I see no place on there. Is that going to be put to the north into that parking lot? Is that where the storm water would go? Mr. Taormina: If what you're referring to is the ultimate discharge, I don't know. I suspect it wouldn't be anywhere to the rear. I'm not aware of any existing storm sewers that are available to the rear as a point of discharge. More likely, it would be somewhere near Joy Road. So we don't know how storm water is going to be handled in this case. It could only be handled underground. Whether or not it would be put underneath the parking lot in February 19, 2008 24602 Mr. Wilshaw: Part of the problem with this plan is the tight tolerances of the aisleways, and the Fire Department refers to their requirement for a turning radius to get access to the rear of the property. Do you know if there is adequate space forthe turning radius? Mr. Taormina: As I understand the Fire Department's standard, any aisleways that are in excess of 150 feet require some type oflumaround. That area behind the shopping center, to the extent it exceeds a length of 150 feel, would not have the adequate turnaround. Typically, we have 360 degree circulation around these centers. This is very unique, and you can see where the property line behind the center bends prior to what is south of it. So the shopping center actually continues further to the east beyond that point and south, not providing any type of vehicular access at all, only pedestrian access. It's very unique, and I'm sure of concern to the Fire Division. Mr. Wilshaw: You don't know off the lop of your head, though, if a fire truck could tum that corner and go into the back of the properly based on the space that's there? Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure if we've analyzed the turning radius with the dumpsler. The dumpsler area might have to be repositioned in order to allow for adequate turning of any sizeable equipment back there. Obviously, a vehicle could make it, but some of the larger trucks would have difficulty servicing that area to the back and would be forced to back out. That is not an optimal situation. It certainly presents some difficulties there. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you Mr. Morrow: I guess I would pose the question that there's a couple of things in correspondence from the departments, as Mr. Wilshaw said. It would appear, if I'm following correctly, that whatever action is taken here tonight, that plan could really not go forward because it sounds likes there's some concerns about it, not only in the area of safely, but also there's a reference to the storm water. I see no place on there. Is that going to be put to the north into that parking lot? Is that where the storm water would go? Mr. Taormina: If what you're referring to is the ultimate discharge, I don't know. I suspect it wouldn't be anywhere to the rear. I'm not aware of any existing storm sewers that are available to the rear as a point of discharge. More likely, it would be somewhere near Joy Road. So we don't know how storm water is going to be handled in this case. It could only be handled underground. Whether or not it would be put underneath the parking lot in February 19, 2008 24803 front of the center or somewhere behind, we don't know. There's just not enough information provided at this lime. Mr. Morrow: Should that be noted on the plans? Mr. Taormina: We ask for that typically. We prefer to see upfront how they're going to handle storm water, so they've done at least that analysis to the extent that it may affect the site plan design. Mr. Morrow: Those are just a couple of my concerns, regardless of the action we lake tonight, approving or denying or whatever. We don't want to send something forward that is not complete. Thank you. Ms. Varloogian: I just have a brief question. I know during our study session meeting we talked about the distance from the back parking lot to the front of the building. Is there any ordinance that requires a minimum distance from those parking spaces to the entrance? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Section 18.38 refers to a distance of no more than 300 feel. That's the preferred distance. Scott, we measured that previously. Mr. Miller: It is 250 feel if you go the front. Mr. Taormina: Its certainly a design that, while it's intended to simply comply with the number of parking spaces available to the shopping center to meet the ordinance, from a practical standpoint, it's a bad design. Ms. Varloogian: Thank you. That's d. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Ali Raichouni, Designers Group Inc., 7555 Greenfield, Detroit, Michigan 48228. I'm the architect. The civil engineer is not here, but I can try to answer any questions that already arose and that you have. I'm here representing the owner, Mike Katbey. As far as the couple of things that you brought up, if I may, I think one of the things that you just mentioned was the storm water and where it's going to be discharged. I did look into that. I went to the Engineering Department. They only have two areas where we could connect to. One is toward the back of that longer property but where it measures off exactly on the field, we haven't went out there and took measure of that. But we would rather conned to the nghtof-way on Joy Road right by the curb. It didn't show on the engineering plans, the updated ones, but on the field, my civil engineer said there was a manhole that was February 19, 2008 24604 there, or a catch basin, that we would connect to. Everything that we're going to do in designing this, what the Engineering Department told us, we're going to have to design according to Wayne County. So we're going to have to design everything according to Wayne County, lake the plans to Wayne County, get it approved from Wayne County and then, in tum, the Engineering Department of Livonia would also check it. But they said whatever Wayne County is requesting, we have to design according to that, which is the underground system, a filtration system and any other codes and regulations that they ask for. That's regarding the storm water. As far as the Fire Department, I see that he was asking for a certain turning radius and things like that. What I was thinking, I didn't talk to the Fire Department. We just received this report. What I was hoping, I know in other shopping plazas like this, that the fire lane would be toward the front of the building, and that as long as the hose line is at lead 250 feel long, that could reach toward the back of the building. They could park their trucks in the front and circulate out in a clockwise direction or so and the hose would be long enough to gel to the back if they needed to go, but the truck doesn't have to go all the way to the back. That's my understanding on some of the other design issues in other instances in other cities maybe, but here I would have to talk to the Fire Marshal. On the west side of the building, I know I'm showing a 24 -fool lane. It was longer than that. I was just trying to decrease some of the pavement just to have less pavement while he's building for less cost, but we could eliminate that little landscape island that's on the west side and I think we'll still meet the 15 percent. I would have to check the calculation for that. It would become a wider lane in order to maneuver back there. If we put a template on to see the, I don't know what the radius is exactly, 45 fool radius for the fire truck, then we will try to redesign where the dumpster is then if we need to, but I would hope we could avoid doing that. As far as that 20 -fool aisle in the back, that's another reason why he purchased that last property to the west is because he needed more parking spaces. So we knew we were going to have a situation with thal20-fool aisle. That parking in the back is mostly going to be for employees for the plaza. But if we can't avoid it any other way, I mean, the parking spaces have to be 20 feel in length. We only have 60 feel to work with, and we have to provide a certain amount of parking. So we can't live without putting parking back there. As far as the landscaping in the back, we didn't show a screen wall. We thought we could choose from either putting that screen wall or creating a bene of landscaping that a lot of the residential would prefer most of the time. They don't want to see a brick wall at all instances, just a preference. We'll put it up there if it's required just to avoid zoning, but now February 19, 2008 24605 that we have to go to zoning for that 20 fool aisleway, it really doesn't matter. I'll talk with the owner, what he wants to do on that matter of the screen wall. There were a couple questions that were brought up by Alex Bishop in this report regarding the 10 by 20 conflicted notes. The whole site is designed with 10 by 20 parking spaces. There's just a note on the far upper right hand corner where the engineer messed up and it was just a typo. He didn't change that 9 to a 10. Some other cities would require a 10 and sometimes there's some things that we just didn't change. The site is designed with 10 by 20 parking spaces. That's just a typo on the lop note. The monument sign could be moved back. We have one more parking space to work with. So we could tum one of the parking spaces in the center into a landscape island and move the sign back in order to meet the 10 fool required setback. As far as the other excessive heights, we will redesign the sign in order to meet ordinance. He wants to just meet ordinance. That's how we were supposed to design it, and it wasn't designed that way. I think he was asking for a fire rated wall, depending on who the tenants are going to be. Well, we will build the shell first depending on who's coming in there. I think he already has certain people like cell phone businesses and maybe cleaners and things like that, that go into these plazas. But other than that, of course, all businesses will be designed accordingly and brought back to the city in order to obtain permits, and fire walls of one hour or two hour will be designed into the spaces when the spaces are taken up, depending on who's going in where. So that will be answered. And, of course, the stormwater, I answered it to the best of my ability because it is Wayne County's jurisdiction and my civil engineers are familiar with all of Wayne County's rules and regulations. With that, if you have any questions ... Mr. LaPine: Mr. Taormina, will you put up the site area? See the property on the comer where an old gas station was there at one lime? Behind there, there's another parcel that's vacant and then north of that, is another parcel that has an older house on it. Have you made any moves to purchase those parcels? If you could purchase those parcels, we could develop that parcel in a better way, in my opinion. Mr. Raichouni: He was interested in purchasing the property to the east. Yes, go ahead and answer it. Mike Kalbey, 26751 Doxtator Street, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. I'm the owner. I will be the owner, hopefully. All this vacant that you see on the side is owned by just one person who owned the gas station before. I approached him to buy his properties. The February 19, 2008 24606 price he is asking I cannot handle it. He wants to sell everything together or nothing. I have to buy the whole side, L shaped from him. I have to buy everything from him in order to sell me this piece. He's asking $1 million for this corner property because it's a corner. I cannot handle it, you know. If I want to buy this property for $1 million, if I want to add it to my building, it will add up only a couple thousand square feel extra only. So really, we're buying a $1 million property just for a couple thousand extra square feel. Mr. LaPine: Well, see, the problem you have, you have so many deficiencies on this parcel because the parcel is really too small for what you're trying to put here, and the parking in the rear, it's almost impossible. Believe me, from our experience, people who park back here don't want to walk 200 feet to the front of the store to get in there unless you're going to have an entrance in the rear of the store. Iljust doesn't work that way. Number two, we're at a point in this city where I don't believe we really need any new shopping centers. If you meet all the requirements of the ordinance, then I couldn't slop you. I would approve it because you meet all the requirements of the ordinance. But when I see a parcel like that where there's vacant land available, not only here but up here, I'm looking for somebody to buy this whole parcel and give us a nice development there. Maybe rezone it residential and build residential homes, maybe kind of a small shopping center, but at this point, I just dont see anything that I really like about the proposal to be honest with you. I can understand. We can't tell him to sell it to you for $250,000. What he wants to get for it, he's going to hold out for what he wants. But that corner has been a mess for many, many years, and I'm hoping somebody is going to buy up that properly and develop it as one big center. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Smiley: On our Future Land Use, what is that area? Mr. Taormina: For the most part, commercial is shown for two of the three parcels that he owns, as well as the two parcels to the east, which are currently zoned commercial. It's that westerly most property that the Future Land Use Plan designates as residential, but it is zoned commercial today. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Katbey: These are owned by three different people. The sites bringing in today are owned by three different people, three different sites. February 19, 2008 24607 Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me the old gas station, plus the vacant properly, plus the one properly to the north is all owned by one person? Mr. Katbey: No, there's three people. Mr. LaPine: Three different people? Mr. Katbey: There's three different owners other than the gas station. There's three different owners. Well, the long property, owned by someone, Ali, that's the long one. Mr. LaPine: Right. Mr. Katbey: Now, the other one on the side, this big one, there's two parcels, two owners. So now, I'm combining three people in one and we're still leaving the gas station on the site. Mr. La Pine: Who asked for $1 million? Mr. Katbey: Just the gas station, the corner. Mr. LaPine: Just the gas station? Mr. Katbey: Have you heard about Knight Enterprise? He's the owner. He's a big business in gas and petroleum, you know. He's ajobber. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments or questions? Mr. Morrow: The property you secured will allow you to have parking to the north, and the property on the west side . you said you acquired that. Did you acquire it on a purchase basis or an option basis? Mr. Katbey: I have a purchase agreement. We didn't close on them yet. I have a purchase agreement contingent upon city approval. Mr. Morrow: That's what I wanted to determine if you had that. Mr. Katbey: Yes, I have a contract. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Those parcels are long parcels. What did you do, just buy off the back 60 feel? Mr. Katbey: It's 60 by 290. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Okay. February 19, 2008 24608 Mr. Katbey: Its just one parcel, 60 by 290. Mr. La Pine: Okay. I understand now. I'm looking at the other four parcels that go back. Mrs. McDermott I just have a comment. I'm really quite concerned over the comments from the Fire Department and the safety factor there and the turning radius. I'm not sure that we should be relying on the hoses reaching around the building and all of that. I really think the fire trucks need proper access to the building. Mr. Kalbey: We are going to comply with all the rules. If the Fire Marshal tomorrow asks for the radius, I am going to provide it for him If he's okay, fine. If he wants me to reduce building, I will. If he wants me to chop the building in the back, I'll do it. Whatever he wants, I'll do it. That's not my first job, you know. That's my fifth and my smallest I do. The last one I did Iasi year in Garden City was 16,300 square on an acre and a half. Now here, also, whatever the rules are . I got sort of surprised today. I received this by fax so I didn't gel a chance to revise our plans, but if I revise the plans now, I'm going to come back next time with no issues and I'm going to seek your approval. So I'm going to comply with everything, except, you know, because I only have 60 feel wide in the back, I'm forced to go for zoning. If I could give this two feet, I'd give it today, but I can't give it so I have to go to zoning. I'm forced to go. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. Mr. Morrow? Mr. Morrow: As I indicated earlier, whether we approve or deny this, the plans will go forward. I dont see how we can take action tonight with those plans seeing the fact that he just received the correspondence from Public Safely, which is a major stumbling block as far as the development of that site and the other deficiencies. So, I would like to offer a tabling resolution so he can clear up some of these concerns so whatever action we subsequently lake, it will be with the conditions that can take action al the Council level. So I'm offering a tabling resolution. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Varloogian, and adopted, it was #02-14-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 2008-01-08-03 submitted by Designers Group Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a February 19, 2008 24609 multi -tenant commercial building on properties located at 27420, 27434 & 27458 Joy Road, on the north side of Joy Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast''/. of Section 36. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Vartoogian, McDermott, Wilshaw NAYES: La Pine, Smiley, Walsh ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. This will be tabled until a dale you can arrange with Mr. Taormina. ITEM #4 PETITION 2008 -01 -SN -01 FRIDAY'S AND PANERA Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 01SN401 submitted by Livonia Chestnut Limited requesting approval for a ground sign for the two new restaurants (T.G.I. Friday's and Panem Bread) located at 20120 and 20140 Haggerty Road, on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 6. Mr. Miller: On February 14, 2007, both T.G.I. Friday's and Panem Bread received waiver use approval to construct and operate full service restaurants on properties located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road. As part of both approving resolutions it was conditioned: That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval to the Planning Commission and City Council. These restaurants are part of the Chestnut Hills development, which presently contains a Target store, a Costco store and a medical facility known as the University of Michigan Center for Specialty Care. Both restaurant properties are zoned C-2, General Business. By virtue of the C-2 zoning, each restaurant is permitted one wall sign based on the lineal footage of the building frontage and a low -profile ground sign. On December 19, 2007, T.G.I. Friday's received approval for two wall signs at a total of 85 square feet in sign area. Because that signage was in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, the approval was subject to a variance being granted from the Zoning Board of Appeals. T.G.I. Friday's received a variance February 19, 2008 24610 from the Zoning Board on February 12, 2008. On January 22, 2008, Panera Bread was approved by the Planning Commission for two wall signs at a total of 88 square feet in sign area. Because that signage was in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, the approval was subject to a variance being granted from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Panera Bread is still in the process of getting their wall signs approved by City Council. The petitioner is requesting approval for a single ground sign that would identify both establishments and would be illuminated by ground floodlights. The low -profile monument sign would be located on the south side of the drive off Haggerty Road that runs between the two restaurants. To summarize the signage, both restaurants would be allowed a ground sign, each at 30 square feet, 6 feet in height and setback 10 feel from the right -of --way line. What they are proposing is one ground sign, shared by both restaurants, at 30 square feel, 6 feel in height and setback 10 feet, so it is a conforming sign. That is the extent of the proposal. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? We have no correspondence this evening. Are there any questions for the Planning Department? Seeing none, I know the petitioner is in the audience. If you could please step forward, Mr. Jonna. Good evening. Joseph Jonna: I'm from the Jonna Companies representing Livonia Chestnut. You basically covered the extent of the details on the sign. If you have any questions ... Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, Mr. Jonna. Where is this sign located in relation to the existing Target sign that's near that same entrance? Mr. Taormina: Scott is indicating the approximate location. It's a Iitfle difficult to pinpoint since this site is under construction. Mr. Miller: Here is the existing Target sign. The new sign will be in this area. Mr. Taormina: Its about200 feel from the proposed sign. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So they're not going to conflict with the visibility of each other? Mr. Taormina: No. In fact, I drove by there Iasi Friday, and I don't see the two conflicting at all, especially given that turn that's in Haggerty Road right there, the bend. February 19, 2008 24611 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. The other question I have for you, Mr. Jonna, is the sign going to be internally illuminated, the lettering? Mr. Jonna: Its ground lit actually. There's lights on the ground that will illuminate upward. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And are the colors that we see on that rendering fairly consistent with what we're going to gel, sort of the dark color? Mr. Jonna: Same brick from the Panera Bread. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Any additional questions for Mr. Jonna? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Jonna. He's our Iasi person in the audience, so I don't believe we will have anybody giving a comment. A motion would be in order at this point. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-15-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008 -01 -SN -01 submitted by Livonia Chestnut Limited requesting approval for a ground sign for the two new restaurants (f.G.l. Friday's and Panera Bread) located at 20120 and 20140 Haggerty Road, on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by Livonia Chestnut Limited, as received by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. 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. February 19, 2008 24612 ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 957`h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 957"' Public Heanngs and Regular Meeting held on February 5, 2008. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #02-16-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 957" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 5, 2008, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Wilshaw, La Pine, McDermott, Morrow, Varloogian, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 958th Regular Meeting held on February 19, 2008, was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman