Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-03-18MINUTES OF THE 9W REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 960" 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 Ashley Varloogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: Carol Smiley 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 ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome oflhe proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2008-02-08-04 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-02-08-04 submitted by Sam Baki, on behalf of the Livonia Professional Office Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with an expansion of an office complex that would include the construction of a new one-story office building on properties at 19900 through 20010 Farmington Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road between Fargo Road and Norfolk Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 3. March 18, 2008 24651 Mr. Miller: The subject property consists of seven separate parcels that have a combined land area of 3.57 acres. The entire office site is zoned OS, Office Services. Abutting the subject property to the north is the Navin Oaks Condominiums, which is a seven unit residential development that is zoned R-3, One Family Residential. Adjacent to the east is an 1-3 district that contains single-family homes on acreage parcels that front along Shadyside Road. Immediately to the south, across Fargo Avenue, is the Woodlore Condominium development that is zoned R-7, Multiple Family Residential. Directly to the west, across Farmington Road, is an RUF district that contains single- family homes on acreage parcels. The proposed multi -tenant office building would be one-story in height and contain 4,420 square feet of gross leasable floor space. The existing six multi - tenant office buildings of the complex are each between 3,750 square feet and 5,150 square feet in size. The existing buildings are laid out in such a manner that the footprints of the three northern buildings basically mirror those of the three southern buildings. The proposed building would be located east of the existing buildings, 68 feel from Fargo Avenue and right up against the earthberm of the east property line. In order to accommodate the proposed building, a section of the parking lot would have to be reconfigured. According to the 'Notes' listed on the site plan, the existing and proposed office uses would be limited to 80% medical services and 20% general office. The required parking is 200 spaces; the proposed parking is 216 spaces, so they meet the parking requirement. All parking spaces are conforming and measure 10 feel wide by 20 feet deep. The building elevation plan shows that the multi - tenant office building would be constructed out of brick on all four sides. Its cross gabled roof would have decorative dormers and would be covered with dimensional shingles. Over the entrances would be gabled roof porch overhangs. These overhangs would extend out from the building approximately 4 to 5 feel and would be supported by dimensional columns. Because this site abuts residential along both the north and east property lines, a screening wall or greenbelt is required along these lot lines. The plans indicate that an existing screen wall that runs along the entire length of the north property line would remain. Along the east property line is an existing 25 foot wide landscaped greenbelt. To help screen the new proposed building from the residential homes to the east, the petitioner is proposing to add additional plant material to the existing greenbelt. Three types of evergreen trees (Canadian Hemlock, While Fir, Mission Arborvitae) would be introduced and incorporated into the existing landscaping scheme. That is the extent of the proposal. March 18, 2008 24652 Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence for the record? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 6, 2008, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description submitted is correct and no additional right -0f -way is required. Then; is an existing range of addresses for this property (19900 thm 20010). The Engineering Division has assigned an address of 20014 to this new building." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 30, 2008, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an office building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) 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. (2) 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. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 26, 2008, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with the Livonia Professional Plaza, located at the northeast comer of Fargo and Farmington Roads (19934-20002 Farmington). We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 4, 2008, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 14, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) A barrier free turning ramp platform is not shown on the sidewalk around the proposed building. Barrier free access will be required for all accessible entrances. These items will be addressed further at time of plan review if this project goes forward. (2) The width of the aisle between the existing parking spaces on the east side of the existing building and the new parking spaces on the west side of the proposed building is required to be a minimum of 22 feet. No dimension is shown. (3) The existing parking lot shall be repaired, sealed and re striped as necessary. All parking spaces are required to be double striped. (4) The existing dumpster enclosures are in need of repair or replacement. (5) The existing dumpster Sam Baki. 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm here on behalf of the owner of this property. As you see, this paroel has been vacant with only a parking lot for years, and now we're acquiring it. We're coming to this Commission and City Council to gel an approval for a 4,400 square foot office site. We supersede the parking requirement. I did address most of the concerns I got from the letter from the Fire Department and from the Building Department. Most of it is on the plans, some maybe not, but there is a fire hydrant. If you look at the new plans you have, right across from the same building, from the southern entrance across from that building, night across the street from it, there's a fire hydrant that sits night next to the apartment complex, which is technically, that is what was used for the rest of the properly that's already there. There's one on Farmington Road but there's one night across the street from it, which is within the required limitation of the Fire Department. Turning radius all meet the requirement too. As you see the entrance, they can March 18, 2008 24653 enclosure located directly east of the existing buildings does not appear to have sufficient room for a front end loading garbage truck to access property. This may have contributed to the damage of the enclosure. 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: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Vartoogian: I was wondering if any of these issues have been addressed or resolved, the ones that were listed in the Inspection Department's correspondence and also the Fire Department's correspondence. Mr. Taormina: There is new information on the plans relative to the width of the driveways, which have been corrected. I'm not sure there is a note on the plan with respect to the repair of the parking lot. The dumpsler enclosures are shown on the plan. There is no indication that they will be modified in any manner that I'm aware of. I believe the issue of the barrier free ramp, while it may be shown on the plan, would be corrected al the time of the plan review process. They have indicated the location of the adjacent hydrant on the plan, which is across Fargo Avenue. Thank you. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything else before we go to the petitioner? We will open the floor to you, Mr. Baki. Sam Baki. 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm here on behalf of the owner of this property. As you see, this paroel has been vacant with only a parking lot for years, and now we're acquiring it. We're coming to this Commission and City Council to gel an approval for a 4,400 square foot office site. We supersede the parking requirement. I did address most of the concerns I got from the letter from the Fire Department and from the Building Department. Most of it is on the plans, some maybe not, but there is a fire hydrant. If you look at the new plans you have, right across from the same building, from the southern entrance across from that building, night across the street from it, there's a fire hydrant that sits night next to the apartment complex, which is technically, that is what was used for the rest of the properly that's already there. There's one on Farmington Road but there's one night across the street from it, which is within the required limitation of the Fire Department. Turning radius all meet the requirement too. As you see the entrance, they can March 18, 2008 24654 go around and go north and then go behind all the buildings. So the fire trucks will have the radius they're looking for as in design. That's the reason I actually designed the drive between the parking lot at 24 feet instead of 22 feel, which is the minimum that's required. I went with 24 feel. I know one of the concerns that we might have to change . it will affect dimension -wise. We did show all the rest of the dimensions on the new plans with the drives ... on the new building, to the west of it, we showed it at 24 feet. It's going to end up going down to 22 because we're going to use the extra two feet for the sidewalk on the front of the building if it's required. It still meets the requirement but with the new plans, if you look at it, it shows four feel. I don't know if five or six feel are required. Either or, i's going to go either 23 or 22 feet. We dont know yet the final until we see what the Building Department requires. However, that will not affect the size of the building. The dumpster itself, we will repair the dumpster enclosure. If you look at the new plans and look at the older plans, the island facing the dumpster, it's longer on this plan than on the new plans. We are going to modify the island to have the trucks coming from that turnaround and go straight into it so they will have a better turning point so they won't have the problem they're having right now. On the new plan, it shows it. Re -striping, it's going to happen anyway. We're going to do the re -striping and the resurfacing repairs This present owner of this properly, who I'm proceeding on this site plan for him for this office, owns the first building to the west of it. It's owned by us too. He owns both parcels. He's going to redo his parking lot for both buildings as soon as we get the site plan approved, and we're going to proceed on repairing it and re -striping the whole site, our sites. Other than that, I'll take any questions Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: In our study meeting, Mr. Baki, you staled that there's four or five different owners of these different parcels, and we talked about re -striping the parking lot. Are you telling me you're only going to re -stripe the paroel that you're building on, plus the one to the north or the west, whatever it is? Mr. Baki: Because that's what we own personally as an owner. The association, we'll have to deal with the association. There's an association on this whole site to service whatever they do and re -stripe it. Supposedly, they redid it last year, which I don't understand. That's what I found out from the owner. They re - striped that site last year. March 18, 2008 24855 Mr. LaPine: Well, then it wore out. My second question is, the dumpster that is directly north of your new building and to the west. Are you going to make that a bigger area because the dumpster won't fit in that area, and there's no gates on it. Mr. Baki: That dumpster hasn't been used for years. Nobody is using it. Mr. LaPine: But the dumpster is there. Mr. Baki: No, just the enclosure. There's no dumpster in that box. Mr. LaPine: My eyesight must be bad because I thought I saw one. Mr. Baki: That's what I'm saying. That area has not been used at all. Mr. LaPine: Right in front of that dumpster, there's a manhole cover. The pavement is all caved in and the manhole is sitting on an angle. Mr. Baki: I saw that. Mr. LaPine: I hope you're going to fix that. Mr. Baki: We are. Actually, here's my plans for the whole site because this is what we're using for storm. We going to come in and cul like a four or six feel by six feel, centered around this manhole like we doing at a lot of existing office buildings, and put concrete slabs and then put asphalt, and repair around it. So we are going to do that, part of our storm management, once we finalize the approval through the Engineering Department. Mr. LaPine; Okay. The other question I had, you're going to fix the dumpster in the northeast corner, the wooden one. It's all wood. Mr. Baki: I, honestly, from what I see, since no one has been using it for years, take it down. I mean iljusl is not usable for anything. Mr. LaPine: You keep telling me . there's three dumpslers on this location. All these buildings are only going to need one dumpster. Is that what you're telling me? Mr. Baki: No, actually what I'm saying is this, if you're aware of how the dumpster pickup works, you pay them depending how many limes you want it picked up. You can pick up five days a week; you can pick it up twice a week. This dumpster right now, the only two dumpsters being used, the one on Farmington Road that you see there and the one right next to us, the one I'm going to repair. That other enclosure has not been used for over 10 years. March 18, 2008 24656 Mr. LaPine: I just want to gel this straight. You're going to repair the dumpster that is directly east, north of your building and south. The one on the north, you're going to eliminate? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Now, you're telling me that this dumpster here and the one on Farmington Road takes care of all the garbage. I mean, there's a lot of people doing a lot of walking getting to these dumpsters. This just doesn't seem logical to me. Mr. Baki: There is a reason for that. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Lel me hear the reason. Mr. Baki: I'll tell you the main reason. When you're dealing with a lot of doctors, a lot of their garbage does not go in dumpster. Its a special pickup. Mr. LaPine: I understand. Mr. Baki: So half of their garbage does not go into these dumpsters. As you know, the syringes and everything else. So because of that sanitation issue, these dumpsters are never full. If you saw it, it's just never full, and we have, I think, either two or three pickups a week. So the pickups are happy. Its not like they're getting flooded. Mr. LaPine: I'm not out there checking them everyday, so I'll take your word for it. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Baki, the dumpster we were just discussing, is that part of your client's parcel? Mr. Baki: Its half and half. Mr. Morrow: So there is some responsibility for that particular dumpster that's up there in the northeast comer? Mr. Baki: This one is half and half. The other one belongs to the guy who owns ... Mr. Morrow: That's the point I'm trying to make. In other words, the one in the northeast corner is not yours? Mr. Baki: No. Actually, its not even the guy's next to me. It's the guy's in the middle because of the configuration of the land. Yes. March 18, 2008 24857 Mr. Morrow: If I remember correctly, there are seven parcels there. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Morrow: So you're only talking about the one. The other point I wanted to make, because of the setback of this new building, being within the ordinance but almost on top of that residential neighborhood, have you had any communication with him so he won't be surprised when all of a sudden he has an office building? Mr. Baki: Actually, I did. You haven't seen my first and original plan. My original plan, the building was going to be halfway in the parking lot and I was staying away from the neighbor. After talking to different people from the city, on the City Council and I went and met with the neighbor. I showed him both plans, this one and the one with the building in the middle with the parking lot facing his house like it existed. He said he'd rather see the building than the parking lot because that's less lights shining on his bedroom windows. Mr. Morrow: Okay. So he's happy and he won't be surprised? Mr. Baki: He had no problem with that. Yes. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Mrs. McDermott: I just wanted to ask about in relation to that neighbor and greenbelt that's there Are there any proposed changes to that greenbelt? Mr. Baki: The only thing we're doing, he mentioned to me one dead tree. I told him definitely we will lake that down. I mentioned to him, from my original plan, I had all these new trees are going in to add for more buffer for him because the trees that we have on that site right now, it doesn't have leaf in the winter. The ones I'm trying to put in with spruces will keep some buffer for him more and he liked that idea. If you see the northern two parking spaces that I put on that end, he wants to make sure that stays open. That's why he didn't want no trees there because he uses that to drop his mulch on his side gate. So I told him I'd leave that open for him. So, yes, I did communicate with him, and he's happy with what he saw. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. March 18, 2008 24658 Mr. Wilshaw: Sam, did you bring any material samples to show us? Mr. Baki: No, and the reason I didn't, it's in question. I don't know if the Planning Department was going to say something about it. The existing coloring of the building is not as great as anybody would like to see it, I guess. So I was told by some different people, see if we can match the house instead of the office buildings. I can do that. So that's why I didn't bring any brick samples. We're putting some stone, some strips of stone, so we're going to make it look nice, but the brick itself, we were going to try to match the building with the tan, but we might go with red instead right now. So we don't know yet. The Planning Department went out to look and see the difference and see what they think is a more appropriate color for the building. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So, without the material samples, can you just briefly describe he materials? You mentioned possibly a red brick, some stone. Mr. Baki: Red brick, stone columns, stone strips, even the gable is going to have brick. They we're going to have fascia only on the two gabled parts that you see. That's the only area that's going to have stucco, but the rest is going to be stone and brick. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And those gables are just decorative, correct? Mr. Baki: Yes, with the vents. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Okay. I'mgood. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Thank you, Mr. Baki. 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 McDermott, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-22-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-02-08-04 submitted by Sam Baki, on behalf of the Livonia Professional Office Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with an expansion of an office complex that would include the construction of a new one-story office building on properfies at 19900 through 20010 Farmington Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road between Fargo Road and Norfolk March 18, 2008 24659 Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Job No. 08 -06 - SP -325 dated March 6, 2008, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. 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 and access, be supplied to the City; 3. That all disturbed bwn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet No. A-1 dated March 17, 2008, prepared by Architecturally Speaking, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. Thallhe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet No. A-2, received by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 7. 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; 8. That this site shall meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance and hall 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; 9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated March 4, 2008; 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated March 6, 2008; March 18, 2008 24660 11. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 12. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 13. 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; and, 14. 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 approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 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 85-03-08-03 JAMES BLAIN ASSOC. Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 85-03-08-03 submitted by James Blain Associates requesting to modify the approved landscape plan, which previously received approval, in connection with the Cambridge Office Center, a high-rise office building at 38777 Six Mile Road, located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway in the Northwest % of Section 18. Mr. Miller: The Cambridge Office Center is four stories in height. The City granted site plan approval on December 7, 1987. The petitioner has explained that the landscape plan has been revised to eliminate all the Ash trees that were destroyed by the Emerald Ash Borer. The new submitted landscape plan shows the existing conditions of the site. The main difference between the new proposed plan and the original approved plan is the elimination of all the trees in the parking lot islands. The petitioner explained that when the trees were removed they were cul below grade, filled in with dirt, and then the area was covered with stones. The 50 foot wide greenbelt along the southern property line that screens this site from the adjacent March 18, 2008 24881 residential homes, as well as the other landscaping of the site, would remain as approved. That is the extent of the proposal. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: No, there is not. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. If you could please come forward. Good evening. Kris Sibert, James Blain Associates, 39209 W. Six Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation thus far? Ms. Sibert: Well, yes. We did major improvements to this site in '07 in upwards of $50,000. We installed over 665 species of plant life, trees, shrubs, ground cover, perennials, to improve this site. On the berm you can see we did replace three Austrian pines. They were all eight feel high; one of them was dying. And then around the dumpster enclosure, we also installed three arborlivae that were eight feet tall. So we've done a considerable amount of work to this site. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? It's a pretty straightforward request. Thank you for coming in. We appreciate it. 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 LaPine, seconded by Varloogian, and unanimously adopted, It was #03-23-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 85-03-08-03 submitted by James Blain Associates requesting to modify the landscape plan, which previously received approval in connection with the Cambridge Office Center, a high-rise office building at 38777 Six Mile Road, located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275/96 Expressway in the Northwest I/ of Section 18, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet No. A-1 dated November 14, 2007, as revised, prepared by James Blain Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; Mach 18, 2008 24662 2. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution Council Resolution #1154-87, which granted approval to construct a higlrnse office building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: I just like to make a comment. For the record I'd like to note that Mr. Blain does take very good care of his properly, and I'm sure this request is done for the right reasons. For that, I will be supporting the motion. 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 2008-01-08-03 DESIGNERS GROUP Ms. McDermott, Acting 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. Mrs. McDermott Do we need to remove it from the table? Mr. Walsh: Yes, we do. This item was tabled. We will need a motion to remove it from the table first. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-24-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby remove from the 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 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. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. March 18, 2008 24663 Mr. Miller: On March 14, 2008, new revised plans were submitted. The Fire Department has been sent a copy of the new plans. According to the petitioner, these new plans meet all the concerns of the Fire Department. Some of the changes include the downsizing of the building from 11,275 square feet to 11,032 square feet. The plans show 44 spaces striped and available with 28 parking spaces landbanked to the north of the building. A fire lane has been installed along the west elevation of the building. The enclosed dumpster area has been relocated to allow a row of continuous parking spaces behind the building A six (6') fool high prolective wall will be erected along the entire length of properly line where this site abuts residential, which is along the north property line and then a 100 feet along this east section of the site. There has also been an elevation change. Dryvit elements would not decorate the front and side elevations. The building is still brick with the block along the base and the rear elevation would be block. That's the extent of the proposal. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: We have one letter that updates the report by the Livonia Fire and Rescue Division, dated March 6, 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. All objections have been addressed, and we have no further stipulations to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Morrow: I have a question for Mr. Miller. How many parking spaces actually exist on this site now? How does that compare to the ordinance requirement? Mr. Miller: There are 44 spaces available. They are required to have 72 spaces. Mr. Morrow: In other words, they do have sufficient parking if they remove spaces for the landbank to the north. Mr. Miller: Yes, theywould havejustthe right amount of parking. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. March 18, 2008 24664 Mr. Walsh: Any additional questions? Okay. Seeing none, we will go the petitioner. Ali Raichouni, Designers Group Inc., 7555 Greenfield, Detroit, Michigan 48228. I'm representing the developer, Mike Katbey. As far as our changes, the biggest change was recommended by the Planning Department to turn that parking on the north side into a landbank, and if we ever need additional parking because of the tenants, depending on what sort of tenants we're going to have in there, if we did need them, then we develop that north parking lot little by little. So that was suggested by the Planning Department, and we have no objections to that. We're hoping that the 44 parking spaces that we do have will be enough for the customers that are going to be using this building. As far as the dumpsters, I moved them into an orientation so it's even easier for the trucks to come in and out. As far as the Fire Department, we addressed the Fire Department. We addressed all other issues that had to do with the Building Department, the Fire Department, the Police and all other departmental reviews. The other thing that I took some time in doing was redesigning the front elevation and the sides. As you can see, the front elevation now reflects a gray split face block about 2 feel 4 inches from the bottom, just for heavy traffic. It will withstand a lot of weather and traffic and all that, so it doesn't deteriorate at the bottom. I do a lot of the buildings like that and I think it looks a lot nicer aesthetically and for the future so the building looks like it held up in good condition. Above that split face block, there is a four -inch limestone sill. You can probably see it in the elevations more. That carries all the way across, and then on lop of the limestone sill is a red brick. We do have some samples. I'll bring it in a minute. That carries all the way toward the lop, and then there's some dryvil design on the two ends of the building. Some awnings that were suggested, but we could always carry on the awnings on even more tenant space if the tenants would like. We could even add gooseneck lighting and things like that, but I didn't want to go overboard until the developer gives me a green light on those kinds of things. What else did I do to that building? As far as that's concerned, I tried to decorate it as much as possible to look aesthetically nicer. It's a higher building. It was 154" before. I think the max height now on the left side is probably 26 feet. So it's a larger building, a higher building, and I think it will look a lot nicer for that area. If you have any questions, I can address the issues for you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? March 18, 2008 24665 Mr. Wilshaw: I see the architect was kind enough to bring a sample of the bricks. This is going to be the actual brick that is going to be used? Mr. Raichouni: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Is that the only material sample that you have? Mr. Raichouni: That's the only one. I told him to bring them in, and that's the only one he has right now. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Great. Mr. Raichouni: But its going to be a gray split face block. It looks almost like limestone, but it's like a lock base on the front. The limestone that looks nice is the sill, and then the brick will look like that. Toward the middle of that stucco in the center of the building, we'll have a decorafive one fool crown that's made out ofdryvil. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I appreciate you explaining that in detail to me. Thank you. Mr. Raichouni: No problem. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions? Ms. Varloogian: With the taller face of the building, is that going to be sufficient to cover the mechanical equipment or are you going to shield that in a different way? Mr. Raichouni: Yes. I have the dimensions on the elevation also, but we have a three-foot parapet, three feet, two inches to be exact, that carries all the way across and then on the right side, you have an extra foot. So it will be four foot where that arch lakes place and on the left side where that arch takes place, you'll have an extra two feet. Ms. Varloogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Raichouni: So you have almost 3 to 5 feel of parapet all the way along. And then on the back, in order to address the back, the sides will also .... it's going to be a flat building, so we could carry that all the way around. Ms. Varloogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Raichouni: Its going to be flat roof. That's what I meant. March 18, 2008 24666 Mr. Morrow: I'm just curious. On the west end of your building, you have awnings and you have very similar architecture that's on the east side. I was wondering if you consciously Teff those awnings off to kind of keep it out of balance. Mr. Raichouni: The dryvil on the east side? Mr. Morrow: The awnings I'm talking about. Mr. Raichouni: Oh, the awnings. You know, we could carry it all the way across but the thing is, if you design something a little asymmetrical these days, people tend to take it as various kinds of buildings, and it looks a little more appealing for some people instead of symmetry, and some people like symmetry, but I tried an asymmetrical. Mr. Morrow: Well, just as one commissioner, I may not be asymmetrical, and I think we're looking for some relief on the building as opposed to just flat across. You're the architect. I'm just saying, as one commissioner, I like the awnings. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Seeing none, thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here tonight. Mr. Raichouni: The civil engineer is here if you want to ask him any questions on how they designed the catch basins and all the storm water, how it will be detained on site. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Mr. Taormina: I have a comment if Scott could go back to the site plan. Regarding the parking, the plan still has to show the full 72 parking spaces in order to be compliant. So one of the things that would have to occur is that the plan would have to be modified to show all the parking spaces and those that would be reserved for future use or Iandbanked. The ordinance specifies that the Planning Commission and City Council can authorize the Iandbanking of no more than 25 percent of the total parking. That would equate to 18 parking spaces. So this plan would still have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals inasmuch as the width of the aisleway that was shown providing access to the reserved parking did not comply with the ordinance. It's required to be 22 feel and he was showing 20 feet on the original plan. So that has not changed and would still require a variance. An additional variance would be needed if he wanted to Iandbark 28 parking spaces as opposed to the limit of 18 spaces, or he would have to add an additional 10 spaces onto this plan, at least in terms of what he would initially build out. March 18, 2008 24667 So if there is any concern regarding the amount of parking for the site, at least in order to be approved by Council and Planning, he would have to add 10 more spaces. How that would be done I'm not sure, probably one side or the other of the proposed dumpsler is how that would be accommodated or he would just go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and try to get that additional variance for the 10 spaces. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Any questions or comments? Mr. Wilshaw: Based on your comments, Mark, I'm starling to think about this landbanked parking area and the fad that there is a dumpster enclosure essentially right in the front of what's going to be area where there could potentially be parking spaces added. Obviously, if they were to add parking spaces, that would require that they move the dumpster out of the way. Is that typical for us to see? It seems unusual to me to have a fairly permanent structure in front of a landbanked parking area. Mr. Taormina: That would be very uncharacteristic. He would probably have to reconfigure that dumpsler pad somewhat in order to provide an adequate aisleway or maneuvering isle for the additional parking spaces, which I'm going to guess would be 90 degree parking somewhere along that northwest corner of the property. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Sir, did you want to address something? Mr. Raichouni: I guess the only thing I want to say is that we could add as many parking spaces as required and reconfigure the dumpsters the way they were before and just add the parking spaces and then stop in order to acquire 18 parking spaces. We could always add that on there. At the same time, I was to the understanding that we didn't have to go to the zoning right now unless we do develop that area in the back. We're just trying to ... well, if it gets approved tonight also, you know, with your recommendation, but we just want to move forward with this project. If we recalculate the parking issue, because we have maybe three tenants that usually want office spaces in these plazas, and those require less parking. We went to the maximum for 125 square feet for parking spaces. If we multiplied it by 150 per parking spaces and took into consideration some of the back areas, I'm not sure if they let me do it Livonia, but in other cities, we take out 20 percent. If we took out 20 percent and divided that by 150, we would need a lot less parking spaces than the 71 that's required and we had 72. So we're really one parking spot ahead on 125 with the March 18, 2008 24668 calculation that the City of Livonia wants. So we do have a lot of parking for this building that is not going to be used at all limes unless it's a success and some business goes in there and a lot of people are using that business on a daily basis and fill up the parking spaces. But I think its more so ... I think its in and out kinds of businesses that are in there. Cell phone, pharmacy and then whatever else he's going to have, office spaces, taxes and accountants, which I see in some of his other plazas. Those are the businesses that he's going to have in there most of the time. Now I can't say that he might have a carry out restaurant here and there, maybe a full restaurant. But if he does do that, then he would need to develop that in the back. But right now, he's just looking for retail and office. Mr. Walsh: All right. Thank you. Are there any additional comments? There is no one in the audience to address this item. Mr. Taormina: Getting back to the issue of parking, being that this is a plaza containing more than four businesses or tenants, it has to be calculated in one of two ways: either at a ratio of one parking space for every 150 square feet of useable floor area or one parking space for every 125 square feel of useable floor area. The difference between the two is, with the 150 square fool calculation, he's limited to the amount of restaurants he can put inside this plaza. That limitation would be the equivalent of 15 percent of the gross floor area, so about 1,700 square feel. So he'd only be entitled to one restaurant with customer seating, but not including strictly carryout if he wanted to utilize the 1 to 150 and stay with this amount of parking. I understand from a practical standpoint there's probably more parking than may be needed if he has to breakdown as he's indicating, but that's something that still may have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals depending on the final design. The other option again, is just to push that dumpster back and add the 10 parking spaces. I suspect that is what they would do, but I dont know that it eliminates the need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Remember, we have to approve a plan that would ultimately be developed or may be developed, and that would be with the full parking to comply under the ordinance, and if it doesn't comply in all respects, it would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. There being nobody in the audience other than the petitioner, in the absence of any additional questions or comments, then a motion would be in order. Mr. Wilshaw: I appreciate the work of the architect to come back to this meeting and provide us additional site plan renderings and March 18, 2008 24669 accommodate some of the requests that the Fire Department had in regard to their concerns with this site. That being said, I look al this new rendering, even the old one, and I have difficulty warming up to the basic aesthetics of it. It is asymmetrical. I suppose there is purpose for that in some places and this is just my opinion, but this is not exciting me in any way. With that, I almost wonder do we really need this type of development in this area. This is a corner of our city, the southeast corner of our city at Joy and Inkster, and an area that is important to us because this is the entrance to the city. There's a lot of other property near this development that will remain undeveloped as a result of this particular petition and will make it, I think, more difficult for those other properties to be developed in a way that I think we envision. There are issues of parking. There are other concerns with this site. Because of that, at this point, I'm going to offer a denying resolution. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-25-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that 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, be denied for following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the layout of the proposed development would have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring properties; 3. That the proposal creates significant adverse impacts on adjoining parcels, public services, and community planning efforts; 4. With this location being in close proximity to the intersection of Joy Road and Inkster Road, which is one of the influential focal entranceways into the City, the proposed commercial development would not convey the aesthetic quality and appeal of the neighborhood or the City as a whole; March 18, 2008 24670 5. That part of the subject commercial site is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan, showing a designation of Medium Density Residential; and, 6. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents. Mr. Wilshaw: With that petition, I certainly commend the architect and the proposed landowner for making an honest effort at accommodating our requests. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. Is there support? There is support by Mr. LaPine. Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Wilshaw probably said everything I want to say. I've said from the beginning I wasn't in favor of itis. I don't think we really need any more strip malls in the city al this time. If he mel all the requirements of the ordinance, there is no way we could slop him, but there's land available here. My vision of this area is they have the vacant gas station at the corner, there's vacant land directly behind it, and four lots, small lots along Inkster Road, with older homes. I envision somebody could buy up this whole area and put in low density residential just like they did to the north of this piece of property. I think that's what we need more than anything else. We don't need any more strip malls. As Mr. Wilshaw pointed out, this is an entrance to our city and I'd like to see some nice development there, even if we had to go partly residential with a small shopping mall here at the time they build the residential. I think that's more practical than what has been proposed here tonight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morrow: Just to kind of give my sentiment. When it first hit us, I was pleased that we would come up with something that would be new building down there as a gateway to Livonia from that particular direction. But I have to concur with my colleagues that I'm just not sure that this is the one we're looking for. So I just wanted to add that. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution. March 18, 2008 24671 ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9591h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 959" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 4, 2008. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-26-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 959" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 4, 2008, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Wilshaw, Morrow, Varloogian, McDermott, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: Smiley ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 960" Regular Meeting held on March 18, 2008, was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Deborah McDermott Acting Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman