Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2010-06-29MINUTES OF THE 997m PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 29, 2010, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 997th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Ashley Varloogian R. Lee Morrow Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Vice Chairman Wilshaw 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 turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2010-06-02-11 LIVONIA KONEY Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2010-06- 02-11 submitted by Livonia Koney, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Koney Island Inn) at 29530 Seven Mile Road within the Livonia Marketplace shopping center, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. June 29, 2010 25360 Mr. Taormina provided background on the item and presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated June 14, 2010, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description provided closes and describes the overall property but should be appended with the follow statement. ...and more specifically, the premises located at the south end of the Building D, assigned the address of 29508 Seven Mile Rd, with the internal dimensions of approximately 43.75 feet by 80 feet, and containing approximately 3,500 square feet. The address according to our records is, 29508 Seven Mile Rd." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated June 17, 2010, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Koney Island Inn, located at 29530 Seven Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 24, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 8, 2010, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. A sign detail has not been submitted or reviewed for this petition. However, this property is considered a regional shopping center, which allows one square foot of signage for every one lineal foot of building frontage. The number of signs is not limited. A master sign plan should be submitted for review to prevent one tenant from using all of the allowable wall sign square footage and requiring all other tenants in the same building to apply for a variance. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. We also received a letter dated June 24, 2010, from Virgina Pintal, which reads as follows: 9 am writing about the notice 1 received regarding a waiver to 'object'to an approval for a Class C Liquor License for full service restaurant (Koney Island) or any other who may be interested. I live on Vassar and this would be in just my walking distance. Plus, there is a church close by which has a grade school. 1 am unable to attend the hearing. Why do we need liquor being sold when there is a bar at Seven Mile and Merriman. Plus a large liquor wine etc. sold? Thank you." The letter is signed by Virginia Pintal, 30080 Vassar Street, Livonia. Michigan 48152. That is the extent of the correspondence. June 29, 2010 25361 Mr. Wlshaw: Are there any questions for the staff? If not, if the petitioner could please come forward. We ask that you please state your name and address for the record. Lisa Hamameh, Adkison, Need & Allen, P.L.L.C., 40950 Woodward, Suite 300, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. I'm an attorney. I represent Patricia Keros, who stands to my right as one of the members of the applicant company. We are here to answer any questions that you might have. In direct response to the Inspector's correspondence, we will be submitting a master sign plan for approval. That's not an issue. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Ms. Hamameh: We also have with us today Karl Zarbo from Lorimax Stem. They are the owners of the property as well as the developer. We're all here to answer any questions that you may have, but we have read the Planner's report and we agree with it. Mr. W Ishaw: Is there anything else that you want to add at this time? Ms. Hamameh: The only thing that I would like to add, based on some conversations that I know took place at the study session, if that's appropriate right now to do, I'd like to do that. Mr. Wilshaw: Go ahead. Ms. Hamameh: This is a request for a tavern, just beer and wine. I know there were concerns the Iasi time you were here about reclassifying that as a Class C. But just so that everybody is comfortable with this, in order to reclassify to Class C and be able to sell liquor, we would have to submit a brand new application, and it would go through this whole process again and gel City approval. So there is a mechanism for you to prohibit that in the future. I also wanted to clarify, this is a restaurant with full service dining. There is no intent here to tum this into a bar. Patricia and her father really want to go back to the way the coney islands used to be where you can go in and order a beer with your coney. That's really what this is all about. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Taylor: The original coney island that was in the mall didn't have a liquor license if I remember correctly. Ms. Hamameh: No, it did not. Mr. Taylor: So is there a reason why you feel you need it now? Jure 29, 2010 25362 Ms. Hamameh: Again, it's to go back to the way coney islands used to be. Its more of a convenience to the consumer to be able to get a glass of beer with your coney and fries. That's really the main reason. Mr. Taylor: I know at one time there was what they called a Tavern License, which the Stale did away with. Now, it's classified as a Class C. So you have no problem with what we're saying is, you're just going to serve beer and wine, and in order to change it, you'd have to go back to the Council. Ms. Hamameh: Yes. In fad, we are in contract to purchase, contingent on approval, a Tavern License from an old Pizza Hut in Redford. Normally what you would have to do is apply for a Class C and then declassify it to a Tavern. We actually found a Tavern that we're going transfer so that we don't have to declassify, reclassify anything. And again, if we do at some point in the future, which I dont think there's any intention to do that, but if there is ever an intention to gel liquor, we would have to reapply with the Liquor Control Commission and it would have to gel City Council approval. Mr. Taylor: How many years was the coney island there before? Patricia Keros: Forty years. Since 1965. Mr. Taylor: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear. Ms. Keros: Since 1965. More than 40 years, 42 years. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Ms. McDermott: For the viewing audience, we had a little bit of discussion at the study session about the window that shows over there on the side. If you could talk a little bit about that and what the intent is for the window. Ms. Hamameh: The intent for the window is simply a convenience for carryout customers to not have to come into the restaurant to pickup carryout. It's not a drive-lhru. It's not a walkup. In fad, the Liquor Control Commission requires signs to be posted that says no alcohol out this window. Ms. McDermott: Okay. So the intent is that if someone were to order ahead, lheyjusl pick up their food there? Ms. Hamameh: That's correct. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. Jure 29, 2010 25363 Ms. Keros: If I may add, its really just for lunchtime busyness so they don't have to come in and gel in line with the customers who are paying or ordering from inside. It's really just a convenience for the busy time. It's not even going to be open at all times. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: I was wondering, could they gel takeout and then go and sit in that outdoor area or not? Ms. Keros: The outdoor area is a serving area. It's enclosed and we will be serving it from inside the restaurant. Its not a takeout area. Ms. Smiley: Will they be able to drink out there? Ms. Keros: Yes, they will be. Mr. W Ishaw: Is there anything else you'd like to add? Ms. Hamameh: I don't want to be pushing my luck here, but I understand you have a seven day rule to make resolutions effective. If, in fad, you were inclined to grant this resolution, I would ask that you consider waiving that seven day requirement. The reason is we have a target open date of July 27. 1 know that you can still open the restaurant without a liquor license. We, as liquor licensing attorneys, highly recommend against doing that because your first impression is always the lasting impression. So our advice to restaurants who are opening is wait until you can get a liquor license. So ideally, we'd like to speed this up a little bit so that it can coincide with our opening date. Ms. Scheel: Can you tell me what your hours of operation are going to be? Ms. Keros: From 6:00 a.m. in the morning for breakfast through 10:00 p.m. at night. Ms. Scheel: Is that seven days a week? Ms. Keros: Its seven days a week. That's Monday through Friday. Saturday would be shorter, probably maybe 8:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. And then Sunday, it would probably be around 9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Ms. Scheel: You'd never be open later than 10:00 p.m.? Ms. Keros: Not at this point do we intend to open after 10:00 p.m. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Jure 29, 2010 25364 Mr. Taylor: Under normal circumstances, if you ask for the seven day waiver, it's usually an agreement between the Chairman and the President of the Livonia City Council. I don't have a particular problem with it, but it's up to the Council actually if we do that. Ms. Hamameh: Okay. I did speak to the President today and he's asked me to put that in writing and send it to him. Mr. Taylor: Very good. Mr. W Ishaw: I appreciate that. That was going to be my next comment was, typically, seven day waivers are something that are already planned out to make sure it works with the Council schedule. If you've already done some of that legwork, then we'll see if the Commission wants to float that idea. Ms. Hamameh: Great. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that wants to address this? Mr. Zarbo, please come forward. Karl Zarbo, Director of Operations for Lorimax Stems. We are developing the shopping center, own it and will manage it. As Patricia mentioned, it really is an honor to stand before you tonight. And as Mr. Taylor mentioned, this is the second generation and the second wave with Coney. Coney was one of the tenants that celebrated the opening of the original Livonia Mall. I've had an opportunity for the 25 years that I've lived in Michigan to work with George Keros and I have to tell you what a treat it is to now be working with his daughter. I don't think there's too many examples that you'll point to across this entire nation where you've had a tenant in operation for almost 45 years. The center was demolished, is being rebuilt, and the second generation has come forward to reoccupy the same center. I think its a great story. In addition to that, I've been very fortunate to work this group and this family at several different restaurants, several different shopping centers across southeast Michigan. I could tell you that they've been a delight to work with, and we're pleased that they hung around for the couple years while we did our work and they're coming forward. A couple of the questions that were raised earlier as it relates to the license, number one, we have lease language that supports what they testified to tonight. Also, we have restricted covenants as to the bar concept with other tenants. So that's reinforced. Not only would they need to come back before the Council, but they would certainly need to come back before the landlord. So we believe that we're all on the same page with that. So really again, thank you for the opportunity to address Jure 29, 2010 25365 you and just to again state it's really a pleasure to be in a situation where we're welcoming the second generation to come back to a retrofit shopping center. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Zarbo. How is the rest of the project going at this point? Mr. Zarbo: We are scheduled for the Walmart to open on August 4. That is on schedule. We will start then, very late July and early August, with the tenants sequencing. We certainly would like more leasing activity but we're encouraged in what's happened in the last 60 days. Everything is pulling together and on schedule and looking forward to Walmart's opening on August 4. Mr. Wilshaw: That's great. I appreciate the opportunity to gel a bit of an update from you since you're here. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Zarbo? Thank you very much. I'll close the public hearing. A motion is in order. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #0642-2010 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 29, 2010, on Petition 2010-06-02-11 submitted by Livonia Koney, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Koney Island Inn) at 29530 Seven Mile Road within the Livonia Marketplace shopping center, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-06-02-11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That this waiver use is granted for the sale of beer and wine only, for consumption on the premises, and shall not include mixed spin( drink or spirits as defined under the Michigan Liquor Control Code; and 2. That the petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement limiting this waiver use to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use to a new user only upon the approval of the new user by the City Council and the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. Subject to the preceding conditions, the petition is approved for the following reasons: June 29, 2010 25366 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Does the petitioner understand the concept of the conditional waiver use that was described? Ms. Hamameh: Yes. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, do you want the seven day waiver? Mr. Wilshaw: If you want to offer that. Mr. Taylor: I will offer that, Mr. Chairman. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously approved, it was #0643-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective dale of a resolution after the seven- day period from the dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2010-06-02-11 submitted by Livonia Koney, L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license (sale of beer, wine and spirits for consumption on the premises) in connection with a full service restaurant (Koney Island Inn) at 29530 Seven Mile Road within the Livonia Marketplace shopping center, located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast 114 of Section 2. Jure 29, 2010 25367 Mr. Wilshaw, 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 2010-06-08-01 AZD ASSOCIATES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 06-08-01 submitted by AZD Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office complex consisting of two separate buildings at 14815 and 14801 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Taormina: As indicated, this is in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, which is a square mile bounded by Five Mile Road to the north, Farmington Road to the east, and SchoolcraR Road and the 1-96 Expressway to the south. Its a request to develop a two- building medical office complex on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Street and Five Mile Road. This site consists of two adjoining vacant paroels, 14815 and 14801 Farmington Road. The property altogether is 1.78 acres in area. It has 132 feel of frontage on Farmington Road and an overall depth of 584 feel. As you can see from the zoning map, the property is split zoned with the easterly 539 feel of the property zoned OS, Office Services, so the majority of this site is zoned for office purposes. The rear or westerly 45 feel is zoned R-2, One Family Residential. In May, 2007, the City Council granted site plan approval to construct a general office complex. That would have consisted of three separate buildings with a gross building area of about 19,300 square feet, as well as 84 parking spaces. That project never commenced and the site plan did expire. The current proposal is to develop the site with two buildings and in two distinct phases. Phase One would involve the construction of the front half of the site, which is the easterly building referred to on this plan as Building A. It's the one closest to Farmington Road. Phase Two would consist of the back portion of the site, which is the westerly building, or Building B. Livonia Dermatology would be the tenant and would occupy all of Building A. That building is about 7,158 square feel in size. Building B presently does not have a tenant. Phase Two would commence only when a primary tenant is found for that building. The two buildings would be positioned side by side along the southerly portion of the site. Parking would be provided to the east, north and west sides of both Jure 29, 2010 25368 buildings. Building A would be set back about 165 feel from Farmington Road. The setback minimum is 40 feet. The main entrance to Building A would be on the north side of the building. The distance between the building and the rear or south property line is 10 feel, which is the minimum. The property to the south, which is the Brighlhouse Networks parking lot, is zoned similarly. It's zoned OS, Office Services, as well as P, Parking. Both of the proposed buildings on this site would be one story in height. Building B is slightly smaller at 6,717 square feel. When you add both buildings together, they total 13,875 square feel. So in comparison with the previous site plan where the buildings totaled about 19,300 square feet, this is a smaller total building area. However, the parking requirement for medical office is greater than that of general office and that is the main reason why you see a slightly smaller building area. In terms of parking, they are required to have 101 parking spots. The plan provides for a total of 102 parking spaces. All of those spaces would be conforming in size. They would be 10 feel by 20 feel, and 10 feel by 18 feel where they abut landscaped area. The trash is handled in two different locations on the site. For Building A it is located to the east of Building A between the building and Farmington Road out front. The Planning Commission may want to lake a look at relocating the dumpsler area outside of the front yard area. The other enclosure will be located to the west of Building B and would not be visible to traffic on Farmington Road. Access to the site would be via a single two-way drive off Farmington Road. All the storm water runoff would be directed to an underground storage detention system that would be constructed beneath the parking lot in the front yard or between Building A and Farmington Road. In terms of landscaping, a detailed plan has been submitted. They are showing about 24 percent of the site would be retained in landscaping. One of the issues with respect to landscaping is along the westerly border. The Silver Village Senior Housing Complex is located immediately to the west of this property. The closest building in that area is about 20 feel from the west property line of the proposed office complex. It was for that reason that we retained this westerly 45 feet in the R-2 zoning classification in order to preserve that area as a greenbelt between the development of this site and the existing residential to the west. They show retaining 35 feel of that 45 foot area. They are proposing construction impact in the easterly 10 feet of that 45 foot area. So the request is to substitute a permanent greenbelt in lieu of a protective wall along the zoning line. This is a similar treatment that we used for the development of the Brighthouse parking lot. There is a greenbelt area, a heavily treed area, that exists between the property line and the edge of the parking lot. In addition, a small June 29, 2010 25369 vinyl clad picket fence was installed to define the edge a little bit better. The trees do come right up to the edge of that fence. What we're recommending is that whatever construction occurs here that we retain that full 45 feet and that we have the discretion of planting trees in any gaps in order to supplement the screening in that particular area. Lastly, just to go over the architecture quickly, this is the floor plan that the architect can discuss further if you so desire. He also has some renderings of the buildings on the board in front of you. As you can see, the building is one story with a multi -peaked asphalt shingled roof. The exterior building materials would be brick with some elements of stone and wood. There would be a brick soldier course with some brick coins along the edge, as well as limestone bands. The entranceways would be defined with canopies that extend out over those front entries that have standing seam metal and brick support columns. Overall, the height of the building is just under 24 feet in height so it is consistent with the other construction that has taken place in the area. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated June 21, 2010, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal descriptions provided close property. According to our records, the addresses for these two parcels are 14815 and 14801 Farmington Road. Complete Engineering drawings (including storm and sanitary calculations) must be submitted to the Engineering Division for review. It is noted that, as designed, the two buildings cross over a property line. It is presumed therefore that the two parcels will be combined prior to development." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 11, 2010, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building on property located at each of the above -referenced addresses. 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) This Division requests that the entrance drive be posted (along north side of buildings) 'Fire Lane — No Parking'. (3) Fire lanes shall be provided for all buildings that are set back more than 150 feet from a public mad or exceed 30 feet in height and are set back over 50 feet from a public road. June 29, 2010 25370 (4) 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. (5) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where access is dead -ended and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum turning radius of 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. (6) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. (7) 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, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated June 21, 2010, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Livonia Dermatology, located at 14815- 14801 Farmington. We have no objections orrecommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 24, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 9, 2010, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) These properties are split zoned and have a substantial landscape buffer at the west end of the property. Planning and/or Council may wish to address what would be required in the future if the existing landscaping buffer was to die off or be removed. (2) The petitioner shows a portion of this property to be developed at a future date. Planning and/or Council may want to set a time limit for when the future construction should be completed and conditions for how the property should be landscaped if not constructed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the staff? Ms. Scheel: Mr. Taormina, when you spoke about the tmsh dumpsler areas, you said that we might want to consider not having one in front of the building. Do you have any options for us to consider? Mr. Taormina: We could have that dialogue with the architect. One option might be somewhere across the front of the building a little bit further back, maybe on the north side, and remove one or two parking spaces to place the dumpsler there. Unless you feel that there are some additional things they can do to screen it there. Typically, we like to avoid having those in the front yard. Jure 29, 2010 253]1 Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Scheel: Mark, where are the landbanked parking spots going to be? Mr. Taormina: We can make a couple of suggestions with respect to the parking. You'll note on this plan that the parking as proposed adjacent to Farmington Road is closer to the right-of-way than what exists to the south on the Brighthouse Networks property. Then if you look further to the north, where there is one developed office building and another that's been approved, there is no parking or construction within 40 feel of the right-of- way. We've suggested that they could either remove these five or six spaces located adjacent to Farmington Road, or alternatively, push those back to the 20 fool setback line, which would make it equal with the edge of the parking on the Brighthouse Networks property. To do that would probably require the elimination of two of the parking spaces, and maybe a third space elsewhere on the site, but at least then we could provide for a consistent landscape strip along Farmington Road. They could easily pick up those additional spaces if they need them as part of Phase One by extending the parking a little bit further to the west into Phase Two. Ms. Smiley: Thankyou. Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair, Mark, is this property owned totally by one petitioner? Mr. Taormina: That's my understanding. Mr. Taylor: Is there a problem with where it is split off? Evidently, there is a split line there. It is not combined. Mr. Taormina: These are currently two parcels under single ownership. When they go to develop the site, they will be required to combine those as a single tax parcel. Mr. Taylor: I was searching, like you're talking about, with where to put the dumpster. Unfortunately, I looked in the front like you talked about, which they probably really don't want it in the front of their building. But I wondered if we could gel enough landscaping around where they have it now to where it would hide it. I know we always tell everybody to keep the doors shut. They never do that, petitioners, unfortunately, but do you think we could landscape around it with mature landscaping and keep it where it's at? Jure 29, 2010 253]2 Mr. Taormina: The other issue is this is a medical facility, and oftentimes they don't have a need for as large a trash container. Mr. Taylor: That was going to be my next question. We ask for internal compaction on many of the office buildings that we've done. Mr. Taormina: I think we need to have that discussion with the architect and the owner to see what options might be available. Mr. Taylor: I think that's a good idea. That was my second thought about the internal compaction because I know the Iasi few buildings that we did when I was on the Council, it was all internal compaction. I don't know if this type of business will allow that or not. I guess we'll have to hear that from the petitioner. Thankyou. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the petitioner here this evening? Will you please come forward and state your name and address? There's some questions that have already been posed. You might want to address those items. Dr. David Pegouske, 15160 Levan, Livonia, MI 48154. Hi. How are you? Good evening. Thanks for hearing my petition. My wife and I are both dermatologists and we're a solo practice right now. We're looking to building a big office for ourselves in order to improve patient access and decrease wail limes. Our current office is about 2,000 square feel for two full-time dermatologists, so as you can tell, my wailing room kind of backs up just a little bit. What we were looking to do is start with an owner-occupied building. The first building would be just us. We want to make a nice building, and I agree with what was said about the dumpster. I'd rather not have a dumpster in front of the building. Our goal is to put a building on Farmington Road, which I consider the downtown Livonia area. We want it to be nice, and we want it to be pretty and contribute to the landscape nicely. I brought my architect. This is Frank Zychowski from AZD. He may know a little bit more of the details. We hope you will approve our petition. Mr. W Ishaw: I see you have the color rendering and site plan available for us. So if we need you to talk to those details, maybe you can go over there and point things out if that's necessary. There were some questions that were asked about the placement of the dumpster and also Iandbanking some of the parking spaces. Do you have any comments on that at this point? Dr. Pegouske: What you were saying about the front parking spaces, ultimately our primary objective really is for our office. There are more June 29, 2010 253]3 medical parking requirements than a general office and our thinking is that the back building may also be medical. Although we want to lose as few parking spots as possible, we also want it to look nice, and we want it to look nice for Farmington Road. I don't really have a problem with losing some parking in the front. My original thought was to have some nice landscaping up there anyway so it looks nice. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Mr. Taylor: The good doctor is located across from Sl. Mary Hospital right now. Dr. Pegouske: We are. Yes. Mr. Taylor: He has a very small building. It needs parking and an addition for the business that he does. He runs a nice business there. Unfortunately, I was one of his patients at one time, but he did a good job. So I'm doing all right. What about the medical end of it as far as the waste? Is it a possibility you could have internal compaction? Dr. Pegouske: My thinking is that the dumpsler generally would be very small, and I'm not even sure that we would need that. Right now what we do, we have a deal with the veterinarian next door. Their property is extremely small, even smaller than ours. So what we do is let their staff park in our already small parking lot and we use their dumpster, which is one of the smaller size dumpsters. We actually don't generate that much garbage. Mr. Taylor: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Taormina, but they could have the regular pickup and then have internal compaction for needles and that type of thing. Isn't that the way it works that Waste Management could pick up al their building? Mr. Taormina: They would contract for whatever pickup they needed, and I believe they have separate contracts with specialized companies for the medical waste. Dr. Pegouske: That's correct. Mr. Taormina: It's probably two different pickups, right? Dr.Pegouske: Yes. Mr. Taylor: I guess the question is, could you live without the dumpsler in the front of your building? June 29, 2010 253]4 Dr. Pegouske: Yes, but of course, I need a place to put the trash. Frank knows a little bit more of the details of the spacing and things like that. If I had it my way, to make a building look nice, you want nice landscaping in the front. You don't want it to look overly industrial. We're making the building look almost residential so R just looks nice, and I'd rather not have a big dumpsler in the front of my building if I could help it. It comes down, I think, to the parking requirements so that in the future, if we build what I think would be another medical office building, that we have enough parking. Mr. Taylor: I think Mr. Taormina's idea of Iandbanking that property is probably a good idea rather than have the cars parked right up near the front and farther away from your door actually. Dr. Pegouske: Yes. I dont really have an issue with it. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Frank Zychowski, AZD Associates, 35980 Woodward, Suite 300, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. 1 just want to make sure that when we use the term Iandbanking, I mean, we're going to do nice plantings up there, but if we ever do need those spots, would we need to come back to the Commission? How does that work if we needed those spots for the second building? Mr. Taormina: I'll have to check the ordinance. You may have to just notify us of your intention to install that parking at some later dale, and it may have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. You would just forego those spaces. There would be no need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals or anything of that nature. They're counted as part of your parking. You just delay the construction or maybe forego it altogether if they're never needed. The other option is a slight design modification that would give you a 20 fool setback from the nghl-of-way off Farmington Road, and you could still have a very similar parking arrangement. A few parking spaces would be removed from the front and you might be able to shift those further to the west. I think we have a couple options we can take a look at it and achieve what we're talking about. Mr. Zychowski: I mean we have no problem with trying to maintain the 20 feet as long as when we shift it back we dont lose four through the middle somehow. As far as the dumpsler is concerned, with the potential phasing of this, we would look at the dumpsler location relevant to just one building. What we didn't want to do is build a dumpster in back of that second building that might not be June 29, 2010 253]5 built for five years or whatever. What we would do is look at an alternative location right there. Exactly. Mr. Taormina: That could serve both buildings. Mr. Wlshaw: Definitely when it comes to landbanking of parking, we're not looking at eliminating those spots so much as we're just making paper parking spots with landscaping there for the time being. Hopefully you'll never need them, but if you do, they will still be available to you. Are there any other questions from the Commission at this point? I do have one other question that I'll ask. What is going to happen with the rear part of the properly where Building B is while Phase One is being implemented? Obviously, the second building is not going to be built, but what's going to happen to that grass or that area in the meantime? Are you going to maintain that or how are you going to deal with it? Dr. Pegouske: We had talked about two options. We had talked about a row of arborvitae where the back part of the parking lot would be. I know there's a weed and grass ordinance and stuff like that. Our intent is to maintain the property almost like a lawn. That's our intent. Its not the cheapest way to do it. In summary, I want it to look nice. We're going to treat it kind of like we treat the office right now, which is just to maintain the grass. We had also talked about arborvitae, again the tree buffer that you were talking about at the back so the condo association doesn't have a big building looking right into their windows. We understand that loo. That's the plan to put the trees in either one location or the next. I would be accepting of either, whatever the Planning Commission thinks. Mr. Wilshaw: Are you planning on building out the entire parking lot inifially or just the front portion of it? Dr. Pegouske: Unfortunately, it comes to funding. We're the only investors in our project right now. Our plan originally was to just do the front part of the parking lot and wail until we can afford to do the second phase of the project and then do the second phase later. Mr. W Ishaw: So the proposed area that the architect mentioned for possibly locating a dumpsler lands somewhat in between the two buildings. Would you at least build up the parking lot to that point? Dr.Pegouske: Yes. Jure 29, 2010 25376 Mr. Wilshaw: And then have the dumpster enclosure be the final piece of pavement essentially, and the rest would be grass. Dr.Pegouske: Yes. Mr. Zychowski: There's a vertical line that basically goes right through the two buildings. As it is presented, that would be sufficient parking to accommodate the first building. What we would do is put in all the underground, all the utilities, all the electrical, and grade the site, prep the site for the second pad, but would not install any foundations or any parking lot. I guess what we need to go back and look at is how the new dumpster location would work with the termination of our parking lot in Phase One. Our initial concern was having a trash vehicle having to back up the whole length of our building. We'll have to look at that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. It sounds like something that might need to gel worked out a little bit then. Mr. Taylor: Doctor, are you going to use the whole building or are you going to lease some of it out? Dr. Pegouske: As far as Building A, we're using the whole facility. Building B would be a potential lease out. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. W Ishaw: I do want to thank you for bringing the color renderings and the color site plan as well. That's very helpful to see. Its an attractive building. Is there anything else that you need to add or follow up with? Dr. Pegouske: I just want to say that my wife and I have been in the community for almost len years now. Its just a pleasure to be here and practice here. We really enjoy Irving and practicing in the same community. It's really nice. Mr. Wilshaw: We appreciate having you here. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak on this item? Seeing none, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #06-44-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-06-08-01 submitted by AZD Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office June 29, 2010 25377 complex consisting of two separate buildings at 14815 and 14801 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated June 3, 2010, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that no parking shall be closer than 20 feel from the right-of-way of Farmington Road, and that the Petitioner shall be allowed to landbank up to six (6) parking spaces pursuant to Section 18.37(J) of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked LP -1 dated June 3, 2010, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the existing vegetation within the 45 foot wide R-2 zoned greenbelt along the west property line shall remain undisturbed, and any vegetation that is removed or missing from that area shall be supplemented with additional trees at the direction of the Planning and Inspection Departments; 3. That a revised landscaping plan for the 20 fool wide greenbelt along Farmington Road shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit, and that the plan shall include at least three (3) full-size deciduous trees from the City's approved list of tree species; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet Numbers A-2.1, A-2.2, B-2.1 and B-2.2, all dated June 2, 2010, prepared by AZD Associates Architects are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; Jure 29, 2010 253]8 8. 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; 9. That the dumpster in the front of Building A shall be relocated to the north side of the site in the vicinity of the area between the two (2) buildings; 10. That the three walls of the trash dumpsler area(s) shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits, including stone 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 Natural Resources and Environmental (DNRE); 12. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in height as measured from the finish grade al the base of the structure to the top of the light fixture, and such fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 13. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated June 11, 2010, from the Livonia Fire and Rescue Division shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and/or Engineering Department; 14. 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; 15. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department al the time the building permits are applied for; and, June 29, 2010 25379 17. 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. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Ms. McDermott: Could we include something about the movement of the dumpster? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, how best can we modify the dumpster clause to incorporate the movement of it? Mr. Taormina: I think we have a good idea of what has been suggested here this evening in terms of relocating the dumpster to somewhere along the north side of the properly at a point probably equal to or west of Building A. We will fashion some language to be included in the resolution that will capture that intent if that is okay with the maker of the motion. Ms. Scheel: Thais fine with me. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taylor, is that okay? Mr. Taylor: Yes. Ms. McDermott: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw, Acting 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 2010-06-08-02 MID -FIVE SHOPPING CENTER Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2010- 06-08-02 submitted by ANK Enterprises, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the commeroial center (Mid -Five Shopping Center) at 29441- 29583 Five Mile Road, located on the southwest comer of Five Mile Road and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23. Jure 29, 2010 253W Mr. Taormina: This is the Mid -Five Shopping Center, which is at the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Five Mile Roads. It's in the northeast 1/4 of Section 23. This properly is about 9.5 acres in total area. It has 563 feet of frontage on Five Mile Road and about 460 feet of frontage on Middlebelt Road. It is a two building shopping complex that totals about 86,000 square feet of gross leaseable area. The Center was built in the late 70's and it really has not been remodeled since that time. What the owner would like to do now is undertake a number of exterior improvements to the structure. As it exists today, it is primarily a masonry type construction. It's fluted block. It has a sloping mansard roof that is constructed of standing seam metal. It's an L-shaped shopping center. Some of the stores front north toward Five Mile and others face easlloward Middlebelt. The majority oflhe parking lot is located adjacent to those store fronts. This a Photoshop photograph of the improvements they want to make. The most significant change would be adding a series of parapet walls along the top half of the building to enhance the appearance of the facade. This gives you idea of what that would look like on the space occupied by Aco Hardware. If you look to the left of this, this shows you the existing conditions. That's the existing sloping mansard roofline. Today that extends all the way across the upper portion of the building. What would be new is the parapet wall extension. This would be constructed out of an E.I.F.S. or dryvil material. These are the same elements that would be located on the other side of the shopping complex. These are smaller areas above the store fronts that would have this type of treatment. It does extend slightly above the existing roof line and you can see that it would provide a nice backdrop for the signs for those tenants that are located in front of these areas. The remaining sections of the mansard roof would be repainted. This shows the unit at the end as occupied by Outback Steakhouse. As we discussed at the study session, they're going to receive a little bit different color treatment along both the walls and the upper part of the roof line, but all of the masonry would be stained kind of a reddish brown color. That would include the support columns out front. I'll lel the architect describe that further. These are the rendered elevations plans prepared by Mr. Dmne that show you the improvement to the storefront. There are some others that the Commissioners should have copies of. Also, I want to talk a little bit about the landscaping. They have submitted a landscape plan that includes some minor changes to not only the landscaping but also the configuration of some of the parking lot, in particular, the parking spaces that are directly across from Retail Building B. The landscaping in this area would be removed except for two smaller islands that would remain at each end of this parking aisle. The landscaping would Jure 29, 2010 25381 be replaced with parking spaces. The plan would add 15 parking spaces and two barrier free spaces. In exchange for removing the landscaping here, they are proposing to eliminate 18 parking spaces that run parallel to Middlebelt Road on the east side of the site. This is an area of the parking lot that really isn't utilized that much. These spaces are much more convenient to the patrons who use this area of the shopping center. It makes a lot of sense from that standpoint to provide the parking here and add some landscaping. They are showing enhancements to the landscaping. Again, they will retain these two islands across from Building B, as well at the entranceways and along this island. They are going to modify some of the trees and shrubs in this area. I think what we need to discuss further this evening is what is being done along here. They are showing a series of new trees being planted here. There are a number of existing trees, and it's unclear what the extent of the tree removal is going to be on the site. I think that needs to be documented and shown on a plan prior to final approval by the Council. We will need to get an exact count on the number of trees being removed from the landscaping. Thank you. Mr. W lshaw: Is there correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated June 21, 2010, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description included in the plans is correct. Our records indicate that the addresses for this location are 29441 through 29583 Five Mile Road. If the developer decides to do any site work modifications as a part of this project, plans for same will need to be submitted to the Engineering Division for review." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 10, 2010, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to remodel the exterior of the commercial center on property located at the above -referenced address. 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 June 17, 2010, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in connection with Mid -Five Shopping Center, located at 29441-29583 Five Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 24, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 10, 2010, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. June 29, 2010 25382 The following is noted. We would recommend that the Planning Commission and/or Council address the outside sales area at ACO and define the limits and set parameters. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the staff? Mr. Taylor: Mark, isn't that taken care of by ordinance, everything outside of ACO there? Mr. Taormina: Yes. It was all subject to condifions of a waiver use that was granted to ACO a few years ago for that outside storage. Mr. Taylor: That's what I thought. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the pefitioner here this evening? I see we have Mr. Drane and a representative of the owner as well. Matt Kornmeier, ANK Enterprises, Inc., 36330 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. 1 am a principle at ANK Enterprises. Mr. Wilshaw: Do you have anything else to add at this time? Mr. Kornmeier: I just want to say on the landscaping plan, the goal was to replace one for one any trees being removed, particularly on the berm along Middlebelt. However, based on the recommended trees, which are large deciduous trees that are recommended by the City, our landscaping architect recommended that we do eight of them, 30 foot on center. They are alternating rubber trees and tulip trees which are large. Our plan is to let them grow up and trim them from the bottom so they don't obstruct the view for tenant signage, but they will get quite large. So they are going to be planted 30 foot on center. She didn't recommend any more than that based on the size of those trees. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions from the Commission? Mr. Taylor: Mark, what is the percentage of landscaping? Do they meet the requirement of the ordinance? The reason I'm asking, it seems along Five Mile its a little sparse the way it is right now. Mr. Taormina: We did not calculate the total percentage of landscaping. What I can tell you is that this is a net increase of a small amount. I think Mr. Dmne had calculated that previously, but we didn't June 29, 2010 25383 calculate it as an overall percentage of the site. Whether it meets the 15 percent overall, I don't know. We could certainly go back and check that. Mr. Taylor: I mean you're doing a nice job and what you're doing there is a great improvement. It just looked to me along Five Mile Road, before you gel to the gas station, there isn't much there. It's mainly grass I think. Mr. Kornmeier: Currently, there are a number of trees which are older and quite weathered looking. Mr. Taylor: The last time I went by there, I don't remember noticing them. Mr. Kornmeier: There are some trees there. They're on the bene all the way along in a line there. They are not clumped. Mr. Taylor: You didn't show them on your plan. Mr. Kornmeier: I didn't show them on the existing plan, but the new plan is consistent with what's there. Actually, the green space is more than what we are removing because we will be adding green space as far as the grass goes, and then as many trees as is recommended by the landscape architect in a line to fill that space. Mr. Taylor: I did notice on the north side of the building, it is fluted block and R's painted well. It's a good color. It looks like about what you're planning on putting on the rest of it. I don't know whether you're planning on painfing that or not. Mr. Kornmeier: Correct. On the north side where the Chinese restaurant is, is that what you're talking about? Mr. Taylor: Yes. Mr. Kornmeier: I don't know that we're planning on painting that, but it is nicely painted. There are no issues with it that I'm aware of right now. Mr. Taylor: Thank you. Mr. W Ishaw: That's a good segway. Did you bring the color material samples with you? I know you had them at the study meeting. Mr. Kornmeier: I think that Mark happened to bring them. Mr. W Ishaw: Can you put those on the podium? Thank you, Mr. Drane. Can you point out what color is for what piece? Jure 29, 2010 25384 Mark Drane, Rogvoy Associates, 32500 Telegraph Road, Suite 250, Bingham Farms, Michigan. The darker red color is what you see as a sign background, for instance, for the Outback sign. The red color you see next to it is the color of the stain. I can't brick it up because its floating up in the sky, and there's already masonry there. We thought we would at least give it the color of the brick. The lighter color you see is the cornice color on lop of the dark red, and we'll call it inset or cornice band along the bottom there is the light color. I tried to replicate the color of the Outback Steakhouse roof. The intent is to leave it the same color. We do want to paint the skirt the tan color so I can carry that lower dryvil light color across the line. The other stainless seam metal roof that is not associated with the Outback Steakhouse will be the tan color, and there's a little square tan metal color down there. The idea is to get rid of the green and bring some more lively colors to this spot. They call them impact colors because they are kind of brick colors, and they are going to make a huge difference on that site. Visibility from both the thoroughfares is going to be greatly improved. Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Dmne. It's a very good summation of what we have for colors there. Are there any additional questions from the Commission right now? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this? Seeing nobody, would the petitioner like to make a final comment? Mr. Kornmeier: I would make a final comment real quickly on the landscaping. I just wanted you to notice that at each of the entrances we added additional decorative landscaping and we re -landscaped the existing island in front of the Outback. So net there is quite a bit more landscaping in addition to having more overall green space which comes on the Middlebell side. The landscaping improvements here are significant, really, for the entrance on Middlebell as well as a lesser amount of landscaping over on the Five Mile side, which is sort of our secondary entrance. I just wanted you to notice that. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: Just again commenting on the landscaping. We did lake a look at the trees that are located along Middlebell Road. What exists there today are mostly locust trees and some pines and maybe a few spruce trees. There are some evergreen trees and some older locust trees. I think, if I understand this plan correctly, all of that would be removed at least at a point here north of the entrance drive to some point south of the gas station property. Is that correct? Is that your intention to remove all of what's existing there currently? Jure 29, 2010 25385 Mr. Kornmeier: Yes. Pardon me for not mentioning that. All of those trees, the pine trees that start just to the north end of the entrance, which are old and some are on their way out, all the way to the pylon sign, which is almost to the property up where the Mobil station is, will be removed and replaced by the trees that you see on the plan. Mr. Taormina: Okay. I think what we need to do is selectively remove the trees. I understand his intent is to clear everything here, but when we gel a little bit further up here, we should take a look at the trees to determine what should be eliminated. I think also it would be wise, as indicated by Mr. Taylor, and I apologize because I thought you were referring to the overall percentage of landscaping, but I think you're talking about the quality of the material. If we do have some dead, dying or diseased trees that are located along Five Mile Road, then now would probably be the time to remove those and have them replaced with new trees. Again, that would only apply if those trees are in really poor condition. We have to go back and take a look at them. I am aware that there's a couple that are dying on the site. If they fall outside of the area that he's referring to here that are going to be removed, then maybe the time is now that we can gel that taken care of. Mr. Kornmeier: Mark, our intention was to take a look at all of the trees, remove the ones that are dead or diseased, but specifically this landscaping plan is just addressing the area up to the Mobil station. Beyond that, I was going to have our tree guy come in. There are some that need to be trimmed and there's a couple, I think, that need to removed on the south side of the Mobil station and on the west side of the Mobil station, and then along Five Mile. Does that make sense? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that makes sense, but as long as the motion can indicate that there be an inventory of those trees being removed and replacement trees subject to our prior approval. Mr. Wilshaw: It looks like what we have is more or less a landscaping change plan. It doesn't address current landscaping, just what you're proposing to change or add or remove, particularly on the south end of the property. What we probably need is to have a comprehensive landscape plan that would indicate any existing trees or ones that need to be replaced. I think the approving resolution, should it go forth, probably can speak to having the Planning Department work with you to finish those details out. I think we're all on the same page, and it sounds like you're looking for the same thing we are. June 29, 2010 253W Mr. Kornmeier: Yes. Our intention was to address the remaining trees in the ordinary course of our landscaping maintenance, and we were just providing you with the plan for the landscaping changes associated with the renovation. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Scheel: I'm looking at this legend that was given to us with some landscaping. In one of the two designs that sort of look the same that have the arrows, it says there are stone pillars in there. Mr. Kornmeier: Those are located at the Middlebelt entrance. They're shown as stone pillars on either side of where that boxwood comes around. They're reallyjust decomtive pillars. Our consideration was maybe to make them brick to match the brick color, but I don't have the stone samples. There are some stone colors, that are available that may match nicely, but they are just decorative with a cap on them, just to highlight the entrance. Ms. Scheel: Okay, but will they be lit? Will there be any lights on them at all or they're just there for decoration? Mr. Kornmeier: They're decorative. At this point, they will not be lit. It will all be irrigated however. Mr. Wilshaw: Anybody else? Thank you. I think we're ready for a motion at this point. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #0645-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2010-06-08-02 submitted by ANK Enterprises, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the commercial center (Mid-Five Shopping Center) at 29441-29583 Five Mile Road, located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 114 of Section 23, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated June 11, 2010, prepared by Rogvoy Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated June 23, 2010, as revised, prepared by Grosse Pointe Landscaping, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; June 29, 2010 25387 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked A-1 and A-2 dated June 3, 2010, prepared by Rcgvoy Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be pennifted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 9. 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; 10. That prior to any tree removal, a plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning and Inspection Departments which identifies all existing trees to be removed and a replacement schedule using full size deciduous trees from the City's approved species list; and 11. 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. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina: Just to follow up, I just fashioned some very quick language and we can refine this, but if the maker would accept language to this effect: That prior to any tree removal, a plan shall be submitted which identifies all existing trees to be removed and a June 29, 2010 25388 replacement schedule using full size deciduous trees from the City's approved species list. Mr. Wilshaw: Is that okay with the maker? Ms. Scheel: I am good with that. Mr. Wilshaw: Is it okay with the supporter? Mr. Taylor: That's fine. Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 996m Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 986th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 8, 2010. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #0646-2010 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 9961 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2010, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, McDermott, Scheel, Smiley, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Vartoogian, Morrow ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3W Special Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 3981 Special Meeting held on June 15, 2010. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was June 29, 2010 25389 #06-47-2010 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 3W Special Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 15, 2010, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, Smiley, McDermott, Scheel, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Vartoogian, Morrow ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wilshaw: I do want to thank Ms. Smiley for her work as Secretary and congratulate Ms. Scheel who will be our new Secretary based on the outcome ofthat meeting. Ms. Smiley: Thankyou. Ms. Scheel: Thankyou. Mr. Taylor: Before we close, Mr. Chairman, if I may? Mr. Wilshaw: Go ahead, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor: We want to wish our Chairman a speedy recovery. He unfortunately had a small accident on Sunday. It kept him from going to the pole vault tournament that he had participated in. But at any rale, we wish him the best and he should be home by tomorrow, we hope. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. We will make sure he gets back to his ballroom dancing quickly. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 997th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 29, 2010, was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Acting Chairman