Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2010-03-02MINUTES OF THE 992n° REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 2, 2010, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 992otl Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Carol A. Smiley Joe Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Ashley Varloogian Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning & Economic Development Director, was also present. Chairman Morrow 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 fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2004-08-08-14 WIRELESS TOYZ Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-08- 08-14 submitted by Wireless Toyz, which previously received approval by the City Council on October 13, 2004 (CR #486-04), requesting approval to revise the elevation plan approved in connection with the commercial building at 37950 Ann Arbor Road, located on the southwest comer of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Taormina: This is in Section 31. It is the square mile that is bounded by Joy Road to the south, Newburgh Road to the east, and Eckles March 2, 2010 25247 Road to the west. This is a triangular shaped property at 37950 Ann Arbor Road. It is located at the southwest comer of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail. On October 13, 2004, the subject property received site plan approval permitting the exterior renovation of the existing commercial building on this site. One of the conditions of approval was that a certain elevation plan be adhered to. The exterior changes that we're going to look at this evening represent a significant departure from the previously approved elevation plan, which is reason why this item is before you. The 1,500 square fool building on this property was originally constructed as a gas station that included service bays and a small convenience store. It is currently being used as a retail store in connection with the sale of phones and phone accessories. The remodeling that took place in 2004 included the installation of brick along the lower portion of the building and E.I.F.S. along the upper part of the building. The photograph shows what the building looks like today. It contains a peaked roof with an asphalt shingled lop, and positioned at the top is a small decorative cupola. The petitioner is proposing to modify the appearance of the building. Portions of the existing sloping roof would be concealed by installing new parapet walls that would extend from the eaves up along the east or front part of the building and along the north and south sides of the building. There would be no modifications proposed along the rear or the west elevation of the building. Basically, beginning from the gutter line up for a height of maybe 8 feet, would be the new parapet wall that would wrap around three sides of the building. Currently, the overall height of the structure from grade to peak is about 23 feel. It would increase slightly to 24 feet with the proposed changes. The new parapet would be constructed out of E.I.F.S. or a dryvil material. It would have a decorative cornice installed along the lop edge of the building. However, the existing shingled roof would not be removed and would be visible on the rear side of the building since that side would not receive any improvements. We have one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated March 1, 2010, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 12, 2010, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Non conforming window signage needs to be removed. Permanent window signage is not to exceed 10 square feet in area and temporary signage may not exceed 20 percent of the glass area of a building, may not be displayed for more than 30 days and may not be illuminated. (2) No signage has been reviewed at this time. (3) Petitioner will need to provide more information on how the roof drainage will be accomplished if this project moves forward. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by March 2, 2010 25248 Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Are there any questions from the Commission? Mr. Wlshaw: Mr. Taormina, I know we haven't talked about signage yet at this point, but because this is a building that has frontage on two major roads, would they be able to have signage on both the front fascia and then also the side at 50 percent of the size of the front signage? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Only one of the two sides would be permitted the additional signage, or half the amount of signage that would be allowed on the front elevation. So I guess that would be up to the discretion of the petitioner as to what side would receive the additional signage. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here? We will need your name and address for the record. Dave Jajjoka, Scope Data, 381 Deer Path Trail, Waterford, Michigan 48327. Mr. Morrow: Would you like to add anything to what you've heard so far tonight? Mr. Jajjoka: I made a new rendering for the elevation, and I didn't have the time to submit it. Mr. Morrow: There is a microphone over there and a place to stand please. Mr. Jajjoka: Basically, it is the same elevation that we have now here. I just made it today. We're going to keep everything as Mr. Taormina told you. We have this elevation here which looks more like a car repair than the commercial of what we have now. So we're going to keep everything here. We want a new look so he can put up the sign. Even now, we have three faces instead of two. We're going to leave the shell because of the min water. Mr. Taylor: Are you saying the rain is going to drain off the back? Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. Do you have the drawing I emailed you on the PDF, Sheet No. 2? Is it possible to see it? Maybe I can show it on the screen. Mr. Taormina: Is it this one? March 2, 2010 25249 Mr. Jajjoka: No. The other one. Yes. Exactly. Here is the roof. This is basically the front of the elevation. What we're going to do is just drain all the water to the back. We going to just build the saddle on the roof so we can keep the rooftop line as it is on the elevation. Mr. Taylor: There will be a gutter along the back with downspouts? Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. The gutter will be here. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Wilshaw: We haven't seen any signage yet. Are you planning to submit that at a separate lime? Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. We thought the signage should be separate. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Any snow that would fall between the front part of the roof and that front parapet that you're proposing to put up, would that also be able to drain to the back? Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Jajjoka: So we need to have one side at least so we can drain this rain water. Mr. Wilshaw: And the fascia will be able to support the weight of the snow that would be pushing on it? Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Jajjoka: We're going to use the same existing frame as you can see on this section on the lop. We have three sections, which is A, B and C. It shows how the connection is going to go to the existing frame there. It should be very lough. Mr. Wlshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Where is the mechanical equipment, the air conditioning and furnace? Is that on the roof or in the building? March 2, 2010 25250 Mr. Jajjoka: It is existing now inside the roof there. We're not going to touch R. Mr. Morrow: Its on the roof. Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. Ms. Smiley: What you're saying is that there's nothing on the back. You would see the old roof. Mr. Jajjoka: Yes, but it's going to be seen from the parking lot, which is next to the other building. Ms. Smiley: The Rite Aid? Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Its enclosed on three sides. Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. It's going to show only this side here. This is the existing. All of this is going to be shown on the side. Ms. Smiley: That's different. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. McDermott: I'm just curious as to why you're making the changes. Mr. Morrow: Sir, we will need your name and address. Danny Samona, Samona Construction, 31355 W. Thirteen Mile Road, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. The reason for the remodeling is that the owner of the building wanted to retrofit the establishment to today's standards. As you can see, what Dave had proposed was to square off the front as well as the two sides, raise the facade, and remodel it with a new finish. The overall goal was to give it a complete makeover inside and out. He recently changed from a Wireless Toyz to a Venzon exclusive. The inside has already been completed. That look has been there for quite some time. The owner recently converted to a Verizon exclusive, and by remodeling the interior and exterior, it gives consumers an idea that something new has come to the area. By doing this, the building will have a clear up-to-date look. It will enhance the community and neighborhood appreciation around the establishment. It will drive more revenue to the area and many potential businesses. When people in the community see a remodeling, other businesses may want to do the same and put more money into the area. Right now, he feels that he's 50 percent done with the project. The inside is complete. If he doesn't do the outside, he March 2, 2010 25251 feels he won't be able to maximize the potential of gaining the attention of consumers and therefore increasing business. That's the whole reason behind the remodeling. Mr. Morrow: Thankyou. Ms. Smiley: Why doesn't he want to do the backside? Is it because you need it for the drainage? Mr. Jajjoka: Yes. Mr. Samona: Not only that, but the backside is already existing now. The main reason is a budget factor. If we do raise the back, we would have to take off the entire existing roof and put a new roof to make water drain property. The owner doesn't have the funds to do that. It would be way too costly to do that, just to build a new roof over the existing. It would be too costly for him to do it, and he wouldn't be able to do anything. So we came up with this idea. It will still give the comer a look that is something new, and the back is already showing. It's already existing, and the water will drain the same way it will be draining now. Ms. Smiley: Have you ever done that where you only did three sides of a building? Mr. Samona: We've done it many times, three sides. We've done two sides. So yes, we have. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: I was over there today to talk to the owner and looked around the whole building. I got in the parking lot back where the stores are. It really doesn't look that bad from that area. The architecture of the back stores is not the greatest in the world. So we're not losing too much by looking at the back of this building. The inside of the store looks very nice. They redid the inside store. Its right up-to-date and very clean, and they have cleaned up some of the signs. My first intention was to say, well, maybe they should put four walls up. This is a good reason why they're not doing it because of the cost and because of the drainage. If you have to remove the whole roof, well, the cost would be way too much and we'd probably end up with the same building that we have there now. So if we want to update and give this gentlemen a chance to update his business and to do a good business there, I think if we approve this, it will be good for the neighborhood and good for Livonia. Thank you. March 2, 2010 25252 Mr. Morrow: Mark, I was pleased to see that the Inspection Department made no reference to the parking lot or the landscaping. So I'm assuming that's in pretty good shape. Mr. Taormina: Yes, that was all redone in 2004-2005. Mr. Morrow: It sounds good. So they kept it up. That's good. Do you have any other comments you'd like to make? Mr. Jajjoka: No. Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-14-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-08-08-14 submitted by Wireless Toyz, which previously received approval by the City Council on October 13, 2004 (Council Resolution #486-04), requesting approval to revise the elevation plan approved in connection with the commercial building at 37950 Ann Arbor Road, located on the southwest corner of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked SH2 dated February 10, 2010, as revised, prepared by Scope Data, L.L.C., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Color Rendering as received by the Planning Commission on March 2, 2010, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the existing E.I.F.S. on the lower part of the building shall be repainted where needed; 4. That the colors shall be submitted to the Council for review; 5. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; March 2, 2010 25253 6. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 7. That the total amount of all window signage, permanent and temporary, shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the glass area of the building; 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Wlshaw: We were juslquestioning this color rendering lhalwas provided. Does that need to be referenced in the approving resolution or does it just need to be in the official record? Mr. Morrow: That's a very good point. If you want to pursue that thought, we can see if there's any defini ive things they want to make. Mr. Wlshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: I would recommend that we reference the new rendering. We'll do that as part of the resolution by referring to a date stamp this evening. And if I could, Mr. Chair, just offer one friendly amendment to the resolution, and that is, that the colors be submitted to the Council for review at their meeting and also that the lower part of the building, the existing E.I.F.S., be repainted where needed. I noticed today when I visited the site that some of the E.I.F.S. is looking a little bit aged. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taylor, any problems? Mr. Taylor: Not a problem. Mr. Morrow: Ms. Scheel? Ms. Scheel: Not a problem. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. We will include that in the motion. March 2, 2010 25254 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2008-01-08-02 PARKVIEW BAPTIST Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008- 01-08-02 submitted by LVM Architecture & Planning, on behalf of the Parkview Baptist Church, which previously received approval by the City Council on March 31, 2008 (CR #130-08), requesting an extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to expand and renovate the exterior of the existing fellowship hall and expand the parking lot of the church at 9355 Stark Road, located on the west side of Stark Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Taormina: I have nothing to add other than this is a request for an extension of the site plan that was previously approved. The petitioner is here this evening. Mr. Morrow: May we have your name and address? Louis Margilan, LVM Architecture and Planning, 15126 Woodworth, Redford, Michigan 48239. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Do you have any comments? Mr. Margitan: I have no comments. I am here to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commission? Seeing none, I'll call for a motion. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-15-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-01-08-02 submitted by LVM Architecture & Planning, on behalf of the Parkview Baptist Church, which previously received approval by the City Council on March 31, 2008 (Council Resolution #130- 08), requesting an extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to expand and renovate the exterior March 2, 2010 25255 of the existing fellowship hall and expand the parking lot of the church at 9355 Stark Road, located on the west side of Stark Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request for an extension of Site Plan Approval by Louis Margitan, architect with LVM Architecture & Planning, in a letter dated February 8, 2010, is hereby approved for a two-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #130-08 in connection with Petition 2008-01-08-02, which permitted the expansion and renovation of the exterior of the existing fellowship hall and expansion of the parking lot of the Parkview Baptist Church, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, roll call please. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Y1:4 kS E;R»:kIY0Eel IU49=1SH011=1Z Y1 Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 02-08-05 submitted by S&N Development Company, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (CR #183-03), requesting a sixth extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Mr. Taormina, do you have anything? The petitioner is standing at the podium. We will need your name and address, sir. Sam Shamie, S&N Development company, 26111 W. Fourteen Mile Road, Suite LL -4, Franklin, Michigan 48025. March 2, 2010 25256 Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Shamie by the Commission? Mr. Taylor: No questions. I'll just say that Mr. Shamie has been hanging in there tough for quite a few years now. When the economy gets better, he's going to give us a good building. I know that. Mr. Shamie: I wish I could find the tenant. Every day we try, and there's no financing available whatsoever. We keep talking to different types of companies, medical, research and development companies, high tech, even talking to Infineon across the street, but nobody is ready to proceed. There's really no financing available in the marketplace. Mr. Taylor: Good luck to you, Sam. Mr. Shamie: Thank you very much. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions for Mr. Shamie or comments? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-16-2010 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02-08-05 submitted by S&N Development Company, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (Council Resolution #183-03), requesting a sixth extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request for a sixth (6th) extension of Site Plan Approval by Sam Shamie, managing member of S&N Development Company, in a letter dated February 12, 2010, is hereby approved for a two-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #183-03 in connection with Petition 2003-02-08-05, which permitted the construction of a three-story office building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. March 2, 2010 25257 Mr. Morrow, 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 991" Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 991" Regular Meeting held on February 9, 2010. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and adopted, it was #03-17-2010 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 991n Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 9, 2010, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, Scheel, McDermott, Wilshaw, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: Varloogian ABSTAIN: Smiley Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 992otl Regular Meeting held on March 2, 2010, was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman