Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-11-21 18108 th MINUTES OF THE 815 REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA ____________________________________________________________________________ On Tuesday, November 21, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its th 815 Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Dan Piercecchi William LaPine Elaine Koons H. G. Shane Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II and Bill Poppenger were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing, and will 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 is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda. ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-10-08-17 Michael Soave Homes Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-10- 08-17 submitted by Michael Soave Homes on behalf of Garden Grove Condominiums requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on property located at 28974 Five Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt and Garden. This property is located between the Franklin Square Apartment Complex and the Mid-Five Apartment Complex. Right across the street from this site is a First Federal Bank. An on-site inspection showed that there is presently a vacant brick house on the property. Recently the Planning Commission recommended approval to have this property rezoned to RC, 18109 Condominium Residential. The rezoning request is presently at the Council level awaiting their action. This write up and examination of the plans are based on the property being rezoned to RC. The petitioner is proposing to construct two attached condominium type housing units on this site. Each structure would be 10,000 sq. ft. in size and consist of four condominium units each. Each of the eight units would be approximately 2,600 sq. ft. in size and would consist of a two story residential dwelling with an attached garage out in front. Four of the condominiums would face south, or Five Mile Road, and the other four would face north, or Lancaster Drive. To access the units facing Five Mile, a person would have to enter on to Garden Drive, drive around the boulevard island and turn in to the driveway. Three of the units of the rear building would be accessible off Lancaster Drive, with the remaining unit's driveway off Garden Drive. The landscaping on the site would consist of supplementing some of the existing trees and vegetation with new plant materials. A proposed undulating landscaped earth berm would provide screening from Five Mile Road. Landscaping required is not less than 15% of the total site. Landscaping provided is 43% of the site. The elevation plans show and note that the new attached condominiums would have the first floor brick on all four sides, with the second floor vinyl siding. The garages that stick out in front of each unit would be constructed entirely out of brick. The roofs of each building would be asphalt shingled. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated November 1, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal, although minor grade changes will be required by this department should approval be granted. We have notified the developer of this, and we will deal with the grade issues at the time of submission for permits from this department. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 3, 2000, which reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 15, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 30, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This petition has been reviewed as though the proposed rezoning to RC has been approved. (2) Lawn areas are not specified as sod and should be clarified. (3) The elevation detail is unclear as to whether the type of window cladding material is maintenance free and should be clarified. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? 18110 Mark Frederick, 2964 Wallsend, Waterford, Michigan representing Michael Soave. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about your project? Mr. Frederick: Right now, even though they say it is just brick for the first floor, we are going to do 10 foot ceilings, first floor ceilings. So it will essentially be 10 to 12 feet of brick, depending on the grade, rather than an 8 foot standard. We are going to do stamped concrete drives and walkways throughout the whole development. It will be a maintenance free window cladding. Other than that, it is basically as the renderings represent. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: You mentioned 10 foot ceilings. When we looked at your plan in the study meeting, we thought that it would be advantageous if you brick the east and west elevations up to the gables. Is there any problem with that? Mr. Frederick: We feel that by going with 10 feet of brick, we do have more brick than we are required and because of the rear elevation, we are doing a little bit of cantilevering to maximize square footage on the upper level which requires to be vinyl. That it would be better continuity to have some vinyl on the side elevations than just have three stories of brick on the sides and then half brick and half vinyl on the rear. Mr. Piercecchi: But the way you have it now on that end, you've just got a wainscot there. Mr. Frederick: The rendering does not depict exactly what is going to be bricked. It will be brick all the way up to the second floor. Mr. Piercecchi: Will that be up to the gables then? Mr. Frederick: This was done by an architectural renderer. It is not totally accurate in terms of dimensions. It almost looks like there is more vinyl here than there really is. The brick will be up substantially higher than that as shown but it will not go all the way to the gables, as our current plans are being presented. Mr. Piercecchi: Why can't it go to the gables? Don't you think that would look better? Mr. Frederick: Because if you take this elevation and take that brick all the way up to the gable there, you have a corner where you are going from vinyl to brick, which we feel that would look worse than this transition here. Mr. Piercecchi: I don't see how one relates to the other, frankly. One comes forward and the other one is sitting back. I don't see how that relates. They never meet. One goes perpendicular to the other. Mr. Frederick: In terms of architectural design, it works best to terminate brick on an inside corner rather than an outside corner and to go with a fully bricked gable, as you 18111 are requesting here, it would require that we terminate brick on an outside corner right at that point. Mr. Piercecchi: But don't you do that in other areas of that structure? Mr. Frederick: We do but they are not quite so obvious. Mr. Piercecchi: To me that looks rather unfinished. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: You said one reason you can't do it is because of the cantilevering there. Is the cantilevering on all four sides or just on two sides? Mr. Frederick: We are cantilevering just some bedrooms on the upper level. Mr. LaPine: Does that cause any problems for having the brick go all the way up? Mr. Frederick: Yes. Mr. LaPine: You can't do that if you put brick all the way up? Mr. Frederick: No. You could not do both. Mr. LaPine: What is the reason for the cantilevering? Mr. Frederick: The reason is to gain as much square footage economically, as possible. Right now the way the first floor is laid out, it is not really necessary to make the first floor any larger but to get three bedrooms and two baths on the upper level, we did need to gain some additional square footage on the upper level. Mr. Alanskas: You said these are going to be 2600 sq. ft.? Mr. Frederick: I don't believe the units are 2600 sq. ft. I believe plot plan wise, including the garage, they probably are 2600 sq. ft. a unit. The units are probably 2,000 sq. ft. of living space. Mr. Alanskas: Normally, I like to see as much brick as possible, but I tend to agree with the petitioner, I think looking at the rendering, the way it breaks off now, I think it is a good looking unit. Mr. LaPine: Are all the units going to have the same brick and the same vinyl siding? Mr. Frederick: No. Each unit has individual architectural elements that creates an individuality from unit to unit, whether it be vinyl shake or vinyl fish-scale siding in some areas, different louvering, dormers, a different hip gable over the garage. But each unit has some kind of different architectural element to make it different from the other units. Mr. LaPine: Then do all the units have to have the cantilevering on them? 18112 Mr. Frederick: Yes. The rear elevation is continued, from unit to unit. But the front elevation, as you drive up, each unit has some kind of different design element incorporated into it. Mr. Shane: Do those renderings actually depict the colors you will be using? Mr. Frederick: Yes. Mr. Shane: Is each individual unit going to maintain that coloration even though they are going to change the materials? Mr. Frederick: I am sure that will be written into the bylaws that a purchaser cannot change the color. Mr. Shane: O.K. Thank you. Mrs. Koons: I have a question for the staff. Mr. Taormina, does the plan we currently have reflect the brick up to the wainscot or up to the 10 to 12 feet of the first floor? Mr. Taormina: The elevation drawings submitted show the height of the brick extending above the windows on the lower level. The drawings appear to be consistent with renderings. The brick is shown at a height approximately 2 feet below what appears to be the second floor window on the side view of the building. You indicated earlier that the height of the brick is going to be measured from the finish grade along those side elevations. Mr. Frederick: The height of the brick is going to be based on the finish floor. It is going to be 10 feet above the finish floor. The finished grade from one end of the building probably will vary some. Keep in mind too that the rendering has landscaping painted up against the side of the building hiding some of the brick that actually is behind some of the landscaping. It does not give you a totally accurate representation of how much brick is really on the building. Mrs. Koons: What you are saying is that on the east and west elevation, you are unable to tell us how high the brick is going to be depending on where the inside second floor begins? Mr. Frederick: It is going to go all the way up to the bottom of the second floor. Mr. Alanskas: How high is that? Mr. Frederick: Ten to twelve feet, depending on grade. It is a 10 foot first floor, so you are going to wind up with 11 feet, minimum, of brick. Mr. Taormina: The renderings indicate that the brick will go all the way up to the top of the first floor, which is the equivilant of where the cantilevered section begins. It would be at least as high as the cantilevered portion of the structure. Is that correct? 18113 Mr. Frederick: Yes. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. That is helpful to me. Mr. Piercecchi: It would be up to the window on that side? Mrs. Koons: Up to where the second floor jets out? Mr. Frederick: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: I am looking at the end of the building. There is a window in that illustration, right? Mr. Frederick: Yes. There are windows on the end of the building. Mr. Piercecchi: Does the brick go up over the windows? Mr. Frederick: Yes, it does. Those windows are 7 feet off of the finished floor, which the finished floor would be 1 to 2 feet above the finished grade. Mr. Piercecchi: So you are going to practically be at the gables then? Mr. Frederick: I don't want to deceive you because they really won't reach the gable. The gable is up another 8 feet. There will be approximately 8 feet of vinyl and approximately 11 feet of brick. Mrs. Koons: I will agree with Mr. Alanskas that what the petitioner is proposing probably does offer more continuity than up to the gables. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? I don't see anybody. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #11-200-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-10-08-17 submitted by Michael Soave Homes on behalf of Garden Grove Condominiums requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on property located at 28974 Five Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 13 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 10/25/00 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the existing driveway off Five Mile Road shall be removed, the opening along the roadway shall be curbed and the evacuated area shall be filled and sodded; 18114 3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 10/24/00 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 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 Plan submitted by Michael Soave Homes, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on November 2, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to provided that the brick shall extend to the bottom of the second floor on all four (4) sides; 7) That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 8) That the grading of this site shall be to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department; 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. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: On item number 6, don't you think we should put in something about the brick shall be at least a minimum of 11 feet high? Mr. McCann: I think it is reflected in the plans, as stated? Mr. LaPine: I thought you said that the plans did not show that. Mr. Taormina: I am not so sure that those are shown incorrectly. Maybe Mr. Frederick could verify that but I do believe they are consistent with the elevation plans, which show the height of that brick. Maybe the difference is that he is not showing the grade correctly. Mr. LaPine: I think we should put in there that the brick should be at least 11 feet high. Mr. Frederick: What about stating taking the brick to the bottom of the second floor? Mr. Shane: That is O.K. with me. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 18115 ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-11-08-18 Keifer Investments, LLC Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-11-08-18 submitted by Keifer Investments, LLC requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 18338 Farmington Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 10. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the east side of Farmington between Curtis and Pickford. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a one-story office building on the subject site. The new office building would be 7,082 sq. ft. in size and would be positioned toward the southeast corner of the site. Parking would be situated along the front of the building and to the north. Access to the site would be achieved by a single two-way drive off Farmington Road. A person entering the site would have a clear view of the middle of the building and its main entrance. Parking required is 28 spaces. Parking provided is 28 spaces. The landscape plan shows that most of the proposed landscaping for the development would be in the form of landscape earth berms along the east and north property lines. The petitioner is requesting approval to substitute both greenbelts in lieu of the protective walls that are required between this OS property and the abutting residential properties. These greenbelt areas would consist of 2-1/2 ft. high earth berms dotted with evergreen trees and shrubberies. The majority of the remaining landscaping on the site would be in the form of grass. Landscaping required is not less than 15% of the total site. Landscaping provided is 21% of the site. The elevation plan shows that the new office building would be constructed out of a combination brick and split face block. The west, north and south elevations would have split face block along their foundations, up to the bottoms of the windows. Brick would cover the remaining upper portions of these elevations. The east elevation, facing the residential properties to the rear, would be constructed entirely out of the split face block. Peaked standing metal seam roofs would be installed over the entrances of the building. The roof of the structure would be covered in asphalt shingles. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: We have received three items of Departmental correspondence and one item from a resident who is unable to attend tonight. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated November 9, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal, although grade changes may be required by this department should approval be granted. The developer will be required to provide for drainage of the site, and will need to show that no storm drainage is being shed onto neighboring properties. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 18116 13, 2000, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the site plans for the proposed office building. The site plan indicates that the parking spaces on the front (West Side) of the building are 20 feet long. Our measurements indicate that the parking spaces are only 18 feet long to the curb. Parking spaces on the north side of the building are indicated as being 18 feet long. The required length of the parking spaces is 20 feet. Please remind the petitioner that handicap spaces must be individually signed. The building plans do not indicate any type of lighting for the rear of the building. Lighting is needed to deter criminal activity in this area." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 15, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 6, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: "(1) The landscaping detail provided does not provide sufficient detail to determine if the proposed greenbelt would be substantially equal to the required protective wall and should be clarified. (2) As proposed this petition will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking space size. Seven (7) spaces are detailed at 18 feet in depth instead of the required 20 feet. (3) The parking spaces are not detailed as double striped and should be corrected. (4) The accessible parking aisle is required to be 8 feet wide for the van accessible space. (5) Lawn areas are detailed as "seeded" not sodded and should be clarified to the Planning Commission's satisfaction. (6) Signage has not been reviewed due to a lack of detail on the signage and number of tenants for the building. Further detail will allow for a proper review. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The fourth letter, dated November 18, 2000 is from Brian and Ruth Ann Bush which reads as follows: "We live at 33375 Pickford which is the only residence on the north side of the petitioners property. We are unable to attend the council meeting on Tuesday, November 21, 2000, but would like you to know how we feel. We definitely want the privacy that the brick wall would provide. The substitution of the greenbelt is not acceptable to us. Thank you for your consideration in this matter." That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Frank Doharsky, with AZD Associates Architects, 700 E. Maple, Suite 100, Birmingham, Michigan 48009. Keith Hay, Keifer Investments LLC, 37799 Professional Center Dr., Suite 107, Livonia, MI 48154 Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about your petition? Mr. Doharsky: No. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mrs. Koons: If we do the wall rather than the greenbelt, do we have any idea what the landscaping percentage would be? 18117 Mr. Taormina: I do not believe the landscaping percentage would change as a result of constructing the wall. The reason for that is that the area behind the building, in all likelihood, would still be maintained in a sodded condition. I wouldn't see any reason for that to be altered. Therefore the percentage of landscaping really wouldn't change. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. Mr. Shane: The letter from the building Department mentioned 18 foot parking spaces? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Shane: And that would be on the north side? Mr. Miller: They do show 18 feet but they extend over the landscape. We usually accept this unless they extend over the sidewalk. Mr. Shane: That is what I was going to ask. Is it still acceptable to extend two feet over the sidewalk? Mr. Miller: In the past we have accepted it but I think Inspection has a problem with it. Mr. McCann: So you don't believe it would be necessary to go to ZBA? Mr. Miller: No. Mr. Shane: Mark, is there an existing protective wall in the area? Mr. Taormina: The closest wall is on the property immediately to the south of this, which is developed as an office. There is a screen wall that separates that property from the residential property to the east. The wall terminates at the southeast corner of this property. Mr. Shane: I would just like to let the petitioner know, generally speaking, I favor a harmonious relationship of a greenbelt or protective wall in the rear. By that I mean, usually I favor if there is a protective wall in the area, that it should be extended so that you don't have a greenbelt and a wall and a greenbelt and a wall and that type of thing. I still would like to hear from the neighbors if there are any here. I don't know if there are with respect to their feelings to the protective wall other than the one we heard. But not hearing that, I want you to try and convince me that you should use a greenbelt as opposed to a protective wall. If you can, fine. Mr. Doharsky: One item I would like to point out is that we are on the north end of the business/office district. So it is not like to the north you would ever have, unless there is a rezoning that should occur, that a potential wall would need to extend past our property. We felt that having the trees and a good nice dense landscape buffer would be more acceptable to the neighbors than the 18118 wall. The one thing we are concerned with is that we are accepting the drainage from the neighbors' yards to the east. If we do construct the wall, it is going to have to be properly maintained so that their water can drain onto our property. That is what it is doing now. We are willing to accept that. We felt that this would be less of a maintenance concern from that standpoint as well. We are committed to the project. We are committed to doing a nice building and a nice looking building that fits in with the neighborhood. We kept the residential feel to the building as far as the roof lines are concerned. We are here to hear any feedback that the neighbors would have but it is just our opinion that the trees would be a nicer solution in this particular case. As you can see by the plans, the grade does drop off toward the north end of the site so if we were required to construct a 6 foot high wall, chances are, they are going to see over that wall and see our building anyway. Whereas, if we were to give them 8 foot high trees that are going to mature even larger, chances of them seeing less of our building are greater. Mr. Shane: What is the difference between the grade at the north end of the site and the neighbors? Mr. Doharsky: Probably about 2-1/2 feet or 3 feet. I think the grade at the neighbor's house is higher. Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, does the ordinance require the height of the wall to be calculated from which side of the property line? Mr. Taormina: The height of the wall is measured from either the residential side or the office side, whichever is higher. For example, if the residential property were a foot or two above this, then the height of the wall would be measured from the residential property. Mr. Doharsky: I don't want to be misunderstood. When I said 3 feet, that is the grade differential probably from their house. Mr. Shane: I understand. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, what is the future land use plan forecast plan for the property to the north. Mr. Taormina: I believe that is shown as office, as well. Mr. Shane: Thank you. Mr. Doharsky: If we do construct the wall, it is not going to be a continuous height wall, obviously, with the grade differential. We would step it up and I don't know how attractive that is going to be to the neighbors as well. And the same thing on the north side, as we start from Farmington Road, it would be stepping down, accordingly. 18119 Mr. LaPine: Mark, it seems at our study session, some conversation came up about if there was a drain back there and we were going to get some information from the Engineering Department. Is there a drain back there? Mr. Taormina: We know that there is an easement along the east property line. What we have not been able to determine is whether or not there is an actual structure that is located there that would be able to be used for drainage purposes. In the event that there is an actual structure in there and it is functioning it may be possible that the drainage from this site could tie into that storm system. If on the other hand, one is not available, we do know that there is an existing county storm drain located along Farmington Road, which they would have to direct their water. Mr. LaPine: But we haven't got any information from the Engineering Department at this junction to know if that actually exists back there? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: You said something I am a little confused on. If a wall goes in there, you say there is more maintenance to control the water from the neighbors and your property and that there is more maintenance involved. Can you explain that? Mr. Doharsky: Your ordinance states that it has to be a continuous wall in contact with grade and since their property, we are allowing their property to continue to drain onto our property, approximately 3 feet, that is going to be the low point of our swale along the east property line and in order for that to continue to do so, there is going to have to be some sort of weep system design to allow the water to penetrate that wall. That is what I am talking about from a maintenance standpoint, leaves or whatever over time. We certainly don't want to be flooding their properties. We haven't looked very closely, I'll admit, to the design of this weeping system or however the water is going to penetrate the wall but I would think that the neighbors are going to have to maintain their side of the wall to allow it to continue to drain just as we would maintain our side of the wall. Mr. McCann: I think this would be a good time to go to the audience to see if we have any of the neighbors here tonight to speak whether they are interested in a protective wall or a greenbelt. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak in regards to this petition? Brian Fotiu 18375 Westmore. I am in favor of the wall. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us? Mr. Fotiu: No. Mr. McCann: Have you talked to your neighbors to see if they are interested in the wall or not? 18120 Mr. Fotiu: Actually, I have not. Mr. LaPine: Do you have drainage of water on to your property? Mr. Fotiu: At the lower part. Mine actually slopes down so the lower part does have a little bit of drainage on it. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, to look at your rendering from Farmington Road, it looks like it is perfectly level with the back part of the neighbors. That wouldn't be true, would it? Mr. McCann: Actually, Bob, the plan shows that it is level. Mr. Alanskas: It is level there but you say that the neighbor's property is a good 3 feet above your property, in the back, is that correct? Mr. Koharsky: That is right. Mr. Alanskas: So actually their water should be draining on to your property. Mr. Koharsky: It is currently. Mr. Shane: But you are going to raise your grade considerably. Mr. Koharsky: We are but along the east property line we are continuing a swale to allow their property to continue to drain on ours and collect whatever water on the back of our building. Mr. Alanskas: By doing that, you are not going to be dumping water on the neighbors' property by doing that, are you? Mr. Koharsky: No. Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any problem, or would it help solve any of these so-called grading problems and water problems that are very serious to lower that building a little bit? Mr. Koharsky: We did look at that and we would be willing to look at that further but we certainly don't want to be too much lower that where we are at now relative to the road. Mr. Piercecchi: If it were a foot, let's say. We are minimizing the difference at the northeast area. If every inch that you lowered your building, you would lessen that height difference, correct? 18121 Mr. Koharsky: We felt that from a design standpoint that our relationship to the road is where we want to be from accepting water coming down towards our building as well as just the presence relative to the street. We didn't want to appear like we are sitting in a hole. We are willing to look at it further and potentially lower it as low as practically possibly. Mr. Piercecchi: I personally, at this stage of the game, think that the wall is a more appropriate thing. But along the north property line, I could see a greenbelt in there because ultimately that whole area, right up to Pickford, is going to be office at one time or another and we don't care to have walls between office buildings. I can see the wall and the greenbelt on the north property but on the east property line, I think we are better off with a wall and as far as water coming through, you can still have that swirl but can't you build an arch or two in the base of that wall? Mr. Koharsky: We can. We are willing to work with the City as much as they will accept. We are willing to float the wall. We would prefer to float almost sections of the wall. We just don't want to create a water problem that the neighbors don't have right now. Mr. Piercecchi: You are going to have to put in some kind of a drain system to get out to Farmington Road, aren't you? Mr. Koharsky: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Would it be beneficial if we tabled this tonight and you came back after looking at some of the concerns that we have. There is no panic to get this thing going, is there? Mr. Koharsky: We would really like to get it going. We have people interested in the project. Mr. McCann: It is something that the Engineering Department is going to have to deal with. Not us. Mr. Piercecchi: Not the walls. Mr. McCann: The drainage system. Mr. Piercecchi: I am just thinking a wall would be more appropriate and I am trying to satisfy both ends of the fence here. Mr. Koharsky: I guess we are going to take two different approaches to engineering this site. If you, as the Board, feel that the wall is more appropriate, I would rather that you vote on that and then allow us to proceed with full engineering because at this point, whether or not we lower the building a foot isn't going to change your position relative to the wall. We would just rather go forward with full blown engineering and get this thing in the ground. 18122 Mr. LaPine: My concern is the same as yours. My biggest concern is the neighbors. That property is so low there. In your opinion you think that the landscaping solution is better, or less chance of water getting into the neighbors' yards than there is with the wall? Mr. Koharsky: I personally do because any time you impede water you have a potential for a problem and we can engineer it and have it approved by your Engineering Department but without maintenance, there is always a concern. Mr. LaPine: With the landscaping what maintenance would be required to make sure the water does not get into the neighbors' land? Mr. Koharsky: Not with the landscaping. I am concerned about the maintenance relative to the wall. What we are trying to do with the landscaping is to allow the natural flow to continue. That was our thinking in proposing the landscape buffer. I am sure the wall can be engineered appropriately just as long as the neighbors know there is maintenance relative to that. Mr. LaPine: You are saying if there is maintenance on their side, it is their responsibility? Mr. Koharsky: I would think so, yes. Just so we have a clear understanding of what we are proposing here. If you can see the property line, we have noted here in the site sections, the design intent was to allow, if this is the neighbors' back of their house, to allow the natural pitch of their property to continue as it is pretty much doing now, to pre-feed on to our property so that it gets away from potential backups in their yard and that would be the low point of the swale which would then direct the water down to the catch basin at the northeast corner of the site. With the wall, the concept would be the same only that we are building a wall and we are going to have to direct the water from each neighbor's yard to entry points through that wall and we would still have the swale. It would still be the same drainage principal but we would be potentially stopping the flow of water. Mr. Shane: So if a neighbor decides to change his grade, there is trouble. That is the maintenance you are talking about? Mr. Koharsky: That is one of them. Mr. Alanskas: When you say separation of the wall, how wide are you taking about so that you would still have water flowing through there? Mr. Koharsky: Ideally, if we are asked to put a wall in, we have done them in other communities where the wall literally floats between piers, where there is a column and a column and the wall floats for maybe an eight foot section. The wall would be 6 to 8 inches off the grade so that it would continuously flow underneath. We would be willing to look into that but I think as it is stated in your ordinance, you are not allowed to do that. 18123 Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? I don't see anybody. Mr. LaPine: If we allow you to put in the landscaping, you would put in a berm back there. Is that what your plans are? Mr. Koharsky: No. I don't think we would be able to put a berm back there. Mr. LaPine: You would just plant the evergreens, I think you said about 8 feet high. The back of your building, is that all brick? Mr. Koharsky: The way it was submitted is the split face masonry. Mr. LaPine: Are there any windows back there? Mr. Koharsky: Yes. Mr. LaPine: So basically, if we put up a wall, then we've got a wall, then another wall at the back of the building, basically. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no more questions, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #11-201-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-11-08-18 submitted by Keifer Investments, LLC requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 18338 Farmington Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 10 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1.1 dated November 21, 2000, as revised, prepared by AZD Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1.1 dated November 21, 2000, as revised, prepared by AZD Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 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 request for the substitution of the protective wall with a landscaped greenbelt is hereby denied and a protective wall similar to the protective wall to the south shall be erected; 18124 6) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2.1 dated November 21, 2000, as revised, prepared by AZD Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the east elevation shall have the same band of brick along its upper portion similar to the other three elevations, and that the petitioner will work with the City Engineering and Inspection Departments to design a wall to best meet the drainage needs of the neighbors; 7) That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions 8) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 9) That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height; 10) That all parking spaces shall be double striped; 11) That the grading of this property shall be to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department; 12) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 13) That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? If there is none, I have a comment. In our discussion we have talked about the swale, the landscaping and the wall but we didn't mention much about the building. I want to tell you that I think it is a very architecturally pleasing building and I think it will look good in that location. Mr. Shane: I would just like to say with respect to engineering problems connected with the protective wall, this is not an unusual problem in the City of Livonia. There are a number of locations where protective walls have been installed and if properly done, the drainage system works. I think you can work something out with Engineering. Mr. McCann, 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 2000-11-08-19 Trinity Continuing Care Services 18125 Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-11-08-19 submitted by Trinity Continuing Care Services requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to and enclose the walkway of the Ryan Homes - Villa Marie senior housing development located at 15131 Newburgh Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Newburgh between Five Mile and Jamison. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct additions to and enclose some of the walkways of the Ryan Homes - Villa Marie Retirement Community located behind the St. Edith Church. Presently the development consists of five separate apartment buildings that are connected by partially covered sidewalks. The Site Plan identifies the buildings as Units "A", "B", "C" "D" and one as "Service Building". The petitioner has explained that none of the apartments have any type of kitchen facilities and the residents have to walk to the "Service Building" where there is a community dining area. Because of the type of tenants of the apartments, there is a concern having the residents trekking back and forth in the winter and other hazardous weather. The petitioner is proposing to construct two additions to help provide a more pleasant route for the residents. One of the additions would be 1,994 sq. ft. in size and would connect Unit "D" with the "Service Building". In addition to connecting the two buildings, the addition would also provide the residents with a new lounge/library area and a couple of computer rooms. The other addition would connect Units "C" and "D" and would be 1,559 sq. ft. in size. This addition would be utilized as a lounge area and an exercise room. According to the Elevation Plans the two new additions would be very similar in appearance. Both additions would be constructed out of vinyl siding and windows. Both would have a copula type feature on top of their roofs. The plans do note that the existing vertical siding within the peak area of the existing apartment buildings would be replaced with the same vinyl siding as proposed for the additions. The existing apartment buildings are constructed mainly out of brick on all four sides. The petitioner is also requesting approval to enclose some of the walkways of the units. Presently the door of each apartment opens out on to a continuous sidewalk that runs the entire length of the building. These walkways are now only covered by a roof overhang with no side protection. The petitioner proposes to enclose these walkways so that there would be a continuous protected hallway to the other buildings and the "Service Building" during unstable weather. The means of enclosing the walkway would be by a system called "The Opening Glass Wall". This system allows the enclosures to be fully opened and folded to the side when there is pleasant weather and quickly closed during undesirable conditions. The submitted brochure of this enclosure system shows that the doors fold up similar to bi-fold doors of a closet. The Elevation Plans show that columns of vinyl siding would support the "Glass Walls" of the system. A new vestibule is proposed to be constructed to the main entrance of the "Service Building". This vestibule would be in character with the new additions and would also have a copula on its roof. The new entranceway would be constructed out of brick and vinyl siding. 18126 Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated November 13, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 13, 2000, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the new lounge/activity buildings as submitted and have no recommendations or concerns regarding this proposal." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 17, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 6, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objection to this petition. However, at the time of Building Plan Review, fire separation distances, rated walls, height and area calculations will be reviewed to determine compliance with the building code. I trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? William Groh, Edmund London & Associates, 25505 W. Twelve Mile Road, Suite 2730, Southfield. Mr. McCann: Are there any additional comments you would like to make about the presentation? Mr. Groh: What we propose to do here is really for the benefit of the residents of this small senior apartment community. As you know demographically, we are an aging population and this facility is no different. The folks that moved into this facility back in the 70's when it was first built weren't as old as they are now. Therefore, the shelter of the walkways becomes really a very important, not only a comfort issue, but a safety issue for the residents. Also, even though this is low-income senior housing, Trinity Continued Care does have to compete with other housing care providers. We feel that these activity room exercise room additions will greatly enhance their ability to compete in the market place. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, can you explain to me what Mr. Miller referred to as a "greenhouse" and what that would be used for? Mr. Groh: That is one of the activity buildings. The activity buildings are, they use to call them resident lounges would be used for places like a library. There will be 18127 some computers set up. Also, exercise equipment that they don't room for now. Mr. Alanskas: The doors that you have there now, people will be opening these and coming out on the lawn area. Mr. Groh: You can. You will be able to, yes. Mr. Alanskas: I am just wondering if there should be a cement walkway, if that is used heavily. Mr. Groh: By code you have to have that cement pad there. So yes, there will be one there. Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing nobody, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #11-202-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-11-08-19 submitted by Trinity Continuing Care Services requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to and enclose the walkway of the Ryan Homes - Villa Marie senior housing development located at 15131 Newburgh Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 19 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A1.1 dated 11/03/00 prepared by Edmund London & Associates, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets A4.1, A4.2 and A4.3 all dated 11/03/00 prepared by Edmund London & Associates, Inc., are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 5) 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 6) That hard surface pads or patios be added at each of the exit doors to the activity rooms. 18128 Mr. McCann: Is there discussion? Mr. Alanskas: Mark, on that pad that we don't show there, do you know what size that pad would be? Mr. Taormina: I would like to defer that question to the architect who is probably more familiar with the BOCA code requirements than I am. Mr. Groh: The code requires for any existing door, that the pad be at least the depth of the door. At those areas I would anticipate that we would want to make it deeper than that to allow it to be used. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #4 PETITION 99-12-08-32 Bell Creek Square Company (Walgreens) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-12-08-32 submitted by the Bell Creek Square Company, on behalf of Walgreens, requesting approval of signage for the commercial building located at 33300 Six Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Farmington Roads. On April 5, 2000, this site received Site Plan Approval to construct a commercial building on the subject site. As part of that approval it was conditioned: "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." In compliance with that condition, the applicant is requesting approval for additional signage over what is allowed by the sign ordinance. A Walgreens Pharmacy is presently under construction on the site. Signage is summarized as follows: Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50H: One wall sign not to exceed 121 sq. ft. in sign area. One ground sign not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign area nor exceed 6 ft. in height and the minimum setback of 10 feet from any R.O.W. line. Signage proposed: Three wall signs totaling 155 sq. ft. in sign area; north elevation "Walgreens/24 Hrs/Pharmacy" - 71 sq. ft.; west elevation - "Walgreens/24 Hrs/Pharmacy" - 71 sq. ft.; west elevation - "DRIVE THRU PHARMACY' - 13 sq. ft. One ground sign - 30 sq. ft. in sign area, 6 ft. in height, setback 10 feet from intersection of Six Mile and Farmington Roads and panel graphics - "Walgreens/OPEN 24 HOURS/DRIVE-THRU PHARMACY" plus mortar & pestle logo. Excess signage: three wall signs and 36 sq. ft. in wall sign area. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is permitted by the sign ordinance, the applicant would be required to be granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 18129 Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is a letter from the Inspection Department, dated November 16, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 8, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This petition will need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following: (a) Excessive number of wall signs - 1 permitted, 4 proposed. (b) Excessive square footage. Primarily wall signs. 112 square feet allowed (Six Mile Road) proposed 71.3 square feet, 71.3 square feet proposed plus 14.7 square feet other signage proposed, 0 allowed. (2) The monument sign would be permitted as proposed providing it meets all setback requirements. (3) Although not part of the signage, the landscape plan submitted has incorrect accessible parking depicted. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Greg Smith, Phoenix Land Development, Bell Creek Square Building Company, 32000 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 220, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about the proposed signage. Mr. Smith: No sir. I think the staff has done an admirable job of presenting it. We would hope that you would concur. As I am sure you have seen, we are making pretty good progress on the project. If there are technical issues, our sign consultant is here to answer any technical questions. Mr. McCann: I agree with you. The staff did an admirable presentation but I am not so sure about the number of signs. We'll go to comments from the Commissioners. Mr. Alanskas: On the other two stores, we tired to keep you as close to the regulations as we could. Is there a reason why you have to have drive through and all these different signs instead of just one that says "Walgreens" only? Mr. Smith: I believe versus the other stores, this one is open 24 hours. It does have the drive-thru pharmacy so obviously, being able to direct people and safely on the site is important. The directional sign for the drive-thru is so they know where to go and to advertise the fact that the store is open 24 hours for the public. Mr. Alanskas: First of all, it is a very large building and it looks very close to Farmington Road and Six Mile and I would think visually someone just driving by could see that you have a drive-thru pharmacy. If it just says Walgreens, I don't think the word Walgreens 24 Hour Pharmacy on the north and west would even be necessary. You could just have Walgreens. Mr. Smith: I believe the presentation said 71-1/2 feet and there was some discussion between our architectural consultant and the staff in terms of the size of the 18130 sign. I believe that the 71-1/2 feet is in accordance with, at least in our interpretation of the ordinance, like the other buildings, we split the total square footage to the two sides so that the size of the sign, although there are a lot of words, actually the amount of space taken up by the lettering is probably less on this building is less than it would be on the other because we've got so much space between the words. Mr. Alanskas: You know the two on Newburgh Road, the south elevation is 65 square feet, each, which is smaller and you can see it very well. Mr. McCann: Let me go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, do you have a last comment? Mr. Smith: Again, we believe we are making a good contribution to the community and our customer, Walgreens, has determined this is what is appropriate for this particular project at this location. We hoped that you would give us your support on it. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was #11-203-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-12-08-32 submitted by the Bell Creek Square Company, on behalf of Walgreens, requesting approval of signage for the commercial building located at 33300 Six Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 15, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package submitted by Bell Creek Square Company, as received by the Planning Commission on November 8, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the two "Walgreens" wall signs shall not exceed a total of 121 sq. ft. in combined sign area, with an additional 13 sq. ft. for a drive-thru pharmacy sign; 2) That the ground sign shall be similar in appearance as the two existing stores in the City and the graphic on the sign shall read "Walgreen's" only; 3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 4) That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto. Mr. McCann: Sir, you had a comment. If there are no objections from the Commissioners, I will allow that comment. 18131 Mr. Smith: One of the items that didn't come up in discussion but did come up in the motion, is that the ground sign would be limited to the word "Walgreens" only. Again, this is a unique store relative to the other stores. It is open with a 24- hour pharmacy. As long as we stay within the 30 square feet that is allowed by the ordinance, the ground sign conforming in terms of signs, why the words Walgreens 24-Hour Pharmacy would not be acceptable. Again, when you look at that mass of the letters, we probably will have less space occupied by the letters because we are spreading them out with the separation on the words. I would hope that you would reconsider the motion to allow us to put the "24- Hour Pharmacy" in there as well. Mr. McCann: To the maker of the motion. Do you want to amend that? Mr. Piercecchi: No, I do not. Mr. McCann: Then the motion will be called as it is. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council approved as stated. You can take that discussion up with the City Council when you go before them. ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-10-01-19 City Planning Commission (Loveland between Curtis & Clarita) Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-10-01-19 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and Council Resolution #774-00 proposing to rezone certain property located on Loveland between Curtis and Clarita in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from R-3 to R-4. Mr. McCann: This is a motion by the Planning Commission to review zoning on a particular piece of property. Is there a motion to hold a public hearing? On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #11-204-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #774-00, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone certain property located on Loveland between Curtis and Clarita in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 10 from R-3 to R-4. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 18132 th ITEM #6 Approval of the Minutes 813 Regular Meeting th Mr. Piercecchi, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 813 Meeting held on October 17, 2000. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #11-205-2000 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 813th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission of October 17, 2000, are hereby approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Koons, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. th On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 815 Regular Meeting held on November 21, 2000, was adjourned at 8:42 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________ Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST:____________________________ James C. McCann, Chairman /rw