Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-08-19 15644 MINUTES OF THE 749TH REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA r.. On Tuesday, August 19, 1997, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 749th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr.Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale Robert Alanskas John Walsh Elaine Koons Members absent: James McCann Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present. Mr. Alanskas informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will fl' hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to r�.• the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-6-1-9 by John Mahn and John D. Dinan requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Pembroke Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 6 from RUF to OS. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. This request involves a portion of a vacant and wooded parcel that is located on the south side of Pembroke Avenue approximately 600 feet west of Newburgh Road. The parcel is 6.56 acres in size with 534.03 feet of frontage on Pembroke Road and a depth of 570.30 feet along the west property line and a depth of 520.52 feet along the east property line (originally 8.06 acres, the south 241.50 feet of the parcel was split off to create three residential lots fronting on St. Martins Road). The adjoining land to the west is split zoned OS and RUFC IT and contains an office building within the OS zoned area(which consists of the north 400 feet of the property). To the south and east are RUFC zoned properties. Greenmead property lies 15645 to the north across Pembroke Road. Further east on the north side of Pembroke is the Northwest Livonia Post Office. The parcel proposed to be rezoned was involved in two previous rezoning petitions. The first petition (90-4-1-13), which was a request for the rezoning to R-7 of the subject parcel and also the adjacent parcel to the west, was withdrawn by the petitioner. Petition 92-10-1-24, which had originally requested that portions of the subject parcel and the adjacent parcel to the west be rezoned to RE, research engineering, (later amended to OS), was revised to delete the subject parcel prior to the publication of the public hearing notice. In connection with the previous petitions, we became aware that the Department of Natural Resources (now the Department of Environmental Quality) had determined that portions of both parcels are subject to wetland regulations under the provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act. Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, Are there any questions at this time from the staff? Mr. Piercecchi: There are 120 feet on one end and 170 feet at the other end of that property. Correct? Scott: Yes Mr. Piercecchi: Is that going to remain RUF? Scott: You mean the south 1/2? Yes Mr. Piercecchi: This will remain RUF? Who owns that property? Mr. Dinan owns that whole package? Scott Yes Mr. Piercecchi; Then they will pay taxes on that all the way down to the RUF land? Scott: Yes Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nagy, do you have any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter submitted by the Engineering Division referencing the petition dated July 25, 1997 indicating that the legal description as submitted meets with the approval of their office and they have no objections to that proposal signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer with the Engineering Division. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Alanskas: Will the petitioner please come to the podium and state the reasons for the rezoning request. 15646 Mr. Charles Tangora: 33300 Five Mile, Livonia, Michigan, represents the petitioner, Mr. John Dinan and Mr. Joseph Trupiano, who hopefully will be joint developers of this particular piece of property. Mr. Dinan owns and developed the `o' property to the west of this particular property. This particular piece of property is obviously proposed to be zoned identically with the property Mr. Dinan has already developed. They propose to put in a similar type one story colonial type building. There will be two buildings smaller than the one Mr. Dinan has on his property right now. I think you probably had a chance to review the elevation and site plan. The question that Mr. Piercecchi asked is similar to the other piece of property, the back property is zoned RUF and was left that way. This property will be the same way. The property up in the front is all residential along St. Martins Road and is being developed for single family homes. Mr. Piercecchi: That's a great buffer too. Mr. Tangora: Yes Mr. Alanskas: Any questions for the petitioner at this time? Mr. Walsh: What actions have been taken, if any, in respect to the wetlands petition that you will have to file with the state? Mr. Tangora: There has been a wetland study and the wetland study indicates that the area number one which is under plans for the development consists of predominance of wooded upland trees and shrubs, including white oak, red oak, American Beech, shagbark and sugar maple. The soil was well drained sandy loam. So it's a similar type area that Mr. Dinan had on his particular piece of property. It indicated that there was no problem in developing in that way. Mr. Walsh: What is your estimate on timing if we approve tonight and go to a site plan and then with that you will need to submit state documents. I think you will require a permit from the Department of Environmental Quality. Do you know how long that will take? Mr. Tangora: I can't answer that. Obviously zoning is going to take probably another three months to go through and I'm not really sure of the Department of Environmental Quality what the time element is. If it's necessary to go through them. I'm not really sure that it is. Mr. Alanskas: Anyone else? If there are no further questions by the Commission, we will hear questions from the floor. The people are invited to speak for or against this petition. Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Mr. Santo: (& wife Betty), 37600 St. Martins. One of the little yellow houses on the map. Could somebody point to a section on the map which is a well drained sandy loam? Mr. Tangora: I have not really had a chance to study the map - I got it just as I walked in. The front part of the property that is really under consideration for rezoning is up toward Pembroke Street. That's my understanding. Mr. Alanskas: Does that answer your question? Mr. Santo: I think so. I have a few other ones. The space that is going to be left undeveloped backs up against my property which is an original house from the 40's. My lot has been clear cut to the property line. Is that space going to be left alone? Cleaned up or developed? Mr. Alanskas: They will only clean up the area where they have the petition. They wouldn't go past the property line. Mr. Santo: The red line? Mr. Alanskas: Yes �.. Mr. Santo: That makes me very happy. The only other consideration is all the sloping, drainage on the grading of the property will run towards Pembroke and Pembroke is hopefully primed for that kind of run off. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nagy, I'm sure your department will take care of it. Mr. Nagy: That 's right- they will use the storm sewer system already in place. It would have to be to code. Mr. Santo: Last month during that storm, our street, St. Martin, flooded and three of us had water in our basements. A neighbor took some video and there is a drainage ditch at the west end of St. Martins' that is actually part of the Victor Parkway drain, and that became overflowed and spilled on to our block. The people that own houses at the end of our street have been backfilling with dirt for weeks, for months, this summer. Because supposedly of an old lake or something that was back there. We have a very high water table and lots of clay in the neighborhood. I wish I had some of that well drained sandy loam. Mr. Alanskas; I think last month there were quite a few homes had water in their backyards after that rain. Anything else sir? 15648 Mr. Santo: No, that addresses everything I had questions about. Mr. Alanskas: Anyone else? Hearing none, I'll close the Public Hearing on Petition 97-6-1-9. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr.Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #8-130-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1997, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-6-1-9 by John Mahn and John D. Dinan requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Pembroke Road between Newburgh and Victor Parkway in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-6-1-9 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional office uses in the area similar to the adjacent property to the west. *4" FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 the Zoning Ordinance #543 of the City of Livonia, as amended Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Ms. Koons: Will we be getting a copy of the wetlands report? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we will examine that in connection with the site plan that will be forthcoming. Mr. Alanskas: The motion passes. Will the secretary please read the next petition. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-7-1-10 by Danny Veri requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 32 from R-1 to RC . Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. The property proposed to be rezoned to RC, consisting of Lot 741 of 15649 Supervisor's Livonia Plat No. 12, was recently rezoned from RUF to R-1 under petition 97-1- 1-1 by Danny Veri. Located approximately 450 feet south of Ann Arbor Trail the subject property is 2.06 acres in area and is currently vacant. The property has 222.60 feet of frontage on Newburgh Road by 416.58 feet of depth along the north lot line and 403.67 feet along the south lot line. The properties directly to the north are currently zoned RUF, although the two adjacent City owned lots (Lots 740a and 740b) fronting on Newburgh Road immediately north of Lot 741 have been recommended for rezoning to R-1 by the Planning Commission under petition 97-6-1-8 which was initiated at the direction of the City Council (The sale of these two lots to the petitioner has been authorized by the Council and the authorizing resolution states that the sale is contingent upon the purchaser obtaining rezoning of the property from RUF to R-1). Land owned by Livonia Public Schools (containing Churchill High School and Johnson Elementary School), zoned PL, adjoins the subject Lot 741 to the east and along a portion of the south lot line. There is one vacant RUF zoned lot, owned by the American Legion, between the subject property and the C-1 zoned land that contains the Myron K. Beals American Legion Post to the south. Directly across Newburgh Road to the west is R-7 zoned land containing the Whispering Winds condominium development. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the staff at this time? Mr. Nagy, any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated July 24, 1997, referencing the subject petition. Engineering indicates they have reviewed the petition and they recommend a revised legal description be utilized in connection with the petition and they have no objections to the rezoning proposal from an Engineering standpoint. It is signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. Alanskas: Will the petitioner please come to the podium and state your name and address. I don't see My. Veri here this evening. That makes it very difficult. I think that if we don't have Mr. Veri here at this time we should table this. I think we should hear from Mr. Veri what he has to say. Why he wants to go from RI to RC zoning. I'm sure he has a good reason for not being here this evening. Mr. Nagy: We cannot explain his absence although you may want to hear from the public here this evening. Mr. Alanskas: I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition? Is there a motion to table the petition? On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously adopted, it was #8-131-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-7-1-10 by Danny 15650 Veri requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 32 from R-1 to RC, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 97-7- V`"' 1-10 to a date uncertain. Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas: Would someone get a hold of him - Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: We'll try to get a hold of him. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-7-2-17 by Ronald Farida, Farida's Investment Group, requesting waiver use approval to transfer a SDD (packaged liquor) license to the Trade Vine Party Shoppe located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Inkster Road and Rougeway Drive in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. The Trade Vine Party Shoppe occurs on a 0.33 acre parcel of land (90.04 feet in width by 158.38 feet in depth) located approximately 270 feet west of Inkster Road on the south side of Six Mile Road. The subject party store was recently expanded and now contains 3,000 sq. ft of floor area. The facility currently utilizes and SDM license. Waiver use approval is being sought to utilize an SDD license for the sale of packaged liquor. The request involves the proposed transfer of an existing SDD license, presently in escrow, that had previously been utilized in connection with the now closed Howard Drugs which had occupied a unit at the easterly end of the commercial shopping center located on the northwest corner of Six Mile and Inkster Roads. Value Center Market purchased Howard Drugs and acquired the subject license with the intention of selling it to the Trade Vine Party Shoppe. Accordingly, an application has been submitted to the State Liquor Control Commission for approval of the sale and transfer of the license (for which the City's decision on the waiver use request will be a determining factor). The Trade Vine Party Shoppe is not located within 1,000 feet of an operating SDD license establishment and therefore this proposal is in compliance with the 1,000 foot separation requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Our records show what the closest operating SDD licensed establishment is more than one mile away from the subject store. However, a request by Rite Aid of Michigan to utilize an SDD license at their store located at the southwest corner of Six Mile and Inkster Roads approximately 150 feet east of the Trade Vine Party Shoppe, which was denied by the Planning Commission, is pending before City Council on appeal, and if the appeal is successful, an approval of the request by Trade Vine Party Shoppe to utilize an SDD license would have to be subject to the waiving of the requirement for a 1,000 feet separation between SDD licensed establishments by City Council. 15651 Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the staff? Mr. Nagy do you have any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department dated July 24 , 1997 stating that it is recommended that the revised legal description be utilized and that they have no objections to this petition. It is signed by David Lear. There is a letter from Value Center Market, 27428 Six Mile Road addressed to the Planning Commission and it states that Howard's Drugstore, located at 27416 Six Mile Road, closed in December of 1996. Farida's Investment Group and its assignee, Value Center Market, proceeded to purchase the liquor license with the intention of selling it to Trade Vine Party Shoppe, located at 27455 Six Mile Road. Trade Vines immediately began the license purchase process which is currently in its final stages of approval. It is signed by Ronald Farida, Vice President, Farida's Investment Group. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Alanskas: Would the petitioner come forward and state your name and address and the reasons for this request. Terry Farida: (Ron is out of town so I took his place.) I am the president of Farida's Investment Group. My address is 27428 Six Mile, Livonia , Michigan . Howard's Drug Store went out of business December 31. They closed their doors and we are buying their license and selling it to the Trade Vines Party Shoppe across the street, because we didn't want to open another store in the center and don't want to put a liquor license into this store. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the Commissioners? If none, I have just one. You bought the SDD License, what about the SDM license that Howard's had? Mr. Fariada: The beer and wine license? Mr. Alanskas: Yes Mr. Fariada: We already have one so we had no use for it Mr. Alanskas: So what happened to that license? Mr. Fariada: I really don't know. Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. Anything else you want to add? Mr. Fariada: No sir. Mr. Alanskas: The hearing is now open to the audience. Anyone from the audience want 15652 to speak for or against this petition. Please come forward and state you name and address. J. R. Rivera: President of Rite Aid of Michigan. For the record I did want to voice an objection for this request today. Rite Aid has an application with a MLC transfer of ownership and location from a Beck's Drug Store Inc. at 29350 Plymouth Road to Rite Aid location at 27401 West Six Mile. The Planning Commission denied our request and we have it on appeal to the Livonia City Council. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, any questions? Mr. Piercecchi: I didn't quite understand that. Mr. Rivera: We had applied for a license and we were turned down. Mr. Piercecchi: You know part of the reason why that was turned down was because they could have put in another SDD at Howard's and we would have had two right across the street from each other and I think they indicated that that potential was very real. Is that correct? That's very real. So the most logical place for that SDD is in the Trade Vine. That's why I'm for it. Or hopefully, we find out who's for what but that is part of the reason why you were turned down from the Commission. It's still before City Council on your appeal. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Anybody else? Louie Santo: 37600 St. Martins. I know Jay's brother and nephew and they are both very responsible businessmen. I used to patronize their facility in Garden City. I would encourage you to vote for it. I'm for the petition. Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else? Hearing none. I'll close the Public Hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #8-132-97 RESOLVED that the Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1997, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-7-2-17 by Ronald Farida, Farida's Investment Group, requesting waiver use approval to transfer a SDD license to the Trade Vine Party Shoppe located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Inkster Road and Rougeway Drive in the NE 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-7-2-17 be approved for the following reasons: 15653 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 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 such hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543 as amended. Ms. Koons: Earlier, when we asked for correspondence, you talked about the Legal Department requesting a new legal description. Mr. Nagy: Engineering Division. Ms. Koons: Engineering? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Ms. Koons: Just for my own knowledge, what does that mean? Mr. Nagy: When we make a land use decision that runs with the land, we want to have an accurate legal description of that property so there can be no misunderstanding as to what was approved for that specific piece of property. When processing these petitions, we send them to the Engineering Division to examine the legal description that we ask the applicant to furnish us, and if there are any inaccuracies or errors in preparing that description, the Engineering Division will assist us and say there was an error and give us a corrected one to use just to be helpful. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-4-3-3 by Jeffrey and Cynthia Onkka to vacate a portion of a 6 foot wide easement on Lot 569 of Country Homes Subdivision#3 located on the north side of West Chicago Road, west of Pinetree Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. This is a request for the vacating of a portion of a 6 foot wide public utilities easement located on the easterly side of Lot 569 of Country Homes Subdivision No. 3 (commonly known as 36036 West Chicago Road). Because the residence on the lot encroaches slightly into the easement, the former owners of the property had been advised by their real estate agent to seek the vacating of the encroachment area. Although the property was sold and financing obtained despite the encroachment issue, the new owners of the lot, 15654 Jeffrey and Cynthia Onkka, desire that this vacating request proceed in order to remove this cloud on the title. '"' The mortgage certificate submitted with this request shows that the residence on the subject lot encroaches 1.5 feet into the 6 foot wide easement for a distance of 24.5 feet. Based upon their own records and the information contained on the mortgage certificate, the Engineering Division has prepared a legal description that would vacate a 2' X 30' area representing the encroachment area plus 0.5 feet outside the east wall and approximately 3 feet outside the north and south walls of the building. In the area where the easement is to be reduced in width, the retention of the easterly 4 feet of the easement is based upon the proximity of an existing 12' sanitary sewer located approximately 2-1/2 feet east of the easterly lot line of the subject property on the adjacent lot to the east. The 4 foot wide easement to be retained adjacent to the residence would be supplemented by a 6 foot wide easement on the adjacent lot to the east and would result in a 10 foot wide easement area for accessibility to the sanitary sewer. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions for the staff? Mr. Nagy, any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to the petition other than the revised legal description be utilized. They have no objections to this petition. It is signed by David Lear. I have received two letters, one submitted by Gary Naumann of Timewarner Cable stating he has visited the site referenced above (36030 W. Chicago, Livonia,MI) and have determined there are no cable television lines in the side yard easement in which the house is built. We have no interest in this easement and will release the portion of the easement that the house is occupying. We will not ask the homeowner, at some point in the future, to move their home. Second letter from Donald R. Driskell, Manager, Right of Way Department, Ameritech stating "We have determined that the existing housing structure upon the referenced easement will not unduly interfere with our use of said easement and we will not ask the homeowner to move their home for our benefit. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone else wishing to speak regarding this petition? Any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: Will the petitioner please come to the podium and state your name and address and the reason for this request. Marlene Helenski:Representing Jeffrey & Cynthia Onkka. We would like to clear this up for a clear title on a mortgage. Mr. Alanskas: Very good. O.K. Thank you. Any questions? 15655 Mr. Alanskas: The hearing is now open for the public. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this? Jeffrey Onkka: I am the homeowner at 36036 W. Chicago. I like my house where it is and do not want to move it. Mr. Alanskas: That's a very good reason. Thank you for coming. Anybody else for the Public Hearing. Any comments? If there is none, the Public Hearing for Petition 97-4-3-3 is now closed. On a motion duly made by Ms. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #8-133-97 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1997, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-4-3-3 by Jeffrey and Cynthia Onkka requesting to vacate a portion of a six foot wide easement on Lot 569 of Country Homes Subdivision#3 located on the north side of West Chicago Road, west of Pinetree Avenue in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-4-3-3 be approved for the following reasons; 1) That the subject portion of the easement is no longer needed to protect existing public utilities in the area; `to" 2) That the subject portion of the easement is in conflict with the location of the existing house on the property. FURTHER RESOLVED, that the notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-5-6-2 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution#162-97 to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.34A of the Zoning Ordinance to implement size restrictions on condominiums by requiring a letter suffix designation to control density in said zoning district. Mr. Alanskas: This is a petition brought forth by the City Planning Commission. Would Mr. Nagy care to explain to the audience and the TV viewing audience. Mr. Nagy: The purpose for this proposed language amendment as to the text of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide for added regulations within the residential 15656 condominium zoning district to provide for minimum dwelling sizes within the various zones. Right now that pattern of regulating dwelling sizes within residential areas is currently a standard within a single family zone RI, R2, R3 &R4 but has not been picked up or followed in the recently created residential condominium so in order to adequately regulate dwelling sizes as they are established within the community, this will give the Planning Commission and City Council added control over dwellings that might be more appropriate in one area than they might be in another. So with the RC there will be an added suffix letter A which will have a minimum size that will be permissible within a district and as you move up the alphabet order B will require a proportionately larger dwelling, C will require an even larger one. For instance, I can explain the minimum dwelling size for a one bedroom unit with a RC Suffix A is 1,000 s.f. for a one bedroom unit, 1,200 s.f. for a two bedroom unit and 1,400 s.f. for a three bedroom unit. Mr. Alanskas: Anyone have any questions? If there are none, the Public Hearing is now closed. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #8-134-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 19,1997, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-5-6-2 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01A of Ordinance #543, as `"' amended, and Council Resolution#162-97 to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.34A of the Zoning Ordinance to implement size restriction on condominiums by requiring a letter suffix designation to control density in said zoning districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-5-6-2 be approved for the following reasons; 1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment will provide for more density control over condominium projects; 2) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment will provide for more consistency in the way in determining minimum size of dwellings in the Livonia Zoning Ordinance. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr.Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15657 Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-5-6-3 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, and also to Council Resolution#195-97 to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.10 of Article II, Section 4.03 of Article IV and Section 10.02 of Article X of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of establishing guidelines for bed and breakfast establishments. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the staff? Mr. Nagy, care to explain this to the audience. Mr. Nagy: This language amendment provides for standards and specific regulation in connection with bed and breakfast establishments was actually initiated pursuant to a Council Resolution 195-97 and this language was prepared at the request of the City Council by the Law Department and forwarded to the Planning Commission and our roll is to hear public comment relative to the proposed amendment to set forth specific regulations of the waiver use requirement to provide for bed and breakfast to be approved within the single family zones within the City of Livonia. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you Mr. Nagy. I'm not going to have you read that and I know there is quite a few and quite lengthy. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against �--� this petition on the bed and breakfast? Any comments from the Commissioners at all? If there are none, I'll close the public hearing and a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #8-135-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant CR 195-97 to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1997, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-5-6-3 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 195-97, to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.10 of Article II, Section 4.03 of Article IV and Section 10.02 of Article X of the Zoning Ordinance #543 for the purpose of establishing guidelines for bed and breakfast establishments, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-5-6-3 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment will provide for uses which are currently prohibited 2) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment will provide for Bed and Breakfast establishments as a legitimate use while, at the same time, providing for sufficient control over their location and nature; and P 3) That the Department of Law is recommending the adoption of the subject language amendment. 15658 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-5-6-4 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, and Council Resolution#254-97 to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.47(b) of the Zoning Ordinance #543 to require the filing of an approved color rendering for signs where said signs require City Council and Planning Commission review. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the staff? Again, this was brought about by the City Planning Commission as amended by the City Council Resolution 254-97 and John do you want to give a recap on this one? Mr. Nagy: Again, as with the previous petition, this language amendment was initiated by the City Council in connection with CR#254-97 specifically requiring that as an added condition in the standards of the special area of development control ordinance that any sign that may be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council in addition to showing the size, height, setbacks of the sign it shall actually show by color rendering as to the colors of the graphics proposed for the sign and it will be an added way to control the signs as they are erected and to be maintained throughout the community. err. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you Mr. Nagy. Any questions? Mr. Piercecchi: This is a policy that really has been in effect. We are actually just putting it into an ordinance. Mr. Nagy: That's right. Before this ordinance would come to pass in the application we do require that they submit a drawing with color thereon showing what color they propose. This will now rather than being an application requirement will now be an actual ordinance requirement. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the staff? I'll now go to the audience. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition. Hearing none, I'll now close the public hearing on this petition. A motion is now in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #8-136-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Council Resolution#254-97 to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.47(b) of Article XVIII of the Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to require the filing of an approved color rendering for signs, where said signs require City Council and Planning 15659 Commission review, the City Planning Commission review does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-5-6-4 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will provide more control over and more definitive information regarding the nature and erection of commercial signs; and 2) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will reflect the existing policy of the Planning Commission and City Council to request that color renderings of signs be submitted in those instances where signs are required to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to a permit being issued. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-7-6-5 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution#235-97 of Article XXIII whether or not to amend Section 23.05 of Article XXIII of Zoning Ordinance, as amended, so as to shorten the length of time between receipt of a petition to a recommendation being made to the City Council by the Planning Commission from 90 days to 60 days. 'N` Mr. Alanskas: Here again, this is a petition brought by the City Planning Commission. I think we'll have quite a bit of discussion on this. Mr. Nagy would you care to explain this. Mr. Nagy: I'll indicate the background on this. This petition was initiated by C.R. 235-97 that asked the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the question of whether or not to amend an appropriate section of the zoning ordinance in effect to reduce the numbers of days by which the Planning Commission should report all petitions of zoning change from a 90 day maximum limitation to 60 days to shorten that period of time mainly in the interest of trying to be more efficient and expedient in the processing of these petitions so that the applicant can in a more efficient manner can receive a recommendation., Mr. Alanskas: Thank you John. Any comments from the staff before I go to the public. Mr. Hale: John can you explain what the trigger date is. The trigger date is when it is approved by the Law Department - Correct? Mr. Nagy: That's correct. When the petitions are submitted to the City Clerk's Office and the fees are collected they are filed in triplicate and one of these petitions goes immediately to the Law Department to make sure it meets the form requirement 15660 of the City of Livonia and to make sure the legal description is appropriate, that the appropriate property owner has signed, that the application fee is paid and the Law Department will stamp it as approved as to form and then it is `ow— submitted to the Planning Department where it would bring the process before the City Planning Commission. So when it is approved as to form that date is when the beginning of the 90 days or 60 days period process begins. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the staff? Ms. Koons: Mr. Nagy what is the current average number of days? Mr. Nagy: The current average is about a 45 day period sometimes two months. But the average is about 45 days. Sometimes two months. Mr. Alanskas: Anyone else? I'll go to the audience. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition? Hearing none, the public hearing is now closed. Mr. Alanskas: I have one comment. I just think that the Council is trying to make things a little quicker and being we almost always do it within 60 days, I see no problem in making it from 90 to 60 days. Depending on the Commission feelings but if we went over maybe some might say that's a bad idea but maybe if we were able to get this one in 60 days maybe the City Council would try to expedite their business meetings in the same way in trying to get it done a lot quicker. I will now close the public hearing and a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was #8-137-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Council Resolution#234-97 to amend Section 23.05 of the Zoning Ordinance to shorten the length of time between receipt of a petition to a recommendation being made to the City Council by the Planning Commission from 90 to 60 days, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-7-6-5 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment will streamline the process by which the Planning Commission renders a recommendation on a change of zoning to the City Council; and 2) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment will provide sufficient time for the Planning Commission to act on a request for a change of zoning. FURTHER RESOLVED, that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543. 15661 Mr. Piercecchi: I, like yourself, can only assume that this action by the City Council is a result of our trying to streamline the petition handling process and further along all other upstream processing will be evaluated and hopefully time restraints `"' developed and adhered to as well. Our main purpose of both of our operations is to serve the people and the quicker we serve them the better we serve them. Mr. Alanskas: After all we are a recommending body to the Council and I think it's very important that the Planning Commission and the Council work very well together and if they would like to have a 60 day period, I can see no problem with that. Mr. Piercecch, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is to remove from the table petition 97-7-1-10. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously adopted it was #8-138-97 RESOLVED that, Petition 97-7-1-10 by Danny Veri requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, South of Ann Arbor Trail in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 32 from R-1 to RC be removed from the table. Mr. Piercecch, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-7-1-10 by Danny Veri requesting to rezone property located on the east side of �.. Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 32 from R-1 to RC. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Alanskas: Would the petitioner come to the podium and state your name and address and the reasons for this request. Danny Veri: 18442 Van Road, Livonia. I don't have a good excuse for why I'm late other than I thought the meeting was next week. Thank you very much for putting me back on the docket. What we have, I'm sure you all remember, a couple of months back I rezoned that from RUF to RI. Went through the Commission, went through Council on rezoning - no problem. When through Commission on site plan approval, preliminary site plan, didn't have any problem with that, went to Council and it was tabled due to the layout of the subdivision. They asked me to acquire the parcel from the north where the "R" is on the RUF. If you have any knowledge of the woman she has no desire to sell. So what we did was lay out a different alternative using a condominium style site in order to get an affect of a single family style of a road pattern with houses on each side of the road as opposed to the previous subdivision design with lots only on one side. 15662 Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the staff? 'Nur Mr. Piercecchi: You did purchase lot 740A & B which is just north of that? Mr. Veri: Correct. We want to tie into that as well. Mr. Piercecchi: Has that sale been finalized because that is contingent on getting the RI zoning? Mr. Veri: Yes. I haven't received anything yet, I'm assuming it will be the Law Department notifying me that Ito come up and pay for it. I think it's still going through the rezoning, is it not? Mr. Nagy: Yes it is. Mr. Piercecchi: It's still going through rezoning? Mr. Nagy: Yes, that's true. Council has not voted or has it gone through the readings. Mr. Piercecchi: We say here on this that the existing zoning is RI. Mr. Nagy: On the subject one but the two lots you referenced being purchased from the City are not - they are currently RUF. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Veri, you said that there was land you could not purchase. Are you talking about the big acreage shown there? That goes up to Ann Arbor Road? That's about 5 acres isn't it? Mr. Veri: That piece, I believe, is 2.8 acres. Mr. Piercecchi: That's zoned RUF -that would require rezoning also? Mr. Veri: Exactly and that was the thing. We're on a time limit with the person we're purchasing the property from. We've contacted the lady who owns that 2 acres. She's been there all of her life - she was born in the house. She has no intention on moving. She intends living there until she passes away. Obviously, when we acquire property to develop, we can't hold on to it forever or however long she's going to live to try to tie the two together so we're working to develop something with what we've got and make it look more appropriate than it would have as a single family street with houses only on one side. Mr. Piercecchi: You are aware that we do have condos across the street there? Mr. Veri: Yes 15663 Mr. Piercecchi: The property north of that property is zoned residential? 'taw Mr. Veri: Right Mr. Alanskas: Any questions? Mr. Walsh. Mr.Walsh: Mr. Veri, if you go with the detached condos set up - what number of detached condos would you have compared to the number of homes you would have had? Mr. Veri: The number of homes being that we could only build on one side would have yielded seven. With a detached style condo, it can be anywhere from 12 to 14 depending on how the cul-de-sac lays out at the end or if it's a T-turnaround. It is increasing the units however it is restricting us to a smaller style home rather than with a single family lot, we can put in a larger style home. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: Lots 740A & B are also included in this condo package? Mr. Veri: Yes. That's my intent - to go ahead if the zoning and site plan goes o.k. with the piece we're talking about tonight. Obviously, it's going to be at a later date. Now- Mr. Piercecchi: This is really kind of a chopped up affair. Once you came in we change it to RI then the Council goes along with RI then for Lots 740A & B, if you put condos up there you're going to have to come back here for more rezoning. Right? Mr. Veri: In the letter I submitted, I had asked to put it all together at one time but once the process had already been started on those two, they don't want to stop that one they want to continue with that one then have me come back. Believe me I'd much rather do it all at one time rather than doing it 3 or 4 times. Mr. Alanskas: Mrs. Koons? Mrs. Koons: Mr. Nagy, when we rezone to RI, the petitioner posted a sign for the public hearing? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Koons: To rezone again, was there a different new sign put up? 15664 Mr. Veri: I can answer that. I changed the appropriate letters to show that it was being rezoned again. ``'°"' Mrs. Koons: Because we did have several people come and speak to the RI zoning, I was wondering if they are really aware Mr. Veri: Wouldn't they have been notified by mail? Mr. Nagy: To the same extent the RI rezoning notice gave to abutting property owners the same process for RC was followed. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: I have one question. Mr. Veri, how did you get to this point? Why the change from RI to RC? Mr. Veri: Originally, I wanted to put in a single family subdivision. Truly, why the change came was when the Council tabled it and asked me to come up with a better design. They didn't care for the lots only on one side and unless I acquired that lady's property, I had no other options; so to try to give them a look of a subdivision, being that the houses are detached, they are on both sides of the street, in essence, with the envelope and the set backs, its just about the same size. I believe it's within 5 feet of a 60 foot lot and being its a condo, it enables the right-of-way to be different and that allows us to get units on both sides whereas with the single family RI zoning, it didn't allow that because the right-of-way was larger and which encompassed a larger cul-de-sac at the end. It didn't allow for the houses to be on both sides. I'm trying to get the same look I originally went for; it's just being able to utilize both sides of the property. I wish I had thought of this in the beginning, so I wouldn't be here again asking for rezoning. This was actually brought to my attention after my meeting with the Council. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions? I have just one. Aren't you getting a larger financial gain by going to the RC with more units than you would with just the 7 homes? Mr. Veri: Absolutely. Mr. Alanskas: That might be a good reason why you want to go to RC. Mr. Veri: If I could have kept it at the RI, I would have. That was our intention. We knew what we could yield out of it at the beginning. Obviously, it's going to be better for us although we're not going to be able to get as high a number for the houses because we will be limited as to what we can do versus what we can do with a single family lot of RI. 15665 Mr. Alanskas: Any further questions from the staff? From the public? Anyone wishing to speak for or against this? Hearing none, the public hearing is now closed. `""" On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Koons, it was #8-139-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-7-1-10 by Danny Veri requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 32 from R-1 to RC; the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-7-1-10 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with adjacent zoning districts and uses in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an unacceptable increase in the population density in the subject area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are already prevalent in the area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Hale, Alanskas, Koons 'N"` NAYS Walsh ABSENT: McCann Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. Piercecchi: This item has been tabled so it will require a motion to remove. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh it was unanimously approved it was #8-140-97 - RESOLVED that sign permit application by T. Rogvoy Associates, on behalf of Champps Americana requesting approval for signage for the restaurant located at 19470 Haggerty Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6 be taken from the table. Mr. Alanskas: Do we have any correspondence relative to this request? If there is none, would the interested party come to the podium. 15666 Mr. Mark Drane: 6735 Telegraph, Suite 300, Bloomfield Hills MI. The last time we met, you asked for a rendering of the other end of the building to kind of give you an idea what the signage is going to look like. This was already done, the rendering you have before you was done previous with a different design building, however, it states the design intent and size of the sign. We also have another rendering here to show how the porch area projects out to block the sign on the west side of the building as you are traveling south bound on Haggerty Road and with this information before you, I want you to know we have been before the Zoning Board of Appeals. We did have approval from them. They did see there was a practical difficulty, or hardship, and again as an architect, I generally don't like signs, I think they junk up our buildings, however, in this case I believe there is truly a real need because of the multi-access to this site, limited visibility and I'll answer any questions if you have any. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, a motion is in order. Mr. Piereceechi: I will offer an approving resolution but there will be limitations. I feel the petitioner has failed to justify the need for excessive signage over what is permitted by our current sign ordinance. I feel, Mr. Chairman, approving any excessive signage would set an undesirable precedent for the area and being in a special area development zone would not be in the City's best interest, and this approval would limit the sign to only the east and west elevation of the restaurant as shown on the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked A7.1 and A7.2 and that the signage shall not be illuminated beyond 30 minutes after the restaurant closes. Mr. Walsh: I have listened to these arguments three times and I'm going to defer to the ZBA's decision and if there is a hardship here, and I have only looked at the site plan they submitted, it is my opinion that they have done the signage tastefully and I will be voting against this resolution and I will be supporting the three signs they have asked for. Mr. Alanskas: Any other discussion? I have just one comment. We had a different petitioner come before us last year, another restaurant, where they had a lot of neon lighting all over the roof of the building and they hadn't even been in the building yet, so our answer was how do you know its a hardship or that you need this, and my recommendation is that being we are eliminating one sign if you people are there for a year's time and you still feel you are not being seen from the north side approaching the restaurant, you can always come back again and apply for hardship. I think you may find, in my estimation, that you may not need that sign and only time will tell. 15667 Mr. Drane: O.K. That's very fair. I would have to agree with that. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh., it was Noior #8-141-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Sign Permit Application by T. Rogvoy Associates, on behalf of Champps Americana located at 19470 Haggerty Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 6. 1) That the signage shown on the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked A7.1 and A7.2 dated May 23, 1997, prepared by Champps Entertainment, Inc., would be limited to the east and west side; 2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond 30 minutes after the restaurant closes. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Hale& Alanskas NAYS: Koons, Walsh ABSENT: None Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for Camborne Stark Road School Subdivision located on the southwest '41111 1 ' corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Nagy: The Final Plat has been submitted by the proprietor of the Subdivision and is drawn in full compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat, and the financial assurances required have been deposited with the City Clerk and there is a letter to that effect. Also the Engineering Department has reviewed the Final Plant and in their letter of August 13, 1997, similarly is recommending approval signed by City Engineer Robert J. Beckley. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the Commissioners? Will the petitioner please come forward and state your name and address. Bill Roskelly: 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia, MI. This is Camborne Stark Road School Subdivision. At this time all of the improvements are in and we are trying to pursue with the final plat. The post haste comes about with 4 of the lots being retained by the school board and their group will be building homes and they would like to start one this coming month so it behooves me to get this plat on record. So hopefully I will get your approval tonight. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the commission? 15668 Ms. Koons: Will this subdivision be called Camborne Stark Road School Subdivision? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. There will be 17 lots in the subdivision. If for your viewing pleasure I have a copy of the subdivision if you would like to look at it. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions? Ms. Koons: Are the school lots all in one spot? Mr. Roskelly: They are all four ranches. I don't have a copy of one in front of me. The four lots are clustered together. The school agreed to have the four lots. They only build ranches. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions. Hearing none, we need at motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #8-142-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Camborne Stark Road School Subdivision located on the southwest corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 33, for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the Preliminary Plat; 2) That no City Department has objected to the approval of the Final Plat; and 3) That all financial assurances required by the City have been deposited with the City Clerk. Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. William Roskelly:Mr. Vice Chairman, may I request a waiver of the 7 day waiting period? On a motion made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #8-143-97 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 requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with the final plat approval of Camborne Stark Road School 15669 Subdivision located on the southwest corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 748th Regular Meeting held on August 5, 1997. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Ms. Koons and unanimously approved, it was #8-144-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 748th Regular Meeting held on August 5, 1997, are approved. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-8-19 by Gallagher Group requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct two office buildings on property located at 29248 Bretton Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. The petitioner is proposing to construct two separate one story office buildings. One building would be 7,200 sq. ft. in size and have its one centrally located entrance face Middlebelt Road. The site plan shows enclosed trash dumpster areas along the east property line of the large building and near the north elevation of the smaller building. Parking is summarized as follows: - parking required = 35 spaces - parking provided= 66 spaces The landscape plan shows that there would be substantial landscaping throughout the site. Along Middlebelt Road and Bretton Avenue would be 2 ft. to 2-1/2 ft. high landscaped earthberms screening the office buildings from the roads. Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions from the staff? Mr. Nagy, any correspondence. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated August 13, 1997 from the Fire Marshal indicating they they no objections to this proposal. There is a letter from the Senior Building Inspector, David Woodcox, dated August 18, 1997,wherein it was noted that 1) that all lawn areas should be sodded and automatically irrigated, 2) parking area has no provision for lighting and (3) questioned if parking area is to be double striped. Will the petitioner please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Richard Gallagher: 29991 Munger, Livonia, MI. We've got 7,200 sq. ft and I think it's going to be quite attractive. We are working on details for these buildings right 15670 now. The other building, which I am going to own, is 1,600 sq. ft is a small building that faces Middlebelt but big enough for everything I need. We have gone through a lot of programs with the neighbors and have eliminated Noythe entrance we had on Bretton and put it on Middlebelt. The neighbors are happy. I think we have a nice development here. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #8-145-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting held on August 19, 1997, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-8-8-19 by Gallagher Group requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct two office buildings on property located at 29248 Bretton Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-8-8-19 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 7/22/97, as revised, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all light standards shall be shielded from adjacent properties and shall not exceed 20 feet in height; 3) That the three walls of both the trash dumpster areas shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the buildings and the wooden enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 4) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet Ll dated August 5, 1997, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 6) 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; 15671 7) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet 2 dated 4/7/97 and Sheet 3 dated 4/8/97 prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. ti.. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this conditional use approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval and unless a building permit is obtained and construction commenced within that period, or an extension of time obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr.Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this conditional use approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval and unless a building permit is obtained and construction commenced within that period, or an extension of time obtained,this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. On a motion Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-8-8-20 by Gordon Food Service, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 17700 Middlebelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. This site is located adjacent to the east of a recently approved Walgreens Store. The petitioner is proposing to build a commercial building that would be occupied by a Gordon Food Store. The new proposed store would be 17,553 sq. ft in size. The Site Plan shows an enclosed trash dumpster area situated on the east, and to the rear, of the new building. A note on the plan explains that the enclosure would have wood walls and wooden gates. Access to this property would be achieved by either a drive off Six Mile Road or two engress/egress easements between this site and the Walgreen site. A note on the plan states "Gordon Food Service will obtain a reciprocal cross access agreement with Walgreens for ingress/egress". A cut-out of the parking light standards defines the height of the proposed poles as 30 ft. The petitioner has been made aware that the typical height of light standards approved by the City is 20 ft. Parking is summarized as follows: • parking required= 94 spaces • parking provided= 99 spaces 15672 The Landscape Plan shows a small landscaped area along the easterly edge of the parking lot and next to Six Mile Road. Also shown are two 5 foot wide landscape boxes along the south and east elevation of the building. The remaining areas to be landscaped would either be left in their natural state (100 year flood plain of the Tarabusi Drain) or contain no other plan material other than to be hydroseeded. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nagy, do you have any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: I have a letter from the Fire Marshal dated August 13, 1997, indicating they have reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial building. They have no objections to the request. There is a letter from Senior Building Inspector, David Woodcox dated August 18, 1997, stating that the lawn areas proposed are to be hydrseeded. Consideration should be given to sod in these areas. They question whether or not the H.V.A.C. screen wall adequately screen all mechanical equipment. All light standards are proposed to be 30 feet in height and that the parking lot be double striped. Mr. Alanskas: If the petitioner is here, please come forward and give us your name and address Terry Boer: 333 Fiftieth Street, Grand Rapids, Michigan. When we last talked we had a couple of unresolved issues that hopefully we can clear up tonight. One of ``" those was that you wanted to see the brick color. There was some concern about our rendering and how it would look. I have to apologize. I thought the building we built in Chicago was just like that but I did bring the actual brick samples so you could take a look at them Mr. Alanskas: Which color are you referring to? Mr. Boer: It will be the darker color on the building. Mr. Alanskas: Any questions from the commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: The only reason I could find not to go along with this request is your dumpster. You have wood walls. Every business that we approve we want three walls of the dumpster constructed out of the same type of brick that you use in your building and wood enclosure gates on the front of it to be maintained and when not in use, closed. Do you have any objections to doing that? Mr. Boer: There would be no problem with that. We would be happy to do that. 15673 Mr. Piercecchi: I would suggest that the person making the resolution, if it is approving, that they make it to include the changes. Ms. Koons: Mr. Nagy, When we last talked about this at the study session concerning the color of Walgreens somebody was going to check that out. Did anyone check it out? Scott: We had a color rendering of Walgreens. They were earth tones - kind of a tan or brown. Ms. Koons: Was it more of a white/yellow earth tones or more the brown/orange earth tones? Scott: Yellow Mr. Alanskas: Any other questions? I have one we discussed regarding the awnings over the entrance. The original colors were a bright red. Will it be the bright red or a darker red? Mr. Boer: It will be the darker red - more of a maroon color. Like what is on the rendering. Mr. Alanskas: The same color red like on your other buildings? �` Mr. Boer: No, it will be more like the color on the renderings. Mr.Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved it was #8-146-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-8-8-20 by Gordon Food Service, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 17700 Middlebelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 12 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 8/01/97 prepared by OMM Engineering, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 2) That the parking lot light standards shall be no higher than 20 feet; 3) That Landscape Plan marked Sheet L1 dated 8/21/97 prepared by 15674 MHB Design Group Inc. as revised to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff 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 Building Elevation marked Sheet 2 dated 8/7/97 prepared by MHB Design Group Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 7) That the dumpster area shall be enclosed with brick and wood gates on the front and closed when not in use. Ms. Koons: I just want to make sure that the landscape plan marked 7/25/97 that we talked about that the planning staff are making sure that the changes we recommended are being followed. Mr. Nagy: Yes, we are adding more landscaping materials to the greenbelt areas which will include the Six Mile Road frontage and the Walgreen buffer strip. We are advising them to revise the plans and bring them back for our approval and we will have the Commission look at the revised plans. Mr. Alanskas: Any more questions? Hearing none, please call the roll. The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 749th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on August 19, 1997 was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION C. Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: ..cr . Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman /rw