Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-05-25 17743 MINUTES OF THE 806th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION .• OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 25, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 806th 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: Michael Hale Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II and Bill Poppenger, Planner I 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 fmal 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 2000-04-08-05 All City Refrigeration by William Christo Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04- 08-05 All City Refrigeration by William Christo requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing industrial building and expand the parking lot on property located at 32425 Eight Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the south side of Eight Mile between Hubbard and Mayfield. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to the existing industrial building that is located between Midwest Stainless true, Fabricating and the Suburban Shared Center. Because this industrial property abuts residential to the south, a site plan must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council. The existing building on the site 17744 is one story in height and 13,640 sq. ft. in size. The proposed addition would be one story in height, 7,954 sq. ft. in size and constructed to the south(rear) elevation of the existing building. If approved, the completed structure would become a total of 21,954 sq. ft. in area. Because the existing building is nonconforming, due to deficient side yard setback, the petitioner would be required to seek a variance form the Zoning Board of Appeals. The petitioner is also proposing to expand the site's parking lot. A row of parking spaces would be added along the south property line and between the east property line and the building. The parking lot to the rear of the building would intrude 40 ft. into the abutting residential district. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that in cases where the zoning line divides a lot, the ZBA can grant a variance to permit a less restricted use into a more restricted district. The extension cannot exceed 50 ft. Since a ML district is less restrictive than a R-3A district, the petitioner is permitted to seek a variance from the ZBA to extend into the adjacent residential lot. In staff opinion, adequate parking for the site could be achieved without extending into the residential district. The distance between the east property line and the building is approximately 112 ft. A row of double parking spaces, with 22 ft. wide aisles along both sides, could be laid out to easily meet the parking requirement. The submitted site plan shows two separate enclosed trash dumpster areas proposed along the edge of the rear parking lot extension. A new 6 ft. high protective wall is also proposed between the south edge of the parking lot and the remaining residential portion of the lot. The elevation plan shows that the proposed addition would be constructed on all three sides out of painted concrete masonry. The petitioner has stated that the new addition would match that of the existing building in materials and color. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 12, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 1, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This petition, as proposed, will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to expand a building with a nonconforming side yard setback. Required is 30.0 feet provided is 24.98 feet. (2) This petition as proposed will need permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow for the expansion of ML use 40 feet into the R-3A District(part of Lot 104). (3) Consideration should be given to the omission of the protective wall on the south 40 feet of both the east and west lot lines. (4) This unit had outside storage (as of last week), which is not permitted. The outside storage must be removed or a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals must be obtained (5) The required accessible parking as depicted may be incorrect. The accessible parking must be the closest parking spaces to the main entrance(s). (6) Sheet SK-1 depicts Hydro-seed or sod. This issue must be clarified for the Planning Commission. (7) Required double striping of the parking area is not indicated and must be clarified (8) This petition does not detail if all landscaped areas are irrigated(including front areas) and should be clarified. I trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The second letter is 17745 from the Livonia Fire &Rescue Division, dated May 3, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the existing industrial building and expand the parking lot on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations. (1) If subject building is to be provided with automatic sprinkler systems, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 1000 feet from the Fire Department Connection. (2) Access around buildings shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet. The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 4, 2000, which reads as follows: "On the east side of the building, the aisle between the handicap spot is eight feet. This could be reduced to five to meet the requirements. Handicap spaces must have the required signs for each parking space per the City Ordinance. The site plan does not address the lighting. We request that lighting be adequate to illuminate the parking lot but as not to disturb the neighborhood." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Engineering Division, dated May 4, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? William Christo, 20122 W. McNichols, Detroit, MI 48219. I am the architect for the project. This is a little bit more of a definitive drawing. I think you can see it better. The reason for the dotted lines is we are looking at a recessed loading dock into the building and to do that we are dealing with 55 foot semis and this is the turning radiuses on those semis which is the reason for the setback approximately 30 feet into the R-3A. We understand that we've got to get a variance for that. I don't know if you are familiar with the site but where the asphalt stops now, my client owns another 120 feet back there all the way across. It is a heavily wooded area. We are looking at maintaining that woods in this corner and if you look at the building, there is a demising wall down the middle of the building. There is one tenant on this side. My client is on this side all the way to the back. Originally we had parking all along the back here also. That was deleted to put this berm in but now it puts his staff and trucks, which are service vehicles and vans, pretty remote to where he wants to access them on the back. We would like to add, not all the way across but probably a third of that with eight more spaces, not deleting the 26 we have already, but adding another 8 at the back of the building. This would allow him to park his vehicles back there. The building would obstruct their view from Eight Mile. I think it would be a better situation. I didn't quite understand the waste receptacle comment. There is a requirement for dumpster enclosures. We have one for each tenant. Regarding irrigation, we understand that this whole area will be irrigated except this existing woods area. The front of the building is all existing and it is irrigated at this point and time. 17746 Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mrs. Koons: What is the nature of each of the businesses in the building? Martin Perpich, 32425 W. Eight Mile. This is commercial refrigeration on this side and this is a fastening supply company on this side. This would be a common dock area and they would take back into here and we would take back to the back of the new addition. Mrs. Koons: I don't know if this was available on another plan, on an alternate plan, but your landscape plan, to my observation, doesn't show what type of plants or what type of trees. It just says deciduous trees. Mr. Christo: There is a schedule on the right side of the drawing. There are letters on each plant. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: I understand that the staff came up with a layout that would eliminate the intrusion into the residential zone and that you did not accept that. Is there any reason why? Mr. Christo: I explained to them that that is the reason we are showing those turning radiuses for the semis. Then encroach into that area. There is no way we can avoid not taking that pavement back that far. Mr. Piercecchi: This is the first intrusion into that R-3 zone between Merriman and Farmington Road. Mr. Shane I know has some comments on that. I will pass this on to Mr. Shane. Mr. Shane: If you didn't have the opportunity to extend that zoning through the Zoning Board of Appeals, what would be your alternative? Did you look at alternative plans not extending into the zoning line as it exists now? Mr. Christo: If we couldn't extend into that zoning line, then the addition would become negligible and the project wouldn't go. Mr. Shane: In other words you couldn't cut back the addition far enough to accommodate the turning radius on your property as it is currently zoned? Mr. Christo: We would have to cut it back about 35 ft. to 40 ft. Right now we are going out 70 feet so we are talking 35 feet, about a 50% reduction. Mr. Shane: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: How long have you been at this location? How long have you owned the property? 17747 Mr. Perpich: Since 1976. *N. Mr. LaPine: The two businesses together, what is the total number of vehicles, employees' cars that park here. Do you know? Both businesses, not just yours, the other business too. Mr. Perpich: On a daily basis, because a lot of the service trucks are in and out? Mr. LaPine: Do the employees that use the service trucks take the service trucks home each night or are the service trucks brought back here and parked? Mr. Perpich: There are four of them that go home and then there are two that come back and park inside the building. Mr. LaPine: So basically, those six employees, we don't have a problem with parking because four of them have a truck that comes in, loads up and takes off to do whatever they have to do that day and the other two are parked inside so they do have cars. Just give me an idea how many parking spaces you use. Mr. Perpich; The nature of the other business is almost the same. They come in and load and they take their vehicles home. On a regular basis, there are probably 10 vehicles that are office employees and shop employees. Mr. LaPine: I guess the argument that your architect is giving us is because you have the west side of this building, you want to be able to have your vehicles parked over there. I assume you are loading and unloading stuff out of these vehicles all the time. Is that correct? Or do they just come in once a day, load up in the morning and take off? If that is the problem, then I don't see a problem with the parking but if you do have a problem with the parking, then I would like to know what it is. Mr. Perpich: We have five vehicles, vans, at this present time. The reason for this is to expand. But at this present time we have two vans that stay at the shop and that will go out and come back and park at the shop and then we have two pickups and a stake truck that we also park in this building. So we have a total of five vehicles. That would put those vehicles in sight of Eight Mile all day long and they are loaded vans with a lot of equipment. It would just work out better for us, the current way is we come back and pull back to that line and then we park there. As we are working, we can always see our vehicles. This would put them out of sight. They are lettered. Mr. LaPine: How often do the semis some into your establishment? Mr. Perpich: Probably three a day. Mr. LaPine: That is for your business. How about the other business? Mr. Perpich: Probably on an average, about one a day. Mr. LaPine: We are talking about three semis a day. 17748 Mr. Perpich: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. McCann: My concern is that you want to go into a residential area with your black top and the trucks moving back there and that is a great concern to us. It is an older part of the city where the residential abuts commercial and industrial uses. To reduce your greenbelt area for parking bothers me even more because we want as much separation as possible. You have shown on your plans "off street loading". You marked some boxes up against the building. If the trucks have that much arc room, it seems to me you would have 4 or 5 spaces along the back of the building right there for parking. Mr. Christo: Those are not for semis. Those would be like vans and smaller vehicles. If you look at the elevations, we've got overhead doors at these locations and we also have one for this tenant on the side of the building. One thing we are doing is widening this so if there is a truck here, basically we've got a one way circulation around the building, but if there is an unloading situation happening on the east side of the building, this allows people to get through here while that blockage is there. All we are showing here is for code even though the main dock is an unloading area, we have the potential of having three or four more spots occupied by a vehicle that is loading or unloading. `... Mr. McCann: Your client just told us that at any time he will have two or three trucks in there and he doesn't want them viewed from the road. If they are in there, they obviously are in there to be loaded or unloaded. He is concerned about the commercial trucks. Those are the ones you would want parked at the rear of the building. Correct? Mr. Perpich: No. I was referring to our service vehicles. They would be here. This door would always have to remain open. This is basically the same setup we have now but it is up at this point of the building, we would be taking this and moving this back to the back. We usually leave this spot, you can't park that close to the edge because of the semis coming in. We just sort of leave that open and then this one we don't park in front of generally because there is action there throughout the day. So it really leaves two spots in between the doors, possibly three. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, what do you have delivered where you need semis coming to your door step? Mr. Perpich: Ice machines and refrigeration equipment. Mr. Alanskas: How long are these pieces of equipment? Mr. Perpich: They vary but on an average .... Mr. Alanskas: Maximum. 17749 Mr. Perpich: Maximum would be 20 feet. `+- Mr. Alanskas: The reason I ask is because besides yourself having a problem with distance to make a turn going to a well, a lot of trucking companies, by request, say I only have 25 ft. or 30 ft. for you people to come in, they will bring smaller trucks to deliver your merchandise, where you would not need a semi coming to your door step. You can get a 30-foot van. You can get a 25-foot van, total length. That is why I asked you how long you have merchandise delivered to your doorstep. If you don't have 40 feet of 50 feet pieces of equipment, you wouldn't need a semi back there. Mr. Perpich: I think that a 55 ft. trailer would be maximum, but in my experience you are lucky enough to get the trucking company to show up on time and when they are suppose to be there. Some of them do. A city driver will come in in a shorter trailer but then we have shipments that come in from Denver that will come in on a 55 foot trailer. Mr. Alanskas: I am sure they will come into a terminal because that happens all day long where I work and we have to request certain lengths of trailers for merchandise. When we purchase it, we say you can only bring a 30 foot truck or you won't get in here. You can do the same them, by request. If you are going to buy merchandise and they want to deliver it to you, they will get the right size truck to your doorstep where you not need a big semi, 55 foot trailer. Mr. Taormina:I would just like to point out a couple of items relative to the dimension that we are dealing with this evening and maybe that would shed some light on what is being requested. Possibly they are looking at this and reconsidering making some adjustments accordingly. The property itself is roughly 335 feet deep and that includes the lots fronting on Eight Mile as well as the lot at the rear. In total, we are looking at a parcel depth of about 335.27 feet. The zoning line extends from the center of Eight Mile Road for a total distance of 360 feet. So with a 60 foot half right-of-way, the zoning line extends 300 feet on the property. That leaves 35.27 feet along the south property line which is under the R-3 zoning classification. The current plan shows a 20-foot greenbelt along the south property line. The amount of encroachment being considered this evening beyond that zoning line is really only about 15-1/2 feet, roughly. The gentleman said earlier that it could result in as much as a 35 ft. reduction in the building addition.. Maybe with this information, he could consider that. Fifteen feet could be a minor adjustment to the size of the building or possibly a reconsideration of the turning movements along the rear so that they could comply with that 35 foot greenbelt along the back and not have any need to go before the Zoning Board at least for that part of the request. Mr. McCann: It would also solve his problem if he was able to move the greenbelt 15 feet being able to park cars back there and maintain a decent buffer. You are saying if he moves the greenbelt in 15 feet more, that we can give him 8 spots, if he moved the greenbelt in 15 feet more along the rear? Mr. Taormina: I apologize. I don't know what 8 spots you are talking about. Along the back? 17750 Mr. McCann: He wants 8 spots along the rear property line beyond where his plan shows right .�.. now. He wants to encroach into the greenbelt for 8 spots. Mr. Taormina: It is not shown on the plan? Mr. McCann: He wants to amend his plan to add 8 more spots. Mr. Taormina: Then the 8 spots would be a further encroachment, if he is going to move them to the side unless he can find a space somewhere along that rear property line. Mr. McCann; These are things to work on. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition. I don't see anyone wishing to speak on this petition. Mr. Shane: That 363 ft. line that Mark was referring to was established lots of years ago. It is not unique to this particular property. It goes all along Eight Mile Road. In many instances,just like this one, the zoning line therefore, because it is rigid at 360 feet south cuts the properties in half in some cases, like this one. It has caused the Zoning Board, on a number of occasions, to extend 50 feet because of that zoning line. The petitioner is caught in this dilemma. I personally think it is high time that we looked at Eight Mile Road and begin to adjust these lines accordingly. To see if we can't get the zoning line on the property line that makes sense. Then we wouldn't have this problem. That is not going to help this petitioner at this moment but I think this might be the time we ought to start �.. looking at this issue and change something that was done probably 35 or 40 years ago. I just wanted to make that comment before someone made a tabling resolution and I couldn't make a comment. I really think when time permits we ought to take a look at that issue and see if we can't solve that problem. Mr. McCann: That is where I was heading because we have concerns about parking in the rear that he wants to address. We have possibilities that Mr. Taormina is suggesting for a compromise that might work for everybody. You bring up a good suggestion to look at it all. I think that might be a proper motion. Is there a motion? Mr. Perpich: I would like to make a comment. There was a comment that this was the first type of encroachment onto that R-3A in this area. The self-storage facility on Eight Mile comes right up to about this point with storage buildings right here. They are about 10 feet from this back lot line that are bordering up. There is a storage building right here and with a fence that comes down here and that is split over. This is another building here. Mr. McCann: That is a good point. Mr. Perpich: It has been done before with an unattractive chain link fence. Mr. Taormina:We'll check that, but from the information we presently have, the rear of that storage unit does abut the zoning line and I am not sure that it extends beyond that. We will check the site plan and provide that information to the Planning 17751 Commission. It is my understanding, at least based on the photograph I am looking at right now, that it does comply. r.. Mr. LaPine: I have to agree with Mr. Shane. The years I was on the Zoning Board of Appeals we waived a lot of these 50 feet because a lot of these parcels are 600 feet deep and the dividing line was 300 feet. People were complaining they didn't want to put up walls because they were separating themselves from their own property. For years the City was talking about putting a road through there so we could open up this property but it never happened. The point I am making here, here is a gentleman who has been in our town since 1976. That is 24 years he has operated a business. We don't want to lose a business. I don't think what he is asking for here tonight is that extreme that we haven't allowed in other areas. Not in this particular area, I grant you, but in other areas along Eight Mile Road and I don't see any real harm of allowing him to go ahead and build this addition because basically due to the fact that he has been a good citizen for 24 years and he wants to expand his business. We should encourage people who have been here all these years to expand their businesses. Thank you. Mr. McCann: We have a tabling motion. Where are we going to go? Is there a supporting motion? On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved it was #5-106-2000 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-04-08-05 All City Refrigeration by William Christo requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing industrial building and expand the parking lot on property located at 32425 Eight Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 3 be tabled to June 13, 2000. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. We have tabled this to the 13th but we will be meeting on June 6th. What we would like to do is have you get together, or your architect, with Mr. Taormina or somebody from the Planning Department. Those issues can be looked at. You have concerns about where your parking is going to go in the rear and we are going to take a look at the self-storage unit and a couple other issues. Hopefully on June 6th we can all get together and work it out so that we can resolve this on June 13th to get you moving on. Mr. Perpich: What I am looking to do is build as big a building as I can possibly build and still maintain the parking out back. Thank you. ITEM #2 Petition 2000-05-08-06 Madonna University/DiPonio Wing by Allen & Laux, Inc. Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05- 08-06 Madonna University/DiPonio Wing by Allen& Laux, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in 17752 connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing office building located at 36200 Schoolcraft Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Miller: The site is located on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Levan. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to one of the office buildings located across the street from the Madonna University campus. The site plan shows that there are two existing buildings on the property, identified as "Building A" and "Building B". The addition would be added to the north (rear) elevation of"Building B". The "Building B' is 13, 218 sq. ft. in size. The new addition would be 2,100 sq. ft. in size. If approved, once completed "Building B" would become a combined total of 15, 428 sq. ft. in area. Presently in the area where the proposed addition would be erected is a set of exposed trash dumpsters and six(6) parking spaces. The site plan shows a new enclosed trash dumpster area located kitty corner from the northwest corner of "Building B", along the back edge of the parking lot. To help the site meet the parking requirement, four (4) new spaces would be added near the drive off Levan Road. Parking required is 110 spaces. The landscape plan shows that new landscaping would be added around the area of the new addition. The rest of the existing landscaping on the site would remain as is. The elevation plan shows that the west elevation(facing Levan) of the new addition would be constructed out of"new glazed masonry material- color to compliment existing building" and a glass curtain wall around the entrance. The north (rear) elevation would be constructed partly out of a metal seam siding material, similar to what is over the windows of the existing building, and the "glazed masonry material". The east elevation would be constructed entirely out of the metal seam siding material. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: We have four letters. The first letter is from the Engineering Division, dated May 15, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. 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 Inspection Department, dated May 16, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 8, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The asphalt curbs on site are in need of maintenance and repair. (2) The parking lot needs some maintenance and parking must be double striped (3) The accessible parking spaces, as depicted, are incorrect. This Department has no objection to this petition other than as noted above. I trust this provides you with the requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue Division, dated May 17, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the existing office building located on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal provided the addition complies to B.O.C.A. 96." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 18, 17753 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 r.. signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Robert Allen, 23611 Liberty Street, Farmington, Michigan. I am the architect with Allen& Laux, Inc. I want to give you a brief overview of what we are proposing here. As your planner described, this project involves doing a fairly small addition approximately 2100 sq. ft. to an existing office building that is used by Madonna. The addition is going to be used for faculty offices. It is in an area that is currently used as a later in the evening entrance for the facility. The project was designed to be a more appropriate entrance to the building in the evening. I brought some other elevations just to give you an idea of the relative size of this addition to the existing building. This is the existing building all the way across facing Levan. This is the addition right here. It is relatively small. Similarly the north elevation is right here. The east elevation would be along here. The building is designed to compliment the existing building materials. If you visited that building, it consists of masonry end walls with metal trim in between and but jointed tinted glass for glazing. Our addition uses the same materials, or very close to them. We actually have more glass on the main entry, which is right here. It will be a curtain wall material in the same tone. With regard to the block actually to provide a better match to the glazed block that is there, we are using a polished masonry material. I believe I brought that to your last study meeting. I do have it here again, if you need to see it. The balance of the building which really cannot be seen, picks up the metal siding that is used over most of the building now. I believe the proposed addition will look as if it should have been on the building and will blend pretty harmoniously with its surroundings. With regard to landscaping, one of the opportunities we have now is to relocate the existing dumpsters which currently were back in this corner. They now will get a proper dumpster enclosure and the same glazed masonry material. The landscaping has been clustered around the doorway to provide an attractive entrance. With the additional grass around the building actually this will improve the appearance of that corner and make a better neighbor to the surrounding properties. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one wishing to speak, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was #5-107-2000 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-05-08-06 Madonna University/DiPonio Wing by Allen &Laux, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the '"' Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the 17754 existing office building located at 36200 Schoolcraft Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 20 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the site plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated 4/25/00 prepared by Allen& Laux, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the landscape plan marked Sheet L-1 dated 5/05/00 prepared by Michael J. Dul&Associates, 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 exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet A2.0 dated 5/05/00 prepared by Allen&Laux, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same glazed masonry material used in the construction of the addition and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 7) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated May 16, 2000: - that the site's asphalt curbs shall be repaired and maintained - that the parking lot shall be repaired and the spaces shall be double striped - that all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free requirements 8) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 9) That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-05-SN-05 Mazel's/Wonderland Mall Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05- SN-05 Mazel's Wonderland Mall requesting approval for signage for one of the units of the regional shopping center located at 29525 Plymouth Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 35. 17755 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads. The applicant is requesting approval for a wall sign for one of the �,. units of the Wonderland Mall. This unit was most recently occupied by an American Eagle Outlet Store and is located behind the Montgomery Wards Store. The sign would be visible from Middlebelt Road. Signage Permitted for this site under Section 18.50H: Wall signage (1) only if it identifies a principal tenant, building name or regional center. (2) No more than 1 wall sign per building facade. (3) Total of all wall signs shall not exceed 500 sq. ft. in sign area. Signage Proposed: (1) wall sign, east elevation "Mazel's Name Brands For Less" (121 sq. ft. in sign area). Excess Signage: Mall is already in excess of signs and sign area. Because the proposed wall sign 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. Back in 1993 the Planning Commission, City Council and ZBA approved a 199 sq. ft. wall sign on the same elevation for the former tenant, American Eagle. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: We have one letter which is from the Inspection Department, dated May 18, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 16,2 000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. As proposed, this signage will need variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals '`,, for excess signage and excess signage area. This Department has no objection to this petition. I trust this will provide the requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. Mr. McCann: The petitioner was here last week at our study session. There were no issues for him tonight so I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one wishing to speak, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was #5-108-2000 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-05-SN-05 Mazel's requesting approval for signage for Wonderland Mall located at 28525 Plymouth Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the sign package submitted by Wonderland Shopping Center Venture Limited Partnership, as received by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That this wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after the mall closes; 17756 3) 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: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to say that in 1993 the Planning Commission and City Council approved a sign for 199 sq. ft. and now we are down to 121 sq. ft. I think we are headed in the right direction. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-04-SN-04 Country Style Market Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04- SN-04 Country Style Market requesting approval of signage for the commercial building located at 19618 Middlebelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt and St. Martins. I would like to point out since the last meeting, the petitioner has submitted conforming signs now. He is allowed one wall sign at 43 sq. ft. He is now proposing one for 22 sq. ft. so now the wall sign is conforming. The ground sign, if you remember, he had a 30 sq. ft. sign but he did not equal the tenant panels. He has submitted a new sign. Each tenant panel is a 30 sq. ft. sign. It would be 10 sq. ft. each and that is what he shows. All the signage is conforming at this time Mr. McCann: Is the set back and location of the monument sign conforming? Mr. Miller: Yes, he still shows 10 ft. from the right-of-way. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: I have a question for Mark. Does this area, in as much as there are four or more buildings in a mall, qualify only for a business center sign? Not an individual? Mr. Taormina: You are correct. If this center had four or more tenants, it would be limited to a business center sign. But in this case, there are three tenants at the commercial building. Mr. Piercecchi: No, there are five tenants in that building. 17757 Rocky Zebari, 37731 Stableview, Farmington Hills, MI. I own Country Style Market. There �... are only three tenants It is two separate centers. The other one is owned by someone else. Mr. Piercecchi: Since when is it a requirement that a center must be owned by only one person? Mr. McCann: What we've got are two separate ownership between two separate centers. Right? One has three tenants on it and the other one has two tenants on it. Mr. Piercecchi: But they are contiguous. One tenant extends over. There is a separation there that protrudes out with landscaping and the sports store goes over in that area. It extends into it. If five people owned it, then they could each have one? Is that what we are saying here? Mr. McCann: What they are saying is that they are separate tax parcels. They are separate buildings owned by different individuals. Its like condominiums that can be separately owned. They may have adjoining walls but they are separately owned buildings. Mr. Piercecchi: What you are telling me Jim is that if five people owned that, then each one of them could have a monument sign? Mr. McCann: No. I don't believe that is the case. My understanding is that there are two separate buildings that have an adjoining wall. Is that correct sir? Mr. Zebari: Yes. What happened is that the hockey shop leased from both centers and he opened a wall in between. I don't know how that happened. It was before I purchased the property. He has his own sign on the other center. Mr. McCann: I think what you are saying, how would you allow someone who has a building on a property line take down a barrier wall? Correct? Mr. Zebari: They are aware of it. I mentioned it to them. I am sure when he opened the wall between two buildings, he must have done it with their approval. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, can you comment? Mr. Taormina: I think you were correct when you said there were two separate buildings that share a common wall. A firewall is usually required between them and there are certain requirements as far as a separation of those structures. I am not aware that the ordinance would classify that as a single business center for the purposes of signage. It simply stipulates that a freestanding sign is permitted where each single business or business center is located. There are two separate legal descriptions. Mr. McCann: I am not sure how you take down a barrier wall, fire wall along the property line, but that is not the issue here tonight, is it? 17758 Mr. Piercecchi: I was not aware that there were two separate buildings. I looked at it as one package and when I saw this request for a monument sign, with three tenants so.. on it, I looked at it as having five tenants in there. There is Subway in there. There is a sports shop, a finance company and this gentleman is in there and that adds up to five. In as much if it is four or greater, you can only get a business center sign. That is why I brought up the point. If I am in error, that this is the way that it is and it is two separate buildings, then that is another ball game. Mr. Alanskas: Is there a reason why you need a monument sign because those businesses have been there for a long time without one and they are flourishing very well and you are so close to the road. Why do you need a monument? Mr. Zebari: We have three different tenants. Mr. Alanskas: I understand that you do. Mr. Zebari: A monument sign would give the property better identification. Mr. Alanskas: You are going to have a large sign on your building for your business and why would you have to have another one? Mr. Zebari: The wall sign is not very visible because if you are driving, you don't want to look to the right or to the left, you want to look straight ahead. ti.. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mrs. Koons: Mr. Miller, the new sign package that you talked to us about tonight, is that dated? In our notes we have a sign package date of March 21, 2000 and you've got some changes. Mr. Miller: They should have the new date. I should have put that in there. If I didn't, I will correct that. Mrs. Koons: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: If you don't think the wall sign is necessary, do you need a wall sign? Mr. Zebari: Yes, I do. Mr. LaPine: If you say they don't see the wall sign... Mr. Zebari: They don't see it as much. This will be more or less a sign that will be shared between three tenants. Mr. LaPine: But the other two tenants have signs on their portion of the building, too, advertising where they are located. In reality, we have three wall signs plus three °""' standing signs. 17759 Mr. Zebari: It is just like any plaza. They have identification for the plaza. Say if somebody wants to come to the General Finance, they would refer to Country Style Plaza. They are not going to look for General Finance. Mr. LaPine: I can understand what you are saying that the sign only says that it is the Country Style Plaza. Anybody that goes there knows that is what they are going for then why do we need the other stores on that sign? Mr. Zebari: It was my understanding that the monument sign has to be shared between the three. I've got no objection to putting all on there. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. Shane: Our notes indicate that the staff is of the opinion that this site cannot support a ground sign. Mr. Taormina, would you care to expand on that? Mr. Taormina: I believe that is in reference to the set back. The original sign that was proposed was nonconforming. The fact that there is currently a parking deficiency on the site and to construct the sign would require the elimination of at least one parking space. Mr. McCann: So he would have to go to the ZBA? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was #5-109-2000 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-04-SN-04 Country Style Market requesting approval of signage for the commercial building located at 19618 Middlebelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the sign package submitted by ABC Signs & Graphics, as received by the Planning Commission on May 25, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that a ground sign for this site shall not be permitted; 2) That the wall sign shall not exceed 43 sq. ft. in sign area; 3) That the wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this store closes; 4) That before any sign permits are issued for this store the applicant shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following site deficiencies as outlined in the correspondence dated April 24, 2000: 17760 - that the problems and site deficiencies outlined in a correspondence from the Inspection Department dated March 11, ',o,,, 1999, shall be corrected - that dryvit shall be placed on the full width of the canopy fascia on the front of the building, and continued along the top five (5') feet the full extent of the south elevation - that the landscaping on the site shall be cleaned up and brought to a healthy condition 5) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #5 Approval of the Minutes 800th Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 803`d Regular Meeting held on March 28, 2000. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was #5-110-2000 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 803rd Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission of March 28, 2000, are hereby approved. '``. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Hale ABSTAIN: Koons, Alanskas Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 806th Regular Meeting held on May 25, 2000, was adjourned at 8:24 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION () 1 �-61.., � � f 0 _.31_r _rA) Dan Piercecchi, Acting Secretary L------ , ,), ATTEST: ' -f , � L �' J. e C.McCann, Chairman .. /rw