Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2016-09-13 MINUTES OF THE 1,094TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 13, 2016, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,094th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Kevin Priddy Carol Smiley Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Peter Ventura Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw 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 make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their 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. Item #1 will be moved to the end of the agenda so give the petitioner an opportunity to get to the meeting. ITEM #1 PETITION 2016-08-08-11 GAV ASSOCIATES Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2016- 08-08-11 submitted by G.A.V. Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the commercial strip center at 36184, 36200 and 36232 Five Mile Road, located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Golfview Drive and Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17. September 13, 2016 27839 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to remodel the exterior of a commercial building that is on the north side of Five Mile Road between Golfview and Levan. This property is a few parcels east of Levan. The building on the property is about 3,000 square feet in size. The property altogether is 0.25 acre in area with 74 feet of frontage on Five Mile Road by a depth of 150 feet. The zoning of the property is C-2, General Business. Tenants inside this strip center include a barbershop, a Little Caesars carry-out restaurant and a video game store. The building sits roughly 75 feet back from Five Mile Road, with all on-site parking located in the front yard between the building and the road right-of-way. The proposal involves a complete remodeling of the building's storefront elevation as well as a small portion of the east elevation of the building. The west side of the building contains zero setback along the lot line and is effectively attached to the adjacent party store. Thus it is not exposed or visible. The changes would include removing the existing façade treatments and adding a new parapet wall along the upper part of the building which faces Five Mile Road. The new vertical wall elements would contain a couple of height variations. The tallest part is located in the center of the building and the design incorporates some offsets that would add relief along the elevation. The primary exterior building material on the upper part is E.I.F.S. or dryvit. There would be a decorative smooth metal cornice on the highest part of the building running along the roofline. Flanking that on either side would be the same type of cornice treatment but would be constructed out of E.I.F.S. There are currently metal columns on the building that support an overhang. Those would all be re-clad with cultured stone. It appears from the renderings that the same cultured stone material is going to be used on the walls of the storefront, which is behind the columns. Existing glazing and the glazed entry doors are going to remain as they are today. The improvements would continue and wrap slightly around the east elevation, and then the rest of the east elevation would be repainted to match the color of the remodeled storefront. There are no other site changes or improvements proposed. However, a number of site deficiencies were identified by the Inspection Department as part of their review of this petition. It is recommended that these be corrected as a condition of approval. A couple things came up at the study session. There was a request to see how these colors relate to the colors of the storefront next door. The rendering actually includes a very close replication of the colors used on the façade next door. The other issue that came up was how will the two heights relate to one another. The architect, who is here this evening, has done an excellent job of illustrating how the entire center would look. Again, these are two separate buildings on two September 13, 2016 27840 separate properties, roughly the same size, same amount of frontage and each having equal set back from the road. With that, I'd be happy to read out the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Please. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 6, 2016, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time. The existing property is assigned an address of 36174 Five Mile Road for the entire parcel, with a range of 36174 to 36232 Five Mile Road for the individual suites within the building. The City of Livonia legal description included with the petition appears to be correct and should be used in association with this petition. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main, and storm and sanitary sewers. Should renovations to the building require alterations to the existing services, drawings will need to be submitted to this department to determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 12, 2016, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to remodel the exterior of the commercial strip center on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 7, 2016, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 9, 2016, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) The East driveway approach is deteriorating and needs to be replaced. A permit from Wayne County will be required. (2) The portion of broken public sidewalk at the east driveway needs to be replaced and a permit from Wayne County will be required. (3) The curb along the east property line needs to be repaired or replaced. (4) The Commission and/or Council may wish to address the dumpster enclosure. (5) The parking lot shall be repaired and restriped as necessary. Parking spaces shall be 10' wide and 20' deep and double striped. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. Thank you. September 13, 2016 27841 Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the Planning Department? Seeing none, is the petitioner here? We will need your name and address for the record please. Al Valentine, G.A.V. Associates, 24001 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 180A, Farmington, Michigan 48336. Good evening. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Valentine. Would you like to add to what you've heard so far? Mr. Valentine: Not a whole lot to add. We're just here to update the existing building. It's never been touched since the '70's or even before that. Trying to be somewhat in touch with today's standards and kind of work with the adjacent building colors and materials. The adjacent building has E.I.F.S. and stone, so it would be somewhat similar. The owner is here, too, if you want to question any of the things that are required. Mr. Wilshaw: We'll see what kind of questions we have for you. You're the architect, correct? Mr. Valentine: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Ms. Smiley I was out there. What are you going to do with the dumpster? Nick Tartaglia, 7045 Sparling, Shelby, Michigan. Good evening. Because it was my uncle's property next door, actually the property belongs to my father, so they kind of went their separate ways a little bit so he wanted the dumpster out of his area over there. We could possibly put an enclosure around it now. Ms. Smiley: That would be good. And I noticed the same thing the inspector noticed about the driveway and stuff like that. Mr. Tartaglia: We went out there and filled in the holes yesterday. We threw a couple bags of the cold pack just to fill those bigger potholes. We had actually renovated the parking lot a few years back. So that's in good condition, the parking lot is. We did see from the sidewalk to the street needed repair. We plan on taking care of that as well. My father is looking for a cement man right now to fix the driveway as well. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. September 13, 2016 27842 Mr. Priddy: Good evening. I had a chance to visit your establishment, the strip mall there. I think the new plans will be a big improvement. It will make it look much more complementary to your neighbor there. The drawing was very helpful in trying to illustrate that. Have you considered any type of planters or something to bring a little bit of green anywhere? I was just curious. Mr. Tartaglia: We haven't even thought of it. Mr. Priddy: There's a lot of concrete and everything. I understand it's been quite a while. Mr. Tartaglia: Yeah. I forgot how long ago my father built that. It was 50 years at Roger and Rod's. You guys celebrated that last year I believe it was. So, yes. It's been around a long time. Mr. Priddy: The illustration is very helpful in illustrating how they complement each other, I appreciate it. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions or comments for the petitioner? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against? I don't see anybody coming forward. Thank you for coming, gentlemen, and a motion would be in order. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-92-2016 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2016-08-08-11 submitted by G.A.V. Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the commercial strip center at 36184, 36200 and 36232 Five Mile Road, located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Golfview Drive and Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP.101 dated August 17, 2016, prepared by G.A.V. Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Elevation Plan marked Sheet A.101 dated August 17, 2016, prepared by G.A.V. Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a September 13, 2016 27843 compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 4. That the dumpster shall be screened by means of an enclosure constructed of masonry walls with metal enclosure gates which shall be properly maintained and, when not in use, closed at all times; 5. That the parking lot and approach shall be repaired, resealed and restriped to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; 6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 7. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 8. That unless approved by the proper local authority, any type of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, shall be prohibited; 9. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated September 9, 2016, from the Assistant Building Inspector shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; 10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 11. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina: We did incorporate into the approving resolution two of the suggestions of the Inspection Department with respect to the driveway and the dumpster enclosure, but there were a couple of other items that, if the maker of the motion would accept, should September 13, 2016 27844 be included. I would suggest incorporating the Inspection letter into the approving resolution, even though there might be a little bit of redundancy. At least that way we are covering all the deficiencies. Mr. Caramagno: It does, and it includes that curb as well that's busted away. Yes, I would agree to include that. Mr. Wilshaw: Mrs. McCue, are you okay with that? Ms. McCue: I'm fine. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2016-08-08-12 BRICKSHIRE SQUARE Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2016- 08-08-12 submitted by C & M Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of one of the units at the Brickshire Square Retail Plaza (29102 Five Mile Road), located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Harrison Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to remodel the exterior façade of a commercial building. This building is located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Middlebelt Road. It's actually the second block east of Middlebelt. The zoning is C-2, General Business. The overall site is about one acre in size with 200 feet of frontage on Five Mile Road and a depth of 220 feet. This property contains two multi-tenant retail buildings. The westerly building is the larger of the two, about 8,500 square feet, and faces Five Mile Road. The structure was recently fire damaged, but it has been renovated and is currently vacant. It is designed to hold up to five tenants. The easterly building, which is the building we're looking at this evening, is about 6,000 square feet in total size and it is oriented perpendicular to Five Mile Road with the end unit facing south towards Five Mile and the remaining store fronts facing west. This building contains roughly four tenant units. Currently one tenant, Nesco Resources, leases space in the center while the other spaces are vacant. The request involves only a portion of the easterly building and it would impact only the south side of the building that faces Five Mile Road. The request would completely remodel the exterior of the storefront while the remaining September 13, 2016 27845 storefront elevations would remain as they are today. The south elevation of the building currently contains a glass atrium and a combination of vinyl siding, brick as well as asphalt shingled roofing material. These features would all be removed. The new elements for the structure would mostly include E.I.F.S. There would be new variations to the height as well as the width of the parapet walls that would project above the existing peaked roofline in order to conceal its view from certain angles. The design does incorporate a decorative crown molding along the roofline, which would also consist of an E.I.F.S. material. A four foot high brick wainscot would run along the base beneath the windows. There is currently brick there, and the plans indicate that the brick would be replaced with new brick. I'm not sure why it needs to be replaced, but it is shown on the plans. There are no other site improvements or changes proposed as part of this petition. In discussing this at the study session, the original plan included some other improvements or markings along the face of the building. Those have been eliminated. There was also some concern about how the color would relate to the color on the adjacent renovated structure. I was told today by the architect, who couldn't be here this evening, that this design is intended to reflect the fact that the color on the building would match the color of the adjacent building, so they would look a little more coordinated. He has also included the similar diamond pattern etching in the E.I.F.S. on the main part of the structure. I'll quickly scroll to the photographs of what that other building looks like. It does have some difference in the design treatments with the roofing and other colors, but it is intended that the new façade on the easterly building would match the main diamond pattern and color. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 6, 2016, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed project at this time. The legal description included with the petition appears to be correct and should be used. The existing property is assigned an address of 29102 Five Mile Road for the entire parcel, with a range of 29102 to 29106 Five Mile Road for the individual suites within the building. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main, and storm and sanitary sewers. Should renovations to the building require alterations to the existing services, drawings will need to be submitted to this department to determine if permits will be required." The letter is signed by September 13, 2016 27846 David Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 12, 2016, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to remodel the exterior of one of the units of the Brickshire Square Retail Plaza on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Daniel Lee, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 7, 2016, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 9, 2016, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. The parking lot shall be repaired and restriped as necessary. Parking spaces shall be 10' wide and 20' deep and double striped. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Gust Mareskas, C and M Corp., 2045 Amboy Street, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. Good evening, gentlemen. Mr. Wilshaw: Would you like to add to the presentation? Mr. Mareskas: As you indicated for the parking lot, it's on the way to being redone property. Unfortunately, this year is a tough year to find people to do the job, but I'm on the way to finish it, re-stripe it and get it the way it should be because I'll finish the other projects so it's got to look number one all the way around. Now as far as the building that we indicate here, it's a long time vacant as I indicated before. The reason to remodel, I'm trying to give it some kind of facelift to give it a new appearance. Maybe we get lucky to rent it to some company. I do have a prospective for the renting now, and I show him the plans and he liked it. He hasn't signed the lease yet. That's where we're at right now because, unfortunately, the way it is now, it's bad design. Water leaks inside. That was a very bad design by the engineering before. So I have a big problem, you know what I mean, to rent it. I appreciate your help and hope we get a little bit of traffic there. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? September 13, 2016 27847 Ms. Smiley I appreciate you changing the colors. They appear to be yellow on the rendering I have, but it says here that they are light beige and they match the existing adjacent building. My question is about the landscaping and those two cement pads. Is that a restaurant out in front? Mr. Mareskas: No. The landscaping we propose to get it out of there. I'll tell you what happened. Because of the same level with the outside with the inside, we experience a lot of ants going into the building. I think we should scoop it out and re-fix the front, whatever has to be done on the outside. Ms. Smiley: So you're going to take out all the landscaping. How about those two little cement pads. Are those going to be like patio seating or what are those? Mr. Mareskas: You mean in the front? Ms. Smiley: In the front. Mr. Mareskas: No. Those we have already covered. We used to have bushes there but they never survived because there's no water. Water is too expensive, you know what I mean, to run. We do have landscaping in the front as you see it. It goes all the way on the other side. I think it's satisfactory the way it is. So if you have some questions, I'd be glad to listen. Ms. Smiley: I thought you just said you were going to tear out all those bushes because of the ants. Mr. Mareskas: Yes. I think we should because we have a problem, as I said, with the ants going into the building. Ms. Smiley: So there will be no landscaping in the front. Mr. Mareskas: No landscaping in the front of the building. Ms. Smiley: And just those cement circles. Mr. Mareskas: Those are going to come out. Everything. We're going to have the architect bring us something, design something in the front like a cement patio, something, just to make it look good on the prospective. Ms. Smiley: Okay. So you don't really have a landscape plan other than to remove what is existing and remove the cement and maybe make a patio out there. September 13, 2016 27848 Mr. Mareskas: Right. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McCue: So just to clarify. As far as the changes, I know we had a pretty lengthy discussion on the design for the building. Correct me if I'm wrong. What I'm looking at with the changes is we took the middle, like the sconce-like piece out of the center. Mr. Mareskas: Yes. He took it off. Unfortunately, he couldn't be here tonight. He had another place to go and emailed me the plans that I believe you folks have. He did some changes on the front. I don't know if it looks any better, but we're open for suggestions. We try to get the building attractive, you know. Whatever he can do to improve, he's got to do it to improve it. That's all. Ms. McCue: Thank you. Mr. Priddy: Going back to the landscaping, you said you were going to do a patio and you'll potentially have a tenant. Is this a restaurant you're thinking of? Mr. Mareskas: Well, it can't be a restaurant because it's not big enough. The only thing they can do is some kind of small place for carry-outs or something, or they have to be for a different purpose. Now, as you know, I own the property next door all the way down, I believe it's 175 feet, the land over there. Soon I'm going to come back. There's going to be some development there. Anything that we see that gives that look, we're going to proceed. Do you know what I mean? To get your approval to do it. Mr. Caramagno: I think I've got to go back to the landscaping. I just can't picture this with no landscaping, no trees, no bushes, no nothing, especially over ants. They sell things to throw on the ants to kill them. I can't picture this building with no shrubbery, nothing in front. Mr. Mareskas: We're probably going to put a patio in the front to give them a nice look. It's going to be a nice look. I assure you. Mr. Caramagno: A patio should be depicted here on our plans so we can see what that looks like. Mr. Mareskas: Yeah, well. September 13, 2016 27849 Mr. Caramagno: There's nothing here. It's really left to our imagination what this may look like and I'm not really comfortable with that at this point. Mr. Mareskas: A regular patio. What is a regular patio? Cement probably raised up about four inches from the ground. Make a round some kind of design to give an appearance. Mr. Caramagno: It does sound very simple. It almost sounds simple enough that we could have had a picture of it tonight. Mr. Mareskas: Well, I didn't think we were going to get to that, you know. Mr. Caramagno: I just need more detail, myself. Mr. Mareskas: I assure you, whatever has to be done, it's going to look good. You can take a look at the rest of the plaza. I spend the money to fix it properly to be done perfect and I'd like it to have something that the people be able to rent it, you know. Don't forget, that property has been vacant for five, six years now, and everybody that I had there, I had a company inside. We had a problem with ants inside the building, crawling. Mr. Caramagno: That's terrible, I agree. Pest control takes care of those things though. I hear you've had vacancy. I think now is a good time to put a good, comprehensive plan in front of us that everybody can be happy with and maybe the others are. I'm just not at this point. Sorry. Mr. Mareskas: You've got to remember one thing. When you rent the property to the people, they're not the greatest to keep things. On the end it gets worse or we have a benefit you know to look. So we're trying to make it something to be simple good and, you know, takes that much work from the people there. Mr. Wilshaw: Just as a matter of a comment, it's not usual for us to have landscaping as either a callback item with an approving resolution where we'll have that part of the plan brought back to us or to have that item referred to the Planning Director and let him use discretion to work with the petitioner on landscaping. So those are a couple options that could be before us if we have concern over the landscaping portion of this plan given that it's reasonably not spelled out at this point. Mr. Mareskas: You mentioned the brick on the building. All that deteriorated, the whole wall. The glass is shot completely. On the frame from the tree, there used to be three right next to my property and leaning into the building. It damaged the whole thing. All that it September 13, 2016 27850 deteriorated. The whole wall. If you take a look and you see the wall, I have to put a wall because it does not look good. All the mortar and stuff has deteriorated. From the water, the construction the way it was, the water goes inside and in the wintertime, you know what I mean, it gets damaged. That's why we're putting new brick completely. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mareskas: I assure you, you will be proud when you see it. Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Priddy: I think I'm okay with maybe the changes, but when we start with the patio, because I don't see it and I don't have a landscape plan, I think that makes it very unclear for me. I think the changes that we've seen illustrated are clear enough from my perspective. So I think if you're attached to this patio, I think we might need a little bit more information. Mr. Mareskas: We might put the patio towards the sidewalk away from the building but close to the building, a sidewalk or something. Mr. Priddy: When you say a patio, then all of a sudden I start thinking maybe an awning and a railing. Mr. Mareskas: Oh, no, no, no, no. Just a nice color for cement to look good. Mr. Taormina: To weigh in on this discussion, this is something that we were not made aware of until this evening in terms of eliminating all the landscaping and a new patio. It may have been mentioned briefly at the study session, but as part of this project, I would recommend that, as you suggested, we treat this as a callback item and that we pretty much assure ourselves a chance of seeing exactly what he's going to do out there by conditioning the building permit on submittal of a landscape plan for this body's review. That's probably the best way of handling it, unless you would prefer tabling it until he gets a landscape plan. I think that gives him the opportunity, if you feel comfortable as Mr. Priddy has indicated, in moving forward with the façade renovations. We can guarantee that through the building permit process that we get a chance to see the landscape plan. This site is deficient in landscaping to begin with, so I would be real hesitant to approve it without knowing precisely what he's going to do that would eliminate the only landscaping that's on this property right now. September 13, 2016 27851 Mr. Wilshaw: You're correct. We certainly have two options before us. If we're not comfortable with the plan as a whole, we can table the plan in its entirety. If we are comfortable enough with the façade renovations and we want to move forward with that and give the petitioner an opportunity to move forward with that piece of it realizing that he has to come back before us on the landscaping issue, we can also propose that as an option. So we will leave it to whoever is going to make a motion to decide how they want to word that. Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? I don't see anybody else here for this petition. I think we've heard everything we need to hear. Thank you, sir, for coming. You have one question? Go ahead. Mr. Mareskas: You've got to remember that the property in the front on the building, it's small. It's not very big. Now, the property next door belongs to the same corporation, the C & M Corporation. There's a different corporation that it belongs to. So when we zone it and fix it, we don't know what kind of buildings we're going to put next door and how we're going to build it. So whatever it has to be, you know what I mean, by the city to be done after we supply the rest of the plans for the rest of the property, then we might fix something to put it together, you know. Mr. Wilshaw: I think we're trying to do what we can, sir, to work with you to get a plan that's going to be acceptable not only to this body but then to the City Council as this moves forward. Mr. Mareskas: I would appreciate it. Mr. Wilshaw: Let's give an opportunity for a motion to be made and we'll see how things go. Ms. Smiley: Sir, would you rather we table it until you get your other plans ready, or would you like to go forward and then come back with the landscape plan? Mr. Mareskas: No, no. I've got to move as fast as I can. I can't afford. I've got too much money on the plaza and I've got to bring some money in. Ms. Smiley: Sure. Then Mr. Chair, I'll make an approving resolution. Mr. Mareskas: That's the reason I'm trying to push it so I can start bringing some money inside. I'm spending money and I don't get money. I've been in a hole for 10 years on this plaza. Mr. Wilshaw: We understand. Mrs. Smiley, you have a motion? September 13, 2016 27852 On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Priddy, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-93-2016 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2016-08-08-12 submitted by C & M Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of one of the units at the Brickshire Square Retail Plaza (29102 Five Mile Road), located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Harrison Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the plan titled Floor Plans and Elevations marked Drawing No. A-1 dated September 10, 2016, prepared by Ziad El-Baba Engineering, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 3. That any facilities for the outdoor storage of refuse shall be screened by means of an enclosure constructed of masonry walls to match the brick on the building and with metal enclosure gates which shall be properly maintained and, when not in use, closed at all times; 4. That the Petitioner shall clean up the area in front of the building including the patio and landscaping; 5. That prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Inspection Department, a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Commission; 6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 7. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 8. That unless approved by the proper local authority, any type of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers September 13, 2016 27853 or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, shall be prohibited; 9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 10. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley And that no landscaping plan is approved . . . how would I say that, Mark? That they come back? Mr. Taormina: Is it your intention to . . . . Ms. Smiley: My intention is for him to come back with a landscape plan for us to review. Mr. Taormina: Before building permits are issued. Ms. Smiley: Exactly. Mr. Taormina: That's fine. We'll fashion that language accordingly. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Just to reiterate that the landscape plan will need to come back to us at a future date. So please continue to work with Mr. Taormina and we'll get that all squared away for you. Mr. Mareskas: Absolutely. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir, and good luck with your project. September 13, 2016 27854 ITEM #3 PETITION 2016-08-01-05 MICHAEL GOWEN Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2016- 08-01-05 submitted by Michael Gowen pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 38105 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from C-1 (Local Business) to R-1 (One Family Residential). Mr. Taormina: This is a request to rezone a portion of a property from C-1, which is the Local Business zoning classification, to R-1, One-Family Residential. This property is on the south side of Plymouth Road about half a mile west of Newburgh Road. Currently the property is split zoned with the northerly 110 feet zoned C-1, while the southerly portion of the property is zoned R-1. The property altogether is about 0.3 acres in size. It includes 82.4 feet of frontage along Plymouth Road by an average depth of 201 feet. The portion being rezoned includes only the front half of the parcel which measures roughly 81.2 feet in width by 110 in depth, for a total area of 89.32 square feet or 0.2 acres. So roughly about 50 percent of the overall property is affected by this rezoning petition. The property is currently vacant. Until recently, there was a residential structure located on this portion of the property. The house was constructed prior to the commercial zoning. Thus, it was deemed to be a lawful conforming use. However, once the house was demolished, which occurred earlier this year, it lost its legal non-conforming status and cannot be rebuilt without either having the proper zoning or use variance. So the change of zoning to the R-1 classification, if approved, would allow for a new single family home to be built in conformance with the ordinance. Looking to the east of this property, there are similarly zoned properties located at the Parz-Parkview Site Condominiums. This is all zoned R-1. North across Plymouth Road is the Hunter's Pointe Subdivision also zoned R-1. To the South and west are homes located within the Chaney and Bakewell's Plymouth Park subdivision, also zoned R-1, and then immediately to the west along Plymouth Road there is an office building and a vacant commercial building which are zoned C-1, Local Business. Besides the industrial zoning to the north across Plymouth Road and a little bit further to the west, and the commercial zoning immediately to the west, R-1 zoning is the pattern of development around this area. So this proposed zoning would be compatible to the zones in the surrounding area. There are no current plans showing how the house would be developed on the property as we discussed at the study session. There's a foundation that is September 13, 2016 27855 located on the property that would be removed and replaced with a new single family home. There is no obligation on the part of the owner of this property to construct a wall or provide some other form of separation where the residential zoned property abuts the commercial zoned property to the west. This requirement would rest solely with the owner of the commercial property but it does not automatically occur with the rezoning. If in the future the owner of the commercial property seeks approval to perform any major changes or site improvements, the City could then require that a wall be constructed or that some other form of separation be provided between the two properties. That was a question that was raised at the study session so we did discuss that with the Law Department relative to any obligations on the part of this property owner to build that wall, and there are none. The Future Land Use Plan does show this property as office. So while there's a deviation from the Future Land Use Plan, it would appear that the rezoning as proposed would still be compatible and in harmony with the surrounding area. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll read the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Please. Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated August 22, 2016, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposed rezoning at this time. The legal description included with the petition appears to be correct and should be used. The existing property is assigned an address of 38105 Plymouth Road. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main and sanitary sewer. There are no public storm sewers available to the parcel, so should the owner wish to build on the property, alternate method for storm drainage will be required." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Normally we would ask that the petitioner come forward and address this item, but the petitioner is not here tonight. Because this is a public hearing, we want to continue to discuss this item because it has been published. We did have an opportunity at our study session to meet the petitioner and talk to her at that particular meeting. We will let the Commission decide how they want to proceed with this item, if they choose to table it or continue with the proposed resolution after the public hearing has been conducted. So with that, being that there is no petitioner here, we'll go to audience communication. We do have someone in the audience that would September 13, 2016 27856 like to speak on this item. If you would please come forward to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record please. Timothy Dwyer, 11815 Roselinda, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm just to the right of that triangle, right next to it. We could maybe have them build a wall there? Mr. Wilshaw: Sir, the requirement for a wall would be to separate the commercial zoning from residential zoning. So the discussion about the wall was on the west side of this property, if that was necessary, because there is a commercial property over there. There is no requirement, and certainly nothing proposed to separate this parcel from your property, which is proposed to be rezoned to residential. Mr. Dwyer: Our subdivision has a wooden wall, a fence, but it stops at my property. Maybe it could be continued by the Association if they wanted to. I mean the whole thing is a mess. I'm surprised that the City didn't close it down or something. They finally put some barriers around it, they did, but they fell down now. But that's been a hole in the ground for about a year now. Kids are in there playing in the basement and stuff. They didn't cut off the gas, the electricity. I had to call the gas company out and they shut off the gas. There's still electricity. It's hanging from one of the trees over there. They ran a wire to the tree and nailed the thing into the tree. So it's been a real mess. All kinds of debris and everything for a year and a half. Mr. Wilshaw: I see. So you want to see this site cleaned up. Mr. Dwyer: Or something. First they were going to build ... he actually sold the place is what I heard. This other group is going to come in. It's an old farmhouse. It might have been the original farm house for that whole area. They were going to redo it and put in a home and then they decided it couldn't be done. They didn't want to fool with it. It was like a dozen people working on it. They stopped working on it and I think he took the property back at that time. Mr. Wilshaw: As we understand it from the petitioner, sir, of course, the house that was already there was a nonconforming use because it was zoned commercial after the house was already built. So the house was permitted to stay there during that time, but once the house was taken down and started the process of getting rebuilt, that then kicked in the rule that, hey, this is commercial property. You can't put a residential house on commercial property. September 13, 2016 27857 Mr. Dwyer: Yeah. That's what I thought. They couldn't. Mr. Wilshaw: So they had to stop. They had to start this process of getting the rezoning to residential. Their intent is to build a residential house on that lot. Mr. Dwyer: Yes, because they told me earlier they were going to build one of those self-storage units. Mr. Wilshaw: No. They wouldn't be able to on a residential property. Mr. Dwyer: I was wondering about that because the neighbors were wondering what's going on here. Mr. Wilshaw: If it stayed commercial zoning, there is potential that stuff like that could happen, but because they're proposing to rezone it to residential, this would actually protect you and keep it only to be a residential house. Mr. Dwyer: The other half of the property then, you don't know how it's going to be used? Mr. Wilshaw: The petitioner has indicated at our study meeting that they had no intention of using the back half other than it just being all part of one parcel and it would be a big back yard for that house. Mr. Dwyer: Will they have to actually make an entrance to Plymouth Road? Mr. Wilshaw: There will have to be driveway. Mr. Dwyer: I was thinking they could bring maybe a circular driveway or something so they could park in front of their house. I don't know. I don't know how it's going to affect me with the cars parked out there and what's going on. Mr. Wilshaw: The configuration of the driveway is something that would not be part of the rezoning request at this point. We don't know how that would be configured. Mr. Dwyer: He bought the house to store his mother's furniture. You know who the guy is, don't you? He's right across the street on Plymouth Road, that great big two story house. It's a gray and orange color. He's a contractor. He's a builder, pretty big builder. Mr. Wilshaw: Hopefully, he's going to build a nice house there then. September 13, 2016 27858 Mr. Dwyer: He's playing around with that thing so nobody knew what he was going to do. I was just surprised that everybody just let the thing sit there, a big hole in the ground. Mr. Wilshaw: I think our petitioner just arrived. Are there any other questions you have or anything else you'd like to add? Sure, ma'am. Please come forward. Mr. Wilshaw: Your name and address, ma'am. Patricia Dwyer, 11815 Roselinda, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I have some questions. Our home, our lot backs right up to this property. There is no demarcation. So like it's all open. So there is nothing we can do about them putting up a privacy fence or anything like that? Mr. Wilshaw: No. There is no way that we can mandate that they put up a privacy fence. Mr. Dwyer: But they could put one in. Mr. Wilshaw: They could. It's two residential properties next to each other. They can build a fence. Mrs. Dwyer: So the house is going to be in the front part of the property, not the back part. Mr. Wilshaw: The entire property would be zoned residential. The placement of where the house would be is not part of the rezoning. Mrs. Dwyer: So we don't know where at this point. Mr. Wilshaw: We don't know at this point, correct. Mrs. Dwyer: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: We do have the petitioner here. Would you please come forward and give us your name and address for the record please? We tried to hold the item as long as we could. Viola Gowen, B&V Contracting, 889 Forest Avenue, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. appreciate that. I'm representing Michael Gowen. I'm also the builder of B&V Contracting. Mr. Wilshaw: You didn't get a chance to hear the presentation our Planning Director made, but he described the parcel and what you request is to rezone it to R-1 zoning. Is there's anything else you would like to add? September 13, 2016 27859 Ms. Gowen: Sure. It is, as you now, it's currently split into a residential/commercial, which really limits the ability to put a residential home on there. When I went to try to pull a permit for it, I was then told that it was zoned commercial. That's how we found out that I couldn't put a house on there. Currently, the home was unstable. The current home that was there was completely unstable. When we took it down to the studs, you could just shake the studs and the whole house on the top rocked. I felt it needed to come down for safety. The foundation, the actual building inspector came out and looked at it. The foundation is bad as well. The whole foundation will have to be removed and replaced. There was a pole barn type style at the rear of the lot that has been taken down as well. So currently, the lot stands in a dirt mess, which I can understand why residents of the neighborhood are concerned. So proposing to change the code to all residential will allow us to go in there and put a home in there that's equivalent to the neighboring houses. That's the idea. Mr. Wilshaw: One questions we received before you arrived was, what is your intention for the back portion of the property? Ms. Gowen: Right now the way that the driveway is on the east side of the lot, you would have to put the garage towards the rear, mostly likely down to make a turn into the garage. Other than that, that's it. The rest of the property would be leveled out for backyard use. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Long: Is there any existing fencing or screening on any of the property? Ms. Gowen: I think there is fencing along the neighbor's side, the east side of it, but I think most of that is covered by shrubs, and I believe it's chain link. It's not a privacy fence. Mr. Long: Given the amount of construction that's going to be going on with the foundation, would it be possible to put some kind of screening up or fencing up? Ms. Gowen: Absolutely. We would meet all the setbacks that are required by the City as well as do the fencing along the side to keep all the dirt, residue, etc., down to a minimum. Mr. Long: Thank you. Mr. Caramagno: How long before we can see a house here? September 13, 2016 27860 Ms. Gowen: If I could have put one up yesterday, I would have. In fact, I did have a buyer for it. I had a buyer for that property and when I went to go pull the permits is when I found out. So I was a little floored by when I purchased it, why the title company doesn't catch this. So we've gone back with them as well, but ultimately, it falls in my lap to try to get it fixed. Since then, the buyer, I've had to return their deposit. And I already have an interested person in wanting to put a single family home there. Mr. Caramagno: So maybe something by the end of the year or wintertime? Ms. Gowen: If I could get the foundation in before the frost hits, then I'm in good shape. Yes. Mr. Caramagno: There was some concern about kids playing in the basement, in the crawl space. Can anything be done about that now? Ms. Gowen: I sure can. I can have my excavator there within the next couple weeks to take care of it. Mr. Caramagno: Probably a good idea. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Seeing no more questions and no one else in the audience wishing to come forward on this item, I will ask for a motion. On a motion by McCue, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-94-2016 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 13, 2016, on Petition 2016-08-01-05 submitted by Michael Gowen pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 38105 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from C-1 to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2016-08-01- 05 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single family residential development similar in density to what is existing in the neighboring area; September 13, 2016 27861 3. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for the development of the subject property in a manner that is consistent with its size and location; and 4. That the property involved in this request would be in full compliance with R-1 District regulations. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Long: Would it make sense to also offer a waiver of reconsideration on this to keep the process moving as quick as possible? Mr. Wilshaw: A seven day waiver? We can do that after the motion is voted on. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. Long, would you like to make a motion? On a motion by Long, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-95-2016 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection with Petition 2016-08-01-05 submitted by Michael Gowen pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone a portion of the property at 38105 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from C-1 to R-1. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. The seven day waiver will allow you to go to City Council sooner instead of waiting seven days for our minutes to be approved. Hopefully, that may give you an opportunity to get to a Council meeting a little bit faster so you can continue on with your process of rezoning and building a home. Ms. Gowen: Perfect. September 13, 2016 27862 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Gowen, and residents for coming out. We wish you luck on your project. Ms. Gowen: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,093rd Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,093rd Regular Meeting held on August 30, 2016. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-96-2016 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,093rd Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 30, 2016, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Long, McCue, Priddy, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Ventura ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously a. •pted, the 1,094th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 1 . 2016, was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. CITY P A NING COMMISSION Sam Ca :magno, Secretary ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, Chairman �y c.. U,,