Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2016-11-15 MINUTES OF THE 1,097TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 15, 2016, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,097th 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 Carol Smiley Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Kevin Priddy 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 PETITION 2016-10-02-19 ANIMAL CARE Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2016- 10-02-19 submitted by Animal Care Clinic of Livonia requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(b) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a veterinary clinic at 28450 Joy Road, located on the northwest corner of Joy Road and Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a veterinary clinic that would be at the corner of Joy and Harrison. This is an existing developed site November 15, 2016 27910 that is about a half acre in size with 93 feet of frontage along Joy Road and 250 feet on Harrison Street. The property is zoned C- 2, General Business. The front part of the site contains a 1,980 square foot building and some parking. The rear portion of the site is undeveloped and currently maintained as an open field. Veterinary clinics, animal clinics and animal hospitals are treated as a waiver pursuant to Section 11.03(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. To the west and east of this property are existing commercial businesses. To the north are single family homes under the R-1 zoning classification, and to the south across Joy Road is the City of Westland. The petitioner has submitted plans for the new animal veterinary clinic. It would utilize all of the existing building and would involve extensive interior remodeling. A floor plan has been submitted that indicates how the facility would be configured. It would include a reception area, waiting room, two examination rooms, doctor offices, wash area, break room, a restroom and storage. There are a few special requirements that apply to veterinary clinics in the Zoning Ordinance. Subsection B specifies that the building and ventilation systems must be soundproofed. There is a note on the submitted documents indicating that the building and the ventilation system will be soundproofed. The details of how and where that soundproofing would occur is something that would be reviewed by the Inspection Department at the time the plans are submitted for permits. In terms of parking, based on the floor area of the building, this clinic would require eight parking spaces. When you look at the net useable area of the building and take the ratio of one parking space for each 200 square feet, that translates to a total 8 required spaces. This plan is showing nine spaces with seven spaces located behind the building and two additional spaces located along the east side of the building closer to the entrance. That would include the barrier free space. This is something that we discussed at the study session to try to find a way to avoid a situation where patrons or employees park along the east side of the building and have to back up over the sidewalk and into Harrison Street. This provides a much better arrangement by expanding the asphalt a little bit further to the north and providing the parking in a 90 degree fashion along the north side of the parking lot. This will avoid the problem of vehicles backing up into the road, but we can also provide a couple parallel spaces adjacent to the building and, most importantly, the barrier free space adjacent to the entrance to the building which is in the southeast corner of the building. There is an enclosed trash dumpster shown in the northwest edge of the parking lot behind the building. Also, we have details on how that would be screened. This is another slight modification to the plans that you looked at previously. You can see how that enclosure November 15, 2016 27911 has been rotated about 45 degrees from how it was previously oriented and this will allow much easier access to service the trash. Currently there are four driveways, two off of Joy, two off of Harrison. The southerly driveway on Harrison would be removed and replaced with grass leaving only three driveways, two along Joy Road and one along Harrison. However, the westerly drive off of Harrison will essentially become unusable once the west side of the property, which is currently maintained in gravel, is landscaped. This is something that the Planning Commission asked the petitioner to take a look at to reduce the number of curb cuts to this site. It's a small site. There were already four driveways. This is a signalized intersection at Joy and Harrison, so moving those driveways as far away from the intersection as possible is preferred. They've eliminated the southerly driveway on Harrison close to the intersection. The one on the west, because it straddles the property line on Joy Road, will not be used any longer once they landscape the area on the west side of the building. Eliminating that driveway at this time would require additional review by Wayne County. It's hoped that eventually it can be replaced with landscaping, but to not complicate the review at this point, the driveway would remain, but again, it would basically become unusable. There is another special requirement of the ordinance that specifies there not be any open or outdoor runways, kennels or pens. The site plan does not show any of these items, and the petitioner has indicated that they are not necessary. He is here this evening and he can explain that further if necessary. In terms of landscaping, we typically want to see over 15 percent of the site landscaped. In this case, about 60 percent of the total site area is in the form of landscaping or mostly grassy areas. The entire rear half of the site is a grass area. The west side will become the same once the site is redeveloped. To discourage vehicles from using that westerly drive on Joy Road, the plan is showing a couple trees. They are just generally shown and we asked the petitioner to provide this, but that is something we can probably work with him a little bit better to add some additional landscape items along the frontage on the west side of the building in order to discourage cars from trying to use that approach and driving on the grass. In terms of the exterior of the building, this too will see some changes. The entire front, which is the south elevation facing Joy Road, as well as the east, the side facing Harrison, will be remodeled. The lower part of the building is going to have cultured stone while the upper part be maintained in E.I.F.S. The original plan we looked at it was going to be all E.I.F.S. but working with the applicant and his architect, they've changed that to include the cultured stone on the lower part of the building. These are conceptual elevation plans, but it would improve the November 15, 2016 27912 appearance of this building tremendously. Lastly, in terms of signage, they are allowed one sign at 28 square feet that would be on the Joy Road side of the building. They are not entitled to a monument sign by virtue of the setback of the building. They are showing three wall signs, one on the front and one on each side of the building. That aspect of the proposal will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. Just to give everyone a visual, this is the building that they propose to remodel at Joy and Harrison. You can see a vast improvement to the conditions that currently exist. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are six items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 13, 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 waiver use at this time. The legal description submitted with the petition appears to be correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing parcel is assigned the address of 28450 Joy Road. The lot is currently serviced by public sanitary sewer and water main. The submitted drawings do not indicate any changes to the existing service leads for the proposed construction, so we do not anticipate any adverse effects to these systems. The proposed plans indicate that a portion of the existing lot will be paved under the proposed project. Per City design standards, any new pavement or building areas will require storm detention per according to the Wayne County stormwater ordinance. The submitted plans do not indicate any proposed storm sewers calculations or detention, so we are unable to comment on impacts to the existing storm sewers at this time. Based on the proposed storm detention outlet(Joy Road or Harrison Road) the owner will need to obtain permits from either Wayne County or City of Livonia for the storm connection. The owner will also need to obtain permits from Wayne County for any work within the Joy Road right-of-way, including approach and sidewalk replacement." The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 17, 2016, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate veterinary clinic on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Senior Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 31, 2016, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the November 15, 2016 27913 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 November 1, 2016, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) A cross access agreement would be required for the use of the drive approach on the west side of the building. The property line runs through the middle of the approach. (2) The west side of the building is not paved and shall be paved if used for parking and vehicle traffic. (3) The paved area on the east side of the building needs to be repaired as necessary. (4) Barrier free parking spaces shall be provided and striped per code. (5) The proposed parking spaces located on the east side of the building do not have an access aisle provided and may cause a safety concern when someone has to be back up across the public sidewalk. The drive approach off of Joy Road, east of the building, is not useable with the proposed parking arrangement. (6) Parking spaces shall be 10' x 20' and double striped. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated October 13, 2016, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance Department, dated October 13, 2016, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence. I will point out that these letters were all submitted based on the review of the original plans. When we met with the applicant, that did include the Engineering Division as well as the Inspection Department. So I think they're good with the changes as discussed. I believe we addressed the issue of storm water satisfactorily with the Engineering Division. There will be plenty of room on the back half of the lot to be able to drain the stormwater. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none, if the petitioner would come forward. We will need your name and address for the record please. Aqeel Fakhruldin, 8455 Norborne Avenue, Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127. Good evening. November 15, 2016 27914 Mr. Wilshaw: Are you the proprietor? Mr. Fakhruldin: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: And with you is your architect? David Allen, Sketch Design Group, L.L.C., 26520 Grand River Avenue, Suite 101, Redford, Michigan 48240. Good evening, Commissioners. I am with the architects for the project. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, gentlemen. Is there anything you would like to what you've heard so far tonight from Mr. Taormina? Mr. Fakhruldin: No, thank you, sir. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Ventura: I note that on your revised site plan you provided some landscaping on the west side of the building. In one of the notes, we talk about discouraging vehicular traffic from entering on the approach there on the west side of the building. Could you add something like a more visible barrier than the two trees that we see there that would be a signal to people that are trying to get into your business that you want them to either use the approach on the east side of the building or off Harrison Road? Mr. Fakhruldin: Yes, sure. That shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Allen: That is not a problem at all. As a matter of fact, we were looking at that after we submitted. It looks somewhat still plain. We may even propose a few shrubs along the drive there so it will literally discourage you from pulling in there. Mr. Ventura: Thank you very much. Mr. Long: At the study meeting, we talked. You have several other clinics and hospitals. This will be just a clinic, not a hospital. Right? Could you explain the difference? Mr. Fakhruldin: A hospital and a clinic, they're both just named that, but it is going to be a clinic, just mostly outpatient clinic, just vaccines, no major surgeries, mostly vaccines and outpatient surgery. Mr. Long: With the parallel parking along the east side, is there sufficient room for the barrier free space as well as the drive traffic, and is there enough room for the barrier free space for individuals to get November 15, 2016 27915 out if they're parked facing north so that the driver's side door is opening into the building? Does that make sense? Mr. Allen: Yes, it does and there is enough room to have barrier free parking at the front, which was suggested. There is about 23 feet there so we need like 10 by 20. We have more than enough for the barrier free parking. Mr. Long: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McCue: Just to confirm, you had stated that it's going to be minor care, vaccines, things like that? Mr. Fakhruldin: Yes. Ms. McCue: There are no kennels in the back, correct? Mr. Fakhruldin: No, no. Ms. McCue: So you won't be keep any animals overnight? Mr. Fakhruldin: Nothing stays overnight, no, because keeping animals overnight, you need an emergency clinic. You need some attendants to be there and we're not open overnight. We're just a nine to five clinic. Ms. McCue: That was my next question, nine to five. Mr. Fakhruldin: Yes, nine to five. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, I have one quick question. The building materials appear to have been upgraded from our study meeting to the cultured stone. Does the petitioner have any samples with him tonight? Mr. Allen: No. We were deciding on which type we were going to go with, and we didn't want to just bring anything in. So we decided we're going to go with more of a neutral tone color, and at the time of preliminary decision, we would like to bring it to the Building Department and let everyone know that this is what we're proposing to use and maybe have a few samples at that time. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Taormina, you've talked to the petitioner about upgrading the materials but you haven't actually settled on the specific material yet at this point. Correct? November 15, 2016 27916 Mr. Taormina: That's correct. If you would prefer, we can either treat that as a callback item. Maybe that information will be available prior to City Council or the resolution could incorporate some language that would then allow for staff to review and approve that material prior to permits being issued. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I'll just quickly say that any upgrade to this building is a tremendous improvement so I appreciate that. Mr. Ventura: I have a question for Mr. Taormina. In looking at the site plan and to Mr. Long's point, having cars enter from eastbound Joy Road and parking with the front of the car facing north against the building constricts the door opening.Would it be possible to move the parking spaces over against the sidewalk so the people getting out of the driver's side of the car are not up against the building and leave the driveway as it were between the parked cars and the building? Mr. Taormina: I don't see where that would be a problem. It is going to allow for parking either with the vehicles pointed north or south, one of the two. More than likely, somebody coming in off of Harrison is going to have the driver's side on the sidewalk side, which won't pose a problem, but if it's the reverse, I understand how there might be a concern. We could look at moving that. With 23 feet available between the building and the sidewalk, it will allow for one-way traffic flow in either direction. Usually 8 and 5 feet, as Mr. Allen indicated, is what's the minimum required for a barrier free parking space so a total of 13 feet. So either way, we can provide that 13 feet of width, but it does have to be striped. Inspection either way will have to decide ultimately how that's going to work. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else you'd like to add? Mr. Fakhruldin: No, thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? We will need your name and address for the record. Melody Doyle, 28617 Dover, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I live in the residence exactly behind it. I don't have any problem with it. Like you said, any improvement to this building will be great. They've struggled to maintain it for several years. My question is, I would like to know if there is any way to put, you know, every other commercial area that I know of in the City of Livonia a house backs up to November 15, 2016 27917 commercial, there's a brick wall or something that divides the two. On Joy Road, there's my house and three other houses that don't have it and then farther down there is a brick wall that divides the commercial area. So that's my concern. I would like to see if that could happen. And then when this gentleman was speaking about sewer water, flood water, you need to know that the field behind the building floods constantly when it rains or when the snow thaws. That's a big issue back there. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We appreciate that. Are there any other comments you want to make? Ms. Doyle: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We appreciate your comments. We'll try to get those questions answered for you here. Mr. Taormina, are you aware of a wall that would separate this property from the residential? Mr. Taormina: Here are the options with respect to the wall. A masonry wall is usually required anywhere commercial property abuts residential property. So the first option is to build a minimum five-foot high wall along the property line. Secondly, they have the option of providing a greenbelt along the back of the property and would have to provide sufficient landscaping in order to qualify for a greenbelt. There is a third option which allows them to waive the wall with the approval of the adjoining property owners for a period of five years. That is something that is negotiated between the owner of the commercial property and the abutting residential properties. To the extent that they can agree on some plan, whether it's a combination of landscaping or fencing or whatever, they can work that out amongst themselves and provide that separation agreement to the Inspection Department. So there are those three options available. The fourth option would be for them to seek a variance to waive the wall altogether. In this particular case, it's whether the Planning Commission wants to require the wall or possibly a greenbelt, but when we approve a greenbelt, we typically want to see specifically what the planting plan is going to look like. Then again, they can rely on the separation agreement, but it sounds like the resident here would prefer the wall. Maybe that item can come back for further consideration. I don't know that the resolution properly addresses that concern. As far as the drainage is concerned, that is something that the Engineering Department agreed with the designers that they would take a look at when the plan comes to them for further review. But it was felt that with all of that space behind the building, they would be able to accommodate some level of November 15, 2016 27918 stormwater detention realizing that really they're not changing the drainage pattern here on this site by any extent. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Ms. Doyle: Can I say one more thing? Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Ms. Doyle: Speaking of the greenbelt, there is on that side of the fence, there are grapevines that are planted that are absolutely craziness. When the lawn gets mowed, they don't mow up to those grapevines so the grass is all growing and animals live in there. So if it was some type of green, I would prefer it wasn't those. Mr. Wilshaw: Just a question for you, Ms. Doyle. If a greenbelt was offered in lieu of a wall, a properly landscaped greenbelt that would go through us looking at the plantings and making sure that they are appropriate, would that be something that you would be interested in, or are you really adamant that you want a wall? Ms. Doyle: I'm pretty adamant that I want the wall of separation or I mean if the wall is too expensive, I know, everyone that I've seen has the brick wall, but the I know that the property across the street behind the strip mall that has the pizza place and everything in it, they have a white privacy fence. Anything that would, you know, if that was a cheaper option, then anything that would just separate the two. Mr. Wilshaw: Well, your thoughts are certainly appreciated. It's something that we're all listening to up here and your comments and your thoughts will go into us making a decision on how we're going to move forward. So we do appreciate you coming forward and offering these suggestions. Ms. Doyle: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other comments from the audience? Seeing none, is there anything else the petitioner would like to add? Mr. Allen: I would just like to comment on the wall that the resident was speaking of. In lieu of a wall, as another possibility, probably even put a berm there with maybe some shrubbery that would kind of give a nice greenery separation of some type. That's just another option. In planning, I kind of looked at what happens on both sides of a wall, and if I were living there, I wouldn't just want to see a wall - maybe something more beautiful though. November 15, 2016 27919 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. We've heard from the resident and we've heard from you and we'll figure out how we want to proceed in our approving resolution. Thank you. Are there any other comments from the audience? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-105-2016 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 15, 2016, on Petition 2016-10-02-19 submitted by Animal Care Clinic of Livonia requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(b) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a veterinary clinic at 28450 Joy Road, located on the northwest corner of Joy Road and Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2016-10-02-19 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP1 dated October 28, 2016, as revised, prepared by Sketch Design Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet No. A3 dated October 28, 2016, as revised, prepared by Sketch Design Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the specifications on the cultured stone, colors and rooftop screening material shall be approved by the Planning and Inspection Departments prior to the issuance of building permits; 3. That all existing rooftop mechanical equipment shall be removed, and all new HVAC units 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; 4. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in height and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadways; 5. That the operation of the subject use shall not include the overnight boarding or care of animals; November 15, 2016 27920 6. That all animal remains, medical and animal waste shall be properly disposed of; 7. That adequate soundproofing shall be installed to the extent necessary to insure the elimination of all noise from the building; 8. That the use of open or outdoor runways, kennels or pens are prohibited; 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of decorative masonry units or a poured wall with textures and colors to match that of the building. The enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass. The trash dumpster area shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 10. 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; 11. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 12. 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 13. That additional landscaping shall be provided along the front of the property in order to discourage use of the westerly driveway on Joy Road; 14. That the petitioner shall install a six (6') foot high vinyl fence along the north property line, subject to the approval of the neighboring property owner and the submittal of a separation agreement. Otherwise, a masonry wall shall be constructed or a greenbelt provided, subject to approval by the Planning Commission; 15, 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. November 15, 2016 27921 Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Chairman, would you like to add an Item 14 relative to the wall? Mr. Wilshaw: I think that would be appropriate. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Taormina, I'm going to leave Item 14 for your wording, to the effect that there shall be either a wall or a planting berm shall be constructed at the north property line of the property and that the adjacent property owner shall be consulted in the resolution of this matter between the developer and the petitioner. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura, you're leaving it to the Staff to negotiate? Mr. Ventura: Yes, to negotiate and to . . . . Mr. Wilshaw: Ultimately approve? Mr. Ventura: Right. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. sounds good. Ms. Smiley: I was wondering if Mr. Ventura wanted to add something about the landscaping recommendation for the driveway. There's not really mention of a landscape plan. November 15, 2016 27922 Mr. Ventura: I think it's on the record that the petitioner agreed that he would do that, Mrs. Smiley, but I would be happy to add that to the resolution as well. Mr. Wilshaw: So a little bit of additional landscaping that was requested which will append to the landscaping item. Mr. Taormina: That will be a separate condition along with the screening along the rear of the property. So we'll have Conditions 14 and 15 added. Then if I may make another suggestion, and this would append to Item 2, language that would say to the effect "except that the specification on the cultured stone colors and rooftop screening material shall be approved by the Planning and Inspection Departments prior to the issuance of building permits." Mr. Ventura: Agreed. Ms. Smiley: Yes, absolutely. Mr.Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is approved. This will go on to the City Council with an approving recommendation. You've heard the conditions that have been stated as part of the recommendation, and there's been some additions. You'll continue to work with our Planning staff to hammer out the details of those items. So thank you and good luck on your project. ITEM #2 PETITION 2016-10-08-13 ALETHA APARTMENTS Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2016- 10-08-13 submitted by Dave Phipps requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to develop a senior apartment complex (Aletha Apartments) on properties at 14851 and 14931 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon and Five Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to develop a senior apartment complex on the west side of Farmington Road. The site is generally located between the Brighthouse Networks/Spectrum office building and Livonia Dermatology to the south and then the Livonia Public Schools property and Livonia Cemetery to the north. Portions of this property are currently in the process of being rezoned from Office Services and One Family Residential to the R-9-1 Housing for the Elderly zoning classification. The City Council gave First November 15, 2016 27923 Reading on the rezoning on September 7. The Second Reading and Roll Call vote, which are the final steps in the rezoning process, are on hold pending a review of this site plan. The review is based on the R-9-1 district regulations. The overall site consists of two adjoining parcels that together total about 10.3 acres. It's basically a U-shaped configuration. The parcel to the north, which is identified as 14931 Farmington Road, is about 3.4 acres with 207 feet of frontage on Farmington Road, while the larger of the two properties, which is identified as 14851 Farmington Road, is approximately 6.4 acres. The northerly site currently has a house and a detached garage on it. Those structures will be removed as part of the development. Really the only developed portion of that site is Luther Lane, which extends from Farmington Road west providing access to the Livonia Woods Nursing Home, which is located on an adjacent parcel. The property is mostly vacant. A significant portion of the site does contain mature vegetation. Lying immediately to the north of the subject site is Livonia Board of Education property. The bus yard borders a significant portion of the site along with a cemetery. To the west is the Livonia Woods Nursing Home. To the south is Silver Village Senior Housing complex as well as the office buildings, and across Farmington is the Livonia Civic Center site. Looking at the allowable density for the R-9-1 zoning classification, it's really a function of three items, building height, the number of bedrooms per unit, as well as the land area. Under the R-9-1 subcategory (1) classification, buildings can be a maximum of four stories in height. The site plan shows seven mid-rise apartment buildings as well as a single story activity building. Six of the apartment buildings, which are identified on the site plan as Buildings 2 through 7, would be four stories in height. Each one would contain 32 one-bedroom units for a total of 192 dwelling units. Those four structures are generally located on the west half of the site where the buildings are identified as 4, 5, 6 and 7. Buildings 2 and 3 are located on the north side of the property, north of the Centennial Office Complex Then there is a single building identified on the plans as Building 1 that would be three stories in height, contain 12 one-bedroom units and that would be located on the front portion of the site closer to Farmington Road. Each one-bedroom unit in the four-story buildings requires at least 2,000 square feet of land area whereas each one-bedroom unit in the three-story building requires 2,200 square feet of land area. When you add all this up, what is required overall is 410,400 square feet or 9.42 acres of land in order to support the density that is being shown on the plan, which is a total of 204 dwelling units. The site is 10.3 acres in overall size. The property is large enough to support the 204 dwelling units as proposed on this plan. When we look at the floor layout, this provides a general indication of how each floor November 15, 2016 27924 would be subdivided into various units. There are several different unit types and sizes. Those range from about 690 square feet to 845 square feet, not including the area of the balconies. Most of these units, except for the ones on the lowest level, the first floor, will have balconies. Those will more than likely have some form of patio, but each unit contains a living area, a bathroom, kitchen, and master bedroom, and then in the larger units, there is an additional room provided which is identified as a study room. Central hallways would link all these units. They would be six feet in width as you can see from the plan. Also, there would be an elevator and a staircase provided at each end of the floors. The community building is one story in height. It is subdivided into various components including a recreation room, an exercise area, restrooms, kitchen and pantry area, a small swimming pool as well as an office for the complex. The leasing office will be provided in that front building. Again, this is the building that is closest to Farmington Road. So if we go back to the plan and we look at the two buildings closest to Farmington Road on the northerly portion of the site, you'll see the Community Building is the first building that you would enter off of Farmington Road. Then the three story apartment building, identified as Building 1, would be the next building to the west, and then as you continue along that driveway, that would provide access to the six other buildings as part of the apartment complex, Buildings 2 through 7, all of which would be four stories in height. Again, access to the apartments would be by way of this network of private driveways. They would be 22 feet in width, and they would connect to and form a loop with Luther Lane as well as a new northerly curb cut off Farmington Road. Looking back at the overall circulation pattern, access will be provided on the north side off Farmington Road that basically forms a large loop road system connecting to the existing Luther Lane, which then comes back out to Farmington Road. So there will be two major points of egress and ingress for the site. In terms of parking, the Zoning Ordinance requires one space per dwelling unit, so 204 parking spaces would be required. This site plan provides for a total of 306 spaces; 204 of those 306 spaces would be covered under carports. There are 10 additional spaces that are shown in front of the Community Office building. Altogether then, there is a combined total of 316 spaces available for the residents and guests of this complex. Stormwater would be managed in a network of detention basins that would be located along the north side of Luther Lane. One of the three basins currently exists in the southwest corner of the site. New stormwater detention basins would be added in order to handle the additional runoff from the development. The site plan shows screened trash enclosures, one per building, in general proximity November 15, 2016 27925 to each of the buildings. Three sides of those enclosures would consist of brick to match the building. There a detail provided in your packet showing what those would look like. A fully detailed landscape plan was submitted as part of the application. One of the issues that came up during the review of this item at the study session was that the renderings depicted some trees along the front of the buildings that weren't identified on the landscape plan. I did have a conversation with the landscape architect regarding this. I have not yet seen the revised plan but he understands his chore of adding those trees to the plan in order to match the rendering because it was indicated by the Commission that they would like to see those two co-relate better. Looking at the architecture of the buildings, these would be primarily brick buildings on the lowest levels. The lower three floors on the four- story buildings and the lower two floors of the three-story building would be primarily brick. The exception to that would be those bay projections. The fronts of those plus the upper floor would be a composite siding, what is referred to as Hardy Plank materials. It's kind of a cement material, wood trim or aluminum sided trim. Maybe the petitioner can explain a little bit more about what the balconies and trim would consist of us. They would all have asphalt shingled roofs. The Community Building's architecture pretty much matches that of the apartment buildings, similar materials and style of construction. In terms of height, the four- story buildings top out at about 53 feet; the three-story buildings have 42 feet, and then the Community Office building at 28 feet. That would be to the upper most peak of the roofline. Following the study session, there was a site lighting plan that was submitted that shows a variety of light fixtures. Those details are provided in your packet. The pole mounted fixtures are at 15 feet in height, 5 feet below what we like to see at a maximum height of 20 feet. Those would go along the exposed parking areas as well as along the driveways. They also provide significant detail on the ceiling mounted fixtures that would go inside the carports, and then there are bollards that would be provided along the pedestrian pathways. Most of these fixtures are going to be outfitted with high efficiency LED lighting. With that, Mr. Chair, I'll read out the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please? Mr. Taormina: There are six items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 28, 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 descriptions included with the submitted drawings appear to be November 15, 2016 27926 correct and should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing parcels are assigned the addresses of 14851 and 14931 Farmington Road. As noted in our rezoning petition response, the submitted drawings do not indicate proposed utilities or calculations, so we cannot comment on the impacts to the existing systems at this time. The lot is currently serviced with public sanitary sewer and water main. Storm sewer is available within the Farmington Road right-of-way and is under the jurisdiction of Wayne County. The developer will need to obtain permits from the City of Livonia for any proposed utility work on the site, as well as from Wayne County for any proposed storm sewer and detention as required by the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance. Wayne County permits will also be needed for any work within the Farmington Road right-of-way, including approaches and sidewalks."The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 31, 2016, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to develop a senior apartment complex on the properties located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, and on site hydrants shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (3) A fire access road shall be provided with not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance in accordance to 18.2.3.4.1.1 and 18.2.3.4.1.2 of NFPA 1, 2015. (4) Chapter 30, New Apartment Buildings, and Chapter 7, Means of Egress, must be conformed to which includes Emergency Exit Signs, Emergency Lighting, Exit Pathways, Travel Distance, Occupant Load, and Extinguisher Requirements. NFPA 101, 2015." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Senior Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 31, 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 November 3, 2016, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the deficient setback with regards to the buildings and carports located on the north and west side of the property. (2) A cross access agreement would be required between the petitioner and the property to the west. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, November 15, 2016 27927 Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated November 14, 2016, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance Department, dated October 27, 2016, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the Planning staff? Ms. Smiley: There are 10 parking spaces at the clubhouse. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Ms. Smiley: And they are going to run an office out of there. Mr. Taormina: Yes, the leasing office. Ms. Smiley: So there will be at least one or two parking spaces taken, right? Mr. Taormina: Yes, I'm assuming that. Ms. Smiley: How much of a hike is it approximately from one of these back units to go up to use the pool? Mr. Taormina: The property overall is about 980 feet in total depth. So probably 600 to 700 feet for the back units to get to the front Community Building. Ms. Smiley: Do you think that's enough parking for the clubhouse? Mr. Taormina: I don't know why we would want to over-park that portion of the site when it's really there to service the residents of the community with adequate pedestrian walkways provided throughout the development and several of the buildings would be located within a few hundred feet. Ms. Smiley: Do you think that's sufficient? Mr. Taormina: I do. I guess that's a question you can pose to the petitioner. They have to market this property and if they feel that they're November 15, 2016 27928 underserving that important part of the site for parking, then maybe that's something they should reconsider. Ms. Smiley: But you think it's sufficient? Mr. Taormina: I do. Ms. Smiley: I'm asking you personally. Mr. Taormina: Yes, I personally do. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record please. Robert McCann, 21445 Holmbury, Northville, Michigan 48167. Good evening. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything you would like to what you've heard so far? Mr. McCann: Not at this time. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Ventura: Mr. McCann, at the study session we talked about the additional storage areas and parking in the carports for bicycles and other various outdoor equipment that the residents might have, and you were going to come back to us with some details on those. Mr. McCann: Our intention at this point is to add four feet in depth to those units so there is storage at the front end. Mr. Ventura: But that's not enclosed. Mr. McCann: It would be in the enclosure portion, yes. In other words, our car port instead of being say 10 feet, is now 14 feet. Mr. Ventura: And that four-foot area is going to have doors on it? Mr. McCann: Excuse me? Mr. Ventura: The four-foot area is going to be enclosed? Mr. McCann: Yes. November 15, 2016 27929 Mr. Ventura: We also talked about the elimination of parking spaces to accommodate snow pushing in the wintertime, and you were going to revise the site plan accordingly. Mr. McCann: There is a portion in the northwest portion of the property that was indicated on the original site plan as . . . it was a mistake that was on there. That is probably where we can move snow, but to be honest with you, Mr. Ventura, we will work with our designated landscape people as to where snow removal or snow storage will be. Mr. Phipps and I were having that conversation earlier. operated a business a quarter of a mile away from here for 35 years and never once had a conversation with the landscape people as to where the snow was going to go, never had an issue with where the snow is going to go. They're going to move it to a place that's safe and reasonable for everyone, and as Mr. Taormina indicated, there is more than adequate spaces available. So if we needed to eliminate some for snow, we could do that. Mr. Ventura: All right. But you have not done it yet? Mr. McCann: I don't know how much snow we're going to get. Do you? Mr. Ventura: That's not the point. So am I to understand that the recreation area shown on the original plan has been eliminated? Mr. McCann: Yes, that was where we originally discussed having the Community Building and we moved that to the front. So that is open space where we could put snow if that's where we need to put it. Mr. Ventura: Okay. Thank you. We talked about replacing the dumpster with self-contained compactors and you were going to investigate that. Mr. McCann: We discussed that and we had a conversation with Mr. Caramagno at that meeting as well. That's something that we'll come to a resolution on at some point in the future. As of right now, we don't need to. I don't see any reason that we need to say we're going to have self-contained compactors here because that's really not what we're discussing here as part of the site plan. That's something that we can make a business decision on and we can move forward with, and I indicated that I would talk to Mr. Caramagno about that at a future time. Mr. Ventura: So that's a commitment to do it or not do it? November 15, 2016 27930 Mr. McCann: That's a commitment to have a conversation about it. Mr. Ventura: Okay. And I don't remember the condition of the materials that the decks are going to be made out of. Where they wood or were they Trex? Mr. McCann: We talked about Trex, yes. It will be Trex. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. That's all I have. Mr. Long: Mr. Ventura stole my thunder and I'm following up on the snow, but one other just general question. This is an existing project and these units are going to work great. Ten, 15 years down the road, they may start to need a little freshening. Without getting too far into your business decisions or plans, but how does that work? Do you maintain some kind of a long term capital reserve, some kind of a maintenance fund, something like that, to keep the buildings fresh? Mr. McCann: I don't think anyone who's ever been in business . . . my partner, Mr. Phipps, has been doing this since he was 14 years old, which is, as you can tell by looking at him, more than 20 years ago. And he's owned many, many properties in and around the City of Livonia and they've all been maintained. What I've done in my business career, that's what we have. We're trying to build something the City doesn't have. That's a first class piece of property and we're going to maintain it that way. Dave Phipps, 3699 Vorheis, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. We'll set up a replacement reserve for roofing and things of that nature. Mr. Long: Exactly. And that's my concern. A lot of times we may just get one building coming through here, but here we've got . . . Mr. Phipps: We always set up a replacement reserve for . . . Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Phipps . . . Mr. Long: We need you to go to the podium. We can hear you but the audience can't. Mr. McCann: We'll set up a replacement reserve for roofing and associated items, of course. Yes. Mr. Long: Thank you. November 15, 2016 27931 Mr. Wilshaw: Anybody else on the Commission? Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? We will ask for your name and address. David Beech, 31515 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. I'm a friend of Bud Mathewson, the owner of the property right next to this proposed development. I'm here to help him out because he's hard of hearing. Lyman Mathewson, 14905 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48154. This map just buries my house. You'll need a magnifying glass to see my property on this map. I'll be shoehorned in. Mr. Beech: Okay. Here's the questions, though, that I've gone over with Bud. You can probably guess that he's been there for over 30 years and it's a big change for him. He also had an office building built right next door to him and they were supposed to maintain a greenbelt, which the trees died and they didn't replace them. He tried to be a good neighbor and not complain and everything, but they did, in my opinion, harass him and he had to put up a fence himself for privacy because they complained because they didn't like the look of his backyard. And like the previous woman, he'd like to have assurances of privacy and a fence put up at least like every other development has and possibly to know what your plans are for keeping the trees that are already there, the big trees that have been there for a long time and how much of a space between his property, the fence there and the parking. I believe the last one was proposed parking. Is that correct? Mr. Wilshaw: You'll have to speak to us, sir. We'll try to get your answers addressed. Mr. Beech: Pardon? Mr. Wilshaw: Please speak to us. We'll try to get your answers addressed. Mr. Beech: Oh. I'm sorry. Okay. Is that correct? There's parking right next to the north side of Bud's property? Mr. Taormina: This is what it looks like adjacent to the property you're referring to. If I may, the road comes in off Farmington Road and runs along the north side of Mr. Mathewson's property. There is a distance of 10 feet from the property line to the curb and in that area the landscape plan shows eight Cleveland Pears. One of the things the Planning Commission can consider, and I think this would be reasonable, would be your suggestion of placing a fence along the property line even though it's not required. November 15, 2016 27932 However, this is a high density development and the road being located adjacent to an existing single family, it might not be unreasonable to require some type of additional screening, either in the form of fencing and landscaping. If it's just going to be landscaping, then one of the suggestions might be looking at some type of evergreen tree. I can see what the landscape designer is trying to accomplish here, and that's kind of a canopy coming in from the main entrance on Farmington Road. However, that really doesn't provide adequate screening from the house during the winter months. That's something maybe the Commission can consider. Maybe the existing trees, as they're proposed, kind of keep that landscape but add some type of fencing along there. In terms of the question about maintaining the existing trees, anything north of that property line is likely to go as part of the construction impact. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, because they are residential properties abutting, there is not a requirement for a wall. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Wilshaw: But because of the type of development this is, a wall or some sort of a thick barrier to help screen that one residential home from the rest of the development would make sense to provide some privacy for Mr. Mathewson. Are there any other questions that you have? Mr. Beech: Maybe a request for some, like you had just mentioned, some evergreens or something also there for the maximum amount of privacy along there. The ten feet . . . this is the first that he's seen the map. There have been other documents sent to his house and he has a well and he wants some assurance that if there is a problem from the development of the contamination of his well, that it would be taken care of by the developer. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Is there anything else? Mr. Mathewson: Is there any way that the road that will go the back . . . see, that's going to be right by my kitchen window and my upstairs bedroom window. And the traffic I know that want to use the Luther Road because that already has a lot of traffic. So the plan is to put the road that will go to the back quite close to my kitchen window and bedroom window and the Luther Road takes a lot of traffic, not just the day, but the night. There was a house by the Luther Road. The man bought it and then sold it. He said he couldn't live there. The traffic on Luther Road was day and night. If the road could be put closer to the cemetery fence, they can't hear. November 15, 2016 27933 Mr. Beech: Bud, I think it's parking right now. He hasn't seen the map. This is the first time he's seen the map and before the road went right next to the north side of his property. I haven't actually been able to look at the map. Is it parking or is that the road right next to it? Mr. Wilshaw: There are two roads which will have access to this property. There is the one that will be close to the north part of your property line. There will be an additional 10 feet of buffer. They want to put as much landscaping and buffering as we can so that the vehicles that go up and down that road will not interfere with your property as much as possible. That's one of the access roads. The other access to this property is on Luther Lane. So as you go down Luther Lane, right where it bends, there will be an access to the back part of this development, and likely that's the path that most of the residents that live in the back part of this development would want to use because it's the path of least resistance. They don't have to go by all the other parking areas and so on. So there will be two means of access to this property and more than likely, the traffic flow will be about half will use one way and half will use the other. It won't be quite as bad. Mr. Beech: Let me ask you people a question because you have more experience with this. Well, I guess if you're going to build a road and that's the way it's going to be, that's the way it's going to be, but at one time, I thought that I had seen a map where it's wasn't sure and they were going to have parking or the road, and this is the first that he's heard that it's going to be a road for sure. Is the parking less noise and more privacy for a road or the parking? Which would be more private? Mr. Wilshaw: This road is an access to the property. It will go back a certain number of feet and it will be lined with trees and landscaping, but then it will become a parking area from that point on. So there is also parking along this roadway. It won't be adjacent to his property because, of course, you don't want to have parking spaces right next to your property. Mr. Beech: It will be a 10-foot setback. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. Mr. Beevch: But the parking will be set back 10 feet and the road will be set back 10 feet. Mr. Wilshaw: The parking will be toward the rear of Mr. Mathewson's property. Once you get past his property is when the parking areas will November 15, 2016 27934 start, close to the buildings themselves because obviously people don't want to park over by Mr. Mathewson's house and then walk all the way to their building. They want to park near the buildings themselves. So the parking areas will be surrounding the buildings that are on the site, and those will have carports. Mr. Beech: Okay. Will one of the buildings be right next to Bud's property? Mr. Wilshaw: No. There's going to be that roadway that will be between Mr. Mathewson's property and then there will be buildings to the north of that roadway. The one building is going to be a Community Center, which is going to be a leasing office and also has a small pool and some other facilities for the residents to use. So it will have light use throughout the day. The other building will be a smaller three story building which will have residential units. It will have less residential units than the larger buildings to the back of the property. Mr. Beech: Well, that sounds good, Bud. If he could get a fence and the evergreens, that would be very good I believe. It would be about the best that could be done I think and the reason he's concerned, again, is because the building next door, when it was built, they assured he would have privacy and he has not privacy in his backyard, absolutely none. They had some pine trees that they had put up but they dug down the property about eight feet. There's a five-foot difference between his property and the next office building to the left, and they undercut a tree and then the tree limb fell down on the new people's property and they tried suing him. Well, it didn't work because, well, anyway, it was a stressful thing for Bud and it was their fault anyway. But even aside from that, they wanted to sue him for $2,000 and they should have known better. They're lawyers and they said that if he didn't give them $2,000, they would sue him in Small Claims Court. So he had his . . . Mr. Wilshaw: I think we understand, Mr. Beech. The one thing I'll say is the developers of his property, which are here today, Mr. Phipps and Mr. McCann, have a lot of experience doing this type work, the two of them together. They have a very good stake in this community. They've been here a long time and I think that they are going to be very willing to work with us and the City and yourselves to try to alleviate any concerns that may exist as best we can. Mr. Beech: I think so too. I think you're right. November 15, 2016 27935 Mr. Wilshaw: So you guys can all work together and we'll try to make the best outcome we can for Mr. Mathewson as well as the developers. think you're correct that the issue we'll ask the developers here in a moment is about the fencing or landscaping, any sort of barrier that we can create between the two properties to try to screen it as much as possible. Mr. Beech: Right. And I understand that it was originally his family home he grew up in and if that's accurate, and his mother lived there. So think he understands how tough it is for Bud to adjust. He needs as much privacy and the people on the other side actually were harassing Bud so that's part of the whole situation where he wants to make sure that things are lined up and no just nebulous assurances thinking that we'll do this and we'll do that and you know. Mr. Wilshaw: One thing that you'll hear as we move onto this meeting, there will be a number of very detailed stipulations given to this property as it moves forward, and it will go to City Council. There will be another opportunity for the Council to hear it, for you guys to stay in touch with us, and communicate your concerns as well. So there's going to be plenty of oversight. Mr. Beech: Okay. Great. Is that good, Bud? Mr. Mathewson: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Mathewson. Thank you, Mr. Beech for speaking on his behalf, and we'll go back to the developer seeing no one else in the audience. We'll talk about some of these issues that you brought up. So thank you very much. Mr. Beech: All right. Is Bud through tonight? Mr. Wilshaw: He's done if he doesn't want to say anything else. He's free to sit and listen and hear the rest of the proceedings here and find out how it goes. Mr. Beech: Okay. Mr. Wilshaw: With that, if the petitioner would like to come forward. You did hear a concern raised about the landscaping or screening around the entranceway. Is there anything you would like to address? Mr. McCann: We'll be happy to discuss the landscaping to alleviate those concerns. That's not an issue at all. November 15, 2016 27936 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I figured it wouldn't be too much of a problem. Are there any other questions for the petitioner from the Commission? Mr. Long: Recognizing the clientele of this apartment complex, do we normally require speed bumps or anything like that? Mr. Taormina: Generally, no. Mr. Long: Okay. Again, it's senior living. Hopefully, we don't have our seniors driving 40, 50 mph through there. Mr. McCann: Well, we're not in Pasadena where the little old lady lives, so think we're all right. Mr. Taormina: Typically, we'll get feedback from either the Fire or Police Department regarding the placement of traffic control devices. We didn't receive any of that, and I'm sure they'll want to see stop signs at certain locations through this road network, but maybe also "no parking" signs, especially where you have only a 22 foot wide drive coming in off Farmington Road for the first several hundred feet. That kind of dovetails into what was asked earlier about parking adequacy for the clubhouse and whether or not there's a need for people to park closer and where would the first place be. Well, it would probably be along that driveway unless it's posted "no parking." So one of the things you might want to give some thought to is posting that or maybe just leave that up to the Public Safety Department to determine whether or not any parking should be allowed along there, but typically I think I would say along a 22 foot wide drive being situated so close to the main drive that parking would not be something they would want there. Mr. Long: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions or comments? Would the petitioner like to make any closing comments? Mr. McCann: We're all set, thanks. Mr. Wilshaw: With that, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Long, and adopted, it was #11-106-2016 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2016-10-08-13 submitted by Dave Phipps requesting approval of all plans required by Sections 18.47 and 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a November 15, 2016 27937 proposal to develop a senior apartment complex (Aletha Apartments) on properties at 14851 and 14931 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon and Five Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated October 31, 2016, as revised, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that a six (6') foot high decorative vinyl obscuring fence shall be installed along the property line where it abuts the single family home; 2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for building encroachment into the side yard setback along the north property line and the setback deficiency of the carports, subject to any conditions related thereto; 3. That the Landscape Plans marked LP-1 and LP-2 both dated October 20, 2016, as revised, prepared by Nagy Devlin Land Design, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that additional trees shall be provided along the front of the buildings at locations and sizes consistent with the color rendering; 4. That all electric and gas meters and any other exposed utility services or meter boxes shall be properly screened with deciduous type landscape material, subject to the approval of the Planning and Inspection Departments; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas, except for the detention basins, shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 7. That the Elevation Plans and list of building materials as received by the Planning Commission on October 25, 2016, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the sides of the carports shall be constructed out of a masonry or brick material that matches the brick on the building; November 15, 2016 27938 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster areas shall be constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the buildings, and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 10. 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; 11. That this site shall meet either the City of Livonia or the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, whichever applies, and shall secure any required permits, including storm water management permits, and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County and/or the City of Livonia; 12. That the Site Lighting Photometric Plan marked 1 of 1 dated November 3, 2016, prepared by Gasser Bush Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 13. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 14. That Public Safety shall help determine the placement of any traffic control devices, including stop signs, yield signs, and no parking signs; 15. 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; 16. 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, 17. 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. November 15, 2016 27939 Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Ms. McCue: Is there someplace in here where we can put some specifics about the discussion we just had on the privacy? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, certainly. I think there's probably a few additional items we might want to add. Ms. McCue: I just want to make sure. They've come here once and he's had a bad time before. I want to make sure it's documented somewhere in there. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So you would like to have some sort of an item that specifically addresses landscaping or privacy along the north property line of the adjacent residential home. Ms. McCue: Right, and I think he had indicated maybe we're asking too much but a fence and greenbelt. I don't know that's something we can discuss, but I was thinking we could probably modify Item #3 with the specifics. Mr. Wilshaw: You can add that onto Item #1 or#3. Would like to leave that up to the Planning Department to work with the petitioner or would you like it to be something that comes back to us? Ms. McCue: I'm fine with the Planning Department as long as it's just addressed. I just don't want us to miss that in the process. Mr. Wilshaw: I think that sounds good. Is the maker of the motion okay with that? Mr. Caramagno: That's fine. And Mr. McCann said that they would do what they needed to do with that neighbor to screen that. It's a good suggestion and they already agreed to it. I think it's wise to add that. Mr. Wilshaw: Always good to have it in writing. Mr. Long, are you okay with that? Mr. Long: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any additional changes to the conditions that we've heard so far? There was one item that Mr. Taormina brought up about the landscape plan also addressing additional landscaping around the buildings which were indicated on the renderings but not on the landscape plan. Do we want to also include that? November 15, 2016 27940 Mr. Caramagno: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, that is included in Condition #3. Mr. Wilshaw: It is? Okay. Excellent. Just trying to make sure we've got all the little bullet points here that we talked about. Okay. Is there anything else from the Commission? If not, please call the roll. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Caramagna, Long, McCue, Smiley, Wilshaw NAYS: Ventura ABSENT: Priddy ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you again for your time tonight and good luck with your project. ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,096TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,096th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 25, 2016. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue, and adopted, it was #11-107-2016 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,096th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 25, 2016, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McCue, Long, Ventura, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: Priddy ABSTAIN: Caramagno Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. November 15, 2016 27941 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,097th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on November 15, 2016, was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. CITY P ANNING COMMISSION Sam Caramagno, Secretary ATTEST: _ Ian Wilshaw, Chairman