Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-04-2319280 MINUTES OF THE 843x° REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 84V Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William La Pine Members absent: John Pastor, John Walsh Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Scott Miller, Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, 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 hasten days in which to appeal the decision, in writ ng, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days atter the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. 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 2002-03-08-09 VONN INVESTMENT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002- 03-08-09, submitted by Ron Schwartz, on behalf of Vonn Investment Company, to renovate the exterior of the office building located on the southwest corner of Ann Arbor Road and Newburgh Road in the Northeast%of Section 31. 19281 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southeast comer of Ann Arbor Road and Newburgh. The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of the building that was formerly occupied by the Internal Revenue Service. The existing building is constructed entirely out of brick on all four sides. Rows of windows (16" x 72"), spaced evenly, provide natural light to the interior. To help break up some of the starkness of the building, there is a band of soldier course brick just above the windows. The petitioner is proposing to remodel only the north and east elevations, which are the two that can be seen from the intersection. The north elevation, which faces Ann Arbor Road, is where the front or main entrance is presently located. This side's renovation would consist of having new larger type windows (76" x 104") installed in place of the existing windows and having the existing entrance relocated just west of the center of the wall. Three decorative dryvit panels, 20 ft. in width by 8 ft. in height, would be installed and spaced 41 ft. apart along the top half of the building. The east elevation, which faces Newburgh Road, would be redone and trimmed in a similar fashion. Near the northeast corner of this wall, a new entrance would be cutout and installed. With two separate entrances, this building could conceivably be divided into two tenant spaces. Other than these cosmetic changes, the existing brick of the building would remain untouched. The petitioner has mentioned that if any changes were to be done to the west or south elevation, they would be done in the future and only at a tenant's request. Parking is summarized as follows: required parking, if occupied by a retail use, is 88 spaces; if occupied by an office use, required parking is 66 spaces. Provided parking is 98 spaces. A new 31r3t. wide landscape area would be installed along the north elevation. To establish this area, part of the 5 ft. wide walkway that exists along the building would be covered over. This might cause a dilemma since the walkway would than become only 11r1t. wide. The east side of the building has an existing landscape area along it, plus it has a 5 ft. walkway. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated March 26, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest of March 22, 2002, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot will require maintenance, repair, resealing and double striping. (2) The accessible parking may need to be relocated and also properly sized, one with an 8 foot space and 19282 adjacent 8 foot aisle and three with an 8 foot space with at least a 5 foot aisle. (3) The asphalt curbs at the north end of the parking lot are broken and need to be replaced. (4) The exterior brick on the south elevation, at the lower courses, needs to be cleaned and tuck pointed. (Salt deterioration) (5)The underground irrigation system should be tested to confirm coverage and performance. (6) The building fire suppression system will need to be tested and certified (if not done within the last 5 years). (7) No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Do you have a color rendering with you? Ron Schwartz, 6020 West Maple Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan. We do not have a color rendering. We have some color samples ofdryvit. Mr. McCann: Please go ahead and tell us anything you want about your project. Mr. Schwartz: This building was built in 1984. It was built for the government at that time, specifically to their design and specifications. It clearly has an institutional look, which mel the needs of the government. The windows were what they wanted. Theydidn't particularly want a building that had a lot of glass in it. They were tenants until March 31 of this year. The Internal Revenue Service moved out. We are in the process oftrying to re -tenant the building. It has been listed with the broker since last summer. There has been no serious interest to date. We are proposing to enhance the elevations to bring it to a more modern standard of office space, certainly to increase the natural light in the interior of the building by enlarging the windows. The dryvil panels will give it a little bit of relief to the all -masonry exterior walls on the two street elevations. The south elevation really has no visibility, and the west elevation borders an existing commercial stri p that faces their dumpslers and the back of their parking lot, so there's certainly no visibility from that angle. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Tell me about the insulated glass over the door and on the side. Is that where you have gas in between the two glasses and the vapor can break? 19283 Mr. Schwartz: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: How long is the glass going to be guaranteed not to break the vapor that you're putting in? Mr. Schwartz: I'm looking to my architect. I believe that's a 10 year warranty. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Mr. Schwartz, do you want to put the samples up on the board? Mr. Schwartz: We're going to stay with earth tones, basically. We're not trying to call attenfi on to the color. Its consistent with the brick. The brick is kind of a reddish brown type brick. Mr. La Pine: Are all the violations the Inspection Department listed going to betaken care of? Mr. Schwartz: Yes, they will be. Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Piercecchi: This is the dryvil? Mr. Schwartz: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: And this is the paint on lop of it? Mr. Schwartz: This will be the color of the dryvil. The dryvil comes with the color in d. Mr. Piercecchi: How thick is the dryvit? Miles A. MacSham, Architect, Commerce, Michigan. It is standard dryvil. It's put on with a trowel and the color is not painted on. Its homogenous throughout the whole product. Its guaranteed for life. If it chips, the color is all the way through. It's not a painted item at all. It is the thickness of plaster. Mr. Piercecchi: Is it a half inch thick? Mr. MacShare: It's about a quarter inch thick. Its a coafing ... Mr. Piercecchi: I'm talking about the dryvil, itself... the polystyrene. ,Gy�:ct Mr. MacShara: In this case here, it's on the drawing. It's a three inch recessed, but the dryvit itself is about six inches thick. Mr. Pieroecchi: Six inches thick. Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. Mr. Schwartz: Mr. Chairman, could I say one more thing? Mr. McCann: Sure. Mr. Schwartz: We have no tenant at the moment. We doing this kind of speculatively in terns of marketing the building. I would just like to have the flexibilityto add windows to the other two elevations of a similar type without having to go back through the whole process, which is obviously a lengthy process. They would be the same type ofwindows ifwe do it. It would be to suitthe lighting needs of the tenant. I don't anticipate doing any dryvil panels because there is no real exposure of those two elevations, but I would like the ability to cut in some larger windows of the same type. Mr. McCann: I think what we can do is send it on to Council with an approval both ways and then what you'd have to do is work something out with the Council. Mr. Schwartz: Something subject to administrative review but something that doesn't have to go through the whole process? Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, do you have a suggestion? Mr. Taormina: You might want to provide on the plans a notation to that effect showing the possible location of future windows on the side of building. As along as we approve the plan with a notation or sketch of the potential future improvements, that should suffice. Mr. Schwartz: Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: In otherwords, Mark, the 4/18/02 Site Plan would have to say its revised then, right? Mr. Taormina: We will add a condition thatwill address that particular issue. As long as the revised plan is submitted showing that notation, then I think that's all the Council would need. 19285 Mr. Alanskas: If you wanted to add some more windows in the future, you don't know what size they are going to be. They could be a small window, a circular window ... Mr. McCann: Are you saying they have to provide a detail on the plan of the proposed windows for the future? I wouldn't want to approve it without the windows being consistent in quality and style. Mr. Schwartz: They would be the same style, absolutely. Mr. McCann: Okay. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, R was #0431-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-03-08-09, submitted by Ron Schwartz, on behalf of Vonn Investment Company, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the office building located on the southwest comer of Ann Arbor Road and Newburgh Road in the Northeast%of Section 31, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated April 1, 2002, as revised, prepared by Miles A. MacSham, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3. 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; 4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 dated April 1, 2002, as revised, prepared by Miles A MacShara, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception; 19286 6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated March 26, 2002: That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Banner Free Code; That the damaged asphalt curbs at the north end of the parking lot shall be replaced; That the exterior Mick on the south elevation, at the lower courses, shall be cleaned and tuck pointed; That the existing underground irrigation system shall be tested to confine coverage and performance; Thallhe building's fire suppression system shall be tested and certified (if not done in the last 5 years); 7. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, am approved with this petition; 8. 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 9. That the petitioner shall be allowed to add windows to the west and south elevations of the building consistent with the size and style of the windows proposed along the north and east elevations subject to the approval of the Planning and Inspection Departments. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. 19287 ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-03-0840 BAKI'S UNIQUE HOMES Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-03-08-10, submitted by Sam Baki, on behalf of Bakes Unique Homes, to construct a condominium development on property located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue in the Southeast%of Section 35. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the weslside of Middlebell between Joy Road and Grendon Avenue. The petitioner is requesting approval to develop the subject property into a three -unit attached condominium project. The Site Plan shows the three attached units would face Middlebelt Road. A continuous asphalt aisleway between the condominiums and the street would link all three driveways. Both of the outside units would be 1,115 sq. R. in size and the middle unit would be slightly larger at 1,450 sq. ft. A note on the plan indicates that all units would have two bedrooms, a one -car attached garage and a full basement. The proposed development would be deficient in front, rear and side yard setbacks. Therefore, this development would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Landscape Plan is combined and shown on the Site Plan. The plan shows two front yard lawn islands out in font of the condominiums. These islands would be landscaped with shrubbery and a variety of small evergreens. The lawn area to the rear and both sides of the units would be landscaped with a few deciduous trees and a couple of evergreen trees. Because this development is residential, there is no defined percentage of landscaping required. The Elevation Plans show that the front elevations oflhe condominiums would be brick upto the roofiine with the peaks oflhe roof covered in vinyl siding. The rear elevation would be brick up to the bottom ofthe windows and then vinyl siding the rest of the way up. The sides of the end units would be brick up to the wainscot and then vinyl siding up the remaining portion of the elevations. The roof would be covered in asphalt shingles. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of comespondence. The first letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 4, 2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a condominium development on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." IEYiI The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the Engineering Division, dated April 1, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal orlegal description at this time. It should be noted that the development will be required to meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. Also, any work within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way will require a Wayne County permit. Ws trust this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 4, 2002, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the site plan in regards to a proposal to construct a condominium development on property at 9105 Middlebelt. We do not believe there is enough space available forparking vehicles in this complex. Thedrivewayto the garage of the middle unit is 12 -feet wide. The driveway will only accommodate one vehicle, the single cargarage another. Two and a half spaces are required perunit. Also, the asphalt area marked as a driveway east of the building is 16 -feet wide. If any vehicles are parked in this area, there will not be enough space for emergency vehicles to maneuver. It is our recommendation that parking on the so-called driveway between Middlebelt and the proposed condos be prohibited so emergency vehicles will have the mom necessary to maneuver in an emergency." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 17, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 27, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site plan, as proposed with an RC zoning, will require multiple variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals: (a) Deficient front yard setback. 75 feet required, 41'6" proposed, deficient 336". (b) Deficient rear yard setback. 50 feet required, 30 feetproposed, deficient 20 feet (c)Deficient side yards (both). Required 25 feet with a total of 60 feet, proposed 15 feet, total of 30 feet. Deficient 10 feet one side, 20 feet the opposite. (d) Three decks encroaching into the required rear yard setback. Decks may encroach to 20 feet from the rear line (in this case), proposed 18 feet, deficient 2 feet. (2) Although the petitioner has provided the required seven (7) parking spaces, the central unit does not have the plan stated parking for two (2) cars outside of the garage. In addition, the end units have an 18 -foot parking width, which is deficient of the 20 feet required fortwo (2) cars. However, as each side is clear withoutimpediments or other -parking, the site requirement 19289 intent may be considered met in this instance or the Commission may wish to direct the width be increased to 20 feet. (3) Additional landscaping maybe needed to shield the adjoining R-1 property from vehicular traffic in regard to the two (2) end units. (4) The plan needs to be clarified as to the exterior materials. The windows, trim, rakes, fascia and soffit materials are not specified, and therefore, a determination as to the required maintenance -free characteristics cannot be determined. Additional requirements forthe chimneys or chimney enclosures, not depicted on the plan, may wish to be noted, along with air conditioning units, meters, etc. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the comespondence. Mr. McCann: Is the pefifioner here this evening? Sam Baki, Bakes Unique Home Builders, 36800 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. We are submitting this pefifion to putthree units on that property. We are in the process of getting the site approved to an R -C zoning. After we received a notice two weeks ago about some of these items -the width of the driveways- we came back with revised plans that you see in front of you at this time. The plans show widening the drive parallel to Middlebelt for emergency vehi des to have a better turnaround. We widened the driveways in front of each unit to accommodate the extra car parking, so now we have three parking spots here, one inside, two outside. We do show the elevation. This unit is going to be maintenance free. Its vinyl sided. On the front elevation we have mostly brick. We have some vinyl siding. The windows are going to be vinyl. On the side and the back yard, we will have the wainscot of the brick and vinyl siding above it. All the windows will be vinyl. Same with both sides of the sites. Each unit will consist of two ranches. One ranch on each end with two bedrooms and a study, 1,115 square feet, which meets the average size homes in that area. The one colonial is around 1,450 square feet with three bedrooms upstairs, two and a half baths. All these units will have a full basement. We are aware of all the setback requirements that we don't meet due to the insufficient size of this property. We will be submitfing, as soon as we go to Council, to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a variance on the setbacks. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? 19290 Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Bak, what price range are you trying to get in that area? Mr. Baki: We are keeping both the ranches and the colonial to between $150,000 and $165,000. Mr. Alanskas: How about the colonial? Mr. Baki: The same price range. Mr. Shane: How do you intend to meetthe Wayne County Slonn Water Management Ordinance? Mr. Bad : I already talked to the Wayne County engineers. We have to put in two catch basins to keep our water on the property, so we are going to run an underground storage tank between this area in the back. It doesn't show on the plan, butthere is going to be a manhole on both comers where the underground tanks, approximately 42" in diameter, store the water. We are going to do the same thing up to here to this corner and then it will be discharged to a manhole off of Middlebelt. It has already been discussed with Wayne County to meet that requirement. Mr. Pieroecchi: I realize that you have a very difficult piece of land there to build on and with the setbacks required for R -C, it actually is impossible for you to meet those standards. Those standards are 75 front, 50 back and the lot is only 110' deep. It's impossible. However, I see some merit in this type of development for the site. Having said that, however, it is not impossible for you to meet our brick standards of two story and one story structures. As you may recall, these require 65% for the two-story and 80% for the two end units. Can you change your plans to meet those standards? Mr. Baki: I've met these brick standards on other sites. This site sits in an area where the average homes, the brick percentage is not even 25%ofthe homes in the area. Most ofthe homes in that area are sided. There is not that much large quantity of brick in most of the homes in that neighborhood. Ifwe raise the brick quantity, which we could easily do, that brings the price up and we're trying to leave it at a margin that it can go for that area. Mr. Pieroecchi: But you have the total ends of those buildings ... they should have brick on them. Mr. Baki: I can accommodate both ends on the first floor. 19291 Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. Mr. Baki: But in the back, that's a long stretch. Mr. Pieroecchi: You want to leave the wainscot on the rear? I can understand that. But on the two ends, the brick should go to the peaks. Can you do that? Mr. Baki: We have to blend it in with the... Mr. Pieroecchi: Let me see. Ok, where would you go? Go to the one on the bottom, I can see that one better. Right straight across? That's an improvement. Mr. Baki: We can do that. Mr. Pieroecchi: You will do that? You won't try to change your mind when you go to Council? Mr. Baki: No. Mr. Pieroecchi: Cast in cement. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was #0432-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-03-08-10, submitted by Sam Baki, on behalf of Bakes Unique Homes, to construct a condominium development on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and Gmndon Avenue in the Southeast%of Section 35, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site and Landscape Plan dated April 11, 2002, as revised, submitted by Bakes Unique Homes, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 19292 3. 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 condifion; 4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet 2 and Sheet 3, both dated March 15, 2002, prepared by Heritage Design Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the following: That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story dwellings; That the surround of any outside chimney shall be constructed out of brick; 5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception; 6. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient setbacks and any conditions related thereto; and 7. 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. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Shane ABSENT: Pastor. Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolufion adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 19293 ITEM #3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR 2003-2008 Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, the Capital Improvement Program for 2003-2008. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, do you want to give us a brief summary as to the purpose of this program? Mr. Taormina: Presented for your review and consideration this evening is the Capital Improvement Program for the period 2003 through 2008. The Capital Improvement Program provides a listing of capital improvement projects for the next six years as recommended by the various City departments, inducing Public Safety, both Fire and Police, Public Services, Parks and Recreation, Community Resources, Library and Engineering. The Capital Improvement Program out ines the schedule of major public service expenditures including road improvements, sewer and water line construction and maintenance, parks and open space improvements, police and fire facilities, City building improvements and continued improvements to the Greenmead Historical Village. Preparation of the Capital Improvement Program is done under the authority ofthe Municipal Planning Commission Act, PA 285 of 1931. The Planning Commission is required to prepare a Capital Improvement Program and present it to the administration and legislative body to aid in the preparation of the yearly budget. We are requesting that the Planning Commission approve the program so as to be able to transmit it in its final forth to the Mayor and the Council. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Do we have a motion to approve the Capital Improvement Program? On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #0433-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Department to transmit the document entitled "Capital Improvement Program, City of Livonia, 2003- 2008" to the Mayor and Council as a realistic program to aid in the determination of a complete fiscal planning strategy for the City of Livonia, and FURTHER RESOLVED, thatthe City Planning Commission stands ready to do all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and Council in maintaining a functioning Program of 19294 Capital Improvements and Capital Budgeting for the City of Livonia. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consentfrom the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item? ITEM #4 PETITION 2002-01-08-03 NITZKIN DENTAL CLINIC Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-01-08-03 submitted by Jay Nitzkin, D. D.S., on behalf of Nitzkin Dental Clinic, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior building elevations of the commercial building located at 33428 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 114 of Section 16. Mr. Miller: The new Site Plan shows the parking layout has been reversed from what was originally proposed. The eastern driveway now becomes the entrance to the parking lot and the western driveway the exit. The petitioner feels the best solution would be to just paint the existing panel brick the same color as the dryvil of the south elevation. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is there any new information? Mr. Taormina: No, there is no new correspondence related to this petition. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Jay Nitzken, 33428 Five Mile Road. Mr. McCann: Is there something you would liketo tell us aboutthe changes you've made? 19295 Dr. Nitzken: We discussed all the changes at length atthe last study meeting. We are proposing everything we talked about at that time. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Have you had any more contact with Bates? Dr. Nitzken: No. Mr. Alanskas: None whatsoever? Dr. Nitzken: No. Mr. Alanskas: So you will still be painting the building in the evening when they are closed? Dr. Nitzken: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: I just want to verify that the east driveway, the one dosest to the building, will be your entrance ... just opposite to what the signs say now? Dr. Nihtken: That is exactly right. Mr. McCann: Your proposing to paintthe west side of the building, remove the brick veneer and paint the block. Now, is there a special type of paint you will be using to cover that block? Dr. Nitzken: Yes. Mr. McCann: I believe you have your architect here. Please give us your name and address. Garnet R. Cousins, Birmingham, Michigan. Its a several part process, where they make a special filler/primer and then you put on acrylic that has microscopic pores so it can breath so it wont blister. Mr. McCann: In the past when I've seen painted block buildings, they've done this before and they said, "No, it's a new process. It looks much better." But you sti l see the eight inch by twelve inch blocks going up and down, and it looks like painted block. I'm wondering ifyou have seen this product. Are we going to get away from that painted block look? 19296 Mr. Cousins: With a heavy primer and a matte pastel color, you minimize it bulyou can still see it ifyou look for il. Dr. Nitren had some photos of several block buildings that ... Mr. McCann: Right. We've got one just down from him that's been painted and its a big improvement from what it was, but I just wondering if there's a large difference between that process and the dryvil process? Mr. Cousins: Oh, yes. Mr. McCann: You've made marked improvements from where we began with this project. I'm looking fora motion. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was #0434-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-01-08-03 submitted by Jay Nitzkin, D.D.S., on behalf of Nitzkin Dental Clinic, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior building elevations of the commercial building located at 33428 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 114 of Section 16, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site and Landscape Plan dated April 3, 2002, as revised, prepared by Garnet R. Cousins & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, exceptforthe fact that the Colorado Blue Spruce trees shall be replaced with Mugo Pines or a similar species of plant; 2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3. 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; 4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated April 8, 2002, as revised, prepared by Garnet R. Cousins & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 19297 5. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of masonry blocks, the wall's color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 6. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 ft. in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 7. That the conforming wall sign, as shown on the approved Elevation Plan, is hereby approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 8. That all directional signage shall conform to Section 18.50D Permitted Signs, subsection (i) of Zoning Ordinance #543; and 9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department allhe time the building permits are applied for. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: Mark, on the east side of the building, at the very north end, you have a sign there. Is that in compliance? Mr. Taormina: I'dhavetocheck. Unless it was a replacement sign, I'm not sure whether or not that sign would be ... Mr. Alanskas: There was never a sign there, period, on that side of the building. Mr. Taormina: We will have to look into that. Off hand, I would say, no, he would not be entitled to a sign other than what would be permitted on the front of the building, which would be the south elevation. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. IGrxs1 ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES W Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes ofthe 840" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on Febmary26, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #0435-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 840"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas ABSENT: Pastor, Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8418'Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes ofthe 841s' Regular Meeting held on March 12, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #0436-2002 RESOLVED, thalthe Minutes of 841s�Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 26, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Pastor, Walsh 19299 Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duty made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 843rd Regular Meeting held on April 23, 2002, was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mgr CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary