Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-05-2119368 MINUTES OF THE 8451h REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 21, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 845" 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 John Walsh mun:r�a:z�tlll�tnm�rr Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a pefifion on lonighfs 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 anc/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 we 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 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 2002-04-0842 KA -0E INVESTMENTS Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04-08- 12, submitted by Ka -De Investments, L.L.C., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 33470 Lyndon Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 21. Mr. Miller: This site is located north side of Lyndon between Farmington and Stark. The petitioner is proposing to construct a one-story office 19369 building on the subject site. Right now, a small house which was converted into an office building sits on the site. This building is presently utilized as a law office. This existing dwelling would be tom down in order to make room for the new building. The Site Plan shows that the footprint of the new building would be shaped like an "L" and the total area of the structure would be 4,600 square feet. The new building would set back 29 feet from Lyndon Road, which is approximately the same distance as the existing building sits now. In an OS district the required front yard setback is 40 feel. The proposed building would also only set 10 ft. from the west property line. The west property line abuts the Silver Village Senior Community, which is zoned Rg, Housing for the Elderly. The minimum side yard setback requirement for a building when it abuts residential is 15 feet. The proposed building would therefore be deficient in front and side yard setbacks and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Looking at the Site Plan, it shows there is more than enough room to the north and east to shift the building and allow it to meet the setback requirements. According to the petitioner, the existing parking lot would not be touched and is not part of this proposal. Parking is summarized as follows: parking required is 18 spaces; provided parking is 26 spaces. A new enclosed dumpster area would be constructed at the northwest corner of the existing parking lot. A note on the plan indicates that the walls of the enclosure would be constructed out of brick to match the building. The Landscape Plan shows that most of the decorative landscape materials would be planted around the perimeter of the building and along the west property line. The rest of the landscaping would consist mainly of lawn area. Because the west property line abuts a residential district, the petitioner would be required to construct a protective wall screening Silver Village from this development. It is not known at this time if the petitioner is asking to have the wall waived in place of a greenbelt. The 10 foot wide greenbelt along the west property line does meet the requirements and could qualify as an appropriate replacement. The Elevation Plan shows that the proposed building would be constructed out of brick on all four sides with the peak areas of the roof covered in vinyl siding. The roof would be covered in asphalt singles. The two main entrances on the south and east elevations would extend out away from the building and be defined by a peak roof. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 15, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at 19370 this time and see no problems with respect to traffic or points of ingress or egress. It should be noted that the developer maybe required to have additional storm water detention on site due to the limited storm outlet." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 8, 2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an office building on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 10, 2002, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the site plan in regards to the proposal to construct an office building on the property located at 33470 Lyndon. We have no objections to the plans as submitted. We recommend the installation of stop sign at the driveway for exiting vehicles. There is no indication on the plans regarding lighting. We recommend adequate lighting to illuminate the parking lot and driveway as well as lighting for the sides of the building not readily visible to passer-bys for crime prevention considerations. Please remind the petitioner that each handicap space must be individually signed as required by city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 15, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 7, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This proposal will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient front yard setback. Required is 40 feet, provided is 29 feet, deficient 11 feet. It will also require a variance fordeficient side yard setback. Requiredisl5feet, provided 10 feet, deficient 5 feet. (2) The substitution of a greenbelt for the required protective wall along the west property line needs to be formalized. (3) The site plan scale should be corrected to 1"equals 10 feet, not one foot. (4) No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by David M. WOodcox, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Patrick Devine, 33470 Lyndon. Mr. McCann: Is there any additional information you would like logive us about your project? Mr. Devine: Yes. I did send a letter. Mr. McCann: I believe each ofthe Commissioners received a copy ofthal letter. 19371 Mr. Devine: To address the issue on the variance or the deficiency of 11 feet, I think the letter explains it. We were in compliance prior, and we allowed the sidewalk to be installed and that took away some of our footage. I think the letter explains that pretty much. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Pieroecchi: The letter doesn't mention anything about the continuation of a Zoning Board of Appeals grant. It doesn't say how many feet the ZBA permitted on that. Did they give you 11 feet? Mr. Devine: We were in compliance at the time, then we put the sidewalk in. We deeded that portion of the property to the City, which provided the sidewalk across the front of our yard, and that basically look away from the 40 foot setback. Mr. Pieroecchi: My pointis, were you allowed 11 feetorwas itless? Mr. Devine: We were already existing there when we deeded that property to the City. Mr. McCann: Mr.Gallagher, do you knowwhatthe specific ZBA variance was for? Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger, Livonia, Michigan. It was for a future building. A building that they were going to build in the past. Mr. McCann: With the same setback as the current building? Mr. Devine: Right. Mr. Gallagher: All the setbacks were predicated on the existing house they were going to stay in. All they were simply going to do was add behind that house. Anyway, when I met with the gentleman here, we went over what was happening before and what can happen now. We were talking about renfing a trailer, setting up a temporary trailer on the back of the site. This was what they were thinking of doing. I showed them a way that we can go around that house. Leave that house until the building is done, and then tear the house down when they move into the new building that is right next door. Anyway, the setbacks were pretty much based on what we were before, but we have room in the back of that building to add on to it if we want to in the future, and we might need new parking. Mr. Pieroecchi: You're not really answering my question. Perhaps I didn't express it property. You are deficient 11 feet. Its implied by your letter that the 19372 ZBA gave you that 11 feet for a sidewalk. Did they actually give you 11 feet? Mr. McCann: I think what he is saying is that when the original site plan came in, you were given a ZBA variance so that your new building would line up with the existing buil di rig. Correct? Mr. Gallagher: Correct. Mr. McCann: The existing building has an 11 foot deficiency like the new proposed building. Mr. Piercecchi: In other words, the ZBA did give you 11 feet? Mr. Gallagher: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. That's all I want to know. As far as going east, what is the problem going east five feet to meet the side lot? Mr. Gallagher: Well, the 10 foot setback on the west side of the building is where the screen wall would normally be required. We want to totally landscape that. But that 10 feel is back about three feel from the exisfing house. The existing house has a backdoor that is an exit right now. It's from the basement and also the floor. I didn't want to bring it up any closer than that because you couldn't gel out of the house. So I fell, well, if we greenbelt this, the nearest building to us I think is 56 feet away from us, and it's just a comer of one of those homes back in there that the City owns. I like looking at landscaping better than I do any kind of fence. Mr. Piercecchi: Do you intend to go to the ZBA forthat five feet? Mr. Gallagher: If we have to. Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, you do. Mr. Gallagher: Then we have to. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, you don't have to; you just won't gel your building done. Mr. Gallagher: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: We're not in the habil of granting variances, you know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19373 Mr. Shane: Going back to the front yard setback, we have a letter from the Director of Inspection which seems to say that it will require a new variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. That's the first item in the letter. So I don't know whether the original Zoning Board of Appeals grant is valid or not. Do we know that, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Its my understanding from the letter provided to us by the Inspection Department that they will have to seek the variance in the front yard setback as well as the side yard setback for the new building. Mr. Shane: Okay, so the variance they already have doesn't apply. Mr. Taormina: That is my understanding. Mr. Shane: The second question I have is with regard to the greenbelt on the west side. Our normal procedure is to check with the residents. This happens to be a City of Livonia residential complex, but nonetheless, residents live there. I don't suppose we sent them a notice or gave them any idea that there might be a substitution, Mark? Mr. Taormina: No. The residents of that particular building were not notified. Mr. Shane: I don't know why this is any different than if they owned the property because they live there. Whether or not they would enjoy a greenbelt over a wall, I dont know. That's all I have for now. Mr. La Pine: I have the same two questions Mr. Shane has. Is there a reason why we didn't notify the residents ... because it's City -owned property and they are the person of record? Mr. Taormina: In order to notify the residents of that particular building, we probably would have had to notify the Housing Director who maintains a list of occupants. Mr. La Pine: So they don't have the same standing as an individual who owns a house? Mr. Taormina: We don't have the residents' names in our files. So we would have to rely on information supplied to us by the Housing Director. Mr. LaPine: The second question I have is regarding the setback. Were only talking about 11 feet. Is the hardship because you can't go back 11 feet? In the future, you may want to build on the rear. Is that what you're saying? 19374 Mr. Devine: That's not the only hardship. Perhaps for future parking ... there's also Time Warner that has a giant disk by their property line. We didn't want to interfere with their projections. Mr. La Pine: Howwould you interfere with their projections? Mr. Devine: Well, we don't know that, but we didn't want to take that chance. We did have some discussions with them this year. We did cul a tree down. They asked us to remove a tree some years ago so it wouldn't interfere. That was one of the things. Mr. LaPine: Did Time Warner gel a notice of this petition? Mr. Taormina: No. This petition does not require notification of my of the abutting property owners, so I'm not aware that they know of this petition. Mr. LaPine: Did you contact Time Warner to find out if your building would interfere with their disk? Mr. Devine: We didn't ask them if it would interfere. No. Mr. Shane: Do you have any idea how you would handle the storm drainage on this property? Mr. Gallagher: We do have a drain that runs intothe sewer. Mr. Shane: Speaking with respect to the Wayne County requirements ... Mr. Gallagher: It runs across the existing parking lot into Time Warners parking lot, the catch basin. I dont know if its restricted or what tt is, but it does flow straight over to there. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Ido not see any one. Did you happen to bring any materials or can you describe them? Is it going to be a full -face all - brick building? Mr. Gallagher: Yes, face brick. Mr.McCann: Red? Mr. Gallagher: It's kind of a reddish brown. There will be vinyl siding on the building, trimmed in white, wood windows, basement. Mr. McCann: Shingled roof? 19375 Mr. Gallagher: Yes. Mr. McCann: So it will have a residenlial lookto it? Mr. Gallagher: The whole project will have a residenlial nature to it. Mr. McCann: What about the trees that are remaining on the property? Are you going to be able to save any of them? Mr. Gallagher: Some of them. There's one in the back we're talking about saving and two on the lett. Otherwise, everything else is pretty much brand new. Some of them are dying that are there now anyway. They've been there forever. I think some of them have outgrown their usefulness, but we've got a nice landscape plan here. I think this will work out really well, especially if we go down the west side of that. We're going to have a nice looking building there. I have looked over earlier drawings that I actually approved to build a while back. I think everybody is going to be much happier to see something like this than what was going to be there before. Mr. Alanskas: Will it still be a law office building when you gel done with it? Mr. Gallagher: Yes. Mr. LaPine: You talked about this prior building. I've been on this Commission going on 15 years now. I don't ever remember seeing any plans. I remember when the building was originally taken over and they renovated it to make a law office. When did all this happen about this new building that they were going to build and then they didn't build? When did this happen? Mr. Gallagher: The plans are dated 1996. Mr. LaPine: Did ilevercome tothe Planning Commission? Mr. Gallagher: I don't know. Mr. LaPine: Scott, did you check out those plans? Mr. Miller: I remember that there was something, but I couldn't tell you what. Mr. McCann: I remember seeing the plans. I just dont know what stage it was in when I saw them because I thought it was kind of odd trying to build onto that building, to be honest with you. A motion is in order. 19376 On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, it was RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-04-08-12, submitted by Ka -De Investments, L.L.C., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 33470 Lyndon Road in the Northeast '/.of Section 21, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated April 15, 2002, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the building shall meet all required setbacks; 2. That the Landscape Plan dated April 19, 2002, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 6. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts effectiveness as a prolective banner, the owner of the property shall be required to construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 dated April 15, 2002, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception; 19377 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or, in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building; and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and, when not in use, closed at all times; 10. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 R. in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated May 10, 2002: That a slop sign be installed at the driveway for exiting vehicles; - That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrer Free Code; 12. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; all such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 13. 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. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. La Pine: Yes, Mr. Chairman. My position is that I think we should adhere to the setbacks, too, but if there was a plan that shows that there was a variance granted for this 11 feet, it might sway my vote tie other way. Therefore, I will make a substitution motion to table it. Mark can do some research on it and look at the plans and maybe bring it to us, so we can take a look at it. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, it was RESOLVED, fiat the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-04-08-12, submitted by Ka -De Investments, L.L.C., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office 19378 building on property located at 33470 Lyndon Road in the Northeast % of Section 21, be tabled. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Please call the roll. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Walsh, Piercecchi NAYS: Alanskas, Shane, McCann ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed. Is there any discussion? I have two concems. If we can't come to some resolution this evening, I will agree to a tabling, but I just wanted some more dscussion. One, I think that the other vanance, which I think we can verify, was because they expanded Lyndon Road. I remember when they did it. In order to accomplish that, they had to absorb some properties and put in the sidewalks. Two, I think what we're going to do by forcing them into the other plans with the other variance that they have for the 11 feet is to build off the existing building. It costs another $20,000 in additional costs (I think they told us at the Study Meeting) just to lease tie trailer and have it moved in, if they can't use that exiting building during construction. Now, there may be an alternative to setback. But I think with the side yard setback, we're going to lose the opportunity for an all new building. I think that's what the comer needs. The idea of expanding the current building with the existing variance is not in the best interests of the City. Mr. LaPine: The only argument I'll give you on that point is that I thought Mr. Pastor told us they could keep the building and build around it somehow. Mr. McCann: They can. Mr. Pastors suggestion was that they could build right up to it except for that exisfing wall. Mr. Gallagher did call me and said they cant because the building only has two exits - one on the east side and one on the west side of the building. You would have to have two exits to make a building fire -safe. Mr. Shane: I don't have any big problem with the side yard setback. I wouldn't have a problem if this resolution was amended to say that. My problem is with the front yard setback. I'm not convinced that they need to set 11 feet closer than they should. Everybody wants to expand their building but the site only tells them what they can do. If they expand their building, they probably need more parking. If they expand their building, there won't be room for parking. If they put parking in there, there won't be room for expansion. So I don't see 19379 why this petitioner can't follow the ordinance especially with respect to the front yard setback. Mr. Pieroecchi: I agree. It never hurts to table a petition. There's one other thing that Mr. Gallagher: My experience with these screen walls is generally for shopping centers and things of that nature. They're basically for sound and light to keep the car lights from shining in people's bedroom windows and things of that nature. This isn't the type of business that we're running. These people are gone at 5:00 or 5:30 at night. It's not something that goes on all night. Secondly, the building is going to be a nice looking building. That building that is standing there right now is a gorgeous thing to look at. The only thing that hasn't happened, it just hasn't gone away. So we got to build something else. But these kind of bothers me. Mr. Shane pointed it out very effectively. In the past when we have an option of a wall or a greenbelt, we get residential input. Now granted that happens to be City property, and it is low cost housing, but I don't think that they should be denied the same privileges of a homeowner. That's one of the main reasons why I can go along with another look at it. It's only going to be for a couple ofweeks until we resolve this issue. Mr. Alanskas: I think meeting all the setbacks is the biggest problem that we have in approving this. Theyre putting up a brand new building, and I don't see any problem in meeting the setbacks. Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: You've got a good point, Bob, but why dont the residences that are close to that have a voice in whether it's a wall ora greenbelt? Mr. Alanskas: I think if the staff thought that it was important, it would have been done originally. Being that it was not done, I think they thought there would be no problem with leaving it the way it is. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Chairman, getting back to a point you made. Are you telling me that if he doesn't get these variances, he's going to keep the building and just add to it? Mr. McCann: I dont know that. I was told that the purpose for the original plan was so they could keep it and work in the original building. Now this plan was, keep the building, work in it, and then start with a whole new building. Otherwise they have to get a trailer brought in and move the offices. They have renters in the building that would need to be moved into the trailer for three months during construction. That's what was told to me. Would the petitioner want to go forward to Council with a setback only to the side yard or would you rather table it and see what happens in two weeks? Mr. Gallagher: My experience with these screen walls is generally for shopping centers and things of that nature. They're basically for sound and light to keep the car lights from shining in people's bedroom windows and things of that nature. This isn't the type of business that we're running. These people are gone at 5:00 or 5:30 at night. It's not something that goes on all night. Secondly, the building is going to be a nice looking building. That building that is standing there right now is a gorgeous thing to look at. The only thing that hasn't happened, it just hasn't gone away. So we got to build something else. But these 19380 gentlemen have to come up with quite a bit of money to build this building. Nov there could be other buildings that we could do that might save some money or time or whatever, but we felt, in all reality, this is going to look nice over there. Its not like we're slicking something out in the middle of street that looks like hell. This building is going to be a very attractive building. Mr. McCann: You didn't answer the question, though. Mr. Devine? Mr. Devine: You're asking whether or not we could go without the variance from the front? Mr. McCann: Right. Mr. Devine: Again, I thought part of the reason would be some of the use of the property that would allay us to use the property in the back, not only for possibly parking, but also to put in a dumpster and things like that, that wouldn't be seen from the street. Mr. McCann: You'd still have room back there. You'd still have to meet the greenbelt requirement. You still have to do all that. The setback shouldn't interfere with that. I'll just accept an alternative motion or we can vole on Mr. Alanskas' motion. Mr. Pieroecchi: We did vole on it once. Mr. McCann: No, we haven't. Mr. Shane: Let's make that an alternative motion. With everything he said with the exception ofgoing along with the side yard setback. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, itwas #05-67-2002 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-04-08-12, submitted by Ka -De Investments, L.L.C., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 oflhe Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 33470 Lyndon Road in the Northeast%of Section 21, be approved subject lothe following conditions: 1. Thatthe Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated April 15, 2002, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fad that the building shall meet the required front yard setback; 19381 2. That the Landscape Plan dated Apd119, 2002, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 6. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 7. Thatthe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheel2 dated April 15, 2002, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception; 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or, in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 10. 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; 11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated May 10, 2002: 19382 That a stop sign be installed at the driveway for exiting vehicles; That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrer Free Code; 12. That no signs, either freestanding orwall mounted, are approved with this petition; all such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 13. 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 14. Thatthis approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient side yard setback and any conditions related thereto; Mr. McCann: Can we call the roll on the alternative motion? Mr. LaPine: This is approving everything except the front yard. Itwoukl go back 11 feet. Is that right? Mr. McCann: Right. Mr. Pieroecchi: If I understand this correctly, this motion would be that the front yard setback must met but would allow the side yard setback? Mr. McCann: Correct. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Walsh, Alanskas, LaPine, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 19383 ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-05-0843 CHERRY STREET PROPERTIES Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-05- 08-13, submitted by Cherry Street Properties requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 29055 Plymouth Road in the Northwest '/. of Section 36. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, due to the fact that I did some landscaping work for Mr. Berman last year on his property, I will step down due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Garden Avenue. The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of the old Lasky Furniture Store. Presently this building is vacant. The owner of the property would like to modify the outside of the building in order to attract potential tenants. An on- site inspection showed that the building is in a somewhat dilapidated state with the outside wall paint pealing and the windows all covered in paper. The submitted Elevation Plan shows that basically the main change to the building would be a new d"t panel across the upper half of the front of the building, continued along about half the west elevation and just slightly wrapping around the comer of the east elevation. This band of dryvit would be approximately 9 ft. wide and installed above the existing windows of the building. An ornate decorative dryvil feature would define the existing entrance on the west elevation. The rest of the building, which seems to be a combination of brick and block, would be painted. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 16, 2002, which reads as follow: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time and see no problems with respect to traffic or points of ingress or egress. The drive approach off Garden Avenue is in very poor condition and should be considered for removal and replacement with any renovation to be completed with the property. We trust this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 13, 2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of the commercial building on property located at the above -referenced address. We 19384 have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 13, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 29055 Plymouth. We have no objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 13, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 8, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The west 53 lineal feet of the protective wall is 46 inches in height. The balanceof the wall is 56-62 inches in height. There are some trees in front of the 46 inch wall section with a guard rail protecting them. (2) There is graffiti on the protective wall and scattered spots of paint covering old graffiti. (3) Debris and trash need to be removed from the southwest comer of the lot. (4) The parking lot needs repair, resealing and double striping. (5) The landscape should be restored and maintained on the east side of the building. (6) The concrete approach on the east side off Garden is in disrepair and needs to be replaced. It will require a permit and inspections from the Engineering Department. (7) The bollards near the west entry door are in disrepair. t8) The renovations, which were started, will require plans and permits from this Department. The exit configuration, as depicted on A4, may not work. (9) The labeling of the west and east elevations, on A-2, appear to be reversed. This Department has no further objection 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 pefitioner here this evening? Pat Mannor, 203 E. Church, Grand Blanc, Michigan. Bob Berman, 29055 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about this? Mr. Manna: What we are trying to do is make the building look more appealing. It's been vacant for some time. It's a catch 22. You can't really find anybody interested in it in the condition that its in. With regards to the items that were listed, I think all of those can be addressed if they haven't already been. Some of them, the cleanup and the graffiti, have been taken care. Mr. Berman: As far as the parking lot issue, I didn't know that it was in need of repair, but we would obviously prefer to do that once we can secure a tenant. We've spent so much money up to this point, and this building 19385 has been vacant for five years now. We haven't even been able to gel a tenant interested. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, wouldn't that be a condition of occupancy? They can do certain repairs, like the repair of the parking lot, as conditions of occupancy? Mr. Taormina: What we would do is look to complete the facade renovations as part of this project. Then we could stipulate with a motion of approval additional items of repair at the time of occupancy. Mr. Berman: That would be fine. Mr. McCann: That would work for you? Mr. Berman: Oh, yeah. We want d looking good anyway. I would just like to do it in stages. Mr. LaPine: I haven't been out to the building this week. The prior week I was out there. When you say you fixed the graffiti on the back wall, did you paint the whole wall or just paint over those couple spots? The whole protective wall needs painting back there. Mr. Mannor: We can paint that wall. It's not a problem. We can include that as part of this. Mr. LaPine: Also, they talk about the trees. The trees fiat are back there look like theyjuslgrew over the years. They don't look like they were planted. Mr. Manna: They might be done as we speak. That's been addressed. Mr. LaPine: How long have you owned the building? Mr. Mannor: My family has owned the building probably for 40 years. Mr. LaPine: Were you the owner of the building when the State of Michigan wanted to use it? Mr. Berman: I was one of four or five owners. Yes. Mr. La Pine: Soyoudid have a tenant atonetime? Mr. Berman: Oh, yes. Mr. LaPine: Are you trying to get a retail store in there? Is that what you're aiming for? 19386 Mr. Berman: Quite frankly, we're trying to gel that building occupied. It could be retail. It could be an office. We're open for whoever comes to take it. Mr. LaPine: I have nothing against what you're doing. I think you're probably doing the right thing trying to fix it up the best you can. It just seemed to me you're spending money without knowing a tenant. You might have a tenant that wants to take over that building and he may want some renovations done to the building that are opposite to what you're doing. Mr. Berman: You're right. Mr. LaPine: One of the problems that we had with the other tenant you had proposed to go in there was that there wasn't enough parking. Al that time, you had secured some parking across the street behind the store. If you don't have enough parking at this location, are you going to be able to secure parking over there again? The other thing is, you may find a tenant, and yottve spent all this money renovating it, and you find out you can't use that tenant because of the parking requirement. Have you taken all that into consideration? Mr. Berman: Definitely. Thais why this proposed facade is very generic. Its going to make this building look brand new. It will get rid of the stigma that it has right now. We think it is going to make a night and day difference in securing a tenant. Mr. Mannor: Again, ifs limited to what we intend to do long term on the building as well. This is just something to get some interest going. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to cover the brick on the front of the building up above the windows? Mr. Mannor: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Whafs the matter with the brick? I didn't see anything wrong with the brick? Mr. Manna: The brick is in pretty poor shape. The bottom line is that this look is more contemporary, and this is what tenants typically want is a facade look. This is the west elevation, and Mark was correct that the blueprints were mislabeled east and west. This would be the parking lot side with a little entrance canopy over the ... Mr. LaPine: This is the parking lot side? 19387 Mr. Mannor: Yes. Mr. LaPine: There are no windows on the parking lot side. The windows are on the south side. Mr. Mannor: There are windows along both sides. They return back to this point. Mr. La Pine: Do they? Mr. Mannor: Yes. This will continue around the front. Like I say, the brick is not in Mr. Mannor: good shape. We had it power washed recently and it needed some repairs, which were done. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Well, I just wanted to bring up those points because I'd hale for you to spend a lot of money, then you get a tenant that says, 'Well, we love the building but we want to move all the windows in the front. We Mr. Manna: want this covered" Mr. Pieroecchi: Your plan is great. You'll eliminate an eyesore down there. Mr. LaPine brought up many points that I was going to bring up. You're aware that even for office for that site, the building would require 72 parking spaces. Commercial would require 96 spaces. And a mult- commercial would require 115 spaces. When Bill brought up the point about SEMCA (Southeast Michigan Community Alliance) not having enough parking ... have you looked into going across the street and picking up some additional spaces? Mr. Berman: Not recently. Mr. Pieroecchi: You may lose a tenant because he says, "I've only got 26 spaces" I counted 26 when I was there, but I guess I didn't see them all. You've got 35 here. Mr. Berman: Thafs one of the existing problems. There is only so much parking. It's a limited use. Mr. Mannor: But without a prospective tenant in hand, I don't think you can go to a neighbor and try to secure some additional parking. Mr. LaPine: Well, it wouldn't hurt to get some kind of an agreement that when you get a tenant, especially if that land is vacant, to purchase some of that land perhaps for parking because you're really restricting yourself. Mr. Manna: I guess ultimately we will do whatever we have b do to make it work at that point in time. Right now, to purchase some additional property I when you're sitting on a building that's been vacant for so long .. . we're trying to slop the bleeding right now. Mr. Pieroecchi: I know, and you're eliminating a building that should be renovated. And like I said earlier, I think you're making a large improvement, especially when you start painting the back walls, straightening out the parking area like Mr. LaPine pointed out. Mr. Walsh: I'd like to just indicate that I support the petition. I think what you're doing is good. I understand your concerns. I know you hear ours. But I think when you secure a tenant, you're going to have to deal with the parking anyways. You're not going to require this body to take an action. Your tenants are probably going to make some demands that you're going to have to meet. I am pleased also that you agreed to our condition on the parking lot. So I will support this. Mr. Taormina: A point of clarifcafon with respect to the parking. The site could support leasing about half the building and comply with the parking requirements for General Office, which is one space for every 200 square feet of net leasable area. The other option is there are certain uses that could occupy a greater portion or all of the building and comply with the parking requirement, even including the former use, which was a furniture store although that is a use that I dont believe is being considered at this particular time. And lastly, he does have the option of either securing additional land for parking or variances depending on the hardship or practical diffculfes that he's faced with. 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. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #05-68-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-05-08-13, submitted by Cherry Street Properties, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial building located at 29055 Plymouth Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 36, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked SheelA-2 dated April 16, 2002, prepared by Tommy Roberts, Jr., Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the 19389 building or, in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use dosed at all times; 3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated May 13, 2002, and that all such items shall be addressed prior to issuance of any occupancy permits: - That the prolective wall shall be repaired and/or replaced; - That all graffiti on the protective wall shall be removed and the wall completely repainted; - That the debris and trash be removed from the southwest comer of the lot; - That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped; - That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrer Free Code; - That the landscaping along the east side of the building shall be restored and maintained; - That the concrete approach on the east side off Garden Ave. shall be removed and replaced; - That the bollards near the west entry door shall be repaired or replaced; 4. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; and 5. 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. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Yes, under Item #3 from the Inspection Department, I would like to add that the wall shall be completely painted where it reads "That all graffiti on the protective wall shall be removed" 19390 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, La Pine, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2002 -02 -GB -01 AUTO VALUE Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002 -02 - GB -01, submitted by Marvin Mazur, on behalf of Auto Value, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 33911 Plymouth Road in the Northeast%of Section 33. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Farmington and Stark. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between a commercially zoned property and a residential zoned property. This property is located between the Colonial Mortgage Office Building and a Power Brite Car Wash. Across the street is the old Olson Olds Dealership. Approximately 110 ft. of the back half of the subject property is zoned P (Parking). The rear lot line abuts the northern border of the Wellington Woods Subdivision, which is zoned R1A, One Family Residential. The subject property also abuts an RUF (Rural Urban Farm) district along the southern 100 ft. of its east property line. This RUF piece of property is part of the back half of the car wash. In a letter that accompanied the application, the petitioner states that the preexisting natural greenbelt that extends across the entire rear boundary of the premises creates a natural greenbelt and adequately screens the parking and commercial businesses from the abutting residential districts. It goes on further to state that the removal of any trees in order to erect a wall would reduce the effectiveness of the screening. The applicant is requesting that a 25 ft. wide section of the natural greenbelt along the entire south property line be accepted as an appropriate substitution for the wall. If required, there is 10 ft. of greenbelt space along the southern 100 ft. of the east property line. 19391 Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated May 13, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 7, 2002, the above-referencedpetition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site should also have a protective wall orgreenbeff where it abuts the RUF property to the east, notjust at the rearline. This has not been addressed. (2) This site details a 'discretionary'wooded area in addition to the 10 -foot 'mandatory' area. The intention should be clarified to the Commission's satisfaction as removing the 'discretionary' area completely changes the character of the natural area. The rear 10 feet has been used fora dumping area of compost, leaves and grass. (3) This site nevercompleted the paving of the rearparking areas and a grant from 15 years ago states it was not to be used in any manner until paved. It appears itis being used as a tum around (see picture with tracks) and was holoing water on May 20, 2002. (4) There is a dumpster enclosure made out of wood fencing that is in disrepair with the gates open and there is unused debris being stored outside at the rear of the building. (See picture for both items.) (5) There are parking blocks missing in the front parking area and the lot needs resealing and double striping. (6) The rear overhead door on the east side of the building (see picture - door with fence on it, south of barrels) is in a severe state of disrepair and needs to be replaced. (7) The condition of the prerexisting non -conforming pylon sign should be evaluated. The sign is rusting and Flaking and may be at the end ofits regular life. This Department has no further objection 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? Frank Kokenakes, Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton & Amann, LLP, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Mawr on this petition. We were the drafters of the petition requesting the amendment. As has been stated, there is a requirement that there be a prolective wall on the south boundary of this property. The property owner has requested that in lieu of that a greenbelt be allowed. As the drawings and photographs indicate, there is a substantial mahrre wooded area at the rear southern portion of this property. Those photographs were taken back in February, and this petition was delayed until this date to allow the shrubbery and trees to flourish. So if you have had the chance to go by the property even in a cursory manner, you've noticed that it's quite dense and quite full of greenery at this point. The ordinance requires that in lieu of a prolective wall, we have a greenbelt that must be at least 10 feel wide. That was the initial offer 19392 that we made for 10 feet, and the drawing that we provided indicated a discretionary wooded area. What we were intending to state was that there are no plans to remove that stand of woods. However, to minimally comply with the ordinance, we are asking that the 10 fool greenbelt be allowed, and then the other wooded area would just stand there in a discretionary way. We wouldn't do anything with it. I had an opportunity to discuss the project with Mr. Miller, and he was helpful in regard to this matter. He indicated there were some concerns regarding the fad that the 10 feet might not be the most dense portion of the wooded area and that we might need some additionally wide area where there would be more mature trees. So I did submit to him an offer to increase the greenbelt area to 25 feet in hopes that that would, in fact, deal with the issue regarding the mature trees. As you will notice, this parcel does back up to a residential area. I did provide photographs from the residential side. It might not be dear but some of the neighbors actually have split rail fences up against the wooded area. So I think they are enjoying the fad that it is a wooded area and not a cement wall. In regard to suds things as grass dippings and those types of things, I'm pretty sure that's not from my dient dumping grass dippings there. So simply put, we would like to renew. We had this accommodation once before. However, with the change in the ordinance, we had to come before the Planning Commission. So we're aslang that we be allowed 25 feel of green space in lieu of a cement wall. Lel me digress for a minute. There is RUF property to the east, which is part of the car wash parcel. It should be noted that the car wash does not have a cement wall except on its southerly border, so they would meet at their point and, as it was mentioned, the ordinance would require that we have another perpendicular fence that comes up, which seems kinds of unnecessary because of the fact that it is all in a sense a commercial parcel four Plymouth Road past the car wash to the end of their lot line. So that RUF is really part of a sodded area that the car wash has, which abuts the sodded area that we have to the west. So that's what we would request. We have no plans to remove any of that mature tree or shrubbery. We respectfully request that we be allowed to maintain 25 feel and not be required to erect a protective wall. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, if we could get some clarification from you with regard to that R1 property to the east. We have situatons throughout the City where there is commercial that abuts residential but it's not unfil one or the other properties are developed that we've had to put in the walls. Is that the situation here? Mr. Taormina: From what we can gather, the adjacent wall was constructed at the fime the subdivision was developed. Under normal circumstances, that is a requirement where a residential property abuts a non- 19393 residential property. Either the proprietor of the subdivision is responsible for constructing the wall, where one does not exist, or the developer of the non-residential property is required to build that wall. From what we can tell, the wall did not exist even though the car wash property was there. When the subdivision was developed, that wall was constructed. However, it was built where the Rl zoning abuts the RUF zoning because the property to the north ... the car wash property, is actually split zoned. So the wall was not constructed where the zoning line changes from non-residential to residential. The wall was built where the zoning line changes from R1 to RUF where the ownership line is located. Does that make sense? Mr. McCann: It does, but how would you recommend we deal with it? Just ignore it? Mr. Taormina: Well, yeah, at this point. As far as the adjacent property goes, I would say that the requirement for the wall has been met. I'm not aware that the owner of the car wash is responsible for coming in at any future date to request either a wall waiver or a variance at that location. I would have to verify that with our Inspection Department. As it relates to this property, after visiting the site today, we see no need or reason why all of that wooded area can't remain as is for the time being, which should be a requirement of any approval this evening. In fact, our provisions of the ordinance as it relates to greenbelts would require that if there is any change of circumstances on that property, then we would reevaluate the need for a wall in the future. So I see no need, since he's not petitioning to do anything different with the property other than to maintain it the way it presently exists, that would just keep the wooded area in tact and not try to differentiate between a "mandatory" area and a "discretionary" area. The waiver should continue along the east property line of this site. I don't know that any good purpose would be served by requiring the wall to be constructed there as Mr. Kokenakes pointed out. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: One question to the petitioner: if you have no plans on doing something, why would you not want to leave it? Our notes say its 80 feel in width Mr. Kokenakes: I would say 90 feet. Mr. Alanskas: If you're going to leave it that way, then why do you want it staked at 25 feel? 19394 Mr. Kokenakes: I had this discussion today with my client after Mr. Taormina contacted my office. His position is simply that he doesn't want to inconvenience the neighbors and we certainly don't believe they want a cement wall there. We would like to leave the greenbelt, but he is somewhat reticent about committing 90 feet of green space even if, in some time in the future, he's going to have to bring in a new site plan. He believes that is a disadvantage to him to consent to a 90 fool berm, in essence, or a 90 foot green space when the ordinance requires 10 feet. Now I had this discussion with him regarding some of the suggestions that Mr. Taormina made, which is basically to leave it as is. I had that discussion with my client, and I dont have authority to agree to that because typically he told me he did not want to agree to that. In fact, he did not want to be locked into maintaining a 90 foot greenbelt. Mr. Alanskas: Would he rather put a wall up there? Mr. Kokenakes: He would rather have 25 feet of green space. I would be able to extend that to 30 feet with his authority, but in direct answer to your question, I believe that he would. My instructions from him were that he would rather erect a cement wall than commit to the 90 feet. Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, I think you misunderstand this 80 feet and 90 feet greenbelt. That's the width of the property. The depth which you agreed to at 25 feet, would be a 25 foot wide greenbelt but extending across the entire property. It's not 80 feet. We're not going to come from the south property line 80 feet towards the building. Mr. Kokenakes: In all due respect, sir, I would agree with what you're saying but that's not what's being projected. Mr. McCann: That's not what's being projected. Mr. Kokenakes: You're right It is unreasonable. If we have to extend from the south line out 90 feet, that is probably unreasonable. We are willing to extend 30 feet. Mr. Piercecchi: The present width is approximately 80 feet. Mr. Kokenakes: We're not objecting to the width, sir, at all. Mr. McCann: The suggestion is leave the greenbelt until such time that they want to come in with a development at 90 feet to protect all the trees, which I understand from their concern is, "Hey, when we come back, we've got a 90 foot greenbelt and nobody is going to want to let us build backthere" 19395 Mr. Pieroecchi: I don't think it is 90 feet. Mr. Kokenakes: Sir, I believe the width of the property is about 100 feet. I'm looking at this drawing, and I believe it is 100 feet. So I believe what Mr. Alanskas was asking me, was 100 feet by 80 feel, and that's where we're having our problem. Mr. Shane: That's what I'm trying to clear up. I see it says 80 feel wide but its approximately the same depth, or a little more than that? Mr. Taormina: It varies. On the east side it's not quite as deep as it is on the west side. I'd say at the shallowest point, it's about 80 feet which is on the east side of the property. Mr. Shane: Our posifion is that if he doesn't have any plans for the back, just leave it the way it is. When he comes in with a plan, we'll deal with it then. If he needs to shave off 20 feet, fine. But right now, leave it the way d is. Mr. McCann: I agree. I think it would be a perfect case to extend the waiver for another five years if the ZBA considered doing it. I think that is what should have been done in this case because he's not intending to go back there and start chopping down trees. But I wuldn t want to be him and commit to a 90 fool greenbelt either. We have a mandatory 10 foot, and he's offering 30 feel. That is a reasonable greenbelt. It may need some additional evergreens or whatever we decide at the time of the new site plan. So Iagree with the petitioner and the fact that I wouldn't want to own a piece of property and agree to a 90 foot greenbelt and then have another Commission some time down the line, five or len 10 years from now, saying, 'You already agreed to 90 feet. Why should we give you 60 or 40 feel?" I think the problem is that we dont have the ability to waive the wall for another five years. Mr. La Pine: Mark, if the wall was required across the southerly properly line, would R line up with the wall that is to the east of that behind the car wash? Mr. Taormina: No, not quite because there's a slight offset I believe between where the south line of this property adjoins with the car wash, which is a little bit further. Their rear property line is probably about five feet south of this line. Mr. La Pine: Sotherewould be a littlejog inthere? 19396 Mr. Taormina: There could be. Yes. I'm looking at the property map description here, and its not shoving the two lines joining up together. Its showing them offset by about five feet. Mr. La Pine: We keep talking about wanting to keep what's here, this landscape area. To me, that's just scrub back there. That's not woods. Its a bunch of old trees that eventually are either going to be blown over from a storm or they re going to be chopped down. Secondly, I'm not in favor at this deal where we have a wall, we waive a wall, and then down the street some guy will come in and we'll say, put up a wall. Either we're going to have a straight wall across the whole property line or we're going to have all landscaping. It doesn't make any sense to me. Its not just this Iocafion. There are a number of locations in the City where we're not consistent. If the wall is not the thing we want in the City, then we should eliminate the wall ordinance and have nothing but a landscape ordinance. Or, we're going to have all landscaping and no walls. I just can't go along with this. It doesn't make any sense to me. I went back behind there to talk to some of the neighbors. One house doesn't even have a wall behind it. You've got a wall, then you stop. You have a house that doesn't have a wall, then you got the wall and now we're going to say here we dont need the wall, just leave the wooded area here. You know, we're not consistent. We have to be consistent in what we do, and that's where I come from. Besides that, I'd like to get some clarification, Mark, on Item #3, about where the paving was supposed to be 15 years ago. What do we know about that? Mr. Taormina: I believe they're talking about the area at the rear of the building which is presently unimproved or it's gravel as opposed to concrete or asphalt. The Inspection Department is indicating that if that area is being used, it has to be hard surfaced and that improvement has not been made. In fact, the rear of the building is being used to a limited extent both as a turnaround and as a refuse area. Mr. LaPine: So does that have to be done? If he gets an approval of this, does that area have to be paved? Mr. Taormi na: Yes, I believe that is something that would be required whether we approve this or not. It is something that either way would be an obligation or a requirement of the ordinance or the previous approvals in connection with the development of this site. Mr. Kokenakes: May I offer a fad on that issue? If you look at the drawing that is attached to the petition, it does show the new building. If you'll notice at the rear of the building, there are designated parking spaces, 6 through 12, then 13, 14, and 15. Those spaces do not exist. They 19397 have never been created. The dumpster that was mentioned in the report by Mr. Bishop is basically situated in the location of the W and 10 parking spaces. There is no parking. That's sitting there. Basically that rear part of the property is not being used for anything. I believe that it does show some tracks because to remove the refuse from the waste disposal bin, the truck would come back, pick up the trash, and then leave. I don't believe there is any other great place to put the trash bin at this point, so that's why I think they put it at the rear of the structure. Now, I bring that to your attention in regard to those parking spaces not because I have any independent recollection or knowledge as to whether that was part of the original site plan but I see that there. Maybe that was part of the reason for the pavement issue. But in fad the asphalt paving stops at the rear end of the building, and there is garage door there that is also mentioned atthe rear of the building. So really you've got the parking in the front. You've got the driveway that's on the east side of the building which stops at the rear comer of the building, and that's it. Then from the rear of the building all the way back to the full 538 feet, it's just grass plus the 80 to 90 feel of shrubbery and trees and whatnot. So I think that might be an issue. And I will mentioned it, and maybe you've noticed it also, on the west side of the building, there is that 30 feet. There are diagonal parking spaces marked on the west side of the building. I believe that parking is quite adequate for that business, which is auto parts sales. Mr. LaPine: Dothey usethat reardoorinthe back ofthe building? Mr. Kokenakes: There is a garage -type door. What I've noticed ... I'm not sure about the one in the very back ... there is one on the east side of the building at the rear of the building. Mr. LaPine: That's what I'm saying. Mr. Kokenakes: Yes, I believe that it is used, but it doesn't go back into the rear of the paved area. Mr. LaPine: But then I would assume, that the trucks or whatever that are picking up parts, then drive back, make a turnaround, and then go back out of the location. Do they not? Mr. Kokenakes: Ive not witnessed that. Mr. LaPine: Well, they have to. You can't back out. Its only a one way drive coming in, so that if anybody goes back and picks anything up, they have logo back in that area, make a turnaround and go out. 19398 Mr. Kokenakes: Well, I can'ttestify to that but it sounds logical. Mr. LaPine: It's common sense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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. Pieroecchi: I understand the comments in reference to the greenbelt, but I think some of these things can be handled at future dales if the building requires the expanded or extended or whatever. So I'm going to offer an approving resolution, Mr. Chairman. On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002 -02 -GB -01, submitted by Marvin Mazur, on behalf of Auto Value, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 33911 Plymouth Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the natural wooded greenbelt along the south property line is hereby approved as an appropriate substitute for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That no part of the existing greenbelt shall be deared or thinned and it shall remain at its present depth, approximately 80 ff., and if necessary, new landscaping shall be provided to ensure adequate screening along the 90 foot width and 30 foot in depth of the property; 3. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the east property line where it abuts residential is hereby approved as an appropriate substitute for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. That any change of circumstances in the areas containing the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective banner, the owner of the property shall be required to construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction as outlined in the correspondence dated May 13, 2002. 19399 Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Pieroecchi: To clarify Item 2, what I am saying is that if some of this scrub dies, they should replace some of it and guarantee that this greenbelt which is going to be 30 feet in depth to the southern property line along the enfire width of the property. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Walsh, McCann NAYS: Shane, LaPine, Alanskas ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed. Is there an alternate resolufion? On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002 -02 -GB -01, submitted by Marvin Mazur, on behalf of Auto Value, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 33911 Plymouth Road in the Northeast '/. of Section 33, be denied for the following reasons: 1. That this request for the permanent subsfilution of the prolective wall with a greenbelt along the south property line is hereby denied for the following reasons: That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements as set forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; That because of the use and the traffic it produces, a masonry wall would offer better screening of this property from the residential district; 2. That the protective wall along the south property line shall be installed immediately; 3. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the east property line where it abuts residential is hereby approved as an appropriate substitute for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; and 19400 4. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective banner, the owner of the property shall be required to construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Walsh: I will be voting in opposition to this resolution. Given the fact that the last one died for lack of support, I had hoped that we might go with the approving conditions originally submitted by the Planning Commission. I think the wooded area there is attractive. I didn't speak to the neighbors but I did see the fencing that is along back there. I think they would prefer a wooded area to a wall going up, and I'm going to vole in opposition to this. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with Mr. Walsh. If he thinks that's a pretty sight back there, we are in disagreement in what I think is a pretty sight. I was back there, and I talked to some of the neighbors. They are all in favor of the wall, and they are very upset that the one house doesn't have a wall behind it. Mr. McCann: Is there anything else? I am going to vole against the wall at this point because of two things that a greenbelt does. One, it helps to make sure that the parking, the buildings, aid the commercial uses stay as far north as they can. Adding 30 feet or so to the rear property line as a greenbelt area does intend to keep the commercial traffic to the north. Will the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Alanskas, LaPine NAYS: Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed. Do we have an alternate resolution? On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pieroecchi, and approved, it was #05-69-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002 -02 -GB -01, submitted by Marvin Mazur, on behalf of Auto Value, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for he protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the zoning ordinance for property located at 33911 19401 Plymouth Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the natural wooded greenbelt along the south property line is hereby approved as an appropriate substitute for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That no part of the existing greenbelt shall be cleared or thinned, and it shall remain at its present depth, approximately 80 R.; 3. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the east property line where it abuts residential is hereby approved as an appropriate substitute for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. That any change of circumstances in the areas containing the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; and 5. Thatthe petitionershall correct lothe Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated May 13, 2002: That the rear parking areas shall be paved; That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same material of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; That the parking blocks missing in the front parking area shall be replaced; That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrer Free Code; That the rear overhead door on the east side of the building shall be replaced; and 19402 That the structural integrity of the existing pole sign shall be evaluated, and if found unsafe shall be removed. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Will the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Walsh, Pieroecchi, Shane, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This approves a very large greenbelt with the understanding that it can be looked at some point in the future if you brought in a new site plan. 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 consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item? ITEM #4 PETITION 2002-04-02-07 BELLE TIRE Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04- 02-07, submitted by Christopher Enright requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition onto an existing automotive repair facility at 19601 Middlebelt Road located on the west side of Middlebelt between SL Martins Avenue and Bretton Road in the Southeast %of Section 2. On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #05-70-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-04- 02-07, submitted by Christopher Enright requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition onto an existing automotive repair facility at 19601 Middlebelt Road located on the west side of Middlebelt between Sl. Martins Avenue and Bretton Road in the Southeast ''/ of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-04-02-07 be removed from the table. 19403 Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, do we have any new information on this item? Mr. Taormina: A new site plan has been provided by the applicant, and I'll let him describe those changes to the site plan if he has a copy of R. It is in response to some of the concerns that were expressed at the previous meeting, specifically the amount of parking on the site. Christopher Enright, 155 S. Bales, Birmingham, Michigan. What we've done from the previous meefing is added three parking spaces to the west, and we have planted that area to make up for the greenbelt or landscape area along Sl. Martins Road. After having some correspondence with Mr. Nowak, we're also supplying a curb along the north portion of the property, and we're going to be installing a three foot greenbelt along this side separating the property to the north as well. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Walsh: No question, just a comment. I appreciate your efforts on that and I will support an approving resolution. Mr. McCann: You're getting three extm bays. Coned? Mr. Enright: Yes. Mr. McCann: And you believe you'll have how many employees? Mr. Enright: We are planning on having eight employees. Were not planning on adding anymore employees because of the bays. Mr. McCann: You believe thatyou're going to have sufficient parking? Mr. Enright: I know we're going to have sufficient parking. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, itwas #05-71-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-04- 02-07, submitted by Christopher Enright requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition onto an existing automotive repair facility at 19601 Middlebelt Road located on the west side of 19404 Middlebell between SL Martins Avenue and Bretton Road in the Southeast ''/ of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-04-02-07 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 110 prepared by Christopher Enright Architect, dated May 10, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 111 prepared by Christopher Enright Architect, dated May 10, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all plant materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department, and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4. That all sodded and landscape areas shall be fully inigated with automatic underground systems; 5. That the protective wall and the dumpster enclosure walls shall be constructed of poured concrete with simulated brick pattern in accordance with the details on the Floor Plan marked Sheet A 210 prepared by Christopher Enright Architect, dated April 24, 2002; 6. That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet 310 prepared by Christopher Enright Architect, dated April 24, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That there shall be no overnight outdoor parking or storage of vehicles on the site; 8. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap material, debris or other similar items generated by the subject use; 9. That a curb shall be installed along the full extent ofthe north end of the parking area directly east of the building; and 10 That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; for the following reasons: 19405 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. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, will the Secretary please call the roll? A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-04-02-08 WALGREENS Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04- 02-08, submitted by Rogvoy Architects requesting waiver use approval to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy with drive-through service facilities on property located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebell Roads in the Southwest%of Section 25. Mr. McCann: We did receive a letter dated May 20, 2002, signed by Mark Drane, as President of Rogvoy Associates which reads as follows: "Please postpone our waiver use approval, Petition 2002-04-02-08 to a date not yet known." I recommend that we do not remove this item from the table. ITEM #6 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a Public Hearing by the City Planning Commission to determine whether 19406 or not to amend the Future Land Use Plan so as to change the land use designation of various properties located throughout the City. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, ilwas #05-72-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, on its own motion, and pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the land use designation of various properties located throughoutthe City; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19407 ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 842nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 842nd Public Heanngs and Regular Meeting held on March 26, 2002. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #05-73-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 842nd Public Heanngs and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 843rd Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 843rd Regular Meeting held on April 23, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #05-74-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 843rd Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on Apnl 23, 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: Walsh ABSENT: Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. H.911 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 845th Regular Meeting held on May 21, 2002, was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mgr CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary