Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-11-1219796 MINUTES OF THE 850 REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 12, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 854" 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 Members absent: John Pastor 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 petition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anNor vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the outcome oflhe proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 200240-08-23 MIDDLEBELT HEALTHCARE Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, petition 2002-10- 08-23, submitted by Midtown Real Estate, on behalf of Middlebelt Healthcare Center, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the nursing home located at 14900 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 24. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebelt between Lyndon and Five Mile Roads. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct additions to the Middlebelt Healthcare Center. This 19797 nursing home is located between the Trinity Baptist Church and Stables Bar. The existing building is two -stories in height and has an "x" shaped footprint. The new additions would be constructed to the west elevation or the portion of the building that faces Middlebelt Road. The existing nursing home is 44,153 sq. ft. in area. According to the information listed under 'Site Data" on the Site Plan, this facility has 162 beds. The proposed additions would add a total of 3,821 sq. ft. to the structure. No additional beds would be added as part of this proposal. One of the additions would be constructed on the west elevation. This new addition would be one story in height and provide a new reception area for the facility. According to the Floor Plan, this extension would furnish the nursing home with a large lobby area and some office space. The other addition would be added to the northwest wing of the building. This addition would be two stories in height and would allow the expansion of the facility's dining room. Along with the new additions, the roof would be slightly modified long the west elevation. A slanted parapet roof, covered by asphalt shingles, would be added to the roofline. This modification would help tie in the additions, which would have peaked roofs. The petitioner has stated they are trying to make the building more 'residential in flavor and less institutional in appearance." A new glass skylight would be added over the existing atrium located in the middle of the existing building. To complete the alteration to the front of the building, the front approach drive would be slightly altered. Instead of a loop drive, the driveway would be parallel with Middlebelt Road. Because no additional beds would be added to the nursing home as part of this petition, no additional parking spaces would be required. Parking is summarized as follows: 77 spaces are required; 86 spaces (including four handicapped) are provided. Presently there are eight parking spaces off the loop approach drive. The new driveway configuration would allow one additional parking space to be added to the site. The nine new spaces would run perpendicular to Middlebelt Road. The Landscape Plan shows new plant material would be installed out in front of the new reception addition and between the new parking spaces. The rest of the existing landscaping on the site would remain as is and not be touched. Landscaping is summarized as follows: 15% of the total site is required; 43% is provided. The Building Elevations show that the proposed additions would be constructed out of brick to match the existing building. The window treatments would also match that of the existing building. Awnings would be placed over the first floor windows of the dining room addition. False dormers would be installed in the parapet roof and a copula would be placed on the roof of the new entrance addition. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? 19798 Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated November 5, 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 this time. This project may be subject to the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. The designer should verify this necessity with Wayne County. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated November 1, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal requesting to construct additions to the facility located at 14900 Middlebelt Road. We have no objections or recommendations regarding the proposal as submitted. Please remind the petitioner that city ordinance requires that each handicap space be individually signed." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 30, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 23, 2002, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The following conditions existed at a site inspection on October 28, 2002. (a) Northeast comer had lawn chairs, bag of garbage at an 'employee break area.' (b) Old tanks and pallets were stacked on the north side of the building. (c) Southeast area had trees cut down and brush in piles. (d) Old equipment was stacked by the accessory building. (e) There were no gates on the wooden dumpster enclosure. (fJ Several concrete paddng blocks were lying about. (g) Plant materials were growing in cocks in the south parking area. (2) The site landscaping needs maintenance. (3) Existing trees have had their branches cut off up to 6 to 8 feet in height and thus provide no screening. (4) A screening wall or an approved greenbelt must be installed along the east and south property lines that abut residential zoning. (5) The parking lot needs repair, maintenance, resealing and all paddng areas require double striping. (6) The location and depiction of tree locations on the east property line, south end, are not as depicted on the drawing. As stated previously, the screening properties of these trees have been compromised. (7) This construction will be reviewed for compliance with the Michigan Building Code 2000, not BOCA. (8) Light poles are indicated at 25 feet tall. This should be clarified to the Commission's satisfaction. 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? 19799 At Paas, DesRosiers Architects, 36360 Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. Mr. McCann: Thank you. What would you like to tell us? Mr. Paas: I think all of the informafion that Mr. Miller presented is accurate. Here we're depicting the existing and proposed area of the building photographed at approximately the same angle. The existing entrance is, as pointed out, at this intersection of the two wings. That's where the new addition would come out, being built parallel to Middlebelt Road to give a nicer appearance relative to the street. And as pointed out, it is a one-story addition with brick to match, dormers, gabled roofs, a more residential feel. The other addition is actually two-story building. There's a dining room on both levels. This would serve as office and reception areas. Again, the new roof treatment would bring us more into a residential format here. It is a nursing home. People do live here. We want to get away a little bit from the institutional look. Its a 1950's building that has not been upgraded a whole lot and this is an attempt to do so. All the areas that are visible from Middlebelt and from Jamison will have the new roof treatment on it. Beyond that point, as indicated by this photograph down at the bottom here, which from your distance is probably a little bit difficult to see, you cannot see the rest of this building both because of the site lines and also because of the existing vegetation from the roadways. So, at this point, that treatment will not be extended through there. This is the view from Jamison, existing and proposed. Again, you can see these are the windows here. There are the patient room windows. This is the dining/kitchen area here. And we'll carry that roof treatment throughout this area replacing the existing flat roof which will also tend to screen the existing mechanical which is present on the roof fight now. Being a flat roof, its sort of hanging out there and very visible from Jamison. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Are these awnings going to be put on there? Mr. Paas: Yes. The awnings are proposed for the Middlebelt Road elevation. At this point, we're not proposing them for the Jamison elevation. Those are north facing windows and being patent rooms, we want to get as much Iighl into those as possible. Mr. LaPine: The new entrance . . this is not going to be where people can drive underneath and drop anybody ofr? 19800 Mr. Paas: No, it will not be a drive under, but it will be drive up and a protected entry. So once you get out of the car, you can get underneath the entrance there. Mr. LaPine: On tie new addition you're going to be putting on new shingles. Is the whole building going to be re -shingled? Mr. Paas: The existing roofs are flat roofs. There are no shingles on the existing building. So the new roof treatment will extend basically from this point all the way around to this point. That will all be new shingled roof, yes. Mr. Pieroecchi: I noticed in the report from our Inspection Department, it says something about light poles 25 feet tall. Are you adding new poles? Mr. Paas: We will be adding new poles at the front entrance area. I believe there's a new pole at this entrance here and at this entrance here, so there will be new light poles to better define the front entrance and front drive. Mr. Pieroecchi: The reason why I asked is that we generally prefer 20 foot high and these are 25 feet. Mr. Paas: Not a problem. Mr. McCann: Not a problem? Okay. The second question I have deals with the fencing. Who owns the fencing on the northeast and south boundaries of that property? Is that your fencing? Mr. Paas: There's a fence between us and the church. I'm not sure who put the fence there originally or who owns the fence. These photographs are of that area, and again, it may be a little bit difficult to see from where you're at. This is looking at the property line between us and church. It's the rear of our parking lot. You can see the trees here even though they had been trimmed up from the ground because they were planted many years ago. The trees have now extended to the point where they would overhang the curb if the lower branches were not trimmed up. But you can also see that the trees are mature spruce trees planted at very close centers that actually interlock and overlap. This is a photograph on the other side of the fence from the church panting lot. So this is actually the church parking lot looking back into the nursing centers parking lot. And again, if I bring this up perhaps you can get a better view. Mr. Pieroecchi: Let me interrupt you, sir. I didn't bring the fence up because of the screening. 19801 Mr. Paas: Okay. I'm sorry. Mr. Piercecchi: I brought the fence up because it looks like a truck hit it in a couple of spots. They are in terrible need of repair. Mr. Paas: Okay. Mr. Piercecchi: Canweputthatinlhemotion? Will you take care ofthal? Mr. Paas: We can take care of that, yes. Mr. Piercecchi: There's also one other area that I noticed today when I was over there, among other things which I will go into. Your dumpsler enclosure is wood. We generally request that it match the brick of the building. Do you have a problem with that? Mr. Paas: No. Mr. Piercecchi: No problem with that. Okay. Last but not least, did you get a copy of Mr. Bishop's report from the Inspection Department? Mr. Paas: Yes, we did. Mr. Piercecchi: When did you receive that? Mr. Paas: About a week ago. Mr. Piercecchi: About a week ago. I went by there today with my colleague, Mr. La Pine, and not one of those things was addressed; not a single issue was addressed. When can we hope to get this done? Mr. Paas: Well, this facility is under a relatively new ownership. Its an exisfing facility that has been there for many, many years. Our client has recently purchased this facility. The whole intent that he has in mind here is an upgrade of the facility both inside and outside. So that the exterior renovations, which is what we're here for tonight, along with a general upgrading, interior finishes, exterior landscaping, exterior cleanup .. . he's aware that some of these things are issues in terms of what's on the outside of the building. His whole goal here is to do a major upgrade of this facility as a new owner and new operator. Mr. Piercecchi: That really bothered me. First of all, when I came here tonight I thought maybe it should be tabled until this is cleaned up. But perhaps perhaps if we had some assurances, we can just put these in our motion. Mr. Paas: That would be fine. 19802 Mr. Pieroecchi: And hopefully then they'll get addressed properly. Everything, even the old tanks, pallets, lawn chairs, garbage, brush pled up in comers, old equipment stacked by the accessory building, no gates on the dumpsler, concrete parking blocks laying around ... I can go on and on and on. It's very troubling. Mr. Paas: I think the owner is also aware of these things and is undertaking this entire program, not just these issues but the entire program ... inside the building, outside the building, staffing, maintenance, all these issues are things that he is going to look at. Mr. Pieroecchi: These issues here that I bring up, sir, can be addressed immediately. They don't require anything relative to the expansion. Mr. Paas: I'm sure that can be done. Mr.Pieroecchi: Whendo you think you can get started on thislhing? Mr. Paas: I would say within 30 days that those superficial items like picking up hash and what have you, getting rid of anything on site, can be handled. Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, the fence on the south side is really broken in a couple spots. That has to be replaced. Mr. Paas: Right. Mr. Pieroecchi: I don't know about the east side; it didn't look that bad. There was a section on the northwest comer that needed to be looked at loo. We want to keep a good image for the City too. It's only for your own good that we tell you to clean these things up. Mr. Paas: I think he totally understands that. Mr. Alanskas: As one Commissioner, I would like to commend you for what you want to do. But on your rendering here in the front on Middlebelt, you're shoving your windows with mullions. Are you going to have them just like your drawing? Mr. Paas: The mullions on the windows? Mr. Alanskas: Some have mullions and on the far right they don't. Mr. Paas: Yeah, those are existing windows in the existing patient rooms. These windows that you see back over here are existing. These would be new. Whether or not we end up with mullions in the final working drawings ... 19803 Mr. Alanskas: It will look like this drawing when you gel done? Mr. Paas: That's right. Mr. Alanskas: What is the height of your highest peak of the roof that you're puking up from the ground? How many feel? I know it's two stories. Mr. Paas: It would be approximately eighlfeet above the existing roofthere. Mr. Alanskas: So it wouldn't be any more than 35 feet in height? Mr. Paas: No. Mr. Shane: With respect to the Inspection Department's comment regarding the protective wall and/or greenbelt, I'm afraid I didn't look at it good enough in terms of a greenbelt to know whether it's adequate. Are you prepared to construct a protective wall or to provide the greenbelt needed? Mr. Paas: The issue that I see with that is, as I pointed out, this is the existing greenbelt. There are mature spruce trees that were planted many, many years ago, I assume when the facility may have first been built. They are planted in a relatively small planting strip between the two properties. They are on our side of the property, obviously. To try to construct a wall in that area, I think would probably disturb those existing spruce trees. And if it was any kind of a masonry wall, which would need a foundation or footing of any kind, that would be virtually impossible. If it were to be a fence of some kind, that would be possible if you're putting down posts. As indicated on the site plan, this is relatively accurate in terms of number of trees. They may be spaced slightly differently. It's not based on a survey; it's based on just a site observation and counting the parking spaces. So the trees are very dosely spaced. A couple of the trees, in the open areas, obviously have died in the past 20 years or ago. I think these trees are probably at least 25 - 30 years old just judging by the size of them. That can be filled in. There are trees on the other side. There's a 120' panting lot on the church property directly adjacent to this section. They have a greenbelt on their side also. They also have mature evergreens, and that's why we took the photograph from the church side. The parking really is not visible from one side to the other to any appreciable extent. Even though the trees have been trimmed up, it is balanced out by the trees on the other side. So the panting lots work in conjunction to develop a barrier between the two of them and break that parking up. Practically speaking, I'm not sure what we could do in terns of a wall underneath those spruce trees. They had been 19804 trimmed up about six feet in order to allow the hoods of the cars to get into the edge of be parking space up the curb without hitting the branches because the branches would probably droop out considerably beyond the edge of the curb if they had not been trimmed up. The same thing occurs along Jamison. Those trees were planted along here. There is a greenbelt there that was again developed many years ago, I would suspect. These are now mature spruce trees along here. If they had not been trimmed up, they would in fact be overhanging the sidewalk by a considerable distance, so theyre trimmed up to about head height and you walk underneath them as you walk down this sidewalk along Jamison here. So even though the trees have been trimmed up, when you see the photographs from Jamison over here, the parking is well screened because the trees are tall. Normally on a new site, you'd have little six footers. We've got 30 - 40 foot trees in here. They do a pretty good job of actually a screening it as you can see from the photograph with the cars looking at it from the church side. You see that there are cars there, but it's not like you're looking into a commercial parking lot. The trees do a good job of breaking it up and providing some break between the two properties. Mr. Shane: How much distance is there from the parking lot to the property line? Mr. Paas: There's probably about 10 feet, I would say. Mr. Shane: The south borderline ... do the trees extend all the way across there? Mr. Paas: This is a relatively accurate depiction of the number of trees. This area here is an outdoor area. There are trees there. They are not in a continuous row through here. There is landscaping; there is a gazebo out here; there's a walkway; there's a pato for the residents' use. And the whole area is landscaped. Mr. Shane: Would you have a problem in installing additional landscaping along those areas that the staff would feel would be adequate to provide a greenbelt? Mr. Paas: I dont think we have a problem with that. No. Mr.Shane: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Now that you say you have new owners in there, I can understand why the back property has not been taken care of. When were those trees cut and trimmed? Months ago? Do you have any idea? Because as Mr. Pieroecchi's says, all that refuse from the trees is still there. 19805 Mr. Paas: I don't know exactly. There are trees all the way around these areas here. Again, as you can see from the photographs, the ends of the buildings tend to be covered with heavy vegetation. All of these were planted many years ago. So I don't think the trees around the parking lot were trimmed recently. They look to me like they've been trimmed for several years because otherwise you wouldn't be able to park there. Mr. Alanskas: I just wondered why all that rubbish has not been picked up yet if they were trimmed two years. Could you give me a rough idea of what kind of maintenance you will have for the landscaping when this project is completed? Will you have some one there once a week or twice a week to maintain the outside? As of right now, nothing has been done. Mr. Paas: We're the architects. I'm not the owner. We could call the management of the building. But speaking as the architect, I know they have a full time maintenance staff. Mr. Alanskas: That's hard to believe because back there you've got weeds three and four feel high. If you have a crew taking care of that, someone is not doing theirjob. Mr. Paas: The maintenance staff does go up the inside and outside. I don't know whether they have somebody else who comes in and cuts the grass or how they handle that at this point. But as I say, the whole initiative on the part of this owner is to upgrade the facility. This is what he's trying to do. Mr. Alanskas: Because 1, like Mr. Piercecchi, would like to hold the new owners to make sure that the maintenance of that property is done correctly because right now it's a shambles. Mr. LaPine: I have to agree with you as far as the landscaping on the east side of the building that abuts the church. There's about a 10 foot strip in there and then the parking really comes right up to there. But the back of the church you can't even see it back there because there's no windows or anything, so that don't bother me. On the south side, though, it looks like some of those trees have been cut down. I think we need some more landscaping in there. I have no problem about the parking lot that abuts the church there because, like I say, the parking lot is probably only used during Sunday services or during the week. So it isn't something fiat bothers me. What does bothers me is they must have cut some trees down there, a lot of trees down, because unless you have a fireplace in there, there's a lot of logs stacked up there. It looks like they were cut from trees. Here again, like Mr. Piercecchi and Mr. Alanskas, it 19806 just amazes me that when they look that stuff down, whoever did it didn't haul them away. I don't think they picked up one leaf this year yet. I mean there's hundreds of leaves back there - or thousands of leaves I guess. The thing that bothers me is the whole maintenance of the facility. I love what you're doing and I'm going to vote for this tonight, but I'm hoping and preying that we're going to see some upgrading oflhe whole property. Mr. Paas: I'll certainly pass on the concerns of the City to the owners and lel them know the extent ofthe feelings relative to the maintenance. Mr. LaPine: To be honest with you, my gut feeling is, like the other two members who spoke, to hold this up unfit they show us they're going to do some cleanup. But on the other hand, I dont want to hold it up. I like what you're doing. The place has been there a long lime. An upgrading is very much needed. This is really nice. Mr. Walsh: I'm not going to repeat all that you've heard, but I will just tell you that I feel the same as my colleagues. But I really think you're making a wonderful investment here. It's going to be a great improvement on that corner. And I have faith that with the amount of money you're going to be putting into this improvement, that the owner is going to be desirous of maintaining it in top condition. But if you will pass on our comments, we'd appreciate that. Mr. Paas: I certainly will. 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.Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #11-139-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-10-08-23, submitted by Midtown Real Estate, on behalf of Middlebelt Healthcare Center, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the nursing home located at 14900 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest % of Section 24, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP -1 dated October 21, 2002, as revised, prepared by DesRosiers Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 19807 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated October 21, 2002, as revised, prepared by DesRosiers Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-200 dated October 21, 2002, as revised, prepared by DesRosiers Architects, shoving the parapet roof extending around the entire west and north elevations, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used in the censimcton shall be full -face four - inch brick, no exceptions; 7. 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; 8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated October 30, 2002: That the old tanks and pallets stacked on the north side of the building shall be removed; That the old equipment stacked by the accessory building shall be removed; That the concrete parking blocks shall be put back in their proper places or removed; That the site's landscaping shall be reestablished and thereafter pennanentiy maintained in a healthy condition; L 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; 10. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 11. That the existing fence shall be mended or replaced to the satisfaction of the City of Livonia Inspection Department; 12. That the landscaped greenbelts along the south and east property lines, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance, except for the fad that additional plant materials shall be installed to the satisfaction ofthe Planning Director; 13. That any change of circumstances in the areas containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective banner, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; and 14. 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. Shane: I'd like to know, Mr. Pieroecchi, if you have a problem with adding a condition which substitutes a greenbelt for the required protective wall along the east and south sides? Mr. Pieroecchi: Certainly not. Mr. Shane: .. Mich shall be augmented by such additional plant material as is determined by the Planning Director or something like that. Mr. Pieroecchi: I have no problem with that. Mr. McCann: I'm very familiar with this nursing home. As a Public Administrator, I go to a lot of nursing homes. I was always surprised with the lack of maintenance at this one. Its right across the street from a beautiful shopping center. Theyve spent a fortune on it. I think if this facility was actually improved to look like you're showing it 19809 tonight a lot of people would be glad to put family members there. You could make it an economically viable project at that location. There is great shopping close by. There is a beautiful fruit market across the street. It could really be a plus for the City. I hope you take seriously everything said about our concems with regard to the landscaping and the maintenance with that project. And a lot of that, as they said, can start immediately. I think that might be a good idea to at least get some of this sluff started before you gel to Council to show your good intentions. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. This item has 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 #2 PETITION 2001 -09 -GB -07 GEORGE GARIS Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001- 09 -GB -07, submitted by George Garis, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 9555-9559 Middlebell Road in the Northeast %of Section 35. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Middlebelt between West Chicago and Plymouth Road. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the prolective wall that is required between an office zoned property and a residential zoned property. The property to the south of the subject property is zoned R-7, Multiple Family Residential. This property has a utility company's substation located on it. Because the width of the greenbelt that abuts the R-7 district is not 10 feet along its entire length, the petitioner does not have the option of a permanent substitution for this property line. Mr. Gans would either have to erect a wall or seek a variance waiving the wall from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The rear or west property line abuts an R -1B, One Family Residential zoned neighborhood. The R1B district is residential in nature and there are houses that abut right up next to Mr. Gans's property. The greenbelt along this property line is 10 feet in width. Screening consists of three (3) large evergreen trees and the back of Mr. Gans's building. The only plant material on the greenbelt 19810 directly behind the building is grass. A high wooden privacy fence runs the entire length of the west property line. This item was tabled at the January 15, 2002 Regular Meeting. The Planning Commission wanted to give the petitioner time to talk with the neighbor and come up with a mutual agreement that both parties could live with in regards to the screening of the west property line. The Planning Commission also wanted to give the petitioner time to address some of the concerns listed in the January 3, 2002, correspondence from the Inspection Department. On October 11, 2002, the pefitioner informed the staff that he was ready to proceed with his request for a permanent waiver of the wall requirement. He submitted a picture depicting a panel of the fencing he would like to erect along the entire length of the west property line. The existing fence has been torn down and removed. The proposed fencing would be a butted slat type design with decorative lattice along the top edge. The picture shows the fence would be white in color. Mr. Garis also submitted documentation from a fencing company depicting the estimated cost of erecting the fence. Also submitted is a 'Property Separation Agreemenf wherein Mr. Garis and the abutting property owner to the west have agreed on the fencing as an alternate type of separation between tie properties. According to the documentation, Mr. Gans would be responsible for maintaining the fence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? George S. Garis, 9555 Middlelbelt, Livonia, Michigan. The fence that we were going to put there, i looked like ... the only picture I could find is one of the plastic variety. I've never been able to find one that is brown that matched the building. So what I propose to do is put a wolmanized wood fence up there that I would stain to match the facade of the building, which is an almond color now. I want to kind of have it blend into the landscape a little bit rather than this stark white. The wooden fence is a little bit less expensive to be honest about it too. What I thought loo, the City might want me to extend that fence a little farther than the current fence. The current fence or the one that's been taken down, went to the edge of the building and stopped a few feet past. I was thinking that maybe if the City wanted me to do this, I could proceed closer to the sidewalk and give a little bit more of a buffer area between the residential property behind me and the building. I think that's the object of what we're trying to do here is kind of screen the commercial property off from the residential. I have talked to the abutting property owner at some length and we're in agreement on this. We done some landscaping loo to try and spruce up the property a little bit which was one of the concems of everybody I guess. We've done some of that. I would have proceeded sooner but I didn't realize I had to come back before you gentlemen. I kept trying to 19811 get this thing done and they finally got it through my head the reason I wasn't getting the permits to do it was I have to come back here. So, fiat accounted for some of the delay. And I apologize for that or I would have had it up there already. Mr. McCann: Your letter stated that you'd come to an agreement. Mr. Garis: No, that's the exact fence we're going to put up except its going to be wood instead of plastic. And the homeowner, we discussed all that. I didn't have a picture. I couldn't find a picture of the wooden fence anywhere. The only picture I could find at all ... there were some companies that put out a brochure of the style of fence. But it looks exactly like that except it's wooden. Mr. McCann: All right. Mr. Garis: The homeowner is aware of that. Mr. Alanskas: Is it going to be what's called a boardon-board fence where you have two boards and then you have board going across the top of those boards and it's solid? Mr. Garis: Yeah, I believe you won't be able to see through it. Mr. Alanskas: No, you cant see through it. Okay. Mr. Garis: It will be slatted but you can't see through R. Mr. Alanskas: And you're going to have the fence - the top of the fence line will be below your fence posts? Mr. Garis: Yeah. Mr. Alanskas: The fence posts stick up about six or seven inches higher? Mr. Garis: I have a picture here. We were going to try to do it like that and have the posts up a littler higher than the lattice work. We thought R would look a little better. Mr. Alanskas: What will be the length of that fence? Mr. Garis: The sections are eight foot sections. Mr. Alanskas: What is the total length? Mr. Garis: The total length, I'm not sure exactly. Mr. Alanskas: Is it more than 70 feel? 19812 Mr. Garis: That sounds right, but to tell you the truth, I never really measured it. I was thinking more in terms of like eight feet from the sidewalk and have it start at the edge of the property on the one side .... Mr. Alanskas: Let me ask you if you could explain a legal question. Maybe John can tell us. If you have an agreement with the owner behind the property and he sells that home say in six months, and you have a new owner, what happens with that agreement, John? Mr. Walsh: As long as the sate is indusive of the agreement, it would run with the land, but that would be up to the seller of the property to make sure its included and thalthe buyer is aware ofthe agreement. Mr. Alanskas: So if the owner still did not like that fence, the new owners could come back and say, "I want a greenbelt there" Mr. Walsh: Or you could ask the adjacent owner now to record the agreement. Mr. Garis: We could record something with the register of deeds. It's my understanding that the owner . . he just wanted to make sure there's a fence. In fact, he didn't want a law. He wanted a fence because he thought it was higher and it looked nicer. So I'm sure from what I understand in talking to him and his wife at some length, they'd probably be agreeable to doing that. Mr. Alanskas: What I'm saying, if they sold the property and you had a new owner, what would happen? Mr. Garis: Well, if it was recorded like Mr. Walsh is saying, that solves the problem because the new owner has no right to object because he's on notice of whatever is there. Mr. Walsh: As long as they agree at the time of the sale, or what's more easy for the City or for you, if its recorded, we all know what it is. Its in the public record. Mr. LaPine: Is this the agreement that he got signed by the homeowner? Mr. Walsh: I don't know if that's in a recordable form, but the contents of that agreement could be ... Mr. Garis: We need to put the legal description in and then record it. Mr. Walsh: I don't know if it's in the right form. Mr. Garis: It needs a legal description and a couple of witnesses and a notary to be in recordable form. But I mean, I'm a lawyer. I can draft that. 19813 Mr. Alanskas: And what kind of wood? Is that going to be a cedar fence? Mr. Garis: Something wolmanized. I want the wood to last, and whatever is the best outside wood, that's what I plan to use and, of course, stain it. Mr. Alanskas: Well, cedar wood usually lasts the longest. Mr. Garis: That's what I'll use; the thing that lasts the longest. I don't want to have to go through this again. I want to do this the right way. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: Sir, do you have any objection of extending that fence about eight feet to the sidewalk and getting some lowering which would be the last several feet. Mr. Garis: I've got no objections to doing that. If you wanted me to kind of taper it down, I could down to 5 and to 4, or else just go right down to four or however to make it a little more decorative towards the front of the property. Sure, there's no problem with that. I can go all the way up to the sidewalk if you want me to. Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, I dont think that would be a good idea. But would you deal with our Planning Department on that? Mr. Garis: Sure. Mr. Pieroecchi: Maybe different heights there. It's six fool right now, right? Mr. Garis: Yeah. Mr. Pieroecchi: I dont know what the proper number is, but Mark Taormina or At or Scott would know exactly ... Mr. Garis: Yeah, sure. Whatever you gentlemen think would look good. I want it to look good. Mr. Pieroecchi: I just think it should be extended. Mr. Garis: Okay. No problem. Mr. Pieroecchi: It seems like it stops in the middle there. Mr. Garis: Yeah, it does kind of. It meets the front of his property. I think the ordinance says you can only go so far in the front of your property - - the setbacks for fencing — that's probably why it stopped there 19814 originally. That's just a guess. I've got no objection to taking it as far up the property line as you want me to. Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, about eight feet seems right to me. Mr. Garis: Sure. Mr. Pieroecchi: But Mark or his staff would give you a better... l think it stops... Mr. Garis: Yeah, itjust kind ofslops for no particular reason. Mr. Pieroecchi: And those trees aren't that beautiful either. Mr. Garis: No, you know, I'm thinking about maybe doing something with that. I've trimmed them down and got all the brush out and that kind of sluff. I'm hoping with the fence it will start to look nice, but I was thinking possibly about some time down the road, maybe even getting rid of those and putting in some evergreens in there that are a little bit smaller but are more tapered and round so they'll last and not get all bushy and things like that. But I kind of wanted to wait until the fence was there to see what it looks like and see what I needed to do. Mr. Pieroecchi: Inasmuch as you brought up more landscaping, you know your property is kind of sparse all the way around. Mr. Garis: Well, the landscaping along the side, we just did all that. That was all new along the side, and during the summer it looked pretty good. But now it's kind of been cul back. Part of the problem we've had is we've got an invasive weed that is attacking the property. I think its coming from behind the garage of the adjoining landowner. I cant remember the name of the weed. But anyways, its all over. It's getting into the plants. We sprayed to gel rid of it. Some of the plants have to be removed and they're dying. I'm afraid to put a lot more stuff in right now until I gel rid of that. So I had the one side all totally done. The front was kind of spruced up. Then this weed is giving me trouble, so its a little bit worse than I want it to be. But there's been a lot of extra work that's been put into that since last year, and I'm trying to gel it in shape as best as I can and as quick as I can without breaking myself. But I think the side has been all redone. The front's been redone. I want to do a little bit on the other side of the building. Maybe put a couple trees so you can't see behind. Mr. Pieroecchi: I was looking atthe landscaping that abuts up againstthe building. Mr. Garis: Oh, where the stones are? That's where the weeds are. They are right there. And I cant tell you how many times I've cul those 19815 things. That's why the rocks are there. The theory was to finally kill them by putting plastic down, rocks on lop, and spray the heck out of them, and kill them all. Put some nice planter boxes in there, and even that isn't stopping them. My wife was out there today and yesterday, spent all day, trying to gel those darn weeds out of there again. I don't know what the heck to do. We had nice shrubs that were all plants. I spent $6,000 there and those weeds were so invasive they killed them all. I had to remove them and that's the problem I'm trying to work through. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. Thanks. Mr. LaPine: I'm glad you brought up the landscaping. I was out there today and you said you put new landscaping. I couldn't find it. Along the street there, you have some flowers planted there. I don't know what else is there. Mr. Garis: There's a number of trees. There's about $1,000 spent there and a lot of time. I'm a little bit ... Mr. LaPine: You got taken if you spent $1,000 there. Mr. Garis: I did. You know, I want to tell you something. Mr. LaPine: I'm not going to argue the point with you. Mr. Garis: All right. I dont want to argue either, but I think a lot of time and effort has been spent out there. Mr. LaPine: I think you need some plantings along the south fence on the side and in the front of the building you've got those two barrels. I think you could do some planting ofshrubs in there. Mr. Garis: I just told you what happened. I had all these shrubs out there. In fact, I've got pictures of them l can show you. They died. Mr. LaPine: My next question, I talked to your next door neighbor. There's one tree there that I know has to go if you put the fence all the way the down eight feet. Mr. Garis: Yeah. Mr. LaPine: But he was under the impression that all those trees were being knocked down. Is that not true? Mr. Gans: Well, he said he didn't care one way or the other. At one point, I said, 'Yeah, I think I want to take them out" but I'm not sure I want to do that now. One of the reasons is because I'd kind of like to 19816 see how the fence is going to line up there and see what I have. The one tree you're talking about is actually on his property, but I can remove it. Mr. La Pine: But if you put the fence up, you'll have to take it down. Mr. Garis: We'll probably have to take it down. He said he didn't care. Mr. LaPine: A couple of those other trees look like they're dead anyways. Mr. Garis: Yes. Those have to go. You're right. I agree. And if you really want those trees, I don't have any objections to move them. I'm just not sure what's the best thing to do al this point. Mr. LaPine: I don't know whatthey look like in the springtime. Mr. Garis: I don't mean to be argumentative. I'm just a little testy I guess because we spent a lot of time doing that, and you're making it like we weren't trying and we were. Butthe reason it looks .... Mr. McCann: Did you put in summerflowers? Mr. Garis: We had flowers. We had annuals and some perennials and we also had certain little bushes and trees. I don't know what theyre called. My wife's more into that knd of sluff. But what happened, again, these weeds were getting in there. We were trying to kill them and a couple of the things died. It's probably what Mr. LaPine saw. We've tried to kind of replace them, but I want to kill this stuff off before I start putting more things in there. But when I was done in the summer, it looked nice. Mr. McCann: Yes. Unfortunately I killed my grass and other things trying to spray the weeds and kill them, so I know the feeling. Mr. Garis: But I'll do whatever you guys want. Mr. McCann: All right. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #11-140-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -09 -GB -07, submitted by George Garis, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 9555-9559 Middlebell Road in the Northeast '/.of Section 35, be approved subject to the following conditions: 19817 1. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west properly line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on September 6, 2001, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 ofthe Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the fencing, as depicted in the picture submitted to the Planning Commission on October 11, 2002, and agreed upon by Mr. Gans and the abutting properly owner, shall be erected to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; 3. That the fence panels shall be screwed to the posts, not nailed; 4. 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 submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated December 27, 2001: - That the site's existing landscaping shall be reestablished and maintained; That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped within two (2) years; and 6. That for the south property line, the petitioner shall have the option of either erecting a protective wall immediately, going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a temporary wall variance or seeking the consent of the abutting property owner(s). Mr. Gans: Gentlemen, one thing before you pass your resolution. We discussed the parking lot last time I was here. The parking lot was all resealed, and I submitted things to you. It was all re -striped. At the time, I had said and everybody seemed to agree that maybe it shouldn't have been done that way, but everybody else had been doing it and it looked good and that was okay. I just had that done. I paid about $1,500 for that. It was all re -striped and resealed within the last six months before I was here. In fad, it was only a few months before I was here the last time, and at that point everybody said, "Okay, that's all right because it looks pretty good and everybody else doesn't have double stripes" So I really would 19818 appreciate not having to go back into that right away since I just did d. Mr. Walsh: I think that we require the double striping. Mr. Garis: But I'd have to take the strips off that I just had put on. I don't even know how I would do that without a major expense. Mr. Walsh: When was it? Mr. Garis: I have the invoice in here. I can tell you exactly. It was done toward the end of 2001 just before I came in to see you folks the Iasi time, and I think the total cost was $1,200 at that point. I think you might have something in your documents. I think I submitted something last time. Mr. Walsh: The correspondence from the Inspection Department was dated December 27 regarding double striping and repairing and resealing. Now Mr. Piercecchi just leaned over and reminded me that the double striping means it's 10 feet wide. What you're going to do is have striping painted inside that. You dont have to remove the lines. They don't have to be re -measured. You have your 10 foot wide striping as it exists. You just run another stripe inside the existing strip. The Inspection Department or Planning Department can tell you what that is - 18 inches. Mr. Garis: So you just hooked them together so I dont have to replace ... Mr. Walsh: You could do that so they stay open or hook them together. Mr. Garis: Well, I'll do that if you gentlemen think its necessary. To tell you the truth, I don't know what it's going to look like. I guess I can go over the lines that are there and kind of continue them around. I'd rather not have to go through that right now until I redo it. My feeling is that in another season or two I'm going to redo the whole parking lot. I dont know. But I'll do whatever you want if you think that its something that has to be done. Mr. McCann: Can we put that within two years? Would that be appropriate? Mr. Garis: If you could do that, it would be great because I think within that time I'll probably redo the lot. Mr. Walsh: That's fine with me. Mr. Alanskas: Have you any bids on the fencing yet? Mr. Garis: Yeah. Thefellov... 19819 Mr. Alanskas: I don't care who it is, but just make sure that when they install this wooden fence ... most fence people use an air gun and put nails in, aluminum nails. And these nails pop out and the boards come loose. Make sure that they are screwed in. Mr. Garis: I agree wholeheartedly. Absolutely. Mr. Alanskas: And when you screw it in, the boards will stay in place. They will not come out. Mr. McCann: Are you adding that as an additional condition? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. All the boards must be screwed. Mr. McCann: Are you supporting the motion? Mr. Alanskas: Yes, I am. Mr. Pieroecchi: I'd like to add, loo, that the fence be extended. Mr. McCann: To the staff, how close can he come? My concern is your neighbor on Robert there, his driveway abuts that property line, doesn't it? Mr. Garis: Right. Its there right behind the fence ... his driveway. Mr. McCann: So I'm just wondering how, when he's backing up, if we extend the fence loo close ... Mr. Miller: Remember what we did with the Canvasser Brothers on SchoolcmR? Wasn't it like five feet? Mr. Nowak: The ordinance says that the ten feet closest to a right-of-way must not exceed three feet in height. Mr. McCann: Threefeetin height. Okay. Mr. LaPine: If he goes back eight feet, that eight feel is from the sidewalk, so it's actually back eight feet from the sidewalk. Mr. McCann: No, the right-of-way is this side of the sidewalk, so he's got to be len feet back from the sidewalk right, -of -way. Correct? Mr. Nowak: Well, within that 10 feet, the height of the fence shall not be more than three feet. Mr. McCann: Right, so from the sidewalk back, really 10 feet, it cannot ... 19820 Mr. LaPine: The sidewalk is here, then he's going to be eight feel ... Mr. McCann: No, he has to go back ten feel. Mr. LaPine: He has to go at least ten feet. I understand. Mr. McCann: Ten feet from the sidewalk for the right -0f --way. Mr. Garis: Do I go right up to the sidewalk then, but only three feet high, back ten feel? Mr. McCann: Yes, but I dont know how it would look. It would be more of a decorative fence, and I dont know how itwould look with this. Mr. Piercecchi: That's as high as it can go? Mr. McCann: Right. Three feet. Because she has to be able to see when she's backing her car up so she doesn't run over a kid. Mr. Garis: How about if we work with Scott's department... Mr. McCann: I'm just not sure what a three fool fence would look like with that going six fool to three fool and then having shrubs there. Mr. Piercecchi: I would be happy really if you just extended it up to 10 feel. I said eight feet, that's what I stepped off today. It looked about right, but two feet further back .... Mr. McCann: You have to meet the ordinance, whatever that is. Mr. Garis: Okay. And Mr. Miller will know what I have to do there. Mr. McCann: We depend on Mr. Miller all the time. Mr. Piercecchi: Do we understand what the addition is going to be? And who is going to support all of this? Mr. McCann: Mr. Alanskas. Is there any discussion? Please call the roll. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canted and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Nowak a question. The property abutting to the south, is zoned 127 and there's a substation on it. Wouldn't it make sense to rezone that property to more appropriate zoning? That substation is going to be there from now to doomsday. 19821 Mr. Gans: Can I throw something in there? These folks at Edison, they try and keep the property up and stuff, but I want to tell you what. Ninety percent of the weeds and the problems that I'm having is coming from there. I put those rocks down on the side and I sprayed them and I got rid of every weed there was on my property. They just keep coming in from there. And no matter what I do, from the Edison property they just keep coming on to my side. And if they were required to do the same kinds of things that I'm being required to do, I wouldn't have this problem. Mr. LaPine: That isn't what I'm aslting. Does that make any sense? Mr. Nowak: I'd have to research to see what the appropriate classification is for utility. Mr. LaPine: Well, check it out and see. ITEM#3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 851st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 851st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 24, 2002. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #11-141-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the 851st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: John Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19822 ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 852nd Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 852nd Regular Meeting held on October 8, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #11-142-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the 852nd Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 8, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: John Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 54th Regular Meeting held on November 12, 2002, was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mgr CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary