Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-07-24MINUTES OF THE 9W REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 24, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 948"' Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order a17:30 p.m. Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley Ashley Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director was also present Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner 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 oflhe proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-01-08-02 D'ORAZIO CONTRACTING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefition 2007-01- 08-02 submitted by D'Orazio Contracting requesting to amend City Council Resolution #151-07 in order to modify the previously approved plans in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on properties at 18301 and 18421 through 18491 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue and Curtis Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 9. July 24, 2007 24211 Mr. Taormina: On April 11, 2007, D'Orazio Contracting received site plan approval for the construction of an office building on properties that are located on the west side of Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue and Curtis Road. The petitioner is now requesting to modify the plans to incorporate additional land area to the south that is being purchased by the developer from the city. That properly is 18301 Filmore Avenue, which is located to the south and west of the subject property. D'Orazio Contracting is purchasing the easterly portion of that parcel which measures approximately 40 feel of frontage along Farmington Road, and has a depth equal to the abutting lots that the developer owns, which is 100 feet. As you can see from the zoning map, most of the land area in question is zoned OS, Office Services; however, the small portion that is being purchased is currently zoned R-3, One Family Residenfial. The new plan proposes to alter the shape and size of the building, as well as the layout of the parking and also includes some additional parking spaces. Originally, the site was 0.38 acres in size and included 140 feet of frontage on Farmington Road. The portion being purchased, as I indicated, is about 4,800 square feel in size and is currently zoned R-3 Residenfial. Combined, the total land area will be just under five -tenths of an acre. This plan shows the new layout of the reconfigured building that is generally in the same location that was shown previously. One change is with respect to the overall dimensions of the building. It is slightly larger than it was previously. It is about 4,045 square feet whereas as approved it was 4,030 square feet. The storm water management system was originally shown in the front yard between the building and Farmington Road. The additional land area that is being acquired allows them to move that storm water detention system to the southerly portion of the property. This is where the new underground system will be constructed. As you can see, parking now is being provided within the front yard as well as the side yard. Originally, he showed a total of 17 parking spaces, where only 16 were required in order to meet the parking need for general office use. The new plan shows a total of 23 parking spaces. So there is a surplus of spaces if it is to be used for general office purposes; otherwise, there will be some parking available for a mix of both general office and medical office, since medical office does require slightly more parking than does general office use. The required setbacks are still 15 feet from the residential district. The proposed building would have zero setback where it abuts the adjoining R-3 district. However, it is the intent that the City initiate the rezoning of the balance of this properly to the OS zoning July 24, 2007 24212 classification so there would be no need for a variance in that area. The screening wall or greenbelt that was required along the west property line is still shown. This landscape plan has been modified slightly. As you will recall, a greenbelt was approved in lieu of the masonry screen wall. The original plan showed eight evergreen trees that were going to be planted along a bene that would separate the residenfial home to the west from the proposed office building. The berm is still shown on that adjoining property, and they've added a couple more trees to the proposal. Assuming this area is to be rezoned to the OS classification, this would certainly qualify for a greenbelt given the natural vegetation that exists. In fad, the grade drops off quite quickly here into a flood plain and wetland system that is part of a drainage course immediately to the south. This is an area that is heavily wooded and would suffice in terms of a separation between the office development here and the adjoining residential district, which is actually part of Curtis Creek Apartments. Those building line several hundred feet further to the south separated by this flood plain and heavily forested wetland system. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 13, 2007, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The drive approach and the detention facilities will require the approval of Wayne County and/or the City of Livonia. A single address of 18363 Farmington Road should be used for this building to put it in sequence." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 5, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to amend City Council Resolution #151-07 in order to modify previously approved plans in connection with the construction of an office building located at the above - referenced addresses. We have no objections to the modified site plans." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 13, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 29, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The property acquired to the south by the petitioner should be rezoned from R-0 to OS or P and an approved greenbelt provided per Livonia Ordinance. The cument zoning of the southern portion of the property cannot be used for any structure or parking. (2) There July 24, 2007 24213 may be issues with a proposed basement and requirements which will be addressed by this Department at time of plan review. In any case, a basement use may be limited to storage and/or mechanical room use. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Sr. Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Taormina? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. Sam Baki, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan. On behalf of the petitioner, D'Orazio Investment. As Mr. Taormina mentioned, the purpose of actually purchasing or going after the city to purchase this piece of properly to add it to this development was to do exactly what we're doing on it that was agreed on before. That's why I think, like suggested, its a good idea if the city will rezone it to office or parking. Either or is fine with us just to accommodate what we're trying to do to gel the sufficient parking and the landscaping to fix up that area. The most southerly part, which is adjacent to the apartment complex, is where it drops. There's a good drop from there and that's part of their drainage easement that the city required for us to do anything. This way we can just leave that as a drainage easement and just landscape it in a sufficient way that will not hinder the drainage of the property on both sides from Farmington Road and the apartment complex. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Baki? Ms. Vartoogian: On the site plan, I know Iasi week during the study session meeting, we talked about the one driveway with that bulge in it. Mr. Baki: We're willing to straighten that out. That could be straightened out. Not a problem. It's not needed. I don't know why engineering put it in there. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: You might be more productive to have a radius on it because of the cars headed north. It may be easier to tum if you continue the same radius as you have coming off of Farmington Road. Mr. Baki: That's what we'll do. We're definitely going to do that. Mr. Morrow: I think it will navigate much better. July 24, 2007 24214 Mr. Baki: Yeah, I know, because usually I don't put any. He did 0 for more landscaping but it's not needed. I don't even like to put trees there. Mr. Morrow: I don't want to do away with it. I just want to kind of shave it down a little bit so it doesn't make it so hard for a car going out and culling back. Mr. Baki: Not a problem. Mr. Wilshaw: Looking at the plan, Mr. Baki, the trash enclosure shows a pair of wood frame treated doors. Typically, we require steel doors, and I think our approving resolution has steel doors required. Mr. Baki: I didn't think we required steel doors. We have done wood doors before - gales. If I'm wrong, in the past that's what I've done, mostly. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, do we have any record we can rely on one way or the other? Mr. Taormina: More recently, we've required the steel construction for the gates. As Mr. Wilshaw pointed out, that is incorporated in the resolution. So that's how it will be read out this evening I suspect. Mr. Baki: Okay. So steel both frame including the base in steel? Usually we do the frame steel and then we put wood, you know, treated material on top of it. That's what we've done in the past. Has that changed? Mr. Taormina: Its all steel now. Mr. Baki: Its all steel? Okay. That's fine. We can do that. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. If you're all right with that, I'm good. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Baki. A motion would be in order. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #07-82-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-01-08-02 submitted by D'Orezio Contracting requesting to amend City Council Resolution #151-07 in order to modify the previously approved plans in connection with a proposal to construct an July 24, 2007 24215 office building on properties at 18301 and 18421 through 18491 Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue and Curtis Road in the Northeast % of Section 9, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated May 17, 2007, as revised, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except no parking shall be allowed in any residential properties, and further subject to elimination of the 'bulge" that appears in the design of the curb associated with the drive approach to Farmington Road; 2. That the Landscape Planting Plan marked LP -1 dated June 26, 2007, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the lop of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. 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; 6. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as shown on the approved Landscape Planting Plan, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 7. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 8. That for the south property line, the petitioner shall have the option of either going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a temporary wall variance or seeking the consent of the abutting property owner(s); July 24, 2007 24216 9. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated June 27. 2007, as revised, prepared by GAV Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 10. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 11. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 12. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same back 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 of steel construction and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 13. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils, including storm water management permits, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; 14. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 15. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building setback and any conditions related thereto, if necessary; 16. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 17. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 18. 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, July 24, 2007 24217 19. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Morrow: I'd like to see the two modifications to the site plan we talked about tonight be incorporated in the plans as it moves forward to the City Council. Mr. Walsh: So you're talking about the narrowing of the landscape area ... Mr. Morrow: Yes, the change of the radius of the landscape plan and steel gates. Mr. Walsh: The gates are in the resolution. Mr. Morrow: The plan still says wooden, doesn't it? Mrs. McDermott: No. Number 12. Mr. Wilshaw: The plan does butthe resolution says steel. Mr. Morrow: Well, I know, but I'd like to see that changed. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, if you can make note of that for purposes of the final document that would be great, assuming there's no objection. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#2 PETITION 2007-06-0841 EMMANUEL LUTHERAN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007- 06-08-11 submitted by Emmanuel Lutheran Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the church located at 34567 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road and Laurel Road in the Northwest %of Secfion 9. July 24, 2007 24218 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct additions to the Emmanuel Lutheran Church, which is located on the south side of Seven Mile between Gill Road and Laurel Avenue. The zoning of this property is R-4, One Family Residential. Overall, the site is approximately 3.2 acres in size, which includes 290 feet of frontage along the south side of Seven Mile and has a depth of 477 feet. This is the zoning map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding. This plan shows the existing building as well as the proposed additions. The additions actually appear on this sketch. The existing church, sanctuary and supporting areas of the facility are shown here on the crosshatched diagram. The larger of the two additions would occur on the south side of the building and would be about 3,257 square feet in size. The proposed use would be for a fellowship hall, an expanded narthex, and for some additional interior storage space and mechanical room space. There would also be a new concrete walkway provided between the parking area and the main entrance. The new entrance would be provided in the southwesterly portion of the addition. The addition would be constructed primarily out of brick that would match the brick on the existing building. It would also include a metal roof canopylhal would be supported by concrete columns. The architect has provided some renderings, and I will show you those in a few minutes. The second addition is much smaller; it is about 668 square feet and would be located on the west side of the church. This would add space to the existing administrative offices of the church. Altogether, the existing facility is about 10,200 square feet; with the proposed additions, the overall square fool would increase to about 14,125 square feet. Panting for churches is based on the number of seals in the main sanctuary. Since the proposed additions will not increase the seating, the current parking on the site is adequate. As I indicated, the existing church is constructed primarily out of brick, and these additions would be constructed out of brick as well that would match the exterior materials of the existing church. The renderings will give you an idea of what the structure will look like upon completion. I'll answer any questions you have. We do have correspondence if you'd like me to read that. Mr. Walsh: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 13, 2007, which reads as follows: "in accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. There are minor July 24, 2007 24219 distance and beating emors in the 110 and 14"' lines of the legal description. No additional right -0f -way is required. Based on the increased area of hard surfacing represented by the two building additions and the new sidewalks, a small amount of detention will be required. An address of 34567 Seven Mile Road is correct" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 5, 2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the church on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 17, 2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with Emmanuel Lutheran Church addition, located 34567 7 Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 13, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 26, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The proposed addition appears to block off the exterior wall of an existing nursery. This may require a relocation of the nursery or a fire suppression system. If this project moves forward, this will be addressed by this Department at time of plan review. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Sr. Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Taormina. Seeing none, we will go the petitioner. Good evening. Dan Pulman, 20387 Pollyanna Drive, Livonia. Good evening. I'm the congregational president for Emmanuel Lutheran Church. I'm pleased to be here tonight to present you with our plans for expansion. Our church has done well over the last 15 years. We continue to grow. We have more and more activifies going on at the church and more programs going on all the time. We are a unique church in many ways because our average age is 32-1/2. So we have a relatively young congregation with a lot of children that are a stay in our programs. So that has brought us forward tonight to bring to you the proposal to expand the building. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Pulman? July 24, 2007 24220 Mr. La Pine: One of the items I brought up in the last meeting was the landscaping in front of the building. I know your new plans show- I assume that's landscaping out in front. Mr. Putman: That's correct. Mr. La Pine: My only question is, it's fine around the building along the curve and then it goes back in and goes straight. I don't see anything along this area here where it's straight. Is anything going in there? Mr. Putman: We showed three additional areas of landscaping on the plan - one out by the sign area, one following the curb to the wall trying to keep the architectural design consist with the original architects intent. Mr. LaPine: I understand that. I'm only saying when I went out there and looked at it, it still looks bare right along here. You have two, three, four shrubs planted along there. It would just make a better looking situation, I believe. Nothing elaborate. I'm not talking a big shrub. Just a small bulb, pruned low and if you put say half a dozen or eight or ten up there, I'd be satisfied. This one you have here, I really don't know. I can't visualize what it's going to do; it doesn't separate anything. But the other question I have, what kind of shrubs are these? Mr. Putman: I'll turn it over to the architect to answer that question. Frank Pierron, Architect, President, Lindhoul Associates Architects AIA PC, 10465 Citation Drive, Brighton, Michigan 48116. When I reacted to your request to put landscaping out on the north side of the building, I had to go back and take a look at what happened before and why. My perception is that the previous architect seemed to want to put a picture frame on the east end and north end by putting clusters of trees in those areas, and then allowing the art form of the building to be displayed on a horizontal plane. I didn't want to come up with a solution that would be disrespectful to what was originally designed and approved. What I did do was suggest putting in groupings of landscaping that would reflect the curves of the building, rather than running one horizontal line of landscaping from the east end to the west end of it. So with that, I suggested the cluster of the landscaping that is at the east end, connecting to the trees to give it a substance of the trees being there. And then we did it again, wrapped around the larger part of the curve and that is stepped away from the building, which I think is more of a healthy location for that landscaping rather than being up next to the building because of the amount of heal that would pour off July 24, 2007 24221 those bricks wall. It is also hiding the light fixtures that do shine on that curved wall. And then to continue that image, I put t around the entrance sign at the driveway with an introduction of probably more perennials and things to get some color in at that point loo but still reflecting the curve. The material that's in there, there's material that were presented on the first part of our application and they form hedges but they also have color and blossoms to them periodically in the seasons. Mr. LaPine: Will that curve with these shrubs go together to make it a hedge, or will they always be separated by a certain distance? Mr. Pierron: Yes, I would say they would always be separated. Mr. LaPine: You would keep them trimmed? Mr. Pierron: Well, to a point. It depends on the plants. Some of them will start to fill in within the hedge form ofthem. Mr. LaPine: Okay, that's what I'm saying. I have no problem with that. In fad, I kind of like it. The hedge kept low. I understand what you're doing. The way I look at it just seems strange not to have something along here, but maybe you have a point. I'm not going to argue the point. I'm fine. It's better than what's out there now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. McDermott The fellowship hall - will that be used for any banquets or anything, weddings of that sort? Mr. Pierron: Ithink that's possible, yes. They have an existing fellowship hall now, which is on the east end of the building that have movable partitions and for classrooms. So we're just making them permanent and moving the location of fellowship to another part to gel it closer to the sanctuary so the people coming out of the sanctuary, say for a wedding or a memorial service, would be able to move into that fellowship hall. But more so, its for fellowship on Sunday morning. Its providing gathering spaces because previously they were kind of being pushed out the door. Mrs. McDermott So it would be used for members of the church or would you rent this out to the public? Mr. Putman: This plan does not include any kind of commercial kitchen or anything, so it is not designed to be a conference -type facility. It would be used by members of our congregation for events and such. July 24, 2007 24222 Mrs. McDermott: Okay. The reason why I'm asking is to make sure the parking is sufficient. Mr. Putman: Yes. Mrs. McDermott: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: The plantings that you have that are positioned by the large wall, which ones are those? What's the name of the plant? I see on my handout here, we have several plants referenced - Japanese Yews and Dwarf Globe Blue Spruce. What will these plantings be? Perhaps you can tell me what is the plant height these will grow to, the ones along the radius of the walls? I was trying to decipher that. Okay, so we're talking somewhere of four to five feet tall. Mr. Pierron: Could be. It takes a while. Mr. Morrow: As one commissioner, I think you better go back because we're on TV. We're not trying to detract that much from your brick wall, but ft's more to shield the base. Mr. Pierron: Occasionally from the road, because everything is a horizontal plane, itwill interrupt visually the base oflhe building. Mr. Morrow: That's why we were hoping it was going to be more low profile. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any more questions? Thank you both for being here tonight. A motion would be in order. On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-83-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-06-08-11 submitted by Emmanuel Lutheran Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the church located at 34567 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road and Laurel Road in the Northwest % of Section 9, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked SP -1 dated June 19, 2007, as revised, prepared by Lindhoul Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; July 24, 2007 24223 2. That the Landscape Plan marked SP2 dated July 20, 2007, as revised, prepared by Lindhout Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new 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; 6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked SP -3 dated June 19, 2007, as revised, prepared by Lindhout Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the brick used in the construction shall match that of the existing church; 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 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 of steel construction and maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits, including storm water management permits, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Stale of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; 11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the item(s) outlined in the correspondence dated July 13, 2007; 12. That the large nonconforming wood frame ground sign located in front of the church shall be removed unless July 24, 2007 24224 approved by the Inspection Department and/or the Zoning Board of Appeals; 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. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval by City Council, and unless a building peril is obtained this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taormina: I'm just curious to know about the condition that requires the removal of the ground sign, and whether or not that was something that was discussed at the study meeting. Is this the first time the petitioner has heard that the sign would have to be removed? Maybe they should have the opportunity to address that particular issue because I'm not sure how it affects their operation. Waller Dickenson, I'm a resident of Livonia since 1974. 1 had four children go through the school system and I'm the pastor of Emmanuel Luther Church. I'm glad to be here. I can speak a little bit to that sign issue. The sign was put up because we saw other places that had signs for vacation bible school and day camp and other issues like that. We put up the sign just for those short ter occasions and have taken the sign down. We do not have a desire to leave anything up there permanently. That's the history of it. Its been up there probably 10 - 12 years now. We've only used it occasionally for Christmas Eve services, Easter services, day camp and vacation bible school. Mr. La Pine: The sign you have out there advertising the church, do you have changeable letters on it? Mr. Dickenson: Yes, they are. Mr. LaPine: Why can't you advertise on that sign? Mr. Dickenson: We can, but on those changeable letters, we have our service times. It's not very conducive to have multiple things on it because it has only two lines of letters available to us and we put on it our service time and our Sunday school time. So if you July 24, 2007 24225 put day camp or other services, you would remove the ability to advertise our services. Mr. La Pine: Well, what do you do? Do you lake it down and then periodically put it backup? Is that what you do? Mr. Dickenson: Yeah, and they slay up for a couple weeks at the most because of the events that would occur. We put it up for a two week period before Christmas Eve just to advertise to the community the services, then we take itdown. Mr. LaPine: But the sign you have up there now - I happen to live across the street from there. Mr. Dickenson: Okay. Sure. Mr. LaPine: About the bible school, that's been out there at lead over a month, maybe two months. I go by it every single day. Mr. Dickenson: I was on vacation so I don't know for certain, but I don't think it was up for that long. But I will respect you because you see it more often than I do. Mr. LaPine: Its just four by fours put together in the ground and then you nail a sign to it. Is that what you do? Mr. Dickenson: We have vinyl signs that are double sided that we put on there with bungee cords so that they wouldn't be blown away and stuff like that. That's the intent of it. Mr. LaPine: I dont want to hinder the church or anything. I'll go along with it but the problem we have, some other church goes by and they see that and say, they're doing it; we can do illoo. Mr. Dickenson: That's why we did it because we saw some other churches doing it. Mr. LaPine: Before we know it, we'll have them all over the city. Mr. Dickenson: It's an issue of how do you advertise those special occasions? We have a day camp sign that's a sandwich sign, but that got blown over and that's a danger to people walling by because of the wind velocity. So we found this is a much safer way to handle our signage on an individual basis for events that are not very frequent. Mr. LaPine: When they put the sign up, do they have to get any kind of permits? July 24, 2007 24226 Mr. Taormina: That's why I raised the question to begin with. I was going to say rather than prohibit the sign altogether, not knowing the circumstances behind that sign, if its unauthorized, then yes, it should be removed. Otherwise, they would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals or obtain whatever special permits may be required by the Inspection Department. If we modify the language of the resolution to allow them that sign but subject to any and all necessary approvals of the city, I think that would suffice. Mr. Walsh: And then leave it to the Inspection Department from that point forward. Is that acceptable to the maker and the second? Mrs. McDermott: Yes Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Is there any further comment? Mr. Morrow? Mr. Morrow: I don't think this body can approve that sign because it's a surplus sign. Is that not correct? So I guess we can modify things to see what the Zoning Board of Appeals will do, but this body can't allow you to have that sign without that approval. Its not ourdecision. Mr. Dickenson: Like when kids have car washes and you come down the street and they have a sign on the side of the road. We get approval for them and our rummage sale. I know we've done that. And that's what you're speaking about. I don't think we have, and this is not my department particularly, but I don't think we've gotten approval for our day camp and our vacation bible school which runs for the one week during the summer. But I know we have for our garage sales and our rummage sales and car washes. Mr. Walsh: And that's what we're suggesting is that you pursue your own records and decide if you have received approval, and if not then pursue that next year. Mr. Dickenson: That would be good. I appreciate that. Like I've said, I've lived in the city for a long time and I appreciate the care you've given to keeping it this way. Mr. Morrow: Just the Iasi thing, so we're not picking on you. The only opportunity this body has is when you bring a plan in. We don't go around and say there's a sign and there's a sign. That's other bodies. When it comes to us, we can look at R. July 24, 2007 24227 Mr. Dickenson: When you have a chance to look at it, then you can look at R. Yes, I understand that. Otherwise you're not going around checking othersigns. Mr. Morrow: We haven't singled you out. Mr. Dickenson: I appreciate that. I'm sorry I'm a little sweaty. I just finished playing sand volleyball down here and I changed my clothes real quick without laking a shower. Mr. Walsh: Thank you for coming. Mr. Dickenson: I'm glad I could be here. Mr. Walsh: We appreciate it. Mr. La Pine: You have a beautiful church. You did a nice job. Mr. Dickenson: Thank you. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resoluton adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 945TM Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 945"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on May 29, 2007. On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, it was #07-84-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 945" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on May 29, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Wilshaw, McDermott, Varloogian, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: LaPine Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. July 24, 2007 24228 ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 946'" Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 946"' Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 12, 2007. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-85-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 946" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 12, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Wilshaw, McDermott, Morrow, Varloogian, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 393rd Special Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 393d Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 26, 2007. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #07-86-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 393`° Special Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2007, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McDermott, LaPine, Morrow, Wilshaw, Varloogian, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. July 24, 2007 24229 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 948" Regular Meeting held on July 24, 2007, was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Srriley, Secretary