Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2009-09-22MINUTES OF THE 986TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 22, 2009, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 986" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Ashley Vartoogian Carol A. Smiley Joe Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present. Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a pefifion 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 pefifion is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating pefifion. 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 pefifion 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 seem (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these pefifions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION 2009-08-01-01 MASOUD SHANGO Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2009-08- 01-01 submitted by Masoud Shango requesting to rezone property at 13820-13840 Merriman Road and 31281 Schoolcraft Road, located at the south side of Schoolcraft Road east of Merriman in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, from OS to C-2. Septamber 22, 2009 25104 Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning ofthe surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated September 14, 2009, which reads as follows: 7n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the information received associated with the above - referenced petition. The legal description submitted is incomect. There is a 1.18' error in closure, which will have to be resolved by a licensed surveyor. In reviewing his, the surveyor should also check the legal description for the adjacent comer parcel to the west, 13820-13840 Merriman Road. The description for this parcel is also in conflict with the description provided by the petitioner. This rezoning involves two addresses. The address range for the comer parcel is 13820 through 13840 Merriman Road. The adjacent parcel to the east is 31281 Schoo/craft. To assist the surveyor in preparing a correct legal description, the City of Livonia website has property information including legal descriptions for parcels. The City web site address is www.ci.livonia.mi.us. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Do we have any questions for the staff? Before I call the petitioner up, as the Director indicated, the zoning is the only thing before us tonight, and he is sharing his future site plan with us. I have no problem with the Commission sharing their thoughts on the site plan and the proposed waiver use, but we are going to try to confine it as much as possible to the zoning portion of it. On that, I'll ask is the petlioner here? If we could have your name and address for the record. Brian Devlin, 31736 West Chicago, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? Mr. Devlin: No, I think Mark did a very nice job. We just believe that this is a good use for this particular building. It's a small building. It's not suitable really for a large office, and it does comply with the Master Plan for the City of Livonia. So that's why we're trying to place a retail development there. Also, the site plan tries to address the concerns that City Council had previously. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Commission, any questions of this petitioner? September 22, 2009 25105 Mr. Taylor: You say that you think that this plan will satisfy he Council. It didn't do it before, and there's no passing lane. You're short on parking, and I just dont quite understand that much difference in this plan other than the driveway. I have no problem with the zoning. I have to clear that out, with the C-2 zoning. I have no problem with that, but I think you're trying to gel a little too much on this site for that particular zoning and that particular site because you're actually going to be asking to waive parking. You're going to be asking to waive the outer lane so if somebody gels in that lane, the backup lane, they can't gel out. They'd have to go all the way around. I would hope that the Council would maybe give this first reading and lake a look at a better plan than what you have as far as I'm concerned. I just dont think your site is big enough for what you want to do here. The C-2 zoning is not a problem. I understand that. Its a connection and it's a step down. Normally zoning is C-3, C-2 or C-1 and then down into either residential or M1. I have no problem with that, but I don't think your plan is what I could approve on the Planning Commission. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Wilshaw: Just a quick question for Mr. Taormina. Is the petitioner correct in staling that the Future Land Use Plan calls for this to be commercial? Mr. Taormina: Actually, the Future Land Use Plan shows it as being industrial, which is intended to be general and not necessarily follow property lines. What existed there previously was an office use. The commercial designation on the Future Land Use Plan basically ends at the parcel description for the Merriman Road address, which is 13820 Merriman. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. That's what I thought but it's a minor point. I just wanted to mention that. I agree with Mr. Taylor, just so you know where I stand, Mr. Devlin. I think the zoning is fine. I think C-2 makes sense, but the conceptual plan as presented to us has a lot of flaws and I think needs some work. If this happens to go forward, I hope we can work together and come up with a plan that makes sense. Thank you. Mr. Devlin: Thank you Mr. Morrow: Any other questions or comments? So basically what we're doing is, we will be acting on the zoning. My comment would be with the C-2 zoning, it opens up a lot of other uses, plus it affords him the possibility of requesting a waiver in conjunction September 22, 2009 25106 with the restaurant that he has there. So if there's no other comments or questions, I'm going to go to the audience to see if there is anyone that would like to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing none, Mr. Devlin, do you have any other comments on that? Mr. Devlin: No. Just that we understand that this is still a conceptual plan, and we would like to work with the City to make something work at this Iocafion. Mr. Morrow: We understand that. On that note, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #0936-2009 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 22, 2009, on Petition 2009-08-01-01 submitted by Masoud Shango requesting to rezone property at 13820-13840 Merriman Road and 31281 SchoolcraR Road, located at the south side of SchoolcraR Road east of Merriman in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, from OS to 02, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2009-08-01- 01 be approved for lhefollowing reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing zoning on other similarly situated properties in the vicinity of the SchoolcmR Road and Merriman Road intersection; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will not be detrimental to the surrounding land uses in the area; 3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the orderly and efficient development and use of the subject property in a manner that will be complementary to the existing development on the adjacent property to the west; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide opportunities for a greater variety of uses to serve the area as well as the City as a whole. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. September 22, 2009 25107 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation. ITEM#2 PETITION 2009-08-06-03 DISTRICT REGULATIONS Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2009- 08-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #338-09, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, proposing to amend Section 3.08 of Article III of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance so as to prohibit any uses that are contrary to federal, state or local laws or ordinances. Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution #338-09 refers to and requests that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to Section 3.08 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed language is at the request of the City Law Department and is intended to clarify and strengthen the regulations that are applicable to all zoning districts. The law would prohibit any uses that are contrary to federal, stale or local laws or ordinances. Section 3.08, in part, would now read: "Each district, as created in this article, shall be subject to the regulations contained in this ordinance. Uses not expressly permitted are prohibited." And then the new language would read: "Uses for enterprises or purposes that are contrary to federal, state or local laws or ordinances are prohibited." Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There is no correspondence associated with this petition. Mr. Morrow: No correspondence. Because the Planning Commission is the petitioner, I'll go straight to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask the Commission for a motion. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Vartoogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #0937-2009 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 22, 2009, on Petition 2009-08-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #338-09, and September 22, 2009 25108 Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, proposing to amend Section 3.08 of Article III of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance so as to prohibit any uses that are contrary to federal, stale or local laws or ordinances, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2009-08-06-03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment will expressly prohibit uses for enterprises or purposes that are contrary to federal, stale or local laws or ordinances; 2. That the proposed language amendment will clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; and 3. That the proposed language amendment is in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation. Let me add that this concludes the public hearing portion of our agenda. We will now move on to the miscellaneous items. ITEM #3 PETITION 2009-08-08-06 PLYMOUTH PLACE PLAZA Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2009- 08-08-06 submitted by API - Plan Design Build, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the commercial center (Plymouth Place Plaza) located at 34706-34730 Plymouth Road, on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Belden Court in the Southwest'''/ of Section 28. Mr. Taormina: This properly is located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, which is a square mile that is bounded in part by Plymouth Road to the south, Farmington Road to the east, and SchoolcraR Road and 1-96 Expressway to the north. This is property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Belden Court. Its actually right at the northwest September 22, 2009 25109 corner of Pnscilla Lane and Plymouth Road. The parcel is currently zoned G1, Local Business. Immediately adjacent to the site to the north are single family homes located within the Alden Village subdivision. Immediately to the west is a vacant retail building that was formerly occupied by Aaron's Lease Furniture, and further to the west of that is a FedEx Kinko's building. Both of those properties are also zoned G7, Local Business. To the east across Priscilla Lane is a Budget Rent-A- Car facility, which is zoned G2, General Business. Directly to the south across Plymouth Road is the former New Car Alternative dealership. The petitioner is proposing a number of changes mostly to the exlenor of the south facade which faces Plymouth Road. As you can see from this photograph, the existing exterior finish consists of bnck on the lower portion of the building, as well as standing seam metal awnings on the upper part of the building. These metal awnings would be completely removed and the upper one-half of the building would be replaced with an EIFS or a dryvit. This is a rendering of what the new building would look like. There would be five split -face block columns that would be added to the front of the building that would mostly be used to accent some of the offsets on the building. These five columns, which you can see here, would project about 8 to 10 inches from the building and be 16 feet in height. They would contain a decorative cap somewhat similar in design and color to a decorative cornice that would be installed along the lop portion of the parapet. The lower portion of the building, which currently is brick, would remain. The west side of the building, which is painted block, would be repainted to match the color of the brick. There are no improvements proposed for the back side of the building or the north elevation. This proposal involves additional work within the Plymouth Road nghlof way mainly to improve the visibility of the shopping center. The Plymouth Road nghl-0f-way, adjacent to not only this site but the adjoining sites both to the east and west, extends approximately 86 feel from the centerline of the road, as opposed the customary 60 feet. So there is an additional 26 feet of area between the sidewalk and the parking lot that is part of the public right-of-way. This area presently contains a 4 foot high berth as well as several mature trees. What the petitioner would like to do is lower the berm and remove the trees. This is a profile view that shows how the improvements would be undertaken. This is the existing berm here. This vehicle represents the location of the parking lot of the shopping center. This is the berm that is located within the public nghlof way, and this is the sidewalk. This is the additional grass area between the sidewalk and then the curb for Plymouth Road. So this is Plymouth Road on the left hand side of the illustration, with the parking lot for the shopping center located on the right September 22, 2009 25110 hand side. You can see the berm and trees and the impact that area has on visibility of the shopping center. So what the petitioner would like to do is lower that berm and remove those trees. In its place, he would install two PRDA-style entrance monuments. These would consist of brick piers and ornamental fencing, and they would be installed adjacent to the two driveway approaches off Plymouth Road. He would also propose certain changes to the existing monument sign by incorporating the PRDA brick pier elements. There would be landscaping added around the entrance to the monuments as well as the sign. The PRDA maintained trees, which are between Plymouth Road and the sidewalk, would remain. So while you see this grouping of trees here located on the bene, there is another row of trees that are located between Plymouth Road and the sidewalk. Those trees would remain as is. The PRDA has reviewed this petition. They reviewed it last Thursday. They are supportive of the project, provided that the petitioner pursues vacating the excess right-of-way. They have also recommended that the parking lot be fixed. They are suggesting that if there is any work to be done within the area between the sidewalk and Plymouth Road with respect to those trees, that it only involve trimming and that it be done under the direction of the Executive Director of the PRDA or his designee. Lastly, they want to make sure that the brick piers and fencing matches that of what has been undertaken throughout much of the corridor by the PRDA. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 14, 2009, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. It should be noted that the landscaping work shown is adjacent to the Plymouth Road right -0f -way. Should any of your work encroach upon the Plymouth Road right-of-way, a permit will need to be obtained from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). They are located at 6510 Telegraph Road, Taylor, Michigan 48180. (313) 375-2400. The color rendition of the landscape plan, which was included in the packet, indicates a small future addition to the existing building. It is my understanding that this future addition is not being addressed as a part of this approval. Should the petitioner wish to pursue this building expansion in the future, plans should be sent to the Engineering Division for review. The range of addresses for this parcel is 34706 through 34730 Plymouth Road. We trust this provides you with the requested Information." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., September 22, 2009 25111 Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 9, 2009, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to remodel the exterior of the commercial center on property located at the above -referenced address. Me have no objections to this pmposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 31, 2009, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with Plymouth Place Plaza located at 34706,34730 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 16, 2009, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 24, 2009, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The existing monument sign has a Zoning Board of Appeals grant (8712-204) that allows for it to be located 12 feet into the right-of-way for a deficient setback of 22 feet. The existing sign appears to be located property in relation to the sidewalk. The width of the right-of-way on the north side of Plymouth Road changes in many different places to create this deficiency. (2) The proposed right-of-way landscaping must be submitted and approved by the Plymouth Road Development Authority. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated September 18, 2009, which reads as follows: "At the 212'" Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on September 17, 2009, the board members reviewed the plans for the above - referenced project. The Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby support the proposed plans as presented by API - Plan Design Building L.L.C. in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the retail plaza (Plymouth Place) located at 34706,34730 Plymouth Road, on the north side of Plymouth Road between the Stark Road and Belden Court in the Southwest X of Section 28, subject to compliance with all City codes and ordinances and the Plymouth Road Development streetscape components, as such may be modified by the action of the Planning Commission and/or City Council." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, Executive Director. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any questions of the staff? September 22, 2009 25112 Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mr. Taormina. Mark, do we have an east and a west end of the buildings that they're doing anything to? A rendering? I didn't locale any in my packet. Mr. Taormina: I'll look to see ifwe have it on file. Mr. Taylor: Both of these ends are exposed to the public, and I would suspect they probably are going to do something to them. Mr. Taormina: It is my understanding they are going to paint those already painted block sections of the building to match the color of the brick. So there's going to be some maintenance work to the sides of the building, but I think that's limited only to painting. The architect can address that. I'll check to see if we have any plans that note that. Mr. Taylor: And they said that they're going to take down the berth for exposure to the building, and I can understand that. They're going to lake those trees down also. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Taylor: And they're going to plant other trees. What kind of trees are those? I couldn't read them. It was loo small. Mr. Taormina: I want to say they were a variety of Honey Locust, but I'm going to verify that and gel back to you. Mr. Taylor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record. Keith Lutz, API - Plan Design Build, L.L.C., 8445 Saginaw Street, Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439. 1 am here on behalf of the owner of Plymouth Plaza. The owner acquired this properly approximately five months ago with the intent of revitalizing the properly to make it more viable in lodays time. One thing I should mention, at the PRDA meeting several of the members had comments just prior to the meeting saying, where is this located? And that is one of the main problems that this site has, that it is not very visible and it's not very recognizable. Our petition is to not only renovate the building and update the look, but also the importance of redeveloping the rightof-way, so to speak, so that the building is more viable and we bring new tenants, possibly national tenants, to this development. In regards to Mr. Taylors question about the east or west elevations, we did not submit any other elevations. On the further outer ends, we have a new September 22, 2009 25113 attached column that will be there. The column itself will wrap the corner approximately three feet. Beyond that will be a painted surface that's there now. There is a small area there right in the center where the building does ... could we go to the elevation rendering? On the feature area where I have the KSI Kitchen, I know it's difficult to see, but it's approximately in the center. That area there, the building actually goes back another 20 feet, and the intent is to have that same look go back on that east side towards Tubby's. So what you're looking at there on the right side of where that column is where it says KSI, that is a wall that's part of the building existing that will go back an additional 20 feet with that same similar look with what you see there on that arched feature. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for Mr. Lutz? The one question I might have is relative to the sides of the building, will that cornice go around in addition to the brick or will that just be painted? Mr. Lutz: No. The cornice will stop at the column, and the rest will be painted. Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to verify that. Thank you Mr. Taylor: Can you answer the question about the trees? I know you're going to lake some down so you get exposure. Are you going to plant more trees and then pretty soon your exposure is going to be gone again? Mr. Lutz: Can we go to the site plan, please? The berm itself has approximately 8 to 10 large trees. Mr. Taylor: I'm very familiar with that. Mr. Lutz: Those will all be removed. We were proposing two trees in between Plymouth Road and the sidewalk be removed. However, we discussed that at the PRDA meeting and those will remain. There are five or six trees that are appropriate in size that will still be there. As far as the berm goes, the only trees that we are proposing will be at the two entrance gateways, one each, which will be three inch Honey Maple trees, three inch caliper. So we are significantly reducing what we can here to obtain the visibility. However, there is still a significant amount. Mr. Taylor: I would like to tell you that from the first plan that we saw, this is a 150 percent improvement. I mean at least it has some architectural features to it where it's a much nicer looking plan. Mr. Taormina: Yes. Actually, the letter from the Inspection Department I don't believe referenced the parking lot improvements. It was the PRDA discussion last week, and I think some of that was based on their review of the photographs that were submitted. In these photographs, you can see the condition of the parking lot here. It's since been improved. Now, are there other areas that may need patching? I dont know. That's something that will be determined by the Inspection Department. Mr. Morrow: Well, thanks for clearing that up because I was under the impression that was found in the notes of the Inspection September 22, 2009 25114 Mr. Lutz: Thank you. Mr. Taylor: I congratulate you on that. Thank you Ms. Vartoogian: One of the correspondence mentioned the repaving of the parking lot. Do you have any issues with that? Mr. Lutz : In fact, since acquiring the property, the owner has re -striped the parking lot and made some improvements. The existing condition, if it does not meet the acceptance of the Planning Commission, we are open to revitalizing that as well. That's not currently in the formal submittal in this petition though. Ms. Vartoogian: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Do you know if the Inspection Department saw it before or after you did some work on the parking lot? Mr. Lutz : I'm not aware of that. I don't know. Is there an issue? Mr. Morrow: They did make reference to it in their letter, and I was wondering ifthey saw it before you did the actual work on it. Mr. Lutz : Okay. Mr. Morrow: Which if they saw it before, that would account for possibly going along with it. If they saw it after, they still have some concerns. Mr. Lutz : Okay. Most likely, they saw it after because I believe that it was done a couple months ago. So they would have made that comment after the owner made their improvements. Mr. Morrow: I have a question. Mr. Taormina, would this be something that would be worked out when the Inspection Department looks at the final plans? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Actually, the letter from the Inspection Department I don't believe referenced the parking lot improvements. It was the PRDA discussion last week, and I think some of that was based on their review of the photographs that were submitted. In these photographs, you can see the condition of the parking lot here. It's since been improved. Now, are there other areas that may need patching? I dont know. That's something that will be determined by the Inspection Department. Mr. Morrow: Well, thanks for clearing that up because I was under the impression that was found in the notes of the Inspection September 22, 2009 25115 Department. But you point out it was the PRDA that was Mr. Lutz: The lighting along the building will light the sidewalk out front and the adjacent parking that is along there. It will be adequate. Ms. Smiley: Okay. That was my question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilshaw: I think Mark was already anticipating my question. Do you have any material samples, color samples, that you can show us? Mr. Lutz: This is it ughl here. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Can you hold that up for the camera, and then tell us whaleach color represents? Mr. Lutz: The two samples on top here are the EIFS dry>it samples. The lop one would be the EIFS hum, which is represented in the top crown, comice portion, then also down at the arched feature areas. Then this color would be the wall surfaces, the primary color. Then these are the two proposed split -face block colors that would be on the five attached columns. looking at it. So I think that we resolved that issue. Mr. Lutz: That photograph is not representative of the existing condition. That photograph was taken prior to .... Mr. Morrow: When I went out there to look at it, the parking lot didn't jump out at me, and I noticed it had been re -stuped. Mr. Lutz: Yes. Mr. Morrow: So thanks for clearing that up. Ms. Smiley: I had a question about what kind of lighting or you're putting lighting on the columns. Is that what the plan is? Mr. Lutz: Yes. I don't know if there's a slide for that, but we had submitted a presentation board that had the light that we are proposing on there. It is a wall scone -style. Ms. Smiley: The visibility is my big concem, that people know you're there and that its safe in the evening, that its propedy lit but not obnoxious or intrusive, but it would be good for you to have some lighting. Mr. Lutz: There is ample parking lot site lighting. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Mr. Lutz: The lighting along the building will light the sidewalk out front and the adjacent parking that is along there. It will be adequate. Ms. Smiley: Okay. That was my question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilshaw: I think Mark was already anticipating my question. Do you have any material samples, color samples, that you can show us? Mr. Lutz: This is it ughl here. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Can you hold that up for the camera, and then tell us whaleach color represents? Mr. Lutz: The two samples on top here are the EIFS dry>it samples. The lop one would be the EIFS hum, which is represented in the top crown, comice portion, then also down at the arched feature areas. Then this color would be the wall surfaces, the primary color. Then these are the two proposed split -face block colors that would be on the five attached columns. September 22, 2009 25116 Mr.Wilshaw: Okay. That looks good. Thank you. Mr. Lutz: Do you want me to pass this around so you can see it closer? Mr. Wilshaw: I think you can give it back to Mark. That's fine. Mr. Morrow: Are there any other questions of the Commission? If you'll just wail there a minute, Mr. Lutz, we'll see if anybody wants to speak for or against the grenfing of this petition. Seeing no one coming forward, if there are no other comments that you haw, I'll ask for a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0938-2009 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2009-08-08-06 submitted by API — Plan Design Build, L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to remodel the exterior of the commercial center (Plymouth Place Plaza) located at 34706-34730 Plymouth Road, on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Belden Court in the Southwest % of Section 28, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked C1.1 dated September 15, 2009, as revised, prepared by API Plan -Design -Build, L.L.C. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the modificafions to the right -0f way of this property, including the landscaping, brick piers and ornamental fencing elements and the lowering of the berm, shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Plymouth Road Development Authority Executive Director; 3. That no trees shall be removed from the greenbelt area located between the sidewalk and Plymouth Road; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That the parking lot will be improved and re -striped to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; 6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the safisfacfion of the Inspection September 22, 2009 25117 Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 7. That the Exlenor Building Elevation Plan marked A1.1 dated September 10, 2009, as revised, prepared by API Plan -Design -Build, L.L.C. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, malenal and color to other exterior materials on the building; 9. That only conforming signage is approved with this petifion, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 10. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 11. 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, 12. 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. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Mr. Taylor: Mark, do you think it would be a good idea to put in an item that said the parking lot will be improved and striped to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department? Mr. Taormina: That would be appropriate. Mr. Taylor: I'd like to improve that if we could. Mr. Morrow: Does the maker and supporter of the motion have any objection to that? Ms. Scheel: I have no objection. Ms. Smiley: No objection. September 22, 2009 25118 Mr. Wilshaw: I hate to keep picking at this approving resolution, but I noticed that there is no condition that stales that any landscape areas shall be sodded instead of hydroseeding and irrigated, which would be typical of us to have in our approving resolutions. Ms. Scheel: I have no objections to that. I'm fine with that. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any objections? Ms. Smiley: I have no objection. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Wilshaw. We'll add that. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation. Thank you for coming and improving the City. Mr. Lutz Thank you. ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 397TM SPECIAL MEETING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 397"' Special Meeting held on August4, 2009. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #0939-2009 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 397"' Special Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 4, 2009, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Taylor, Scheel, McDermott, Vartoogian, Wilshaw, Smiley, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Sepkmber 22, 2009 25119 ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 985TM REGULAR MEETING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 985"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 11, 2008. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #09-60-2009 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 985" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 11, 2009, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Smiley, McDermott, Varloogian, Wilshaw, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the mo8on is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 986" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 22, 2009, was adjourned at 7:46 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman