Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-11-28 14511 MINUTES OF THE 715th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 'r.. On Tuesday, November 28, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 715th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with approximately 25 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Daniel Piercecchi Patricia Blomberg Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-1-25 by Oakwood Healthcare System requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to P.O. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating the development of subject area will require on-site detention of the storm water run-off due to the limited capacity of the existing open water course extending southeasterly from the site. They further state they do not believe that the Department of Natural Resources will allow any appreciable alteration of the existing water course which transverses the site. 14512 Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and make whatever comments you feel are appropriate. ` .• David Ippel: I am Vice President for Ambulatory Care and Community Health for Oakwood Healthcare System. Oakwood has been working on this area here, this location, for the last year looking to make sure it met our qualifications for the development of a facility in the community. We have a large commitment to our patients. As you know, the Oakwood Healthcare System up to now has really gone up to the Westland, Plymouth area, and last July of 1994 we took space in the Horizon Medical Building on Eight Mile and Haggerty. We have temporarily located some of our physicians there. We have four family practitioners and an obstetrician. Our intent was to develop a primary care facility, which we plan to locate at this location, for about 15 physicians to practice internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology. Supporting them would be several suites for surgical and medical specialists that basically would be referring physicians for the primary care and the types of ancillary services, the diagnostic mammography ultrasound radiology services, the cardiology we have and the physical therapy types of services that support this type of program. We are looking at the construction of approximately a 50,000 sq. ft. building at this location. As you can see, the 14 acres are quite extensive for that and we felt it would give us plenty of room to develop around the appropriate landscaping so it would lend itself well to what has been done along the parkway. We have talked with Mark Hubbard from the Victor Group and confirmed with him our interest and he is willing to work with us so we can proceed along the Parkway as well. We anticipate we would have about 75 staff located at this facility, 15 physicians as I mentioned before. The facility would be open anywhere between 8 and 12 hours a day depending on the types of specialties, basically the typical office practice, as well as some Saturday hours. We are not planning on Sunday hours, basically a six day a week operation. That is pretty much the details of the program planning. We also have David Miller from Marshall Erdman here, who can speak to specifics of the building design and types of facilities issues which you might have. Mr. LaPine: Could you give me a little background on Oakwood Healthcare System? Who owns it and is it a non-profit organization? Mr. Ippel: The Oakwood Health System is a not-for-profit organization. As a system it is not-for profit. However, it does have some for-profit subsidiaries. Its main business is the delivery of health care and it does that in several ways. It owns and operates hospitals, one in Wayne County and one in Washtenaw County. It also owns a number of 14513 facilities for providing primary care services similar to the one we are providing here, a medical office with direct patient care services provided by family care physicians. In addition, it has an occupational �.. medicine network that encompasses western Wayne, downriver and into Washtenaw County, an occupational medicine network and a rehabilitation service network that covers that same geography, and then as part of its not-for-profit group it has medical buildings and manages and operates pharmacies and operates home health care services and some other programs similar to that. So it is a health care business. Mr. LaPine: So if Oakwood Healthcare Systems, let's just say, had a contract with one of the Big Three auto makers, they would have their employees come to one of these locations for their services? Mr. Ippel: That is correct. The physicians in our group participate in a variety of insurance plans, and we are basic providers for those plans, and those plans are contracted with the auto companies. The only plan we are not significantly involved with is the HAP program, but the Selectcare, Bluecare Network, a lot of those type as well as the traditional Blue Cross programs. We are involved in all of those. Mr. Alanskas: Could you give me roughly between an 8 to 12 hour day, how many people would be coming into this facility? Mr. Ippel: At the most, we are looking at 400. Mr. Alanskas: I am thinking in regards to traffic. We now have Providence there and across the street we have the credit union and then with your facility on Seven Mile Road, I am wondering how much traffic we are going to have. I don't have a feeling as to parking here yet. Do you know how many parking spaces they are going to have John yet? I realize this is only a rezoning petition. Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Ippel: Our commitment with the size and the amount of land we are acquiring would allow us to have adequate parking to meet the existing regulations. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, do I understand this not-for-profit organization, which I don't know what the value of it was, would indicate that the taxable revenue would be 0 to the City for this facility. Is that correct? 14514 Mr. Engebretson: I am not sure how that works. I am aware there are not-for-profit organizations operating within the community that do pay taxes on some or all of their facilities. tir.. Mr. Ippel: Our experience is the same in that there is a certain portion of our buildings that tend to lend themselves to the not-for-profit side and some that lend themselves toward the taxable side. We have not yet, at this point, come up with a total percentage that we feel that we would want to share with Mr. Nagy initially and then with the Council in terms of what that would be. Our experience is yes in our medical office buildings a portion that is not devoted to the ambulatory care is taxable. We don't have an exact number yet. Mr. Piercecchi: You stated sir that you have other facilities that are similar to this. Correct? Mr. Ippel: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi: What is the percentage at those? Mr. Ippel: They vary. Mr. Piercecchi: Let's say this particular building, which is going to be 50,000 sq. ft., what would be the value of this building if it were taxable? What is the ,tka.- value of this property? You have your plans I am sure. You must have some idea of what it cost and what it would be worth. What kind of numbers are we talking about? Mr. Ippel: The total building value is approximately $100 a square foot so we are talking $5,000,000. Mr. Morrow: Did the petitioner furnish anything as it relates to a site plan or an idea? You mentioned someone here could tell us how many stories we are talking about. Right now, essentially what I am looking for is how high is the office going to be as it relates to the surrounding residential area, again realizing this is just a zoning petition. If you would care to share that with us, we would certainly be interested in getting a little bit of insight as to what you intend on doing. Mr. Ippel: Could I ask David Miller to address that? I think he is better able to. David Miller: I am Senior Project Director for Marshall Erdman& Associates, Inc. We are a design/build firm out of Wisconsin that specializes only in the design and development of out-patient facilities such as this. We have over 40 years of experience in this area. We have been retained by 14515 Oakwood to help them in the planning and potentially the design and development of the project. We are anticipating about a 50,000 sq. ft. building. With that size I would assume about a three-story building, Niew the footprints being in an area of 15,000 to 18,000 sq. ft. This particular site interested us for a variety of reasons. Number one, Oakwood desires to have ambulatory care services within communities. It is the direction health care is going to really provide primary care to their patient base on a convenient basis. This location has good visibility being at the intersection of Victor Parkway and Seven Mile. The corner allows for good access to the site itself, which can help alleviate the potential for bottlenecking with auto traffic. You have the lighted intersection at Victor Parkway that allows for easy access to their property for eastbound traffic on Seven Mile Road and with the westbound traffic on Seven Mile either access from Seven Mile itself or, again, turning into Victor Parkway. We haven't gone into a detailed site plan as of yet, and there is a stream or creek that is not shown on this overhead to the extent it runs from about the northwest corner of the property, diagonal almost 45 degrees to the southeast corner. It is our intent to work around that forest. It is a wetland area. We would like to have the building probably situated south of the creek so it would be between Seven Mile and the creek itself, allowing for some parking towards the front of the building as well as towards the rear, which would be utilized more for staff purposes than patients. Again, with utilization of access drives both at Seven Mile and Victor `r.. Parkway, it allows for a good traffic flow onto and off of the site and it eliminates the possibility of everything coming and going at one access point. We have looked at the parking requirements that the City of Livonia has. This site would more than adequately provide for that. Beyond that, we really have not gotten into the design side of the project as of yet. We would be coming back to you with site plan review which would get into that detail. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. You have satisfied me at least at this junction. One of the things I have to consider as an advisory Planning Commissioner is I realize this agrees with the Future Land Use Plan but since that was adopted a lot of office has been left undeveloped in that area. Subsequently we also had a number of health care people move into the area. We mentioned Providence, and the University of Michigan facility where I think you have some temporary offices. St. Mary's has been expanding. We like to have a mix of uses in the community, and if we feel we are well served by office or by health care, we are certainly shrinking in areas where we can build homes. When everything else is served, we like to think it matches some of the homes around there. This is one of the things I have to consider as we go along with this process. 14516 Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy, how does this projected building size compare to the facility across the street, approximately? Mr. Nagy: It is less. Across the street is a four-story building with 68,000 sq. ft. with 17 acres. This is approximately 50,000 sq. ft. with three levels and 14 acres so it is little bit less in size. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposed rezoning change. Colleen Watson: I live on the corner of Bethany and Northland and I have lived there for over a year. I live there with my husband and we have a 3 1/2 month old son. We looked for a house for about 15 months and we finally chose this house instead of going into a subdivision because of it being very private back there. There are lots of trees. It is a quiet neighborhood and at night time it is a dark, country-like setting, and that is what made us buy a house there. Since we have lived there just a short time, not even a year and a half, they have now decided to build a bank on one corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh. They are in the process of putting up the Providence Center, which is a huge building. There are two restaurants that are now over at Victor Parkway, and I believe they are going to construct some more things over there. If this office is built on that corner, I am concerned about if there is going to be any type of a wall that is going to be back there so that these people `41m. that are going to be parking in this parking lot aren't going to have access to our backyards. I am concerned about the noise level. I am also concerned that people are going to cut down Northland and Bethany to get a quicker route into this office complex because many times Seven and Newburgh is very congested, and that is not even with these two things on the corner open yet. I am concerned about being able to get into my own house and not have to be caught in traffic trying to get there. Another thing I am concerned about is if there are going to be lights. Right now the Providence Health Center, I see there are several lights that are going to be on, I am assuming 24 hours a day. I really like the darkness back there and I am concerned if these lights are going to be shining in my house at night. I am also concerned if there is any traffic, it is going to come down our side street. We don't have sidewalks back there. Our children play and ride their bikes in the street. I am very concerned about traffic coming down those roads because I have been there before when I have seen a traffic jam at Seven Mile and Newburgh. People do come down, and there is no outlet off Northland so they have to come down Northland and come down Bethany and I don't want that extra traffic in our neighborhood. That is all I have to say. Thank you very much. 14517 Matt Glover, 37745 Northland: I also own 37793 Northland and my partner owns 37796 Northland. Those are two lots at the end of Northland that we are building homes on currently and I just moved into mine at 37745. In `" the process during the summer building my home, coming to Seven Mile and Newburgh, I can't imagine another building in that area with primary care facilities. The corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh during the rush hours takes 10 to 15 minutes to get through the light. You sit and wait many lights. The other problem, when I did take Seven Mile up the highway I saw in the mornings backups, and at night coming back to the site backups. Besides the fact that we have a number of residents coring the area I guess in the middle there, you have what would be a site with a stream running through it plus a number of other trees and areas like that that I would suspect that the DNR wouldn't allow some of the building that might happen in the area. I am just making a guess at it but another three-story building in the area is going to drop our property values, I can see that for one thing, and I cannot see with the number of people going in and out of there how Victor Parkway is going to have another driveway going to it because I have been to Victor Parkway during lunch time, eating at one of those restaurants there, and there are a number of people coming out of there too. This area seems to be bottlenecked with traffic and I can't imagine another large building being in that area. I am opposed to it and I know the person I am building for on Northland is opposed to it and my partner is also. v`, Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask the petitioner have you looked at acquiring that small 50'x100' parcel that juts into the area under petition here? Mr. Ippel: We are in discussions with that individual at this time. It wasn't essential to the development and that is why we want to proceed without it. Mr. Engebretson: In your vision of what you might do with this property if the zoning change were successful, that wouldn't bother you to have that little section? Mr. Ippel: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: If you indicated it, I missed it. Do you currently own the property or do you have some type of contingency? Mr. Ippel: We do not own it at this time. 14518 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-1-25 closed. `o. Mr. McCann: I would like to make a tabling resolution. I would like to see information provided by the staff to us regarding the number of these type of facilities already present in Livonia, the distribution around the City, and I would like to look at the overall plan for that area in greater detail. We have a new administration coming and a new Council, and I think it would be in the best interest to have time for this to move along. Therefore I am recommending a January 30 date, which is a Regular Meeting. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #11-228-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 28, 1995 on Petition 95-10-1-25 by Oakwood Healthcare System requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to P.O., the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 95-10-1-25 until the Regular Meeting of January 30, 1996. '`ow 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to say to the residents that spoke that I live closer to that intersection at Seven Mile and Newburgh than either one of you. I am very familiar with some of the concerns that you expressed there. I would want to say to you that while it is not appropriate for us to get into the details of discussing the way in which we were to minimize the impact of projects like this on existing neighborhoods during this process, that those concerns that you raised, I recognize as being valid concerns and if this zoning change is successful, you can be sure that when we go through the site plan approval process both at here and at the City Council level that those concerns will be looked into in great detail. So the fact that we didn't respond to the particular issues that you raised here tonight, don't interpret that as our being disinterested and that we did not pay attention to what you had to say. 14519 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-2-29 by `tawD & S Delivery Service requesting waiver use approval for outdoor parking of delivery vehicles on property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and the Fire Marshal stating their offices have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were found. 1. There are currently 3 tenants in this building. When D & S Delivery Service occupies this building, any additional tenants will also require a zoning compliance permit. 2. The plan indicates they have 15 employees. This would require 15 parking spaces in addition to the 8 parking spaces provided for truck parking. Only 8 employee parking spaces are provided. One parking space is required to meet the barrier free requirements. 3. Section 16.11(B)(1) requires that a fence enclose the lot area except for the front yard. The site plan does not indicate that a fence would be provided. 4. The rear *olla, yard is weed infested, has numerous unlicensed vehicles, miscellaneous construction materials and debris. The owner has stated these conditions will be corrected. We have also received a letter from John Gabrys, owner of John's Truck-N-Auto Repair stating their company presently occupies the southwest corner of the premises at 32925 Schoolcraft. They state they are in the process of relocating their business and intend to be completely moved within sixty days. It is their intention to remove all vehicles from the rear of the lot within that time. We have also received a letter from D&S Delivery Service stating: We currently occupy the premises along with Lakewood Parts & Equipment and John's Truck& Auto Repair. Lakewood Parts & Equipment is currently in the process of applying for a zoning compliance permit. John's Truck& Auto Repair will be vacating the premises within sixty days. All vehicles in the rear yard belong to them. These vehicles will be removed within sixty days also. The rear yard is weed infested and due to the inclement weather, it is our intention to have it completely cleaned once winter has ended. We have removed more of the miscellaneous construction materials and debris in the rear yard and will have it completed shortly. We understand there is a 14520 requirement for the rear yard to be fenced. It is in our best interest to accomplish this and it is in our future plans. However, we would like to have this requirement waived at this time. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and add whatever comments you feel are appropriate. Dale Shea, 32925 Schoolcraft: I currently live in Westland. I am President of D & S Delivery Service. To give you a brief history, I started in Livonia 13 years ago with a small vehicle and myself, and have grown. We are currently in Plymouth in the Plymouth Industrial Center. We are there with about 50 other companies. We sought to have our own identity. We have grown in the warehousing and distribution end of it also. The building will fit our needs perfect with a little bit of room to expand. The delivery vehicles, the oldest vehicle is an '94 vehicle which has been completely rebuilt inside and out. The rest of them are all '90 vehicles. They are small trucks ranging in size from 14 foot on up to, we have one tractor/trailer. All the vehicles, to enhance our identify, are all color coordinated. They are all white vehicles. They are lettered professionally. It says D & S Delivery Service on them. They are very well maintained. They are washed by a professional washing company on a bi-weekly basis. Currently, in the back of there, between the City land there and the building, the tenants of the building, John's Truck Repair in particular, is allowed to park in excess of 50 to 60 vehicles **"" there, and he does not have the proper permits. He is relocating out of there. Fifty percent of the vehicles have been removed from the yard. The balance of the vehicles, he is moving them out of there one at a time. I have been in contact with the gentleman on a daily basis. I do believe the people on either side of the parking area there will be quite pleased when that is cleaned up. The weeds have grown around the vehicles that have sat there, and our intention is to clean the weeds up. We will have to wait until springtime to do that. We will probably need that area back there just to turn the vehicles around. I think the people on either side of us will be pleased with seeing a nice fleet of small, uniform, vehicles there rather than what is there now. The other company that is there, Lakewood Auto Parts, occupies the northwest corner of the building, approximately 6400 sq. ft. They have been instructed and already taken action and applied for proper occupancy permits and everything else they need to do, and my company, being a delivery service, will occupy the rest of the building. Mr. LaPine: I was under the impression that you were going to take the whole building. That is not true? There will be one other tenant? 14521 Mr. Shea: There is room for them. The building is a little bit more than we need at this point. I have already spoken with them about maybe hanging on there for six months or a year and help us pay the rent. They do fit in very well with what we are doing. They happen to sell the parts that would fit on our trucks. They don't require anything on the outside. Everything is on the inside, and I thought it would work out nice so we could actually grow into the building. Mr. LaPine: What you are telling me is you are buying the whole parcel and you are going to occupy the complete building except for approximately 6400 sq. ft.? Mr. Shea: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Second question, are all of your deliveries, local deliveries? Mr. Shea: Within a 100 mile radius. Mr. LaPine: In this building, are you going to have storage in there too? Mr. Shea: Correct. Mr. LaPine: What kind of storage, auto parts? Mr. Shea: Indirectly yes. There are a lot of times our customers will require us to pick up different types of freight and if it is on a Friday and not delivered until Monday, we will warehouse it. I also have a couple of other customers who are basically salesmen and they don't have the time to spend handling the warehousing and the delivery end of it and we do it for them. They will actually fax over their releases to us and we will pull their material from stock, load it on our delivery vehicles and deliver it for them. Mr. LaPine: Is there going to be any semi's coming in with merchandise to store in this warehouse? Mr. Shea: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Now often will that happen: Mr. Shea: Right now we currently receive approximately three semi's a week but a lot of times they are only dropping off one or two pallets or a half dozen pallets. Mr. LaPine: Where would they load it, at the rear of the building? 14522 Mr. Shea: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Is there a dock there? We went out to field check it and we couldn't find the building so I am just trying to get some information here. Is there a dock in the rear of the building? Mr. Shea: We submitted plans for your approval to have two truck wells installed in the rear of the building. Mr. LaPine: So basically in the morning you have trucks coming in there picking up merchandise and then they return at night and they leave the trucks there overnight. Is that correct? Mr. Shea: Correct. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, your facility on Eckles, that is not the facility where they store campers and RV units, and popcorn machines for people? Mr. Shea: No, right down the street from them. Mr. Alanskas: You would not be storing that type of things in Livonia? Mr. Shea: No the only thing we would be storing is our own vehicles. Noir Mr. Engebretson: Do you plan on extending that parking lot deeper than it presently exists now, the paved portion? Mr. Shea: No. The section in the back where the weeds are we would like to get that cleaned up and possibly do something with that. If we do intend to put the docks in the back of the building, we would have to pave a little bit of the section on the right there but 3/4th of the lot in back is paved. Mr. Engebretson: It looks like a junkyard, and I understand it is not your doing, and I appreciate the fact that you have made commitments to clean it up. Apparently there has been a lot of improvement made already. There is significant additional improvement to be made, and I am sure your neighbors will welcome your arrival, particularly as you clean the place up and park a uniform fleet of vehicles out there. Would you be able to use the unpaved portion of the parking area back there without paving it with at least rock or gravel or something? Mr. Shea: I believe if I were to clean up the weeds back there and put down some type of gravel, I wouldn't drive my trucks back there. The vehicles that are back there and have been back there, look like they have been there 14523 for a long time, and who knows what is stuck down in the ground back there. At this time, no, but if we got that all cleaned up, I wouldn't mind looking into that possibility. Mr. Engebretson: There are some interesting piles of materials back there, and I would hope you wouldn't wait until spring to deal with those. Mr. Shea: We have already gotten rid of some this weekend. Mr. Engebretson: Since Monday? Mr. Shea: I think if you went and looked at it you would notice a big difference. Mr. Engebretson: The last question is what exactly do you deliver? Mr. Shea: I believe in this town everything is automotive related either directly or indirectly but we are basically a same-day delivery service from Point A to Point B. If you had some documents, or small packages or a pallet of basic material, we would have the capabilities of getting it over to say Warren, Michigan on the same-day type of basis. Mr. Engebretson: But in general you would go to a client's facility and put their material in your vehicle and take it to the point of delivery, not necessarily come through your facility? `r.., Mr. Shea: Correct. The stuff that comes through our facility is probably only about 10%. Mr. Piercecchi: There seems to be one area where you were short. Do you plan on addressing the parking? Mr. Shane: They submitted a revised plan. They now meet the ordinance. Mr. Piercecchi: The petitioner requested the waiving of the fence enclosure. That can only be done sir by the Zoning Board of Appeals. This body cannot do that. Mr. Shea: The fence issue was actually raised a year ago when I initially looked at the property. My biggest concern was the City land in the back. The first thing I noticed was a couple of motor bike trails coming in and out of there, and I was concerned about that. It is definitely something we would like to do. I don't think financially we would be capable of doing that at this point but I will sleep better when we get that fence up. 14524 Mr. Morrow: That is where I was coming from when you said he wanted to get the fence waived. I perceive that you want to get it delayed as opposed to waived. Is that what you are telling us? `, Mr. Shea: Yes we have run into a couple of things. The dock is our main concern at this point and once we get all our ducks in a row, that will definitely fall in and become a priority for us. I just can't say when that will be. Mr. Morrow: I guess what I want to do is pursue that a little bit to find out from the Chairman and the staff if there is any way through our resolution that the fence is not waived but delayed within a certain time frame? It would be okayed by the petitioner as well as meeting our time frame. Is that possible without going through the waiver procedure? Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Ordinance allows a two-year requirement to pave the parking lot, and I think the fence would be an appropriate condition of paving the parking lot. That can be extended no more than two years. Mr. Morrow: Would that meet the petitioner's time frame if you are going to be required to improve the parking? Mr. Shea: I believe that would work. Mr. Morrow: In that way you don't have to go through the waiver procedure. You just have to incorporate it within a two-year time frame. Mr. Shea: I wasn't aware of the paving the parking lot requirement. Mr. Morrow: John, you might want to elaborate on that. Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Ordinance does require that the parking lot be hard surfaced with either concrete or a bituminous material within a two- year period. Mr. Morrow: Is that the entire rear yard? Mr. Nagy: The actual area used for parking of vehicles. Mr. Shea: That is all cement. Mr. Morrow: So that is not a problem Mr. Shea: The area we have on our plan where we are going to park our vehicles is cement. 14525 Mr. Morrow: So it is approved and you meet the parking requirement. Mr. Shea: Once we get our docks installed, it would be feasible at that point to 'taw move the fence into priority. Mr. Morrow: So we don't have to waive it. We can put it within a two-year period? Mr. Shea: Three would be nicer. Mr. Morrow: I think we are only allowed two. Mr. Shea: I can work with two. Mr. Engebretson: As your business prospers you will need more parking back there and you will need to put some more pavement down. Mr. LaPine: I think you indicated there is a motor bike trail back there, so you would probably want to get the fence up to keep them off of your property because you don't know what might happen to your vehicles. Mr. Shea: Correct. Mr. LaPine: I understand you have priorities right now. The dock is probably the most important thing right now. I think a two-year period you can 't,`, handle it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-2-29 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #11-229-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 28, 1995 on Petition 95-10-2-29 by D & S Delivery Service requesting waiver use approval for outdoor parking of delivery vehicles on property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-10-2-29 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 received on 10-23-95 prepared by David L. Mielock Associates Inc., Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and 14526 2) That the site shall be free of weeds, unlicensed vehicles, and miscellaneous construction materials and debris as described in a letter dated October 31, 1995 from the Inspection Department prior `ft. to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3) That within two years from the date of this approval a fence shall be erected as required by Section 16.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards as set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. 'ti.. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-2-30 by Jean G. Newell requesting waiver use approval to operate a dance studio within an existing building located on the west side of Farmington Road between Roycroft and Rayburn in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their department has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal stating their offices have no objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were noted: 1. Parking area needs minor repair and re-striping. 2. Barrier free guidelines dictate that at least one barrier free parking space be provided with ramped access to the building's sidewalk. 14527 Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us why you are making this request. Jean Newell, 35904 Lyndon: I have been a resident of Livonia for 34 years. I have also taught dancing in Livonia for 34 years. We are the permanent resident ballet company for the City of Livonia, which was given to us by Mayor Bennett, and we want to move to a different locale. That is all I can tell you unless you have some questions you want to ask me. Mr. Alanskas: What is the maximum number of children or students you have at one time? Ms. Newell: We value ourselves that we cater to a very small select clientele. Our classes never exceed 10 to 12 in a class. Most of the children are dropped off and picked up. Mr. Alanskas: How many classes do you have going at one time? Ms. Newell: We will probably have two studios but one will probably be for private classes and the other would for a regular class. Mostly our classes at this time, we are running mostly 8 in a class because we believe in individual attention and this is the reason. If you wish to learn to dance, you come to us. If you want to have fun, you go elsewhere. Mr. Alanskas: Do they dance to music or records? Ms. Newell: We dance to music, records. Mr. Alanskas: How is the noise level? Ms. Newell: We keep our ballet music at a very easy level. As a matter of fact, where we are now, we have no complaints at all. Mr. Morrow: I guess where we are coming from, do you perceive any type of a parking problem on that site? Do you feel you can comfortably handle the parking? Ms. Newell: Yes I think we can comfortably do that because there is the hearing aid company that is next door to us. They will be leaving when we are coming in. We don't start until 4:00 - 4:30 in the afternoon. They close at 5:00. There are two teachers that will be teaching at the same time. We overlap each other so that one is usually leaving when one is coming in. As I said, most of the children are dropped off except for our little babies, and then we only take six babies at a time because that is all we can handle, three year olds. 14528 Mr. Morrow: Do you own the building? Ms. Newell: No I don't. I rent it. Mr. Morrow: This doesn't really pertain to you but it is more on the subject of parking, the restriping of that parking lot. Ms. Newell: My landlord said she is willing to take care of anything that has to be done on the outside. Mr. Morrow: We would like to see some patching and some striping because we do anticipate a little bit of traffic and parking problems so it is a little better to have it so we maximize the site. Ms. Newell: My landlord said she would take care of all the outside work that had to be done. We are taking care of the inside. Mr. Morrow: Just one other thing, if you would just mention that we would like to have it double striped and meet the ordinance, which is 10'x20' double striped. Ms. Newell: All right, I will tell her. No problem. — Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Morrow really covered the two areas I wanted to bring up, the double stripping and the improvement of the parking lot. Bob mentioned something about the noise. There is a wall directly behind that building. I think the noise is the least of our worries, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if we can put it in the motion, inasmuch as the petitioner does not own this particular building, reference to the parking lot and the striping. Mr. Engebretson: Yes I think we can. Mr. LaPine: John, did I understand you to say there has to be one barrier-free space plus there has to be a ramp so that would be the landlord that would be required to do that? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Ms. Newell: Would the ramp also have to go to the hearing aid building as well? Mr. Nagy: The ramp would access either of the doors that would be available to that building. 14529 Mr. LaPine: We realize you might not need it but it is required under the ordinance. Ms. Newell: All right. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-2-30 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #11-230-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-10-2- 30 by Jean G. Newell requesting waiver use approval to operate a dance studio within an existing building located on the west side of Farmington Road between Roycroft and Rayburn in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-10-2-30 be approved subject to a limitation on the number of students permitted in the building at any one time of not to exceed 20 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; �., 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 4) That the proposed use will operate primarily in the evening hours which will insure that the site will not be overburdened with traffic. and subject to the following condition: 1) That the parking lot shall be repaved and restriped adding one barrier free parking space and a ramped access to the building's sidewalk shall be constructed before an Occupancy Permit is issued. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 14530 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-3-3 by St. Maurice Catholic Church requesting to vacate a portion of the Lyndon Avenue right-of-way located between Brookfield and Loveland Avenues in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating there are no City maintained utilities within the area to be vacated therefore their office has no objections to this vacating petition. We have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they have no facilities on the south side of Lyndon Avenue at the location of the proposed vacation therefore they have no objection to the proposal by St. Maurice Catholic Church. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Father John Maierle: I am Pastor of St. Maurice Parish. Our parish, like many of the Catholic parishes in Livonia, has continued to grow in the community since its establishment in the early '60s and the parish has been considering the renovation of its current worship space for the last two years and feels that a new worship space on the north side of the existing building is our best option. In order to maximize the use of that existing building and keep the new worship space within the City's 50 foot setback, we are requesting the right-of-way parallel to the existing Lyndon Avenue. Mr. Engebretson: I am happy to tell you that the growth that you are enjoying seems to be something universal in all faiths in Livonia these days. We have seen a lot of activity with expansion of churches. We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-3-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #11-231-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 28, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-10-3-3 by St. Maurice Catholic Church requesting to vacate a portion of the Lyndon Avenue right-of-way located between Brookfield and Loveland Avenues in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, the City Planning Commission does hereby r.. 14531 recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-10-3-3 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed vacating will provide for the private use of the subject property; and 2) That the subject property is no longer needed for public access purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-10-3-4 by Richard Blumenstein, Dover Development, requesting to vacate a portion of a 12' easement located on Lot 13, Paragon Technology Park Subdivision, located on Glendale Avenue, north of the CSX Railroad and west of Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. N`"'' Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating there are no City maintained utilities within the subject easement area and therefore their office has no objections to the vacating petition. We have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they have no facilities and has no plan to install facilities in the existing 12' private utility easement therefore they have no objection to the easement being vacated in part or whole and release any rights they may have. We also have received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the proposed vacation as they have no equipment involved. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here. Richard Blumenstein: I am with Dover Development. Paragon Technology Park is a light industrial subdivision that was developed by my father about 10-15 years ago. It is part of a 130,000-foot light industrial building program that we embarked upon this summer. We were trying to put a building on lot 13 and in the site planning process what we discovered was that there was this unused easement which was uncharacteristically not running along the property line. We then contacted all of the utilities and the City Engineering Department and determined that this 14532 easement was really an anomaly and nobody had any use for it nor did they figure out why it was placed on the property where it was. So I got the letters Mr. Nagy read to you indicating everyone would be willing to vacate or to move the easement if that would be necessary. Mr. Engebretson: It probably seemed like a good idea at the time. I am referring to the fact that the easement exists. It probably occurred to someone that it might make sense. Mr. Blumenstein: Actually the Detroit Edison engineer thought at one time they were thinking of looping the power within that subdivision but at this time he looked at it and determined there was no need to do so. Mr. Engebretson: It appears that it is not needed by any utilities. Mr. Blumenstein: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: Immediately to the north is a similar type of easement. Mr. Blumenstein: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Did you also pursue that information? Does that fall in the same category as the one on the site that you want to develop? �,,.. Mr. Blumenstein: No those easements are actually in use or planned to be used. Mr. Morrow: So you did look into it? Mr. Blumenstein: Correct because there are either existing electrical or telephone utilities there or they might need to be used for future use. Mr. Morrow: So in this particular case the parcel to the south, it did make sense to put easements in that area? Mr. Blumenstein: You mean lot 12? Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. Blumenstein: Actually what happened the way that lot 12 is laid out because it is a wider parcel, the developer of that parcel was able to put an efficient building on the parcel without interfering with the easement so he really didn't have cause to address it. 14533 Mr. Morrow: My thing was if it is not being used, perhaps on our own motion we could get rid of that easement if it is not needed. That is where I am coming from. New Mr. Blumenstein: I believe the utilities will look at that in the same way they looked at the one on lot 13. Mr. Morrow: That is what I wanted to know. So we will pursue that at a different time if we think it is productive to get that easement off there if it is not a benefit to anybody. Mr. Blumenstein: If need be, I could also contact the same people and have them look at that issue and send letters. Mr. Morrow: We will be in touch with the staff and we will see where we will go from here. That is what I wanted to find out. Mr. Blumenstein: As it happens, I was in contact with that developer and we discussed it and because his building was already in, we decided just to leave it alone, but you are right it really does serve no purpose. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-10-3-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #11-232-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning on November 28, 1995 on Petition 95-10-3-4 by Richard Blumenstein, Dover Development, requesting to vacate a portion of a 12' easement located on Lot 13, Paragon Technology Park Subdivision, located on Glendale Avenue, north of the CSX Railroad and west of Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-10-3-4 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject area is no longer needed to serve any public purpose or to protect any public utilities; and 2) That the subject property can better be utilized for private building purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. 14534 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for Parkside Estates Subdivision (revised and expanded) proposed to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Department of Parks and Recreation stating at this time they find no discrepancies or problems with this plan as submitted. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal and Traffic Bureau stating they have no objection to this plan. Also in our file is a letter from the Engineering Department stating the following comments are offered relative to this proposal. 1. A passing lane will be required on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail opposite the proposed street intersection. The City of Westland will become involved in the review of the proposed intersection as well as the above passing lane. 2. The storm sewer outlet for the site will be the Middle Rouge River within the Hines Park area north of the subdivision. This outlet will require the approval of the Wayne County. The above agency may require that an on-site sedimentation/detention pond be constructed. ``► 3. The proposed street name of"Parkside Court" should be reviewed by the Public Safety Department as it relates to any ambiguity with other street names in the City. 4. A water main loop will be required to interconnect the two existing dead-end water mains in Ann Arbor Trail adjacent to the proposed subdivision. They finish by saying their office has no objections to the proposed plat subject to the above comments. Mr. Engebretson: I see Mr. Soave in the audience. Would you like to come forward. Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What we propose is a 31 lot subdivision. It would consist of concrete roads and sidewalks. The homes would be three and four bedroom homes. They would range in price from $175,000 to $200,000. I will answer your questions. Mr. Engebretson: How wide will the streets be Mr. Soave? Mr. Soave: 60 feet. Mr. Engebretson: How wide will the entrance be? Mr. Soave: Ninety foot radius. Is that right John? 14535 Mr. Nagy: Ninety foot at the right-of-way line of Ann Arbor Trail to provide a small boulevard section, an entry island to divide the traffic at the `4141. entrance and that will be where they will place the subdivision entrance marker as well, then it will taper down to the standard 60 foot requirement for interior streets. Mr. Engebretson: Then will that eliminate any concern about a single point of ingress and egress for this area? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: What did Mr. Clark's comment relative to a passing lane on the Westland side of the road, what were they addressing there? Wouldn't it make sense that the passing lane be on this side? Mr. Nagy: I think what they are saying is that, it is a two lane road, and eastbound traffic on Ann Arbor Trail as it stops to make the left hand turn into the site would likely block other traffic behind it because it is one lane. In order to allow that traffic to bypass around that car waiting to make the left hand turn into the proposed subdivision, we should provide for this passing lane so they can continue on in an easterly direction and that occurs within the Westland side. `,, Mr. Engebretson: The entrance appears to be right at the point where the two cities come together and would it be your impression John there is room there to accommodate that passing lane? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have the full right-of-way in front of this site and even though we don't have the full 60 feet on the Westland side, there is sufficient to add 12 feet for a passing lane. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval for Parkside Estates closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #11-233-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on November 28, 1995 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Parkside Estates Subdivision (revised and expanded) proposed to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the 14536 Preliminary Plat for Parkside Estates Subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions: rr.. 1) That a landscape plan for the greenbelt easement to be provided on lots 1 and 31 and an entrance marker plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to approval of the Final Plat. for the following reasons: 1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all of the applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations; 2) That no objection to approval of the Preliminary Plat have been received from any City Department; and 3) That the Preliminary Plat represents a good land use solution to the development of the subject property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice fo the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire *ow Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Soave: My option on the property is running out. I was wondering if it was possible to get the 7-day waiting period waived so I can get in front of City Council. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #11-234-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with the Preliminary Plat approval for Parkside Estates Subdivision(revised and expanded) proposed to be located north of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33. 14537 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. n,. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a condition of Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in connection with the construction of a single family cluster development located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled at our last regular meeting. Technically I need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #11-235-95 RESOLVED that, the request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a condition of Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in connection with the construction of a single family cluster development located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, be taken from the table. *,`, Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Jeffrey Kaftan: I am with Kaftan Enterprises. We own the parcel at 29540 Six Mile Road, known as Brookview Park, a/k/a Mathieu's Acres. I am here tonight to discuss the requirement in our site condominium which requires 50% coverage of face brick on the elevations. I am with Kaftan Enterprises as I mentioned. We have been in business for 25 years, which I discussed with you last week. We built subdivisions and developments for those years in the southeastern Michigan area, and we are trying to do the same on Six Mile Road. My reasons, which I will reiterate to you this week, for wanting to waiver this requirement or a partial waiver of this requirement, is number one, I hope you have had a chance to see the site and to see our other subdivision we have done. On the Six Mile site to the east of us is a commercial building. We believe our site is compatible with the surrounding area and harmonious with the surrounding areas which we think is important to the City of Livonia. Like I said to the east of us is a commercial building. To the south of us is four-lane Six Mile Road and just south 14538 of that is a strip shopping center, a church, and a commercial office building. To the west of us, the first 200 feet is a residential house, and north of that the remaining 400 feet is property owned by the church, Nom, which they plan on using for future expansion, and to the north of us is Mr. Garish's Oakcrest Villas, which is a new subdivision that has been developed but not yet built. In their subdivision they are not required to put any brick on the houses although I think they are offering it as an option, which we would be more than willing to do. About a mile south of us is Bayberry Park, another site condominium. They are just finishing up. They are in a residential area. They were required to put brick on the front and anywhere from one foot to three feet along the sides and rear of the house. To the north of us is Fargo Woods, a residential development on Merriman, which they are only required to put brick on the front of the house. Another reason for requesting this waiver is we believe we should leave it up to the homeowners where they would like to spend their money. Instead of putting it into brick they might want to put it into landscaping, sprinklers or maybe into the interior of their house. In addition, we feel one of the reasons for requiring brick is to make a more attractive product and we offer many different elevations. Our site, Heritage Village in Farmington Hills, these will be the same houses, but we offer many different elevations we think we can achieve that same attractive, homey type feel without putting brick along the whole 50% of the house. In addition, some people may, instead of having brick, want something like fieldstone or cedar shakes or dryvet, or something other than brick. So we feel we would like to leave the option up to the homeowner and if they want to spend the money on brick, we would be more than happy to go along with that. (He presented elevations) If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. Mr. Alanskas: What would it cost you to develop it if you put 50%brick on all three sides? Mr. Kaftan: Approximately $3,000 more. Mr. Alanskas: I went up and saw your site in Farmington Hills and they look very nice but there is so much wave in it that it didn't look that good. Your pictures look wonderful but when you go and see it in person, it is a little different aspect. There is hardly any brick at all. Number two, the surrounding area, most of the homes in the area are all brick and the complex behind it, the apartment building, that is all brick. It is all brick. So for the area, most of it is homes with at least 50% or more brick on all sides of the homes. I can't understand what you are talking about when you say there are a lot of pieces there that are not brick. What areas are you actually talking about? 14539 Mr. Kaftan: What I am referring to is to the north of us there is a new subdivision and there is no requirement to put brick on the house. Mr. Alanskas: John, did we approve a subdivision without any brick at all? Mr. Nagy: We approve subdivisions but we don't get into any actual houses rarely. For instance Parkside Estates, which you just had, we talked about lot size, road patterns, etc. Other than generally the sizes and the value of the houses we don't generally get into the brick in a traditional platted subdivision. We do in cluster. We do with site condominiums because we are dealing more with the environment, but with traditional subdivisions we haven't gotten into the design. Mr. Engebretson: Although there certainly are exceptions to that. I know in a number of instances, including very recently, we discussed composition of the homes, brick versus siding at Seven Mile and Newburgh, those major subdivisions there. They didn't propose to come in with anything less than what we were looking for but it certainly was discussed. Maybe not a condition of approval but it was discussed. Mr. LaPine: Sir, I don't really understand what you are fighting this so hard for, for $3,000. You say your houses are going to sell for $155,000. So they are going to sell for $158,000. Have you ever built any houses in ,,41. Livonia before? Mr. Kaftan: No. Mr. LaPine: I can guarantee you are going to sell all of your houses in Livonia with brick on them for $158,000. I have yet to know of any subdivision in the City of Livonia that hasn't sold. When you bought the property, did you know there was a requirement of 50% brick? Mr. Kaftan: I didn't but that is not your concern. Mr. LaPine: Because I don't really think you would have any problem selling homes at $158,000. Secondly, I was out looking at your Heritage Village, and if I had my druthers to have this house or a house with brick, I would take the brick house. These houses here are very nice houses. I like your designs but I think it would look a lot nicer, in my estimation, with the brick on in. If someone comes in and they want fieldstone instead of brick, I would have no objection to that, but I don't think we are being unreasonable to ask you for 50% brick. I don't think that is an unreasonable request. 14540 Mr. Kaftan: Where I am coming from, I would be willing to a partial waiver, something of that nature, where we would have brick on the front and sides. On the rear, we are fronting a commercial building. A fence is ww going to be put up there and there really isn't that much of a benefit putting brick on the rear of the house. Mr. LaPine: The homeowner is going to live there after you are gone. I look at that a little differently. I just think you are making a big issue out of something. If you were telling me it was going to cost $10,000 for a home to put on brick, then I might say you have a legitimate argument, but I don't think $3,000, and that is what I estimated when we went out a looked at it. I said we are probably only talking about $3,000 to $4,000 to put brick on these homes because you are saving the cost of the aluminum siding. One will offset the other. If you are worried that you are not going to sell these houses, believe me you will sell these houses. Mr. Kaftan: We try to come in with an affordable product. Mr. LaPine: You probably, at $158,000, you are probably the cheapest one in town. We have houses going up here starting at $250,000, two hundred and some homes. I don't think you are going to have one problem selling these homes. ,,` Mr. Morrow: Would you explain to me, you mentioned a fence or a barrier, I was at the site and I don't recall how your development was put together. Do we have any type of illustration John? (Mr. Miller presented the site plan) Mr. Morrow: You mentioned a fence. How high is that fence. Is it where you abut the commercial property? Mr. Kaftan: That is actually an interesting question. There is a six foot fence starting right here and going the full length of the property. The commercial building, which was built in 1987 was required to put a fence in there and they received a waiver until 1991 and then received an additional waiver until 1998 so actually we are in discussions with them now about putting a fence up so it is not quite finalized yet. They plan to put a fence in. Mr. Morrow: What may or may not happen, I guess I can't be governed by that. I might have been amenable to having three sides brick and leaving the rear side not bricked because of the landscaping and the fence but 14541 because we are not sure what is going to happen there, I will drop that particular thought. ti"" Mr. Kaftan: A fence will go up there one way or another. I can assure you of that. Mr. Morrow: So you have a fence there that you just told me you are not sure if it is going to go up or not. Mr. Nagy: I think he used the word fence and it should be wall. Commercial buildings in an office district, under the operation of the zoning ordinance where you have office zoning abutting single family residential, you shall have a protective screen wall. That was a requirement back when it was built in '87 and there was a temporary variance granted and it was up for renewal and the Zoning Board granted an extension of that. I believe now, when it is revisited in the coming years, due to the fact that this property is now planned and deeded out for single family residential purposes, the Zoning Board will now conclude that a wall is now required. He is saying that in the event the unlikely thing would happen that the Zoning Board would still waive that wall, then he would go ahead and build that fence as part of the site plan. Mr. Morrow: So as one commissioner, if you dropped that wall, that would be about 38% assuming you were looking for 25% when we had three walls, I don't know if I would get any support from my fellow commissioners but with that wall abutting the commercial, I am amenable, at least as one commissioner, to having three sides brick and certainly not just the one wall. Mr. Piercecchi: The petitioner here did say he would like the front, perhaps, and two sides. Sir, you are kind of Mickey-Mousing that. If four sides would be $3,000, you are looking at $750 for that rear, right? Mr. Kaftan: Actually I was just requesting it for the front. Mr. Piercecchi: You said the front and two sides. I initially thought that we could go along with the three sides but I too sir, I can't see for a few dollars and the adjoining neighborhood that we should grant this waiver. Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to continue to batter you here but I do want to make the point that clearly the brick produces the better product. There is no question about it. Brick walls don't wave like aluminum siding can. As Mr. LaPine said if it is going to cost you an extra $3,000. That adds probably 1 1/2% to the cost of the home and it is highly unlike that is going to be a deal breaker, not that we are experts in real estate, `.. 14542 perhaps you are, but we have seen homes of this size in this environment constructed in Livonia and sold out with all the amenities, with the brick and with the landscaping, etc. So if this request were denied, I don't think we are hurting you in any way. I think we are possibly in the long run helping you to have a better product that is going to be more appealing and, as Mr. LaPine said, you build it and go. The people that buy it look at it forever, and the extra $1,000 or $2,000, whatever it is, net to make it a really quality product, I think that serves the customer, the City and yourself better by putting together a product that no one can go back and look at and be critical of, as you have heard some criticism of what you built in Farmington Hills, although I must say from a distance it is really a very magnificent site. I think your elevations are very nice. I think you are going to have a real hot piece of property here, and the sales are going to go in Livonia whether it is 90%brick, 75% brick or 50% brick. Please don't get the impression that we are not willing to cooperate with you but again for a 1% or 1 1/2% incremental cost to make an end product truly finished, as compared to one that might even look ticky-tacky, to save that 1% cost,just doesn't seem to make business sense, particularly from the point of view of the people that are going to live there. They may be sitting on their patio and if they are looking at wavy aluminum siding versus a brick siding that adjoins their patio, I think they are going to be happier with you in the short and long run if it is brick. The idea here is not to make it difficult to do business in 'to . Livonia. We want you to be successful. This will be a better product than you had in Farmington Hills. This is the one you will send other Planning Commissions to as a point of reference as to the type of work you do. Mr. Kaftan: I just want to say in defense of the product I have in Heritage Village, there are approximately 45 homeowners in there and they are very happy with the product. I haven't heard too many complaints about it. Mr. Engebretson: I am glad you brought that up because there is no intent here to indicate that you have done less than a reputable job here. It is just that you can't do the same kind of work with those kinds of products that you can with brick. I don't find any fault at all with what you have done there. I look at my own home, on the second story, and I can see some things up there that I don't like, but the bricks are right in line. Every single one of them. In fact, I think we have beaten it to death. Don't view this as being antagonistic toward you. I think you have done a wonderful job here. Mr. McCann: The reason for any requirement at all by the Planning Commission is because I believe there is a five foot discrepancy in the easement so it 14543 could not be an R-1 subdivision. It had to be a site condo. Is that correct John? Nor. Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. McCann: That is why, because of the five foot requirement, we said there were certain improvements we had to make. I believe in brick. I think it does add attractiveness to homes. There are many developments in Livonia that do not have it. One I can think of is the Pulte Home development where Lincoln School used to be. Those are $200,000 homes. I don't know of any of them that have any brick. I know there are homes in my subdivision that have recently sold in excess of $200,000 that are not brick, depending on the style of the home. There are a number of communities in Livonia that are developments where they are not brick. I believe, especially when you have a little closer conditions like these, although the separation of the homes is normal, brick would help. What I would like to do is make a motion that would give him 50% on the front and 50% on the sides and allow him to leave the back free, or a combination of that. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a condition of Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in `r.y connection with the construction of a single family cluster development located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the request by Kaftan Enterprises, in a letter dated November 9, 1995 for the modification of the requirement of 50% brick, as stated in the approval resolution of Petition 94-5-2-14, is hereby amended so as to read as follows: That the front and side elevations shall have at least 25% coverage by full face brick material or a combination thereof. Mr. Piercecchi: I think we are missing the point here when we start playing games. The original plan that was put into place was to give a very attractive house, half way up all the way around. To go 100% in front and ignore the sides, is not to get what we really wanted. I would like to offer a substitute motion as follows: 1) That the petitioner has failed to justify the need of the proposed modification of the condition of 50% brick, as stated in the approving resolution of Petition 94-5-2-14; 14544 2) That by approving this request, the City would be setting an undesirable precedent for future development in the immediate area, as well as, the City as a whole; 3) That the request would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the neighborhood and could jeopardize the property values in the area. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine it was #11-236-95 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a substitute resolution in place of the pending resolution in connection with the request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a condition of Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in connection with the construction of a single family cluster development located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: Blomberg, McCann, Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson: The ayes have it and the motion to substitute is adopted. Now we will vote on the motion to deny. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #11-237-95 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request by Kaftan Enterprises to modify a condition of Petition 94-5-2-14, which received waiver use approval in connection with the construction of a single family cluster development located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to justify the need of the proposed modification of the condition of 50%brick, as stated in the approving resolution of Petition 94-5-2-14; 2) That by approving this request, the City would be setting an undesirable precedent for future development in the immediate area, as well as, the City as a whole; 14545 3) That the request would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the neighborhood and could jeopardize the property values in the area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Morrow, LaPine, Alanskas, Engebretson NAYS: Blomberg, McCann ABSENT: None Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a request by The Ivanhoe Companies to change the name of the Caliburn Estates Subdivision No. 2 which is to be located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Please come forward and tell us your reasons for this request. Craig Menuck, Curtis Building Company, 29992 Northwestern Hwy., Suite A, Farmington Hills: Our company is Curtis Building Company, and we have been active in the Livonia community for a number of years with `v..r brief absences. Our new partner is Ivanhoe Companies. I believe they sent a letter on our behalf to request a name change of Caliburn Estates, which is on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road. The new name is to be Woodbury Park. We will be co-building with Ivanhoe Companies the same product alternating sales. If you have seen any of our past developments, I think you will be pleased with the precedent that we have set in Livonia. Mr. Engebretson: This is the subdivision I was referring to. My recollection is there is nothing less than 50%brick anywhere in this subdivision. Mr. Menuck: Yes it is not considered an affordable subdivision with respect to others. It is in the upper scale for Livonia. It is a different product altogether. Mr. Morrow: There was some talk last week with the other gentleman, and I don't know if it impacts this site, but he is going to set the standard through the subdivision to the south as far as the name would be and the entrance marker. 14546 Mr. Menuck: I believe that will be Phase II. We have no problem with that. Mr. Engebretson: I think we discussed some ways we could make that all happen. *.. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #11-238-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request by The Ivanhoe Companies to change the name of the Caliburn Estates Subdivision No 2 which is to be located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the name change of the subdivision recorded as Caliburn Estates No. 2 is hereby approved and shall now be known as "Woodbury Park" for marketing purposes only; 2) That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet 1 & 2 dated 11/3/95 and 11/10/95 respectively, prepared by Great Oaks Landscaping, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, as described on the approved Landscape 'or. Plans, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the Landscape Plan as approved for the greenbelt for the subdivision known as Woodbury Park shall equally apply for Caliburn Estates No. 3 Subdivision and this approval shall supersede the approval as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution#10-213-95; 5) That any entrance markers proposed for the subdivision known as Caliburn Estates No. 3 shall come back before the Planning Commission for their review and approval. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#482-94, to hold a public hearing on the question of whether the City-owned property located ti.. 14547 west of Middlebelt, between Five Mile and Puritan, should be rezoned from PL and RUF to NP. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, could you give us a brief comment as to what this proposal is, realizing all they are doing is setting a public hearing, but in the interest of keeping people informed. Mr. Nagy: The purpose for this is the Planning Commission has determined to initiate on its own motion a zoning change to consider changing the existing zoning on this park land from the Public Lands classification to a more restrictive park usage, that of Nature Preserve, and to in addition to that incorporate the new lands that the City got in exchange for some other lands that makes it part of the park, to make it all come under one uniform zoning classification, Nature Preserve, to protect the existing trees and foliage that already occurs on that property. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, that was a one-on-one exchange wasn't it so there was nothing gained or lost by this? It just preserves the intent of the original layout? Mr. Engebretson: To a different configuration with open space adjacent to some single family homes in the area. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously r.. approved, it was #11-239-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#482-94, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone the City-owned property located west of Middlebelt, between Five Mile and Puritan from PL and RUF to NP. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 fo Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 714th Regular Meeting held on November 14, 1995. 14548 On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #11-240-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 714th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on November 14, 1995 are hereby approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-11-8-26 by Motor City Truck requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot and vehicle display area on property located at 39300 Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Miller: This is the Motor City Truck facility. It is located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road east of Eckles and west of I-96 expressway. They are proposing to construct a vehicle display in the parking area to the west of their property. This will provide the existing facility with 45 more parking spaces. They will be able to access the site by a drive off the existing site and also a drive off Eckles Road. The parking spaces are at various widths because of the truck sizes. They are also proposing to construct a greenbelt, 20 foot wide, along the south property line of this parking lot. That will help buffer this lot from the ...► existing residential house to the south. Mr. Engebretson: Did the petitioner give us any change to the plan to deal with the height of those light standards? Mr. Miller: No he hasn't. On the existing plan there is a note that says the light fixtures will be mounted on a minimal 26-foot high pole. I mentioned to the petitioner and I put it in the condition that it is only 20 foot. Mr. Engebretson: I just wondered if that had been addressed voluntarily. If the petitioner is here, would you please come forward and tell us your reasons for this request. Bill Peters: I am General Manager of Motor City Truck. As I indicated to you last week at the study session, we are looking to expand into that piece of property because the whole piece was bought at the same time by Ford Land Development and as a start up we only needed a portion of it, and as time has gone by and business has grown, we now need that additional space to park and display vehicles. It is our intent to do the same thing with that additional piece of property that we are doing with the current piece of property. It will be paved and there will be 14549 vehicles parked there. To answer your question about the lights, we did have a note on there that the light height is not a critical factor in our overall plan. If you are saying it has to be 20 feet or 18 feet, we Sow will make it that. That is not an issue with us. Obviously we would like to have the lights up higher than a truck, which is 13 1/2 feet, but beyond that, whether it is 15 or 20, is not an issue. There is some correspondence on the issue and it concerns the right-of-way that is required there. That road is a dirt road. It is in poor condition. It is not our intent to use it. Eckles Road is the main entrance or exit to that property, and for security, if for no other reason, we intend to continue to use the entrance as it exists, and that exit to Eckles would be an emergency type of thing. If you had a truck blocking the drive or something that couldn't be moved, it would allow us to eliminate vehicles or move vehicles off that property through that side gate. I had some conversations earlier this afternoon with Gary Clark and Allen Dickinson from the county, who I guess is his counterpart in the county, and we talked about the 60 foot width they are requiring at the corner, and we came to an agreement through that conversation that they wouldn't require 60 feet back there since it is a dead end road. It is really no more than a long driveway for two or three people. When you get done here I think you are going to end up with three parcels on one side of the road and three on the other side of that road. So they agreed. The print they gave me shows 33 feet, 66 feet across the street and 33 feet in the center line. We agreed on 43 feet amongst us, which 'r.► means we then would have to move our fence on the westerly side of our property back in another ten feet, which doesn't really affect what we do. The other item that was discussed is, if in fact we are going to use Eckles Road so infrequently, the county planner inasmuch said you really shouldn't have to go through a formal driveway request. All you are going to do is just move trucks on occasions out there. You could just use the existing fence and put a gate on it to accommodate those emergency situations. Those changes would have to be required to the existing plan as we presented it. Aside from that, I don't see there is a whole lot to change. We did agree in essence to give up that 10 feet to the county or city, whoever ends up getting that re-deeded to them. The problem there is that is owned by the Ford Motor Company, so it is more difficult. We will do that. I have already made a phone call to be presented to Ford's management to give up that 10 feet. They are not seeing a problem, but it is not done yet either. Mr. Alanskas: On the west side of the property you have a brick wall that goes like five feet and then down to three feet. Was that put up by Ford or the property owners? 14550 Mr. Peters: That would be one and the same. The property owner in this case is the Ford Motor Company. ',t" Mr. Alanskas: For the home? Mr. Peters: The home is a rental piece of property, which is sometimes rented and sometimes not. Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to continue that wall or are you going to fence in your lot? Mr. Peters: The plan shows that a short distance from that wall is where we intend to enter that piece of property from our existing piece of property so we wouldn't be modifying that wall. Mr. Morrow: Did you say you were going to be parking new vehicles on this lot or would it be used trucks in good shape that are for sale? Mr. Peters: It might be either. There are two schools of thinking amongst my managers. Some of them say we should be displaying new Ford trucks, and some of them thing everyone knows we are selling new trucks, it would be more advantageous to display used trucks. We haven't really finalized the decision on what would be displayed back there. There is also the school of thought that says use the existing property for new, ``r" use the additional property for used, and split the lot. Mr. Morrow: But in no case you will have any trucks in there for maintenance or repair? Mr. Peters: It is not our intent to use it as a storage area for junk type of trucks. Anything that is displayed back there will be for sale,. Mr. Morrow: I can see why you are trying to expand, everyone can see you have a congested site now, and I would hope this would open up some of the site so it doesn't look quite so cluttered. Mr. Peters: We are going from 45 to 55 employees. That is another ten automobiles on that lot. We have more people parking for parts and for service than we originally had and the lot really isn't sufficient. You have to be there to see when we have 105 Detroit Edison trucks there at one time. We are parking every place. Mr. Morrow: Like new car dealers where customers can't find any place to park. 14551 Mr. Peters: As I said the whole piece of property was bought at one time with the purpose of turning it into a dealership parking area later. From my point of view, I wish they would have done it at the outset. It would Nta` have been a lot cheaper for everyone and it would have been done and over with and we wouldn't be here tonight. We are not planning any buildings on that piece of property. We are not planning anything different than what you see. It will just be an extension of what currently exists. Mr. Piercecchi: John, I notice on the approval resolution here, it is stated that no barbed wire shall be permitted on the top of the fence that surrounds this property. If I remember right,just recently we discussed all the dealers, and I think the terminology was legally non-conforming. Why not legally non-conforming here? Mr. Nagy: We are starting with a clean slate. We have an opportunity with a new development here to meet the currently adopted ordinances. The site has not be developed. It is to be developed. Therefore they must comply with all currently adopted ordinances and rules and regulations of the City. Mr. Piercecchi: I approve of that. Mr. Peters: Our existing property does not have barbed wire. There are only six foot fences with no barbed wire. When I attended the meeting last week I was asked that question and I thought we must have barbed wire on top of the fences. I went back to the dealership after the meeting and we don't have any barbed wire. Mr. Piercecchi: Apparently you don't have any theft problems. Mr. Peters: We do have theft problems. It is a major issue. We have lost, on two or three occasions, 60 to 70 tires and wheels that are valued at $400 to $500 apiece. So it is a major issue. Livonia has been very responsive in terms of trying to get out at the corner of the City because we truly are located right at that corner of the City. They have been more responsive in going by there. We have taken some steps at the dealership to reduce the opportunities, which includes three or four managers who live right here in Livonia driving by the property. We changed when our janitorial service opens and closes the building so the time when nobody was there has shrunk. We haven't had any in the past year. Anyway it is a continuing problem. A lot of pieces on a big truck cost $1200 to $1500 and they come off fairly quick. We haven't got the barbed wire now and this is kind of a dual deal. When you take 14552 down those trees to make the property more visible, you also make it easier for them to step over that side fence. ``"' Mr. Engebretson: Barbed wire wouldn't stop that either would it? Mr. Peters: No I don't think so. In the past what they have done is just cut through the fence. Mr. Alanskas: Across the street Penske Leasing is going to put a big facility there. I know that Penske and Motor City Truck have a very good understanding. They won't be parking a lot of their trucks on your property, will they? Mr. Peters: We have no relationship with Penske. I really don't know where that Penske piece is. I looked at that piece of property across the street and there are 12 acres back there, which they will subdivide into one acre, two acre, three acre, etc. tracts. I don't know if that is where Penske is going or not. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #11-241-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-11-8-26 by Motor City Truck requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct a parking lot and vehicle display area on property located at 39300 Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked sheet 1 dated 7/19/95, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the height of the light poles shall not exceed 20 ft.; 2) That no barbed wire shall be permitted along the top of the fence that surrounds this property; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, and all planted materials shall be installed prior to final inspection and to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 14553 4) That any road or right-of-way requirements as may be imposed by the Wayne County Road Commission for Eckles Road shall be complied with. Now Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Livonia Community Credit Union requesting approval for signage for the financial building located at 15420 Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Miller: This is the Livonia Community Credit Union located on the east side of Farmington between Five Mile and Roycroft. They are proposing two signs, one a ground sign and one a wall sign for their building. The property is zoned OS so they are allowed one identification sign at ten square feet, which can be used as a wall sign or a ground sign so the signs they are proposing are not conforming. They are proposing one wall sign on the south elevation of the building. It would be 38 sq. ft. in size. They have an existing wall sign on the the west elevation of their building and that will be removed so they will only have this one sign on the building. They are also proposing one ground sign at 32 sq. ft. to be located on the corner of Farmington and Roycroft. Because this is over the 10 sq. ft. they are allowed, they had to go to the Zoning Now Board to receive a variance for excessive signage. The petitioner was on the Zoning Board's meeting tonight, hopefully prior to being here tonight. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is at the podium. How did the Zoning Board meeting go? Tell us what happened. Robert Bava: I am with the credit union of course. They approved the ground sign as proposed. They modified the wall sign proposal to relocate the sign to the westernmost part of the southern exposure of the building not to exceed 21 sq. ft. So they scaled the sign down and relocated it to a different section of the same wall. Mr. Engebretson: What was the logic behind that? Mr. Bava: The logic behind it was there were some existing trees that they thought might obscure the view of the sign where we proposed the placement of it, and also compromised to reduce the square footage. 14554 Mr. Engebretson: I understand the compromise aspect. As far as location, it sounds to me the intent was to enhance the effectiveness of the sign. Is it your impression it does that? Mr. Bava: We are willing to go with what they proposed. After giving it some thought and discussions we had with the ZBA, it probably will enhance it by their recommendation to place it on the other part of the wall. It probably would hide the sign where we proposed it to be. Mr. Morrow: I think there was some discussion as to the correct PMS color of the sign. (The petitioner presented the correct color.) Mr. Alanskas: The ground sign is going to be 21 square feet instead of 32? Mr. Bava: No, the ground sign was approved as proposed and the wall sign was scaled down to 21 sq. ft. Mr. Engebretson: So what we have as a result of the Zoning Board action is a conforming sign proposal. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously approved, it was #11-242-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Livonia Community Credit Union requesting approval for signage for the financial building located at 15420 Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Package by Phillips Sign& Design, as received by the Planning Commission on November 6, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to except for the fact that the wall sign shall not exceed 21 sq. ft. in area. as well as subject to the following additional condition required by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) The ground sign will be internally illuminated, however the wall sign (freestanding plastic letters) will not be illuminated. The petitioner may either erect a new wall sign not exceeding 21 sq. ft. in area, or relocate the existing signage on the westerly elevation to the southerly elevation. 14555 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ‘'' On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 715th Regular Meeting &Public Hearings held on November 28, 1995 was adjourned at 9:47 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION \ .44 Robert Alanskas, Secretary ATTEST: 4.Ce 11 �, JJ, E- � , G� Ja k Engebr tson, Chairman jg