Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-01-17 13828 MINUTES OF THE 696th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING C .1MISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA *4411. On Tuesday, January 17, 1995, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 696th Regular Meeting 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. Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Robert Alanskas William LaPine Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: Pat Blomberg Mr. Engehretson 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. `40.` Mr. Morrow Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Preliminary Plat approval for Hickory Oak Subdivision proposed to be located east of Purlingbrook Avenue between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence in connection with this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have no correspondence in connection with this item. This is really a call back in connection with the recently approved Preliminary Plat by the Planning Commission. We now have a copy of the landscape plan for your examination and that of the audience. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller would you present the landscape plan. Mr. Miller presented the landscape plan. Mr. Engebretson: Scott, my recollection is that part of the intent of that berm was to shield those homes from parking lot light activities. Does that get that job done? 13829 Mr. Scott: I am sure it does as far as possible. Mr. Engebretson: Does it match the three foot height that was asked for? `°i" Mr. Miller: Yes it does. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #1-1-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with the Preliminary Plat for Hickory Oak Subdivision proposed to be located east of Purlingbrook Avenue between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Landscape Plan dated 1-6-95 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That all landscape improvements as shown on the approved plan shall be installed prior to the release of any bond money posted in connection therewith. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I neglected to inquire as to whether that berm has sod on it and if so, is it irrigated? Mr. Nagy: We indicated at the study meeting that it will have sod, and will have trees. The City's policy is to provide for the meter pit so the subdivision association or the owners can tie into that with an irrigation system. They won't activate the meter until there v'"' is someone they can bill it to. Mr. Engebretson: As it stands then, would it be your impression that each homeowner would assume some responsibility for taking care of that? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. They would have to work that out among themselves. Mr. Engebretson: But it could come down to a subdivision issue? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 695th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on December 13, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #95-2 RESOLVED that, the minut' of the 695th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on December 13, 1994 are hereby approved. 13830 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Home Quarters Warehouse requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 20000 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This is the Home Quarters that is taking over the former site of the Source Club on Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads. They are requesting approval of six wall signs and one ground sign for the site. Since the six wall signs total 619 square feet and the ground sign will total 50 square feet, this is over what they are allowed by the ordinance so prior to being before the Planning Commission they had to get a variance granted by the Zoning Board. They have done that, so based on the variance these signs are conforming. Four of the wall signs will be located on the west elevation, which is the front of the store facing Haggerty Road. They are requesting the "HQ" logo which will be 152 square feet. For the garden area they will have a sign on that portion of the store, which will say "Garden Center" and will be 50 square feet. "Pro Gales" will be located by the garage door and will be 33 square feet. They will also have an "Entrance" sign over their entrance, which will be 28 square feet. On the rear of the store, the east elevation which faces I-275, they are requesting two wall signs, the HQ logo, which is the same that will be out in front, and the Home Quarters sign along the garden area should be 204 square feet. *%.. (Mr. Miller pointed out the location of the ground sign.) Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is approaching the podium. Tom Fischetti, Hechinger Company: We have decided on behalf of the board's request, Mr. McCann and Mr. Engebretson, to remove the HQ insignias on either side of the entrance sign and retain the entrance sign which will be tentatively installed above the entrance door. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you. Anything else you want to add sir? Mr. Fischetti: Not at this time. Mr. Alanskas: By taking off the HQ logos, we will only have five signs instead of six. Mr. Engebretson: Technically that is correct. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-3-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Home Quarters 13831 Warehouse requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 20000 Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions: '011m. 1) That the Sign Package dated 9/19/94 by Home Quarters Warehouse, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; except for the fact that the entrance wall sign shall be free of all advertising or store identification; 2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 2 dated 11/16/94 by Home Quarters Warehouse, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the Site Plan by Hechinger Construction, received by the Planning Commission on January 1, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to in connection with identifying and approving the location of the ground sign. Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Henderson Glass requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 31600 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Miller: Here you have Henderson Glass located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard. They are requesting one wall sign at 48 square feet for this location. They are ,fty allowed one at 54 square feet so it is a conforming wall sign. The ground sign that is allowed is 30 square feet and that is the size of the sign they are proposing, so their signage is conforming. The ground sign will be located in the landscaped area. Mr. Engehretson: I recall that we advised the petitioner that it would not be necessary for him to come tonight because this is a totally complying sign. If there is no discussion, a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #1-4-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Henderson Glass requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 31600 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Package by Henderson Glass, received by the Planning Commission on December 22, 1994, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 13832 Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Now Application by T. Rogvoy Associates, on behalf of Boston Chicken, requesting approval for signage for the restaurant located at 19055 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller: This is the Boston Chicken that is under construction. It is on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile and Clarita. They are requesting one wall sign on the front of the building, which will face Middlebelt Road. They are allowed 60 square feet. They are asking for one at 53 square feet, so it is a conforming wall sign. The ground sign, they are permitted to have one at 30 square feet. They are asking for one at 29 square feet, so that is a conforming ground sign. The ground sign will be located in the landscaped area in front of the restaurant between the sidewalk and the restaurant itself. Mr. Engebretson: Again, because this is a conforming sign we advised the petitioner it was not necessary to appear here tonight. If there is no discussion or comment, a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #1-5-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by T. Rogvoy Associates, Now. restaurant behalf of Boston Chicken, requesting approval for signage for the restaurant located at 19055 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 6 dated Dec. 22, 1994, as revised, by T. Rogvoy Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated Jan. 21, 1994, as revised, by T. Rogvoy Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Detroit Cellular Telephone Company for the installation of a cellular tower antenna for property located at 27107 Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Miller: This is the Weirton Shopping Center on Eight Mile Road between Grand River and Angling Avenue. They are proposing to lease an area from the shopping center so they can put up a 100 foot cellular tower antenna. The area in question is adjacent to 13833 Deering Avenue, which is at the southern end of the shopping center. The area will be 45 feet by 58 feet, which would be 2,600 square feet of area they will lease from the shopping center. Alongside the antenna will be an equipment shelter, which would be 360 square feet of building. There will be a six foot high chain link fence surrounding it for security reasons. As I said before the tower will be 100 feet. Mr. EngPhretson: Mr. Miller, does the northerly definition of that 45'x50' area, does it align with the wall? Mr. Miller: Yes it does. (He pointed this out on the plan) Mr. Engebretson: Which property is that on? Does that property belong to the restaurant in the front or does it belong to the drug store off to the side? Mr. Miller: I think it belongs to the whole shopping center. Mr. Engebretson: Well there are two distinct parking lots there. One of them to the east is in extremely poor repair and barely used. The parking lot adjacent to the recently remodeled drug store and grocery store is in excellent newly repaved condition. It looks like this is in part of the parking lot that is in disrepair. I am wondering is it a separate parcel there? Mr. Miller: I don't think it is a separate parcel. I know they share parking with the shopping center. I know when Farmer Jack and Arbor `�.. Drugs were in before you, one of the conditions was to repave the parking lot. I have a feeling this was out of their area. Mr. Engebretson: That is why I raised the question Mr. Nagy. Mr. LaPine and I were out there this weekend and we had the impression that based on the condition of approval on those renovations at Arbor Drug and Farmer Jack, it seems to stop, and we wondered if that was two separate parcels or how it came about that they repaired only what would appear to be only half the parking lot? Mr. Nagy: It is part of the overall property of the shopping center itself. I think what happened is pretty much what Scott has said that that area is little used, and the area of the parking lot that was disturbed in connection with the actual construction was repaved and restriped and this is just a neglected and overlooked area and unused, but it should be given better attention than it has. I will see that the Inspection Department looks after it. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Piercecchi and I were also out there and we had similar concerns. I just would like to know when we go back to the approval of that particular upgrade, was it technically part of the approval and this was something that was subjective when they did it, or whether or not what we have is what the approval 13834 consisted of. I think this would help us with the Inspection requirement. Mr. Nagy: We will look into it. '01.1. Mr. EngPhretson: I see the petitioner is with us. If you would like to come forward sir and make whatever comments you feel are appropriate. John Crane: I am a Civil Engineer. I am also an attorney. We enjoyed working with your staff in moving this project ahead. Thank you very much. Mr. Engebretson: We want to thank you for your cooperation. We knew there were some issues out there that we wanted you to look into. We understand that you have done that and we appreciate that. Any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague Lee Morrow pointed out, we did look over that property on Sunday and it was previously pointed out at the study session about non-conforming signs and a trailer on that site. Could we base any of our decisions that those two things be taken care of, they really are an eyesore, before we permit this facility? Obviously there is some money exchange here. Detroit Cellular Telephone Company is paying for that parking lot site. Could we perhaps get a concession there and get that trailer out of there and the non-conforming sign out of there? Mr. Engebretson: I don't know what the status of that trailer is. We were also concerned about that, and I am sure that is one of the ro — things Mr. Nagy had in mind in terms of having the Inspection Department visit that site. What comments would you have to make John? Mr. Nagy: Last week, I think Mr. Japine called that trailer to our attention, and we did look into the matter in the intervening week and found a few things out. I don't know if Bill cares to read what our report consisted of. Mr. LaPine: Would you like to read it Mr. Chairman? Mr. Engebretson: This note indicates there is a Goodwill trailer parked within the parking lot of the Weirton Plaza Shopping Center. The trailer looks permanent because it has weather skirts around the bottom of it and signage explaining this as a drop-off station. There is also a clothes drop-off dumpster alongside the trailer. In contacting the Inspection Department, Dave Woodcox explained that usually past practice has been that as long as the shopping center gives their permission the trailer has been permitted. The location should not be intrusive and no outdoor storage is allowed. He was not familiar with this trailer but stated he would look into it and see if this is how this station was handled. That was an internal memo within the Planning Department. 13835 Mr. Nagy: We will follow that up along with the matter of the sign. Mr. Morrow: As long as we are getting with the Inspection Department, the `, sign that Mr. Piercecchi made reference to, we assumed it was non-conforming. He may very well have a temporary permit to use the banner for a while. If it is actually forbidden, it should come dawn. If there is a permit to keep it up temporarily, obviously it will come down with the expiration of the permit, but do follow up on that. Mr. LaPine: Lee, are you referring to the aerobics place in the back. Mr. Morrow: Yes. Mr. LaPine: We saw the same thing. I told Jack I don't know haw that guy is going to survive back there unless he gets a sign on there somewhere. Mr. Engebretson: The real question Mr. Piercecchi was raising is would it be appropriate to hold off this determination until those matters are resolved? Mr. LaPine: I don't think we should hold up Detroit Cellular Telephone Company for that. I think this is something we have to work out between ourselves and the Inspection Department. I don't personally agree with the explanation they gave here because if he is saying at any shopping center if a guy wants to park his truck there for some reason, that is our policy as long as the shopping center gives their permission. I think that is wrong 'lor but I don't think we should hold this gentleman up because of that. He wants to move on with his cellular tower and I think we should go ahead and vote on that. Mr. Engebretson: Presumably, Detroit Cellular is providing some compensation for the right to acquire this property and to build this tower there, and I think the area you will occupy will certainly be improved and be to the City's standards. I am confident of that, but the surrounding area is in very poor repair. I think you will agree from what you have seen. Mr. Crane: I will address the landlord. The Goodwill Trailer is part of the community services. I certainly am not getting compensated for it. If your Inspection Department gets into a little trouble or raises the question, it certainly will be remedied. Mr. Engebretson: There were some signs indicating that it is an attendant trailer, and it is not, and there is skirting on it one day and there is not the next day. It is clearly a suspicious operation. Suspicious may be the wrong word but it is certainly out of the ordinary but I don't know that it is necessarily your problem, but we would appreciate whatever input you could make. 13836 Mr. Crane: We will discuss it with the landlord. Mr. Engehretson: I don't know Mr. Piercecchi if that is very satisfactory. Mr. Piercecchi: I really don't want to hold it up just for that but I think it should be brought to the attention of the landlord of that center that we do not approve of this type of honky-tonk trailers. Maybe we have to write a new ordinance to preclude this type of action. Mr. Engebretson: I think the point has been made. I think Inspection will be visiting there and if we don't have ordinances that govern those kinds of matters, then I would agree with you that it would be time to act on it because that could get out of control real fast. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #1-6-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Permit Application by Detroit Cellular Telephone Company for the installation of a cellular tower antenna for property located at 27107 Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated 10/24/94 by Midwestern Consulting, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-8-2 by Pattah Investment, on behalf of Perry Drugs, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 29250 Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Miller: This is located at Joy Road and Middlebelt. They are proposing to construct a 10,880 square foot commercial building. On the plan it shows Perry Drugs. There will be two drives off Joy Road and one off Middlebelt Road with parking along the drive off Middlebelt Road. They are required to have 58 parking spaces. They are showing 63 on the site so they are over on parking. Landscaping for the site, they are required to have 15% and they have 14% so they are a little low on landscaping. At the study meeting they discussed revising the site plan. They took out a parking space and added landscaping. Elevation plans show that three sides of the building will be brick with the rear elevation block. The light standards are conforming to 20 feet. The trash compactor area will be enclosed with gates at the front. There 13837 will be a metal awning over the entrance of the building. The plan shows that the mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened by material that matches the metal awning. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence on this petition? Mr. Nagy: The Building Department, in their letter of Jan. 9, 1995, indicates that the site plan for subject property has been reviewed. The current zoning is C-2, general business-commercial. The site plan indicates a building 85.0 ft. wide and 238.0 ft. in depth on a parcel of 1.45 acres. The building as shown has all conforming yard (set-back) spaces. Parking requirements for this site would be based on 1 space for every 150 sq. ft. and the number of parking spaces required would be 58 with 64 spaces provided. Three barrier free parking spaces, as shown, meet the requirements of the Michigan Barrier Free standards. Although no ground sign is shown on the site plan; sheet SP-2 shows the west and south elevations of the building proposing wall signage on each elevation, one facing west and one facing south. Although not dimensioned, each of the two wall signs are at 45 ft. in length and 7 1/2 feet in height, or 338 sq. ft. for each sign for a total of 675 sq. ft. The two wall signs would require a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number of wall signs and sign area. One wall sign would be allowed at 85 sq. ft. and one conforming 30 sq. ft. ground sign. Ordinance 543 Section 19.06 requires 15% of the total area of the lot be landscaped, whereas the proposed site plan only provides for approximately 13% landscaping. The Engineering Department stated there appeared to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal, however it may be necessary to restrict the storm water run-off from the site due to the limited capacity of the outlet sewer. The Fire Marshal indicates their office has no objection to the proposal, however, this approval is contingent upon an on-site hydrant with adequate water flow. This hydrant shall be provided within 50 ft. - 75 ft. of future Fire Department Connection (FDC) , placement to be determined upon further review. An accepted location from this division would be on the southwest curbed island. Mr. Engehretson: Just a procedural inquiry. The matter of signs, typically when they are not conforming signs, we have been going to the Zoning Board first for approval, and it is my understanding what we are dealing with here tonight is everything except the signage. I am wondering haw consistent we are being here. Is this, in your mind, consistent with recent practices to deal with it on this kind of basis? 13838 Mr. Nagy: I think we should omit the approval with reference to the signs and have a call back. They first would then go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and then reappear before the Planning Commission for sign approval. Mr. Engebretson: Would you feel this would be the procedure we would tend to follow in the future on these kinds of issues where there is a building and a sign? Mr. Nagy: Absolutely. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner has just made it in. Joe Rokicsak: Basically we tried to make the changes that were requested at the study session on the plan. The landscaping, as we discussed, we were to eliminate this one parking space and turn it into green. The architect did not do that. That would have brought us up to the 15%. Mr. Engebretson: So it is your intent that that be done and it's just that it doesn't reflect on the plan right now? Mr. Rokicsak: Correct. Mr. Engebretson: So we are in agreement that that will be done? Mr. Rokicsak: Yes definitely. The signs will be taken care of with the ZBA. We just showed them on the elevations so everyone would know what it was. Mr. Engehretson: And you are agreeing with all of Scott's comments relative to the the brick and the matching block, etc. Mr. Rokicsak: Absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Could you tell me what color of brick you are going to use? Mr. Rokicsak: There was a discussion at the study session of red. Perry's doesn't really care. Whatever suits you. Mr. LaPine: When we talk about red, at some of their locations where they are building freestanding buildings, which are the block ones, they have the stripe of red, blue and white. That red brick on there, I just hope we aren't going to get that. It is a shiny red brick. Mr. Rokicsak: It would not be that type of red. It would probably be a colonial red. Mr. LaPine: Will there be any accent stripes? Mr. Rokicsak: Not at this point. 13839 Mr. Engebretson: Sir, just for the record. Not at this point means never. Just so we understand each other. Mr. Rokicsak: There will never be any stripes. Just brick walls. ftair Mr. Engebretson: The point being that what we are approving here, this is it. This is the plan. This is what we are going to build. We have you on record on television that you are going to build a red brick building with no accents. Mr. Alanskas: John, you said the run-off could be a problem or it will not be a problem? Mr. Nagy: They are forewarning the applicant that they may have to use some retention to restrict the outlet but it will be buried underground. Mr. Engebretson: It will be part of the parking lot structure, under the parking lot? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. On a motion duly made by Mr. rapine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #1-7-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 95-1-8-2 by Pattah Investment, on behalf of Perry Drugs, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial ��.. building on property located at 29250 Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet SP-1 dated 1/11/95, as revised, by TXS Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet SP-2 dated 1/11/95, as revised, by TXS Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped areas, and all landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped; 5) That any signs shown on the above plans are not approved at this time and that all signage shall come back before the Planning Commission for separate approval. 6) That the Planning Commission approves the use of colonial red brick without any contrasting colored brick band design. 13840 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-1-8-3 by Bowers and Rein Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 27401 Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Miller: This is located on the corner of Six Mile and Inkster. Right now there is an abandoned gas station located on the site. They will tear down the gas station to build this project. The proposed building will be a 9,020 square foot commercial building with a drive off Inkster Road and one drive off Six Mile Road. They are required to have 48 parking spaces and that is what they are showing on their site plan, so it is conforming. Landscaping, they are required to have 15%. This site shows 16% so they are over in landscaping. Mr. Morrow: Before we move from there, Scott if you can, could you show me where the building to the west would line up with the new construction? One of the questions we are going to have later on is where it is going to be bricked and not bricked. I am trying to find out where that building is, which would screen it from eastbound Six Mile Road. Maybe when we get to the developer he can do that. Mr. Miller: The elevation plan shows the building will be a smooth split face block, a combination color block. The petitioner will have a firly color rendering. Mr. Engphretson: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence on this petition? Mr. Nagy: The Inspection Department, in their letter of January 9, indicates that the site plan for the above petition has been reviewed. The proposed commercial building is located in the C-1/C-2 split zoned parcel of land. The site plan shows the building with a deficient setback on the southern property line. Proposed is a 15 foot setback where a 20 foot would be required by Section 10.09 (side yards) or Section 10.10 rear yards) of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 10.06 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a protective wall or greenbelt in accordance with Section 18.45 when commercial uses are adjacent or abutting residential districts. All lighting should be arranged to reflect away from residential districts. The site appears to be in compliance with all other C-1/C-2 district regulations. Any existing building would need to be demolished and removed from the site prior to new construction. This letter was signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector. We have also received letters from the Fire Marshal and City EnginPPr indicating their departments have no objections to this proposal. r.. 13841 Mr. EngPhretson: Mr. Nagy, Mr. Woodcox's letter, would you repeat the references early on relative to setbacks? Mr. Nagy: He indicated initially when the plan was drawn for his review that there was a setback deficiency with respect to the south property line abutting the residential district. At that time they proposed a 15 foot rear yard where 20 feet was required. We pointed it out to the petitioner and the plan has been revised to comply with the full 20 foot setback. Mr. Engebretson: So if Mr. Woodcox were to review this again, he would find no deficiency? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Engebretson: I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that. Mr. Miller: Also the wall is noted on there. They will put a wall up along that area. I just wanted to point out that they did revise their site plan and now it is 20 feet instead of 15 feet, and the building stays the same because they have added to the Past side. So it is the same size building but it is a conforming 20 feet here and the wall is shown here. (He pointed this out on the plan) Mr. Engebretson: And by making those changes on the east side of the building, did that interfere with any of the parking space? Mr. Miller: No, there is a green sodded area so they actually have more 'r.• room. They just took over that grassy area so it did not even change the parking at all. Mr. Piercecchi: Scott, when I observed that property over the weekend, the current gas station is on the C-2 parcel, right? Mr. Miller: That is correct. Mr. Piercecchi: The C-1 is a wooded area and it seems to be much lower than the C-2 area, as I recall. Is that lot really buildable? Mr. Miller: We will have to ask the petitioner. Mr. Engebretson: We will give the petitioner a chance to speak to that issue Mr. Piercecchi and also to speak to what his plan is relative to the split zoning. Scott Bowers of Bowers and Rein Associates, Inc. : I am an architect. First of all, what I was requested to do at the study session was to prepare a rendering showing what we plan to do for the outside of the building. (He presented his plans) In terms of the low area, we realize there is going to be some fill in that area. We have about 2 1/2 feet to fill in that area. We are putting a 13842 wall along that line also, which will act as a partial retaining wall. Mr. Piercecchi: You don't have to wait any specific time before you can deal with ''4111. the 2 1/2 to 3 foot fill? You can go right ahead? Mr. Bowers: I will leave that up to my construction expert right here. Mr. Rokicsak: We don't even have the working drawings ready on the building yet so we are probably a good two months away before we would start doing anything. Mr. Piercecchi: Once you put the fill in, do you have to wait a period of time? Mr. Rokicsak: No, you compact in lifts of about 16 inches. You put in a lift and then you compact it and then you put in another lift. Then you go down to bearing soil where you get engineered soil pressure so the foundation is in good soil. Mr. Morrow: Haw far is the north wall of that video shop off Six Mile as it relates to how far your wall is? I am trying to see how much of the west wall will be seen as you are driving east on Six Mile Road. Mr. Rokicsak: Less than one third of the wall would be visible. Mr. Engebretson: How far around do you plan to wrap the split face block on the west side? ''401• Mr. Rokicsak: About half way around. Mr. Engebretson: So the split face block will be on the west side about half way, all along the north side, all along the east? Mr. Rokicsak: Yes. Mr. Engehretson: What are you going to do about this zoning? How are you going to handle that? You have two different zoning districts there. That will determine the type of use you can put in there. Obviously, you can put all the local business type users in there. Mr. Rokicsak: That is basically what we are looking for right now, somebody that will comply with that. Mr. Engebretson: Just so you are aware of that. Mr. Alanskas: What do you plan on putting there at this time? Mr. Rokicsak: I really don't know. Mr. Alanskas: On your site plan you show definitely a drugstore. 13843 Mr. Rokicsak: It was originally. The size was too small. Mr. Alanskas: So this part of the plan is out? Mr. Rokicsak: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: So at the present time you don't know what you are going to have there? Mr. Rokicsak: That is what generated the elevation with the canopy, but I thought it was a nice building. Mr. Engebretson: Do you own this property sir? Mr. Rokicsak: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Outright? Not an option? You own it? Mr. Rokicsak: Yes. Mr. Engehretson: Assuming this is approved, what would be your intent in terms of demolishing that derelict building that is on the site? Mr. Rokicsak: As soon as I can. Mr. Engebretson: When does that mean, spring? Mr. Rokicsak: No it will come dawn in the next few weeks. Mr. Engehretson: Just out of curiosity, were all of the soil contamination issues mediated now? Mr. Rokicsak: Yes, that was the last stumbling block that we had. We are waiting for a letter from Shell Oil. They did do the clean up. We are just waiting for a letter from them. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-8-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 95-1-8-3 by Bowers and Rein Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 27401 Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet PSP-1 dated 1/10/95, as revised, by Bowers and Rein Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet A-2 dated 1/5/95 by Bowers and Rein Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 13844 3) Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped areas, and all landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped; 5) That any signs shown on the above plans are not approved at this time and that all signage shall come back before the Planning Commission for separate approval; 6) That the rear west wall shall be 50% split face block matching the material and design as proposed for the north and east elevation. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: We are very pleased to see that corner rehabilitated, and I must say that the rendering that you brought in tonight made it possible to envision a much more elegant building than what was described. It really is going to be a very nice building and a great improvement to a corner that has been an eyesore for a long period of time. We appreciate the cooperation you have given us there and wish you good luck. We look forward to seeing that nice building next summer. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 696th Regular Meeting 44101,. held on January 17, 1995 was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMIISSION 1 • ` \\ ` R. Lee Morrow, Secretary ATTEST: :a ,te s.11 ` ;� 1 a t Jack Engehrtson, Chairman jg