Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2012-01-31MINUTES OF THE 1,019TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 31, 2012, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,019" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Scott P. Bahr Ashley V. Krueger R. Lee Morrow Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, was also present Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petifion is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final detenninafion as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a pefifion requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these pefifions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2011-11-06-03 FLOOD REGULATIONS LANGUAGE AMENDMENT Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2011-11- 06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.11 of Article II, Flood Plain Terms, and Sections 28.01, 28.02, 28.03 and 28.04 of Article XXVIII, Special Flood Hazard Area Regulations, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, so as to adopt new regulations listed in the Federal Government's Code of Federal Regulations. January 31, 2012 25946 Mr. Taormina: Articles II and XXVIII are being amended in order to update and provide proper reference, terminology and rules as applied to the City's Floodplain Regulations in order to satisfy the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program Regulations. These amendments are needed to maintain Livonia's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Flood insurance is a requirement for anyone seeking Federally -backed or guaranteed financial assistance, such as mortgages or loans, for construction or acquisition of buildings that are located in Special Flood Hazard Areas. The Zoning Ordinance references the FEMA, which serve as an overlay district, with land use regulations that are also part of the Zoning Ordinance, all designed to protect designated floodplain areas from intrusion. Recently, the City adopted new construction and engineering standards in order to comply with the Federal requirements. It is now necessary to do the same with the City's zoning regulations. These proposed changes include revising the definitions of certain floodplain terms, referencing the dales of the updated Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rale Maps for Livonia, adjusting the lowest habitable floor elevation to be consistent with the new construction and engineering standards, and cross-referencing Chapter 15.36 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance. That is the section that was recently amended and contains the more detailed requirements. You have before you the details of the amendments. I apologize because one of the issues that came up at the study session, which was pointed out to me this evening by Mr. Wilshaw, was that I failed to re -title Article XXVIII from Flood Hazard District Regulations to Special Flood Hazard Area Regulations, to be consistent with our terminology throughout the ordinance. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: I assume we have no correspondence on this? Mr. Taormina: There is no correspondence. Mr. Morrow: We will go directly to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing on this item and ask for a motion. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-06-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2012, on Petition 2011-11-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Livonia Zoning January 31, 2012 25947 Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.11 of Article II, Flood Plain Terms, and Sections 28.01, 28.02, 28.03 and 28.04 of Article XXVIII, Special Flood Hazard Area Regulations, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, so as to adopt new regulations listed in the Federal Government's Code of Federal Regulations, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2011-11-06-03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendments are in compliance with the Federal Government's request to update all Articles in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, that pertain to floodplain management measures; 2. The proposed language amendments would assure the continuation of the City of Livonia in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 3. That the proposed language amendments would clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. That the proposed language amendments are in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: That would include the terminology change for the Article that Mr. Taormina mentioned. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2012-01-06-01 ZONING ENABLING ACTS LANGUAGE AMENDMENT Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012- 01-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 1.04 of Article I, Enabling Authority, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as January 31, 2012 25948 amended, in order to make proper reference to the Stale of Michigan's current Planning and Zoning Enabling Acis. Mr. Taormina: Throughout the Zoning Ordinance, we do make reference to Enabling Statutes and in Section 1.04 of Article I, two particular statues are referenced, the zoning enabling act as well as the planning enabling act, both of which have been amended in the last five or six years. It is the intent of this amendment to correct and make current the specific reference to the proper Slate enabling statutes. The original zoning enabling act, Act 207 of 1921, was amended in 2006 and is now referred to as the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. Similarly, the planning enabling act, Act 285 of 1931, has been replaced by the Michigan Planning Enabling Act of 2008. Those basically are the changes involved in Section 1.04. You will see a number of amendments this evening that make similar changes to the reference ofthese and otherstatutes. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, 0 was #01-07-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2012, on Petition 2012-01-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 1.04 of Article I, Enabling Authority, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to make proper reference to the Slate of Michigan's current Planning and Zoning Enabling Acts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-01-06-01 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment would better insure that the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, makes proper reference to the Stale of Michigan's current Planning and Zoning Enabling Acts; 2. That the proposed language amendment would clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; and January 31, 2012 25949 3. That the proposed language amendment is in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2012-01-06-02 DEFINITIONS LANGUAGE AMENDMENT Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012- 01-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.02, 2.03, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, and 2.10 of Article II, Definitions, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to make revisions to the Definitions of General Zoning Terms, Definitions Pertaining to Rights -of -Way and Public Utilities, Definitions Pertaining to Lots and Areas, Definitions Pertaining to Types of Dwellings, Definitions of Terms Relating to Commercial Buildings and Uses, and Definitions of Miscellaneous Terms. Mr. Taormina: The next batch of language changes deals strictly with the definitions of certain terms that are used throughout the zoning ordinance. In Section 2.02, which is the definitions of general zoning terms, the changes, once again, correct and make current references to several state statutes that have changed over the years. It also properly identifies the Building Inspection Department and the Director of Inspection. In Section 2.03, which provides definitions of terms relating specifically to Rights of Way and Public Ulilities, the term "Master or Major Thoroughfare' is being replaced with the term "Major Thoroughfare', and certain road designations are being added under this category in order to be consistent with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. In Section 2.06, Definitions Pertaining to Lots and Areas, we're suggesting that the term "Lot Width" be modified in order to provide a clearer understanding of how the width of a lot is actually determined. As part of Section 2.07, Dwellings, the only revision involves updating the statutory citations used to define the term "Site Condominium." In Section 2.08, the changes include alphabetizing and renumbering the 27 definitions that are January 31, 2012 25950 related to Commercial Buildings and Uses. It also deletes unnecessary language dealing with certain adult-oriented uses, and eliminates conflicting and redundant terminology associated with the definition of Home Occupation, since these regulations are embodied elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance. Lastly, in Section 2.10, the changes include alphabetizing and renumbering the miscellaneous definitions that make up this section. It amends the definition of Private Garage, it adds a definition for the term Professional, eliminates the definition of sign and adds a cross-reference to Section 18.50A, which contains a more comprehensive definition of the term. With that, I'll answer any questions you might have. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of Mr. Taormina? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Krueger, and unanimously adopted, d was #01-08-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2012, on Petition 2012-01-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.02, 2.03, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, and 2.10 of Article II, Definitions, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to make revisions to the Definitions of General Zoning Terms, Definitions Pertaining to Rights -of -Way and Public Utilities, Definitions Pertaining to Lots and Areas, Definitions Pertaining to Types of Dwellings, Definitions of Terms Relating to Commercial Buildings and Uses, and Definitions of Miscellaneous Terms, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012- 01-06-02 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendments will improve upon, update, clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended; and 2. That the proposed language amendments are in the best interests of the City and its residents FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. January 31, 2012 25951 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #4 PETITION 2012-01-06-03 ZONING DISTRICTS LANGUAGE AMENDMENT Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012- 01-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 3.02, 3.04 and 3.05 of Article III, Zoning Districts, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in connection with Adoption of the Zoning Map, Sections of the Zoning Map, and Amendments of the Zoning Map. Mr. Taormina: The requested changes to Article III deal with the Adoption of the Zoning Map, Sections of the Zoning Map and Amendments to the Zoning Map. In Section 3.02, reference is made to the Zoning Map, but no longer as an attachment to the Zoning Ordinance, since the City Clerk's Office no longer prints and sells hard copies of the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance and accompanying map is available on-line and can be printed by special order. Section 3.04 now refers to 144 quarter -section maps that make up the Zoning Map as opposed to 36 section maps. This change coincides with the way the Planning Department maintains these maps using our computerized GIS. In earlier times, it was more efficient and cost-effective to maintain 36 large-scale maps, but today's technology allows us to provide greater detail and accuracy in less amount of time. That is basically the reason for the changes in Article III. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Seeing none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Krueger, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-09-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2012, on Petition 2012-01-06-03 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend January 31, 2012 25952 Sections 3.02, 3.04 and 3.05 of Article III, Zoning Districts, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in connection with Adoption of the Zoning Map, Sections of the Zoning Map, and Amendments of the Zoning Map, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-01-06-03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendments will improve upon, update, clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended; and 2. That the proposed language amendments are in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2012-01-06-04 R-1 - R-5 REGULATIONS LANGUAGE AMENDMENT Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012- 01-06-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 4.02 and 4.08 of Article IV, R-1 Through R-5 District Regulations, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to eliminate the three quarter (3/4) ton weight restriction for vehicles that can be housed in a private garage, make proper citation to Michigan Compiled Laws in connection with family day care homes, and increase the allowable lot coverage. Mr. Taormina: The changes to Article IV would eliminate the 3/4 ton weight restriction for vehicles that can be housed in a private garage. It was felt that restricting the size of a vehicle that could be stored in a garage based on its weight capacity was somewhat arbitrary and that the 3/4 ton rule was too restrictive since many vehicles today exceed this weight limit without necessarily being larger than the vehicles with the lower gross vehide weight rating. Secondly, the five percent increase in the allowable lot coverage for a one family dwelling, together with any accessory January 31, 2012 25953 structures, is recommended based on the fad that this rule was put into place at a time when home sizes were smaller and also because the City often violates this provision by requiring homes to exceed the limit as a condition of approval for new subdivisions and site condominiums. The effect of that is that it forces either the homes to be smaller to violate the deed restrictions or for these petitioners to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. They've had a number of these requests in the past, and it was fell that an increase of five percent would address this issue to everyone's satisfaction. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taylor: Through the Chair to Mark, does this have anything to do with a 3/4 ton truck parked on a driveway outside of a home? Mr. Taormina: This particular language is strictly with what is stored in the garage. There are restrictions on any commercial vehicles being placed in a driveway. Anything that is visible that has an emblem or commercial icon or idenfificafion, that is not being changed. Mr. Taylor: Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Anything else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Krueger, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-10-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2012, on Petition 2012-01-06-04 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 4.02 and 4.08 of Article IV, R-1 Through R-5 District Regulations, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to eliminate the three quarter (3/4) ton weight restriction for vehicles that can be housed in a private garage, make proper citation to Michigan Compiled Laws in connection with family day care homes, and increase the allowable lot coverage, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-01-06-04 be approved for the following reasons: January 31, 2012 25954 1. That the proposed language amendments will improve upon, update, clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended; and 2. That increasing the allowable lot coverage by 5% reflects current home sizes and building practices, will not be a detriment to the Districts' open space requirements, and will lessen the number of cases going before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and; 3. That the proposed language amendments are in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #6 PETITION 2012-01-06-05 R -U -F REGULATIONS LANGUAGE AMENDMENT Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012- 01-06-05 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 5.02 and 5.11 of Article V, R -U -F District Regulations, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to eliminate redundant and conflicting language with respect to certain accessory buildings or structures and uses, and to increase the allowable lot coverage. Mr. Taormina: The changes to Section 5.02, Permitted Uses, in the R -U -F District Regulations include referencing and thus applying the same restrictions for the uses permitted in the R-1 lhru R-5 zoning districts under Section 4.02 which are also allowed in any R -U -F District. So in the R -U -F District, we allow the same permitted uses that occur in the R-1 thru R-5 Districts, and the language, in effect, says if we permit those uses, we're going to permit them with the same restrictions that are applied in the R- 1 thm R-5 Districts. That change is right at the top of Section 5.02. That allows us to eliminate some of the language later on pertaining to home occupations as accessory structures and January 31, 2012 25955 uses since the rules of Section 4.02 will apply. We can eliminate all of that language, some of which does conflict, and we just reference those same provisions in Section 4.02, which provide very detailed regulations with respect to home occupations. Then the only change to Section 5.11 includes increasing the allowable lot coverage for one -family dwellings together with any associated accessory buildings by five percent. This is being done for the same reasons that we did it for Article IV in the previous petition. The only difference here is that instead of it going from 25 percent to 30 percent, this is going from 15 percent to 20 percent since these are larger lots. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? I see no one coming forward. I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-11-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 2012, on Petition 2012-01-06-05 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 5.02 and 5.11 of Article V, R -U -F District Regulations, of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to eliminate redundant and conflicting language with respect to certain accessory buildings or structures and uses, and to increase the allowable lot coverage, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012- 01-06-05 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendments will eliminate redundant and conflicting language with respect to certain accessory buildings or structures and uses; 2. That increasing the allowable lot coverage by 5% reflects current home sizes and building practices, will not be a detriment to the District's open space requirements, and will lessen the number of cases going before the Zoning Board of Appeals, and; 3. That the proposed language amendments would clarify and strengthen the district regulations of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended; and January 31, 2012 25956 4. That the proposed language amendments are in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. That concludes our Public Heading portion of the agenda. We now move onto miscellaneous items. ITEM #7 PETITION 2003-02-08-05 S&N DEVELOPMENT Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 02-08-05 00302-08-05 submitted by S&N Development Company, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (CR #183-03), requesting a seventh extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Taormina: Briefly, this is the seventh request for an extension for site plan approval that was granted by the City back in 2003 in connection with the construction of a three story office building on properly that is located on Seven Mile just east of Victor Parkway. The petitioner has indicated that he needs to extend this, that he has been unable to begin construction of this site primarily due to economic conditions. He has received all the necessary extension approvals from the other agencies that have jurisdiction on this development including the Wayne County Road Commission, the Drain Commission, the State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, as well as the Livonia Engineering Department. With that, I'll answer any questions. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of Mr. Taormina? The petitioner met with us during the study session and indicated it would be a hardship for him to come tonight and wanted to be excused from the meeting as it was fairly routine. Because it is an extension and we have seen this before, we granted him the permission not to attend tonight's meeting. We will not hear from the petitioner. I will go the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of January 31, 2012 25957 this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a mofion would be in order. On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Krueger, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-12-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02-08-05 submitted by S&N Development Company, which previously received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (Council Resolution #183-03), requesting a seventh extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the request for a seventh (7th) extension of Site Plan Approval by Sam Shamie, managing member of S&N Development Company, in a letter dated January 12, 2012, is hereby approved for a two-year period; and 2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #183-03 in connection with Petition 2003-02-08-05, which permitted the construction of a three-story office building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #8 PETITION 2012-01-08-01 LIVONIA DENTAL CARE Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012- 01-08-01 submitted by Livonia Dental Care requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing building at 33428 Five Mile Road, located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Surrey Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct an addition to an existing commercial building that is located on the north side of Five Mile Road. It is the second property west of Farmington Road. This parcel is about 0.3 acres in size, with 140 feet of frontage along January 31, 2012 25958 Five Mile and a depth of 100 feet. The property in question in zoned C-2, General Business. Immediately to the east and right at the northwest comer of Farmington Road and Five Mile Road is Bates Hamburgers. Immediately to the west is the Perko's Shoe Store. To the north across a 20 foot wide public alley are residential homes that are part of the Coventry Gardens Subdivision, which is R-4, one -family residential. To the south on the other side of Five Mile Road is the Livonia Shopping Center, zoned C-2, General Business. The existing building on the property measures about 2,930 square feet in size. This is the floor plan of the building as it exists today. It is a dental office. It has six treatment rooms, a lab, sterilization room, x-ray equipment room, waiting and reception areas, office space and a staff lounge. The petition this evening is for an addition to be constructed off the rear or north side of the building that would measure just under 800 square feel and would bring the total expanded building to a size of about 3,720 square feel. The site plan shows the properly in question as well as the site immediately to the east, Bales Hamburgers. That building is identifiable here on the overhead right at the corner of Five Mile Road and Farmington Road. The existing building here is shaded. As you can see, the building sits right in the southeast corner of the property. The public alley is behind the building on the north side. Parking is provided on the west side of the building. There is an entrance drive adjacenttothe buildingthat wraps around and then exits onto Five Mile Road. There is no access provided from the alleyway to this site. There is a chain that stretches across the back of the site. The existing building is set back about 26 feel from the public alley. The addition would extend about 20 feel off the rear of the building. It extends for the full width of the building, which is just under 40 feel in width, leaving about six feel or so between the building and the alley. This used to be a bank building. As you may recall, a few years ago when it converted to the dental office, the flow of traffic was reversed on this site. It used to be that there was a drive -up teller window located on the west side of the building. Vehicles would actually circulate around to exit off Five Mile Road. We reversed the flow on the site. It provides for the angled parking. There is a total of about 22 parking spaces available on the site. By constructing this addition and increasing the flow area, there will be a slight increase in the parking requirement. It will increase to 15 parking spaces, based on a ratio of one space for every 200 square feet of useable floor area within the building. With respect to the building addition, interestingly, the distance between the building and the alleyway does comply with the ordinance. There is no minimum required setback for commercial buildings January 31, 2012 25959 adjacent to public alleyways. Although the addition complies with the setback requirements, it still has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals because the building itself is nonconforming due to the deficient front yard setback. We have a copy of the proposed floor plan. It shows the expanded building. The floor plan basically remains very similar to what it was before. It just provides for the three additional treatment rooms. I think a storage closet is being added. The staff lounge would be enlarged as part of the project. In terms of the exterior of the building, the plan shows a side view of the building with the addition on the left side. There is a thin brick material that exists on the building. They would basically try to match what is there today. This thin brick material apparently would be applied to the addition facing east towards Bates. On the opposite side, a block material would be used similar to the existing block material that already exists as the finish material on that side of the building. The same holds true with the rear or the north elevation, a block material would be used there. They have some block windows being added. You'll note from the correspondence being provided by the Inspection Department that windows are not allowed where there is zero setback. That is something that will have to be reviewed at the time of the Inspection plan review stage if it gets that far to determine whether or not those block windows are actually fire rated and meet the construction code as far as their fire safety rating. With that, I will answer any questions you may have or I will just go on to correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Yes, juslgo on lolhe correspondence Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated January 24, 2012, which reads as follows: 9n accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced site plan approval request. The written legal description provided is correct. The address for this site is confirmed to be 33428 Five Mile Road. Via copy of this correspondence, 1 am notifying the property owner that a permit will be required from the Engineering Division should any work impact the alley just north of this building." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 18, 2012, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing building on the property located at the above referenced address. 1 have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fester, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from January 31, 2012 25960 the Division of Police, dated January 23, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal" The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 24, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The window proposed to be installed on the east wall of the structure is not permitted due to the zero setback between the proposed exterior wall and the property line. This is based on the Michigan Building Code fire separation requirements. (2) The existing building is nonconforming due to the zero setback from the south property line. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to expand a nonconforming building. (3) The petitioner shows two barrier free parking spaces provided. Only one barrier free space is required. The required barrier free parking space is to be van accessible. This requires a minimum of a 5 foot wide hashed access aisle alongside of an 11 foot wide parking space or an 8 foot wide hashed access aisle alongside an 8 foot wide parking space. This space must be property signed and striped. The second parking space marked as barrier free does not meet the requirements of a barrier free space and should be corrected or used as a regular parking space. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Krueger: Mark, the issues with the barrier free parking spots, is that going to impact the parking situation? Will they be able to fl it in there? Mr. Taormina: They will actually have an overage of parking. I believe there is sufficient space available just south of the existing barrier free space where they can probably provide the dimensions that are needed to satisfy those requirements without losing any parking spaces. I think they have a little bit of flexibility in order to meet those requirements. Ms. Krueger: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor: I'm sorry. Were you talking about landscaping? Mr. Morrow: No. The banner free space. January 31, 2012 25961 Mr. Taylor: Mark, the two spots to the south where it's halchmarked. Obviously at the time they built this building, there was no room for landscaping. We've been trying to do more landscaping if we could. It seems like those three spots that I see there, and when I went by there, it looked like the one on the west view had been used for that at one time or another. I wonder if we could get some landscaping in there just to kind of spruce it up a little bit there, to green it up. Mr. Taormina: I'll let the architect or property owner respond to that. I think there was an attempt made previously to have those areas landscaped but that didn't work out. Maybe there needs to be a little different approach taken to be able to make that work as a landscaped area. Mr. Taylor: Even to the point on the west side, if they had to eliminate a parking spot. Let's say we land bank it like we've done other places and put some landscaping in there. If they did get another denfist, they could possibly use that space then. Mr. Taormina: That is an option. I think they're going to be tight on parking. That's my gut feeling on this even though they may meet the requirements as to the ordinance. When I visited the site, they currently have four or five parking spaces located right directly behind the building. Those will be eliminated with the addition. I suspect that is where some of the staff parks. The times that I visited it, the lot was pretty full. If they feel they can give up one space and still meet their parking, that's fine. I wouldn't go much more than that though. Mr. Taylor: Maybe we can find out from the petitioner. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and address for the record, sir. Garnet Cousins, Architect, 468 Wellesley, Birmingham, Michigan 48009. I'm an architect. Jay Nitzken, D.D.S., Livonia Dental Care, 33428 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48154. I'm the owner of Livonia Dental Care. Mr. Morrow: Was there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Cousins: There was landscaping and then salt killed everything. So it's back to the drawing boards, but this would be the time to do it. One thought would be to have some kind of a curb to keep out the salt that's used to de-ice the asphalt and protect like a January 31, 2012 25962 barrier any flow into that gravel area and then put something there that's pretty resistant to salt. I don't know if there's a shrub that's famous for being good in a salty environment. Mr. Taylor: Mark, aren't there some of those that are pretty resistant to salt? Mr. Taormina: Yes. There are varieties of plants today, shrubs, that are more salt tolerant than others that we could take a look at. Mr. Taylor: You wouldn't have any problem doing that then, sir? Mr. Cousins: No. I'm just concerned that with the snow plows, they pile up the snow in those areas to clear the parking spaces, I'm just concerned that everything's going to die there. That would be my only concern. Mr. Morrow: I think we recognize a very tenuous situation there. Basically what we're asking is to take a look at it and see if there's any way that makes sense to have some green along the property line. Dr. Nitzken: Has anybody ever used artificial ... Mr. Taylor: We didn't have to worry about snow this year. Mr. Morrow: If you would keep in contact with the Planning Department with your thoughts along that. Mr. Cousins: Another question I have would be things like some kind of grass or ground cover, whether that's more resistant. Something lower level that wouldn't gel crushed, like some kind of wild grass. Mr. Morrow: Well, just take a look at it. We don't want to do it tonight, but we would like to see something there if it makes any sense at all. We recognize that the gentleman brings up the fact that snow is another concern because of the tightness of the site there. Are there any other questions? Mr. Cousins: Its going to take some looking. Ms. Krueger: Just an idea for the landscaping. Maybe you could put flowers in the summer or have a planting area. Dr. Nitzken: We put flowers right in front of the front door. Two big pots. We could put flowers in the two areas right by Five Mile Road. January 31, 2012 25963 Ms. Krueger: Then you wouldn't have to worry about salt. Dr. Nitzken: Not in the summertime. Ms. Krueger: With our changing weather, who knows? I do have a question about the thin brick that you're proposing to use on the building. What type of application process was used in the past for the older thin brick and what's going to be used with the new thin brick? Mr. Cousins: The older I dont know because the bank did it. I think it's been repaired by the dentist using whatever the recommended adhesives are, but it would be a product that has some kind of a foam back and some kind of a proprietary adhesive that comes with the brick. Then you mortar the joints. It's a fairly widely used product. Obviously if you hit it with a car, it wouldn't slay there. There's a guard rail there now, like a highway guard rail, that people have tried to bend by striking it, but it seems to have resisted everything so far. Ms. Krueger: I know that some of the older application processes included the foam back and that wasn't as sturdy or resilient as some of the other newer types of application. Mr. Cousins: Well, we'd want to do it the hardest, strongest way. Ms. Krueger: But you don't know which way you're doing it at this point? Mr. Cousins: I don't know anything yet about that level of detail, how it would be done, but it should not be falling off. Ms. Krueger: Do you know what supplier you're going to use for that? Ms. Cousins: I dont. I know that Livonia actually had one of the suppliers. I think they moved from Eight Mile to Livonia. I forget their name. Ms. Krueger: How many employees are working at any given time, or how many will be in the new building? Dr. Nitzken: We have about ten or so at any given time. Ms. Krueger: How many patients would you expect to be in the building at one time? Dr. Nitzken: We have three hygienists, so three patients for getting their teeth cleaned, and two, maybe three patients for myself at any given time. January 31, 2012 25964 Ms. Krueger: So do you see any concern with the number of parking spaces? Dr. Nitzken: I don't think it should be much of an issue. I think it will be a little bit lighter but I don't see it as being much of a problem at all. Ms. Kruger: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: I'm on the same line. You're the only dentist in there? Dr. Nitzken: I have an associate that works for me part time. He comes and goes. Same with the hygienists. Some are full time, but my associate is parttime. Ms. Smiley: Okay. That's the maximum number of patients you would have at one time, would be like six, three for you and three for the hygienists. Dr. Nitzken: Yes. Pretty much. With our expansion, we're hoping to get another hygienist in there. So we're going to have four hygiene patients. Ms. Smiley: Do you anticipate problems because you're going to lose all the parking in the back? Dr. Nitzken: No, because we have quite a few parking spots, so I don't think it's going to be an issue. I don't expect that it will be. Ms. Smiley: Are the people in the back usually you're office employees that park back there? Dr. Nitzken: Sometimes they're mine. Sometimes they're the employees at Bates. Sometimes they're the customers of Bates, especially around meal time, they'll start using our parking lot. With the employees, I tell them as long as we're not there, like on the weekends and sometimes evenings, they're welcome to use our parking spaces, but during the times that we're here, that we're working, that we need the spots. But it's hard because at lunchtime, people, you know, will park and mn in and get their burgers and they go back. So its hard to prevent them from using it. Al limes, it gels kind of light, especially around dinnertimes and lunchtime, but other than those times, it hasn't been an issue. Ms. Smiley: What are your hours of operation? January 31, 2012 25965 Dr. Nitzken: Our hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Friday and one Saturday a month, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. And if you ever need your teeth cleaned, you'll know where to go. Mr. Wilshaw: Dr. Nitzken, the space that's going to be left behind your building, there's going to be still about six feet there. Do you anticipate anybody trying to park in that space, maybe parallel, or try to wedge a car in there? Dr. Nitzken: I never even planned on having a parking spot there. I didn't think there would even be room for it. Mr. Wilshaw: I was thinking that it wouldn't surprise me if one of the Bates' customers or someone wouldn't try to just wedge their car over there if it's busy. Dr. Nitzken: Sometimes they park right in the alleyway and we can't back out because they're there getting their food. Mr. Wilshaw: But you're not anticipating to use that space behind your building at all? Mr. Cousins: You could put a sign there or some kind of curb maybe. Mr. Wilshaw: You may want to put a no parking sign there. Ms. Smiley: A low away zone, real close to City Hall. Mr. Wilshaw: The other question I had was, the building itself, is that painted brick? Dr. Nitzken: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Are you going to paint the new brick to match the old paint? Dr. Nitzken: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Are you just painting the new section or are you going to paint the whole building over again? Dr. Nitzken: It depends. If painting the new space matches the old and it looks really nice, then we're going to leave it alone, but if it doesn't look right, then I'm going to paint the whole thing. January 31, 2012 25966 Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Good, because that's my concern. I wanted to make sure 0 has a nice consistent color and you don't have patchwork. Dr. Nitzken: I totally agree. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Excellent. Thankyou. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Taormina, did you have a comment? Mr. Taormina: My question really to the architect relates to what Mr. Wilshaw brought up along the back. I noticed the grade. There's probably a one and half fool difference between the surface elevation of the alley and what would probably be the finished floor elevation of the building. As you carry that addition out or extend north, what do you do along that back wall? Do you drop the ledge to match grade and keep that a level surface with the alleyway or do you try to taper the grade down? Because if it tapers down, it's going to be quite a rise from the alleyway up to the building. It's going to slope quite steeply and I think that would naturally prevent cars from parking there. However, you may have electrical service and other services provided back there where you have to keep a level area, so maybe you're going to drop the ledge. Mr. Cousins: You might take a step as you come out of the building. Mr. Taormina: Yes, and if you have any kind of access door, so I think you're going to have to give some thought to how you're going to handle the grades back there. I suspect you're going to have to step down and you're going to have to drop the ledge down to meet grade there with the alley. It's going to be a little tricky, and I don't know that cars would be able to park there. I think there's going to be a combination of the utility boxes and he's going to have to put bollards there to protect those meters, and he's also probably going to have a staircase leading down from either service door or emergency access door. Mr. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Are there any other questions? I see none. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion would be in order. On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-13-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-01-08-01 submitted by Livonia Dental Care requesting approval of all January 31, 2012 25967 plans required by Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing building at 33428 Five Mile Road, located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Surrey Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SD -1 dated January 16, 2012, as amended, prepared by Garnet R. Cousins, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Elevations Plans marked Sheet No. A-3 dated January 16, 2012, as amended, prepared by Garnet R. Cousins, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the paint used on the exterior of the addition shall match the color and shade of the exterior paint of the existing building; 4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 5. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feet in height as measured from the finish grade at the base of the structure to the top of the light fixture, and such fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated January 24, 2012; 7. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 9. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building peril is obtained this January 31, 2012 25968 approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: I just want to make sure that we addressed everything that the Inspection Department was having a problem with. Mr. Morrow: Do you mean as far as the windows? Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Did you indicate that was going to be worked out at the time of plan review by the Inspection Department, Mark? Mr. Taormina: The Inspection Department, when they do the plan review for the addition, will address the issue with the windows. And the barrier free is also something they would require. If we want to make reference to that in our approving resolution, we can reference that those issues be addressed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department. Mr. Morrow: That sounds like a plan. Ms. Smiley: If that's okay? Mr. Bahr: Yes. Mr. Morrow: So you will lake care of that, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. We thank you for coming in. It's always nice to have a business come in when they're expanding. Thank you, gentlemen. ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,018Tr Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,018th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 13, 2011. On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was January 31, 2012 25969 #01-14-2012 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,018th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2011, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wilshaw, Scheel, Bahr, Smiley, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Krueger Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4016' Special Regular Meeting Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 401" Special Regular Meeting held on January 24,2012. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-15-2012 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 401" Special Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2012, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Scheel, Bahr, Krueger, Wilshaw, Taylor, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,019" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 31, 2012, was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman