Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-02-1219147 MINUTES OF THE 839° REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday,, February 12, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 839" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Pastor Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present. Chairman McCann 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 turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner hasten 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 afterthe date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-01-08-05 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petifion 2002- 01-08-05 submitted by Jehovah's Witnesses requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish, rebuild and construct an addition to the church located at 32070 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast%of Section 3. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Seven Mile between Merriman and Farmington. Livonia Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's 19148 Witnesses is proposing to tear down their existing story -and -half church and rebuild a more convenient church. The foundation would then be used and become part of the new church. The proposed church would be one-story in height and 4,780 sq. R. in size. The auditorium of the existing church holds 164 seats. Also as part of this proposal, the site's parking lot, which is located behind the church, would be enlarged. They are required to have 57 parking spaces. With the new parking lot, theywould have 80 parking spaces. The Building Elevation Plan shows that the new church would be somewhat residential in appearance. All foursides oflhe building would be constructed entirely out of brick and the roof would be covered in asphalt shingles. The rear elevation, facing the parking lot, would have a structural drive-thm canopy held up by brick columns. This canopy would provide protection from the elements for people getting in or out of their vehicles. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 30, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 6, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest of January 22, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot lighting should be adjusted and/or shielded so as to not spill onto the adjacent residential area. (2) The building coverage actually measures out to be 5,896 square feet including the covered drive- thru, which is well within lot coverage parameters. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 11, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposal to construct an addition at 32070 Seven Mile Road. Each handicap space must be individually signed per Livonia City Ordinance. A stop sign should be installed at the sidewalk near Seven Mile Road for exiting vehicles." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Charles Woodhams, 18333 Levan, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your project? 19149 Mr. Woodhams: Not much more than you already know except that our concern is for elderly and handicap people. We have some elderly people who have a very difficult time maneuvering the stairs that are there now. You come in at a half height when you come in off the parking lot, and from that point, you cannot go anywhere in the building without going up or down stairs. In fact, we literally have to carry people in wheelchairs. Our interest is to care for the needs of all of our people making the building convenient to all those handicap and not handicap. That's the main reason for wanting to change the building structure. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: If this gets approved, upon your renovation, what would your people do in the meantime until you get the building done? Where would they go? Mr. Woodhams: Well, we do this quite often as we renovate buildings across the Detroit area. Generally, another congregation will host us for a short period oftime in one of their buildings. We mighlgo to either Plymouth or Farmington or one of the other congregations nearby for just a short while. Mr. Alanskas: That would be a few months loo, wouldn't @? Mr. Woodhams: That would be a couple months I'm sure because we're having to demolish and build. Mr. LaPine: Just a couple questions. Number one, I notice in the notes that you're not increasing the capacity of the sanctuary of the church. Mr. Woodhams: Right. Mr. LaPine: But you're increasing the parking to 80 spaces. If you have enough parking there now, why are you increasing the parking? Mr. Woodhams: Just more for convenience, I think, than anything else. Mr. LaPine: I'm happy. I always want more parking. At the extreme north property line, it looks like a brand new fence along there, or maybe it's been there for a few years, then it stops for a certain portion. Then to the west of that, I believe that's part of your property. Is it not? Mr. Woodhams: That's the fence now. That's the demarcation between the two properties. We have two neighbors behind us. 19150 Mr. LaPine: Who put up that fence, you or the owners of the property to the north? Mr. Woodhams: The owner of the property to the north. Mr. LaPine: You're extending your panting lot to the west to a certain extent, are you not? Mr. Woodhams: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Is there anyway we can get that wood fence so it starts at the east and goes across two properties so we have one complete privacy fence all the way across there? Mr. Woodhams: I think we can cooperate with that. Mr. LaPine: I think that will just kind of set it off and more or less separate your property from theirs. It gives them some more privacy as far as the fence, and just match what is there now. Mr. Woodhams: Yes, we talked about two possible solutions to that. One that you mentioned. Another possibility would be to make a berm on the back and put some nice trees along the side. They'd have isolation with that and berms to look at, and so would we. Mr. LaPine: We're looking at both to be quite frank with you. But that's the only two questions I have. Mr. Woodhams: I think we can cooperate with that. Mr. McCann: Are the building materials going to be traditional four -inch brick and a shingled roof? Mr. Woodhams: Yes. Mr. McCann: Is there anything else special about this project thatwe should know about? Mr. Woodhams: There is nothing special that the drawings or the color rendering don't show. Mr. McCann: Are the air conditioning units going to be in the rear? Mr. Woodhams: The air conditioning units will actually be in the front in the comer, but they will be behind a wall. They will be invisible to the road. Mr. McCann: Okay. Mr. Taormina, is the sign part of the proposed package that's shown in the rendering? 19151 Mr. Taormina: I believe the sign exists. It's not proposed to be altered at all. Mr. Woodhams: It's ensfing. Mr. LaPine: I notice around Metropolitan Detroit that there are a number of Jehovah's Wtnesses' buildings that have been rebuilt. They look like homes. Is that basically the style? Mr. Woodhams: Yes. Mr. LaPine: There's one on Eleven Mile off of Farmington Road. Is that basically the way it's going to look? Mr. Woodhams: Yes. In fad, that particular building has won awards from the City of Farmington for its appearance several years in a row. Mr. LaPine: Very nice. Mr. Woodhams: We build small structures. We have relativelysmall congregations so we dont need a large sanctuary or auditorium. We can get along very nicely with a building that looks like that. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #02-19-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-01-08-05, submitted by Jehovah's Witnesses, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish, rebuild and construct an addition to the church located at 32070 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast%of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Sl dated January 16, 2002, prepared by Dailey Engineering, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. Thatthe Landscape Plan marked Drawing 1 dated January 16, 2002, prepared by Effective Enhancement Company, is hereby approved with the following modifications and shall be adhered to; 19152 3. That earth berms, at least 3 R. in height, shall be constructed along both the east and north property lines. The plant materials for the berth along the north property line shall match those on the east property line and shall be similar in size and quantity; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A3 dated September 10, 2001, prepared by Dailey Engineering, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception; 8. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is subsfituled, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and the endosure gales shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 9. That all light fixtures, existing or proposed, shall not exceed 20 R. in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray lighttrespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 10. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, am approved with this petition; 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and 12. That a wooden privacy fence similar to the existing fence be installed along the remaining portions of the north property line where it currently does not exist. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: On our notes, it shows the width of the green space between the parking lot and the north property is 25' wide and the east is 26'. Our 19153 notes show the height of the bene will be three feet, but we don't have a width. Are they going to be 25' in width — the bene? Mr. Taormina: Normally, we'll maintain a side slope of about 1 on 3, maximum. So, whatever it is to carry that to a full three feet, and then with a few feet for the actual planting on top of the berth. It will probably extend most of the width of those greenbelts or those areas separating the parking lot from the property lines. Mr. Alanskas: All right, thank you. Mr. McCann, 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 2002-01-08-06 MEADOWLARK WOODS Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002- 01-08-06 submitted by Meadowlark Woods Site Condominiums requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct site condominiums on property located at 29945 Six Mile Road in the Northeast%of Section 14. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Six Mile between Middlebelt and Henry Ruff. The pefitioner is requesting approval to develop a site condominium development called "Meadowlark Woods." Part of the southern half of this properly was rezoned from OS to RUFA on October 10, 2001. This property is adjacent to a medical office complex, which is located to the north. The new development would consist of five (5) condominium lots. Each proposed lot would conform to all requirements of an RUF zoning district. A 50 ft. wide public street would ran norll✓south off Six Mile Road, slightly meander to the east, then curve to the west and end in a7' type turn -around. The Master Deed states that the first floor of each unit would be full -face, four -inch (4") brick on all four sides. The total amount of brick on each one-story dwelling would not be less than 80% and 55% ontwo-story dwellings. The chimney of any dwelling would be brick. Minimum floor area for each one-story dwelling would be 1,850 sq. ft. and 2,500 sq. ft. for each multi -story dwelling. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 8, 2002, which reads as 19154 follows: "Pursuantto yourrequest, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering Division has the following concems regarding the above -referenced project: (1) The layout of the proposed "Tee" tumaround at the south end of the mad will need to be approved by the Fire Department and Waste Management before permits will be issued. (2) The developer will need to provide a 10 foot wide easement adjacent to the proposed roadway since the proposed right -0f -way is shown as 50 feet wide, and the standard forresidential right -0f -way width is 60 feet wide. (3) The development will also be required to meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance as well as address other existing water problems on the property." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 11, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the site plans in regard to the proposed construction of site condominiums. It is our recommendation that sidewalks be constructed along Meadowlark Lane to encourage safe pedestrian travel There is no indication that streetlights are planned for this development but recommend that street lights are installed to enhance crime prevention and traffic safety concems. A stop sign should also be installed nearthe sidewalk for exiting vehicles." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 6, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest ofJanuary 23, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) No mention of the required protective wall separating the OS District from the RUF District is made. This should be clarified. (2) The aerial photograph shows parking being lost by the medical building without providing calculations that it still meets the parking requirements. (3) Site 2 has a deficient side yard setback Due to the width of the lot at the front lot line, it should be approximately 13 feet Site 2 also does not define the rear yard setback. (4) No mention is made of the trees to be saved. (5) There is an incongruity in the condominium documents in Article IV. Section 1 states there will be no Board. Section 2 refers to powers and duties of the Board. This should be clarified. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Taormina, reference was made to Lott with a deficient side yard setback. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Piercecchi: Can it be done? 19155 Mr. Taormina: Yes, I don't see where that would be a problem. I believe that the Inspection Department indicates that Site 2 has a deficient side yard setback due to the width of the lot at the front lot line. It should be approximately 13 feet and it's shown on this plan as being 10 feet wide. I don't believe it would cause any problems to make that adjustment to the requested 13 feel. Mr. Piercecchr Thankyou. Mr. McCann: Is the pefitioner here this evening? Raymond Hurley, 32511 Norfolk, Livonia. I'm President of Hurley Homes, Inc. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you want to tell us about this project? Mr. Hurley: The site plan you have before you is a revised plan that addresses some ofthe concerns, not all ofthem but certainly some ofthem. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. Shane: Do you have a storm water plan? Mr. Hurley: Yes, we do. Mr. Shane: But its not indicated on this? Mr. Hurley: No. At the rear of Site 4, that's our area for retention. Mr. Shane: This question is for Mr. Taormina. Are we required to designate trees for saving? Mr. Taormina: We don't normally have that shown on these plans. I'm not sure whether or not you could really save any trees on this particular site given the elevations of the site and the requirement for mass grading. Mr. Shane: I have a question on the greenbelt. Mr. Hurley: Yes, sir. Mr. Shane: Did you consider a wall across there as opposed to ... Mr. Hurley: On the revised plan, we have a landscape screen that screens the parking lot. There's going to be 23 five foot evergreens alternately spaced. Mr. Shane: And that's to be maintained by the Association? Mr. Hurley: When there is an Association, right. 19156 Mr. Shane: The only concern I have is that the person on Lot 5, if half of those trees die or something, what tells me that they're going to be replaced? Is that the Association? And can we rely on the Association to do that? Mr. Hurley: At this point. Mr. Shane: At this point? Mr. Hurley: When the landscaper puts it in, there's a gurentee on a certain length of time. Its usually a year to two years that the trees will take root, and if that's not the case, they will replace them. Mr. Shane: Okay, but 10 years down the road, what happens? Mr. Hurley: Ten years down the road? I don't know, sir. Mr. Shane: It's a concern I have which leads me back to maybe considering a wall as opposed to the trees because I think it's more permanent. That's all I have at the moment. Mr. La Pine: Have you considered putting sidewalks in? Mr. Hurley: In RUF zoning, they're not required. Al this point we haven't really considered sidewalks. Mr. La Pine: How about street lights? Mr. Hurley: If street lights are a requirement, then certainly we would consider street lights. Mr. La Pine: I think it's a safety issue. The other question I have concerns the landscaping. My problem is that I'm worried about the owner of Site 5. What if he buys that site and something should happen to the landscaping? I dont think it is going to happen, but say something should happen. And he's having problems with people cutting through that greenbelt and he wants a wall. At this point, he can't get a wall because it has logo to the condo association and you've got five homeowners. Lots 1, 2 and 3 don't care about that guy. If they vote it down, he's got no recourse. That's a problem that I have. To me, I think for safety's sake I'd rather see the wall go up there now and then we're not going to run into that problem. Not saying theyre not going to have a problem someday with the wall weaving back and forth. But then at least the Association would maybe take into consideration that it doesn't look good for the whole complex and theyll fix it. But if the fellow wants a wall there later, he's not going to gel a wall because the three people over here are going to say, "Hey, I'm not going to pay for that wall. It's going to cost $40,000. We're 19157 going to have to divide the costs between the four owners" That the only thing I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speakfor or againstthis petition? Mr. Hurley, do you have any other comments? Mr. Hurley: No, sir. I don't. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, itwas #02-20-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefilion 2002-01-08-06 submi0ed by Meadowlark Woods Site Condominiums requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct site condominiums on property located at 29945 Six Mile Road in the Northeast%of Section 14, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Tifle 16, Chapter 16.0416.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX, Section 20.01- 20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, except for the fact that the following shall be incorporated: That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story dwellings; 2. That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception; 3. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities; 4. That the Site Plan dated February 6, 2002, as revised, prepared by Leo Soave Building Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the greenbelt along the north side of Lot 5 where it abuts the OS district is hereby denied and a five (5) fool high masonry protective screen wall shall be constructed; 19158 5. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; 6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering Division's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 8, 2002: That the developer shall provide a 10 ft. wide easement adjacent to the roadway; That the development shall meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance and shall address all other existing water problems on the property; 7. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 6, 2002: That the developer will rectify the side yard setback of Lot #2; and 8. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to Arlide XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 ofthe ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Taormina, in our motion we're talking about 65% and 80% brick, but on the Master Deed it says 80% and 55%. Should the Master Deed be changed to correspond with what the motion says? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that is cored. Mr. La Pine: Make sure that's done. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, with regard to the fence, it says "wherever it abuts the OSdislrict"I believe. My map isn't very clear but isn't the east side of Lot 5, this first northerly 50 feet, approximately 50 feet anyway, abutting OS? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that is cored. However, if I'm not mistaken, a wall may exist already. 19159 Mr. Piercecchr We're talking aboutthat easement, Chairman. Mr. McCann: I understand, Dan, but you have a wall going 50 feeldown the back of your yard and then it just stops in the middle of your backyard. I'm not sure how appropriate d is. I juslwanllodiscuss d. Mr. Piercecchi: I amended that motion a little bit. Wherever it abuts the north property lines. I'm sorry. Mr. McCann: I just wanted that issue clarified. Mr. Pastor: Thats why you're the Chairman. Mr. McCann: Any other discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: I have a comment to make about substituting the greenbelt for the wall between that parking lot and the building on Site 5. We generally put them in and see if theyre going to be effective. In this case, who would determine if the greenbelt is effective? And if it is deemed not effective, what would be the obligation of the Association, as Mr. La Pine pointed out, to construct such a wall at a cost of about $50 per foot? That adds up to about $10,000, $2,000 per lot. If there was a problem, again kind of quoting Mr. La Pine, would the other four be willing to pay their share to accommodate one owner? Now is the time really to erect such a wall. It would eliminate a potentially bad situation, and it would be the most cost effective time to employ that wall. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2002-01-08-07 N &J DEVELOPMENT Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002- 01-08-07 submitted by N &J Development Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 19250 Victor Parkway in the Southeast%of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest comer of Seven Mile and Victor Parkway. The petitioner is proposing to construct an office building on vacant property that is located at the southern most boundary of the Victor Corporate Park development. This property is in the process of being rezoned to OS. The proposed office building would be two -stories in height and 20,000 sq. R. in total area. Access to the 19160 site would be by a single drive off Victor Parkway. The building would be located in the center of the property and would be surrounded by parking. The required parking would be 80 spaces. The Site Plan shows 82 parking spaces. The Landscape Plan shows that the landscape proposed would be very elaborate. A large section of the existing trees and vegetafion that screens the corner and runs along Seven Mile Road and partway up Victor Parkway would be left untouched. The required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; the provided landscaping would be 39% of the total site. The building would be constructed out of a red brick on all foursides. The windows would look like a confinuous band along both the first and second floors. The entrance area would be defined by a dark brick veneer. This would match the building materials of the existing buildings in Vidor Corporate Park. They are also requesting a conforming 10 sq. ft. monument sign. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 31, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. This office has no objections to the legal description provided. We do have the following concem regarding the above -referenced project: Due to the sensitive nature of the pond which includes wetlands and Floodplain, we would request that the retaining wall along the north property line be constructed prior to any building construction. It is our understanding that the developer has received permission from Victor International to use the common element pond' to meet the storm water detention requirements." The letter is signed by David Lear, P. E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 1, 2002, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed office building and submit the following recommendations: (1) Handicap parking spaces must be individually signed per Livonia City Ordinance. Handicap signs should be uniform with other handicap signs in the city. The handicap signs should be rectangularin shape and 12 inches wide by 18 inches tall. (2) A STOP sign should be installed for exiting vehicles at Victor Parkway. (3) Recommend installation of a sidewalk along Victor Parkway the full length of the property (and connecting with the Seven Mile sidewalk)." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 7, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 25, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The monument sign as proposed is acceptable. However, no further signage will be allowed until the third tenant and then two square feet will be allowed for each tenant up to a total maximum of 30 square 19161 feet. (2) The landscape plan specifies seeding in certain areas over topsoil. This should be clarified to the Commission's satisfaction. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? We're talking about the change in colors. I thought it was a real modem looking building with a burgundy brick. And now we see by yoursamples its more traditional. Kevin Biddison, Biddison Architecture & Design, 27750 Stansbury, Farmington Hills, Michigan. It is a little bit more traditional in terms of its coloration. I brought the brick samples because this computer rendering is a little bit off in its color, just so that you would know what those samples are. As is requested by Victor Corporate Park, you have to have your brick samples reviewed by the Board and we have done that. They have approved the red brick samples. Again, everything has to be red brick within the Park. You have to have their approval to do so. We really have no issues with any of the items that Mark Taormina mentioned. We have received approval to use the pond area for the drainage. It was originally sized to handle this parcel as well even though this is not officially part of the Victor Corporate Park. The retaining wall, which will be along here, will be put into place and we would have to do so prior to the construction of the project. We would be saving all of the existing trees that are there, the buffer along Seven Mile that exists, the evergreen screen ... none of that would be touched. I think we have provided a very good buffer completely around the building. Its going to be a pretty good addition to the Victor Corporate Park on Seven Mile. I'll be glad to answer any questions specifically that you might have. Mr. Piercecchr Would you put the other drawing up loo? I want to see them both together. You made a bigger one, didn't ym? The reason why I'm asking for that is, in the write up here, its stated that the entrance area would be defined by a dark brick veneer. What do you mean by veneer? You're not talking about panel brick, are you? Mr. Biddison: Its all four inch. Mr. Piercecchr You're talking about four inch? Mr. Biddison: Absolutely. Mr. Piercecchr Okay, because that's him we always interpret when it says veneer. Mr. Biddison: A veneer just means that ithas a substrate behind itthat... 19162 Mr. Piercecchr Yes, probably styrene generally ... Mr. Biddison: Il will be full-size four inch brick. Mr. Piercecchr Okay. That ruffles the feathers on the back of our necks. You know that? Mr. Biddison: It would ruffle my feathers too, so I don't blame you. Mr. Shane: Is this a spec building or do you have some tenants already? Mr. Biddison: It is a spec building. However, Mr. Shamie is in the audience. There have been a couple of corporations that have shown interest in the site. It's an excellent site visibility -wise for a single user and there really isn't much product of this size with that type of visibility for smaller corporations at 20,000 square feet. So it is speculative but there has been interest in it already. Mr. LaPine: The retaining wall that you're going to put up by the pond ... is that going to be poured concrete or is it going to be boulders? Mr. Biddison: Basically, the wall is going to be very sleep. We need it to be very vertical, so at the moment we are proposing it to be poured concrete. That's the easiest way to make that happen structurally. Mr. La Pine: To getintothis complex coming up Vidor Parkway off of Seven Mile Road, is that first crossover the way to get across it? Mr. Biddison: Yes, itis. Mr. LaPine: Regarding the pond ... does all the storm water from the two restaurants drain into that pond too? Mr. Biddison: You know, I'm not quite sure whether the restaurants do or not. It was for Vidor Corporate Park. Whether they're part of the Park, I'm nolsure. Mr. Shamie: They are. Mr. LaPine: They all drain into that one pond. Okay, thank you. Mr. Pastor: You don't have an issue with putfing in the sidewalk? Mr. Biddison: You're talking about coming up this way? Mr. Pastor: Yes. The only other thing that we noticed that you may or may not know concerns the parking in the front of the building. With the overlap, you have to kind of shift the parlang a little bit on that. 19163 Mr. Biddison: In terms of the overhang? Mr. Pastor: Yes, with the overhang of the cars. I just want to bring that to your attention. Mr. Biddison: I'm aware of that and we'll make that adjustment. Mr. Alanskas: Mark, what will the height of the lights be? Mr. Taormina: We would establish that they not be any higher than 20 feet in this particular case. I'm not sure if there was a detail provided on the plan that showed any different than that or not, but 20 feel typically would be the maximum height. Mr. Alanskas: I just want to make sure it's not 30 or 40 feel. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mark, you had a comment? Mr. Taormina: Just a comment relative to the request for the sidewalk along Vidor Parkway. I just want the Commission to be aware of the fad that there may not be any other sidewalks along Vidor Parkway. And as you know, immediately to the north of this site is the pond. So the sidewalk would terminate at the north end of this property which is the beginning of the common area, which extends for several hundred feet north before you get to the restaurants. So it really wouldn't provide any opportunities for pedestrians to continue north along the sidewalk to get to any other place within Vidor Parkway. And I dont believe we have sidewalks at the other office sites. Mr. Biddison: I don't believe so, either. Mr. Taormina: There is a sidewalk along Seven Mile Road adjacent to this site. Mr. Pastor: I appreciate that, Mark, but I guess especially if you're having an office complex and people that dose to restaurants, they may want to walk to the restaurants. Some sidewalk is better than no sidewalk, especially in the winter. That's the only reason why I would go along with getting that sidewalk if the petitioner didn't have a problem with putfing it in. But I do agree with what you're stating about the sidewalk dead -ending into that retention, but at least it gets them that far to the restaurants. Then the rest of the way, unfortunately, they may have to walk in the street, but I see it as a potential that people may want to do that. Mr. Alanskas: Or drive. 19164 Mr. McCann: Is there room along the pond for a sidewalk to be built eventually? Mr. Taormina: The right-of-way is wide enough so that there is area between the curb and the property line for a sidewalk, but what I don't know is whether or not there is steep slope there that would complicate the construction of sidewalk. My guess is that there is sufficient room for a future sidewalk. Mr. McCann: I think that is something we should look at ... even just to carry it to the restaurants. I agree with Mr. Pastor that it is a problem for anybody walking back there, especially having to walk into the street around the pond area. Sir, you have a comment? Mr. Biddison: The only thing I might add is, I wouldn't want to take down the existing evergreens to put in a sidewalk. Are we allowed to go around the evergreens if there is room to do that? I assume you want to keep that evergreen screen. We've done that in other communities, tried to go around them. That would obviously put it outside the property line in some instances perhaps. Mr. McCann: That's something that I think you could take up with Council as well, but I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. Mr. Pastor: I wouldn't either. And again, as one member, I want to save as many oflhe existing trees as possible, especially when someone says the contractor is not going to touch the trees. I'm a contractor, and unfortunately it usually gets touched, but we appreciate you not doing it. I appreciate it. Mr. McCann: Sir, you've had numerous comments tonight. Would you like to come up and introduce yourself? Sam Shamie: I'm a business developer in Livonia. Mr. McCann: Can you come up to the microphone? There are a lot of people in the audience that keep hearing comments from the back but can't see you. Mr. Shamie: I'm a developer. I've been in Livonia for 31 years. I believe this is a good site and we'll build a beautiful building here. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mr. Shane: I don't have any problem with sidewalks as long as we don't tear up and disturb the trees. 19165 Mr. Shamie: We'll do whatever you want. One question l do have. We went 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP. 101 dated January 25, 2002, as revised, prepared by Biddison Architecture & Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and shall include, if feasible, a sidewalk along Victor Park Drive; 2. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 2 dated January 22, 2002, prepared by Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That no parking spaces shall be allowed to extend over any walkways; 4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated January 22, 2002, prepared by E.J. Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding, except in those areas where the Inspection Department deems hydroseeding is reasonable; 6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall before City Council to gel this down zoned from a high rise to two story, and now if we gel approval here for site plan approval, why do we have to go back to Council? Mr. McCann: It's part of the process. We are a recommending body and its through the zoning charters of the City of Livonia. Mr. Shamie: Will we automatically be put on the next agenda? Mr. McCann: Yes, the next available agenda. Mr. Shamie: Thank you. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #02-21-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-01-08-07 submitted by N & J Development Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on properly located at 19250 Victor Parkway in the Southeast''/.of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP. 101 dated January 25, 2002, as revised, prepared by Biddison Architecture & Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and shall include, if feasible, a sidewalk along Victor Park Drive; 2. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 2 dated January 22, 2002, prepared by Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That no parking spaces shall be allowed to extend over any walkways; 4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated January 22, 2002, prepared by E.J. Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding, except in those areas where the Inspection Department deems hydroseeding is reasonable; 6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall 19166 be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter pennanenfiy maintained in a healthy condition; 7. That the Extenor Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A.201 and Sheet A.202 both dated September 18, 2001, as revised, prepared by Biddison Architecture & Design, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the back used in the construction shall be full -face four (4") inch back, no exception; 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same back used in the construction of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building; and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and, when not in use, closed at all times; 10. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 R. in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 11. That the pefifioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 1, 2002: That all handicap spaces shall be idenfified and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Code; - That a slop sign shall be installed for vehides exiting onto Victor Parkway; 12. Thalthe petitionershall correct to the Engineenng Division's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated January 31, 2002: That a retaining wall along the north property line shall be constructed prior to any building construction; 13. That the sign package submitted by Biddison Architecture & Design as received by the Planning Commission on January 30, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and 14. 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. 19167 Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Pastor: On the sidewalk condition, can we add that it will go along Vidor Parkway but to try to avoid any major trees? Or don't we need to specify that at all? Mr. Piercecchr Just ignore it. Mr. Pastor: Again, if we say that's it's good, then Inspection and everyone else understands that we're in compliance, that we want to go around those trees. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item? ITEM #4 PETITION 200142-02-28 HAWAIIAN CAFE Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 12-02-28 submitted by Sayer Ghosn, on behalf of Hawaiian Cafe, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 31160 Five Mile Road in the Merri-Five Plaza on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest %of Section 14. On a motion by Mr. Pieroecohi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #02-22-2002 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-12-02-28, submitted by Sayer Ghosn, on behalf of Hawaiian Cafe, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 31160 Five Mile Road in the Mend -Five Plaza on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest%of Section 14, be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19168 Mr. McCann: Is the pe55oner here this evening? Sayer Ghosn, 7711 Hazelton, Dearborn Heights, Michigan. Mr. McCann: Sir, your hearing was scheduled two weeks ago. You were unable to attend, I assume. So we tabled it until tonight. Mr. Ghosn: I didn't know that I had to show up over here. Mr. McCann: All right. Do you want to tell us about your restaurant? Mr. Ghosn: We are going to put in some counters and some shelves. We're going to serve coffee. We're going to have donuts come from outside so we are not going to have any cooking in our store. Its onlyjust coffee. We are going to make only coffee inside. That's all we're going to do. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, you're going to have 22 seats. My concern is how much coffee and donuts can you sell to survive in that facility? Mr. Ghosn: Idon't know. Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have outside sales where you ... Mr. Ghosn: No, no. Just inside. Mr. Alanskas: Just stnctly for service only? Mr. Ghosn: Just coffee service. If they want to have a seat, they can have a seat. That's all. Mr. Alanskas: Because isn't that mainly coffee and donuts early in the morning and maybe possibly at lunch? Mr. Ghosn: Yeah, probably from six and up, but probably we re going to have 22 people atthe same time. Mr. Alanskas: Now, you're going to be called the Hawaiian Cafe? Mr. Ghosn: Probably we'll change itto Livonia Cafe or something. Mr. Alanskas: Because I was wondering if you were going to be serving Kona coffee, which is Hawaiian coffee? 19169 Mr. Ghosn: Yeah, that's one. We're going to serve American coffees, that's why I'm going to change it to Livonia Cafe. Mr. Alanskas: You know in Laurel Park we have a Coffee Beanery that serves coffee and donuts. But I would say 80% oftheir sales are people buying coffee in bags. They grind it up and they take it with them. That's a large portion of their business. I'm just concerned that just serving coffee and donuts, its going to be very hard for you to make inhere. That's all you're going to have? Nothingasfaras sandwiches? Mr. Ghosn: That's all. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Shane: I just have one question. Have you operated a facility like this before? Mr. Ghosn: Yeah, I used to work al Twelve Mile at Bravo Coffee overthere. They have more than 22 seats. Between 6 and 8, you will have probably 30 people sitting down. That's why we're requesting more seals. We're not going to have no food over there. Only coffee and donuts. Other people sit down and watch TV and read newspapers. Mr. Shane: Where is the other facility.? Mr. Ghosn: It's on Twelve Mile and Evergreen. Its called Bravo Cafe. Mr. LaPine: You say you're going to serve coffees, beverages, sweet foods, deserts such as muffins, donuts, pastry and cookies. That's all basically that you're going to sell. Mr. Ghosn: Yes. Mr. LaPine: If I understand you right, you're not going to make anything there. Somebody is going to bring the donuts in. You're going to buy them from somebody else. Are you going to be selling donuts by the dozen, half dozen? Mr. Ghosn: Yes. Mr. LaPine: So if people want to come in and have a cup of coffee and one donut, and take half a dozen with them, they can do that? Mr. Ghosn: Yes, sure. Mr. LaPine: How long of a lease do you have on this parcel. 19170 Mr. Ghosn: Five years. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Pastor: It looks to me thatthis is similarto like a Dunkin' Donuts. They serve donuts all day, and now theyre just starting to get into new things. On this, I was going to actually start out by saying Aloha, but I guess that isn't working because you changed it to Livonia. All your product is going to be shipped in from outside, right? Mr. Ghosn: Yes. Mr. Pastor: Is thatfrom the place on Twelve Mile that you were refening lo? Mr. Ghosn: No. What's your question? Mr. Pastor: With your donuts, you're not making them there. So you're obviously getting them from a different... Mr. Ghosn: Yes. I'm going to buy them from somewhere else. I don't knowyet from where I want to buy them. Mr. Pastor: So it's not a brand name. We would consider this like a store that you're just delivering a product to. Mr. Ghosn: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Will you be buying those donuts from the bakery which is right next door to you? Will you? Mr. Ghosn: Idon't know. Mr. McCann: I don't see anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was #02-23-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanrig having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 29, 2002, on Petition 2001-12-02-28, submitted by Sayer Ghosn, on behalf of Hawaiian Cafe, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant at 31160 Five Mile Road in the Mem-Five Plaza on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest %of Section 14, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-12-02- 28 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the seating capacity shall be limited to 22 seats; and 19171 2. That the issues listed in the correspondence dated January 10, 2002 from the Inspection Department relating to the need for the building to be in compliance with the banner free accessibility code and the site to be in compliance with the requirement for handicapped parking signage and spaces shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction; for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: I really have big concems about you making it there because just two doors down there is a large coney island that serves breakfast, coffee, donuts and right next to him is a huge bakery that serves the same product. I really have a concem aboutjust putting a business in there that will only be temporary. I don't see how you could possibly make a living with only 22 seats. Thank you. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Pastor, Shane, LaPine, Piencecchi, McCann NAYS: Alanskas ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 19172 ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-01-08-03 NITZKIN DENTAL CLINIC Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-01- 08-03 submitted by Jay Nitzl n, D.D.S., on behalf of Nitzl n Dental Clinic, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior building elevations of the commercial building located at 33428 Five Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 16. Mr. McCann: We did receive a faxfrom the petitioner to the Planning Department. It appears the fax came in on February 8, 2002, requesting the petition remain on the table until the March 12, 2002, hearing date. Is the March 12 hearing date available, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Yes, it is. Mr. McCann: If there is no objection, we will leave it on the table. ITEM #6 PETITION 2001 -05 -PL -01 ROSATI INDUSTRIAL Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001- 05 -PL -01 submitted by Enrico Rosati requesting landscape approval in connection with PreliminaryPlat approval for Rosati Industrial Subdivision, to be located on the weslside of Stark Road between Schoolcratt Road (1-96) and Plymouth Road in the South Ybf Section 28. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #02-24-2002 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001 -05 -PL -01, submitted by Enrico Rosati, requesting landscape approval in connection with Preliminary Plat approval for Rosati Industrial Subdivision, to be located on the west side of Stark Road between SchoolcraR Road (1-96) and Plymouth Road in the South Ybf Section 28, be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Again, this is a pending item. We've reviewed it at length at prior meetings. There will be limited discussion. Mr. Taormina, is there anything additional that we need to be aware of? I understand there is a new plan with some additional wall and landscaping. 19173 Mr. Taormina: That is correct. That plan was received yesterday and each of the Commissioners should have a copy of that plan showing the revisions both to the screen wall section and elements involving the landscaping. Mr. McCann: Mr. Miller, would you presentthe plan so the people at home and in the audience can see what we're talking about. Mr. Miller: The first plan showed landscaping across this drive. Now the petitioner is showing a six fool high masonry wall along the entire drive, and it would continue slightly down the drive area of this street. This wall was already shown. This is a six fool high wall thatwould be along here and extend up the drive this way. He has also put in new Ash trees, every other one, and he's showing pine trees along there. So you have a wall and on the other side ofthe wall towards the road you would have some trees along there helping buffer the street. Mr. McCann: Forlhe record, I also wanllo stale that we did receive a letterfrom Keith and Teri Lemmon at 12101 Brewster which was provided to each of the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Roskelly, you are representing the petitioner this evening? William Roskelly, 33177 SchoolcmR, Livonia. Yes, sir. I'm open for any questions you may have. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Pastor: Mr. Roskelly, the trees seem to be further apart than I anticipated. What's your vision for the trees? I'm more worried about the trees growing out this way and up, other than just going straight up and still having that. I know you're very well versed in this and I just want to gel your perspective on the trees that you selected. Mr. Roskelly: Well, the selection was made with the evergreens to get some coverage but we certainly aren't trying to hide the wall. We did double the amount of trees that we shoved originally and I thought with the wall that would be acceptable. Ifwe consider the trees themselves, they will be only for the viewers on the street. Certainly the houses will be hidden from any of this. I feel that it's more than adequate. Mr. Pastor: Well, you're talking if you scale it out. Approximately there's about 40 feet between each tree unless I'm not doing the scale right. Mr. Shane: It's about 85 feet between evergreen trees. 19174 Mr. Pastor: Thats a pretty long distance. Mr. Roskelly: I think on the entrance at Stark for that first distance, these trees would be spaced around 35 feet apart. Mr. Pastor: And you don't feel, in your opinion, that that's too far apart? Mr. Roskelly: I feel it's adequate. I think when we have landscaping in here and you've got so many trees, I think to maintain the landscaping if you get too many trees, how do you ... Mr. Pastor: I don't disagree with that statement. I think the trees are usually spaced probably 10 feet apart or something like that so that they have room to grow this way. And again, we're not really loolting at it from the industrial side. We're not looking at keeping the wall so people can see the wall on that side. We're looking at hopefully trying to create in the future a berm going up above the wall so that we can hide the trucks and the exhaust fumes and all that stuff. Mr. Roskelly: We're speaking of that area from there until we get to that first intersection I presume. Mr. Shane: Bill, are you far enough along in engineering to give me an idea of how high the wall in actuality would be on the residential side? Is there a grade difference? Mr. Roskelly: There is little difference. Itwill be six feet on the residential side. Mr. Shane: And on the other side, it will be about the same size? Mr. Roskelly: Approximately the same, yes. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, is this going to be a poured concrete wall or is it going to be block wall? On your screen wall section here, it says something about aggregate and concrete block. Mr. Roskelly: It will be a block wall. Mr. LaPine: How come we're not getting a poured concrete wall? I dont like block walls. I thought the gentleman building this is in the concrete business? Mr. Roskelly: Yes, he's a block layer. It would be a scored block which, in my opinion, would be less monotonous than a sheet of concrete. Mr. Piercecchi: What do you think, Mr.LaPine? With the brick pattern, is that what you're talking about? 19175 Mr. Pastor: I think a poured brick face wall which you're familiar with would be a lot cheaper to do. Mr. Roskelly: A poured brick face wall? Mr. Pastor: That's got to be cheaper than doing it masonry. Mr. Roskelly: Mr. Rosafi, the gentleman's father, he is a block mason but nevertheless, if that's the desire of the Planning Commission ... Mr. LaPine: Well, I'm not sure. It seems to me that blocks come loose and if you hit one, it seems that you have to tear down a lot of blocks. I prefer not to have a blockwall but I'm notsure what we really need. I'll leave it to Mr. Pastor. He's a builder. He probably knows more than I know. Mr. Pastor: Oh, come on now. Mr. McCann: Let's not gel personal guys. I've got a couple quick questions to move it along. Mr. Taormina, can we require that the wall be completed before the industrial subdivision is developed? Mr. Taormina: Yes, I think it should be the obligation of the developer of the subdivision to have the wall completed at the initial part of the development prior to any of the lots being constructed on. Mr. McCann: Mr. Roskelly, one of the concems of Mr. and Mrs. Lemmon as they back up into the area ... if you'll come forward a little bit I'll show you on the drawing here. The wall right now will come across like this and go to right there. Your wall is coming from Five Mile, coming across and going down the first property line about 50 feet. In the meantime when you're developing all this, there's nothing in here to keep people from going back and forth. I believe once this area is developed, it will solve the problem. My understanding is that you're going to develop this area first, then the subdivision. Am I correct? Mr. Roskelly: That's correct. Mr. McCann: Would it be a problem to put a chain link fence between the two walls right there, at 80' or 80' whatever it is, unfil you have the industrial subdivision completed? There should be no need for anybody going back into that area. Mr. Roskelly: Absolutely not. That would not be a problem. In fact, I suspect that we would do that anyway because the last thing we want is somebody coming in through here which hasn't been improved. 19176 Mr. McCann: So we'd have all the walls up. We could have a chain link fence until the road and subdivision is developed. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Is there any objection from the Commissioners allowing comment? Terri Lemmon, 12101 Brewster, Livonia. I'm the one that wrote the letter. We have a problem with there being an opening. I can still see a problem coming from the ... I haven't had a chance to look at his new drawing where his wall is going to be. But the property that he's going to have, that's going to be right behind ours. Will there be property right behind our properly line? Is there going to be a house there? Mr. McCann: Eventually, that is the intent. Yes. There will be a subdivision between... Mrs. Lemmon: I didn't get a chance to look at his new one. I looked at his other one. I know this is asking for a lot but isn't it possible that he could put a wall going along the side of his residential properly going out to Boston Post or wherever he ends his property al? Mr. McCann: I'll lel Mr. Taormina answer that. I think that basically the issue, as I understand it, is that he has to provide one between the industrial and the residential, and that is what he's doing by putting the wall to the north of the residential he's developing. There is no requirement within the ordinance that anew subdivision has to put up a wall between residential and residential, and I don't think there is any way the City could force him to do it, to be honest with you. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mrs. Lemmon: Okay. What kind of chain link is he going to put up? I mean, is there going to be restrictions on that? How tall? Is it going to have a lock on it? Mr. McCann: As he staled to us, he intends to do it for his own benefit to keep the trucks out. It was my suggestion that he put it in there and I assume it would be, if we have a six fool wall, at least a six foot chain link fence to match it and with gates on it. Obviously, there will be gates large enough for trucks to get in and out when he deems necessary to get back there for construction reasons. Mr. Roskelly, do you agree with my statement? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. 19177 Mrs. Lemmon: Okay. There's only a six foot wall, and I understand it can go seven foot? Mr. McCann: I think that's an issue yet to be decided. We're going to getto that point. Mrs. Lemmon: Okay, because we have a big concem. We juslgota letter home from the schools saying that there's a man in the area that's acting inappropriately with two young children and he's hanging in the Livonia area. Now you've got a wall that he could possibly hide behind and watch our neighbors, our backyards. That's just a very scary... Mr. McCann: That's a concern for everybody in the City with the children. I understand that. But I dont know what we could do to make this development do something for that issue. Mrs. Lemmon: I just want to make sure there's going to be a lock on the gate. Just because there's a gate there, to keep people from driving into it. Is there going to be a lock so no one can just open it up and walk in? I just want to make sure it's secured. Mr. McCann: Mr. Roskelly indicates that there will be. Mr. Roskelly: Yes, there will be a secured lock gale. Mr. Pastor: Theyre not even going to be developing the residential sites. Its not like there's going to be a road there yet until they get ready to develop the residential end so it's going to be hard for any vehicle, unless it's a four wheel drive, I imagine, to actually get in there and drive around so it would be pretty lough. Mr. Taormina: If I may respond to that. The zoning ordinance does require a continuous unpierced prolective screen wall wherever the M-1 district abuts the residential district. So, until such time that he develops the residential property to the south, there would be a requirement for that wall to continue all the way across the zoning line unless he petitions the Zoning Board of Appeals for the temporary relief for that section which would eventually be opened up and constructed as part ofthe right-of-way providing access to the residential. So ifthe recommendation this evening is that a temporary barrier be in place in the form of a fence, then we would want to induce with that a referral to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. McCann: Mr. Roskelly, my question was, when you're going to put in the road and the underground, I didn't know whether it would be cheaper to go ahead and put in the residential road and underground at the same time, but you're not planning on doing that I take it? 19178 Mr. Roskelly: No, sir. We're not. Keith Lemmon, 12101 Brewster, Livonia. What my concern is how can residental and industrial be together here? There's got to be a wall between them. How can you have an industrial road going into the eight or nine houses they got here? All the kids from this neighborhood, in order to go anywhere, have to go down this industrial road, 700' or something like that. Are there going to be sidewalks for them to do that? There's no way out of this neighborhood besides through my backyard. Mr. McCann: You know, that's a very good point. Mr. Lemmon: There's not away out of this neighborhood that he has planned here besides my backyard or down that industrial road. Are the school busses going to come down that industrial road and pick up way back in there? Mr. McCann: Those are issues that can be developed ... Mr. Lemmon: Theyre opening up the residential area to the industrial area with that road being there. Mr. Pastor: I know one of the reasons why it's going on the industrial is because all the residents around there didn't want itto go to Boston Post. So we told the developerlhat he's not coming out to Boston Post, and this was the only way he could access his property for residential. Mr. Lemmon: You think that's good? Mr. Pastor: I dont necessarily think its good, bulthal's what all the residents in this area asked for. Mr. Lemmon: No. Mr. Pastor: Well, I'm not here to be argumentative. That is what everybody wanted. Just like the lady nexdto you wanted to put a wall between your residential property and the new residential property. We're trying to accommodate all the residents in this neighborhood the best we can. And although some of the solutions may not be good for everyone, we take everyone into consideration and do the best that we can. Now, that was a main stipulation back when I was sitting on Council when this came before us. Do not let them come through Boston Post. Period. That was a cry that the residents in that area wanted. And we stuck with that, and that's why the residential is now going off onto this road. Is there going to be issues like that about the bussing and all that stutr? You'reright. There is going to be a 19179 problem. But that's for the developer, the school system, and all that to work out. I mean we can work out all that we can here, and this was the best solution that we have come up with with the majority of the residents throughout the time that this has been before us. Mr. Lemmon: I'm not happy with it. Mr. McCann: But there was a public hearing last year on this where ... Mr. Lemmon: That okayed this right here? Mr. McCann: That okayed the industrial park with the roads coming through and that's ... Mr. Lemmon: The residential was on that? Mr. McCann: No, the residential hasn't come forward yet. It's zoned residential and he gave us proposed site plans so that we could see what will be done. The residential hasn't come before us yet, has it? Mrs. Lemmon: So if the residential hasn't come before you yet, why cant he put in a chain link without putting in a wall between residenfial and industrial there? Mr. McCann: That's what Mr. Taormina says, he cant. He can develop them both allhe same time, or pulthe wall across, or go to the Zoning Board and get a variance and put up the chain link. Mrs. Lemmon: I'm definitely for the wall. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, one issue before I call for a motion. And that is the issue that was brought up regarding a sidewalk. Is therea sidewalk running to Stark Road from the subdivision? Mr. Taormina: From the industrial subdivision, no sidewalk is shown along any .... Mr. McCann: It makes a good point if we're going to have trucks going in and out of there, and we have about 15 homes in there. Mr. Taormina: It's an R-5 zoning for that portion of the land that is residential, and the subdivision regulations do not require a sidewalk in the event that all of the lots have at least 100 feet of frontage along the public right- of-way and also exceed 15,000 square feet. So it may be that when we review the plat or the site plan as the case may be for the residential, that he's not obligated under our ordinances to build any sidewalks through that development. 19180 Mr. McCann: My point is, whether theyre riding around on their bikes in the street here, it's not concerning me because it's only going to be the neighbors driving by. When they're riding their bikes out to the main road, which they will do, they've got the trucks and workers coming back and forth down this road, and that's a major concern with children. My concern is that with the residential back here we really have to have a sidewalk going along here somewhere. Mr. Roskelly, I've perked your ears pretty good. Mr. Roskelly: I certainly agree with you that from the entrance from Stark Road to the beginning of the residential, we should have a sidewalk on one side orthe other. Mr. McCann: I'd hope on the south side, if its possible. Mr. Roskelly: We do have a right-of-way in there of 88 feet, so there would not be a problem to put a walk one fool off the property line in the right-of-way on one side of the street. We would certainly include that in the engineering plans. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Do you have agreement with that, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Yes. The actual placement of the sidewalk within the right-of-way, whether its one fool or not, may be an issue. We might have to lake a look at that with respect to placement of utlifies and plant ngs, but making the necessary adjustments shouldn't be a problem. We can address that at the time of engineering. Mr. Roskelly: I agree because we have the flexibility of an additional six feetto work with. Mr. Taormina: Correct. I would agree that as a condition of any approving resolution this evening, that we do stipulate that a sidewalk be installed from Stark Road west to Lot 1 within the residential portion of the development. Mr. LaPine: Just one question. Where does the school bus come in now to pick up the kids that are in this subdivision? Does it come in from Boston Post? Mr. Roskelly: This was a landlocked piece of land if you recall. Therefore, the only ingress and egress will be this new road. Mr. LaPine: Sothe onlywaytheschool bus can get in there isfromthe industrial road off of Stark Road? Mr. Roskelly: That's correct. 19181 Mr. La Pine: Now if the School Board decides they want the kids to come to the 1. That the Site & Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1A dated February 8, 2002, as revised, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to except as modified below; 2. That until such time that a site plan or preliminary plat is approved for the residential development and construction of the roads and infrastructure is under way, the Petitioner shall be required to construct and maintain a continuous unpierced prolective screen wall along the full length of the project where the M-1 district abuts the R-5 district; 3. That construction of the protective screen wall shall be completed prior to the construction of any of the buildings on the industrial lots; 4. Thatthe screen wall shall be reinforced poured brick face wall; 5. That the height of the protective screen wall where it abuts the lot lines of any residential properties shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet as measured from the finish grade on whichever comer of Stark and the end of this road, we'd have to have a sidewalk there, otherwise they're going to be walking out in the street. Mr. Roskelly: I would agree unless at some given time the people on Boston Post would allow a sidewalk through there, just for the children to walk, and an easement to get out to Boston Post. Mr. La Pine: Yes, well that's what I'm thinking. Mr. Roskelly: That's something that would come up with the single family development. But in the interim, we will put a sidewalk in. Mr. McCann: Thank you. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #02-25-2002 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -05 -PL -01, submitted by Enrico Rosati, requesting landscape approval in connection with Preliminary Plat approval for Rosati Industrial Subdivision, to be located on the west side of Stark Road between SchoolcraR Road (1-96) and Plymouth Road in the South Mbf Section 28, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site & Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1A dated February 8, 2002, as revised, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to except as modified below; 2. That until such time that a site plan or preliminary plat is approved for the residential development and construction of the roads and infrastructure is under way, the Petitioner shall be required to construct and maintain a continuous unpierced prolective screen wall along the full length of the project where the M-1 district abuts the R-5 district; 3. That construction of the protective screen wall shall be completed prior to the construction of any of the buildings on the industrial lots; 4. Thatthe screen wall shall be reinforced poured brick face wall; 5. That the height of the protective screen wall where it abuts the lot lines of any residential properties shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet as measured from the finish grade on whichever 19182 side of the wall has the highest elevation, exceptfor any section where the height is required to be Iowerfor reasons of protecting adequate sight -lines; 6. That the height ofthe protective screen wall in all other locations shall be a minimum ofsix (6) feet as measured from the finish grade on whichever side of the wall has the highest elevation, except for any section where the height is required to be lower for sight -line purposes; 7. That the spacing between the trees to be planted adjacent to the wall shall be no greater than 20 R. as measured on -center; 8. That the Building and Use Restrictions for the industrial subdivision shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review prior to the approval of the final plat and shall include a provision for the maintenance of the protective screen wall and landscaping; 9. That this approving resolution is only with respect to the industrial portion of the development. All details and elements related to development of the residential properties, including landscaping, shall be reviewed separately at the time the site plan or preliminary plat is submitted; 10. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; 12. That the temporary fence shall be connected from the south end ofthe residential property to the industrial lot and shall have a gale; and 13. That a sidewalk shall be installed on the south side ofthe road from Stark Road west to the residential Lot 1. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. La Pine: Just one question. Do we have to induce something about the fence? As I understand what Mr. Taormina said, the petitioner has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Pastor: The only reason I did so is that he has the option to go to the ZBA. We want it closed off. 19183 kyjIiF1WRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRr :Mnmi :.DFI Mr. Pastor: So I want that part of it so they can go to the ZBA. Or he can just incorporate this wall and he doesn't have to go to the ZBA. He can take it out if he wants down the road, so it will be up to him. Mr. McCann: Either way, there will be a fence. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Itwill go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM W APPROVAL OF MINUTES 837TM Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 837"' Regular Meeting held on January 15, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #02-26-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 837° Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 15, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vote was taken with the following result: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Pastor, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 839" Regular Meeting held on February 12, 2002, was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman n