Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-09-10TWIT, I MINUTES OF THE 8501M1 REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 10, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 8501" 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 LaPine John Pastor John Walsh �G Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs 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 petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anrllor 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 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 petitions 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 2002-01-08-04 CURTIS CREEK CONDOS Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-01-08- 04 submitted by Vincent and Frances DeSanto, on behalf of Curtis Creek Site Condominiums, requesting approval of a landscape plan and entrance marker for the site condominiums located at 29967 Curtis Road in the Southeast%of Section 11. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Curtis between Middlebelt and Merriman. On March 27, 2002, Curtis Creek Site Condominiums received site plan approval. As part of that approval, it was 19649 conditioned that an Entrance Marker Applicalion shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval and that a landscaping plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Commission and City Council and shall include detailed landscaping for the detention basin. In compliance with these requirements, an entrance marker application and landscape plan has been submitted. Signage is summarized as follows: Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50E includes one entranceway sign not to exceed 20 sq. ft. in sign area or five feet in height, setback 10 feet from any right-of-way line, and shall be constructed out of natural materials. The proposed signage is for one entrance marker, 20 square feel in sign area, four feel in height, with a setback of five feet from Curtis Avenue and constructed out of brick with aluminum lettering. It would be deficient five feet in the setback. The entrance marker would be located in the boulevard entrance island. Because the sign is only setback from Curbs Avenue five feet, the petitioner would have to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient setback. The landscape plans include the areas next to the entrance drive off Curtis Avenue, the cul-de-sac island of the subdivision's street and the area of the detention basin. The area around the entrance drive would be sparsely planted with ten red maple trees and eight scotch pines. A note on the plan indicates that the boulevard entrance island would be maintenance -free and include items such as rock or bark or other zero maintenance ground cover. The plan does not mention if any of the greenbelt areas next to the entrance would be irrigated. The cul-de-sac island would be planted with a mixture of shablow service berry trees, white spireas, junipers and dwarf burning bushes. A note on the plan states that the island would be irrigated. The landscape plan for the detention basin shows that its outer edge would be planted with 12 red maples and 12 scotch pines. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 4, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 20, 2002, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. 1. Then= is no distance specified from the right-of-way to the signage. The signage should be located at 10 feet or greater from the nghtof-way. 2. The boulevard entrance island has a specification of bank as zero maintenance. It may be low maintenance, but it is not maintenance -free. 3. There is no detail as to the type of road at the entrance. If this median strip is within a public divided lane entrance, the sign must also obtain approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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. 19650 Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything you would like to tell the Commission about your landscape plan? Vicenl DeSanto, 25937 W. Eight Mile, Redford, Michigan. No, not really. I pay people to do this. I'm probably not any more familiar with it than you. I just trust that they do a very good job. If there's a problem, I'm sure theyll correct it. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Pieroecchi: Is there any reason why the greenbelt areas next to the entrance are not irrigated? Would they be irrigated? Mr. DeSanto: Not unless it's specified on this plan. Mr. Pieroecchi: That's why I'm bringing up this point. Do you plan on irrigating those? Mr. DeSanto: I would say so because if he missed that, then it would be induced. My son does inigation. It would not be a big thing. And if its a stipulation, it would be approved. We would do it. Mr. Pieroecchi: So you would irrigate those areas then? Mr. DeSanto: Yes. Especially when you plant new trees and shrubs, it would have to be irrigated. Mr. Pieroecchi: Now the maintenance -flee... Mr. DeSanto: I think it was probably intended to be low maintenance. I agree with Mr. Taormina that nothing is totally maintenance -free. Mr. Pieroecchi: I'm talking about the island. Mr. DeSanto: Yes, the island. Mr. Pieroecchi: Basically, I know what you're talking about. But don't rods get pulled out of there and go al l over helter skelter? Mr. DeSanto: What? Mr. Pieroecchi: If you put stones ... is that what you're talking about ...and the red mulch in there? Mr. DeSanto: I think you're talking about stone mulch, which is a permanent thing. I have it now, and its like a lava. I don't want to say that red kind of lava, but its a stone and it does not need replacing. I've had it for 15 19651 years now, and its pretty good. Its not mulch that you have to replace every year. Mr. Pieroecchi: Ifs like volcanic -type rock? Mr. DeSanto: Yes, I would say so. Mr. Pieroecchi: All right. Mr. Alanskas: Just a question regarding the setback. You show five feet. We wanted to make than ten feet. It has to be ten feel. Mr. DeSanto: Thais not a problem. Mr. Alanskas: You've got a lot of room for that. Mr. DeSanto: There's a lot of property there. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: 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. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #09-110-2002 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of a landscape plan and entrance marker in connection with Petition 2002-01-08-04, submitted by Vincent and Frances DeSanto, on behalf of Curtis Creek Site Condominiums located at 29967 Curtis Road in the Southeast % of Section 11, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Landscape Plan for the entrance area marked Sheet 1 dated July 31, 2002, prepared by Jarrett-MillsSchron and Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the entrance marker and its location, as shown on the approved plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the sign shall be setback at least 10 feel from the right-of-way line; 3. That the Landscape Plan for the cul-de-sac island marked Sheet 1 dated August 1, 2002, prepared by Jarrett-MillsSchron and Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the Landscape Plan for the detention basin marked Sheet 1 dated August 1, 2002, prepared by Jarrett-MillsSchron and Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except 19652 for the fad that addifional trees shall be planted to the satisfaction ofthe Planning Director; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 6. 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; 7. That the brick used in the construction of the entrance marker shall be full face 4 inch brick, no exceptions; 8. That if the road of the development is dedicated to the City of Livonia and is designated a public street, the sign must obtain approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to be located within the median strip of a publicdivided lane entrance, and 9. 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. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: Just a question for Mr. Taormina. On Item 8 where they talk about the road development being dedicated to the City of Livonia and going to the ZBA to get a variance for the sign, is that based on the sign being back ten feet? Will that be determined prior to whenever they put the foot rigs in for that sign? Mr. Taormina: No. That's actually a separate item. The setback is one issue that was addressed in Item 2, and they should not require any variance if the sign is moved back. The second issue is the location of the sign within the public right-of-way. This would require the authorization of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Apparentty, that's an issue that the Zoning Board looks at quite often whenever a sign is actually placed within the median of a boulevard entrance. Mr. LaPine: Then does he have to go to the ZBA to get a variance at this point? Mr. Taormina: Yes. As I understand it, that is cored. Mr. Pastor: Only if he is dedicating the road to the City. Mr. LaPine: If the road is not dedicated to the City, then he doesn't have to? 19653 Mr. Taormina: That's right. But it's likely that it will be a public right -of way in this case. Mr. Pastor: I would agree. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-08-0848 TRI -WEST DEVELOPMENT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petifion 2002-08- 08-18, submitted by Tri -West 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 complex on properly located at 19337 Farmington Road in the Southeast %of Section 4. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Farmington between Seven Mile and Norfolk. This site is located between a McDonald's Restaurant to the south and the Deerfield Woods Apartments to the north. The Seven -Farmington Shopping Center is located just south of the restaurant. In September of 2000, the City rezoned the subject property from PL (Public Lands) to OS (Office Services) and sold the property to Tri -West Development. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an office complex on the former Fire Station #3 site. The proposed office complex would consist of three separate buildings, inducing two new buildings and the renovation of the former fire station. The station, identified on the plans as Building "A," contains approximately 5,901 sq. ft. of floor area and would be converted for general office type uses. Building "B" would be located just south of the former fire station and would have the same setback from Farmington Road. Building "B" measures 4,004 sq. ft. in size and may contain a mix of both medical and office type uses. Building "C" would be located along the rear (west property line) of the site. This building would be for general office type tenants and would be 6,003 sq. ft. in size. Access to the site would be by a single drive off Farmington Road. Parking would be available in front of buildings "A" and "B" and via a two-way drive between the buildings, permit access to a larger parking lot behind the buildings and in front of building "C" Parking is summarized as follows: required parking for general office is one space for each 200 sq. ft. of floor area; required parking for medical office is one space for each 75 sq. ft. of floor area and one space for each employee; required parking for general office space is 82 spaces; provided parking is 89 spaces. The Landscape plan is showing a greenbelt along the north property line and also along the 19654 east property line. Because they both abut residenlial property, they are required to have a protective wall. The petitioner is requesting that it be waived in lieu of the greenbelt. The plan shays 22.5% of the site landscaped which exceeds the required 15%. The Elevation Plans show that all three buildings will have similar architectural characteristics. The scale, design and selection of building materials has been based largely on the old fire station building, which is constructed primarily of brick. The large overhead door on the east elevation of the station would be replaced with face brick and new glass windows. A new entranceway with an arch awning would be installed on the south elevation. Building "B" shows a combination of brick and scored split -face block. It would have large window sections grouped together, similar to Building "A." Building "C" would be constructed out of brick on its front and rear elevations and a combination brick and scored block on both its side elevations. The same large window groupings would be incorporated and arch awnings would be installed over its entranceways. Mr. Pieroecchi: Doesthat showthe back ofthe buildingwhich would facewest? Mr. Miller: You mean Building B? Mr. Pastor: Building C. Mr. Pieroecchi: Is the elevation facing west? Mr. Miller: Yes, this is the east elevation so itwould face west. Right. Mr. Pieroecchi: That faces west. And facing east is... Mr. Miller: Well, he said the elevations were basically the same. That's why he's only showing two. Mr. Pieroecchi: I can see that elevation shows the one end, but I'm talking about the protective wall, or the landscaping or the greenbelt. Is that the elevation that is going to face that? Mr. Miller: This is the elevation that faces out towards the parking lot. The petitioner has stated that basically it will have the same type of look on the other side. That's why he's only presenting two. Mr. Piercecchi: In other words, that elevation represents both sides; east and west? Mr. Miller: Right. Mr. La Pine: Back to Building C... 19655 Mr. McCann: Can I go to Mr. Taormina first to get the correspondence and then we will come back to this? Mr. LaPine: Thais fine with me. Mr. McCann: But you know what, we've got him up there. Bill, go ahead. Mr. LaPine: On Building C, will the back side that faces the residential area be looking exactly like the east side that faces Farmington Road? Mr. Miller: Right, or similar. It might not have the doorways, but supposedly ifs going to have the windows. It will look similar to that. Mr. McCann: Mark, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 3, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above- ferenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. It would appear that the petitioneris planning on splitting the parcel into three parcels. If this is the case, three separate sanitary leads or a main line sanitary sewer will be required. The drive approach to Farmington Road requires Wayne County approval and this site is subject to the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 5, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans regarding the proposal to construct an office complex on property located at 19337 Farmington Road. We submit the following recommendations for your consideration: (1) Parcel 'A' contains 29 parking spaces. Therefore two handicap parking spaces are required. Only one handicap space has been proposed. (2) Parcel'C'requires 24 parking spaces. Only 23 parking spaces are proposed. (3) Handicap ramps or cutouts from the parking area to the concrete walks should be required for handicap accessibility. (4) All handicap spaces must be individually signed per city ordinance. (5) A Fire Lane should be designated for the driveway area between buildings in parcel 'A' and 'B' so that emergency vehicles have an unobstructed access to the rear of the complex. (6) A stop sign should be installed at the driveway for exiting vehicles to require motorists to stop before crossing the sidewalk. (7) There should be exterior lighting for the north side of building 'B' to light up the driveway and sidewalk. (8) There should be exterior -lighting on the west side of the building'C' for crime prevention considerations." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 4, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 20, 2002, the above 19656 referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The site will need to be combined and split into three parcels with all appropriate easements to provide perpetual ingress and egress for the three proposed parcels. (2) Although the total site parking provided is sufficient, the parking on site C is deficient, and therefore, will require a perpetual parking agreement with Unit B. (3) The existing building, Unit A, will need to meet all current barrier -free codes due to its change of use. (4) The parking lot must be denoted as double striped. Unit A requires two accessible spaces not one. The ratio is from parking provided, not parking required. (5) As proposed Unit B, office/medical, meets accessible parking requirements. However, if the use becomes rehabilitation or outpatient physical therapy facilities, then the required accessible parking becomes seven spaces, instead of two. (6) The proposed six feet tall screen wall should be stepped down to three feet tall at its eastern ten feet (north property line). 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. McCann: Is the pefifioner here this evening? Sam Baki, Tri -West Development, 36800 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. We are proposing to place three office sites on two parcels where the old fire station existed along with the house next door. We will be coming back at a later date to go to the City Council to combine and split the property if this site is approved as planned. We are proposing this principle by having three buildings because we found out that a lot of users are looking for small site buildings for offices instead of going into a large office complex. This property is 1.84 acres, I believe, and will accommodate up to 16,000 to 20,000 square feel if it was one building. Here we have a total of approximately 16,000 square feel. We are proposing two buildings and saving the existing fire station with some remodeling on the exterior to accommodate for office use. We're coming from the north side as a main entrance because by doing that we can subdivide the interior of that building to three office spaces without changing any structural to the building. The second building on Parcel B at 4,000 square feet is to allow for additional parking. We're talking to different prospects at this time for a medical use, so we proposed it has as half and half which is like 2,000 square feel medical, 2,000 regular office. The reason we came up with it to allow for more parking is to accommodate for that use. the back building we left at 6,000 square feet for general office use. We're asking if we can, if possible, to waive the screen wall to put more landscaping surrounding that area for the neighboring property. Mr. McCann: Are there anyquestions from the Commissioners? 19657 Mr. Shane: With Building C, I'm a litlle bit concerned about the setback from the rear property line. Is there any reason why that building couldn't be a little bit shallower, say 40 feet instead of 49 feet, to gain an extra nine feet of rear setback? Mr. Baki: That would encroach on the parking. If will affect our parking setup. What we tried to do, if you notice in the front, we tried to save as much landscaping for the front. If we do that, allow more in the back, then we're going to have to take it in the front somehow to allow for more parking. That's the reason we came up with that kind of principle to put more landscaping in the front. Mr. Shane: No, what I was saying is make Building C shallower.. . Mr. Baki: Just narrower... Mr. Shane: Narrower. That would affect your parking in a positive way, not a negative way. Mr. Baki: Thatwould make the building smallerand thalwill atfectthe use. Mr. Shane: That's the answer I'm looking for. I notice the medical building was 37 feel in depth and this is 49 feet. I was just wondering if you needed the full 49 feet of depth to that building? Mr. Baki: We have a tenant that we're talking to that is looking for around 6,000 square feet, something that sits in the back. I understand this backs into residential. That lot that we back into is the largest lot in the whole subdivision. He has around 250 feet of backyard. So its not loo dose to residential. The reason we proposed to put in landscaping instead of a wall is that he has a lot of trees at this time. It's going to blend in with what he has in the back. Mr.Shane: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: Mark, I can see passing up the north wall and replacing that with a green bell. There are just parking structures there. But my question to you, sir, is in the long run here, would we be better off insisting that a wall be constructed along the west boundary or stay with the greenbelt and the current landscaping for the benefit of the homes back there, and for blowing and keeping papers and that on the property? In the long run, that's what I'm looking at. In the long haul, are we better off insisting on a wall there or substituting a greenbelt there too? Mr. Taormina: There are cases where the City does allow for greenbelts as a separation between office projects and abutting residential projects. The benefits we have here is that, as Mr. Baki has pointed out, the 19658 residential lots immediately adjacent to this property are rather deep, not 250 feet as far as the distance of the backyard, but more like 180 feet between the house and the property line. As long as the area is heavily landscaped, it would be a benefit to have vegetation back there as the buffer. The wall becomes a much more permanent structure, however, when we consider the buildings are going to be rather close to the properly line. The other benefit that a wall would serve, at least along the west property line, would be additional protection for the residents from the adjoining commercial developments. There is a considerable wood lot, or stand of trees, back there today. I agree with the use of a greenbelt along the north property line where this site abuts the carports. I'm not sure that the wall would serve any useful purpose in that location. Mr. Piercecchi: Do I understand then that you think a wall should be put there? Mr. Taormina: That's a decision the Planning Commission and the Council will have to make, but I think a case could be made either way. In this instance, R will have to be eery heavily landscaped in order for the greenbelt to be jusfifed along the west property line. Mr. McCann: Have you taken a look at the existing landscape that is near where the wall would go now and how much of that would be able to remain in place? Mr. Taormina: The situation is similar to the project we recently had behind the Woodcreek Office Building on the east side of Farmington Road between Seven and Eight Mile. I think it was submitted as the Keifer Office Building, which had a similar type of distance between the structure and the property line and the residential. There we planted a row of pine trees that have not yet matured. We tried to put as much of a berm in that small space as we could, but it really is limited to try to construct any kind of an earth mound there. The problem we have with this particular site is the fact that we have a retention basin at the northeast comer of the property. Much of the buffer that would be provided between these two sites is really going to exist on the residential side of the property, which is heavily landscaped. In fad there is a considerable amount of landscaping on the one lot that has frontage along most of this property. Mr. Pastor: My question is regarding the front elevation of the firehouse. Again this is just a suggestion. You have all these other arches on everything else. I just wondered, instead of that going straight across, if you could just arch that to make everything else you have on your other buildings that same arch. If you could just be consistent there, I think that would be kind of nice. What we're trying to do is get this so 19659 it doesn't look like the old firehouse. That was the only thing I was interested in seeing. The other thing, I don't know what our feelings are towards your trash enclosures. Is it a concrete poured wall? Is that what you're showing? Luigi Coletta, Designer and Pmject Manager, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Pastor: The question was about your trash container. To me it says an eight inch concrete simulated brick finish. Is that poured brick face wall? Mr. Coletta: It is a poured brick face wall. It is similar to what we did in our office building, which is just north of this site, which is a concrete wall with the color pigments in it. Mr. Pastor: I know what 9 is. You're actually going to paint it or stain it? Mr. Coletta: No, the color is going to be in the concrete itself. Mr. Pastor: So its going to be the color oflhe concrete. Mr. Coletta: No, the pigments of the color are going to be added with the concrete mix. Mr. Pastor: So you're going to have colored concrete then? Mr. Coletta: Yes. Mr. Pastor: Okay. So itwill be colored concrete throughout? Mr. Coletta: Yes, that's the bestwayto make sure the colorstays. Mr. Pastor: I dont necessarily disagree. Normally, I think we try to use the same building materials and match it up that way. I dont know if you'd be able to gel it matched up right, but I'll be open to that. Mr. Baki, the wall on the west side ... can you give us some comments about the concerns we have about that? Mr. Bad We can put the wall on that side of the property for the neighboring property. The only question was if we take all the walls out, we'll put the landscaping in. For the Commissioners' concern and the City Council, if the homeowner in the rear property gives us a letter saying that he will accept it, then we can go that route. And if he doesn't, we'll just put the wall up. I have no problem doing either. Mr. McCann: I agree with the neighbor. 19660 Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Baki, on your elevations of all three buildings ... when you look at the firehouse, even with the new things that you want to do with the arching and glass and windows, I still see a firehouse. Just last year, on Farmington Road on the east side, we approved an office building. It turned out beautiful. These three buildings look so blase. I mean I just don't see anything where you're really doing something for this site. You have an old fire station and I still see it there. I just dont like what you're proposing as far as making changes. Now you're putting two brand new buildings up, and it still looks like its not a very modernistic office setting. I just wondered if you could do something else to change it so you don't see a fire station any more or a school building is what I'm looking at, not an office building. Mr. Colefla: It's kind of difficult to sometimes answer such questions or comments in regards to a design of a building. I'll try my best. When I first got into this project, there was a lot of talk about what to do with this site in terms of the fire station itself. I was told, we're going to demo it and we're going to just treat this site as a virgin site. And then I was told, no, we're not going to demo it, but we're going to carry the elevation throughout the whole building at the same level by putting a dryvil topping on it. Those were the two main things that people had mentioned, both Mr. Tiseo, the architect of record, and Mr. Baki, when they came to me. When I looked at this building, I saw a very nice, strong building. I'm sure we all agree with that. When I took a look at what to do with this fire station, one thing I did not want to do, and this is preference in all honesty of how to approach the design, I did not want to take away from the character of the building itself, because the building is designed well. In all honesty, this was designed very well from whomever the architect is that designed it. To take a building and change the character of it, I'm totally against it. So I tried my best, and I think we were very successful. I tried my best to do some touches to keep the character but yet give it a new vibrant look. Part of the things that dictated the rest of the buildings is not just the use of the office building and the medical office building, was also how to incorporate some of the new materials that I was thinking for the fire station, which is accent metal panel and also adding the archway in the front and doing something a little different or more fresher in the roof trim that went around it. The choices of materials worked very well together. And that choice of materials also dictated the other two buildings and also the existing window moldings and spacings. We did add horizontal moldings to the existing fire station, but we're carrying over that also to the office building right south of the fire station. Mr. Alanskas: But isn't it true that by not tearing down the fire house and building a new building, its a huge cost saving factor to you by just dressing up the outside oflhe building? 19661 Mr. Coletta: No. Maybe Mr. Tiseo, who has experience with buildings and tearing down and rebuiliding ... this is a building which has an existing boiler. Mr. Baki will explain. Mr. Baki: There is a lot of cost involved in remodeling this building. Like he mentioned, the building is structurally a well-built building. There is a lot of cost involved with remodeling it. It's going b be dose, but to save some money because of the actual investment that we put in so far into this properly, we cannot accommodate just to have three vacant sites. If we dean up the site and just sell them as three different new buildings. So there is some cost savings involved with saving it, but not that large. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Balli, when you originally came in for the child care center, were you going to demolish the fire station then? Mr. Bad : Yes. Al the time, the development was to demolish these buildings and putthe new site and then a building in the back. Mr. LaPine: So at one point you were going to demolish the fire station and the cost was not a problem at that point? Mr. Bad : Because of the price we got from the day care was sufficient to do all that. Mr. LaPine: I have one big problem. Why is the largest building closest to the residential? Can't Building B and C be switched? Maybe you have to make Building C a little larger. I'd rather see the smaller builder closer to the residential area. Mr. Bad : The largest building is in the back because of the way it was designed for selling purposes. To be able to break this property, the way it was broke up, if I make a big building in the front, a lot of medical uses do not like large buildings. They are looking for small sites. That's why I allowed for the 4,000 to be in the front. Meanwhile in the back, we needed less parking so we putthe 6,000 building in the back. Mr. LaPine: What type of office rental are you figuring for Building C, one tenant or more? Mr. Baki: There's probably going to be three tenants. That's the principle behind allowing like 2,000 each section with one door. Mr. LaPine: The owner of the property that abuts this, that lives in my subdivision, they just bought that property probably a year and a half ago. They lived in our subdivision but they bought this property because its so large. They are in the process now of getting bids because both of their daughters are real good tennis players, and they're going to put a 19662 tennis court in. In my opinion, they're going to need more protection because they are going to be closer to your property than the house is right now. It's going to go back near the rear of their property. Have you talked to those people? Mr. Baki: Yes, I did. And last time I talked to them was the time of the day care and even prior to that. Mr. LaPine: Since then? Because I've talked to them. Mr. Baki: Since then no. Mr. LaPine: You haven't. Okay. The other question I have is, I notice on the plan, you say you're going to remove the entire existing south side fence. Mr. Baki: It's an alternate if McDonald allows it. Mr. LaPine: Why would you want an opening into McDonalds? Mr. Baki: It will have a better appealing look with some trees there instead of having that fence there. Mr. LaPine: So you're going to take the fence down and put landscape in? Mr. Baki: That's exactly what we want to do. Mr. LaPine: It's not to exit into McDonalds? Mr. Baki: If McDonald's allows us to do so, we will do that and add more trees. That's an additional cost we'll pay, but we'll make it look a lot better instead of having walls in between. Mr. LaPine: The only other objection I have is I personally think the fire station still looks like a fire station. You haven't really changed the outlook of the building in my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Balk, can you describe what the interior of the fire station will be like? I'm just curious in terms of its Ieaseabilily. Mr. Baki: At this time, the existing entrance to the fire station is facing Farmington Road with double doors which are right here. The way the actual fire station is divided has two rooms, a boiler room and the mechanical room here, has the two bathrooms and a bathroom and shower right here where we're putting the window. It has an existing side door which comes in with the kitchen area here, more offices in the front which is right here, which is another office and another entrance that's what's existing. This is the bay area where they had the trucks. The principle behind what I'm doing right now is keeping 19663 this as a main entrance. They sell have a side door for this office. This could be a one tenant with a wall here, take the kitchen out, have a wall. That could be divided for one tenant. This is for a second tenant coming in from here; there's a door here and there's another door on this side. People can come into the main entrance and go to this area, which would be another office space. Then this would be divided. The bathroom at this time with the door to the north side of the corridor, we're going to move that to have it on this side. We'll have the two bathrooms here, then we'll have offices surrounding here. By doing that, we'll be able to sublet it to three people without changing too much structurally. Mr. Walsh: In the engine area, will you have a drop ceiling that will bring it down to a normal height? Mr. Baki: Yes, we will. Mr. Walsh: All right. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: I'm confused. Now you said in the back where the bay area is, people have to walk in through that front and walk though? What are they walling through? Mr. Baki This is going to be an open foyer -like space. Mr. Alanskas: And then theyd have to go into that back part? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: That's the only way they can get in or out? Mr. Baki: Well, there is another door in the back. There's another door that could be put in the back here, but they can have other doors. But this is going to be the main entrance for them. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. Mr. LaPine: I'll make a tabling motion. I want an opportunity to talk to the homeowner behind the building. It can go on the next meeting as far as I'm concerned. Mr. McCann: Well, let's see what date we've got. Can we fit it on the September 20 meeting? 19664 On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-08-08-18, submitted by Tn-West 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 complex on property located at 19337 Farmington Road in the Southeast %of Section 4, be tabled until the next regular meeting of September 24, 2002. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: La Pine, Pastor, Pieroecchi NAYES: Alanskas, Shane, Walsh, McCann ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed. Mr. Walsh: I'll offer an approving resolution. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and approved, it was #09-111-2002 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-08-08-18, submitted by Tn-West 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 complex on property located at 19337 Farmington Road in the Southeast I/ of Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet P1 dated September 10, 2002, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet P1 dated September 6, 2002, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the landscaped greenbelt along the north property line, as shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 4. That the abutting properly owner to the west shall advise the City as to whether or not a protective screen wall is desired, and if not, then a landscaped greenbelt along the west property line, as 19665 shown on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be substituted for the protective wall; 5. That if there are any change of circumstances in the areas containing the greenbelts result in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective banner, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for heir review and approval, or immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 6. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 7. 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; 8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets P2 and P3, both dated September 10, 2002, as revised, prepared by Tiseo Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 9. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick, no exceptions; 10. 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 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; 11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 12. That the petitioner shall coned to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated September 5, 2002: - That the entire parking lot shall be doubled striped; - That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Banner Free Code; 13. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; and 19666 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. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Pastor: On Item 3, 1 believe that we agreed that the north end was going to be in lieu of the wall, but the west we're going to wail until he got permission from the property owner, was one of the conditions I thought that we had discussed earlier. On Item 7, to add "except for the northeast elevation" to add the eyebrow above the one window bay. Mr. Walsh: I'm fine with both of those changes. Mr. Shane: That was the suggestion I had also. Mr. Pastor: That was one of the reasons why I wanted to do the tabling is solhal we could talk to the residents, but if he addresses it by the time it gets to Council, then this moves the petition along. Mr. McCann: I think Mr. Pieroecchi made some valid arguments about having a wall. I wasn't in favor of one, but Mr. La Pine's comments about them removing some of the landscape for a tennis court and having the kids out there playing tennis, that a wall may be appropriate, but I think we would vent the neighbors input. If the staff will contact the neighbor prior to the Council meeting, I think we can move it on with a recommendation. Mr. Taormina: For further clarification on Item 7, that the exterior elevation plan as it relates to the east elevation of the existing fire station, is that to coincide with the alternate ... is it "A" or "B" or"1" or "2" that's on the plan? It's not shown on that particular rendering, but on the plans we received .... Mr. Miller: On the alternate you may want... Mr. Pastor: An eyebrow right above that instead of it going straight across. Mr. Miller: Right now he has it just over the entrance. Mr. Pastor wants it over the windows. Mr. Taormina: Okay, so that's understood. It's the alternate but with other modifications. Mr. Pastor: Yes, with the eyebrow. 19667 Mr. Alanskas: The first plan we had before us for the day care center I thought was a very good use of this site. But this one is such a ... in my estimation, the three buildings and what you have to do and how it looks.... I'll be vofing noon this petition. Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Chairman, I can support this resolufion by Commissioner Walsh inasmuch as the wall on the west boundary is going to be given an in- depth look. That's all I was looking for in the beginning. Mr. McCann: I think I lend to agree with Mr. Alanskas that we spent a lot of time on the child care center, and I always believed of a need for those in the community. It's just not available any more. I think bis site complies with the intent of the OS ordinance, and I think theyve made a valid attempt to refurnish this site in a reasonable way. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Walsh, Pastor, Shane, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYES: Alanskas, La Pine ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Y1=l7i Fi$�9 =k tY Ole] DALYdrI IIH=ErY . _. , r . _ . • Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002 -08 - GB -02, submitted by Harry J. Will Funeral Home requesting approval to subsfitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 37000 Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Six Mile between Newburgh and Fitzgerald. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between an office zoned property and a residential zoned property. To the west of this property is the Sterling Bank & Trust Commons Shopping Center. Across the street, to the south, is the Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center. This property is bordered by residential along the enure length of both the east and north properly lines. There is an existing screen wall along the north properly line and part of the east property line. The screen wall along the east property line stops approximately 112 feet from Six Mile Road. The ordinance specifies that the protective wall shall be confinuous and unpierced along a zoning line IPiYY:I that separates residential from office. From the end of the wall to the sidewalk is an existing 14 foot wide landscaped greenbelt. It is this section of greenbelt the petitioner is asking to substitute in lieu of the wall. The applicant feels the heavily landscape greenbelt is more aesthetically pleasing from Six Mile Road and also provides a more thorough buffer to the neighboring properties. The existing vegetation furnishes a very dense screening medium. Also between the subject greenbelt and the funeral home itself is a nicely landscaped drive divider island that adds to and intensifies the screening congestion. This island is planted with large evergreen trees. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated September 4, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 20, 2002, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot needs maintenance, resealing and double striping. (2) There is a dumpster in the west parking lot sitting unenclosed. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The lefler is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? No? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Do we have a motion? On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #09-112-2002 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefition 2002 -08 -GB -02, submitted by Harry J. Will Funeral Home, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 37000 Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscaped greenbelt along the east property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on August 2, 2002, shall be subsfiluled for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That if there are any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt result in a diminution of the greenbelts effectiveness as a protective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to submitted such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or 19669 immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; and 3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated September 4, 2002: That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; That the site's dumpster shall be enclosed and 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 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. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to 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 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING Self -Storage Facilities Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolution #408-02 to determine whether or not to permit self -storage facilities as waiver uses in C-2 zoning districts. On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #09-113-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolutions #408-02, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.03 of Artide XI of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance in order to permit self -storage facilities as waiver uses in C-2 zoning districts. 19670 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 84r Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. McCann, Chairman, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 847" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 16, 2002. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #09-114-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 847" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 16, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Pastor, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19671 ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES SW Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes ofthe 848" Regular Meeting held on July 30, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #09-115-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 848" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 30, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pastor, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 850" Regular Meeting held on September 20, 2002 was adjourned at 8:28 p.m. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mgr CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary