Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-10-0819719 MINUTES OF THE 852nd REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 852nd 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 John Walsh 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 lonighfs 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 anc/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 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 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 of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-09-08-20 CALVARY PARK SITE CONDOS Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-09- 08-20 submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, on behalf of Calvary Park 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 a site condominium development on property located at 29700 Six Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 11. 19720 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Brookview Drive between Six Mile and Bobrich. The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a three -unit site condominium development on the north 180 feet of property where the Calvary Missionary Church parsonage is located. The church is located immediately to the west of this property. The proposed condominium lots would all face Brookview Drive which is an existing public road. Across Brookview Drive to the east is the fairly new condominium development, "Brookview Park." According to the submitted documentation, the proposed development would be called "Calvary Park Site Condominiums." All three lots conform to all requirements of the R -1A zoning district. Each lot would measure 60 feet wide by 165 feel in depth. The minimum lot size in a R-1 District is 60 feel by 120 feel. A copy of the Master Deed and Bylaws for this new development has been submitted for review by the City. The documentation does call out the percentage of brick for the exterior of each unit. The first floor of each unit would be constructed out of brick on all four sides. The total amount of brick on each condominium would not be less than 80% on one-story dwellings and 55% on two-story dwellings. All brick used in the construction of the condominiums would be full face, four -inch brick. Any chimney surround would be constructed out of brick. Minimum floor area for each one-story dwelling would be 1,650 square feel and 2,300 square feel. for each two-story dwelling. All condominiums would have a two -car attached garage. With written approval from the developer or the Association, the option of a three -car attached garage would be available. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 1, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. There art; sanitary sewers, storm sewers and water mains in Brookview to serve this site. Storm sewer will have to be extended to serve the mar of the three sites. Detention facilities will be required in accordance with 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 Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 4, 2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a site condominium development on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building(s) are to be provided with an 19721 automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2) Approval is contingent on adequate hydrants being provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 7, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the listed condominium. We are unable to make a competent recommendation regarding traffic, points of ingress and egress, etc., for this site due to the very limited detail provided in this site plan. There is no indication as to location of any driveways or whether off-site parking will be required. We are pleased to note that a new concrete sidewalk is proposed." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 30, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 25, 2002, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. This Department has no 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 pefitioner here this evening? Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Grove, Livonia, Michigan 48152. If I may add to what everybody has said here, these homes are going to sell for about $275,000 - $300,000. The range is going to be 100% brick on the ranch, and the colonials will be about 65% brick up to the second floorjoist line. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Soave, regarding the vacant lots, do you have any plans for buying those lots and putting more condos there? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. To expedite things we are going to the Assessor's Department on one of them to gel a split right now. Mr. Alanskas: Which one are you getting night now? Mr. Soave: This is the one. It's the second one. It's the second 60 fool from the south. Mr. Alanskas: But you'll still be trying to gel both of them? Mr. Soave: Yes, sir. We are. 19722 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. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #10-124-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-09-08-20, submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, on behalf of Calvary Park 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 a site condominium development on properly located at 29700 Six Mile Road in the Southeast '/.of Section 11, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, 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 100% on one-story dwellings; That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed or a separate recordable instrument 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, and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owners property prorata and place said charges on their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are not paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia; 3. That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full -face 4 inch brick, no exceptions; 4. That the Site Plan dated September 18, 2002, prepared by Leo Soave Building Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 19723 That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated October 4, 2002: That if the buildings are to be provided with automatic sprinkler systems, a hydrant shall be located between 50 R. and 100 ft. from the Fire Department connection; That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 R. between hydrants: most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI; 6. 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; and 7. 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 Arficle XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development. 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 -09 -GB -03 CAMBRIDGE CENTER Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002- 09 -GB -03 submitted by Cambridge Center requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 38777 Six Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 18. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Six Mile between 4275/96 and Quakertown. 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. This property sits across the street from the Trinity House Theater and the Buca Di Beppo Restaurant. The Quakertown Subdivision borders along the entire length of the south or rear property line. The existing greenbelt is 35 ft. wide and has a 5 ft. high earth berm running throughout it. It is landscaped with large mature trees. The 19724 greenbelt immediately separates the office building's parking lot and the rear yards often residential properties. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 25, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 18, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The far eastern parking area needs repair, maintenance and resealing. The entire parking lot requires double striping. (2) The ash trees located in the parking islands are dead and dying. A substitute species needs to be replanted. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. In response to that letter, the Planning Department received a letter from The Blain Group, dated October 1, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Though 1 was under the impression that we are petitioning for permanent greenbelt approval, please accept the following in response to the inspection by Alex Bishop regarding 38777 W. Six Mile Road. (1) This past summer the parking lot at the mentioned address received new drain tiles and a new base mat by Asphalt Specialists, Inc. ASI will complete the topcoat in the spring of 2003. At that time, the entire lot will be resealed and double striped. Temporary striping currently exists. (2) Ash trees across the state are suffering/dying from some disease or infestation. We have already removed close to a dozen, and Tome 8 Brugfo will be replacing the remaining trees in the Spring of 2003. 1 hope this provides sufficient answers to the objections noted by the Assistant Director of Inspection." The letter is signed by Brady Blain, Property Manager, The Blain Group. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Brady Blain, The Blain Group, 39209 W. Six Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Mr. McCann: Thank you for your letter. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Pastor: Why wait until 2003 to finish the parking lot? Mr. Blain: Monetary reasons to begin with. It is also recommended that the base mat settle for the winter before the lop coal is done. That's what I understand. Its going to be completed first thing in the Spring of 2003. 19725 Mr. Pastor: Well, I would agree with that if it was put down in November, but it was done in the middle of Spring when all the freeze -thaw action has already been done. I do work with ASI. I'm surprised that they would say something like that. Mr. Blain: Well, again, I wasn't too involved in that contract. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Elaine Cotanl, 38886 Meetinghouse Lane, which is the second house off the comer of Quakertown Lane. That's the entrance off of Six Mile. When I first moved into the subdivision, I was under the impression that this building was supposed to be used as an office building, 9 to 5. As of this time now, Eastern Michigan University is there. They hold classes anywhere from 7:00 in the morning to 10:00 at night. Usually the parking lot doesn't empty until about 10:00 or 10:30. Saturdays and Sundays there are also classes being held evidently because there are cars there. First of all, there is no privacy. So sometimes I think maybe a wall would have been better because of the privacy issue. Everybody should have privacy. During the winter you have alol debris you don't pick up, but during the summer, there isn't a time when you can go and cut your grass without having all kinds of papers, computer papers, note papers, fast food containers and papers, that are left that are strewn that come into the backyard. Also, if there are plastic bottles, when the grass is cut, they are cut into zillions of pieces, and they are just thrown all over because no one stops to pick up any of the bottles that are there. The trees were put there supposedly for privacy, but right now the trees are not doing well. These are the pine trees. They are totally almost empty from the bottom and they do have a disease or something because they are turning brown. They don't seem to be maintained at all because usually anything on the bottom is never really taken care of by anybody who comes to do the grass. You don't have the privacy because there are always people during the summertime that sit on the bene. A lot of these people are leaving their containers that come into the backyards. So that's my biggest complaint about this. Sometimes I think the wall would have been a better option because at least we could maintain cleanliness on our side. I was here at the meeting the last time it was on the agenda, and the bene looked good. The trees were good. But since summer, that bene was totally brown on our side. The other side has always been green that faces the building. I think that sometimes the berm is not maintained on our side. There have been broken sprinkler heads. My neighbor who couldn't be here, went over to the building that maintains this property three times to try to get this sprinkler head fixed. Not until 19726 Mr. Alanskas: But usually a landscape contractor only cuts the grass. They don't pick up refuse and bottles. Mr. Blain: Well, if you're familiar with Torre & Bruglio, they encompass irrigation, tree fertilization, the whole shebang, keeping the property clean. It would be included in the contract. Mr. Alanskas: How about in the fall when all the leaves come down? Do you have someone that picks up all the leaves? he called City Hall did they take care of it. All in all, I just don't think it's maintained the way ilshould have been maintained. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Mr. Alanskas: Don't you have a service Ike a Vac -All that comes in and deans your parking lot and all the refuse? Mr. Blain: Actually, I was unaware of any of those problems mentioned, but we are aware of maintenance concerns and we are going to be making a change to a new landscape ... we are going to be hiring Torrie & Bmglio as I mentioned in my correspondence as of spring next year for reasons such as this. Mr. Alanskas: But how about in regards to weekly maintenance as far as deaning your parking lot, vacuuming it, getting rid of all the refuse? Mr. Blain: You know, honestly ... Mr. Alanskas: Because most of these do that automatically. Mr. Blain: I understand. I'm in the parking lot everyday. I don't notice of any that sluff myself. Mr. Alanskas: I would think that a neighbor would not be making this up. If they have a problem, I think it should be maintained by you picking up all the refuse. Mr. Blain: I understand that. This is the first time it's been brought to my attention. Mr. Alanskas: Now that its brought to your attention, what are you planning to do about it? Mr. Blain: Well, like I had said, we are going to be hiring a new landscape contractor so hopefully it won't be a concern in the future. Mr. Alanskas: But usually a landscape contractor only cuts the grass. They don't pick up refuse and bottles. Mr. Blain: Well, if you're familiar with Torre & Bruglio, they encompass irrigation, tree fertilization, the whole shebang, keeping the property clean. It would be included in the contract. Mr. Alanskas: How about in the fall when all the leaves come down? Do you have someone that picks up all the leaves? 19727 Mr. Blain: Yes, we currently have a landscape contractor. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: How much ofthe building does Eastern Michigan occupy? Mr. Blain: They have about half of the fourth story. I'd say approximately 15,000 - 17,000 square feet. Mr. LaPine: Can the students leave the building in the summertime and sit on the bene and get fast food and eat it and leave it there and take off? Mr. Blain: Again, I've never witnessed that. I was unaware of that ever happening. Mr. LaPine: Are you there all the time? Mr. Blain: Not in the evenings, no. Mr. LaPine: How about during the day? Mr. Blain: I'm there from 8 to 5. Mr. La Pine: And you've never seen any of that go on? Mr. Blain: Not once. It's never been brought to my attention. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Mr. Alanskas, is there any type of ground cover or shrub that might help keep things from blowing back there? Mr. Alanskas: No. Usually if you have ground cover and there's a wind, it will collect in the shrub and it will look worse than if there was nothing there. The best thing to do is have maintenance where people come by and pickup all the refuse. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, ilwas RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002 -09 -GB -03, submitted by Cambridge Center, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at 38777 Six Mile Road in 19728 the Northwest % of Section 18, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2002, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective banner, 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 immediately construct the prolective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated September25, 2002: - That the far eastern parking area shall be repaired and resealed; - Thatthe entire parking lot shall be doubled striped; and - That the dead or dying ash trees in the parking islands shall be removed and replaced with a healthy tree of a similar species. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Pastor: One of the reasons I supported it is because a landscape banner is much more appealing than a brick or concrete wall. Therefore, that is why I would be in support of this. But we do have an issue at hand, which would be continuously maintaining this. I'd like to see if we can add something to maybe harden up the resolution a little bit -- that he comes up with a maintenance program to satisfy the neighbors concerns to make sure that they continually clean up. I understand that the landscaper you have coming in may or may not take care of that. You're not even sure yourself. But I would like to somehow address that maintenance issue so that we can lake care ofthe neighbors concerns there. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Taormina, when I went out there and looked at this property. Are both sides ofthat berm on Mr. Blain's property? Mr. Taormina: Yes, I believe so. 19729 Mr. La Pine: Is he required to cut the grass on both sides and maintain the grass, the watering on both sides ofthe greenbelt? Mr. Taormina: A required condition of the original approval was that all landscaped areas be irrigated and that would certainly include the entire berth on both sides. After listening to the resident, it sounds like irrigation exists but it functions better on the north side as opposed to the south side, which is immediately adjacentto the residents. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Chairman, I'm gang to make a substitute motion that we table this for a year. I want to see what the new landscaping people are going to do. I've never been in favor of landscaping in lieu of walls basically for this reason. They are not maintained. There are always problems. Once a wall is there, it's there forever. You don't have to worry about landscaping. I thought this particular location didn't look loo bad, but I'll make a motion to table it for one year. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and approved, it was #10-125-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002 -09 -GB -03, submitted by Cambridge Center, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 38777 Six Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 18, be tabled for one year or until next spring. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Pastor, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi NAYES: Shane, McCann ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19730 Y1=IAi Ei$=9=k1k Yle]: VADYZQ=LRI5F':ioZH4oYC1:iei71 k Y=lot K Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002- 09-08-19, submitted by Rogvoy Architects requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior and construct an addition to the existing building located at 33400 Six Mile Road in the Southeast%of Section 9. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Six Mile between Farmington and Francavilla. The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of the existing building located on the subject site. At one time, this building was utilized as a bank. The Site Plan indicates that the intent is to use the building for both medical and general office use. Under the Zoning Ordinance, all permitted uses in an OS District (Office Services) are permit in a C- 1 District. OS Districts allows both medical and general office. It is understood that an eye surgeon, specializing in cataract surgery, will be occupying the building. This property's footprint is somewhat "L" in shape and is located behind a Mobil gas station. Access to the site is provided by a two-way drive off Six Mile Road and a similar drive off Farmington Road. There is also a very narrow driveway off Six Mile Road that was most likely used as the exit drive for the bank's drive-thru facility. This driveway, for all practical reasons, is not needed. Due to the fact it is only 15 R. wide, at best the driveway could only be used in a one-way capacity. Closing off the narrow drive would present an opportunity to enhance the southwest comer of the site with landscaping. The exterior renovation would consist mainly of adding a small addifion to the front of the building. The existing building is 6,880 sq. R. in size. The proposed addition would be 1,480 sq. ft. in area. If approved, the total size of the medical building would become 8,360 sq. R. According to the Floor Plan, the new addition would be used as a general patient waiting area, a business office and laser patient waiting area. An building of that area would be required to have 94 parking spaces. The site plan shows 94 spaces. Landscaping is summarized as follows: required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; provided landscaping is 20% of the site. The existing structure is constructed out of brick. A note on the plan indicates that the new addition would be constructed out of cultured stone and brick that would match that of the emsfing building. The cultured stone would also be incorporated into the facade of the existing building. The new stone material, along with soldier course brick, would be installed under and around the windows of the existing structure. The addition would also have a dryvil band that would extend out and create a structural canopy over the main entrance. Over the dryvil band would be a "kawall" 19731 window system that would create a dear floor and provide natural light to the entrance area. A standing seam metal roof would cover the top of the addition. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated October 1, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. Since the existing drive approaches and storm sewer are going to continue in use without alteration, we do not believe that a Wayne County permit will be required. 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 Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated September 20, 2002, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a medical office building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 30, 2002, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans regarding the proposal to construct a medical office building on property located at 33400 Six Mile Road. Our only recommendation is to install stop signs at each exit." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is tom the Inspection Department, dated September 25, 2002, revised on September 30, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 18, 2002, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Sheet SPA -1 has errors and inconsistencies. The parking space count along Six Mile says eight (8) when there are actually seven (7) spaces. The parking space at the northwest area of the building says four (4) when there are three (3). The numbers tally 95 spaces, the Petition lists 94 spaces and it actually has 93 spaces. (2) This amount of parking requires four (4) accessible spaces, which must be located as close as possible to the accessible entrances. (3) Once the corrections are made for (1) and (2) above, the Petition will be deficient in parking. Either a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required, or the parking will need to be reconfigured or the office to the medical area may be reconfigured. (4) The parking area must be double striped. (5) The west 15 foot wide driveway on Six Mile must either be eliminated or posted as `One Way Only". (6) All packing light fixtures must be shielded from the adjoining residential area. (7) Parking spaces along the west and north are satisfactory at 18 feet as there is room to overhang the curb. (8) No signage has been 19732 reviewed. Petition proposes to muse existing monument signage bases that have deficient setbacks. No representations were presented. However, in any case, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required to use these signage bases for two signs or even to utilize one. See Zoning Board of Appeals Case #9302-13. This site would be allowed one monument sign of 30 square feet at a 10 -foot setback. 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. I would like to point out that the Site Plan presented to you this evening was modified in response to some of the concerns outlined by the Inspection Department; namely, that the number of parking spaces now conforms to the ordinance requirement Two additional spaces were added to the plan. I'll let the architect describe those in more detail. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, PC, 32500 Telegraph Road, Suite 250, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025. With me tonight is Nick Colbum, the developer of the project. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: The one-way drive on Six Mile Road, the westerly drive? I understand what Wayne County said, but is there a way you can block it on site so it's not being used and still comply? Mr. Dmne: I've seen that done before. Actually, on a project we worked on in Northville, they had done the exact same thing. It was a great place for the Northville Police Department to sit and time traffic. We would be in agreement with blocking it off to the property line or the sidewalk, only we'd add a few more parking spaces. I still think I have to gel the County approval for that. If its okay with you, I would like to talk with the County to make sure that they are not going to make us comply with the strict intent of the ordinance of holding all our storm water on the site. They say whenever you touch a curb cul, theyre going to make us comply 100 percent, and for such a small modification on the site, we thought that to be somewhat unreasonable. So if you could, we'd like to see if we couldn't somehow anange the motion to give us room to work with the County on that. Mr. La Pine: Mark, the canopy where the bank drive-through used to be, I understand that is staying? What is the reason for it staying? Are you going tome itfor something. Is it going to be a drop off spot? 19733 Mr. Drane: There is a requirement for a facility like this to have a small area where a patient can exit the building and be able to step to a car under cover, and that's the reason. Mr. LaPine: There will be an exit there somehow so they can come out? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Okay. The second question I have, I notice there are a number of spots where you show 18 fool panting spaces. I can understand in one area where there's 10 feet and you're going to have a two foot overhang. On the west side, its only five feet. I assume that's what that means, 18 feet? Mr. Drene: Yes, 18 feet plus the two foot overhang. Mr. LaPine: Does that give us enough room, Mark, on the west side where there's only a five foot greenbefi? Mr. Taormina: Yes, it would. As long as the additional two feet does not interfere with any improvements, whether it's landscaping or whether it's a pedestrian walkway, then that would be acceptable. Mr. LaPine: The problem I have over there is that there's some landscaping behind the trees. How is that going to be affected if the cars park over two feet there? Mr. Taormina: As I recall after seeing the site, there were arborvitaes planted relatively dose to the wall, so I'd have to look at it more closely. I don't believe there are existing spaces along that side. Mr. Drane: No, that's the edge of the driveway. Mr. Taormina: That the edge of the driveway and the exit for the drive-through. Mr. Drene: The five foot area does have some mature cedar or arborvitae in it which have outlived their usefulness. We're planning on providing new plantings along that wall. We feel that three feet between the wall and what would be the theoretical front of the parking space would be sufficient room for that planting. Mr. LaPine: I was just curious. Otherwise, I have the same problem that Mr. Shane has. I'd like to see that driveway, the 15 footer, sealed off and then the greenbelt can go all the way across if its possible. I don't know. Mr. Drene: We will do our bestto work with the County to get rid ofthatthing. 19734 Mr. La Pine: As one member, I'm really happy with what you're going here. It's one of the eyesores we've had for a long time. You're getting better. Your batting average is going up there. Mr. Drene: I'm so happy. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Drene, would you put up your Site Plan please? I just had one question. Where it says "medical offices' and "96" in the back, what are those two marks and a IiWe square? What is that? Mr. Drane: That's the transformer for the building. There's two brick screen walls on either side of it; we're proposing to put some more screen material around it. Mr. Walsh: Do you have tenants for the building already? Mr. Drane: Yes, Doctor Colburn. He's a surgeon. He has other facilities. He has picked this spot based on need. Mr. Walsh: I was just curious. I dont have any comments in addition to what has already been mentioned. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Mr. Drene, do you have samples of materials with you tonight for the addition? Mr. Drane: Yes, I do. The stone is for the tall column and the primary facade material for the addition. We're also going to be putting that material underneath the office windows and removing some of the existing brick and putting the stone in. This system right here is the clear story at the entry. It's a translucent material and at night it's going to have a nice general glow to it. This right here is the material for the roofing. It's a standing metal seam roof. We're trying to just pick up some neutral tones and create a nice high entry. As you can see by the setback of the building, this primary feature here is a nice view corridor. I do have a couple more materials here. This is the banding around the entry area. This is the color of the fascia, which is the portion underneath the metal roof, and the column supports and window mullions. You can see that here and here. Mr. McCann: Thank you. One more question and I think you're going to have my support. I like everything you're doing. The arborvitaes, especially along the western edge there ... a lot of them have died along the western wall there. Are you going to replace all of them? I don't 19735 know how you can replace a few of them because of the difference in height and growth. Mr. Drane: There's a section right here where they are in very good condition. The rest of them are scrub. Given the fact that the wall is here and the position of this area, we thought it would be best to keep these taller ones here because of the buffer for the backyard. Mr. McCann: I was very surprised that in the back area where nobody sees it, it's very beautiful. Mr. Drane: I was amazed when I saw some of these Weeping Beeches. They are absolutely amazing trees. We did our best to work our parking scheme around them. Mr. McCann: But the ones to the southwest will be replaced? Mr. Drane: Yes. Mr. Taormina: I just wanted to bring to your attention one potential change to the plan that we're going to look at going into the City Council meeting and that is the positioning of the trash containment area. Right now it's positioned in the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Dmne and I had a discussion today where we might look at an alternate location that would move that a little bit further away from that corner of the properly due to its proximity to the residents back there. I don't know if Mark has actually drawn something up. If he has, it would be helpful to communicate what I'm talking about. Mr. McCann: Yes, he has. Mr. Taormina: Part of the concern was some of the vegetation in the northwest comer. A couple poplar trees would be removed with the current plan, but the architect was equally concerned about moving the dumpsler across the driveway with some of the Weeping Beeches that are on that side. But it looks like he has been able to incorporate that into his design. Mr. McCann: Mr. Piercecchi, did you want to make a motion now? Mr. Piercecchi: I'd be happy to. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is a win-win situation for the City, and hopefully it will even help the mall across the street, which has a lot of vacancies right now. 19736 On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #10-126-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-09-08-19, submitted by Rogvoy Architects, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior and construct an addition to the existing building located at 33400 Six Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 9, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA -1 dated September 5, 2002, as revised, prepared by Rogvoy Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet SPA -3 dated September 6, 2002, prepared by Michael J. Dul & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that any dead plant material along the west property line shall be removed and replaced with the same or similar healthy plant; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. 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; 5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet SPA -5 dated September 9, 2002, as revised, prepared by Rogvoy Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face 4 inch brick, no exception; 7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick as 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 dosed at all times; 8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light 19737 trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated September 30, 2002: - That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Code; - That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated September 30, 2002: - That stop signs shall be installed at each exit drive; 11. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 12. 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 13. That the Petitioner shall make very attempt to remove the westerly driveway, subject to the approval of Wayne County. Mr. Shane: I wonder if the maker of the motion would consider #13, making some reference to the elimination of that driveway, maybe that 'the petitioner shall make every effort to eliminate the most westerly driveway shown as a one-way drive on the subject site plan" While this is not mandatory, it's telling the Council that we'd like to at least approach that idea. Mr. McCann: Something along the lines that if he gets the consent of the Wayne County without having to retain storm water? Mr. Shane: If it can be done without jeopardizing his storm water plans. Mr. Pieroecchi: Do our colleagues here agree with that? Mr. McCann: No, its up to you and Mr. Pastor. Mr. Piercecchi: I can accept it if you can accept it. 19738 Mr. McCann: Mr. Pastor? Mr. Pastor: Yes. Mr. Pieroecchi: I will accept that suggestion, Mr. Shane, in adding Item 13 as slated. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared 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 PETITION 2002-07-0244 MOHAMAD EL FASSIH Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002- 07-02-14, submitted by Mohamad EI Fassih requesting waiver use approval to construct a gas station and carry -out restaurant with drive -up window service on property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast%of Section 24. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #10-127-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-07-02-14, submitted by Mohamad EI Fassih, requesting waiver use approval to construct a gas station and carry -out restaurant with drive -up window service on property located on the north side of SchoolcmR Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast %of Section 24, be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mohamad EI Fassih, Elite Design & Development, Two Hampton Court, Dearborn, Michigan 48124. 19739 Mr. McCann: Have there been any additional changes since our last meeting? Mr. EI Fassih: Since the study meeting or the last meeting of the Planning Commission? Mr. McCann: Since the study meeting. Mr. EI Fassih: There is one issue that came up that I would like to address. When the members asked me if we had a cross -easement for parking that was existing on the property prior to this project, I responded "no." That was accurate, but I found out afterwards that my diem, under his new contract with the exisfing owners, as now, they have an amendment that they are going to have a cross -easement between whatever parking that my client is providing for his project with the other shopping center. That's part of the agreement. So I just want to mention that so that you are aware that there is going to be a cross -easement in the parking as a new easement as part of tie new contract. One other thing, the financial institution is requesting that the gas station be split from the shopping center in a way that they get their own financing. It will be under one owner, one program. The only thing is that they had to somehow address the boundary of that property where the gas station is separate from the AAA building. Mr. McCann: Would that be a problem to have a separate tax parcel on that? Its not really an issue before the Planning Commission. Mr. Taormina: It is not something that we'll be reviewing as part of this petition. That would be part of separate review by the Assessment Department and whatever other agencies. Mr. McCann: It would create some cross -easements between parking and driveways, would it not? Mr. Taormina: This conversation with the petitioner and the owner of the property I don't see as being an issue. Really what it is, it's a reflection of what the existing practice has been because the parking lots are all treated together. Persons will park on this site to go to the other shopping center and vice versa. So it really is not something that affects his overall parking counts. He complies. He's only obligated to comply with the parlting for his development, which he does. The fact that there's a cross -access agreement and parking agreement between the adjoining properties, I don't think will be a problem. Mr. McCann: I think you missed my point. What I'm saying is that if he creates two tax parcels, one for the gas station and one for the AAA 19740 building, in order to meet the parking requirements for both buildings, he'll have to create cross -easements between the two tax parcels in case one is sold and you have new owners. Mr. Taormina: He may have to if the property lines are not configured in such a way so that the parking needed to service the gas station is provided entirely on that parcel. Mr. McCann: Yes, you are right Mr. Taormina: The ordinance does allow for that type of division to take place and recognizes those reciprocal agreements. Mr. Alanskas: Two questions. Al our last study, you still weren't sure what type of gas you were gang to have. Is it Mobil or Shell or you dont know yet? Mr. EI Fassih: It's going to be either Marathon or BP. Mr. Alanskas: Marathon or BP? Mr. EI Fassih: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: How about in regards to a restaurant? You weren't sure. Mr. EI Fassih: Not yet. Mr. Alanskas: So you don't know who's going to go there in regards to the restaurant? Mr. EI Fassih: No, not yet. But we are now talking with Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin Robbins but nothing is 100% yet. Mr. Alanskas: Have you been contacted yet? Mr. EI Fassih: I think they were in contact with my client, yes. Mr. Taormina: I'd like to ask the petitioner if he has secured the two additional signatures from the residents that were needed. Mr. McCann: If these two signatures are proper, then he would comply with the 65% requirement? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that is cored. We will verity that, but it was necessary that prior to the Planning Commission's action this evening that he submit all the required signatures. We'll double check that prior to the actual vote. 19741 Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition as long as there is no objection from the Planning Commissioners? I see no objection. Beverly Cross, 27407 Buckingham. I feel like a broken record because I've been here three times. I really don't have anything new to say. Mr. EI Fassih did come over the other night and talked to me about the wall in the back. He said that he would be glad to put it up according to whatever the City would allow him to do. I dont really have anything else. You've already heard everything I've had to say, and they have heard everything I have to say. Mr. McCann: Well, it sounds like they've listened at least a little bit. Ms. Cross: Yes, yes. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. If there is nothing else, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it was #10-128-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, on Petition 2002-07-02-14, submitted by Mohamad EI Fassih, requesting waiver use approval to construct a gas station and carryout restaurant with dnve-up window service on property located on the north side of Schoolcmtt Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 24, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-07-02-14 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet G7 prepared by Elite Design & Development, Inc., dated September 26, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet C-2 prepared by Elite Design & Development, Inc., dated September 8, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the Autumn Purple Ash trees specified on said landscape plan shall be changed to a different variety of tree as approved by the Planning Director; 19742 3. That all plant materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That all sodded and landscaped areas shall be fully irrigated by underground sprinkler systems; 6. That the Building Elevations marked Sheets A-1 and A-3 prepared by Elite Design & Development, Inc., dated July 16, 2002 and September 8, 2002, respectively, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the brick used in the construction of the buildings shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions; 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 substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building; and the enclosure gales shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 9. That all rooftop -mounted mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view; 10. That the turning radius of the drive -up window lane shall be at least 15 feet as required; 11. That the maximum number of customer seats in the carryout restaurant shall not exceed 12; 12. That all pole mounted lights shall be shielded so as to be deflected away from any neighboring properly and shall not exceed 20 feet in height; 13. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be recessed in such a way that the intensity of the illumination is decreased; 14. That no outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site; however the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil or oil-based products as permitted under Section 11.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; 19743 15. That the pump island canopy shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and its support columns shall be covered with the same brick used in the construction of the gas station/convenience store building; 16. That no neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the pump island canopy, buildings or around the windows; 17. That this approval shall incorporate the following recommendations of the Traffic Bureau as listed in the correspondence dated August 2, 2002; That the required handicapped parking spaces be propedy sized and individually signed as required; That a handicapped lamp for access to the building be provided; That a sign indicating the height of the pump island canopy be installed in several conspicuous locators; That slop signs for each exit of the property, along with a Right Tum Only sign for the SchoolcraR exit, be installed. 18. That all parking spaces within the total site area be double striped; 19. That the existing protective wall along the north property line of the subject site shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and shall be extended to the east to the Inkster Road dghtof-way line using the same materials and having uniformity in height and appearance, except that the nearest 10 feet of wall to the right-of-way shall be limited to a height of three (3) feet; 20. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 21. 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 22. That this approval is conditional upon the petitioner submitfing additional information relative to the final determination of 19744 exterior building material colors and the review and approval of the colors by the Planning Commission and City Council by means of color renderings or other means of accurately portraying and designating colors, such as actual samples; 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 Sections 11.03 and 19.06 ofthe 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; 4. That a pefifion has been submitted in accordance with Section 11.03(a)(10) of the Zoning Ordinance showing the written consent of sixty-five (65%) percent of the owners of residenfial property within 400 feet of the site. FURTHER RESOLVED, that nofice of the 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'd like to make a mofion, if we could add #23 that no products can be displayed outside of the store except anything that has a petroleum base such as washer solvent and motor oils. No pop, nothing else. Mr. La Pine: Thatwas included inthe condifions. Mr. Alanskas: I didn't see it. Mr. La Pine: It says that "Thal no outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site; however the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil or oil-based products." Mr. Pastor: I think he should re -read it. Mr. Alanskas: We want to really emphasize that. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, have you come to a conclusion? 19745 Mr. Taormina: Yes. We would therefore recommend that, as one of the reasons for approving the petition, to induce that a petition has been provided with the signatures of at least 65% of the residents within 400 feel that are in favor of the gas station. Mr. McCann: Item 23. Mr. LaPine: Item 23. We can add that in. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Thank you for working with us and with the residents. ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-02-06-01 OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002- 02-06-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Artide IV, Section 4.04 and Arficle V, Section 5.04 in order to establish an open space preservation zoning provision in the R5 and RUF zoning districts as required by House Bill No. 5029. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #10-129-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, on Petition 2002-02-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Artide IV, Section 4.04 and Article V, Section 5.04 in order to establish an open space preservation zoning provision in the 1-5 and RUF zoning districts as required by House Bill No. 5029, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002- 02-06-01 be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canted and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is there any discussion? Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners, I've given a lot of thought to this because there is a strong possibility we will be required to accept House Bill 5029 in its present form. This open space bill, as 19746 you know, creates open space by pennitfing the same number of homes on 20% less land and sets aside this 20% as open space. Regardless of forced compliance, I see no reason we should accept this provision by amending our ordinance without a deeper understanding of this intrusive piece of Iegislafion, such as who will own this land, this 20? Who will maintain it? What land use provisions will apply? How will this land be configured - perimeter, single pieces or multiple pieces? I'll limit it to this one too: why is this bill necessary when the ZRA can accomplish this when and where it's in the best interest of our City? As you know, this legislation will give the developer the option, without City input, to reduce the lot size or setbacks on our R5 and RUF lots. When enforced, this could reduce an R5 lot to the dimensions of an RA lot. Due to our current stage of development in Livonia, as you know, most of our land is used; but there still is a lot of property between streets that is dassifed in the RUF zone. This Iegislafion mostly affects our neighbors west of us who have more large scale undeveloped parcels. Nevertheless, I really need more informaton before I can vote intelligently on this issue for our City. Hopefully after discussion, somebody will support a tabling moton which I will make. I'm sure that you also have some qualms or misgivings about approval of this type of legislation. And as I staled, I don't believe that legislation should be involved in this. I think the cities do a pretty good job and they are not really saving any land. They are not creating any land by this. They are just taking it away from a lot. Mr. McCann: I do have a question. This week I spent some lime with Mr. Piercecchi going over this. He mised some issues that I do have concerns with. What I don't want to see is this used in a situation where a developer would like to save the cost of development by not clearing certain areas, making the lots more accessible just to the main road and leaving back areas that aren't really accessible to any individual or of my benefit to the community as a whole. I can see them saying, "Hey, I can make 70 or 90 foot lots instead of 100 fool lots or 110 foot wide" by using this and just leaving vacant properly to the rear that won't have any benefit to the community. I think what we need to show or have some type of language in there that it must show that it provides a benefit to the community as a whole, that the land is either accessible to or will in some way enhance the community as a whole by reducing these lots sizes In order to affect the land. We talk about that it can't include the flood lands or other unusable property as part of their requirement, but it also bothers me that they could just put 10 feet along the rear property lines and make it work that way, and peke narrower lots, and end up somehow abusing the process. I don't think our 19747 language covers it well enough. So I think I'm in agreement with Dan that there may be some work lett on this. Mr. La Pine: Mark, can we deviate from anything that's in that touse bill or is that the law of the land when it pertains to this bill? Mr. Taormina: I think the statute in essence provides a road map but it doesn't provide all of the specifics. I think a community will have to address that individually. In response to one of the concems reised by the Chairman, the statute does, in its definition of undeveloped state, indicate that it may be but is not required to be dedicated to the use of the public. So I don't believe we can require, as part of any zoning ordinance amendment, that the areas that are set aside to comply with the statute be reserved for use by the public. It would have to be in the form of a perpetual easement that may or may not be dedicated for use by the public. Mr. McCann: I see what you're saying with regard to that aspect, but there still has to be some benefit to either the subdivision or the community. I think that's something we can work with or talk to the Legal Department about as to how we can phrase it so that the property isn't put off to the side. We have smaller lots for the benefit of the developer and it doesn't really improve the quality of the subdivision or provide an enhancement to the community. Mr. Shane: The only thing I'd say about that is that it seems to me that the Planning Commission and Council are going to have a lot to say about how the proposed layout finally ends up. We can certainly have a lot to say about where this open space is configured and how it's configured. So I'm not particularly concerned about fiat in those instances where the Planning Commission and Council approve a site plan, because I wouldn't approve a site plan unless I felt that the open space was being utilized in a way in which it would be of most benefit to us. I have some comfort when I know these things come before us. Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Shane, the original site plan, according to what I've read, is submitted as an R5 lot to determine how many houses go on it, so they can't change the density of it. But that site plan would be approved. According to the way I read it, it would be up to the developer whether he utilizes this 20% set aside rule. Mr. Shane: Fine, but... Mr. Pieroecchi: And that's after the fad. Mr. Shane: Isn't that part of the approval of the Planning Commission? 19748 Mr. Taormina: That part is. The plan would sell have to be submitted. Actually, two plans would have to be submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pieroecchi: But Mark, according to this thing, it says that it's mandated that he does this. It's a mandated thing bythe State in House Bill 5029. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. Pieroecchi: I really object to that. Mr. Taormina: If I could darify that. The mandate gives the developer the option of whether or not to utilize these dustering provisions. If so, then he would have to meet all the requirements not only of the statute but of the local codes, one of which we are establishing as being that they would have to prepare a yield plan showing how many lots could otherwise be developed on a piece of property that fully conforms to all of our ordinances and regulations. Following the determination that the plan complies with our ordinances, he can then take that plan, compress it so as to provide 20% open space on that property, the esult being, at lead what the statute is trying to accomplish, additional open space preservation and a form of development that would still be reasonably consistent with what the communilys goals are. Its not intended to provide an altogether different zoning for the property but just allow for a little bit more flexibility in the design of the development in a way that is not going to provide any additional density, as you indicated. Mr. Pieroecchi: You're write-up, Mark, I think covered that very well, that it has to comply with the number of lot sizes that could have been put in that area under an R-5. But it still doesn't address who owns this property. Who owns it? Who maintains it? And how is this 20% going to be obtained? It is going to be perimeter? And as Jim said, are they going to take an area which really is not developable? Mr. Taormina: I think you raise a good point. Mr. Pieroecchi: I think there are a lot of points there that should be answered. And if we can put these answers, such as ownership, maintenance, and some kind of configuration in here, well it would at least take some of the sting out of it, even though I do think it's an intrusion on cites bylhe State government. Mr. Shane: I teed to indicate that where it is distributed on site will be the function of site plan approval. I don't have any problem with that part, as long as I have a crack at it to find out how these lots are distributed and how the open space is distributed. 19749 Mr. Pieroecchi: I don tsee anything in here that talks about site plans. Mr. Shane: Our own zoning ordinance requires site plans on site condos, subdivisions and the like. I'm comfortable with that part. Mr. La Pine: Mark, we keep talking about these open spaces, open to the public. Now what does that mean? In other words, if these spaces are open, does that mean everybody in that subdivision can use these spaces for what they want to use them for? Mr. Taormina: I think it could take that form. I think the language in the statute is rather general and broad in that sense. It could mean a number of different things as far as protecting or preserving natural resources or scenic or wooded conditions, recreational trails, picnic areas, children's play areas, greenways or linear parks, but it cannot include such things as golf courses. Mr. La Pine: Let me ask you this. Let's assume its behind somebody's property. How are people going to access it? Are you going to have to travel across my property to get to the back of this properly so they can use it for their pleasure if they live over another street? Mr. Taormina: Well, that's a good question as to whether or not the open space, if it is in the form of a preservation easement, if it's only in favor of the abutting property or the person who holds title to that land. The act doesn't distinguish that, so if we develop criteria with respect to who is to benefit by this open space or who is to have some rights to its use, then we have to be careful in drafting that language and make sure that it meets the intent of the statute. That's something we can take a closer look at with the Law Department. I understand your concern though and that is this area is not just in the form of somebody's backyard, which in effect is still the same difference. Mr. La Pine: Fine. Mr. Pieroecchi: If it's established that way, the way you just discussed, then maintenance could be incorporated, and it would be obvious who would maintain it if is attached to the back of somebody's yard. Right? Mr. Taormina: That is cored. The maintenance could be ... Mr. Pieroecchi: But this bill is so vague. I see no harm in putting some specifics in this thing. I would be more comfortable with it. 19750 Mr. La Pine: Don't we have a deadline where we have to ... Mr. Taormina: That is correct. The statute provides that communities must make these zoning regulation provisions available by December 1 of this year. Mr. Shane: We have to gel it out of the Planning Commission in time for Council to act on it. So we don't have that much time. Mr. Pieroecchi: Whatever. I just have questions, and I'm looking for answers. Mr. McCann: Mark, to get back to my concem and that is that it's got this mandatory provision in it that the developer shall be allowed to do this. As an attorney, I have these fears of when we challenge somebody later on, what that language is going to do to us when we try to defend ourselves. I don't think it's unreasonable to put in there that it shall have some attributable benefit to either the subdivision as a whole or to the community as a whole so that when we're looking later on down the line to defend our actions in reviewing a proposed site plan that is reduced, that we have a solid basis for our denial if we choose to deny it when the statute says he shall have this right. That is where my concern is coming in, is that we always have site plan approval. We can always review these, but I'd like some teeth to show that this spare land is going to have either benefit to the subdivision as a whole or to the community as whole. If you're giving each person just a little bit of land, then lets make them conform to all the R-5 requirements or RUF requirements if its only going to benefit each person on an individualized basis. But if it's going to show the subdivision as a whole, then it may have benefit or to the community as a whole. Mr. Pieroecchi: Jim, it's taking away this land on the subdivision as whole because each unit is going to contribute to it. It takes a big piece of property to really get hurl. I don't worry about R -5's, but I worry about those lots that run from street to street. We've seen what's happened in the past. People put a road down the middle of them. Who knows? I'd just like to get all the ducks in a row there. Mr. McCann: Mark, you wanted to respond? Mr. Taormina: The language as it exists today, the proposed revision that is, would mandate that the open space area be perpetually maintained by means of a conservation agreement in favor of the City. I think what we need to do is find out what that actually means. We'll look at how that would be structured in a manner that would address some of your concerns. What exactly does "in favor of the City" means in this case? Would it provide for access to the public or strictly for the purpose of maintaining those open space areas. 19751 Mr. McCann: A moton is in order On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #10-130-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, on Pe00on 2002-02-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Arfide IV, Section 4.04 and Article V, Section 5.04 in order to establish an open space preservation zoning provision in the R5 and RUF zoning districts as required by House Bill No. 5029, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002- 02-06-01 be tabled to the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of October 22, 2002. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canied and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 84r Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 849" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August20,2002. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #10-131-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 849" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Pastor, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canied and the foregoing resoluton adopted. 19752 ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 85C Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes ofthe 850" Regular Meeting held on September 10, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #10-132-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 850'" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Pastor, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 852nd Regular Meeting held on October 8, 2002, was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mgr CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary