Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-03-2520229 MINUTES OF THE 862n" REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 862n° 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 Carol Smiley Members absent: John Walsh Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner 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 tie 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 2003-01-08-02 TIME WARNER CABLE Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 01-08-02, 00301-08-02, submitted by Time Warner Cable requesting approval of landscaping for the office building located at 14525 Farmington Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 21. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road. In February, 2003, the site plan was approved for the addition to the existing building and also to expand the parking lot. As part of the 20230 approval, it was conditioned that a fully detailed Landscape Plan be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Because the expanded parking lot will be much doser to the Silver Village senior housing complex, the City wanted to closely monitor and evaluate the type of screening between the two uses. According to the plan, the petitioner is proposing to install additional landscaping in and around the new expanded parking lot. The landscaping around and adjacent to the existing building would remain as is. The main focus of the proposal has to do with the enhancement of the greenbelts that were approved in place of the wall. These areas would have the existing natural landscaping enhanced with both deciduous trees and evergreen trees. The greenbelt along the north property line is also shown with additional plant materials. This, and the fact that no wall is indicated along the north property line, is an indication that the petitioner intends to seek a temporary wall variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. A note on the plan states, 'All landscape areas to be irrigated by the contractor for the first growing season to supplement dry periods and to insure that the plants become established." This would seem to imply that the petitioner is not planning to irrigate the landscaped areas by underground sprinklers. The buffer along the north and south sides of the parking lot includes a three fool high vinyl picket fence. This fencing should offer a nice aesthetic quality to the greenbelts and provide additional screening of the parking lot and its vehicle traffic. On March 21, 2003, the petitioner submitted a revised landscape plan. The new plan shows a few more trees would be added along the south property line next to Silver Village. According to the plan, the additional landscaping would only be an enhancement to the existing landscaping. However, very little existing vegetation would remain once the expanded parking lot has been constructed. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: We have one letter from the Inspection Department, dated March 13, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 5, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. Time Warner disregarded notice made in our review of their addition on January 15, 2003, of disabled and unlicensed vehicles parked in their crowded parking lot. The same exact vehicles previously mentioned (except both now are not licensed) are still in the same exact spots as of March 11, 2003. 1 have directed our Ordinance Division to issue a violation in order to abate this illegal activity. This Department has no further objections to this 20231 petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Jim Ludwig, Ludwig & Associates Limited, 38955 Hills Tech Drive, Suite 207, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331. I am the owner of Ludwig & Associates. We are the landscape architect on the project. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mr. McCann: All right. I got a call today regarding those vehides being lowed outofthere. Did you gel any information with regard to that? Mr. Ludwig: No, I did not, but I'd be happy to relay the wishes of the Commission back to the owner. Mr. McCann: I did receive a call to my office as Chairman of the Planning Commission from Time Warner saying that Bose vehicles were being lowed out of there today. I did not have time to verify it. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about the Landscape Plan that wasn't identified previously? Mr. Ludwig: We are directed by the owner, and it is our intent and the owners to preserve as much of the existing material as absolutely possible. I believe there's a fair amount of cut in the center of the parking lot. The engineer provided a section view indicating the zone of disturbance. The reason for all that would be to legitimize the extent of our disturbance of the plant material. We are going to preserve everything we can that is not disturbed due to the grading. In addition to that, we'll supplement it as shown on the drawing. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and adopted, it was #03-42-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of landscaping, submitted by Time Warner Cable, in connection with Pelifion 2003-01-08-02, which previously received site plan approval by the City Council on February 26, 2003 (Council Resolution 73-03), for the office building located at 14525 Farmington Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 21, be approved subject to the following conditions: 20232 1. That the Landscape and Fencing Detail Plan marked LLP -1 dated March 20, 2003, as revised, prepared by Ludwig & Associates Limited, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the following: - That a staggered row of 8 foot to 10 foot high evergreen trees, planted 12-15 feet off -center, shall be placed along the entire south property line where it abuts Silver Village; - That this landscaping shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Department; 2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3. 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; and 4. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Smiley, Shane, Piercecchi NAYES: None ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: Walsh 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 2003-02-08-05 S&N DEVELOPMENT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-02-08-05, submitted by S & N Development Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 37640 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast%of Section 6. 20233 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh and Vidor Parkway. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a three-story office building. In May of 1998, this site received Site Plan Approval in connection with a proposal by Oakwood Health Systems to construct a three-story medical office building. That project was never developed. The development of the earlier medical building was based on a Consent Judgment between the City of Livonia and the petitioner. The review and development of the new proposed general office building is based on a modified version of that original agreement approved by the Livonia City Council at their Regular Meeting on February 12, 2003. Incorporated in the documentation and a component of the agreement is a preliminary site plan that received conceptual approval. Regardless of the RUFC zoning classification, the property may be developed and used for an office building as allowed under PO, High Rise Professional Office, and consistent with the existing uses in the Victor Corporate Park. Plans and specifications for final site plan approval shall comply with all ordinances and regulations of the City, all building codes and engineering requirements, and are subject to review and approval by City Council. The proposed building would be three -stories in height and 75,000 square feel in size. The Floor Plans do show that there would also be a lower level or basement. Even though this level would furnish an additional 25,000 square feet to the building, according to the petitioner, it would only be used primarily for storage and mechanical purposes. As such, the square footage is not included in the required parking calculation. The proposed structure would sit slightly off center of the property with parking available on all four sides. To handle the storm water runoff, a large detention pond would be located at the southeast corner of the site. According to the elevation contours, the retention basin would gradually slope down to a depth of approximately 9 fed. Access to the site would be permitted by a two-way drive off Victor Parkway and a boulevard drive off Seven Mile Road. A large three -container enclosed dumpsler area is shown kitty comer across the parking lot from the northeast corner of the building. The lighting detail cutout shows that the standards would not exceed 17 feet in height. Parking is summarized as follows: required parking is 300 spaces; provided parking is 340 spaces. The Landscape Plan shows that the site would be elaborately landscaped throughout. Greenbelts along Seven Mile Road would be between 50 feel and 65 feet wide and have meandering landscaped berms. Existing evergreen trees along Victor Parkway should provide adequate screening. Wetland - type plants, such as cattail, rush and wild nice, would be planted 20234 in the detenfion basin area. The parking lot islands and the green space up next to the building would be generously landscaped with a variety of plant materials. Landscaping has been summarized as follows: required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; provided landscaping is 34% of the total site. The Elevation Plans show that the proposed building would be somewhat similar in appearance as the recently approved building that is being constructed across the street on the northwest comer of Victor Parkway and Seven Mile Road. The same architectural firm designed both projects. The proposed high rise would be constructed out of materials that correspond with the rest of the buildings of Victor Corporate Park. The building would be constructed mainly out of dark red brick on all four sides with renaissance stone accents. Each of the floors windows would appear to be a continuous band of glass. Pilladess slab -like canopies would define the entrances. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 14, 2003, 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. No further right-of-way derlication is required. Water mains, sanitary sewers and an open drain are available to serve the site. The drive and additional deceleration lane on Seven Mile Road will require Wayne County approval. The detention facilities will require Wayne County approval, and the outlet will require Michigan Department of Environmental Quality approval. Other approvals will be by the City." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 12, 2003, which reads as follows: "This oft has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with request to construct a threestory office building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (a) If subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (b) Access around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45 feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-h feet" The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 19, 2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to construct a threestory oft building on property located at 37640 Seven Mile Road and Victor Parkway. The plans provide 20235 for 340 parking spaces with eight handicap spaces. A total of 12 handicap parking spaces are required for this location. The proposed handicap parking signs do not meet the city ordinance specifications and signs should be posted no less than 6'-8" above grade. The proposed fire lanes must be property posted in accordance with city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 11, 2003, which reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request of March 5, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This property is subject to a consent judgment. (2) No signage 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: Thank you. Is the petitioner here this evening? Kevin Biddison, Biddison Architecture & Design, 27760 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 100, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. 1 am representing S&N Development this evening, the developer of the project. I'm here to answer any questions that you have. I'll give you just a couple brief comments relative to what you see here. This is just an enlarged rendenng of what you have in your package just to better show the materials of the building. This is an example of the back that is going to be used; it is a full 4" x 12" brick. And this is renaissance stone material that is on the east and west ends of the building. The stone is actually a little bit longer that; it's a 12" x 24" piece. But they weigh about 80 pounds apiece, so I brought one that was a little smaller. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have regarding any of the other materials. We will have a green tinted glass that will be matching the building that is across the street, which Mr. Shamie is currently constructing. That would be on this side of Victor Parkway, so we are again going to be matching. It's the same brick that is going to be used on that. They're just about ready to start construction. There are a couple of additional things that have come up. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have regarding the building. Mr. Alanskas: So that is the actual color of the block? It will be while instead ofgmy? Mr. Biddison: That is the exact block, only it would be slightly larger. Mr. Alanskas: In the pictures you have here, it looks like it's gray. 20236 Mr. Biddison: Again, this is only a computer renditon of the material. That is the actual material. Mr. Alanskas: While you have it in your hand, that's the northeast view? Mr. Biddison: This is actuallythe south side facing Seven Mile. Mr. Alanskas: It's looks very sparse as far as landscaping. I mean, look at this picture. Its very sparse for landscaping in front of the building. Mr. Biddison: Boy, I would say that is actually not the case. If you look at the second landscaping sheet that you have, it has the detail of that. Mr. Alanskas: Yes, I do. So that's not the final picture of what your landscaping is doing to look like? Mr. Biddison: This only represents basic tree areas. There's two landscape sheets that are there. I think we're at least double or more of the landscaping requirement for the site. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: Good evening. Why did you choose the 4" x 12" brick rather than the standard brick? What is the thickness of that brick? Mr. Biddison: Its a four -inch thick brick. Its a regular size brick. Mr. Piercecchi: 4" x 12" x 4"? Mr. Biddison: Yes. Especially on a building of this size, just the scale of the brick is a little bit larger. We're three stories here. So very often what's called a utility size brick, a larger brick, as opposed to a normal size brick, is used, just because of scale. Mr. Piercecchi: It lakes fewer of them, right? Mr. Biddison: It takes fewer of them, but theyre more costly to lay. So, yes, it does take fewer per square fool. Mr. Piercecchi: I had one question that's bothering me in regard to the retention pond. I realize that it's not customary to put security around these, but this one here goes to nine feet. Have any installations of this magnitude encountered any problems with such a depth? Mr. Biddison: Well, the water will not be that deep, and the grass area that slopes down to it is fairly shallow. There isn't a fence or anything that's proposed around it at this point. Its a gradual 20237 slope that is allowed without a fence or without protection. We have shrubs and landscaping. We can certainly provide some more if there was a concern about that. We were trying to keep a natural as opposed to a fenced -in look along Seven Mile. Mr. Pieroecchi: What would be basically the maximum depth that you would have in there? Mr. Biddison: I believe the high water level was maybe about six or seven feet if you had your 100 year storm. Again, that's not something that's going to happen unless you have a 100 year storm, which obviously ... Mr. Pieroecchi: But to your knowledge, sir, this type of configuration going to a nine fool depth has not encountered any real problems of people or little ones getting in it and drowning? Mr. Biddison: Not to my knowledge. Again, its not a steep sloped side. It's a gradual side so it's not something where someone would walk along it and fall. Mr. Pieroecchi: You may think I'm asking a strange question, but just down the street there at Haggerty, we've got like lakes. But that is another community. I'm concemed about Livonia. We can rest assured that there are no safety problems? Mr. Biddison: I think those are much steeper slopes than what you have here. Mr. Pieroecchi: They may be a one on six there. Mr. Biddison: The retention area that's across here, again, is a steep slope on some sides, aid they have walls on some sides, which are a straight drop. Then you have grass that gradually slopes in along Vidor Parkway. So it probably would be a Iitlle bit less actually than even what slopes along Vidor Parkway now. Mr. Pieroecchi: Your detention pond is opposite from the Vidor Parkway entrance. You're on the other end. Mr. Biddison: No, I understand. I was just using that as an example of one that's right now along Vidor Parkway. Mr. Pieroecchi: Oh, right. I'm familiar with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. La Pine: I have two questions. As you're coming west on Seven Mile Road and turning north onto Vidor Parkway, right at the corner there are a lot of pine trees. Are they all going to stay? 20238 Mr. Biddison: Its our intention to keep all of those pine trees on both sides - the existing ones here on the building that's under construction, and all of these trees along here. Mr. LaPine: In the Consent Judgment, you still own some property behind here. Do you not, Mr. Shamie? Mr. Shamie: Oakwood Hospital owns it. Mr. LaPine: Oakwood Hospital owns it. So the only parcel you own is what this building is going on. It is my understanding that this is a project that is not going to come to pass for a year or so. Is that correct? Mr. McCann: Sir, can you come up and take the microphone and introduce yourself, please? Sam Shamie, S&N Development, LLC., 26111 West 14 Mile Road, Suite LL -4, Franklin, Michigan 46025. I'm the developer of this project and the one across the street from it, loo. I've been working on this project for a year and half with Oakwood Hospital, and its been pretty difficult. To gel this far, we have put a lot of work behind us and a lot of meetings. The question that you asked me was regarding ... Mr. LaPine: The time frame, when we can expect this building to be constructed. Mr. Shamie: If the economy stays the way it is, I'll be requesting another one- year extension from this body for renewal of the site plan because, as of right now, the economics are not there for me to proceed with this building, even though I did go ahead with the building across the street. We have a lot of good activity on it only because of the location and visibility, and that building will complement this building as well. So I wuld say, realistically, 2004-2005 construction. That's all because of the economy. I mean it we gel a tenant, if we're lucky to get a tenant for a floor or two, I've been assured by my bank that they will go ahead with a construction loan, but not unless at least 25% of the building is spoken for. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. 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. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was 20239 #03-43-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02-08-05 submitted by S & N Development Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 37640 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP.101 dated February 18, 2003, as revised, prepared by Biddison Architecture & Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plans marked Sheet L-1, L-2 and L-3, all dated February 18, 2003, prepared by E.J. Kleckner & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 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 A.201 dated February 18, 2003, as revised, prepared by Biddison Architecture & Design, 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 used in tie 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 endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed 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 trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 20240 9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated March 12, 2003: That if the building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department Connection; That access around the building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a turning radius up to 45 feet wall-to-wall and a minimum verfical clearance of 13% feet; 10. 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; and 11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department allhe time the building permits are applied for. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Smiley, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2003 -02 -GB -02 FRANCO FACCHINI Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003 -02 -GB -02, submitted by Franco Facchini requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 28046 Five Mile Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 13. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile between Inkster and Harrison. Back in July, 2002, this site received Site Plan Approval for the construction of a dentist office. The 20241 approved site plan showed a concrete protective wall along the north property line where the site abuts residential. The applicant is now requesting approval to modify the plan and substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between office zoned property and residential zoned property. This property is located across the street from the Suburban Door Company. The residential properties that abut this property to the north are zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. The proposed plan shows that the petitioner would like to substitute the wall with a 10 fool wide greenbelt. Within this greenbelt area would be a row of six Colorado blue spruce trees. Between the proposed greenbelt and the outer edge of the dentist office's parking lot is a gently sloped detention basin. It is 60 feet from the parking lot to the abutting residential lots. The plan shows that a 22 foot section of wall that continues from the adjacent property (northwest corner) and extends onto this property would remain. Also an existing section of cydone fence that extends out from the northeast comer would remain. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated March 12, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 5, 2003, 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 petitioner here this evening? Franco Facchini, 32170 SchoolcraR, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about your petition? Dr. Facchini: No, except that I consulted the neighbor to the north, and they are also in agreement with me that a greenbelt would be preferable to a concrete wall. The neighbors are present if you would like to talk with them. We have a berm here, too, which is not obvious. Those Colorado blue spruces, which would be about seven feet tall, sit on a berth that's about three feel tall; so altogether, right at the get -go, it would be about 10 feet high. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. La Pine: Is that berm going to be in front of the wall that is already there? 20242 Dr. Facchini: This is the north end, and there is a wall that extends Mr. LaPine: What I dont understand is that the wall is already partly on your property. I don't see any reason why we can't extend the wall east. We have all the properly east of you that is zoned OS, loo, which some day may be developed into office. Maybe the next person would wand a wall. We've already established a wall. I don't see any reason why the wall can't come up. Now, I can understand that nobody wants to lose that big tree, but the wall that is up there now goes to the tree and stops. So you can start the wall on the other side of the tree and continue down. Take down that cydone fence, and then on the other side, the east side, there's a wooden fence that goes all the length on the east side of your property. I have a problem with a greenbelt in lieu of a wall. Then a year from now, somebody develops the property east of you, and they say, "I want a wall" We have to be consistent. Unless I hear a real reason why the wall should be waived, personally, I don't see why it can't be done. Its not that it can't be done, because I was out there and looked at it. It seems to me that it would work fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCann: Would you like to respond? Dr. Facchini: Initially, we were considering doing the wall, and then we came upon the problem with having the new wall. This wall has posts and no trenching underneath. The City requested that we trench four feet down straight across the north property line, then cul in, cut over and cut back around the tree. Then I spoke to the neighbor, and they said they would prefer to have trees anyway. It looks better to them. Their side of the wall doesn't get any sunlight, so it gathers moss and ifs dark. Then the tree is a very large tree. We were concemed about trenching around the tree and how far out can we go before we damage roots. Or if we didn't trench around the tree, and we sunk posts, and came out and jogged around the tree, would that be completely safe? We weren't sure. And then the cyclone fence is also owned by the neighbor. He wasn't keen on having that taken down, so we had to talk about a wall that abutted the cydone fence. Aril then there's a Detroit Edison pole that also exists there. We were talking about trenching right up to the Detroit Edison pole, stopping and trenching right up against the other side of that Detroit Edison pole. Mr. LaPine: Isn't that cydone fence on the property line between your two properties? Dr. Facchini: Yes 20243 Mr. LaPine: So that's where the wall would have to go, so that fence would have to go. It has to be on the property line. Dr. Facchini: Do I just remove it? I don't feel comfortable taking somebodys fence down. Mr. LaPine: I'm just telling you what I think. Through the Chair, I'll ask Mr. Taormina, is thatfence on the property line? Mr. Taormina: I don't know if the survey shows that its exactly on the property line. But it sounds as if the abutting property owner is the owner of that fence. I think he has to respect that and probably make arrangements to keep that fence if he does end up building the wall. That situation does exist in other areas of the City. Mr. Pieroecchi: Actually, Mr. Chairman, Bill covered some of my questions. I would just like to repeat one area which I think is very important to me because, ultimately, that stretch of Five Mile Road is going to developed in office services buildings. Inasmuch as you have 22 feet of it already, the first business is totally as a wall. Right? Then its you with 22 feet Right? Its already there. And as far as going around a tree, I agree with the City that you can cut in, col out and go around it. If that properly to the east is going to be developed, as Mr. LaPine pointed out, somebody may want a wall. So it only makes good sense to continue that wall or put up a new one and go all the way across. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, I went out there as well and looked at that. You've got the wall to the west. You've got the large tree. Is there any reason why the wall couldn'tjusl start on the opposite side of the tree? I don't know about building a wall coming out from the tree, going across the tree, and then back to the fence again. Are you just going to destroy all the roots? The tree is eventually going to go anyway, especially if you meet the requirement of going down four feet. You'd have to trench out so far to get around the tree. Now, something else the petitioner brought up tonight that I didn't look at or notice when I was out there: that other fence is on posts. Obviously, that's not meeting the requirements of the fence. Would that existing fence have to be moved? The existing wall is just on posts. Mr. Taormina: You're right. The standard of construction today is to use a confinuous footing. I don't know if that's advisable once you get within a couple feet of this large tree if you want to protect its roots. There are some walls that are built that way that have spans, or in other words, grade beams. I think that would probably be the technique that would have to be utilized for this 20244 property anywhere within the drip line of that tree if you really want to protect it. You want to do as little digging around that root mass as possible. But then for the balance of the property, it could be a continuous 42" footing or whatever is required by the Inspection Department. Mr. McCann: If there's an abutting fence there, you can't put a footing in without damaging the other fence. Mr. Taormina: That would be difficult. He may have to offset it just enough to proted that fence if the neighbor insists on keeping it. I'm not sure that he has the legal right to remove that fence under those circumstances, especially if its not encroaching. It's not his fence to remove. Mr. McCann: That's one thing that has come before us before. Under the current direction, the ZBA is no longer waiving the wall requirement for a period of time. I think this would be a perfect case where we could say, "You know what? Right now, the neighbor wants a greenbelt. He would prefer to have a greenbelt" Until we see what happens to the east, is there any way of having us revisit this or letting him go to the ZBA and getting a waiver use for a period of time? There's enough depth, it seems there to me, that you could probably have a greenbelt going all the way along that north property line to the next street. And if that's the case, I'm not sure we're ready to make that decision now. Mr. Taormina: I cannot speak for the Zoning Board of Appeals and what it might do if an appeal is filed, but I dont believe that a change of circumstance on the adjoining property would trigger the requirement for the wall to be built on this property necessarily. We do have a safeguard built into our ordinance, but only as it relates to circumstances that change on the property in question. So, for example, if we were to grant a permanent greenbelt in this instance, and then he built an addition onto his building or the existing tree somehow didn't survive the construction impacts, those may be changes that would require the construction of a wall. But I don't think a development on the adjacent property would. Mr. McCann: I didn't look at that as a triggering event, but can this go back to the ZBA for a waiver of the wall for a period of lime? Mr. Taormina: It has been the policy over the course of the last year or two to try not to consider these temporary variances. Whether or not that's been done, I don't know. We do have some options this evening. If we deny the greenbelt but approve the plan without 20245 a wall, then he could pefifion the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance and see where that takes him. We could lend our support to that action. Otherwise, he would be required to construct the wall in accordance with the plans that have already been approved for this site unless he modified those approved plans to allow for a shorter wall where it abuts this tree. That was one of the concerns we had when the petitioner approached us on the engineering design for this wall. Clearly, we didn't know what to do when we got to the tree, whether or not we would try to span a portion of the wall, build some kind of a pier system to try and protect the roots, or what. That's when we began this discussion on the possibility of a greenbelt and indicated to him that he would have to get the support of his neighbor in order to petition this body for even standing a chance of getting an approval. Mr. Pieroecchi: That cydone fence isn't very tall, is d? It doesn't go all the way lothattree, does it? Its just a short little span, isn't it? Dr. Facchini: About 40 feel. Mr. Pieroecchi: 40 and 20 is 60. How wide is your lot? Dr. Facchini: 100 feel. Mr. Pieroecchi: So you have 40 feet for the fence. Dr. Facchini: Are you talking about stopping short at the cyclone? Mr. Pieroecchi: I'm talking about the cydone. I mean, there seems to be some interest in leaving that cydone up, but as far as hurting that tree, I can't speak for that. Mr. Shane is our expert in that area. But the current wall is cast; it's a brick type and it fits into a slot. if it's going to be suspended, you're going to have water go underneath R. I dont see haw that can really create that much damage to the tree. Dr. Facchini: You're talking about starting on the other side of tree, then putting a post, and maybe six feet away putting another post.. . Mr. Pieroecchi: It has to be that dose? Six feet? Dr. Facchini: I dont know how far the posts are. It could be ten feel. Mr. McCann: The Engineering Department wants footings to go down four feel, solid footings all the way across. 20246 Dr. Facchini: That was the main issue. Now we're trenching four feet deep and we've got three big problems: the tree, which is the number one problem, and a Detroit Edison pole which we haven't talked about either. I don't know what will happen when we trench four feel on each side of a Detroit Edison pole. And third, the cyclone fence. Mr. Pieroecchi: The Engineering Department then obviously doesn't care about thaltree. Right? Mr. McCann: Well, that's a problem. Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Shane, can you elaborate in this area? Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina has a comment. Mr. Taormina: I forgot that he has the Edison pole located right on the property line. The ordinance does provide for placement of the wall on the easement where such obstructions or constraints exist, so he could actually offset the property line with the construction of the wall. But now you have this dead zone of three feet between the fence and the actual wall. Mr. McCann: And the walls dont match up again. Mr. Taormina: And then they dont match up, so its a difficult situation. Mr. La Pine: Maybe you answered the question for me. The pole is on the easement. How much of a utility easement do they have? Mr. Taormina: I haven't checked that, but typically they are 12 feet altogether. So it's probably six feel on either side of the pole. Mr. La Pine: If he wanted to put up that fence, he could put it up, but it would have to be on the six feel on his side and then again it wouldn't line up with the existing fence. I don't know how long that building has been there, but in the old days, when we started putting walls up, we used to use the 4beams. They went down, and they had prefab slabs. We have a number of them around town, and we found that they didn't work. They caved in; they began to sink. I'd like to hear from the neighbor. I don't understand why if they've got a wall, they don't want the rest of the wall. I guess maybe that may change my position. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? 20247 Kristine Gnagey, 15410 Oak Drive. We are the neighbors on the north side of the property that is in question. Mr. McCann: What is pur feeling toward having the wall there or just putting a greenbelt? Ms. Gnagey: Its just a matter of strategy and not knowing what the zoning allows because you do have the easement for the telephone pole and so forth. But the tree in question is a mature tree that is still very healthy. So that's my concern. And we have a greenbelt right across the street at the accountant's office that is on the northwest comer. That, to me, represents a good greenbelt idea between that and the north neighbor. So I prefer to keep it. Mr. La Pine: Is that big tree on your properly? Ms. Gnagey: It is, but it extends onto his property a little bit, and I don't know exactly inclrwise what that is. Mr. LaPine: I'm just curious. When I was out there, I counted about six or seven or eight snowmobiles. Dothey all belong loyou? Ms. Gnagey: Yes, that's being taken care of. Right, they do belong to me. Mr. McCann: I only have three. Ms. Gnagey: The season is done. Mr. Shane: Are you through, ma'm? Ms. Gnagey: Yes. Mr. Shane: Okay. The thought I had was, there is a fair amount of distance between the north edge of the parking lot and the rear property line. Apparently, there is going to be a detention basin there. Dr. Facchini: That is correct. Mr. Shane: Then on the detention basin side of the parking lot, would it not be possible to plant some additional evergreen trees along there? Mr. Taormina: You're talking about the area immediately adjacent to the parking lot to supplement the plantings that are closer to the properly line? 20248 Mr. Shane: The reason I'm saying that is that it appears to me that the protective wall is not going to be practical for the reasons we've been discussing. Mr. Taormina: To answer that, I would say that, yes, he could plant bat right on the top slope of that basin, and even on a 1 on 6 slope if that's what it is, as along as they're not subject to periodic flooding which could damage them, which I doubt they would be if they're at the top elevation of that basin. Mr. Shane: So then from the neighbor's side, if there's another row of evergreens, in effect, she'll have a double row. She probably wouldn't even see the parking lot. It seems to me that would be an effective greenbelt because the wall simply is not going to be practical, although I would have voted for the wall had it not been for these physical problems. I don't see how we can surmount that. So to me, the next best thing is additional landscaping. Mr. Alanskas: The burden of these protective walls and greenbelts bounce back to us now instead of the ZBA. This piece of property is really unusual because of that tree, and I think if ever there was a need where it would be better to put up a berth, this is the case. I was also going to vote to make sure the wall went up, but we're down the road for that OS property. It could be five years. It could be ten years. We don't know. So I'm inclined, like Mr. Shane says, if we could put some more plantings in there, this may be a healthy solution. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or againstthis petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and adopted, d was #03-44-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003 -02 -GB -02, submitted by Franco Facchini, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 28046 Five Mile Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 13, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the landscaped greenbelt along the north property line, as shown on the plan marked sheet L-1 dated February 10, 2003, as revised, prepared by AZD Associates, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 20249 2. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts effectiveness as a protective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; and 3. That additional landscaping be added subject to the approval of the Planning Department. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Smiley, McCann NAYES: La Pine, Piercecchi ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Walsh 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 #4 PETITION 2003 -02 -GB -03 RANDAZZO Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003 -02 -GB -03, submitted by Randazzo Formal Wear requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at 33925 Plymouth Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 33. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Farmington and Stark Roads between an office building occupied by the Colonial Mortgage Company and the Plymouth Road Auto Mall. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between commercial/parking zoned property and residential zoned property. This property is split zoned with the northern 400 feel zoned C-2 and the southern 150 feet zoned P. The P zoring, which continues along the back half of most of the commercial properties along this section of Plymouth Road, was put in place to act as a buffer between the abutting residential to the south. Randazzo's building and parking lot takes up most of the north half of the site. The remaining 20250 portion of the rear is undeveloped and wooded. The entire south property line abuts part of the Wellington Woods Subdivision, which is zoned R -1A, One Family Residential. The request is that only the southern 25 feet of the wooded area be accepted as an appropriate substitution. The petitioner has stated that there are no immediate plans to develop any part of the woods, but they would like to keep the option open and not commit the entire area. Randazzo's feel that even if they did develop part of the wooded area, the 25 fool wide greenbelt they are proposing would offer adequate screening. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated March 14, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 5, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) At a site inspection several vehicles were parked in an unpaved area in the Woods' and another inoperative vehicle was parked at the southwest comer of the parking area. Perhaps this Petitioner needs to expand their hard surface parking to alleviate the crowded conditions. (2) A storage shed, without permit, is next to the rear of the building and needs to be removed. (3) The parking lot needs maintenance and double striping. (4) Mortgage survey has an incorrect address. 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 petitioner here this evening? Agnes Randazzo, Randazzo Formal Wear, 33925 Plymouth Road. I am the owner and petitioner. Mr. McCann: Maybe you could answer the question regarding the parked vehides in the back. Are you going to expand your parking lot? Ms. Randazzo: Well, if this is a necessary procedure, then, yes, it will be done. Those are our limos. We use that as part of our business. And we have installed approximately 3-1/2 to 4 inches of gravel back there where a couple of cars are. They usually go out only on weekends. During the week they're used once or twice, but usually theyre only used on the weekends. And they are parked on gravel. I thought that would be all right, but if its not, then we'll have to make other provisions to make it correct. Mr. McCann: I think you will because I dont think our ordinance allows you to just put gravel down and park vehicles back there. 20251 Ms. Randazzo: Okay. Well, this would go ... come in and ask for permits or whatever is requested to begin the procedure when the weather permitting. Mr. McCann: That's fine. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. La Pine: The shed you have in the back of the building is either not up to code or else it was built without a permit. What do you use that for? Ms. Randazzo: Lawn mower, hoses, shovels, rakes, things of that nature. Mr. La Pine: I see... storage. Ms. Randazzo: It's not verybig. I don't know the exact dimensions. Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-45-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003 -02 -GB -03, submitted by Randazzo Formal Wear, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as ou0ined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 33925 Plymouth Road in the Northeast I/ of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the southern 25 feel of the natural landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on February 19, 2003, is hereby accepted and 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 protective barier, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 20252 3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated March 14, 2003: - That the parking of vehicles shall only be limited to the defined parking lot and parking spaces of the site; - That the existing storage shed next to the rear of the building shall be removed; - That if a storage shed is needed for this business, the petitioner shall have the option of erecting another shed, in a more appropriate location, if the proper permits are obtained and it passes inspection; - That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; and - That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barner Free Code; 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 conduces 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 #5 PETITION 2002-10-02-20 ROBERT OKERSTROM Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-10-02-20, submitted by Robert Okerstrom requesting waiver use approval to use a porton of the property for outdoor storage of trucks, in connection with a truck rental business located at 13520 Merriman Road located on the east side of Merriman Road between Industrial and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26. 20253 On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-46-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition 2002-10-02-20, submitted by Robert Okerstrom requesting waiver use approval to use a portion of the property for outdoor storage of trucks, in connection with a truck rental business located at 13520 Merriman Road on the east side of Merriman Road between Industrial and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-10-02-20 be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina, is there any additional information? Mr. Taormina: Since the last time this item was discussed, there have been a number of changes on the site. I'll allow the petitioner to describe those changes in more detail, but some of the issues that were dealt with included removal of the barbed wire fence that was along portions of the property line, the removal of disabled vehicles on the properly as well as other materials, and the paving or the requirement of the City that the RV storage lot that is at the easterly portion of this property be paved. With respect to each of those items, the barbed wire has been removed at least as indicated by the petitioner. Several of the vehicles that were determined to be inoperable or inappropriate for the RV storage yard have also been removed from the site or relocated to other areas, and the issue of the paving is one that is still pending. He has filed the necessary application with the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, there is question as to whether or not that matter can be taken to the Zoning Board at this time. The City is considering a possible change to the zoning ordinance that may allow that issue to be reconsidered by this body to allow for a modification of the required condition of the original waiver use for an RV storage lot. With that, I'll answer any questions you may have. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the petitioner this evening? If not, a motion is in order. Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, if the Zoning Board of Appeals refuses to hear this case on the paving, will they then be required to pave the lot or does it come back to us for another session? 20254 Mr. Taormina: He only comes back to us at a point in time when either the ordinance has been amended, which would allow for us to consider that type of waiver, or if there is a strong indication that this is the direction the Council is headed. As you know, it's quite a lengthy process for any language amendment, and I believe his deadline may be August to have that lot paved. We'd have to verify that. The question is whether or not any language amendment would be completed by then. This issue is going to be discussed, I believe, at a Legislative Committee meeting sometime in April. Mr.Shane: Okay. Thank you. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and adopted, itwas #03-47-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition 2002-10-02-20, submitted by Robert Okerstrom requesting waiver use approval to use a portion of the property for outdoor storage of trucks, in connection with a truck rental business located at 13520 Merriman Road located on the east side of Meriman Road between Industrial and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-10-02-20 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan submitted by Okerstrom Corporation, dated November 25, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the parking/outdoor storage of rental trucks shall occur only within the designated parking spaces as shown on the above -referenced Site Plan and shall be limited to three (3) trailers and three (3) trucks; 3. That this approval shall incorporate the following comment contained in the corespondence dated December 12, 2002 from the Traffic Bureau; - That a ten to twenty -fool wide area along the east side of the fence line for the storage yard be kept dear for crime prevention purposes; 4. That this approval shall incorporate the following comments listed in the correspondence dated December 4, 2002 from the Fire and Rescue Division; 20255 Establish and maintain a fire lane from Merman Road to the portion ofthe property in question; Provide fire hydrants so that all areas ofthe property in question are within 300' of a hydrant; most remote hydrant shall flow 1000 g.p.m. with a residual pressure of 20 p.s.i.; Provide clear area sufficient for emergency equipment to tum around; and 5. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #513-01 in connection with Petition 01-04-02-07, which permitted the operation of the RV storage facility on the subject property, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions of this approval; for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice 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'll be voting yes on this only because of the fact that I think the petitioner has tried to do what we've asked him to do. The only concem I have still is about this paving situation, and I think that its unreasonable to have him pave that entire area. But, in essence, its going to take time to get an ordinance amendment, so I don't know how we can limit this. Can we just put something in there in regards to the paving that this will come back to us ata later date? Mr. McCann: I think it's going to come back to us automatically as soon as he has to pave it and has no choice. 20256 Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou. Mr. McCann: If the ordinance changes, he's going to come back to us, otherwise he's going to have to pave it. Mr. Alanskas: But you said that's only up to August, probably? Is that correct. Mr. Taormina: Apparently, August 13 is the deadline. Mr. Alanskas: And we wouldn't have any amendment before that time. Mr. McCann: If the ordinance is before one the bodies, I think the Inspection Department would probably allow him to continue until such time as a decision is made. Please call the roll. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Smiley, Alanskas, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYES: LaPine ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. It I=1t4RS=9=k0It0[a]05044*E1YXrYXrY�011WAT&F.1 VA00=1 7012\IPh Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-02-02-02 submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of New Car Alternative, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition onto an existing building and expand the vehicle display area in connection with an existing automobile dealership, located on the south of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest%of Section 33. On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-48-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003, on Petition 2003-02-02-02 submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of New Car Alternative, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition onto an existing building and expand the vehide display area in connection with an existing automobile 20257 dealership, located on the south of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 33, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Pefition 2003-02-02-02 be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina, is there additional information? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Plans have been submitted which show a number of revisions to several of the elements that we had concerns with. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission and residents addressed a number of issues relative to this site. Under the previous plan, the addition was shown as it is in this plan; however, there was an overhead door that was facing south towards tie residential district. Because this plan incorporates the vacant land to the west, he's able to line that overhead door up with one of the drive aisles, thereby providing access along the west elevation as opposed to the south elevation. So now those activities will be oriented away from the residential district as opposed to facing the residents. There was an issue relative to landscaping along the south property line where it abuts the residential district. There is an existing wall that extends from Laurel Avenue approximately 107' on his property and then an additional 66' to the west. This is one of two parcels that he is purchasing. The existing building that used to house the party store and sub shop will be removed from that site. There will be parking provided back here and the wall will be extended all the way along the balance of the property to a point where it would connect to the existing wall on the Burger King property, which lies to the west here. This wall would be six feet in height. The Petitioner had previously shown a variety of large size canopy and evergreen trees along the rear property line. It was suggested by the neighbors that he change those to arborvitaes. He is showing that now. These would be six fool high arborvitaes at planting that would be spaced four feel on center, typically. Probably the most significant change with respect to this plan is as it relates to the vehide loading and unloading, or actually the truck haulers that have to come into the site. This is an issue that we've explored just about every which way. At the previous meeting, it was thought that using the easement that extends to Plymouth Road from the parcel that he's buying to the west would be the appropriate location where trucks could come in, then off-load the vehicles, and then either tum around somehow or back out onto Plymouth Road. That would avoid the use of Laurel Avenue, which has been an ongoing issue and problem with both public safety as well as the adjacent residents and the nuisance that this causes. What the 20258 Petitioner realized, is that by expanding the vehicle display area here, he'll be moving many of the cars from his operation on the east side of Laurel Avenue, thereby freeing up enough space so that the truck haulers will actually have a proper turning radius to come from Plymouth Road, offload their vehicles, and then be able to exit out Laurel Avenue turning right and then going onto Plymouth Road without having to back up on Plymouth Road. So we're really improving the situation by using this property for that purpose. It should address a number of the concerns that we've had with the use of this site over the past year or two. Thankyou. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the petitioner? Mr. Alanskas: I just want to make sure that when the haulers come in, if they're coming from the east, they have to make a left hand tum. I hope they dont get disgruntled because of traffic coming from the west and say, "Oh, I can't tum in there. I'll still go down Laurel Avenue" Bryan L. Amann, with the law firm of Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton and Amann, LLP, 355 N. Canton Center Road, Canton, Michigan 48187. I'm here on behalf of the pefifioner, Alan Tanski. As to the queston you've raised, I think, first off, the entrance that we're going to be offering them is, in fad, closer. They would have to go farther to Laurel if they're coming from the east, so I think people, being like electricity and water, will seek the least resistance. They are going to have less resistance pulling into that drive from the east than they would coming into Laurel because typically the traffic resistance there comes from the intersection from Wayne Road. So it's fairly assumed, I think, that they're going to tum more quickly as opposed to getting closer to Wayne Road to make that turn. We're going to make every effort in communicating with the trucking companies to do that. We will not accept vehicles on Laurel Avenue. All the dropping will have to be done on the site to the east, and we think with the radius that is available at that entrance, its actually a better turning opportunity for truckers than Laurel Avenue itself. Mr. Alanskas: Now if they come from the west, is there enough radius to tum right into that area? Mr. Amann: Absolutely. We've tested it both ways. There's enough radius eitherway. 20259 Mr. Alanskas: If you get this approval, when would you start unloading your vehicles on that side? Mr. Amann: I think it's the minute we have the other paving done. There's a shifting that's going to go on in terms of moving these other vehides, which are on the east side over to there. Once we have that paved, which we're posed to do upon Council approval if we're so fortunate, so it will be pretty much right at that time, simultaneous with that. Mr. Alanskas: You're probably talking at least three or four months. Mr. Amann: We would hope less than that, quite frankly, because the paving ilselfwill be less involved than the construction ofthe building. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Any other questions? I notice there are some members of the neighborhood here. Did they want to speak this evening? Is there any objection to allowing the neighbors to speak? Please come down to the podium. Brad Arnold, 11205 Laurel. I live to the south. I did go look at the site plan, and Mr. McCann and Al Tanski also came over a couple days ago. We were looking at the wall, and we were talking about tearing the wall down. It's basically like between $59,000 and $60,000 to tear this wall down, and it's a very good wall. I think the way of alleviating that would be to either re -rod down in the lop, like re -rod and then block, like two sections up, and from there it would be roughly about 6'4". We're asking 6'; 6'4" is what it would work out to be. And then you would pour cement in the holes where the re -rod is and then that would alleviate and give you a stronger wall. I don't know cost; I would say a lot less than $57,000 or $59,000. And then looking at the plans south of the proposed new parking lot, he has now put lights. We would just ask to make sure that the lighting is turned into the parking lot and shielded and directed away from the residential area. And l think that's basically our concerns. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Mr. Pieroecchi: This is a real good plan that you gentlemen have. There's only one question that I have: how can we be guaranteed that the trucks will not come in and go down Laurel and go the opposite way? Mr. Amann: I'll deal with that and then I'll respond to the concerns that you raised. 20260 Mr. Pieroecchi: This whole operation of holding it back and all that was to protect the people on Laurel, as you know. Mr. Amann: Certainly. Mr. Pieroecchi: They were our main concern. The plan is fine if they come out through Plymouth and out Laurel and up and out. There would be no reason. But if something happens and they come in with cars on Laurel, there's got to be some mechanism where they dont go in that way. Mr. Amann: Right. First off, we are going to start, if we in fad get approved after the City Council process, with our delivery agencies at that point to inform them that there is a change coming and essentially the way this is going to be set up, because it's not uncommon to have a car actually waiting to tum out of Laurel one way or another to get onto Plymouth Road. So when a truck would be trying to come in there, its actually going to face a more difficult tum than it would just getting right to our drive. So we're going to start an education process with them. Then, if we see that happen, obviously we're going to get right there. We think we're going to be fine with this approach because of the radius of the drive immediately east of that. It's so much better, quite frankly, in terms of the way the deceleration and everything else occurs there. We think they're just going to want to go there naturally, so we don't think it's going to be a problem. But in order to make the best effort towards that, we're going to essentially try to work ahead of time to inform them, educate them on that and really get it going as much ahead of time as possible, and really work with them on it. That's really the best we can do. We have a limited source of deliveries, and as time goes by, we're getting a better length of relationship with the actual drivers. In todays economy, everybodys free to move to a new job any chance they gel a buck more an hour or whatever, but generally we're having better luck on that relationship. So I think we're going to be much better off. Time is going to tell, but we're going to try and implement this as soon as possible if we can move things around. You will not have trucks slopping on Plymouth Road and backing in, and doing things which they are doing now. So it's going to be a dramatic improvement over that as well. But we think the natural course of the setup will invite them to that entrance, and then we're going to work with them ahead of time and be watching and waiting for them in that process as well. Mr.Pieroecchi: Thankyouverymuch 20261 Mr. Amann: Mr. Chairman, just in response to the concern raised, we've done some research on the wall. It appears as though the wall was constructed some 46 years ago, from the best of information we have. By standards of walls, it's been a pretty dam good wall. In fad, we're thinking about looking for some historical preservation recognition for this wall because it's been around longer than a lot of other things. But in fact, the solution he's talking about is one that we fear, really over time, would be less productive and create more problems than it would solve. I've had unfortunately way loo much experience with the issues of integrity of structural engineering and steel involving a senior citizen building in Canton, which is on the brink of being tom down because the re -rod wasn't done right. Its only three years old. If you bore into this constructed wall, you're going to create issues with structural integrity and all kinds of other problems. Then, ultimately, you're going to have two different types of construction there, and it's just going to be a long term issue. We think the better answer is not only the green wall, we've talked about the arborvitaes, but there's a marked improvement overall. We didn't really talk about it at the Iasi meeting. The fact that we're going to be adding that service building at the rear of our current building and then based on the revision of the last plan by having only the service entrance coming from the east and the west, there is going to be essentially an additional wall of, I think, 18 - 19 feet of that rear wall of that building which will be essentially a dead zone. The employees will park in there, particularly along the length of that building, a dramatic improvement over what's been occurring now. That, in addition with the inclusion of the arborvitaes, is going to be a substantial improvement. And then the full extension of the wall connecting to Burger King .... Mr. McCann: I think the problem the neighbors have is not the building. Number one, it is the lights, and I agree we have to make sure that the plans shay that the lights are fading away from the homes. Mr. Amann: They will be downcast and shielded. Yes. Mr. McCann: Okay. We want that. But their other problem is the people out there looking at cars. When theyre in their backyard and people are around looking at cars over there, they don't want people looking into their yard. Now, I spent some time out there with them this weekend. I do not agree that you can re -rod the wall. As soon as you break the surface of the wall, you break the integrity. You've got water leaking through it. I've had enough experience myself with different clients to know that is not going to work. One of the things I did think about, though, 20262 was intensifying the greenbelt a litlle bit. I was going to ask Mark ... instead of just staging the arborvitaes next to each other every four feet, can we put them in a triangular pattern so that as they grow ... Mr. Amann: An offset double row, Mr. Chair, so its kind of staggered, almost like the offset planks on a wood fence you see on occasion? Mr. McCann: Right. It would give the neighbors more dense coverage up there between them and their backyard. Mr. Amann: Mr. Chairman, in recognition of that, that would be an appropriate thing. We could go three fool on center with a staggered use of the arbomtaes. That three fool on center is about as close as you want to get to give them room to grow and not kill each other, but at the same time would give you as much of a visual block at the outset as you could hope for. Mr. McCann: Right. As along as you staggered the line. Mr. Amann: We'd be glad to do that. Mr. LaPine: Where the new building is going to go, what is the distance from the rear of the building to where the wall is? Mr. Amann: I'll answer that in just one second. 72 feet, and that's intended to be an employee parking area. There will not be display vehicles back there. Mr. LaPine: So you would still have room back there if you put in these arborvitaes? Mr. Amann: Right. Pursuant to other revisions, that will be one of the revisions that you'll see. Mr. McCann: Is there a motion? On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-49-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003, on Petition 2003-02-02-02 submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of New Car Alternative, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition onto an existing building and expand the vehicle display area in connection with an existing automobile dealership, located on the south of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 20263 33, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2003-02-02-02 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site/Landscape Ran marked Sheet 1 of 3, dated March 13, 2003, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that a continuous staggered row of arborvitaes spaced no less than three feet on center shall be planted along the south property line adjacent to this screen wall; 2. For safety purposes, the parking or standing of delivery trucks and car haulers on Laurel Avenue is strictly prohibited. All vehicle loading and unloading at this dealership shall be accomplished on the premises only, and not within any public rights-of-way, as shown on the 'Truck Hauler Unload Area' plan marked Sheet is of 4, dated March 13, 2003, which is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the Floor Plan marked Sheet 2 of 3, dated March 13, 2003, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the Exterior Elevations plan marked Sheet 3 of 3, dated March 13, 2003, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That all plant materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That all landscaped areas shall be fully inigated; 7. That no fewer than 37 parking spaces located along the east and south sides of the building shall be designated exclusively for the use of customers and employees and shall be clearly delineated by means of signage approved bythe Inspection Department; 8. That all pole mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and shall not exceed a maximum overall height of sixteen (16) feet above grade; 9. That the use of any outside P.A. speaker system is strictly prohibited; 20264 10. That the Petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 11. That this approval shall incorporate the following comments listed in the correspondence dated February 21, 2003 from the Fire and Rescue Division: - If subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feel and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection; - Access around structure shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45 feel wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13% feet; 12. That no additional signage is approved with this request; and 13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthe time the building permits are applied for; 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 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice 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. Taormina: Did we make reference to the change in the landscape plan? Mr. McCann: Adding a condition for the double row of arborvitaes offset three feel? 20265 Mr. Taormina: Yes. If I could read something that might be acceptable: That the Ste/Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 of 3, dated March 13, 2003, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that a continuous staggered row of arborvitaes spaced no less than three feet on center shall be planted along the south property line adjacent to this screen wall. Mr. LaPine: I have no problem with that. Mrs. Smiley: I have no problem with that. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. Walsh ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 85r Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 8591" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 11, 2003. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #0330-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 8591" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Smiley, Shane, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABTAIN: None ABSENT: Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 20266 ITEM#8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES BBC Regular Meeting Mr. McCann, Chairman, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 860"' Regular Meeting held on February 25, 2003. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0331-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 860" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 25, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Smiley, Shane, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Walsh Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 862nd Regular Meeting held on March 25, 2003, was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mgr 20267