Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-07-0820558 MINUTES OF THE 868"' REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 868" 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 Walsh Carol Smiley Members absent: None 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 the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 94-05-08-13 SANFORD PLAZA Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 94- 05-08-13 submitted by Sanford Plaza, requesting approval to revise plans that were approved in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial center on property located at 9627 Newburgh Road in the Northeast%of Section 31. 20559 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest comer of Newburgh and Ann Arbor Trail. On June 7, 1994, this site received Site Plan approval in connection with a proposal to construct a small commercial center on the subject site. The approved Site Plan noted and pointed out that a 'G ft. high simulated brick concrete screen wall' would be erected along the north property line where the site abuts residential. The protective wall was never assembled and over the years the petitioner has been granted temporary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The ZBA has now determined that because the approved Site Plan specified a wall, either tie wall must be built as shown or the plan must be, and can only be, amended by whomever approved the plans, in this case the Planning Commission. The owners of the center, Mr. and Mrs. Sanford, are requesting approval to revise the Site Plan and remove tie notation for the wall. This deletion would allow the Sanfords to either go back to the ZBA for a temporary wall variance or seek written consent of the abutting property owner(s). The north property line does not qualify for a permanent wall waiver because there is not a 10 foot wide strip of greenbelt available. Presently, the commercial center is separated from the abutting residential property by a 6 fool high wooden fence. In an "Agreement Letter' signed by both commercial and residential properly owners, it proclaims the following: "Please be advised that both property owners (Munay R. Sanford and Tom Eidson) have agreed that they would prefer to divide the properties with a wood fence. The wood fence will serve the same purpose of privacy and would look much better for both parties. This fence will be maintained by the commercial property owner to comply with residential and commercial codes." Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from Tom Eidson and Murray R. Sanford, dated May 1, 2003, which reads as follows: "Please be advised that both property owners (Munay R. Sanford and Tom Eidson) have agreed that they would prefer to divide the properties with a wood fence. The wood fence will serve the same purpose of privacy and would look much better for both parties. This fence will be maintained by the commercial property owner to comply with residential and commercial codes." The letter is signed by Tom Eidson, 9721 Newburgh Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150, and Murray R. Sanford, 42464 Clemons Drive, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. Thankyou. 20560 Mr. McCann: Is the pefifioner here this evening? Bunny Sanford, 42464 Clemons Drive, Plymouth, Michigan 48170. Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us your reasons for asking for this variance? Mrs. Sanford: Aesthefically, we like the wooden fence rather than a solid brick wall. We've maintained that now for at least six years. We were hoping we could just keep that. I believe maintenance - wise its all been fine and its held up pretlywell. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchr Do you have a written agreement? Mrs. Sanford: With the neighbor? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. Mrs. Sanford: We've talked to him and we have his signature that he agrees that he would like that also. I think you have ... Mr. Piercecchr Because we just have language here ... if I may, Mr. Chairman, read it? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. Piercecchr During our discussion on the first of July, the subject came up about how we can waive the consent of the abutting property owners and it came back this way to us. Mrs. Sanford: That is the letter that you just read. Mr. Piercecchi: It says here, "Upon receipt by the Inspection Department of a written agreement for a term of not more than five years, among the owner(s) of property requiring installation of a protective wall or greenbelt and the owner(s) of all abutting residential properties, and proof that a buffer complying with such agreement is in place, the requirements of this section shall be waived during the time such agreement remains in effect. Such an agreement may be renewed, for terms not exceeding five years for each renewal, pursuant to a written agreement of the owners of property described above. Any agreement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be expressly made binding on the parfies'successors in title for the duration of the agreement. This paragraph shall only apply where the property requiring the 20581 protective wall cannot meet the standards for greenbelts set forth above due to a condition on the property which existed at Mr. Taormina: The 10 foot width is one of the standards for allowing a greenbelt. Along with that, there would have to be adequate plantings in order to provide sufficient screening. Mr. LaPine: Where in the ordinance does it say that a permanent waiver can be granted and a wood fence can be constructed? It doesn't say that as far as what I read. The only other condition you can have is the greenbelt. Mr. Taormina: Well, you can have a greenbelt or, alternatively, where you cannot meet the greenbelt standards, this subsection (f) provides for a written agreement between the property owners to waive both the wall and the ten foot greenbelt, but it's only valid for a term of five years. It would then have to be renewed. the time this paragraph was added to this section." Do you understand that? Mr. Walsh: That's what Mark just read. Mr. McCann: Mark just read that letter. Mr. Piercecchi: He didn't read all this. Mr. Walsh: Yes, he did. The letter meets the requirements stated above. Mr. Piercecchi: Pardon? Mr. Walsh: The letter that Mark read meets the requirements of our ordinance. Mr. Piercecchr Okay. I didn't know if this language here ... he didn't read that language. Mr. Walsh: It's not the exact language but it meets the spirt of the ordinance. Mr. Piercecchr Well, I wanted to read it because this is what 18.43(f) reads. Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions? Mr. LaPine: Yes, I have a question for Mark. Mark, under our ordinance, a wall can be waived permanently and a greenbelt constructed as long as there is a 10 foot buffer for a greenbelt. Is that cored? Mr. Taormina: The 10 foot width is one of the standards for allowing a greenbelt. Along with that, there would have to be adequate plantings in order to provide sufficient screening. Mr. LaPine: Where in the ordinance does it say that a permanent waiver can be granted and a wood fence can be constructed? It doesn't say that as far as what I read. The only other condition you can have is the greenbelt. Mr. Taormina: Well, you can have a greenbelt or, alternatively, where you cannot meet the greenbelt standards, this subsection (f) provides for a written agreement between the property owners to waive both the wall and the ten foot greenbelt, but it's only valid for a term of five years. It would then have to be renewed. 20562 The language that is provided in the letter of agreement between Mr. Eidson and Mr. Sanford does meet the spin( of subsection (f). I think along with that, however, the Zoning Board office, which administers this provision in the ordinance, would likely have them sign an additional letter of understanding where it specifically limits the term to a period of five years, and then would require them to renew that prior to the expiration dale. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, are there any last comments? Mrs. Sanford: No. Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and adopted, it was #07-09-2003 RESOLVED, that having considered the request submitted by Sanford Plaza in connection with Petition 94-05-08-13 to revise plans, which previously received site plan approval by the Planning Commission on June 7, 1994 (Resolution #6-111-94), for the construction a commercial center on property located at 9627 Newburgh Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve this request subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission Resolution #6-111-94 is hereby amended to remove the requirement for a prolective wal along the north property line; 2. Within 30 days from the date of adoption of this amending resolution, the petitioner shall either: 1) file a petition with the Zoning Board of Appeals for a wall variance, or 2) submit a written agreement between the owner(s) of the subject commercial property and the owner(s) of the abutting residential property to the Inspection Department in accordance with Section 18.43(f) of the Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended; and 3. That all other conditions imposed by Planning Commission Resolution #6-111-94 in connection with Petition 94-05-08- 13, which permitted the construction of a commercial 20563 center on the subject property, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Shane, Alanskas, Smiley, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, as the Site Plan originally only required Planning Commission approval, his request does not need to go to City Council. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: That is my understanding. I think Scott was going to check on it. Mr. Miller: Yes, that is the case. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-06-08-75 VIESTE BUILDING Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-06-08-15, submitted by Viesle Building, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 28780 Plymouth Road in the Southwest%of Section 25. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth between Middlebelt and Hartel. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a commercial building on a vacant lot located between a sewing machine/vacuum cleaner store called "Make It Sew" and a bakery shop. The proposed building would be one-story in height and 4,020 sq. R. in size. According to the Floor Plan, this small commercial center would be occupied by only two tenants. Access to the site would be by a single two-way drive off Plymouth Road. With the exception of a few parking spaces in front of the building, the majority of the panting would be located behind the structure. The panting spaces would be doubled striped. Required parking is 21 spaces and they meet 20564 this requirement with 21 parking spaces. A note on the Site Plan indicates that a screen wall would be erected along the north property line where this site abuts residential. The cut-out depicting a section of the wall shows that the protective wall would be a maximum of six feet in height and would be constructed out of poured concrete, designed to look like simulated brick. The location of the site's trash dumpster endosure is shown behind the building, adjacent to the above- mentioned protective wall. The cul -out portraying the dumpster endosure reveals that its walls would also be manufactured out of the poured concrete, patterned to look like simulate brick. A pair of wood framed swing gates would provide access to the dumpster. The Landscape Plan shows that landscaping would be installed throughout the site. The area between the building and Plymouth Road, as well as the rear portion of the site, would be reasonably landscaped. The plant list includes a variety of trees, shrubs, evergreens and perennial flowers. Listed under the heading "Landscape Requirements" it states, "an automatic underground irrigation system is required for all landscaped and berm areas." Required landscaping is 15% of the total site and they meet this requirement with 15% landscaping. The Building Elevation Plan shows that the proposed structure would be constructed od of a combination brick and split -face block. The south and north elevations would appear architecturally exactly the same. Because of the parking situation, both elevations would have a set of entrances into the units. These two elevations, along with the west elevation, would be constructed mainly out of brick with block up to the wainscot. Aluminum awnings would offer shade and distinguish the windows and entrances. A decomtive dryvit parapet would trim the rooffine. The east elevation would have no openings and would be constructed entirely out of split -face block. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 1, 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. The drive approach to Plymouth Road requires Michigan Department of Transportation approval and this site is subject to the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. Detention facilities have been shown on the plans." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 19, 2003, which reads as follows: 20565 "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial 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 July 2, 2003, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building at 28780 Plymouth Road. There is no indication on the plans regarding a lighted parking area. We would recommend that some type of lighting be installed for the parking lot. Please remind the petitioner that the handicap space must be individually posted per city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 24, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 12, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The height of the proposed screening wall should be confirmed to the Commission and Council's satisfaction. lt is detailed at six feet maximum, which could result in a five foot wall. (2) Lawn areas should be indicated as sodded not seeded. (3) No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Tony Corso, 16183 Clarkston, Unit 206, Fraser, Michigan 48026. Mr. McCann: Whatwould you like totell us aboutyour pefition tonight? Mr. Corso: Well, I brought a brick sample. Ifs going to be a brick -faced building all the way around. I know one of the pertinent people, I dont know who it was, had a problem with the easterly side. We have since changed it. I don't know if you got the copy of the change that we made on the east side of the building. Mr. Taormina: If I could respond to that question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCann: Yes, Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina: The only new information we received was a revised Site Plan. No new building elevation plans were submitted. Mr. Corso: May I pass these on? 20566 Mr. Taorni na: Yes. Mr. Corso: On the east side, we changed it. We put some fake windows and split -block to give it a look there. So you see the easterly side there? We put those little windows so that takes care of one of the issues I guess. Again, its going b be a full brick building, concrete parking lot. Other than that, I don't know what else ... if anybody has any questions on it? Mr. McCann: Is the mechanical on the roof going to be shielded? Mr. Corso: Yes. Mr. McCann: I see kind of a riser, which basically will be along the west elevation. Is that correct? I think I'm looking at the west side elevation. Mr. Corso: Yes. It gives it some character. It will rise up. In the front you'll have like a kind of a circle top. It's going to look like a molding - type foam to give it some look. Mr. McCann: I'm hying to determine whatthe screening is. Mr. Corso: As far as a roof? Mr. McCann: Yes. Mr. Corso: Most of it might be right where that peak is, right there, because it's going to go up quite a bit. If not, I think we can put a fence or some kind of plastic fencing around it or something that aesthetically looks good. Mr. McCann: Okay. If this is approved tonight, can you have that shown on the plans before it gets to Council? Mr. Corso: Sure. Mr. McCann: Does anybody else have any questions? Mr. Alanskas: On the east side, are you going to have the brick inlaid to look like windows? Mr. Corso: Yes. We can step outthe brick and putthe block in the center. It makes it look like a window -type look. Mr. Alanskas: How far is that inlaid? 20587 Mr. Corso: A couple inches. Just to give it some kind of a look. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Is this going to be a one -tenant building? Mr. Corso: I have it set up for a two -tenant, but obviously if somebody comes along and is aone-tenant, that would be fine by me. Mr. LaPine: You don't have any tentative candidates for the building at the present time? We dont know who is going in there? Mr. Corso: No. Mr. LaPine: It's going to be an office though? Mr. Corso: Well, it's going to be a commercial building. There's a lot of different things that can go in there. I mean an office would be great. If somebody wants to make it an office, that's fine by me. Mr. LaPine: So this is C-2. That means a restaurant could go in there with a waiver use. Right, Mark? Mr. Corso: I dont know ifthere's enough parking for a restaurant. Mr. LaPine: Well, I dont know either. Mr. Taormina: He would be limited based on the amount of parking and the type of restaurant. Mr. Corso: Yeah, I don't think it's enough. Mr. Taormina: Possibly a small carryout restaurant but that would probably be the extent of it. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thankyou, Mr. Chair. Mr. McCann: Any other questions? Did we get a revised Landscape Plan too, Mark? Mr. Taormina: No, I think the intent there, Mr. Chairman, is that the landscaping would remain as it was shown on the original plan. I'll note what the changes are on this plan. First of all, all of the parking spaces as shown on this plan are now 18 feet in depth. They were shown as 20 feet on the original plan. The reason 20568 for that is, adjacent to those spaces, there's sufficient overhang. It will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. This provides a slight increase in the amount of green space. Secondly, the trash endosure has been moved from the west end of the property to a point along the east side of the parking lot near the middle center section of that rear parking area. So that's been moved away from the residential area to the north. I think that's pretty much it. Actually, we requested that the sidewalk section be removed in front of the building at the east end because I thought the doorway to that unit would be near the middle, and we didn't see the need for that walkway all the way across the building. But I see that it's actually been reduced from seven feet down to five feet. I did not get a chance to talk to the engineer as to why that change was made. Mr. Alanskas: Through the Chair, if it's going to be a two -tenant building, won't you need more than one handicap parking space? Mr. Taormina: No. The required number of barrier -free spaces is determined by the total number of parking spaces, not the number of tenants. Mr. Alanskas: So they would have to park on one side and walk over to this side oflhe building iftheyre handicapped? Mr. McCann: Both doors are in the front, though. Aren't they? Mr. Corso: Yes, both doors are in front. Mr. Taormina: Yes, I believe that's the case. Mr. Alanskas: How far from the handicap parking spot? Mr. Corso: Seven feet, five feel. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Maybe the petitioner can answer why the sidewalk goes all the way to the east? Mr. Corso: We're just trying to make a sidewalk so you can walk the whole width of the building. If you don't like that, I can cut that off. That's not a big deal. I'm just trying to make a sidewalk where people can walk on the sidewalk and then walk into the doors there in the center. But as far as the east part of it, if you don't 20569 want that, I can change that if you want to make it stop right here. Mr. McCann: Well, that's what I thought. Then you could add a little more green space, and maybe put some flowers in front of the building to kind of break it up. Mr. Corso: Yeah. That's no problem. Mr. McCann: Originally, at the study session we discussed that you've got a very quaint, traditional looking building. It would be nice to have just a couple feet of a garden in front of the building on each side for flowers or seasonally plantings, and we saw no reason for the sidewalk to the east. It doesn't lead anywhere, does it? Mr. Corso: No, it doesn't. I can cut it off right here where the parking lot ends. I can go straight across. That's fine. Mr. McCann: Maybe put in some seasonal flowers or small bushes to kind of touch up the building. Are there any other questions? Mr. LaPine: Just one question to Mark. Mark, at the study session I requested that you check and see why there wasn't a wall behind the existing "Make It Sew' building. Did you check that out? Mr. Taormina: Scott researched that today, and I'll let him report on his findings. Mr. Miller: I researched the whole properly between Camden and Hartel. The only petition we've had on this was back in 1966. A waiver use request was made to put a trailer rental place in there. Other than that, I think the buildings have been there before 1966. 1 don't know about the wall, but I talked to the Zoning Board and they have no wall variances for this area. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-100-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-06-08-15, 20570 submitted by Viesle Building, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 28780 Plymouth Road in the Southwest I/ of Section 25, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated July 2, 2003, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 2 dated July 14, 2003, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet P-2 dated July 2, 2003, as revised, prepared by D'Anna & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four inch brick; 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 20571 10. That the protective screen wall along the north property line shall be constructed out of the same back used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and said wall shall be a minimum 6 feet in height; 11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 12. 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; 13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 14. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the window; 15. 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 16. That sidewalk shall be removed from the east comer of the building and replaced with landscaping. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: You mentioned in the motion, I think we're not using four inch back. We're using ten inch brick, aren'lwe? Mr. McCann: Sixteen. Mr. LaPine: Sixteen? Doesn't it say something about four inch brick? Mr. McCann: Its four inch full face, which would be the width, so I think we can go four by sixteen. Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: I have another condition to change. 20672 Mr. McCann: Okay. Mr. Shane first. Mr. Shane: It's probably not appropriate to ask the question now, but we mentioned lighfing in the conditions. I dont think we even talked about lighfing. Where is lighting proposed on this? Mr. McCann: It wasn't on the plan but it was brought up by the Police Department report as you said. Mr. Shane: Can you tell me what kind of lighfing? Mr. Corso: We'll have box lighfing on the walls. Mr. Shane: Just on the walls? Mr. Corso: Yes, on the back walls and on the side of the building so the drive would be lit up in front and the back as well. It will be lit up all the way around. Mr. Shane: Okay. And the lights will be shielded? Mr. Corso: Absolutely. Mr. Shane: Thank you. That's good. Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Regarding Condifion No. 6 referencing the dale of the Elevation Plan, I think it was read as June 9", and the revised plan this evening is dated July 2, 2003. So I dont know if the maker of the motion would accepllhe change there. Mr. Walsh: That's fine. Mr. Taormina: And then on Condifion No. 14, 1 think we want to indicated "no exposed neon' because the use of neon is still used in a lot of different sign applications. Mr. Walsh: That's fine. Mr. McCann: No objection, Mr. LaPine, to either ofthose? Mr. LaPine: No. Mr. Alanskas: To the maker of the mofion, shouldn't we put something in there in regards to the sidewalk also? 20573 Mr. McCann: I think Mr. Pieroecchi had an item No. 14? Mr. Piercecchr Well, I think we can modify or add it, that the sidewalk shall be removed from the front of the building and replaced with landscaping. Mr. Alanskas: Not the whole sidewalk. Mr. McCann: Just the east corner. Mr. Alanskas: Just the east corner, not the whole sidewalk. Mr. Piercecchr Okay, the east corner. Mr. McCann: Is that all right? Mr. Walsh: That's fine. We can just make the amendment to Condition #2. Mr. McCann: Okay. Is everybody happy? Carol? Mr. Piercecchr Everybody is happy. Mrs. Smiley: I'm happy. 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 PETMON 2003-06-08-76 MAK PRESS & MACHINE Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-06-08-16 submitted by Mak Press & Machine, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the industrial building located at 12447 Hartel Avenue in the Southwest%of Section 25. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Hartel between Plymouth and railroad right-of-way. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to the industrial building occupied by Mak Press & Machine. The addition would be added to the south elevation of the existing building and would inhabit the vacant lot that is presently next door. Because this industrial 20574 property abuts residental along its west or rear property line, Planning Commission and City Council review and approval is required. This site is located between two other industrial buildings, Jorgeson Tool and Hill Screw. The new addition would measure 35%1t. in height and provide an additional 4,800 sq. R. of floor space. Even though from the outside the addition would appear to be two stories in height, it would just be a high ceiling single story building, described in industrial terms as either a "clear floor" or "high bay." The petitioner has explained that the sizeable height is necessary because of large cranes used by Mak Press & Machine. The maximum allowable height of a building in an 91 district is 50 R. The existing building is one-story in height and 4,800 sq. R. in size. If approved as proposed, Mak Press & Machine would double in size and become a total of 9,600 sq. R. in area. The proposal would meet all yard setback requirements. A new concrete approach, which would widen the existing concrete approach, would be formed in front of the new addition. The parking spaces for the facility would be located in front of the building, adjacent to the expanded approach. Required parking is three spaces and they are providing four parking spaces. The landscape requirement is not less than 50% of the established front yard, and they are providing 52% landscaping of the front yard. Part of the calculated front yard landscaping is in the form of a dirt/gravel driveway that runs along the north side of the building. It appears as if this drive is utilized in conjunction with the adjacent industrial building to the north, Jorgeson Tool. The Elevation Plan depicts that the new addition would be mainly constructed out of vertical metal siding. The existing building is constructed out of combination brick and block, brick on the east (front) elevation and block on the other three elevations. To tie in the new addition with the existing structure, brick, matching the existing structure, would be installed up to the wainscot of the front elevation. The wainscots of both the south and west elevations would be painted block. A large overhead door and a smaller pedestrian door would be located in the addition's front elevation. Mr. McCann: Mr.Shane? Mr. Shane: Sco@, you don't make mention of land banked parking spaces on the south side. Is that reflected on the plan? Mr. Miller: We didn't gel any revised plans, but they do have room here if they wanted to land bank in fiis area. I should have pointed out that this is an existing concrete approach. To access the new 20575 building, they are widening that approach. They could have parking off of this; they could land bank that, but we have no revised plans. Mr. Taormina: To add to what Scott said, revised plans will be submitted this evening. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated June 10, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above- ferenced petition. We are concerned at this time about the lack of on-site storm sewer on the plan as presented. This development is subject to the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, which would require on— site detention for the addition. The grades shown on the south side of the building appear to indicate that the rain water from the addition's downspouts will pond in the flat area between the building and the proposed berm. As a minimum, we would recommend that a storm sewer be extended into the front yard near the southeast comer of the addition." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 19, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the existing industrial building on property located at the above- efemnced 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 July 2, 2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed plans in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing industrial building located at 12447 Hartel Avenue. The plans indicate that there will be three employees per shift with three parking spaces and one handicap parking space. Parking does not appear to be adequate for employees during a shift change and for customers or visitors needing to park at the business. We would recommend that consideration be given to exterior -fighting for the parking area if there is an afternoon shift. Please remind the petitioner that the handicap space must be property posted per city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 30, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 12, 2003, the above- eferenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) There is an unenclosed dumpster on site and the 20576 north side landscaping is overgrown. (2) The rear area between the rear of the building and the protective wall is full of scrap and debris. (3) There are sections of the sidewalk at the south end of the property that need to be replaced and will require an Engineering permit. (4) This plan does not provide landscaping for 50% of the total area of the front yard, as required. (5) This site may not utilize automatic screw machines, stamping machines, punch presses or press brakes in the new addition nor start new such usage in the existing building as this site is not the required 200 feet from a residentially zoned district. (6) Although the parking may meet the absolute minimum requirement of the Ordinance, the Commission and/or Council may wish to review this. If shifts overlap where do the incoming employees park if the outgoing employees have not yet departed fie site? Does the figure provided include managers, owners or clerical help? This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Tim Morris, J.G. Morns Company, 23891 Vreeland, Flat Rock, Michigan 48134. I'm here with Mark Krausman from Mak Press & Machine. We're proposing to add this addition. I had spoken with Mr. Miller last week, and we did make some revisions that we thought necessary. I'd like to pass these out at this time. On Landscape Plan Sheet 01, we assumed that the gravel drive would be part of the landscaping originally. But we thought that the Planning Commission may like to see more greenbelt in here, so we changed the area next to the existing gravel drive on the north side. We added a little bit of a greenbelt and also between the gravel drive and parking lot. Then we also changed the concrete approach. We vere going to widen it. Instead we're using the same approach and having a radius to tum in, which allows more area for landscaping. I dont believe there is any change on the second sheet. On Sheet A-2, we revised the elevation. It was our understanding that we originally met the ordinance. The owner wanted four feel of masonry in the front to try and blend in the brick facade of the existing building. Mr. Miller brought to our attention that the ordinance calls for an eight inch minimum of masonry. So what we propose is to do that on the side. We'd like to do that across the front, but we did show the masonry all the way up the elevation of the existing building as an option. This was the elevation prior to raising the brick. We thought by just putting a 20577 band across there it would lie it together. We would be willing to go up to the top if we needed to, but in order to meet the ordinance, I believe we only have to go up eight feel. It would be up to the discretion of the Planning Commission I would imagine. Mr. McCann: What type of material is it? Mr. Morris: It's a brick veneer over block - common brick to match the existing. Mr. McCann: It will match the existing brick? Mr. Morris: Yes. We believe we can get a pretty dose match. Mr. McCann: Are there anyquestionsfromthe Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: And this will golo the height of the existing building? Mr. Morris: Well, we prefer to go eight feel high. Mr. Piercecchi: I think it would look better if it matched. Mr. Morris: If ft's a requirement, we're prepared to do that. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, we're here to discuss it. We're not a dictatorial body. Mr. Morris: Sure, I understand. Mr. Piercecchi: As a rule, anyfime we've ever had an addition, we always ask that they match the existing structure. I think that the Commission here would prefer that loo. Is there any problem with that? Mr. Morris: As long as it's fine with the owner, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Mr. Piercecchi: Match the brick on the existing structure with a 23 fool height. That's what d is now? Mr. Morris: They'd run it right across there. Mr. Piercecchi: The entire front face then will match? Mr. Morris: Well, yes, up to the height that the new building is tall. 20578 Mr. Piercecchi: That's 23 feet? Mr. Morns: Yes. Mr. Piercecchr Okay. Thank you. Mr. Alanskas: Through the Chair, Mark: when Scott read his notes, he said that the front yard was 52% landscaped. Inspection said they only had 50%. Who is right? Mr. Taormina: Now that we have a revised plan, I'm not sure to tell you the truth. Mr. Alanskas: Because I think It would be less than that now, wouldn't It? Mr. Taormina: I'll ask the design engineer if he recalculated that. I see on the plan, it shows "front yard landscape requirements 50% of front yard." Required is 2,998 square feet and provided is 2,990 square feel. So he's deficient by eight square feel. I'm not sure dlhat induces all ofthe paved area as shown. Mr. Morris: It just induces the greenbelt areas. It doesn't consider the gravel drive as part of it. Mr. Taormina: It does not? Mr. Morris: It does not. So we're real close to meeting it without including the gravel drive. Mr. Taormina: Okay, so you could make a slight adjustment to meet that requirement, then. Mr. Morris: Sure. Mr. Taormina: And I'd like to point out that the gravel driveway is needed to access the dumpsler which is on the north side of the existing building. Certainly if he could relocate that to some other part of the site, where access could be provided off the hard surface driveway, then you could even add more landscaping, but I'm not sure where that would take place. Mr. Alanskas: Could you still make sure that we do have the 50%? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Its looks like he's there, basically, with possibly a slight change to the width of the gravel driveway. 20579 Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchr Mark, could that dumpster be located on the northwest comer? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Piercecchr Wouldn't that be the place to put it? Mr. Taormina: Well, that's where it's at, the northeast corner of the building. Mr. Piercecchi: Its on the northeast comer? Mr. Taormina: Oh, to go on the northwest corner? Mr. Piercecchr Yes, put it all the waydown in the back ofthe building. Mr. McCann: That's where the neighbors are. Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure what you're saying. Mr. McCann: The gravel drive goes back to the building on your north. Correct? Mr. Morris: Yes, well they have their own driveway. Mr. McCann: It appears that your gravel drive matches theirs? Mr. Morris: Yes. Mr. Taormina: If you move that dumpster to the south side of the expanded concrete drive, he could remedy that and add some landscaping, but the problem there is, he'd be putting the trash container right in front of the building. This way, it's concealed by being on the north side of the building and back behind the building. Its set back beyond the line of the building. Mr. McCann: Is there an easement with the neighbor regarding that drive? Mark Kmusman, Mak Press & Machine, 12447 Hartel, Livonia, Michigan. The building on the north side of me was sold a few years ago, and there were no issues that arose at that time about easements. I believe we would have heard aboutthem then ifthere were. Mr. McCann: Now, the 50% of landscaping, does that include the land - banked parking spots? 20580 Mr. Taormina: No. I think with the addition of any parking in the front yard, they would have to obtain a variance. I think then the non - landscaped area would exceed 50%. Mr. McCann: If they used the land ... Mr. Taormina: If they needed the land to improve those to a hard surface. Mr. McCann: You're the owner and you've got limited employees there and very limited customer interaction at your site, but for a 9,000 square fool building, its troubling to me to say you only need four parking spots. Its just one of those issues. The next owner coming down may have 16 employees, and he'll just park them up and down the street and in the neighbor's yards or any other business. That's why I'm concerned about the parking. I also think it would add to your resale value of this property if you should ever decide you need a bigger location because your business is bursting at the seams. You'll want to sell the building. It's kind of hard to sell with only four parking spots and to tell the prospective buyer that he can go to the ZBA and maybe they'll let him have more parking. I'm just trying to find a solution that would meet everybody's needs. Mr. Kmusman: We do have future parking spots shown on there. Mr. McCann: But that lakes away from the 50% landscaping in front. Mr. Kmusman: Right. If there's a future owner, they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, I guess. Mr. McCann: That's why I was interested in the drive as to what could be done to help out. Mr. Piercecchr Have you thought about getting some type of agreement with Jorgeson Tool? You both have about 20 feel of property there, so there's about 40 feet between your buildings. You could certainly go down and back if you gel an agreement together and you could angle park that 120 feel. You could get some parking in there. Have you ever thought about trying to do that with Jorgeson Tool? That would resolve all the parking problems. Mr. Kmusman: Right. We're good friends and have discussed at times jolntiy throwing in together to black top that whole gravel area someday, inducing the area in front of his building so that the blacktop would be a seamless event between the two buildings. 20501 We haven't done it, but we've discussed it before. I'm sure he would cooperate. Mr. Piercecchr In other words, you have thought about putting a hard surface there? Mr. Krausman: Yes. Mr. Piercecchr You could park 10 cars there. Mr. LaPine: I was out there to look at your location. You weren't there, but we were able to get in the building. Most of this equipment is brand new. When you bring this equipment in, do you do any repairs on it? Do you start it up or does anything like that go on in this building? Mr. Krausman: We recondition and repair any wom parts, replace any worn parts and market them and resell them. It's like an antique dealership but for machinery. Mr. LaPine: Does this heavy equipment make any noise? Mr. Krausman: Once we've done repairs, we will turn one on to make sure everything works right. The stuff doesn't make noise unless you put tooling in it and its pounding parts. Its not the same as if you're manufacturing something. Mr. LaPine: Okay. I assume you bring this equipment in on flatbed trucks. Is that correct? Mr. Krausman: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Do you ever have the occasion where you have a flatbed truck that stays there overnight or anything like that? Mr. Krausman: No. We don't ship that often. We may have two trucks a month total: one coming in and one going out. This stuff doesn't sell everyday. Mr. LaPine: The point I was trying to make is there is no place for you to park a flatbed truck unless you pull it inside the building and from the way you've got all that equipment in there, you don't have a lot of room to get a flatbed truck in there. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Shane: What is the purpose for the greater height of the new building? 20582 Mr. Krausman : Sometimes we have equipment that we have to pass on. We have to pass on speculating on it because it's too tall to fit under the existing crane in the smaller bay. And even if you pay a contractor to bring it in and store it there, now you can't move your crane to and fro because this thing is sticking up like a tarn(. So we need more height and more floorspace. Mr. Piercecchi: Did I understand you to say that this is like a stamping press that you recycle. Mr. Krausman: Small production stamping presses and steel coil handling equipment, used. Mr. Piercecchr Mark, don't we have some decibel requirements on sluff like that for neighboring residential areas? Mr. Taormina: The ordinance does limit the noise that can be emitted at the property line, but in addition to that, ve have a provision in the ordinance applying to all industrial property that prohibits certain types of stamping and press operations within 200 feel of a residential district. That was the concem that was cited in the Inspection Department letter, but as this gentleman has indicated, these are not presses that are operating for the purpose of production. They recondition the equipment and sell R, so I dont think that it violates that provision of the ordinance. Mr. Piercecchr I'm not saying that it was, but obviously, this gentleman plans on taking on bigger equipment, and bigger equipment makes more noise. Mr. Taormina: If it's operating. Mr. Piercecchr Well, recyding it. I don't know how long you cycle it. Mr. Krausman: The equipment is being warehoused. It is not being operated in production. Mr. Piercecchr You recycle them with electrical power or do you cycle them manually or what? Mr. Krausman: When we finish with a machine to f11 an order, we will wire it up to the buss duct and test it out, but it's not the same as if it was tooled up and actually forming and stamping metal. It's negligible noise. It sounds like a car running. It's not the same as if you were pounding out parts with the machine. 20583 Mr. Piercecchr Okay. Well, we haven't had any problems before on that. I just want to lel you know that there are some requirements on noise coming from your site. Mr. LaPine: What color is the metal siding going to be? Mr. Morris: Tan. Mr. LaPine: It's going to be a tan colorto match the existing brick. Mr. Morris: Yes. 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. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, itwas #07-101-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-06-08-16 submitted by Mak Press & Machine, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the industrial building located at 12447 Hartel Avenue in the Southwest %of Section 25, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet G1, as revised, dated July 2, 2003, prepared by J.G. Morris Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 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- 2, as revised, dated July 2, 2003, prepared by J.G. Morris Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 20584 6. That the brick used in the construction shall be LII face 4 inch brick, no exceptions; 7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 8. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 9. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated June 30, 2003: - That the site's landscaping shall be cleaned up and reestablished and thereafter permanenfiy maintained in a healthy condition; - That the scrap and debris between the rear of the building and the protective wall shall be removed; - That sections of the sidewalk at the south end of the property shall be replaced; 11. That the site's dumpster shall be enclosed and 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 endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 12. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any addifional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 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. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? 20585 Mr. Shane: I plan to support it, but first I want to ask Mr. Taormina if the dales in Conditions #1 and #5 are cored. Mr. McCann: We just got the plans tonight, so I doubt if they are correct. Mr. Taormina: The revision date on Sheet C-1 and the Elevation Plan is July 2, 2003. 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 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING Sign Ordinance Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to C.R. #312-03 to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50 of Article XVIII at the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to make various changes to the sign ordinance. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it was #07-102-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #312-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50 of Article VIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to make various changes to the sign ordinance. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions at Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 20586 ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 86V Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 865" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 20, 2003. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #07-103-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 865" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on May 20, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Alanskas, Smiley, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Walsh ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES BBC Regular Meeting Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 866" Regular Meeting held on June 3, 2003. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #07-104-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 866" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 3, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Smiley, LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN Walsh ABSENT: None 20587 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 831st Regular Meeting held on July 8, 2003, was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman coir