Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-05-1821305 MINUTES OF THE 885th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 18, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 885" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine Dan Pieroecchi R. Lee Morrow H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat 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 dale of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2004-04-08-08 TACO BELL Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 04-04- 08-08 40408-08 submitted by WT Development, on behalf of Taco Bell, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the restaurant located at 11707 Merriman Road in the Southeast % of Section 27. 21306 Mr. Miller: The petitioner is proposing to tear down the existing Taco Bell restaurant building and construct a new one on properly located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the railroad right-of-way. The site is comprised of two separate parcels and divided into three different zoning classifications, G2, P, and M-1. The existing Taco Bell restaurant is approximately 2,287 square feel in size. The new proposed building would be slightly larger at 3,162 square feel. The redevelopment of the site would not require any new curb cuts. Access to the site is provided by means of two existing driveways off Merriman Road. Parking for the restaurant would be located between the building and Merriman Road and north in the P zoned section. Parking is summarized as follows: 48 spaces are required, and they are providing 48 spaces. The restaurants drive -up windows would be located on the rear (west) elevation of the building. The Site Plan shows slacking sufficient for ten (10) vehicles. A bypass lane would be available along the right hand side of the drive -up lane. A large enclosed dumpster area is shown behind the proposed restaurant, across the drive -up lane, next to the west properly line. Required landscaping is not less than 15% ofthe total site, and they are providing 46% landscaping. The percentage of provided landscaping referenced in the above summary includes the vacant M-1 zoned portion of the site. Excluding this area, the percentage of landscaping decreases to approximately 24%, still comfortably within the landscaping requirements specified in the Ordinance. Much of the manicured landscaped areas would be maintained only with grass, absent any trees or shrubs. These large open lawn areas offer ample space to plant more trees and shrubs throughout the development. A note on the Landscape plan, Sheet L1, indicates that the entire parcel, including all planter beds and right-of-way greenbelts, would be sprinkled by an irrigation system. The new building would be constructed out of a combination brick and dryvil. A brick wainscot would encompass all four sides of the restaurant. The remaining upper portion of the building would be covered in a dryvil type material. The brick would also outline and frame the main entrance, the primary drive -up window and the access door on the south elevation. A decorative dryvil parapet would conceal the entire roofiine of the building. Flat type awnings would project out and shade the main entrance, both drive-upwindows on the rear elevation and the door and windows on the south side of the building. Over the main entrance and one of the windows on the south elevation would be, what is identified as, a "Taco Bell Flying Arch' element. A walk-in cooler/freezer unit 21307 is shown attached to the north elevation of the building. The front elevation, shown on Sheet A4.0, illustrates a wall sign over the main entrance. The sign shown consist of the Bell logo and the wording 'Taco Bell". The plan acknowledges that the square footage of the displayed sign is sixty-one (61) square feel. Without any other type of information or details relating to dimensions, signage could not be evaluated. This restaurant would be allowed one wall sign at 82 square foot and one ground sign at 30 square feel. There is a note on Sheet C-2 that indicates, "all signage shall be permitted under separate sign permit by sign vendor." The new Exterior Elevation plan shows that the walk-in cooler/freezer unit would have a brick wainscot and dryvit finish, matching that of the building. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 10, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description as submitted is correct and additional right -0f --way is not required at this time. The storm water detention facilities will require the approval and a permit from Wayne County. As the opportunity will exist to change the interna/ traffic Flow, the owner may wish to look at changes to northbound exiting traffic from the site." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 11, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to `scrape and rebuild'the existing restaurant located on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 3, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to rebuild the existing restaurant located at 11707 Merriman. Due to the high traffic volume and the number of lanes on Merriman Road that motorists desiring to go north would have to cross, we recommend that consideration be given to prohibiting left turns from this property. It maybe feasible to allow left turns later in the evening when traffic volumes are less, but additional time would be necessary to study this option. It would also require a traffic control order from Wayne County in order to make the prohibited left turns enforceable. Should the left turns be allowed without restrictions we recommend that STOP signs be 21308 installed at the exit on both sides of the driveway." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 5, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 22, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) No mention is made of the existing non- conforming pole sign. It is therefore assumed, that it is removed. (2) No signage is permitted on directional signage. Further information is needed to review signage. (3) The eastern border of the nature areas needs cleanup of debris and wild plant&4veeds. (4) This site will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking. Two additional spaces art= required for the drive thru window in addition to the 46 required spaces for customers and employees. This department has no further objections to the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. Just a note, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to Item 4 regarding the additional parking for the drive-thru window, as Mr. Miller pointed out, there was a late change to the site plan providing forlhose two additional parking stalls. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Are there any questions for the staff from the commissioners? Hearing none, is the petitioner in the audience? Bill Beckett, WT Development Corporation, 10223 East Cherry Bend Road, Traverse City, Michigan 49684. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation? Mr. Beckett: I think the presentation was well presented. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of Taco Bell, we are requesting to scrape and rebuild the existing site. The building that's there now is a late 1970's building. It had a drive-thm addition added over the years and subsequently a dining room addition. With the ability to demolish the building and construct a new building, it gives us a chance to design the site property for the business conditions today. We are proposing 72 seals, the same as existing, 46 parking spaces as well as two drive-thm wait spaces. Much of this has been said already. We are proposing to use the two existing curb cuts as they are designed and in place today. We are not going to change those. The traffic flow parallel to Merrtman Road is bi- directional allowing people to park on both sides of that isle. As you round the north side, there's the entrance to the drive-thru lane as well as a bypass lane for bypass traffic. The dumpsler 21309 is located further to the west, and it's fully screened to the west of the drive-thru lane. With regards to the comments from the various departments, we are proposing to the use the driveways as they exist today. As a matter of fad, the south driveway currently is a bi-directional driveway. We are restricting the movements on that to an exit only driveway. We are proposing to leave it unrestricted, so if there are gaps in traffic during certain times of the day, exiling traffic would be able to make that left hand maneuver. So the south driveway would be an exit only driveway. The north driveway would be bi-directional as it is now, and again, during certain limes oflhe day, there are sufficient traffic gaps to allow that left turn movement out of there. With regards to the signage, at this time the corporation is reviewing their options with regards to the signs. There is a pole sign existing. We understand what the sign ordinance is and that it would allow currently a monument sign. On the building we are proposing a single wall sign facing Merriman Road. The directional signs would not have logos. On the building elevation, it is a brick veneer wainscot. The upper portion of the building is dryvil. This is Taco Bell's latest design. This would be the firststandalone Taco Bell like this in the State of Michigan. With that, I'd open it up for any questions. Mr. Alanskas: What are the canopies made of, wood or metal? Mr. Beckett: They are metal. Mr. Alanskas: What is the weight of those because I see you've got chains anchored into the wall to hold them up? Mr. Beckett: Off hand, I don't know, but there are structural details in the walls to support those canopies. Mr. Alanskas: So they do meet our safely standards? Mr. Beckett: Yes, they will. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Now on your drawing there and on your rendering here, it shows orange and tan. There it shows yellow. What is it going to be? Mr. Beckett: Its more orange. Mr. Alanskas: Because that is definitely yellow. 21310 Mr. Beckett: Everybody's punter seems to print them a little different. It actually surprises me to see the yellow. The Taco Bell portion, the arch area and the Taco Bell quarter of the building there, does have an orange earth -lone accent. Mr. Alanskas: This part, you're saying, is going to be orange? Mr. Beckett: Yes, sir. Mr. Alanskas: And then these on the end are going to be like a mustard green? Mr. Beckett: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have a sample? Mr. Beckett: What I brought with me tonight is actually two things. We did have the opportunity to participate in the discussion and hear the concerns with regards to the proposed color. So we did bring an elevation. I can pass that through. It does have the paint colors and paint chips for each of those two colors. Mr. Alanskas: I'd like to see that please. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Beckett, at our study session, one of our commissioners, Mr. Piercecchi, inquired as to adding more courses of brick or wainscot, and we were wondering if there was any movement in that direction with the corporation? Mr. Beckett: I've had discussions with the corporate office about that. Because this is a brand new prototype building and they have other ones across the country like this, they're trying to project their new national image. This building is a departure from their original buildings which were all dryvil, all stucco. There's no direction from the corporation to make this a full brick building. Mr. Morrow: It was considered but because of the direction the corporation is in, they rejected the suggestion? Mr. Beckett: Yes, sir. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. LaPine: They're increasing the size of the building about 1,125 feet. You're not increasing your sealing capacity. What is the 1,125 feel going to be used for? 21311 Mr. Beckett: About two-thirds of the restaurant is kitchen and a smaller portion is public resfrooms. The building has been designed to handle thru-put, is the word we use, but basically to accept the orders, to store those goods whether they're dry goods or cooler/ freezer products. It's designed logo through the back of the house in an orderly fashion to the prep areas, to the cook areas, and then onto the wail station and eventually to either the front counter or the drive-lhru window. The resfrooms are much larger today than they were when this building was built with barrier free requirements and that kind of thing. Mr. LaPine: How many drive-lhm windows will you have, one or two? Mr. Beckett: There is one cash window to prepay for your order and then there's a pickup window to pick up the product. Mr. LaPine: So you drive in, you place your order, you move up, you pay, and then you move up and your food is there. Mr. Beckett: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: I can't say I'm really enthused with the color rendering. To me, this looks more like a circus type of a building than it does a restaurant. I don't know how many different colors you have. Up above there, you have some greens and reds and beiges, then you have orange and red and a light beige at one end and it looks like purple Taco Bells. Is that purple? I'll say one thing, its colorful, and its going to be seen if that's your object. It's one big sign, you know. I think it's just too, for want of a better word, gaudy looking. Mr. Beckett: We did receive an alternate from the corporation today for a slightly toned down orange color. I'm sorry it doesn't show up that way here, but I can pass this around. The orange is more earth toned, and it does tone that down. Mr. LaPine: I would say that the orange bothers me more than anything else on the building. Mr. Beckett: The building is supposed to be festive and ethnic and that's Taco Bell's image and their heritage and this building reflects that. They're very concerned with projecting their corporate image. 21312 Mr. Shane: Could you describe to me your landscape plan and what you're proposing to do? Mr. Beckett: There's a good sized area between the sidewalk and the Merriman Road curb. Its currently grass and that would remain grass. We are adding a couple of trees. The larger trees in the right-of-way are existing. The smaller tree to the north is proposed, as well as the large tree seen north of the driveway. Those are new canopy trees. As you enter the site to the south of the north driveway, that's the area of the sign. The sign would have a small landscaped area around it. Behind the building at the drive-thm lane area will be canopied trees. We have some shrubs, small trees and some brick chips around the station. On the west lot line, screening the dumpsler and providing some screening to the adjacent property, that's a small plant bed with arborvitae. They'll go in about four feet. Eventually they'll be a full screen. Along the south property line, we're cleaning up the existing fence and overgrowth that's currently there, and we'll have a new fence and arborvitae plantings along there as well. Directly behind the building, there's an electrical transformer pad and that is screened with some shrubs as well. Mr. Shane: Does this plan on the screen supersede the one we have in our files because some of the things on that plan are not on the one in the file? Mr. Miller: No, the plan in the file is the one referenced in the approving resolution. Mr. Shane: It doesn't have as much material on it as that one does, and that's what concerned me because I think it's a little sparse especially along Merriman Road and some of the areas there. At lead the plan I have is mainly grass and nothing else except for the area on the south side of the north driveway. It's the only area on my plan that has any plant material in it. That was my concern. Mr. Beckett: Through the Chairman, we did upgrade the landscaping plan. Did it not get sent in with the revised plans? Mr. Miller: No. All I have is a site plan and elevations. I did not gel a landscape plan. 21313 Mr. Beckett: I apologize for that. If the Planning Commission sees fits, we would provide the appropriate landscape plan that matches this color rendering. Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, for my part, I would like to see the landscape plan come back to us because I think even that plan is a little sparse. I'm just one commissioner, but I think we could do a bellerjob. Mr. LaPine: I'm just confused on thing. The south driveway you're going to make a one-way going out. Right? Exit only? Mr. Beckett: Yes, sir. Mr. LaPine: Now, you still think that by doing that, it makes it easier for somebody to make a lett hand turn going north? Is that what your contention is? Mr. Beckett: We think during certain periods ofthe day, during non -rush hour periods, it provides that option. It is a condition that is sort of self-governing and obviously if you're there at dinnertime, a left turn is ... Mr. LaPine: That's what I was going to ask you. Would you be opposed if we prohibited a left hand tum from say 7 to 9 in the morning, which I doubt very much you do anything that early in the morning anyways, and from 4 to 6 in the evening when the bulk of the traffic is on Merriman Road at that lime? Mr. Beckett: That would be fine. That would be on the south driveway? Mr. LaPine: Just the south driveway. They line up there to make left hand turns, and then they're cutting through that light. People making a left hand turn off of Plymouth onto Merriman to go north, when the light turns green, that doesn't stop them. They still come around there. Mr. Beckett: We could support that and provide some signage to that effect. Ms. Smiley: I have a question for Mark. If we do something like that, do you have to talk to the Road Commission? Mr. Taormina: To make that type of traffic order enforceable, it would have to be adopted by the Traffic Commission. The petitioner could post a sign, but unless its approved by the Traffic Commission, it would not be enforceable. It would be just something to guide 21314 the patrons by limiting left hand turns during those particular times. Mr. Morrow: Just so we have an understanding as far as that orange color, I would go with the softer color that you submitted the second time as part of the record, and I guess that could apply to all the other colors to make them as soft as you possibly can. It's hard to tell exactly what the parapet is going to look like, but there's a splash of color across there too. Mr. Beckett: Yes, there is. Mr. Morrow: So just mute it or soften it as much as you can. I concur with Mr. Shane, I think we should bring the landscape plan back. Mr. Alanskas: I've seen this building. In Aruba you have three of these. In Aruba you have a lot of orange colored buildings. I don't want to say its gaudy, because I don't think it is, but I think you're trying to get that Mexican theme depicted in this drawing. I think you've done that very well. Mr. Beckett: Thank you. I'm sorry I wasn't in Aruba this winter to build those stores. Mr. Walsh: I like the plan. I could really go with either color, but it sounds to me like there might be support for the more muted color. We'll see what comes out on the table, and we'll vote from that perspective. Is there a motion? Mr. Piercecchi: Are we going to have this come back? Mr. Walsh: The suggestion might be that a motion be made for the site plan and the landscape plan to come back to us for further review. Mr. Taormina: The sign package too, I think, is incomplete at this time, so it should come back. Mr. Walsh: I would expect that to come back separately. Mr. Beckett had indicated they're still reviewing their sign options. What we would be looking at tonight, should a motion be offered, is the site plan for the building. We'll be asking you to bring back your landscape plan and your sign package. Mr. Beckett: Through the chair, could you provide some input on the landscaping? Certainly we meet the ordinance requirements currently. Is there something specific that you're looking for? 21315 Mr. Shane: I would just be looking for some additional plant material along Plymouth Road. You have mostly grass, and I'd like to see some accent plants there to see if you can beef it up a little bit and give it a little character. Mr. Beckett: On Merriman? Mr. Shane: Yes, and on either side of the driveways and along Merriman, you could put some narrow plants through there. What you've done on the side, you could repeal something like that down further on either side of that southern driveway. Mr. Beckett: Certainly it's easy for us to add the landscape materials. We obviously have a timeframe involved with this project as well. Mr. Shane: We're not going to hold you up with the rest of your plan. All we want you to do is comeback with a revised plan within a specific period of time. Mr. Beckett: Okay. Mr. Walsh: We'll schedule it as quickly as possible once we have it in our hands. Mr. Beckett: The site plan process can continue forward? Mr. Walsh: Absolutely. Yes. Mr. Morrow: If you would just check with the staff and work with them. They will give you direction based on what they heard from Mr. Shane. Mr. Beckett: All right. Mr. Walsh: Is there a motion? On a motion by Shane, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, 6 was #05-66-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-04-08-08 submitted by WT Development, on behalf of Taco Bell, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the restaurant located at 11707 Merriman Road in 21316 the Southeast I/ of Section 27, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C2 dated April 7, 2004, as revised, prepared by Elmer's Construction Engineering, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and the City Council within 30 days of the day of this approval; 3. Thalthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from the lop 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 Plans marked Sheets A4.0 and A4.1, both dated April 16, 2004, prepared by Birtles Hagerman DeKryger Architects, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the color on the building shall be as depicted on the rendering date- stamped May 18, 2004, with color swatch SW 6361 - Autumnal. 7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick, or in the case a precast concrete system is used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards; 8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment, including that on lop of the walk-in cooler/freezer unit, 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; 21317 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 all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 12. That the pefitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outined in the correspondence dated May 5, 2004: That the eastern border of the natural area shall be cleaned up of debris and wild plants/weeds; 13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated May 3, 2004: That a no -lett tum sign shall be posted at the southern driveway prohibiting vehicles turning northward between the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Mondaylhrough Friday; That STOP signs shall be installed at the exit on both sides of the southern driveway; 14. That the existing large nonconforming pole sign shall be taken down and removed; 15. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefition, and any addifional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 16. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 17. 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. 21318 Mr. Walsh: If there are no objections, I would like to go to the audience. I failed to do that before I asked for a motion. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, is there any further discussion on this? Mr. LaPine: Item 13, when we talk about the no left turn, I'd like to add after the word "northward" between the hours of 7 to 9 and 4 to 6. Mr. Taormina: Is that Monday through Friday? Mr. LaPine: Yes, Monday through Friday. Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and the second? Mr.Shane: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, although I'm disappointed with the percentage of brick and colors in regards to this building, I will vole in support of the motion. Why? Because it is an improvement over the current structure and a large, unattractive pole sign will be removed from the site. Hopefully, Council will share my opinions and increase the brick content and lone down the colors. Thank you. Mr. Walsh, 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 2004-04-08-09 SARAH ESTATES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 04-04- 08-09 submitted by Sarah Estates Site Condominiums requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on properly located at 35045 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 4. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a 23 unit site condominium development (Sarah Estates) on properly located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill Road and Ellen Drive. Each condominium lolwould fronton a 50-footwide public street system that would be developed within the 21319 condominium subdivision. The ordinance specifies that the lot area of an RA property shall be a minimum of 11,200 square feet and have a lot width of at least 90 feet and a lot depth of 130 feet. All the condominium lots of Sarah Estates would meet or exceed the lot size requirements of an R-4 zoning district. The Site plan does not address storm water detention other than the notation "Storm Water Detention" shown on an abutting property (23b) located south of proposed condominium Lot 15. Sidewalks are not shown along the nghl-of-way of the proposed street. The submitted plans show that Sarah Estates would have a 30 fool wide greenbelt easement along the entire length where it abuts Eight Mile Road. The Landscape plan shows that the easement and boulevard entrance island would be landscaped with a variety of plant materials, including ornamental trees, evergreens and shrubs. A cutout detail illustrated on the plan shows that the easement would be beamed with a maximum slope of 3:1 and have a height of approximately 36 inches. Decorative walls and piers would frame the two corners of the boulevard entrance. The main body of the walls and piers would be constructed out of brick. Decorative parapet lattice panels would extend between the piers. The brick piers would be topped with pyramid shaped limestone caps. A profile of an entrance marker is shown on the Landscape plan. The marker would be erected within the boulevard entrance island. The sign would not be internally illuminated, but is permitted to be ground lighted. Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50E is one entranceway sign not to exceed 20 square feel in sign area. They are proposing one entranceway sign 16 square feet in sign area. The sign ordinance specifies that an entrance marker may be erected within the median strip of a public divided lane entrance if located no closer than ten (10) feel from the intersecting right- of-way lines and if approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Since the plans indicate that the roads of this development would be dedicated to the City, making them public, the location of the proposed entrance marker would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. A copy of the Master Deed and bylaws for this new development has been submitted for review. The bylaws specify that the minimum size standards for a one- story ranch would be 2,500 square feet, 3,400 square feet for a colonial, and 3,000 square feet for a story and a half or Cape Cod style. All single-family dwellings would have a minimum three -car attached garage. The first floor and chimney of each unit would be brick on all four sides, with the total amount of brick on each dwelling not being less than 90% on one-story dwellings and 70% on two-story dwellings. All the brick used in 21320 construction would be full face, four inch brick The installation of street lighting is required by the Engineering Department during the peril process but the petitioner can have this requirement waived, by a separate petition, by the City Council. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated May 13, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal description as submitted is correct and additional right -0f --way is not required at this time. We have the following comments concerning the plan as submitted. The plan does not show any detail concerning the providing of storm water detention facilities. In a conversation with the developer, he stated that a combination of underground storage and a small storage basin along the south line of the development would provide detention. Further, that he would provide a preliminary plan of these facilities. This would be an acceptable method but may impact the future use of the mar yards of units 14 through 19. With the purchase and operation of the Fire Division's new truck, a minimum 50 -foot pavement radius and a minimum 60 - foot right -0f --way radius will be required. Waivers to a 55 -foot right-of-way radius will no longer be possible. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 11, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a site condominium development on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: Fire hydrants shall be provided in Sarah Estates with spacing consistent with residential use groups." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated May 11, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the proposed plans in regards to the proposal to construct a site condominium development on property located at 35045 Eight Mile Road. We submit the following recommendations for your consideration: (1) Installation of a STOP sign at 8 Mile Road for exiting vehicles. (2) At the entrance to the proposed site, installation of KEEP RIGHT signs (R4-7) for both ends of the median. (3) Installation of a 'no outlet' sign visible to 8 Mile Road traffic. (4) At the eastern end of the roadway where it deadrends, a barricade should be erected with an 'end of mad' 21321 sign (ER -1)." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 11, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 5, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The utility easement location on units 8, 14 and 15 (especially 8 and 15) may create construction problems in the placement of the houses that the petitioner or subsequent builder will have to address. (2) It is unclear if the storm water detention located on 23b is dedicated to this site or is for another sub. This should be clarified to the Commission's and Council's satisfaction. (3) Proposed entrance signage appears to be within ordinance requirements. This Department has no further objections to the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Hearing none, I see Mr. Baki has joined us. Sam Baki, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Mr. Baki: Besides what was presented already, we did make these lots a little larger than what the R4 zoning requires because we're trying to set up a standard to have little larger homes in that area. The concerns with respectto the radius of the cul-de-sac, we can go ahead and jump it up to 60 foot radius so we can meet their requirement since it will not affect the lots. We will still have large lots and enlarging it won't affect it as much, so we can do that to meet that requirement. The detention, as was stipulated, we are aware of the conditions. Like I mentioned to the Engineering Department, we will be pulling a small detention area, the depth not to exceed three to four feel below and we're not going to be using it all for the whole site. We're going to be using underground storage tanks on the southern lots, which will be in part of the rear easements where we can store most of our retention. The utility easement issue on that road was vacated years ago. We are aware of it and what we're supposed to do. We will be discussing it with our engineering department to relocate some of these easements. As far as I know, the only thing there right now is a water main, and we are going to be developing it as part of the development so we can work on that. I don't know what the route is for that but we will be addressing it. 21322 Mr. Piercecchi: At our study meeting, I asked a question in reference to lighting. According to the notes from our department, it's required by the Engineering Department unless you request it to be waived and its concurred on. Are you going to have lighting? Mr. Baki: We're trying to avoid putting it in for a reason. We did it in the past, like 10 years ago. We had a condition and we paid bonds for it and everything, off of Five Mile Road by Krogers. The neighbors came out and fought it. They didn't want R. They took it out. They said we don't want it. We don't want any money back, just don't put lights in there. They didn't want the lights for people to start driving around. Most of the subdivisions we put in, we don't put lighting in R. We let the homeowners light their own properties and that will be sufficient for it. Mr. Piercecchi: The reason why I asked the question, sir, was because this site is located right off of Eight Mile and it does see a lot of traffic, maybe a lot of opportunities for some of these cars. We just finished a subdivision at Glen Eden, and they are putting in like pole lights and garage lights, and they thought that was very adequate. Mr. Baki: Condominium projects they always do that. On residential projects, each homeownerdoes his own. Mr. Piercecchi: This is a condo. Mr. Baki: Site condo. Mr. Piercecchi: Its still a condo. Mr. Baki: Its private. That's a private road. The association is a lot bigger. There's more expenses for that and people expect to pay high association fees. On these kinds of sites where we try, like $250, $300 a whole year, just to maintain to make the actual berm and the right-of-way. We don't charge them for extra electrical or anything else that could end up accruing on their expenses. Mr. Piercecchi: But I take it from our conversation, sir, that you're going to try and have this requirement waived? Mr. Baki: Yes. 21323 Mr. Piercecchi: These are very big homes here that you're putting in. Would it be proper if I asked you the price range? Mr. Baki: $500,000 plus. Mr. Piercecchi: $500,000 and up. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Baki, would you tell me what you mean by limited amounts of textured plywood that you're going to be pulling on the homes? Mr. Baki: Most of the time, like if it's a overhang, you can't put brick. You put it on. It's not going to be on the actual whole exterior. It's going to be a minimum. We're talking 5% - 10% max. Mr. Alanskas: Where will you be pulling it? Mr. Baki: Somefimes we use it in front of an entrance, let's say, if the front of the house has an overhang. Some people want an overhang, and you want to put it on the outside. That's all what we put it on. Everything else will be brick around it and that will be part of the texture, just to give it an accent to change the look. Mr. Alanskas: And how long is that textured plywood guaranteed for? Mr. Baki: You have to paint it. It's usually guaranteed for a few years, but you have to paint it every few years. Mr. Alanskas: The reason why I ask is because my house has this textured plywood or had it, and after five years from the rain, it warps. It chips. It looks terrible. That's why I asked how long R's guaranteed for. Mr. Baki: The new materials are guaranteed a lot longer than what used to be. This is not an actual plywood material. Its composed of a different type of material. Even though we called it that, the new material with the texture is not fully plywood. Mr. Alanskas: It's not plywood? What is it, pressed wood? Mr. Baki: Its pressed wood. Mr. Alanskas: Pressed wood comes from plywood, doesn't it? 21324 Mr. Baki: That's right, but it's maintained with chemicals. The way it's glued together, it's all chemicals. Mr. Alanskas: When you say its textured, does it have the grooves in it going up and down? Mr. Baki: No. The groves up and down that you're talking about is completely different. Mr. Alanskas: My notes say it's a T-111 that you're putting up. Mr. Baki: That's part of the texture. That's the grooves. I'm just saying the texture is a rough texture, like a dryvil finish. Thats a texture finish. Mr. Alanskas: Its guaranteed for how many years? Mr. Baki: It can go up to 10 years, a minimum of 5 to 10 years, but you have to paint it. It has to be maintained. You can't just let it go. Mr. Alanskas: I stained my everytwo years and it still warped and chipped. Mr. Baki: I'll lake it out. It's not a big deal. I want to make the houses more expensive, more appealing, so something could come out, but we don't put vinyl sidings on some of these homes. It's more durable but we don't try to put it on. Mr. Alanskas: I would just hope that you would not put the textured plywood on these homes. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: So the retention pond that's there now on the property next to you, you're not using their retention pond at all? Mr. Baki: No. Mr. LaPine: You're using all your own underground pipes and laking care of your own water. Is that correct? Mr. Baki: No. The retention pond that shows on the plan is ours. We are acquiring it from the people who own it There is no retention there right now. We are pulling one there, a nice small one. We're going to use some of it to go there and the rest will be underground. Mr. LaPine: How much will that retention pond hold? How many of the homes' wale/? 21325 Mr. Baki: Water -wise? Probably its going to hold about 10 or 15. Mr. LaPine: On the streetlights, two subdivisions to the east of here, do they have streetlights in their sub? Mr. Taormina: I'd have to check, Mr. LaPine. I don't know the answer to your question. Mr. LaPine: If they have them, I think we should have there here Mr. Taormina: There are three different styles of lights that can go in. There's a carriage style light, a cobra head light and there's another fixture that I'm not sure exactly of the detail. Edison does install those. The problem is that they are far behind right now in getting those installed in many of the subdivisions. You may drive around the City and see some of the new subdivisions without lights. Part of the reason for that is that Edison just hasn't gotten out there to install them. It is my understanding after talking to the City Engineer that they are backlogged right now - several years. Mr. LaPine: I'm for streetlights. On numerous limes, we gel correspondence from the Police Department. They want streetlights in subdivisions because when they're driving through at night, it's a lot easier for them see what's going on, and I think we should have the streetlights. Are there sidewalks? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Are there sidewalks along Eight Mile Road? The two subs to the east, do they have sidewalks along Eight Mile Road? Mr. Taormina: There are very limited sections along Eight Mile Road that do not have sidewalks. If its not shown on this plan and if it does not exist presently, it is something that will be required, sidewalks both internal to the residential streets and as well as along Eight Mile. That should be a requirement of this plan if they're not there. Mr. LaPine: Because we've got to the point now where Eight Mile Road, after we hit Glen Eden, is going to be pretty much from Gill Road. You know the City always wants sidewalks, especially now there's more traffic walking up and down Eight Mile. It's kind of dangerous walking on Eight Mile Road. 21326 Mr. Baki: There are sidewalks next door. Mr. LaPine: Is your sign going to be lit? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Internally or by flood lights? Mr. Baki: Flood lights. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Baki, I'm not sure what the fate of the streetlights are going to be in the final analysis, but will the homeowners have an option to have a pole light in the proximity of the driveway? Will that be something that will be offered to them as part of their home options, one that they could turn on? Mr. Baki: Some do. Some homeowners do. They do different details on the outside part of the landscaping. Mr. Morrow: In other words, they will come in with their own designs? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Morrow: So they could have a pole put in there if they desired? Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Morrow: I'd kind of recommend it to the dealers. Like I said, I'm not sure how the streetlights are going to come out, but it never hurts to have a little more light. Mr. Baki: It might be like Mr. Taormina mentioned. It might be easierjust for us to install them and not wail for Edison, because Edison, like he says, takes between three to five years before they come here. It took them about four years for that other site and still the people didn't want it because by that time they just didn't want it. But if it goes in as far as development, like a lot of some other areas, other townships that require it, then it would be easier and cheaper probably, plus we can work something out on putting a nice design on lights. I mean I have no problem putting it in, its just a lot of the homeowners don't like it, not us. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? 21327 Barbara Amin, 34970 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. This is the last house on Norfolk Street behind the development here. I was talking with a few of the other neighbors, and we have our concerns regarding the retention pond being underground. Is there going to be one standing with water in it, and if so, is there going to be mosquito maintenance as far as the water standing there? Is that part of the bylaws that will be coming up with the site condominiums. The other concern is for the other neighbors. Is it going to be single family homes like Chestnut Grove and not condos where they're attached together or on lop of each other? And there are sidewalks along Eight Mile because we cul through there just to lel you know. We cul through there to walk our dogs along Eight Mile. The lighting - does Chestnut Grove have lighting? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, do you know the answer to that? I cant recall. Do you know, Mr. Baki? Mr. Baki: Right now, there is no lighting yet. There is sidewalks but there is no lighting, because usually we pay for it as part of the engineering fees, then Edison puts it out later. Like I said, it lakes a few years for them, so who knows if he requested the waiver or not. Mr. Taormina: I'll have to check on the status of the lights, Mr. Chairman. It could be something that, again, they're wailing for. It's probably bonded. If I can answer this woman's question regarding mosquito control ... Mr. Walsh: Please. Mr. Taormina: That is a concern that has come up recently now that we're seeing more of these surface water detention basins constructed in order to comply with the County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. In fad, language was recently crafted and will be a part of the Master Deed and Bylaws for this development which will require the association to have a mosquitocontrol program. Sothatis something that will have to be incorporated within the file of documentation for this subdivision. And that control program is something that, again, will be managed by the association but with some oversight on the part of the City. Ms. Amin: The other thing is the water hookup. We were on well water. We've lived there 17 years and we enjoy the area and we knew eventually it was going to be built. We're very happy with what 21328 I've seen so far and what's been presented, but the other thing is, they have cleared that land and now we are having standing water there. The water seems to, because of all the trees, I'm assuming, I don't know, that have been taken down, but there's more standing water than there has been in the past. And also, the water pressure, are they going to be hooking up to the water that is there now, because we have hooked up to City water and it is very, very limited at times during the day to use water. So I want to know if that affects any of the pressure. Mr. Walsh: I'm assuming you'll hook up to the water main that serves the various neighborhoods in the area. You're not going to run to the Eight Mile main, I don't think. Mr. Baki: The water main off of Eight Mile Road? Yes, they won't lel us. We're probably going to service all of the water main that runs right by your properly line. Ms. Amin: Down the side? Mr. Baki: Yes, because the water main off Eight Mile is a 36 inch. They won't lel us touch it, which is a lot higher pressure. They only lel us touch into the 12 inches or 10 inches, whatever they have on that side. Ms. Amin: Will they do anything to put more pressure in there? Mr. Walsh: Should this pass the Planning Commission, the Council will consider it and at that point, the City Engineer will be in attendance. They have a computer model that can assess the impact of water pressure. When the pressure was increased maybe three or four years ago as a result of some work in the area, they developed a model that can lest it. So we are not able to answer your questions tonight, but should this go onto the Council, they will be able to do so, perhaps with more scientific evidence than we can. Mr. Alanskas: I'd say right now, in all your new subdivisions, 95% of your homes have irrigated sprinkler systems in the homes. They require 65 pounds of pressure coming out of your faucet. And anyone in the City has at least 65 pounds, so you should have adequate pressure. Ms. Amin: Well, our sprinklers are on a well system. Mr. Alanskas: Thalwell could be different. 21329 Ms. Amin: Yes. Mr. Walsh: You can pursue it. I remember the area. I live in that area myself. The pressure was a bit lower. I remember when we did a water pressure study. There were three very low areas and that area happened to be one of them. We've had some relief. One of the items that was lett behind by the consultant that did the study was the model, the simulator, whatever you want to call, that can help us assess the impact and determine if it's going to have some major degradation in pressure. The other question you asked is, are these single family homes. They are indeed single family homes Ms. Amin: They are? Mr. Walsh: Yes. Ms. Amin: Okay. Thankyou. Giovanni Aga=i, 34750 Norfolk. I have no argument with the house or whatever it is. The only argument I have is with the retaining pond. Number one, I don't recall to see a retaining pond on residential. Industrial, yes, but not residential. On residential it is a mosquito trap. So, can put underground pipe. I believe it's better than a pond. So, that's my only question. Mr. Walsh: The plan right now, Mr. Baki, is some above ground and some below ground. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Ag=i: I understand, but if you put 34 feel where you got 90, what you call over there, a mosquito trap. My only question. Mr. Walsh: We can only respond to the petition in front of us. We can make note of your concern moving forward. Mr. Ag=i: I hope so. Thank you. Troy Mui, 34850 Norfolk. My question is, to my backyard and my neighbor's, there's an existing channel fence. I just wondered if there's any proposal to put any sort of fence there. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Baki? 21330 Mr. Baki: We don't put any fence it. Mr. Walsh: You are not putting fencing in? Mr. Baki: No. Mr. Mui: So is the existing fence is going to stay? Mr. Baki: Which existing fence? Mr. Walsh: Can you give Mr. Baki a little more description of where your property abuts his properly? Mr. Mui: My property is the third lot from the end of Norfolk. Mr. Baki: Okay. So you're lot 22? Mr. Mui: I don't have a number here. Mr. Baki: You just bought that house? Mr. Mui: Yes, I just bought that house. Mr. Baki: Okay. I know which one. If there's fence in the back, we'll lake it down. We don't leave them. Mr. Mui: Its going to slay? Mr. Baki: No, we'll lake it down. If its there, we're laking it down. If it's an existing fence in the back, just on your lot .. because I know there's not a fence for the whole backyard. Mr. Mui: My neighbor has a channel fence too, though. Mr. Baki: If it's on his property, I can't touch it. If it's on our property and, you know, we'll lake it down as part of the development. But if its somebody else's properly, if it's your property, we won't touch it. Mr. Mui: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Anything else, sir? Mr. Mui: That's it. 21331 Mr. LaPine: Mr. Baki, what is the reason you're having a retention pond? Why don't you just go ahead with underground piping for the whole sub instead of one and one? I'm just curious. Mr. Baki: The main reason for it depends on how many cubic yards of water we need to hold. It depends on the quantity. The property drops to the back to the east, so that means most of it is going to be that way. It depends on how much capacity we have. The way we can put it is in the back and there's a size capacity you can go up to, like 42, 48 inches in size of piping. If we don't have the proper room just in the backyard of these seven lots, then I need to use that detention. Mr. Piercecchi: I'd like to ask the Director a question. Mr. Taormina, you brought up an interesting thing in reference to these ponds and the control. Should we insist that provisions for that be put into their Master Deed? Mr. Taormina: Regarding mosquito control? Mr. Piercecchi: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Yes, we can make reference to that and the staff will provide more detail language as part of the resolution should it be approved this evening. Mr. Piercecchi: What I'm trying to do is cast this thing in cement that it has to be done. Thankyou. Mr. Baki: I can respond to that. Wayne County is requiring it loo as part of the recording. So it's already required by Wayne County, but its a good idea to have the City of Livonia make sure it's on before, but that's already been passed as a requirement because a Ioloflhe homeowners around dare complaining, and Wayne County went ahead and passed that law. So it's already part of the Master Deed by Wayne County. Mr. Piercecchi: We want it in your Master Deed and bylaws. Mr. Bad : It will be. That's what I'm saying. It will be. That's part of the requirements. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Baki. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, a motion is in order. 21332 On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-67-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-04-08-09, submitted by Sarah Estates Site Condominiums requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium development on properly located at 35045 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest %of Section 4, be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the following conditions: 1. That the Master Deed and Bylaws complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, except for the fact the following shall be incorporated: - That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 70% and not less than 90% on one-story dwellings; - That all exterior chimneys shall be brick; 2. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in the Master Deed and Bylaws and the requirements set forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements; That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed and Bylaws or a separate recordable instrument wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water detention/retention and ouflet facilities, and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owner's property prorata and place said charges on their real estate lax bills in the event said charges are not paid by the condominium association (or each lot 21333 owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of Livonia; 4. That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no exceptions; 5. That the Site Plan dated April 9, 2004, prepared by Unique Builders & Developers of Livonia, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6. That the Landscape Plan dated April 29, 2004, prepared by Unique Builders & Developers of Livonia, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the Entrance Marker shown on the approved Landscape Plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to erect an entrance markerwithin the median strip of a public divided lane entrance. Said sign shall be located no closer than len (10) feel from the intersecting right -0f --way lines; 9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated May 11, 2004: That fire hydrants shall be provided with spacing consistent with residential use groups; 10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated May 11, 2004: That a STOP sign shall be installed at the Eight Mile Road exit; That KEEP RIGHT signs shall be installed at both ends of the entrance median; That a NO OUTLET sign shall be installed and visible to Eight Mile Road traffic; 21334 - That a barricade and END OF ROAD sign shall be erected where the eastern road dead -ends at the property line; 11. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; 12. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium development; 13. That the Master Deed and bylaws shall include a provision wherein the Condominium Association shall be responsible to perform regular maintenance and other necessary application of larvicides to control the breeding of mosquitoes in the stormwater retention pond; 14. That the Developer will submit for approval an ongoing mosquito control program describing maintenance operations and larvicide applications to the City of Livonia Inspection Department prior to the construction of the stormwater retention facility; and 15. That the Condominium Association will provide annual reports to the Inspection Department on the maintenance and larvicide treatments completed on the stormwater detention pond. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: Condition 4 as prepared includes T-111, but obviously we're laking that out now? You're not going to use T-111 now? Mr. Baki: Yes, we can take it out. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. So I left that out of the prepared motion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LaPine: I have two questions. Are we or are we not getting street lights? Mr. Taormina: They are required unless they are waived by separate resolution by the City Council. 21335 Mr. LaPine: We will gel sidewalks on Eight Mile Road. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. I think it was indicated that they are there presently. Mr. LaPine: In front of this one, there will be sidewalks? Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2004 -04 -SN -03 PIERCE MEDICAL Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 04 -SN -03 submitted by J.B. Donaldson Company, on behalf of Pierce Medical Office, requesting approval for signage for the office building located at 38525 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest'''/ of Section 6. Mr. Miller: The pefitioner is requesting approval for a ground sign for the medical office building located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadow View Lane and the 1-275/96 Expressway. This property is zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. Professional offices, which includes medical, are designated as waiver uses in an RUF district. The sign would be erected in front of the medical building, about five feel set back from Eight Mile Road and approximately 116 feel over from Meadow View Lane. The sign would be constructed out of natural materials. The nameplate would be created out of limestone with aluminum -routed lettering. The base or platform would be cultured stone with a limestone cap. Ground floodlights would illuminate the sign. Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50E is one identification sign not to exceed 6 square feel in sign area if erected as a ground sign. One ground sign is proposed at 24 square feet in sign area. Because the proposed ground sign is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance and is deficient in setback, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. With the medical use of the site being more in line with office, it might be more appropriate to allow office type signage. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would still be required but the ground sign would be more compatible with the use. In an Office 21336 Services district, one identification sign not to exceed 16 square feet in sign area is allowed. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated April 29, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 22, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site would be allowed one ground sign of 6 square feet, not higher than 4 feet and located at a 20 foot setback from the right-of-way. Therefore, this petition will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive height, excessive square footage and deficient setback. (2) A temporary sign is existing in place of sign allowed by Permit S6687 issued in 1989. 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. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Phil Gorny, J. B. Donaldson Company, 41850 W. Eleven Mile Road, Suite 100, Novi, Michigan 48375. Basically, where the sign is currently located on the property, we have several issues with the 20 fool setback. You've got several large trees, even ones that are down not on our property, that obviously would not allow line of sight to see the sign coming either way on Eight Mile. We have grade challenges as well. Eight Mile is several feel, more like 8 to 10 feet lower than where the property currently resides. Dr. Pierce really doesn't have any other choice but to go to ZBA for a variance and approvals. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: Do you have any leeway as to change? Say we gave you a sign smaller than what he requested. Do you have the authority to accept that? Mr. Gomy: How much smaller? I mean I'd really have to talk to him. Mr. LaPine: I'm talking about 16 feel at a 10 fool setback, 6 feel high. Mr. Gomy: I'd really have to do some research. The sign that's currently there, we're proposing to put the new sign in the exact same location as the old sign. The old sign is 5.16 feet back from the right-of-way. His understanding was that he did not realize the 21337 sign was not in compliance when he purchased the property. I'd really have to talk to him before I made that decision. Like I say, as far as moving it back another five feet, as it stands right now, if you drive by the site you'd see that these trees here obscure the sign. If you got right up on it, you would pass it without even noticing his business. That's the main concern. Mr. LaPine: I dont think there's any problem in reducing the sign. You have "internal medicine, urgent care" way down here. You could move "internal medicine" to the left, leave a space or put a bullet and have "urgent care" and have d all on one line, which would shrink the size. The setback is another issue. I go by that location quite frequently, and I don't have any problem seeing the sign that's there now. I can't really tell going back another five feet how much that's going to be obstructed by those trees. There are a few trees there, but I think what he's asking for is a little too large for this site. Mr. Gomy: Okay. Mr. Alanskas: I'd say the same thing. Scoft, could you put the picture of the sign up please? As Bill said, where you've got the "38425" from that to where it says "Keith Pierce" you've got a lot of room there. Then where it says "Keith Pierce" to "internal medicine' you've got a lot of space in between there, like Mr. LaPine said. You could shrink those and bring that sign down. Mr. Gomy: lagree. lagree. Mr. Alanskas: Its way loo high. You're only allowed six square feel, and you want 24 feel. You're 18 feel over. I cant even see giving you 16 square feel. I mean you've got so much room there. I'm not concerned with the setback, but the size of the sign I think is ridiculous. Mr. Gomy: Okay. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to see it shrunk quite a bit. Mr. Shane: I agree with Bob. I don't have any difficulty with the setback either because it's a unique situation, and I wouldn't want him to set it back where you can't see it. I'm more concerned with the size than its actual location. Ms. Smiley: Are the address numbers considered part of the sign? That 38525? 21338 Mr. Miller: Because the address numbers of this particular sign are part of the nameplate's graphics, they were calculated as part of the sign area. If the numbers were to be installed separately on the base, they would not be considered part of the sign. Basically, all the information listed on the nameplate is considered sign area. Mr. Walsh: It sounds like we have a trend going for a smaller sign. If you don't have the authority to accept that, we may want to table this until you confer with your client and reschedule this for another meeting. Mr. Gomy: Okay. Mr. LaPine: If I may interrupt, Mr. Chair? If we're going to do that, lets give him some parameters where he can go back to his client. I have no problem with the 16 feel, but if some of the other members think we should go down smaller, I have no problem with that either. Leave it at the five fool setback and go down whatever we think is reasonable. What's the size of the sign that's there now, Mark? Do you know? Mr. Taormina: Idon't. Mr. Gomy: The actual size of the existing Bak Photography sign was actually 5 foot by 9 fool. Now we basically have a 2 foot tall by 8 foot wide, it's almosljusl a piece of plywood and cloth banners is all that's there now. Mr. LaPine: I like the design. This is all considered part of the sign right? Its not just where the wording is. Mr. Miller: No, only the extent of the nameplate is what makes up the sign area. In order to downsize the sign, only the dimensions of the nameplate need to be adjusted. The base of the sign is conforming and can remain as is. Mr. Gomy: Just the nameplate needs to be smaller? Mr. Miller: Right. Mr. Gomy: Okay. Mr. Miller: For the petitioners clarification, if this site were zoned Office it would be allowed a 16 square fool identification sign. A medical 21339 office falls in an office classification. So you can understand the Planning Commission is leaning towards allowing you what would be permitted in an office district. Mr. Gomy: Okay. I think obviously making the nameplate 16 square feet - we would probably want to shrink the whole sign to keep it in proportion. Otherwise it would look odd. I mean, if that's what the ordinance is or what we decided then, yes, I can make that decision. Mr. Piercecchi: I was wondering if this gentlemen knew why that number 16 is being brought into the picture, because as Scott said, that is the signage that an office would be allowed. Mr. Gomy: I understand that. Mr. Piercecchi: And subsequently we're looking at this as something more in line with an office. Mr. Gomy: I appreciate that. Mr. Shane: I just want to indicate to the petitioner that I have no problem with 16 square feel nor do I have a problem with a 5 fool setback. If he can do that for us, shrink the whole thing proportionately as you said, I'm all for it. Mr. Gomy: Okay. We can do that. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Not even our former chair, Mr. McCann? We'll acknowledge his presence in the audience tonight. Is there a motion? On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-68-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2004 -04 -SN -03 submitted by J.B. Donaldson Company, on behalf of Pierce Medical Office, requesting approval for signage for the office building located at 38525 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 6, be approve subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by Keith J. Pierce, M.D., as received by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the sign area of the sign shall not exceed sixteen 21340 (16) square feel and the setback of the sign shall be at least five (5') feel from any road right-of-way lines; 2. That the temporary sign, as mentioned in the Inspection Department's correspondence dated April 29, 2014, shall be removed. 3. That no LED Iighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 5. That the lights used to illuminate the sign shall be turned off one hour after closing; 6. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage and any conditions related thereto; and 7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh, 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 2003-03-08-08 NEXTEL Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 03-08-08, submitted by Nextel Communications requesting an extension of the site plan, which previously received approval by the City Council on May 21, 2003 (CR 232-03), in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located a139200 SchoolcraR Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, do you have any comments? Mr. Taormina: This is a request that was considered by the Planning Commission last year. It was approved by the City Council on May 21, 2003. It's property that is located on the north side of 21341 Schoolcraft between Eckles and Newburgh Road. It's commercial zoned property. The City Council and the Planning Commission approved an addition to the existing building. The building addition was about 4, 000 square feel in size. For the reasons indicated in the letter dated April 28, 2004, by Mr. Robert Tremain, Project Manager for Herbst-Musciano Architects/Planners, they would like to extend the site plan in order to proceed with the construction of this addition some time in the future. As he indicates in his le0er, they have not yet set a timetable for the construction of this addition. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is the petitioner in the audience? William Donnan, Arpee/Donnan, Inc., 36937 SchoolcraR, Livonia, Michigan 48150. 1 am the engineer that prepared the site plan for Nextel. What they told me is they definitely want to start this year. They haven't a firm starting date for construction yet. They're in the process of evaluating and re-evaluating the equipment and the type of equipment that's going to be installed in the building. As far as changes, there will be no changes to the outside of the building or the site plan required. Mr. Walsh: Any questions or comments? Hearing none and seeing no one in the audience, a motion is in order. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-69-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-03-08-08 submitted by Nextel Communications requesting an extension of the site plan, which previously received approval by the City Council on May 21, 2003 (Council Resolution #232-03), in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 39200 SchoolcraR Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, be approved. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21342 ITEM #5 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING OFF-STREET PARKING Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolutions #594-03 and #178-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.08 of Article II, Section 10.03 of Article X, Section 11.03 of Article XI, and Sections 18.37 and 18.38 of Article XVIII, of Ordinance #543, as amended, to change the off-street parking requirements for certain retail and office uses. On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-70-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolutions #594-03 and #178-04, 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 2.08 of Article II, Section 10.03 of Article X, Section 11.03 of Article XI, and Sections 18.37 and 18.38 of Article XVIII, of Ordinance #543, as amended, to change the off- street parking requirements for certain retail and office uses. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #6 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING MECHANICAL AMUSEMENT DEVICES Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next dem on the agenda, a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolution #172-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.59 of Article XVIII of Ordinance #543, as amended, to allow mechanical amusement devices in restaurants. 21343 On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-71-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #172-04, 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 18.59 of Article XVIII of Ordinance #543, as amended, to allow mechanical amusement devices in restaurants. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #7 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING LAND DIVISION ACT Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolution #175-04, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.46 of Article XVIII in order to conform to both City practice and the State of Michigan Land Division Act. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-72-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #175-04, 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 18.46 of Article XVIII in order to conform to both City practice and the Stale of Michigan Land Division Act. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. 21344 ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 883rd Regular Meeting Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 883rd Regular Meeting held on April 20, 2004. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was #05-73-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the 883rd Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 20, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Smiley, Morrow, Walsh NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Alanskas ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a moton duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 885" Regular Meeting held on May 18, 2004, was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John J. Walsh, Chairman