Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2009-03-10MINUTES OF THE 978TH REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 10, 2009, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 9W Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel Ashley Vartoogian Ian Wilshaw Members absent: Carol Smiley Mr. Morrow: Also with us tonight is Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and to my right is Joe Taylor, who was recommended to be appointed to the City Planning Commission and was concurred in last night by the City Council. However, Mr. Taylor will only be observing tonight as he was unable to take his oath of office because the Clerk and Deputy Clerk were attending a conference out of town. Chairman Morrow 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 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 len 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 oflhe proceedings tonight. Mr. Morrow: We received a letter from the petitioner, French Associates, which is the second item on our agenda (Petition 2009-02-08- 04) tonight regarding a Montessori school. The petitioner has requested that it not be taken up this evening. So we are going to remove it from the agenda. March 10, 2009 25165 ITEM#1 PETlTION2009-02-08-03 COBURN-KLEINFELDT Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2009-02-08-03 submitted by Vision Quest Consulting requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 oflhe Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the office building (Coburn-Meinfeldl Eye Clinic) at 33400 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Farmington Road and Laurel Drive in the Southeast''/. of Section 9. Mr. Taormina: This is property located in Section 9 of the City. Section 9 is the square mile that is bounded by Seven Mile Road to the north, Wayne Road to the west, Farmington Road to the east, and Six Mile Road to the south. This is a request to approve an addition to the eye clinic that is located near the corner of Six Mile and Farmington Roads. This is an "L" -shaped property located north, west and adjacent to the Mobil gas station which is right at the corner of Six Mile and Farmington. This property is approximately 1.73 acres in area. It includes 175 feel of frontage along Six Mile Road as well as 175 feel of front frontage on Farmington. The parcel extends for a depth of 300 feet from both roads. The zoning of the property is OS, Office Services. This was brmerly a Manufacturers Bank that went dark for several years, and then in 2003, the building was renovated and reopened as an eye clinic. This is an aerial photograph that shows the location of the property and the building on the site and it's relationship to the surrounding area. The existing building, which is triangular in shape, is about 8,654 square feel in size. It's situated in the northwest portion of the site with parking available to the east with a single driveway to Farmington Road. Additional parking is located to the south of the building with two separate driveways with access to Six Mile Road. This is the proposed site plan. The two parking lots are interconnected with drives both in front of and behind the building. The petitioner is proposing to construct a one-story addition to the building. The size of the addition is about 4,541 square feet in size. It would be constructed off the west elevation of the existing building in the northwest corner of the property. This would be about a 50 percent increase in the size of the building. The zoning ordinance requires that the buildings in the OS District be at least at 15 feet from any residential properties. In this case, the addition at the closest point would be 20 feet from the west property line and approximately 32 feel from the north property line, so it does comply with setback requirements of the OS zoning classification. Overall, the size of the new facility with the March 10, 2009 25166 addition would be about 13,195 square feet. A floor plan was submitted with the application that shows the layout of the addition. It would consist of two OR rooms as well as related equipment rooms, five exam rooms, a storage area, a procedure and laser room, offices, mechanical and janitorial rooms, as well as a waiting area. There would be a new vestibule and canopy/dro"ff area that would be built on the south elevation of the building. This canopy extends for about 65 feet from the edge of the building over a new drive aisle that would be used for a patient drop-off and pickup area. Its difficult to see where that canopy is located, but it extends roughly in the southwest corner of the site. Again, the distance from the edge of the existing building to the south edge of the proposed canopy is about 65 feel. It is this drive aisle that would serve as the patient pickup and drop-off area. There would be two support columns for the canopy that would be located within a landscape island that would be created through the elimination of three panting spaces. The required amount of parking would be the sum of the general office area plus the medical office space within the building, where general office is computed at a ratio of 1 space for every 200 square feel of net useable floor area and the medical is computed at a ratio of 1 parking space for every 110 square feel of net useable floor area. Altogether, this building has approximately 9,932 square feet of useable floor space; 6,919 square feel of that is devoted to clinic space while 3,013 is devoted to general office use. That requires a total of 78 parking spaces, and the parking that is provided on the site plan is 82 spaces for surplus of four parking spaces. This is the interior layout of the building. Back to the site plan, however, the plan shows reconfiguration of the parking lot and driveways, where landscaping would be eliminated and eight new spaces would be provided on the east side of the building. There are eight parking spaces shown. These would be new parking spaces. Presently, there is landscaping that exists along the east side of the building. That would be eliminated in order to make room for the additional parking spaces in this area. The plan also includes removing parking in the northwest corner of site in order to provide an access drive around the building. Previously, this drive was shown right up against the wall but has been moved to the existing curb line, about 4 to 5 feet from the wall in order to preserve a row of arborvitaes that are planted along this side of the property. Currently, there are parking spaces in this area with the drive aisle situated further east of those parking spaces. Because the addition would be built here, it would force the drive aisle further to the west. As originally proposed, that drive aisle was right up against the edge of the building but we noted the existence of the landscaping in this area. So the plan has been modified to March 10, 2009 25167 maintain that existing landscaping along the west wall. I believe the curb line that is currently there that represents the west edge of the parking would represent the west edge of this proposed drive aisle. In addition, the easterly driveway to Six Mile would be removed and replaced with landscaping and two new parking spaces. To better accommodate the ingress/egress from Six Mile, the westerly driveway to Six Mile would be widened. In terms of the building materials, the architectural style and exterior materials used for the addition would match that of the existing building. The predominant materials would include brick, cultured stone and composite metal panels. This depicts the canopy that would be constructed or the porte-cochere in the area leading from the vestibule or the main entry into the building over that drive aisle. You can see the two support columns. Those columns would be constructed of a combination of both brick and manufactured stone. A translucent panel system would be used that would serve as the roof of that canopy. The metal panel system is shown here along the upper fascia of the building. We have a couple of recommendations that we can get into, but one thought that came to the staffs mind was that we realize this plan does comply with the minimum parking standards. However, if that parking is not needed at this time, then we would recommend Iandbanking the parking spaces. That would do a couple things. It would obviously save cost to this project, but it would preserve landscaping in the area adjacent to the building on the east side. So we don't necessarily see the need for these eight parking spaces unless that is something that the petitioner really feels is necessary with the additional use that would occur in the building at peak periods of operation. But if not, then we would suggest Iandbanking these parking spaces. The same could hold true for the additional two that are shown here on the site plan, and those areas could be used for additional landscaping. Secondly, we would suggest possibly adding some additional plantings along the north side, particularly in this corner where some of those bushes are missing. That would serve as a buffer because the home directly behind here is relatively close. There are some windows overlooking this area. So what we suggest is that you either continue with the arborvitaes along this edge or possibly one or two pine trees, which are used throughout the site. Lastly, they are showing for the upper fascia this metal panel system, but they showing an altemative of that being E.I.F.S. We would suggest that the same metal panel system be used for the building as long as they can find a matching material to keep the appearance consistent. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence? March 10, 2009 25168 Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from the Engineering Division, dated February 27, 2009, which reads as follows: 'The Engineering Division has reviewed the site plan associated with the above -referenced petition. t is noted that the site plan calls for the relocation of a storm sewer at the west end of the site. This existing storm sewer is not under City jurisdiction. The address for this site is confirmed as 33400 Six Mile Road. It should be noted that permits will be required from the Engineering Division for any work in public easements or road right -0f -way." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 26, 2009, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the office building on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 23, 2009, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with Coburn-Weinfeldt Eye clinic located at 33400 Six Mile. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 2, 2009. This letter is based on the previously site plan. This has been corected but I will read it anyways: "Pursuant to your request of February 10, 2009, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This petition as presented would require 93 parking spaces where only 72 spaces are shown due to the expansion of the building to the west. This deficiency would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As a note, the parking lot currently does not appear to be fully utilized throughout various times of the day. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions of Mr. Toarmina? Ms. Scheel: If we chose to go with landbanking the parking spaces, would he have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Taormina: No, he would not Ms. Scheel: He would not. March 10, 2009 25169 Mr. Taormina: No. The site plan remains as is. It shows those parking spots but we would identify the areas of parking that could be Iandbanked. If the need ever arses, he would have to comply with the site plan by building those parking spaces, but in the interim, those areas would be utilized for landscaping. Ms. Scheel: Who determines if the need arises? Mr. Taormina: I believe the ordinance indicates the Inspection Department. I would have to go back and take a look at that, but I think by notification of the Inspection Department where a problem exists, then they would have a certain length of time in which to add the parking. Ms. Scheel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Seeing no further questions, we will gololhe petitioner now. Brandon Kaufman, Vision Quest Consulting, 4657 Wendrick Drive, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48323. Good evening. I'm representing the landowners. I guess I want to start by saying that we build these projects all over the Slate of Michigan. The process thus far with the City of Livonia has been incredibly cooperative. I commend your staff for that. Last week we had the opportunity to come and present kind of in a working session manner and you challenged us with comments regarding landscaping, making sure we met the parking ordinance requirements and then dealing with the drive along the westerly edge of the properly and seeing what we could do with that. The plan in front of you is what we were able to come back with. As noted in the report, we were able to meet the parking requirements. I'd like to ask a few questions regarding the Iandbanking in a minute here. We were able to keep the existing curb line so the arborvilaes can remain to provide the screening that was requested by staff. The screening relative to adding arborvitaes or a pine tree in the northwest comer, I dont see as an issue. I don't know if that's handled as via the comments or notes or if we have to come back with a drawing between now and City Council. Relative to the Iandbanking, I believe we would be fine with the eight spaces. I think relative to the overall site and the fact that we're going to be closing off the easterly drive, I think it would be worthwhile to at least put those two extra spots in. Regarding the eight spots, my question would be, does the landowner retain the right to put them in as well? You know what I'm saying? It's not like you guys come out and see a deficiency. It's if we would need them at any future date, we have the ability to come and install them. March 10, 2009 25170 Mr. Morrow: Basically, I think what Mr. Toarmina was referencing is, should Inspection see a parking problem over there, they might come in. But the other side of the coin is, certainly the petitioner can come forward to the Planning Department and tell them we are experiencing the shortage of parking and we'd like to develop those sites. Mr. Kaufman: But that wouldn't require going through site plan approval? Its an administrative -type building department issue? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. It's strictly voluntary. So as long as the site plan reflects those spaces being Iandbanked, you could actually have the option in the future of developing those without the need to come back through the approval process. Mr. Morrow: So it can be triggered either way. Mr. Kaufman: Either way. Right. Okay. I don't know if you guys have any questions for me aphis time. Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Wilshaw: I notice that the drive going around the building narrowed from 20 feet to 16 feel, and the Fire Department had reviewed the previous plan showing the 20 fool drive. Do you know if the 16 fool drive, Mr. Taormina, is acceptable to the Fire Department for their turning radius? Mr. Taormina: I don't think it's going to be a problem. We will verify that. That should be a sufficient width for them. We haven't measured that radius on the northwest comer, but we will do that prior to City Council. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I just want to make sure that a fire truck doesn't gel stuck back there. That drive will be a one-way drive. What direction of the flow of traffic is going to be on that driveway? Is it going to be from the northern section down to the southern portion? Mr. Kaufman: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And that will be marked appropriately? Mr. Kaufman: Correct. We will add signage, do not enter one way, on the southern end. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And then that drive, just for explanation to anybody listening, is so patrons can go pick up a patient after their surgery from the surgery release, right? March 10, 2009 25171 Mr. Kaufman: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And that's a requirement of the Stale? Mr. Kaufman: Correct. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Let's see if I have anything else. For lighting that is going to be in the back of the building that's facing those residential properties, can you explain how that's going to be lit? Mr. Kaufman: As we discussed Iasi week, we use what are called wall packs. It's a lighting fixture that's actually mounted on the building and is designed to shine downward. So it shines in a very vertical direction instead of horizontal. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. It will be shielded from the residential properties so they don't see the light directly? Mr. Kaufman: Correct. Its kind of like a wall sconce if you will. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And you have no difficulty with using the same metal panels on the new portion? Mr. Kaufman: The elevation, as its contemplated right now, is to use the metal panels along the south, the street -facing side, and then actually use E.I.F.S. along the west side. We could continue ... the architect is here. One second. Do you want to comment on it? Mr. Morrow: We'll need your name and address. Ron Schneider, A.J. Design Architects, 2803 Greenlawn, Commerce, Michigan 48382. The idea is to do metal panels on all sides, but just to be upfront, is to tell you for an alternate, that if it got very costly, that on the sides that are really facing the street, the back, the west and then part of the north side, it would be an option to use E.I.F.S. that would blend the material in and be hard to tell until you actually come within a couple feel of it. It's also up higher, so it's not something that you could even touch. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Mr. Morrow: A point of information to Mr. Taormina. If we send the plans forward showing the metal panels and then subsequently they choose to use E.I.F.S., what happens then? Do they have to come back or notify you? March 10, 2009 25172 Mr. Taormina: It depends on how we word the resolution. If you allow it as an option along the west and the north sides of the building, then no; they wouldn't have to come back. But if you specify that it has to be metal panel all the way around and then they find that it's loo expensive and want to use the E.I.F.S. in lieu of the metal panel, then, yes, such a change would require your reconsideration. Mr. Morrow: Okay. We'll see how the Commission feels about that. Is that d? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, thank you. Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Ms. McDermott: On the entrance on Six Mile to the complex, is there going to be any signage or anything that mentions no left turn? I'm concerned about the turn onto Six Mile and the closeness to the light there. Mr. Taormina: It's not presently restricted that I'm aware of. In fact, I took a left there today after visiting the site at a time when it was not a problem. I don't think it was contemplated that there would be any restrictions in turning movements from that driveway. You're talking about Six Mile, corect? Ms. McDermott I'm talking about Six Mile. Farmington, actually, would be a difficult left as well. Mr. Taormina: We did not hear from our Traffic Safety folks on that concern. I know it will definitely help by eliminating the easterly drive on Six Mile Road. Ms. McDermott: Okay. And then was there any thought about on that entrance there on Six Mile, making an island maybe to help that flow a little better in bringing the drive, I guess you would say, over to the east a little bit, left of the grass area? Mr. Taormina: I'm sorry. Are you talking about ... Ms. McDermott: On the Six Mile a ntrance, the same entrance ... Mr. Taormina: Here? Ms. McDermott Right. If you move the drive a little to the east, could you put an island in there? Would that help? Mr. Taormina: Oh. You mean a boulevard? March 10, 2009 25173 Ms. McDermott: Yes, sorry. Mr. Taormina: A grass median? Ms. McDermott There you go. Mr. Taormina: Would it help in terms of controlling traffic? I don't know. It's shown at 30 feel, so I believe it meets the County standards; however, I suspect it has not yet been reviewed by them. Typically, a 30 fool wide drive would comply with their drive approach standards. If we want to add a curbed median, or boulevard entrance, it would have to be widened a few more feet. As was indicated, it would have to shift a little bit to the east. That might be a preference either of the Commission or the builder. Mr. Morrow: Would you like to respond to that? Mr. Kaufman: We did not contemplate changing any of the left tum constraints at this time. Relative to the island and as a company that not only builds these but manages them, in Michigan we just went through this horrific winter with tons of snow. If we look to put any kind of island boulevard in there, you're probably looking at least six feel in width by the lime you get the curb and gutter system, and then maybe four feet of some sort of green space. I just think at the end of the day it's going to end up becoming a significant nuisance because if you look at the radius, we're already kind of down to a tight five foot radius and then there's kind of a 12 fool radius leading in. We can't shift any farther to the east because then we'll start losing parking spaces. If we had the room, I really think we'd want at least another 10 to 12 feel to do it right and give you a boulevard that I think we would all appreciate instead of just a sliver of concrete or stone or something. Ms. McDermott: Okay. Thank you for your explanation. Mr. Morrow: Currently you do not have a boulevard. Mr. Kaufman: Correct. Mr. Morrow: Have you experienced any problems? Is it a high traffic in and out or is it relatively measured? Mr. Kaufman: Correct. The owner has not indicated to us in any way that they've had any issues or complaints with their current patrons. March 10, 2009 25174 Mr. Morrow: As it relates to the no left turn sign, you want to go with it going either east or west? Mr. Kaufman: Al this point, I'd prefer not to install any additional signage unless its required by the Road Commission. Mr. Morrow: We'll see how the Commission feels about that. Mr. Kaufman: Yeah. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition? When you come to the podium, please give us your name and address. David Hamilton, 33415 Vargo. My property is just north of the back portion. Three things. I don't know if you want them all at once or individually. The existing back corner as it is now, there's two rather sparse trees. These are essentially trunks with just foliage at the top. One of them is in pretty poor health. So if those suggested trees were put in and those were replaced, that would be very helpful. As you can see, the pool is going to be 15 - 20 feel away from the edge of the building. Secondly, there were no pictures of the northern wall of the addition, and we were concerned that there were going to be windows facing the backyard. Lastly, if they could address the location of the dumpsler now because on off weekends and things, the bulk of the problem back there is not their staff, but the general public coming in and using the dumpsler at all hours. So that dumpster being 10 - 15 feet from the edge of the property is a concern. I'm sorry to throw three things at you there, but like I said, those back two trees, they're not doing their proper job anyways so hopefully ... Mr. Taormina: Is this your house, right here? Mr. Hamilton: Yes. Mr. Taormina: And this the pool you're referring to? Mr. Hamilton: Literally, it's steps from the brick wall. Mr. Taormina: Golcha. Mr. Hamilton: And the top of that brick wall has some loose cinders at the top. I mean it looks nice. It's in very good shape, but it does have some loose ... they might need to check the mortar. But just those three questions really. March 10, 2009 25175 Mr. Morrow: Okay. One moment. Mark, can we address the window question as well as the dumpster locaton? Mr. Taormina: I'm going to let the petitioner address that issue and I'm going to bring up the floor plan here. Ryan, do we have the north elevation? Mr. Kaufman: No, it does not. Mr. Taormina: This is the north elevation right here. Mr. Kaufman: There's about a 30 inch window. It's just to provide some natural light for the side. Mr. Taormina: If you could address the microphone and address the Commission, please. Mr. Kaufman: Sorry. There are existing doors there, service doors, that won't be used much at all. Between the two doors there, it's just a window for a work area in a sterile environment. So its just to provide some natural light for the employees. There's probably two to three people max there at a time, 30 inches wide window. Mr. Morrow: And the dumpster location? Mr. Kaufman: The trees, I don't think that's going to be an issue at all. Mr. Morrow: The trees? Mr. Kaufman: Yes, relative to redoing the trees back there because that will address Mark's initial comment anyway. The window, I guess we can, I don't know if the homeowner has a concern seeing the fad that we have only the one window. Mr. Hamilton: It's a pretty small window. I guess that was the primary concern that a bank of windows ... Mr. Kaufman: So the dumpster issue, I'm open for suggestions. Mr. Morrow: I'd like to just know where the location is. Commissioner Wilshaw? Mr. Wilshaw: The location of the dumpster is more or less where it is presently, right? Mr. Kaufman: Correct. Mr. Taormina: This right here. It's almost in the exact location. March 10, 2009 25176 Mr. Kaufman: We shifted it about six feet to the east and it is shifted about, I'd have to say, maybe about two feet to the north, but it's at a little different angle to work. So it's pretty close. Mr. Wilshaw: Having dealt with dumpslers in the past, when I've had the pleasure of dealing with them, I understand what the resident is saying about the public at large making use of other people's dumpsters to the point where it get very expensive to have to keep emptying other people's trash. Mr. Kaufman, I know you're not the actual owner of the building, but could you please pass along to the doctors or ask them if they would be willing to padlock the dumpster when they're not using it. Typically, what will happen is the day of regular scheduled service, say its a Monday, they go out there and unlock the dumpster and let the truck empty it and then relock it. Mr. Kaufman: I think its an excellent suggestion because it just causes the properly owner a tremendous amount of money. Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. I think it will help address the resident's concern relatively quickly. Mr. Hamilton: Absolutely. To be honest, the fencing around it is pretty nice, so its nicely done from that point of view, so it's not a complaint. Its just getting closer and closer to the wall, that's all. Mr. Morrow: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience with to speak for or against the granting of this petition? Seeing none, I'll go to the Commission and ask for a motion. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-23-2009 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2009-02-08-03 submitted by Vision Quest Consulting 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 office building (Coburn-Kleinfeldl Eye Clinic) at 33400 Six Mile Road, located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Farmington Road and Laurel Drive in the Southeast % of Section 9, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 2 dated March 6, 2009, as revised, prepared by Fenn & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that all parking spaces shall measure len (10') feet in March 10, 2009 25177 width by twenty (20') feet in length and all parking spaces shall be doubled striped; 2. Thalthe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated March 6, 2009, as revised, prepared by AJ Design Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4") inch brick; 4. 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; 5. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of building materials that shall complement that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be of solid panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all limes; 6. That this site shall meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance and shall secure the necessary permits, including storm water management permits, wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits, from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; 7. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (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; 8. The Pefitioner shall be allowed to "landbank," pursuant to Section 18.370) of the Zoning Ordinance, the eight (8) parking spaces shown along east side of the building, and that the landscaping that currently exists in this area shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; 9. Additional evergreen trees shall be planted in the northwest corner of the property at the direction of the Planning Department in order to fill the gaps that currently exist in the landscaping in that area and to help shield the office building from the adjacent single family residential home(s); March 10, 2009 25178 10. Only matching metal panels shall be allowed on the upper fascia of the south elevation of the addition where the building is visible to the public, and E.I.F.S. shall be allowed as an alternative to the metal panels on the north and west sides of the addition where the building is less visible; 11. That the gates of the trash enclosure shall be padlocked when not in use in order to prevent unauthorized use of the dumpster; 12. That the masonry screen wall shall be repaired wherever needed as determined by the Inspection Department; 13. 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 14. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion? Ms. Scheel: I also wanted to add the condition regarding landbanking the eight spaces if everyone is agreeable to that. Mr. Taormina: There are four other conditions that we would like the maker of the motion to consider. Condition #10 would be the landbanking of the eight parking spaces on the east side of the building. Condition #11 would add evergreen trees in the northwest corner of the properly. Condition #12 would require metal panels only on the upper fascia on the south side of the building, with E.I.F.S. allowed on the west and north elevations. Condition #13 would require that the gates to the trash enclosure be locked when not in use. And Condition #14 would require repairs to the screen wall where needed as determined by the Inspection Department. Mr. Chairman, could I please ask the Petitioner a question? Mr. Morrow: Certainly. Mr. Taormina: The motion references a date of January 21s' on the Site Plan and February a for the Elevation Plan. Ryan, do you know if March 10, 2009 25179 these dales have been changed on the revised plans? Do you know what those revision dates are so we can reference them in the resolution? Mr. Kaufman: It doesn't look like on the drawing there is a ... Mr. Taormina: We need revised dates added to Conditions #1 and #2 for Council. Mr. Morrow: Are the maker and second of the motion fine with that? Ms. Scheel: Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. Mr. Chair? Mr. Morrow: Commission Wilshaw. Mr. Wilshaw: I was going to mention many of the same things that Mark did. I appreciate him detailing those. So based on that, I will at least say that I appreciate Mr. Kaufman and his company's work and the doctors for this upgrade to the building. I think it's a nice addition. I'm glad that a resident came in and expressed some additional views so we can make this plan even better with that input. Best of luck to you. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the moton is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 977`h Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Ms. McDermott, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 977" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 24, 2009. On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Varioogian, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-24-2009 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 977th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2009, are hereby approved. March 10, 2009 25180 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scheel, Varloogian, Wilshaw, McDermott, Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Smiley Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 97Wr Regular Meeting held on March 10, 2009, was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Deborah McDermott, Acting Secretary ATTEST: R. Lee Morrow, Chairman