Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-04-29 15492 MINUTES OF THE 742nd REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 29, 1997, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 742nd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi Patricia Blomberg John Walsh Michael Hale Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy*, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't, Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-3-1-2 by David M. Morelli and Raymond Amin requesting to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Bretton Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from R-2 to O. S. Mr. McCann: We need a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #4-61-97 RESOLVED that, Petition 97-3-1-2 by David M. Morelli and Raymond Amin requesting to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Bretton Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from R-2 to O.S. be taken from the table. r-- Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15493 Mr. McCann: Do we have anything on this H? Mr. Shane: Nothing other than the fact that the petitioner has submitted a revised drawing showing the east side is a little larger than it was on the original drawing. He has a preliminary site plan that now shows he is close to complying with the site plan regulations if the zoning were approved and he was to submit a site plan. In addition to that, our analysis is he can meet the zoning ordinance on this piece of property if he is successful. Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger. The only changes that we made on our site plan are the sidewalk to the south of us. We moved the building forward for the setback in the rear to be 10 feet, and we moved the handicapped parking spaces around in the front of the little building and we feel it will work well that way. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 97-3-1-2 closed. Mr. Piercecchi: Regardless of the changes that were made here, as you recall the City Council rejected OS status, and in 1994 this property was rezoned to R-2. I see no reason to go against the will of the City Council, and I will submit a motion to deny. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, '"' it was #4-62-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-3-1-2 by David M. Morelli and Raymond Amin requesting to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Bretton Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from R-2 to OS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-3-1-2 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the residential uses and zoning districts in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are not needed in this area of the City; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a reasonable land use development for the subject property. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15494 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-2-3-2 by the City Planning Commission to vacate Whitcomb Street west of Fitzgerald r.. between Mallory and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-63-97 RESOLVED that, Petition 97-2-3-2 by The City Planning Commission to vacate Whitcomb Street west of Fitzgerald between Mallory and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 be taken from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Shane: We attempted to contact the homeowners who would be the recipient of the land if it were vacated, and we were able to contact the owner of the house on the north side of Whitcomb who indicated he was not sure that he would want to take on the responsibility for removal of pavement and so forth, but he wanted to talk to the abutting owner on the south side, who is out of the country at the present time and is expected to return in the fall. Our recommendation at this time is to leave it on the table until such time as they can get together and discuss it further and then come back to the Commission. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #4-64-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15, 1997 on Petition 97-2-3-2 by the City Planning Commission to vacate Whitcomb Street west of Fitzgerald between Mallory and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 97-2-3-2 until date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for Cross Winds Court Subdivision to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Stamwich and Merriman in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. McCann: Is there anything new on this final plat, Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: No, we have the necessary letters from City Engineering and the City Clerk, indicating that the engineering plans have been approved and that the petitioner has paid the necessary fees. Mr. McCann: Does the petitioner have anything to add? 15495 Mr. Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia: Yes, I would like the seven-day waiting period waived so I can get before the Council. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #4-65-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Cross Winds Court Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Stamwich and Merriman in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the Preliminary Plat; 2) That no City Department has objected to the approval of the Final Plat; and 3) That all financial assurances required by the City have been deposited with the City Clerk. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #4-66-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with the Final Plat approval for Cross Winds Court Subdivision to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Stamwich and Merriman in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#162-97 to hold a public hearing on whether or not to amend Section 18.34A of the Zoning Ordinance to implement size restrictions on condominiums by requiring a letter suffix designation to control density in said zoning districts. Mr. McCann: I think that is self-explanatory. Is there a motion? On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was 15496 #4-67-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#162-97, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held on whether or not to amend Section 18.34A of the Zoning Ordinance to implement size restrictions on condominiums by requiring a letter suffix designation to control density in said zoning districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #195-97, to hold a public hearing on whether or not to amend Section 2.08 and 2.10 of Article II, Section 4.03 of Article IV and Section 10.02 of Article X of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of establishing guidelines for bed and breakfast establishments. Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, I believe that this is to establish some type of guideline for bed and breakfasts in the ordinance because there are no guidelines at this time? Mr. Shane: That is correct. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-68-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#195-97, to hold a public hearing on whether or not to amend Sections 2.08 and 2.10 of Article II, Section 4.3 of Article IV and Section 10.02 of Article X of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of establishing guidelines for bed and breakfast establishments. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#254-97, to hold a public hearing on whether or not to amend Section 18.47 of the Zoning 15497 Ordinance to require the filing of an approved color rendering for signs, where said signs require City Council and City Planning Commission review. Mr. McCann: Again, this is self-explanatory. Is there a motion? On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-69-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#254-97, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held on whether or not to amend Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance to require the filing of an approved color rendering for signs, where said signs require City Council and City Planning Commission review. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a revision to Petition 95-4-2-15 by Anusbigian LLC, on behalf of Westborn Market, requesting approval to revise the plans that were approved with this petition for the property located at 14925 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23 Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Middlebelt between Five Mile Road and Linda Avenue. They received waiver use approval to construct a Westborn Market in June, 1995 and they are now seeking to revise it. They are proposing to downsize the Westborn Market building and also proposing a new retail multi-tenant building on the site. It was originally approved at 35,000 sq.ft. and are now proposing a 33,287 sq.ft. building. The outdoor sales area was approved at 14,625 sq. ft. , and they are downsizing that area to 13,228 sq. ft. Also included in this is a greenhouse which is 4,922 sq. ft. The multi-tenant commercial building will be located at the southeast corner of the site. Based on the parking, this commercial building can have over four tenants located in it. The building is 16,144 sq. ft. It will be constructed of brick on three sides and masonry block on the rear or south elevation. Parking for the site is based on square footage of each building and the outdoor sales area and will have 392 parking spaces, and they have 294 spaces, so they meet the parking requirements. Also, they are required to have 15% of the total site for landscaping and they have 16%, so they meet the landscaping requirements for the site. The new commercial building will look similar in appearance to the Westborn Market. Westborn Market has the similar roof of the 15498 commercial building. You can see the peaks here and the whole complex is one type of development. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Mark Anusbigian of Westborn Market. I reside at 20500 Gary Lane in Livonia. We proposed a market some time ago here, and since then we have scaled it down, as mentioned. We have decided to add a retail space along the south side of this property here. Originally when I met with the study group, there was a lot of discussion about landscaping behind the building there. We have done a revised landscape plan. I don't know if the commissioners have copies of this. I did have them made. (Copies were passed to the Commissioners). The only change you will see on there from your original plan is that we've added a 10' strip of greenbelt behind the retail center, adding additional trees in there and also having the possibility of trees for the residents upon their wish. In doing that, we've moved the building forward which now gives us a 10' greenbelt and a 25' drive behind the building. Mr. Piercecchi: What changes were made from the last time that the planners saw it? My original plan shows a 10' greenbelt and shows that 358 spaces are required and there are 382 here. Mr. McCann: If they reduce the size of the building, then the parking requirements are reduced. He reduced the width of the building by 10 feet, therefore the amount of cars required is reduced. Mr. Piercecchi: So you have a surplus of 30 or so parking spaces. That brings up an interesting point. Inasmuch as you have all those extra parking spaces, why can't you move that building another 15 feet North to give the people behind that section an even greater separation for trucks and things of that nature. You can give up those 16 spaces and it won't hide any of your building. I think it would give those people an extra 15 feet or so. They are used to have a nursery there. You are kind of a different game. Mr. Anusbigian: What is the requirement for setback for a side lot for commercial in this district? Mr. Piercecchi: Fifteen feet. I said you did meet the ordinance, but here is an opportunity to do a good gesture for the people that you are going to be living with for hopefully many, many years. Mr. Anusbigian: When I do move into a neighborhood, we are neighbors. We are not absentee owners. What goes on back here is equally important to me as it is to you. This was the exact issue we discussed in our Study Meeting a few days ago and at that time I had only 25' of space between the wall we are putting 15499 up, which will be the same color as the back of the building,. and no landscape. We moved it 5' up and added the landscape to it. At what point do we w become too far and become a void back there. It may not be as advantageous to us or the residents to come through here. At this time we are more than doubled what the City code is. Mr. Piercecchi: I am just making a suggestion here. I don't think it is going to obstruct your building in the back. If you could get another 15' out of that then you would be roughly 50'. I would like to take that whole parking strip out of there. Mr. Anusbigian: Your primary concern is the setback there? Mr. Piercecchi: My primary concern is the people living back there. We may have an opportunity here to alleviate some of the trucks, etc. that will be going down there. Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a suggestion for a compromise here, if the area to the north of the new building which appears to be a pedestrian walkway could be cut and narrowed a bit, and the greenbelt in back could be widened a bit, you might still be able to save the parking in the front of the building, which I think you want. You might be able to gain an additional 10 feet so you would have doubled the area back there and still keep the parking if you were able to cut down on that pedestrian area in front. So the new building might move 8 to 10 feet north and the greenbelt would be just about doubled. The parking could still stay there. Mr. Alanskas: In your new landscaping plan, what percentage of landscaping do we have now? Mr. Anusbigian: I believe 16%. It will go higher now with those additional new trees. There are 50 canopy trees on the site. Mr. Alanskas: (pointing on the map) Would it be a problem if you took these trees out and these parking spaces out and moved this up to here? Mr. Anusbigian: I will tell you the truth; if the problem is between the building and the lot line, the concession I would rather make is to cut it out of the building. Now it is important to have the two rows of parking out in front. Symmetrically it works well for us with the main entrance here. The area I do have is within the building. Mr. Alanskas: The problem we are having also, in the back of that second building, you have these trucks coming in all the time loading and unloading, and that's so close to the neighbors there for a noise factor. If that were moved a little bit further North, I think it would help buffer that noise. 15500 Mr. Hale: So that the record is clear for the citizens of Livonia, can you indicate why the plans have now changed such that you want to have this retail center? Mr. Anusbigian: Well, we started the project almost two years ago, and as we began construction last fall, we got behind in the earth work. We didn't feel that the site was being utilized properly. When we stood out on the Middlebelt site there, it just seemed there was too much land for one building. We felt we would have gotten lost back here, and we needed something to bring the whole site together. That's why we scaled down the size of the store and brought something that would still extend the side right out to Middlebelt. So it was to just add more energy and awareness to the piece of property. Mr. Hale: We were out there to take a look at it, I believe there is a 5 foot wall. Is that correct? Mr. Anusbigian: No, there is a lot of fencing all the way around it. Mr. Hale: What height is the wall you are proposing? Mr. Anusbigian: From our last site plan approval meeting, I believe we were at 6 feet. Mr. Hale: Would you have any objection to making that higher? Mr. Anusbigian: No. Mr. Walsh: On the taking away of some of your retail space of the building, how is that going to affect your business? Mr. Anusbigian: We don't feel it will have an impact on our business because we have still kept most of the linear length in front for curb appeal. Mr. Walsh: I meant the retail multi-tenant building. If you were to try to meet some of the Planning Commissioner's requests, and the neighbor's requests for more footage behind the building, are you going to have a building that is not tenable? Mr. Anusbigian: No, I don't think so because our original proposal here, the retail space is relatively wide in comparison to other leasable properties throughout the community. Mr. Walsh: I think that we appreciated you adding that extra greenbelt, and I also appreciate your consideration in adding more space in there. This looks like a nice concept. It's a great store for a good location, and I don't want to impede r.. 15501 the commercial ability of your two facilities because a vacant facility is going to be just as ugly as a smaller setback. �... Mr. Alanskas: On that new second building, you are going to have four tenants? Mr. Anusbigian: Yes, that's our plan. Mr. Alanskas: Then you said you were hoping to have just one tenant, like a bookstore, for the whole store? Mr. Anusbigian: I would like to have that, but right now our plans are still to have four individual tenants. Mr. Alanskas: If you had just one, you would have to take that whole front out again and have just one entrance for the one buyer of that building? Mr. Anusbigian: Yes. Mr. McCann: It didn't dawn on me until I was looking at the plans a couple of days ago, the section to the north of your market, that is just parking? Mr. Anusbigian: That's where the trucks will enter and unload. Mr. McCann: Had you ever looked at reversing your layout? The only problems we've ever had with your plans- we think your buildings are beautiful, the idea is great, adding a little commercial in there works - it's the impact on the neighbors. You are taking a plan that was approved, had sufficient safeguard for the neighbors and you are changing it considerably and it's impacting the neighborhood. I was thinking if you took your layout of your building, moved the trucking area, I don't know if you need that big of an area to the south. You want to keep that at the north, don't you, for the commercial noise. I was thinking of moving your building and taking the outdoor area, putting it to the north, taking your commercial center and you could have almost 15' setback from the fast food service there and it wouldn't affect anybody and still maintain parking in front of the residents. Mr. Anusbigian: Some of our original concern was the traffic here would be primarily the shopping center. We tried to deaden it as much as we could here by having the truckwells go into the ground so the noise impact on this area should be minimal. Mr. McCann: That really answers my question. We have to keep the trucks away from the neighbors, and you couldn't do the outdoor area any other way. 15502 Mr. Anusbigian: I understand your concern for this area. I would just as well bring the building in 15 feet and utilize it as open space or for more additional planting if we can. Mr. McCann: How deep is the building right now with the adjustments? Mr. Anusbigian: 82', and the length is 182' across the front. Mr. McCann: We will go to the audience now. Theodore Milek, 29464 Linda. I'm abutting the new addition that is being proposed. The first question I have is, why can't that building be moved directly north up against Taco Bell? Mr. McCann: What they have to do is keep the floor print of the building and their market the same in order to keep the trucks to the north side. We don't want the trucks backing into the fruit stand all hours of the day next to the neighbors. If you put the building to the north, it would completely cover your buildings. Is that your concern, Sir? Mr. Anusbigian: Yes, it is. (He showed where the trucks would come in and out.). We can stress to our tenants to use front loading as well. Mr. Milek: Right now there is a roadway (for lack of another word)that services those N" stores in the back of that Middlebelt-Five Mile shopping area. Couldn't that be used for your trucks to service your market? Mr. Anusbigian: No, it's not my property. We have talked to the shopping center here about having access to having the trucks go out that way. Their concern was that was fine, but they then wanted all their trucks to funnel through our lot to get onto Middlebelt. Right now we are at a standstill with them.. It doesn't seem to be a good tradeoff for us. I think we would be receiving a lot more trucks than sending out to Five Mile Road. Mr. Milek: At what stage of construction will this wall that separates your property from our property on Linda be built? Early in the construction or near the end, or what? Mr. Anusbigian: Certainly before we open. By slowing the construction for a year, we are going to start construction in July, have the building enclosed by November and then open in the Spring. So it will be some time this summer or early Fall. Mr. Milek: And what hours of the day will you have construction going on? Mr. Anusbigian: It would probably be a straight 8 hour day, or 10 at the most. 15503 Mr. Milek: Right now to the left of my property there is a lake about 100' x 100' -just a great big pond of water. Will that be filled in before you start construction, because the mosquito season will begin shortly. Mr. Anusbigian: Yes, once we get the crews out there, they will grade the whole site again and get it to the level we want and get the stone on right away. That would be one of the early things we would do so that the trucks would have access up to the building pads. Mr. Milek: Is this your last request for any buildings on this property, or do you have future plans for more additional buildings? Mr. Anusbigian: No, we don't. Pat Adams, 29414 Linda: My concern is the height of the wall. At the last meeting they said it would be 7 feet, not 6 feet. Mr. McCann: Mr. Anusbigian, you would have no objection along the area where the building is to go to 7'? Mr. Anusbigian: No, I don't. Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, could we require 7' all the way back? Now. Mr. Shane: Except for the last 20' before you get to Middlebelt Road. It would have to be stepped down for view. Seven feet is the maximum the ordinance will allow. Lady from the audience: There is so much water. We really need help with the water. It's ruining our bushes and things in the back because it is coming right up into the lots. Mr. McCann: I am going to ask our staff to refer this to the Inspection Department to go out and check it and the Engineering Department is supposed to handle the water on site. Delores Kay, 29438 Linda: From July until December I listen to trucks, tractors, dumpsters, and it affects my house. It is terrible the amount of noise and aggravation we've experienced because of the clearing of the land. Now you are talking about putting another retail building there. We don't need any,. We've got Wonderland, we've got Livonia Mall, we've got all the stores on Six Mile Road, plus all the stores on Middlebelt itself. They talk about trucks coming in and out which I have been putting up with for the last six months or so. Trucks going in and out and they do shake my house and the noise is unbearable and they were working 12 hours a day, day after day. I wish I 15504 could put in a complaint into them. I don't think we need this additional retail when he is just doing this for money when they have two empty stores right N•.p, there at Five Mile and Middlebelt where Farmer Jack's is. I don't think we need that building. Go back to the original size and the original plan and forget about that retail store. They are just in competition with all the other stores in Livonia. We've got Anthony's fruit market up there, we've got Kroger, we've got Farmer jack. Who are you trying to compete with? We don't need a Dearborn market. Their prices are not that great. It's a lovely store. I've been there. I've lived in Dearborn and I'm not against your store in Dearborn or wherever else you want, but I'm against this. Mr. Alanskas: To the neighbors: You know Harold Thomas was there for years and years, and because I am into heavy landscaping for my home, I would go as much as 3 to 5 times a week there and they always had trucks going in and out there. When they exited for their dirt in back, they always went by your property and it was dirty and dusty, and you will not have that condition with this new project. There will be asphalt in back so you won't have any dust. You will not have those kinds of trucks going in back any more - it's only for delivering merchandise for those four tenants. I think it is a good-looking plan, I think he has made it smaller to give you more room in back to give you that greenbelt. I think they've done a lot and I think you will be pleased when it's done. You won't have the noise with all those big dump trucks. That's is not the kind of noise you will have there. ``" Ms. Day: And we are going to have horns blowing, and the alarms going off with all the people that are parking towards the west. Is this market going to be open 24 hours a day, 6 and 7 days a week? Mr. Anusbigian: No. Ms. Day: I went yesterday to your Planning office and they told me something about a 15' wall being built between your store and our property. Mr. McCann: No, Ma'am. A 15' greenbelt possibly. Mr. Piercecchi: Before I make a motion, is that 15' on the north side cast in cement, increasing the space between the multi-tenant building? Mr. McCann: You've got 10', can you go 15' greenbelt? Mr. Piercecchi: Right now you've got 25' total. I wanted 50' between the multi-tenants and the neighbors. Can you do that? 15505 Mr. Anusbigian: If the 15' is taken off the back, may I utilize it as employee parking across the back? We can keep the trucks and the additional 15' away from the residents. Mr. McCann: Maybe Dan's suggestion is good. Can you put an additional row of parking behind, move your entrance over another 15' and that way you would have 2 rows of parking in front of your building and just lose a possible row in front of your store. You would lose the one row to the west. It would give considerably more separation and the building still would not block your building. Mr. Anusbigian: I appreciate the suggestion. If the concern is reducing the size of the building, I would just as soon do that. I think that's where I have the most give because symmetrically it works well here. I could lop it off here to give additional space between the residents and the back of the building. I think that's the most advantageous move for us on this particular plan here. Mr. McCann: The building is now 92'? Mr. Piercecchi: It would then be 77'. Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, is a commercial building 77' deep a viable building? Mr. Shane: Usually they are 60-to-80' depth. The other comment I would make is that N" moving driveways might get in trouble with the Wayne County Road Commission because I think the driveways are pretty much set in terms of their location. Mr. McCann: One of the things we are looking at is the parking coming out 15', you will really not gain anything. Ten feet additional to his already existing greenbelt there would give him a straight line between the parking where the parking ends to the west and bring it all the way around without having to go all the way around would make for a better road through there, wouldn't it? Mr. Shane: What I see is that by an additional 15', he could increase that greenbelt by at least 10 or 15 feet. He could have double rows of evergreens and really do a job in there. He wouldn't have to disturb anything else, simply move his service area further north, cut down his building size, and double the greenbelt. I think that's what you were trying to accomplish in the beginning. That would leave the driveways where they are and the parking in front that I think he desires. Mr. McCann: Mr. Anusbigian, would you rather have some time to look at this and possibly table it? How much can you give us tonight off the top of your tongue? 15506 Mr. Anusbigian: Again, I think the area I would like to give the most concession to is in the moving of the building. If we have to widen the greenbelt, so be it. I understand your concern. Mr. McCann: If you are moving your building, blacktop isn't going to do anybody any good. We only want to get some additional greenbelt in there to absorb some noise and one of my questions to you is can you restrict the delivery hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.? That includes the trash pickup as well. Mr. Anusbigian: I think we can. I know we can. I'm not sure what you are asking for. I'm not sure if you are looking for distance from the building or additional greenbelt. What if we doubled the greenbelt along the back of the building an additional 10'? Mr. Piercecchi: My original concern was to get at least 50' behind that building. Give those neighbors there a good screen for noise, etc. That's what I was aiming at. You apparently don't mind taking 15' off that building which would accomplish my concerns. So what's the problem? Mr. McCann: I think he said he objected to 15'. He doesn't think he could take it off Mr. Anusbigian: My question is, what do I do with the 15'? Mr. Piercecchi: Add it to the greenbelt. Mr. Anusbigian: So we'll have a 25' greenbelt. Mr. Walsh: If you double the greenbelt to 20', take 10' off the building, is that acceptable? Can you live with that? Mr. Anusbigian: I can. Mr. McCann: A motion's in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #4-70-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revision to Petition 95-4-2-15 by Anusbigian LLC, on behalf of Westborn Market, requesting approval to revise the plans that were approved with this petition for the property located at 14925 Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, be approved subject to the following conditions: 15507 (1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 4-30-97, as revised, prepared by Daniel De Remer& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet A-8 dated 5-2-97, as revised prepared by Gregory M. Baughman Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that all lawn areas shall be sodded; (3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new 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; (4) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A-7 dated 4-28- 97 prepared by Daniel De Remer& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (5) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the plans and that all signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; (6) Westborn shall build a seven foot high wall along the south property line as allowed by the zoning ordinance; (7) That the space behind the multi tenant building will include a 20 foot greenbelt and a 25 foot roadway; (8) That all parking spaces shall be double striped; (9) That all deliveries shall be made between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hale: To the neighbors, I would like to indicate that since the Study session on this matter, your interests have been right at the top of our list of concerns. We have spent a lot of time trying to analyze the situation. I think Mr. Alanskas makes a very interesting comment when he says there really have been trucks going through there of a more industrial nature for some time. I think this additional retail center is needed to help unify this property, so we have obviously taken your concerns to heart and we really think this will be very good for Livonia. Mr. Walsh: I would like to add to Mr. Hale's comments that we really did have your concerns to heart, and I am thankful that the petitioner was as cooperative as he has been. We have had other petitioners before us who have threatened 15508 litigation and other sorts of things instead of working this out, and I appreciate that. Mr. Alanskas: We all want to say that you have done a wonderful job, and if the neighbors had looked at that drawing there, it will be a good-looking addition to the neighborhood. Once it is open, I think you will want to frequent that place because they have very good vegetables, very good fruits and other things. * John Nagy entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is petition 97-4-8-9 by Clara Adams , on behalf of Zerbo's Health Foods, 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 commercial building located at 34164 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Miller: What they are proposing to do is add an addition to the east side of their building. The addition is 6298 sq. ft. The original Zerbo's Health Food Store is 4,951 sq. ft. So once completed, the whole structure will be 11,250 sq. ft. in size. The original building has a deficient front yard setback with a zero front yard and they needed a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals before being presented to the Planning Commission. A variance was granted for the +� front yard setback and therefore they are conforming by virtue of the variance. Parking for the site with the new addition would require 60 parking spaces and the site plan shows 60 spaces, so they are conforming. There is access to the site off Plymouth Road and there is also an access off Stark Road. There is a 25' easement from Walter's Appliance store and into this site. They are required to have 15% of landscaping and they have 9%, so they are deficient in landscaping. The construction of the new building is a combination of brick and a dryvit stucco material. There is also a block tower over one of the entrances here. The existing building will be refurbished so that it matches the look of the new addition. Mr. McCann: Is there anything new Mr. Shane or Mr. Nagy? Mr. Shane: Nothing new. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Doug Johnson, 3359 Palm-Aire Drive, Rochester Hills. I am the architect. I spoke with Mr. Nagy earlier in the week and he had asked if I could try and work in some additional landscaping, and what I did is push the parking that is right adjacent to the building and I pulled it back 5' so that we get a little additional green #� area right off of Plymouth Road and we are going to put in a little seasonal landscaping right by the main entry. 1 I 15509 Mr. Alanskas: On the existing building you have a small TV-like antenna on top of the roof. Is that coming down? Clara Adams: 9938 Stark Road, Livonia. That antenna was for cable TV, and we had planned on music coming into the store also, but I don't know if it would be the same thing or not. Mr. Alanskas: My thought is that with this new building if you could hide it somewhere. Right now it looks kind of strange. I think if you could relocate it, it would be better. Ms. Adams: OK. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? There was no one wishing to speak and Mr. McCann asked for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #4-71-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-4-8-9 by Clara Adams, on behalf of Zerbo's Health Foods, 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 commercial building located at 34164 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Douglas Johnson Architect, as received by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1997, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 2 prepared by Douglas Johnson Architect as received by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1997, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new 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; 4) That the Building Exterior Elevation Plans marked Sheets 3 and 4 prepared by Douglas Johnson Architect, as received by the Planning Commission on April 4, 1997 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 15510 5) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the plans and that all signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval 6) That all parking spaces shall be double striped. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval Request for an Entrance Marker for the Cross Winds Court Subdivision located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Doris Lane in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller: This subdivision is located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Doris Lane. What they are proposing is a entrance marker. They are allowed one entrance marker at 20 square feet. They are proposing one at 7 square feet so it is conforming. This would be located in the southeast corner of Lot 1 of the subdivision, which is on the left hand side as you enter off Six Mile Road. Everything is conforming. The sign will be constructed out of brick. Mr. McCann: This meets all requirements? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Hale: There is no lighting, is that correct? Mr. Miller: Correct. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #4-72-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Entrance Marker for the Cross Winds Court Subdivision located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Doris Lane in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 subject to the following condition: 1) That the Entrance Marker Plan dated 3/15/97 submitted for the Cross Winds Court Subdivision, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Marlon and Cristina Pena requesting approval for the installation of a 15511 satellite dish antenna for property located at 29656 Lori Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23. .,.. Mr. Miller: This residential property is located on the northeast corner of Lori Avenue and Beatrice Drive, which is just west of Middlebelt. What they are proposing is a 7 foot 5 inch satellite dish for the rear yard. It will be located on a 9 foot high pole so the whole apparatus would be about 8 foot 5 inches from the top of the dish to the ground. The site plan shows that the dish will be located approximately 9 feet from the rear lot line and 6 feet from the east lot line. The site plan shows the dish will be screened on the east by the garage of the neighbor to the east. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner come forward and give us your name and address. Cristina Pena: I reside at 29656 Lori, Livonia. Mr. Hale: First of all, what is the cost of this satellite dish? Ms. Pena: Total cost? Mr. Hale: When you purchased it, what was the cost? Ms. Pena: The total cost was $3,000.00. *4111/ Mr. Hale: In this day and age there are other types of technology to be able to access. Primarily what do you use it for? Are you trying to access foreign channels? Ms. Pena: International channels. Mr. Hale: Have you checked into any other ways to do that? Ms. Pena: We were going to purchase the smaller dish but we had already invested in the larger dish three years ago. Mr. Hale: What does the newer dish cost? Have they come down in price? Ms. Pena: Five Hundred Dollars? We are not really sure. Mr. Hale: As I understand it there is also some technology where you don't need a dish at all to access certain channels. I don't know if that is correct or not. Do you know anything about that? Ms. Pena: Other than cable? No. Mr. Hale: This would be 7 foot tall total from the ground. Is that correct? 15512 Ms. Pena: About 8 feet. w,. Mr. Hale: I was out there to take a look at it, and I noticed you had flags where you were going to place it. The dish now is in your garage? Ms. Pena: Correct. Mr. Hale: Why did you chose that particular area? Ms. Pena: You can't see it off the street. Our garage blocks it. If you were there, you would have seen that. Also, on the east side, it is covered by a fence from the rest of the neighbors on the block. We live on the corner. It is also the best location to pick up the best signal. Mr. Hale: Have you checked into any market at all for sale of that dish you currently own? Ms. Pena: No because we don't want to sell it. Mr. Hale: You think it would be a difficult thing to do, to sell it? Ms. Pena: Compared to the dishes that are out there that are smaller, our dish picks up more channels than any other dish of the smaller kind. Mr. Hale: How much smaller are the newer dishes? They are considerably smaller than yours aren't they? As opposed to 8 feet, we are talking 2 to 3 feet? Ms. Pena: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: I was out there Sunday morning. I don't think you were up yet, it was pretty early. Ms. Pena: Probably not. Mr. Alanskas: When you walk north on Beatrice Avenue between your home and the neighbor's home, where you have the location now for the dish, as you walk by you would see that dish as you walk by. Ms. Pena: Where we have the stake? Mr. Alanskas: Where you have the stake now. I think if you move that stake another five feet south, you wouldn't see it at all. Where you have it right now, it is visible as you walk down Beatrice if you had it installed. 15513 Ms. Pena: I wouldn't have a problem with that unless it didn't pick up the signal. Mr. Alanskas: You are still facing southwest 14 degrees either way. Now- Ms. Pena: I wouldn't have a problem moving it. Mr. Alanskas: I think when you walk that, your garage doesn't block most of it. Of course, your neighbors behind you, you said they sent letters? Ms. Pena: Correct, without hesitation they said it was okay. Mr. Alanskas: You did get letters to that? Ms. Pena: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Like I said when you walk down Beatrice on both sides you can see that quite heavily unless you moved it five feet south. Mr. Hale: Mr. McCann I would like to bring a motion to respectively deny. After visiting the site and taking a look at the potential size of this piece of equipment you would be placing there, and the fact that neighbors do change over time, this is something that is probably going to stay around for a while. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was r.. RESOLVED that, the City Planning commission does hereby deny the Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Marlon and Cristina Pena requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 29656 Lori Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23 for the following reason: 1) That due to its size and location, this dish antenna would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the neighborhood by presenting a visual blight that could jeopardize the property values in the area as set forth in the comprehensive plan of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hale: I appreciate the fact that this is a piece of equipment you paid a significant amount of money for. I don't know if there is any market for it in terms of being able to sell it to maybe another commercial enterprise. I guess my question about the hardship to you in terms of buying another dish that would be less aesthetically problematic, I wasn't quite satisfied on that issue. I think you are able to get something for a lesser amount that would solve your problem and not be such a large piece of equipment. Mr. McCann: I guess I am going to vote against the motion to deny. I think the people have a reasonable investment. This dish can do something that other dishes can't do 15514 in that it can pick up foreign satellite stations. The new satellite 18 inch dishes are pretty much primarily for American stations and it is the type of thing where there is an investment, the neighbors do not have any objections and for w,., the most part it can be well hidden. I don't think it would put enough pressure on the neighbors and we would create an undue hardship on this couple. So I am going to vote against the denying motion. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hale, Piercecchi NAYS: Alanskas, Blomberg, Walsh, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. Walsh, it was #4-73-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Marlon and Cristina Pena requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 29656 Lori Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, subject to the following condition: 1) That the Site & Specification Plan submitted by Marlon and Cristina Pena as received by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1997, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to 2) That the satellite antenna shall be moved south five feet as long as it does not interfere with the signal. for the following reason: 1) That the proposed satellite antenna is designed and located in such a manner that it will not have a detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, Alanskas, Walsh, McCann NAYS: Piercecchi, Hale ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 97-3-8-6 by 15515 Farouk Haraajli, on behalf of Mobil, 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 gas station located at 17111 Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. McCann: This is the Mobil gas station that is located on the northwest corner of Farmington and Six Mile Road. What they are proposing is a 300 sq. ft. addition to their existing station. The existing station was just recently converted to a mini-mart, and this would be used as storage for the mini-mart. Also on the site plan, different from what you saw at the study meeting, there is a new trash dumpster enclosure located on the north property line elevation Also different from the study meeting, it was suggested that they make the new addition at the same height as the existing station, which the petitioner has done. As you can see, the south elevation will match the south elevation that already exists. It would be constructed out of brick and also the metal panel that runs along the top section of the station will also run along the top section of the addition so the whole elevation will match and look like it was built at one time. The west and north elevation will be constructed out of a panel which is called a hard tack panel and also the metal seam roof will be continued along the north elevation so the addition will look like it has been there all along. Mr. Piercecchi: The overhang then on the south side of the building will be extended to match this one? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: The brick will match the old brick? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Hale: Is there going to be an extension of the lighting on this particular addition? I think now there is lighting that is part and parcel of the building. Is that going to continue? Mr. Miller: I don't think so. There is no indication on the elevation that the existing lighting will be continued. Mr. Alanskas: I spoke to the petitioner a few weeks ago in regard to the lighting Mr. Hale, and they said they were going to put the lighting to go across the bottom there. Question number two, I asked him, on the top of the roof right now, there is a fence, and they said they were going to remove that. He is not here to justify that he would, but he said he would. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, do you have anything to add? 15516 - Mr. Nagy: No correspondence. Mr. McCann: Staff is satisfied that it will look like the original building? Mr. Nagy: The staff is satisfied with these changes now that it will be harmonious with the existing architecture of the building. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #4-74-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-3-8-6 by Farouk Harajli, on behalf of Mobil, 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 gas station located at 17111 Farmington Road in he Southeast 1/4 of Section 9 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet CE-1 dated 4/15/97, as revised, prepared by Building Design Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated 4/15/97, as revised, prepared by Building Design Associates, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the petitioner shall meet to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following requirements outlined in the correspondence from the Sr. Building Inspector dated April 1, 1997: -That the existing parking spaces shall be re-striped - All light standards shall face into the property and be shielded from the adjacent properties 4) Remove the fence on top of the building as agreed to by the petitioner. 5) That an underground sprinkler system shall be installed. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 15517 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 742nd Regular Meeting held on April 29, 1997 was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION (44 Robert Alanskas, Secretary ATTEST. ' / � ,f' /T4es C. McCann, Chairman 1' r rr.