Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-08-01 14296 MINUTES OF THE 708th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COPM'IISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 1, 1995, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 708th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann Robert Alanskas R. Lee Morrow Patricia Blomberg William LaPine Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. Engebretson 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 can 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 `1w 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 94-8-1-18 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously approved, it was #8-140-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 94-8-1-18 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: This was tabled approximately a year ago while the Council was determining the status of land surrounding this property. I see the petitioner is at podium. Would you please give us your name 14297 and address and make whatever comments you care to. Arthur Carmichael, 19450 Haggerty Road: I am the General Partner of Haggerty Road Investments, a family partnership. We are now surrounded by `�. commercial, which was recently rezoned, the 35 acres around us. Opposite us is Home Depot, commercial. Down the road from us is a Target store and a Home Quarters and across the street is Meijers Thrifty Acres. In short, the whole area has become commercial, and we would like to stay consistent with the zoning around us, and it gives us greater flexibility in any future planning we might have. I think it is a logical step we are asking for on that basis. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have received no new correspondence on this petition since our hearing in October of 1994. Mr. Morrow: What is the size of your site sir? Mr. Carmichael: It is less than an acre. It is about 7/10ths of an acre, very small. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #8-141-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on October 4, 1994 on Petition 94-8-1-18 by Haggerty Road Investments requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest err. 1/4 of Section 6 from OS to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-8-1-18 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning district; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with a recent change of zoning approved on adjacent property; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are consistent with those permitted on adjacent property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. �.v 14298 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-5-1-i1 by J-P Properties requesting to rezone property located north of Six Mile Road, west of the I-96 Expressway, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-9III and OS to C-4; OS and R-9III to C-2; AG `ow. to OS; R-9III to PO; and R-5C to C-2. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, have we received any new correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have not received any additional correspondence since the hearing, although we have received more than a dozen phone calls in our office from area residents stating their opposition. Mr. Engehretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-142-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-5-1-11 by J-P Properties requesting to rezone property located north of Six Mile Road, west of the I-96 Expressway, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-9III and OS to C-4; OS and R-9III to C-2; AG to OS; R-9III to PO; and R-5C to C-2, be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Does the petitioner have any new information? ``r.. Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia: We have no additional information or new information. We have been before you five times, and we are here for any questions you may have for us. Mr. EngPhretson: Mr. Tangora, the issue was tabled, as you will recall, last time to deal with the matter of a traffic survey to study the anticipated impact of traffic that would be generated by the proposed zoning change as compared to the traffic that could potentially be generated by the existing zoning. We also were interested in the status of Fox Road, a very narrow concrete drive, 24 feet wide I believe, without curbs, if my memory serves me correctly, which we had concern producing a potential difficult situation getting emergency equipment in and out of this location, and even though we may have had the opportunity to discuss some of those issues at the study meeting, I think it would be appropriate to have you or your client review those items once again for the people that weren't at that study meeting. Mr. Morrow: I was reading my notes here but also as I recall, they removed the C-2. Mr. EngPhretson: There are significant changes that have occurred since the public hearing. 14299 Mr. Tangora: The most significant change since the last public hearing was this area. (He pointed this out on the plan). Originally we had a three-story office building there and then this was proposed to be rezoned to C-2 for use of a potential restaurant, and this was a proposed three-story hotel, and then the C-2 zoning up in front. The hotel and office stays the same. The thing that has been changed is this rezoning that was proposed to be C-2 has now been changed to PO, which would utilize a 30,000 square foot office building. So this entire piece is proposed to be PO rather than split the PO and C-2. Mr. Engebretson: If my memory serves me correctly, I think you changed it from being proposed to C-2 to PO and parking. Mr. Tangora: Yes and that is indicated on the plan here. There is parking down below. Fox Drive is proposed to be a collector type road, which would be a boulevard at the entrance of Six Mile and then going to a 40 foot wide drive all the way back to the end of this property. Fox Drive, as you know, is owned by Schoolcraft College. We have talked to Dr. McDowell, and he has no objection to the road being used and being widened to whatever use we need. On the new plan that is different than what you saw before. Mr. Ehgebretson: What is it? Mr. Tangora: It is 60 foot wide up in front. There is a 40 foot right-of-way, and a 34 foot pavement, which would utilize a three-lane road, and then four lanes up here in the boulevard. New Mr. LaPine: One of the other things that was brought up was the possibility of having access to Haggerty Road off there and your client was going to talk to Schoolcraft College. Was anything resolved on that issue? Mr. Tangora: We talked to Schoolcraft College, primarily Dr. McDowell, and at this point in time he does not see any possibility of permitting a road to go over to Haggerty Road. Mr. LaPine: So the road now will be 40 foot wide, which will be 34 feet of pavement. There will be a lane going north and south plus the turn lane. Is that what the third lane will be? Mr. Tangora: Yes it will be a turn lane. Mr. Alanskas: On the second office building, what size would that be? Mr. Tangora: 30,000 square feet. Mr. Alanskas: I know we had possible plans for the first one. Do we have any plans for the second one? Mr. Tangora: I don't think there are any plans at the present time that I am aware of. 14300 Mr. Alanskas: And the restaurant is going to be a high-use, family-style restaurant? Mr. Tangora: Yes. `.• Mr. Engebretson: Do you have your Traffic Consultant with you this evening Mr. Tangora? Mr. Tangora: No we don't. I could comment on it just from my memory of what he discussed with the Commission. Mr. Engebretson: I am looking right at it. Do you want me to comment on it because I can basically read it. Mr. Tangora: Yes because I don't have the traffic figures. Mr. Engebretson: I will be glad to lend you my sheet. I think that would be more appropriate. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Tangora, did I understand you to say it was going to be a family-type restaurant or a gourmet-type restaurant? We were under the impression it was not going to be a run-of-the-mill restaurant. Mr. Tangora: It is not going to be a run-of-the-mill restaurant. It is going to be a tablecloth type restaurant. I don't know if you would call it gourmet or family-style, but it certainly is not fast-food or a restaurant in that type of nature. I think what we recognize there is this particular location is directly 'N.• adjacent to the Comerica building, which is certainly white collar workers; directly across the street from two large office facilities, which also have the same type of people, professional people and people that work in offices, the white-collar type and secretaries, but in this particular location on this particular corner, there is no other restaurant, in fact whatever restaurant goes in there will be aimed toward the business and professional person. Mr. Marrow: Mr. Tangora, I think the term we used in the prior meetings was upscale, but that is subjective. When the waiver comes through we will determine what is upsacle. Mr. Tangora: I think this corner will be a very desirable corner for an upscale restaurant. There certainly is enough business to support it. Mr. Engehretson: Let's go to the traffic study. Mr. Tangora: The traffic study was prepared by Reid, Cool & Michalski, who are recognized in the area as being one of the prime traffic engineers. What they did was they took the area the way it is presently zoned and using whatever formula they use, which is 14301 accepted nationwide, and generated the number of trips that would be used by the occupants or the people that would be using the particular property the way it is zoned now to the maximum zoning. The way it is zoned now, it would allow 4 single family homes on the Six Mile Road area where the proposed restaurant is, a 30,000 sq. ft. office building, and a 240 apartments for elderly, which would generate approximately 2,131 trips during a 24-hour period. We compared that to the proposed rezoning, which is a 92 room hotel, a 30,000 sq. ft. office, a 45,000 sq. ft. office building, and a 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant, which would generate approximately 2,374 trips during a 24-hour period. So you have approximately a 10% increase from the present zoning to the proposed zoning in the number of cars that would be moving in and out of this particular proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience that has new information regarding this proposal. New information only sir. We don't want to rehash anything that we have covered before. Tom Malcolm, 38952 Reo Drive: That is in the Quakertown Subdivision, which is directly south of this proposed rezoning. I want to make one real quick comment because it is not new news, but I want to question the study, again it is showing what traffic would be if the current situation was fully developed, which it is not, and it is far from being fully developed, so this 2,131 figure is not a realistic number. That number most likely is much smaller than that number right now, and we are experiencing severe traffic problems as it is right now with what it currently is. I have no idea what that number is. We were thinking they were going to do an actual visible type study versus just calculations. What we are concerned about is if this thing is rezoned and fully developed, which I am sure the developer would like to do, the percentage increase in traffic would be quite a bit because it won't be 2,131 to the 2,374 figure. It would actually be a lower number to the 2,374 figure. On top of that you compound it with the existing development that is already around that area plus what Northville is proposing, and that adds even more traffic volume. These numbers will only reflect what comes and goes f um the site itself. I just wanted to bring that up. I am sure you already realize that but I want to make sure you understand I don't believe these numbers are realistic numbers, at least not with what is currently happening. Mr. Engebretson: You are right sir. They weren't intended to address what is happening presently. It was intended to illustrate what would happen if the land were fully developed in its current zoning districts versus what is being proposed. That is where the two numbers came from. Mr. Malcolm: I understand. I just wanted to make sure you understand that currently the traffic volume is nowhere near that. If it was fully developed, I am sure we would be experiencing more of a 14302 traffic problem than we have right now. Otherwise, we do have some people here that again with nothing new but we just want to let you know there are several residents that again are concerned about this and do oppose it. '41111. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was #8-143-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 1995 on Petition 95-5-1-11 by J-P Properties requesting to rezone property located north of Six Mile Road, west of the I-96 Expressway, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-9III and OS to C-4; OS and R-9III to C-2; AG to OS; R-9III to PO; and R-5C to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-5-1-11 be approved, as revised, for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for a variety of uses for the subject properties; 2) That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area; 3) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for uses which are consistent with the location of the properties near a major freeway interchange; and 4) That the proposed changes of zoning are in keeping with the developing character of the area. 'taw FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment to the people that are concerned about the traffic. It is very true that there is going to be a lot more traffic if this gets developed in comparison to what it is right now, and if the Planning Commission had it in their power to do something about changing the traffic, we certainly would, but as I suggested at previous study meetings, I highly recommend that you go to the Traffic Commission. Perhaps a light, something could alleviate the problems you currently have right now. Unfortunately, we have to decide whether this type of zoning is good for the City. This particular individual made a lot of revisions, and I think it is going to be good for the area there. As Mrs. Blomberg once pointed out if you get that senior citizen high-rise in there, the traffic problem and safety problems would only be worse. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow NAYS: McCann, Engehretson ABSENT: None 14303 Mr. Ehgebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is letter dated July 17, 1995 from Jerald Gottlieb requesting a one-year extension of Petition 94-5-2-14 by Jerald Gottlieb which received waiver use `r.y approval to construct single family cluster homes on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Enge.hretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence. Of course, we do have a letter from the petitioner stating the reasons why he was unable to commence construction within the year, the status of the project, and he respectfully requests a one-year extension. He is in the process now of trying to obtain his building permits. Mr. Engebretson: I believe we told him it was not necessary for him to appear here tonight. Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. Engebretson: In that case, a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously approved, it was #8-144-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated July 17, 1995 from Jerald Gottlieb requesting an extension of approval of Petition 94-5-2-14 by Jerald Gottlieb which received waiver use approval to construct single Nft,, family cluster homes on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the date of this resolution subject to the same conditions as set forth in Council Resolution #549-94 dated July 20, 1994 for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence that the project has not been started due to circumstances not under his control; and 2) That the project has sufficient merit as to continue to encourage its construction by the approval of an extension of time. Mr. Engebretson, 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 Oakcrest Villas Subdivision proposed to be located north of Six Mile Road between Louise Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. 14304 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do we have any new correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We do have a letter from the City Clerk indicating that all financial assurances required in connection with the subdivision have been deposited with their office. We also have a letter from the City Engineer, Raul Galindo, recommending approval of the final plat. Mr. Ehgchretson: So everything meets with all the requirements? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Ehgebretson: Does the petitioner want to add any comments? Dave Gerish, Gerish Building Company, 9450 South Main Street, #105, Plymouth: I don't have any comments. Mr. Engebretson: This is more of a formality than anything else. A motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #8-145-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Oakcrest Villas Subdivision proposed to be located north of Six Mile Road between Louise Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, for the following reasons: r.. 1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the previously approved Preliminary Plat; 2) That the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Final Plat; and 3) That the City Clerk has indicated that all of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied. Mr. Engebretson, 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 Fargo Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I presume we have the same correspondence. Mr. Nagy: We have the same correspondence that we had in the previous file. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Roskelly, do you have anything to add? 14305 William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I am representing Cummings & McClorey. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. It is an eight lot subdivision. If you will notice there is a note which indicates that the County mandated that we not have, six of the lots are fronting on Merriman Road, so in order that we will not be backing up any cars into Merriman Road, there is a note on the plat that allows Lots 1 through 6 will either have a loop or a T turnaround so you will always be coming out in a front direction and not backing out onto Merriman, which incidentally will be widened in another year or two. I would also note that Lot 7 would only access on Fargo Avenue. Other than that, we also have a 50 foot wooded area we preserved in the rear. They are deep lots, 266 feet or more. I think it is a nice sub. And in the event, being optimistic, and you do grant approval, would you please waive the seven days so I may proceed as soon as possible to the Council. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously approved, it was #8-146-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Fargo Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, for the following reasons: 1) That the final Plat complies in every respect with the Preliminary Plat; 2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat; and 3) That the City Clerk has indicated that all of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was #8-147-95 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 Final Plat approval for Fargo Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. o.. 14306 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #418-95, to hold a public hearing on the question of whether 41.5 acres of the Greenmead property which lies west of the U.S. Post Office and north ,,` of Pembroke Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, should be rezoned from PL to R-4. Mr. Engebretson: The purpose of this item is to set a public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #8-148-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #418-95, 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 rezone 41.5 acres of the Greenmead property which lies west of the U.S. Post Office and north of Pembroke Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, from PL to R-4. 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 707th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on July 18, 1995. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #8-149-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes the 707th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 18, 1995 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-4-8-7 by Las Brisas Development Company requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an apartment complex on property located at 28808 Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. 14307 Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #8-150-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-4-8-7 by Tas Brisas Development company requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an apartment complex on property located at 28808 Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 be taken from the table. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: This item was tabled a number of weeks ago primarily because of a letter prepared by the Fire Marshal expressing great concern over a number of safety issues. We tabled the issue so the petitioner would have an opportunity to work with the Fire Marshal to see if those concerns could be mitigated some way. With that we will ask the petitioner to come forward and tell us haw you proceeded on those matters. Mr. Piercecchi: Have we any additional communication from the Fire Chief on the proposed changes that I assume are going to be given by this gentleman? Mr. Nagy: We did meet with the company representative from las Brisas, myself and Scott, and also with the Fire Marshal, and at that meeting we came to a consensus of opinion as to how to correct ti.. the site plan to overcome those conditions. The site plan was just revised today and submitted to our office. We did communicate with the Fire Marshal that we do have a revised plan. The Ass't. Fire Marshal did review the plan and indicated that he found it acceptable, but again it was just this afternoon and did not have sufficient time to get that in writing. I can tell you from a phone conversation they were satisfied. Mr. Morrow: So John what we are saying is by the time this becomes formally approved, that the letters and necessary documents will catch up? Mr. Nagy: As you know, this isn't official until seven days, and we will hold it until we actually get a letter to that effect. Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner is standing there ready to explain the changes. Richard Sommerville: I am a General Partner in Tas Brisas Development Company. We came in and had a special meeting with Mr. Nagy and Mr. Whitehead and he basically suggested to us that we change the plan that you see reflected on this site plan. He wanted the emergency thruway here and have us extend our pavement to the property line so if in an emergency situation, they can service this through the other apartment complex, which is all blacktop back 14308 here. Also, we added the handicap ramp. There was a comment about that too. We also added an additional fire hydrant up here. Mr. Engebretson: At the rear end of your property there is a fence plan back there if I recall correctly? Or am I not recalling correctly? Mr. Sommerville: There is a fence proposed, but the architect said access drive provided to adjacent property to the north. We are going to have some kind of gate there that can be serviced in an emergency. Mr. Engghretson: But not a locked gate? Mr. Sommerville: He first told us of a chain with two poles but that got revised to a removable panel or a gate. I don't really know exactly which one he wanted. Mr. Engebretson: Is that your recollection John? They were that loose with their definition of haw they would break into this property? Mr. Nagy: Their first thought was to go east when they talked about the chain and the gate to either loop onto Carrollton Arms Apartment site on the east or Carrollton Arms would access onto this site in the event that an emergency would occur on their site, but upon further reflection, they decided the better way to make the connection directly to the north, they would have more capacity, in that case they hadn't resolved the actual design of whether it will be a gate or a panel. In any event, it will only be done to their satisfaction. They will make the Fire Marshal make the final decision as to whether it will be a gate or knock-down panel. Nifty Mr. Engebretson: I am sure in an emergency situation they will move through anything they have to, but I would imagine that there are gates that are constructed to anticipate that kind of thing. Mr. Nagy: Yes there are. It just has to be fine tuned to that extent. Mr. Engebretson: You are satisfied that everything is under control? Mr. Nagy: With a new meeting of the minds. It is just a matter of the exact detail. Mr. Alanskas: Is that area going to be serviced both from Five Mile Road and from the north end of that property? I understand the original problems with that was the Chief of Police said the vehicles couldn't pass plus they couldn't put the lines dawn there. The new hydrant and the opening in the back eliminates that passing problem and things of that nature? Mr. Nagy: And they are posting it as a No Parking Fire Lane. That is also an added condition that every 50 to 75 feet they have to post it as Fire Lane No Parking. Mr. Engebretson: Does your plan show that? 14309 Mr. Sommerville: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: And where does it show what those signs say? I am not trying to be difficult. I just want to make sure we cover the bases. 4111. Mr. Sonunerville: He ( pointed it out on the plan) Mr. Engebretson: Does that answer it Mr. Piercecchi? Mr. Piercecchi: Well I would feel better if we did not have to just rely on signs because that is a potential problem if that street does get blocked off. Mr. Engebretson: We will have a new access also, and a fire hydrant there that they didn't have before. Mr. Nagy: Also, the sidewalk is right next to the curb so they will actually go on the sidewalk if they had to. The Fire Marshal indicated that with the width of the lane plus the five foot width of the sidewalk, they will get their apparatus through there one way or another. Mr. Alanskas: Didn't we have the dumpster right behind that accessory building? Mr. Engebretson: Is it still there or did you move it? Mr. Sommerville: It is still there. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, and unanimously approved, it was #8-151-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-4-8-7 by Las Brisas Development Company requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an apartment complex on property located at 28808 Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 7/26/95, as revised, prepared by Jon Sarkesian Architects, P.C. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated 4-20-95, prepared by Jon Sarkesian Architects, P.C. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the Landscape Plan by Tag Brisas Development Company, received by the Planning Commission on July 17, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered top 4) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the plans. 14310 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-8-15 by D. Rea/L. Shoemaker/R. Hinshon requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 35951 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Miller: This property is located south of Five Mile Road and west of Golfview. Levan would be to the west. This site is zoned OS. Next to it here we just approved a dentist office, and next to that would be the credit union that is just being constructed at this time. This plan calls for an office building to be built. The office building will be 4,300 sq. ft. in size. It will be utilized by an accountant and a financial planner. The parking is shown to be on the west side of the site. They are required to have 17 parking spaces. The parking shown on the site is 21 so they meet the parking requirement. As you can see, the building is located approximately in the middle of the site. To be more specific it is about 175 feet from Golfview, and because of the configuration of the lot, the furthest point of the building is 150 feet from the south property line and from the nearest point it is 95 feet. The site also has a tree line along the south property line. This would be untouched, and the landscape plan shows they will be adding new landscaping to the site to buffer it from the residents that live in Rennolds Ravine. Mr. Engebretson: Scott, is that primarily in the area of parking? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Miller presented the landscaping plan. Mr. Miller: The entrance of the building is located to the south facing the residential. The back of the building faces Five Mile Road, and the architect tried to buffer this more from view of the residents. The elevation plan shows that all four sides of the building will be brick and will have an asphalt shingle roof. Mr. Engebretson: We will turn it over to the architect. Mr. Morrow: While we are waiting, I just noticed here that the landscaping required by ordinance is 15%, and I see they are providing us with 79% landscaping. Robert Allen: I am the architect of this project, with John Allen Architects of Farmington Michigan. We are coming before you this evening for an office building to be constructed on this site as we have reviewed with you on a preliminary basis at the study meeting last time. Our clients, who are currently business owners in 14311 Livonia are interested in building a very high quality, a very comfortable building for their awn business, which consists of a CPA practice and also a financial planning service. As a result, they were very intrigued by this particular site, which has a 'tory very bucolic appearance as it is right now, and they were very interested in preserving the character of that site as they integrate their building as well on there. In order to achieve that, one of the things my clients are very much aware of is the fact that this site has been vacant for many years and borders a very nice residential district. Accordingly, it was consistent with their rather low-key image to locate in some residential looking building, which would be set as far away from the residences to the south as possible. In addition, they were very concerned about the impact the parking would have on the site. So in looking at different parking configurations for the site, we came up with a site plan that essentially put the building towards Five Mile and located the parking along the west side of the site so it really had very little impact. With regard to this site size. I think it is important to note in terms of our building size, we are only approximately 4,000 sq. ft. By the zoning district they could build well in excess of 20,000 sq. ft. on a site this size. That is really a very law impact development with regards to this size. With regards to the appearance of the building, the building will be done all in brick. In terms of glass to be used, we are using residential units, basically Pella windows, even on the larger window side. In terms of landscaping, I think the comment was made in terms of the quantity of landscaping. Certainly we are aware that this site currently is well screened from the residences, and that is this existing tree line that you see right here. However, it was noted at the study meeting as well that during the fall when the leaves drop, that there is some visibility towards the site. Accordingly, we have taken a very heavy screening approach towards the parking lot, and in the original site plan we have shown a number of evergreens all along here, 8 to 12 feet in height, very substantial green barrier, In response to some suggestions after the meeting that we had last week, we adjusted this area here and added a few more evergreens here, and traded off a couple of canopy trees up there. Essentially this corner of the lot, and all the park really, is completely screened from the residents all year around. With regard to the existing topography, of course you are probably familiar with the history of this site. There was a small amount of fill that was put on this site in order to bring the area that is above this line here above the 100-year flood plain. All of our construction will be occurring in that area northward. We will have no impact on the existing vegetation that is there now. So with regard to the impact on the vegetation and haw the residents view this lot, it really should seem, if anything, even more rustic with the additional landscaping. Finally, in regards to the use, in terms of a proposed use, this is a very law impact. A very quiet use. It is in operation five days a week with the exception of tax 14312 season, and then it is open six days a week. It would have very little evening traffic. It is probably a friendly use to the adjacent residential district. If you have any questions, I will be happy to address them. (Mr. Allen presented some building materials to the Commission) Mr. Morrow: The only question I would have in addition to what you presented, the entryway on the second story, would it be safe to assume that will not exceed the height of any two-story home in the area? Mr. Allen: It is less than that. Mr. Alanskas: Where are the air conditioning and heating units? Mr. Allen: There will be no rooftop equipment whatsoever. There will be a couple of condensing units which will be located along here and will be screened by the trees and bushes. Mr. Engebretson: Our notes indicate that your plans indicate that all refuse will be stored inside the building. Mr. Allen: That is correct. Again, they would not generate any large quantity. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal. Mrs. McIntire appeared at our study meeting. She was concerned about the screening for her home from the parking lot. I am sure she will be pleased to see that you intensified r,`,, the screening there. She was going to be away on vacation this week and we don't have any communication from her but I suspect she would be pleased and she has another shot at this. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann, and unanimously approved, it was #8-152-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 95-7-8-15 by D. Rea/L. Shoemaker/R. Hinshon requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 35951 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 7/18/95 prepared by John Allen Architects, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the required handicap parking space be relocated to the east side of the parking lot and that a handicap ramp near or adjacent to the handicap space along with a barrier free route to the building be provided; 2) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped; 14313 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated 7/18/95, prepared by John Allen Architects, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; `„ 4) That the Landscape Plan by Michael J. Dul & Associates, Inc. , dated July 31, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded lawn areas, and all planted materials shall be installed prior to final inspection and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6) That the ground sign shown on the approved elevation plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7) That the greenbelt along the south property line shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of Zoning Ordinance #543. Mr. Ehgebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-7-8-16 by Medora Building Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the building located at 34957 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Miller: This is the Commercial Lawnmower site which is located on the south side of Plymouth Road just west of Wayne Road. To familiarize you with the site, right now there are a number of uses on the site. You have the Commercial Lawnmower business located here, and a rental equipment building located here on Wayne Road. You also have a warehouse located behind the Commercial Lawnmower and a warehouse located behind the rental equipment place. Also, here you have a transmission shop. The new proposal is to add a warehouse to the back of the transmission shop. This new warehouse wculd be 3,880 sq. ft. in size. Also, to the south of the new warehouse you have a truckwell and a loading dock area. Parking, because of all the uses on the site, they are required to have 74 parking spaces, and they show they will have 66. Even though they are deficient, they have a variance for deficient parking, and because the new use and the added parking lessens the deficiency, the variance is in effect and therefore they are not short on parking by virtue of the variance. Landscaping on the site is 9% where they are required to have 15% so they are short on landscaping. The elevation plan shows that three sides of the new warehouse will be painted block which will match the existing building. The loading dock area will be in the rear, and there is an overhead door there to assist the loading dock. This is the east elevation, or the elevation facing Commercial Lawnmower, and 14314 there is an overhead door located in that with the entrance door in that elevation, and then the west elevation facing the new parking lot will just have an entrance door. 1411. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here. George LaForest, 44500 Woodland Park, Northville: Basically we want to just add on warehouse storage space behind the Multi State building to be primarily used by Commercial Lawnmower. That will eliminate the need for the outside storage they are using right now on the used machinery, etc. I think it will clean up the lot. I have been paving the remainder of the lot. We have had an ongoing thing going where we are going to pave it, etc. and we have been trying to find out when they were going to add onto the building, and we would intend on paving that part and then repaving and put a cap on the front of the building. That asphalt is worn. It has been cut through many times, and restriping that, of course. Basically that is the program to just add on to the building and hopefully clean up the whole site. Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, when I went over and looked at your site on Sunday, I was very disturbed with your outside storage and your housekeeping. Is this extension going to eliminate that problem? Mr. LaForest: Yes, I don't own the business. Commercial Lawnmower and Multi State are tenants of mine, and that is one of the intentions to get rid of all that old machinery, number one. Multi State has done a pretty good job of getting rid of all the unlicensed vehicles they had, and the intention here is to eliminate the outdoor storage. Mr. Piercecchi: There is one other thing Mr. Chairman. I noticed in our notes here the site plan says existing enclosed trash dumpster. There are no gates on that dumpster. Mr. LaForest: We will take care of that also. That is no problem. The problem being in the lawnmower business is the incredible amount of waste of cardboard, etc. that they generate during the summer months. It is really to keep up with that, and they really have to put a larger dumpster in there to get that stuff moved out. I agree. Mr. Piercecchi: Behind that building it looks like a dump. Mr. LaForest: It is primarily used machinery that I have been working with. I have been trying to either sell it or junk it. That is something they have to definitely address. By putting that addition up, number one I am not going to let anyone park all the machinery on new asphalt and ruin it, and they will have more roam inside to store these things and that is part of the goal also. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, is there an allowance made for any outside storage in the original site plan? 14315 Mr. Nagy: No, it should be all enclosed. Mr. Piercecchi: Can we count on you to take care of that? Mr. LaForest: Yes, I will definitely get on them for that. Mr. Morrow: That basically was what I was going to say is they are your tenants and we look forward to this new warehouse to clean that up. Please just stress with your tenant that we look forward to all that type of storage inside the warehouse and to try to keep things fairly neat and tidy outside. Mr. LaForest: Yes, I agree with you. Mr. Morrow: At least it is a good step forward to clean up that outside storage. Mr. Alanskas: Do you have any plans on the south wall to put security lighting on all night long? Mr. LaForest: I have no intention of doing that at all because the building already has the overhead doors and it has an alarm system. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #8-153-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approved Petition 95-7-8-16 by Medora Building Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the building located at 34957 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SD-1 dated 1/11/95 prepared by Kurmas & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated 1/11/95, prepared by Kurmas & Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the new warehouse addition shall be painted to match the existing building. 4) That the parking spaces shall be double striped. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Perkos Children's Quality Shoes requesting approval for one wall sign for the commercial building located at 33426 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. 14316 Mr. Miller: This is located on the northeast corner of Five Mile and Surrey Avenue, which is kitty-korner across the street from City Hall. They are proposing one awning wall sign on their building. They are allowed a 40 sq. ft. wall sign, and they are proposing a 38 `,,, sq. ft. sign so they are conforming in signage and size. The sign will read "Perkos Children's Quality Shoes". Everything is conforming. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is at the podium. Would you give us your name and address. Beverly White, 19245 Farmington Road, Livonia. Mr. Engebretson: We did have an opportunity to look at that up close a week ago. Whatever comments you care to make. Ms. White: The awning is going on a mansard roof. The establishment has been there for 30 plus years. It is upgrading a very outdated mansard roof. The building is set back behind the bank area when you are going west on Five Mile Road so it is going to have a good appearance for him and be good visibility for him. It is going to be easier for people to find his place, which is a little difficult because it is a confusing sign right now and it is difficult to read, so that will help trafficking and confusion in that area. It goes down from three lanes to two lanes and people are watching signs, and it will be easier for that. The sign area where the words are will be the only part that will be lit on the awning. The rest of the awning will be opaque, which I understand is conforming with the City. The clearances are N .. well above minimum clearances for height from the ground. That is pretty much all I have to say. Mr. Morrow: As you will recall we mentioned the hours the awning would be lit. It would be our intent to probably limit that to one hour after the close of business. Ms. White: I have discussed that with the owner and that is not a problem. Mr. Morrow: The other thing, you had mentioned that your client would sign a maintenance agreement. Could you just give us a little bit of insight of what that means. Ms. White: If you are familiar with typical awnings, which is one of the things as a person who sells this type of product, it looks very fine for the first six to nine months, and then the rain starts coming down and you start seeing the drip lines, so it was suggested to the owner before he made a commitment to purchase that he does maintain it because it can start looking bad. It also extends the life of the awning to power wash it as long as he continues to do this every six months. Mr. Morrow: The reason I ask this is because we see a lot of awning signs 14317 come before us as well as awnings, and this is perhaps something we should address in future awnings to find out what their maintenance intentions are to not only extend the life of them but to keep them looking nice as far as the City goes. Ms. White: This was something we agreed on before the City mentioned it. Mr. Morrow: I just had not heard anybody mention maintenance before and it is something we will probably pay attention to in the future. Ms. White: It is just something they should do for themselves because once those stains are in, it is very difficult to get them out. It is probably something that should be required. Mr. Morrow: Or at least questioned. Mr. Alanskas: When we discussed about only having the sign lit one hour after closing, you mentioned he had two lights that came down on the building. Ms. White: It is a stream of fluorescent under his mansard overhang, which he has always had. His mansard comes down in front of that so you really can't see it. He uses it basically for security. As far as how long he keeps those on, I think he does keep those on after hours. Mr. Alanskas: But those lights will not show through that sign? Ms. White: No, not at all. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #8-154-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Perkos Children's quality Shoes requesting approval for one wall sign for the commercial building located at 33426 Five Mile Road in the the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package by Graphic Visions, Inc. , received by the Planning Commission on July 10, 1995, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the sign shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after closing. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 14318 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 708th Regular Meeting held on August 1, 1995 was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. CITY PLANNING CCHMISSION /d/440. s.w Robert Alanskas, Secretary r dridl-N JacEngebre3on, Chairman jg