HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-02-0822044
MINUTES OF THE 900"' REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 900" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane John Walsh
Members absent: Carol Smiley
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in wnting, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2005-01-08-01 STANDARD FEDERAL
Mr. Pieroecohi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda,
Petition 2005-01-08-01, submitted by Boggio Associates on
behalf of Standard Federal Bank, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition and
renovate the exterior of the bank located at 15983 Middlebelt
Road in the Southeast % of Section 14.
22045
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to
the Standard Federal Bank branch located on the west side of
Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Puritan Avenue.
Along with the addition, the petitioner is seeking to refurbish the
exterior of the existing building. The proposed addition would
be to the east elevation, the side facing Middlebelt Road, on the
front lawn area of the bank. The new addition would be 1,650
square feet in area. The addition would expand this bank
branch to an overall size of 3,643 square feel. Nineteen parking
spaces are required, and they are providing 20 spaces.
Additional plantings would be added to enhance the site's
existing landscaping. The foundation landscaping around the
existing building would be completely redone and continue
around the new addition. Supplementary trees would be added
to the existing trees that run along the street frontage of both
Middlebelt Road and Puritan Avenue. The existing mature trees
along the west (rear) property line would be left untouched.
This property abuts residential along its west and south property
lines. A protective wall is required between office zoned
property and land zoned residential. The existing greenbelt that
runs along the west property line would qualify as a substitute
for a wall. The greenbelt along the south property line would not
be eligible because it does not meet the criteria of being at least
10 feet in depth. Required landscaping is not less than 15% of
the total site, and they are providing landscaping on 30% of the
site. Along with the addition, the entire exterior of the existing
building would be renovated. The new addition would be
constructed out of brick that would match the existing building.
The upper 8 feet of the exterior of the bank would be dryvit. A
decorative cornice would wrap around and crown the top of the
dryvit parapet roofline. A dryvit canopy, held up by brick pillars,
would overhang and define the main entrance on the south
elevation oflhe building.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 21, 2005, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objection to the proposal at this time. Additional right -0f -way is
not required at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 19, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition
22046
and renovate the exterior of the bank on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
January 28, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in connection with a proposal to construct an addition
and renovate the exterior of the bank on property located at
15983 Middlebelt. We have no objections or recommendation
to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated January 24, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 18, 2005, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This petitioner should also be applying for a
permanent greenbelt waiver along the west property lines
abutting residential. The south property line has a valid property
separation agreement on file. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Boggio, Boggio Associates, 30100 Telegraph, Suite 215, Bingham
Farms, Michigan 48025. I'm the arohilectfor the project. As Mr.
Miller stated, we are planning to renovate the building. This is a
colored elevation of the building. We're going to add onto the
building. We're going to match the existing brick so that all
facades on the building will be brick. Currently, there is an
aluminum fascia on the existing building. We plan to remove
that aluminum fascia to modernize the building a bit, do a dryvit
or an E.I.F.S. fascia that has some reveals in it and has a
decorative comice top so that it gives it a little more detail. Also,
the existing fascia has just a gravel stop so that the lop of the
fascia is approximately six inches or so above the roof. We plan
to extend that fascia up a couple feel so that there's a parapet
and a little more proportionate with the building in terms of the
height of the fascia, and as a benefit, there's currently on the
west elevation an HVAC unit with land of a broken down old
screen. We'll remove that, and by heightening the fascia, we
will screen most of that unit with new fascia rather than an cid
wood fascia. Our new HVAC unit, which will be pretty rmch
centered in the building, will then be screened by the higher
parapet walls. Additionally, we're going to give the entrance
some additional accent by having the fascia a little higher than
the rest of the building. Also, as Scott said, we're going to
22047
completely landscape the perimeter . . all of the foundation
landscaping around the building and then do some additional
landscaping in terms of some deciduous trees and evergreen
trees on both the Puritan and the Middlebelt frontage.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: I just have one question. On the site plan, you're showing
employee parking as three spaces. You mean you're only going
to have three people in the bank working?
Mr. Boggio: No, thafsjust additional parking over and above what's ...
Mr. Alanskas: That's additional. So how many people are you going to have
working in the bank?
Mr.
Boggio:
The employee load in the bank is going to vary depending upon
what day it is. On a Friday, they will probably have seven, eight,
nine people. On a midweek, they'll probably have five, six
people. Something like that.
Mr.
Alanskas:
So you would still have 15 or 16 spots for customers?
Mr.
Boggio:
Yes.
Mr.
Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Sir, I notice that you have three rows of dryvil on lop to the brick
that's going up to your parapet.
Mr.
Boggio:
Yes.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Are those layers on the E.I.F.S. fascia going to be on the same
plane or are you going to have some step -outs?
Mr.
Boggio:
The first layer will be in the same plane as the brick.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Okay.
Mr.
Boggio:
Then the second layer will project out a couple feet. Then there
will be ...
Mr.
Piercecchi :
How far out?
Mr.
Boggio:
Acouple of feet. About two feet.
22048
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You mean it's going to stick out this far?
Mr. Boggio:
It's going to be an overhang about two feet. Then there's going
to be a reveal that's going to be probably three quarters of an
inch deep just to give it a reveal line. Then the next row of dryvil
will be at the same plane as the second row, and then this
comice will be something that will start on the plane of the dryvil
that sticks out two feet and angle out about six or eight inches
so it looks like a crown mold type of a cap.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Putting steps in there should give you a little bit of an aesthetic
value.
Mr. Boggio:
Yeah. I think it will give some interest to the building, and right
now the building has dark brown aluminum, and it's very, very
low. So I think this will give the building some more presence
on Middlebelt and just clean it up because it will be light color
retherthan a dark color.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I agree. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, I notice he has 20 parking spaces. I assume, under the
ordinance, that's enough, but if he has nine of those 20 taken up
by employees at times, then that leaves 11 parking spaces. Do
we have adequate parking here? I dont see a problem with the
drive-through. I just wondered because I notice on the plans
there's a number of different tables where I assume people can
make loans and things of that nature. I was out there and
checked this site out. I think it was one day last week. I don't
remember exactly. It was a pretty busy bank.
Mr. Taormina:
It does meet our standard, which is one parking space for every
150 square feet of useable floor area. They're nearly doubling
the size of the facility, but I dont expect that it will mean any
substantive increase in their customers at one given time. So to
the extent that they have sufficient parking today onsite, then
there shouldn't be a real problem.
Mr. Boggio: I'd like to comment on that. The new Standard Federal
furnishings and things are such that where today theyll use a
five foot desk, they now use open office furniture. They have
larger desks, larger offices, larger conference room. Their teller
lines are expanded a bit, not in terms of the employee load, but
in terms of just the width of the tellers and so forth, so that this
addition will organize the space and will allow them to put their
new size furnishings and things in, but its not really going to
22049
increase the customer load or the employee load. It will
modernize It for the present day standard furniture.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Boggio, this is along the line of Mr. La Pine's question. Did
your client give you any indication about what percentage of the
banking is done through the drive-in versus the parking and
coming into the bank?
Mr. Boggio:
I think on a constant basis, the drive-in, in terms of not loans
and loan dosings and things like that, but in terms of check
cashing, savings deposits, withdrawals and things like that, its
in the neighborhood of 40% to 50% of the business goes
through the drive-through.
Mr. Morrow:
Which will give you some relief as it relates to...
Mr. Boggio:
Yes, yes. The other thing is that there are people that don't
work every day. They have mortgage closings and things like
that. They typically dont schedule those for Fridays or the first
or the fifteenth, so they have different hours that are scheduled
so that the parking will work for them.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion would be in
order.
Mr. La Pine:
Can l just ask one more question?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes, Mr. La Pine.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, the question about the fence on the south side of the
building. The Inspection Department said ... are we going to
have the fence post stay, and then they're going to put in
landscaping along there, or do we know that for sure?
Mr. Taormina:
The south properly line does not qualify for a permanent
greenbelt waiver. There is presently a separation agreement
between Standard Federal and the properly owner to the south.
That is valid for a period of, I think, five years, after which time
they will have to extend that agreement or seek a variance.
They really dont have the option of coming to us for a
permanent waiver as they do along the west property line
because of the narrow space between the parking lot and fence
line.
22050
Mr. LaPine: So basically now they have a variance from the ZBA and it runs
out in five years?
Mr. Taormina: Ifs not from the ZBA. Ifs a provision that we have in the Zoning
Ordinance that allows for the property owners to enter into an
agreement that the City acknowledges and which serves in lieu
of getting a variance from ZBA, but its only temporary - for five
years.
Mr. LaPine: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: If there are no other questions, a motion would be in order at
this point.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, itwas
#02-13-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-01-08-01,
submitted by Boggio Associates, on behalf of Standard Federal
Bank, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition and renovate the exterior of the bank
located at 15983 Middlebell Road in the Southeast % of Section
14, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A+1 dated January 14,
2005, prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS -1 dated
January 14, 2005, prepared by Michael A. Boggio
Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
22051
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A3
dated January 14, 2005, prepared by Michael A. Boggio
Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face 4
inch brick;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That there shall be no dumpster located outside of the
building, and all trash must be contained within the building
except on the day trash is scheduled for removal;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
12. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
13. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west property
line, as shown on the approved landscaped plan, is hereby
accepted and shall be substituted for the protective wall
required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
14. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's
effectiveness as a prolective banner, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
15. That for the south property line, the petitioner shall have
the option of either erecting a protective wall immediately,
22052
going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a temporary wall
variance, or seeking the consent of the abutting property
owner(s); and,
16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
allhe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: Just to be sure that I'm following here, No. 13, where we talk
about the prolective wall on the west side, should we be noting
that to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Shane: The south side, the one that he's talking about, that's covered
under No. 15.
Mr. Taormina: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: I must be reading the Building Department's letter; it's different.
It says the petitioner should also be applying for a permanent
greenbelt waiver along the west property line abutting
residential.
Mr. Shane: That's what we did.
Mr. Morrow: But don't you have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
that?
Mr. Shane: No.
Mr. Walsh: No. Mr. Taormina had indicated thatjust a moment ago.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. I thought you were talking about the south property line.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2005-01-08-02 SARAH ESTATES
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2005-01-08-02, submitted by Sarah Estates Site
Condominiums Phase II, requesting approval of a site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in
22053
connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium
development on property located at 34745 and 34655 Eight Mile
Road in the Northwest %of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to expand the Sarah
Estates Site Condominium development located on Eight Mile
Road between Gill Road and Ellen Drive. Originally, this site
was approved on June 16, 2004, for the development of 23 site
condominium lots on 9.38 acres of land. Phase II would be
located east of the original proposed project and would
encompass an additional 4.28 acres of property. Phase II would
be a continuation of the first phase by way of the developments
interior road system. This property is in the process of a
rezoning change. The Planning Commission, after holding a
public hearing on December 14, 2004, recommended approving
the rezoning of this property (Pet. 04-11-01-14) from RUF (Rural
Urban Farm) to R4 (One Family Residential). In order to allow
the plans to "catch up" with the rezoning petition at the City
Council level, this item is being reviewed based on the
assumption that the rezoning is approved. The expanded area
provides sufficient land area for the development of 12
additional home sites. Slight adjustments were needed to the
original configuration of Sarah Estates in order to accommodate
the additional lots. Even though the new site plan shows that
most of the lots of Phase I would have to be slightly downsized,
all 23 lots still meet the minimum lot area requirement of an RA
district. The ordinance specifies that the lot area of an R-0
property shall be a minimum of 11,200 square feet and have a
lot width of at least 90 feet and a lot depth of 130 feet. Adding
the lots of Phase I and Phase II, Sarah Estates would consist of
35 site condominium units. The 50 -foot wide public street that
runs through Phase I would be continued and connect the
proposed Phase II portion of Sarah Estates. The easterly half of
the development (Phase II) would now mirror the westerly half
(Phase I). Originally, the road system for Phase I showed a
dead-end street branching off to the east from the main access
road off Eight Mile Road. In order to link the two phases, this
easterly road would now be extended an additional 150 feel at
which point the road would then turn north and continue
approximately 200 feet and terminate in a cul-de-sac.
Sidewalks are not shown along the right-of-way of the proposed
street. According to the Grading and Erosion Control plan,
storm water detention would be controlled underground using
storage tanks located onsite. The plan shows that the back
portion of Lot 17 of the Fairway Subdivision, which abuts the
southeast comer of this development, would contain the
22054
necessary underground holding tanks. The landscaping
proposed for Phase II would copy what was approved for Phase
I. The arrangement of plant materials and decorative fencing
would be extended east along Eight Mile Road to include the
additional frontage of this section of the development. The 30 -
foot easement would be bermed to about three feet and planted
with a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. The proposed
development does not comply with the open space requirement.
An area for open space purposes must be provided equal to at
least 720 square feel for each lot. The amount of open space
that would have to be provided for this entire condominium
development (720 x 35) is 25,200 square feel. The plans for do
not show any amount of open space area planned for either
Phase I or Phase 11. The open space requirement can be
waived by City Council.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 31, 2005, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. Additional right-of-
way is not required at this time. The Fire Department requires
that the pavement radii of the cul-de-sacs be 50 feet. This can
be accomplished within the 60 -foot right-of-way radii, which are
acceptable." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated February 1, 2005, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct a site condominiums development on
property located at the above -referenced addresses. We have
no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1)
If any of subject buildings are to be provided with automatic
sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located between 50 feet
and 100 feet from the Fire Department connections. (2)
Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing
consistent with residential areas. Most remote hydrant shall
flow 1,000 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (3)
Standard for residential cul -desacs is 50' with a minimum right-
of-way radius of 60' to provide for sidewalks and utilities. (4) No
onstreet parking, all streets shall be marked as 'fire lanes.' Fire
lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs or marked curbs,
sidewalks, or other traffic surfaces that have the words 'Fire
Lane — No Parking' painted in contrasting colors at a size and
spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The
letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 28,
2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
22055
connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium
development on property located at 34745 and 34655 Eight Mile
Road. We submit the following for your review and
consideration: (1) We recommend a deceleration lane on
eastbound Eight Mile Road west of the driveway for this site.
(2) A stop sign is needed for exiting vehicles on Sarah Beth
Lane at Eight Mile Road. (3) A street light should be considered
for the intersection of Sarah Beth Lane and Eight Mile Road to
improve driver safety for both approaching vehicles on Eight
Mile Road and for vehicles exiting the site. (4) For crime
prevention considerations and to aid pedestrian safety, we
recommend that street lighting be installed throughout the
complex. (5) We recommend the installation of sidewalks
throughout the complex for added pedestrian safety. (6) We
recommend the installation of a yield sign for southbound traffic
on Sarah Beth Lane at Sarah Beth Court" The letter is signed
by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated January 31, 2005, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 25,
2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This petition has been reviewed as R4
zoning. (2) The site lacks the required open space by Zoning
Ordinance 543. Council may waive this if desired. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Baki, Sarah Estates, LLC, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152. As
Mr. Scott Miller mentioned, this is an extension of the original
Sarah Estates with an adjustment for the original one by moving
some of the lines to allow for the Phase 11. The Phase I was
already approved but we had to adjust it to accommodate for
Phase 11. Phase I was 23 lots; Phase II is 12 lots. We're up to
35 lots at this time. We did add the stub on the north side like I
mentioned in the past. The southern part of the eastern
property that was not induced in this property here, so far we
have no commitment or anything with the owners. We don't
know what route they're going to go. I know theyre going in
front of Council for their rezoning, but so far we're hoping they
come across and try to deal with us so we can add it to our
development and have it all a big large sub instead of having
something else next door that might not fl with what I'm trying to
do.
22056
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Baki, do you own any property to the east of Lot 14?
Mr. Baki:
We have agreements with the owners. Of Gill Road, you're
talking about?
Mr. Shane:
Did you do any studies as to how you might link that property up
with this one?
Mr. Baki:
We sure did. We did a study that could happen. The original
plan, which I did a sketch in the past, that I dont have it on me
today, but that we can have a Phase III for the Estates with a
street coming off of Gill Road and just accommodating for 10
lots. That's without having Lot 14 a part of it. By including the
vacant land south of the office site, which is Lots 15 and 16, that
includes the southerly part of Lots 15 and 16, plus it includes lot
17. It all depends on Lot 14 to try to conned it, to bring it in
through, to conned it together. We were planning on leaving it
separate. That's my original proposal, but it's possible to
conned it.
Mr. Shane:
Have you made any more progress with the owner of Lot 14?
Mr. Baki:
None. He stills wants to do office in the front.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Baki, wouldn't it be practical at this stage of development to
place a stub at the lower southeast intersection to facilitate
passage to Gill Road if your efforts to acquire additional land
east and south are successful?
Mr. Baki:
It's possible. We can do that. Its doable. It just relies on Lot
14.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
In other words, you dont want to add that in right away. You
want to hold that in abeyance. Is that what you're telling me?
Mr. Baki:
Yes, I want to hold out to see what he wants to do first. If he is
willing to make a deal with us on his property, then we can do
that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, I don't know if that really has any total relationship. Of
course, it has some relationship with Lot 14, but that whole
southern eastern end, having that property isn't going to help
you.
22057
Mr. Baki:
Well, ft's going to help.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If you put stub there.
Mr. Baki:
Well, this is the thing. It's going to help trying to have the owner
hopefully make a decision on what he wants to do. Because
without it, without the stub, I mean even though I can do the
stubs and I can make it a private road, and keep him off my
property in a way he cannot connect to it, but if tries to make a
deal with us, then we put a stub, still have the same amount of
lots, we would rot lose anything from the original, and then we'll
bring a road in and conned it to Gill Road. But I haven't done
the feasibility study to see if it's a good idea to bring a road off of
Gill Road, to conned the whole site off of Gill Road. See Gill
Road is a semi, it's a half, like a half mile road. It's a wide road.
It's got a lot of traffic. I dont know. We'd have to do some
studies to see him it's going to look if we conned it all together
and make an exit off of Gill Road loo. Because you know a lot
of people will use it because of the light on Gill Road.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It's not logical to run ... if you made a stub, let's say right on the
bottom of it, to go all the way through to the next street, is it? Is
that practical? Or is it more practical, like I think, to go to Gill
Road?
Mr. Baki:
It's more practical to go to Gill Road because we can't go the
south to Norfolk because we don't have no options whatsoever
to tryto acquire land to go to Norfolk.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I realize its very premature to discuss that because most of
those lots have residences on them.
Mr. Baki:
Yes, they have residences on them. They have the depth. Its
possible, but it's easier to connect - to have a second exit for
this development. Its the only and best way to get connected
through Gill Road.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
And through a stub...
Mr. Baki:
Through a stub, it's possible. Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
I have a number of questions. The first one, the Inspection
Department talked about sidewalks inside the subdivision. Are
you having sidewalks?
22058
Mr. Baki:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. How about along Eight Mile Road?
Mr. Baki:
It's already existing. Whatever we destroy, we'll fix.
Mr. LaPine:
From Eight Mile Road all the way down to the next sub, that's
been developed...
Mr. Baki:
There is already an existing sidewalk, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
You intend to put this stub in right now so that the owner of that
lot, if he can't gel RA zoning, he'll have access to develop those
three lots himself, sell it to somebody else to develop, or you
can do it.
Mr. Baki:
He has to go through me because I'm making it a private road
because it's an additional $100,000 cost out of my pocket. I'm
not going to give it to somebodyjust for free.
Mr. LaPine:
How long is that road?
Mr. Bad :
One hundred and fifty feel. That's just a road. We have to bring
the sewer in there; we have to bring the water in there right to
the comer. So all that additional cost that we're doing just to
accommodate for these lots, and by us doing that, he's getting
an extra lot. Right at this present time he can only put two lots
on Eight Mile. It's the only thing he can do on all his property if
it remains the way it is, either RUF or R4 or even Office.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, let me ask you this question. I'm in favor 100 percent for
another exit out onto Gill Road, and I do that for a reason. I
don't like subdivisions where we got one way in and one way
out. If there's a big accident or something, with the one
enhance coming in here, nobody can gel in here. No fire
equipment can gel in there. This way at lead we've got some
relief. Secondly, Eight Mile is a very busy road in the morning
and in the evening. At least there's a light there. So that's very
important to me. I guess the other question I have is, I like to
see this, the road, go in at the time you develop this, but you
have not acquired all these parcels. Is that what you're telling
me?
22059
Mr. Baki:
I have commitments with most of the parcels. The only one I
Mr. Alanskas:
don't have a commitment from is Lot 14. That's the only one I
don't have.
Mr. LaPine:
So if the petitioner wants to hang onto Lot 14 and sell you off
Mr. Alanskas:
the back 300 feet ....
Mr Baki:
Then I can do the stub in the back and take the stub out in the
Mr. Alanskas:
front. He is willing to do that. That's exactly what he wants to
do. He wants to sell us the back and keep the front.
Mr. LaPine:
I dont want the property to go to OS because we committed
Mr. Baki:
ourselves years and years ago when Dinan built his building on
Mr. Alanskas:
the comer. My next question is, say assuming he got the
zoning, would the Wayne County Road Commission, because
you've got two exits, two curb cuts on Dinan's properly, then
you would have a cut here for his R-0 property, and how far is it
from where that would be?
Mr. Baki:
No, we have plenty of room.
Mr. LaPine:
You have plenty of room?
Mr. Baki:
Yeah, we have plenty of room. We need about 300 feet. We're
fine. We're more than enough. Actually, we're adequate for the
entrance.
Mr. LaPine: My gut feeling is, I dont even like to approve this before I know
what's going to happen to that parcel.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have a copy of what was written up by the staff showing
this road going through on the bottom?
Mr. Baki:
I don't have a copy but I've seen it.
Mr. Alanskas:
You have seen it?
Mr. Baki:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
I agree with Mr. LaPine. I just hale to approve something when
we don't know what's going to happen with Lot 14. So the way
this is drawn, you would lose one lot?
Mr. Baki:
I dont lose any.
Mr. Alanskas:
You don't lose any?
22060
Mr. Bad :
Nope. Nothing. Actually, the only lot that will be lost is off of Lot
14. Instead of getting six out of 13, if we dont put the road in,
Lot 14 will end up with only five lots, three on the north, two on
the south, or two and a half on the south side.
Mr. Morrow:
What you said earlier about the additional $100,000 that you're
willing to gamble that you're going to acquire that property, is
thaltrue?
Mr. Bad :
No, no. I didn't say that. What I'm saying, its going to cost me
an extra $100,000 to put the stub out.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I'm saying. To build that stub as opposed to a
circular drive, you're going to invest $100,000 on the bet that
you're going to gel that property.
Mr. Bad :
It's a gamble we'll take. It's a large project. Its going to take
three years to finish. Within three years, we'll see what the
owner will decide to do.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly on
that because it seems like based on the progress you've made,
disgetfinglobeabiggergamble. Thankyou.
Mr. Shane:
On that point, I think its important that the stub be there whether
he acquires
Lot 14 or not because sometime in the future Lot 14
is going to be developed, and if the stub is there, it provides a
way to do that. I'd like to see the stub there no matter what
happens to your quest for Lot 14.
Mr. Bake:
Yes. Thais what I'm saying. I have no problem doing the
stubs.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Seeing
none at this point, is there anybody in the audience that wishes
to speak
for or against this petition? Is there anything else, Mr.
Baki?
Mr. Bad :
I was just going to respond. From what I'm gathering, the
intention may be to add another stub on the south side for the
future to go out to Gill Road. We can still do that too. Like I
said, we're not losing any lots, the other thing that will happen,
the future one, we'll end up losing a lot, but we won't lose
anything overall anyway. The sketch that you have in front of
you from Mr. Taormina, that sketch does not include Lot 17.
22061
With Lot 17 in the picture, that's going to come in, we're going to
be ... the road will come across straight and go south. It goes
in front of Lot 17. See this does not include Lot 17. Lot 17 is in
the southerly part. Our intention is to bring the road from here,
instead of coming out, turn it around this way and come out this
way, and T it. Nov we have a potential southerly lot. So we
would bring the road down, and bring it out this way, so we'll
have two lots facing Gill Road and the rest will be facing this
way.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where would you put your retaining pond?
Mr. Baki:
Still in the back. We're not changing it. Same spot.
Mr. Alanskas:
Same spot. Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Baki:
About 650 feet or 700 feet deep. I'm only get four lots out of it.
The rest will be a retaining pond in the back.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions or is there a motion?
Mr. Shane:
If an approving resolution is offered, will 0 be that plan? Do our
notes reflect that plan?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Actually, the notes reference the plan as submitted. I think
what the Planning Commission would have to do is provide a
condition that would modify that plan providing for future access
to the south half of Lot 14, a stub street for the purpose of
providing access to the east.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Chairman, I will offer a motion but its going to be a tabling
resolution until we get a plan which does exactly what Mr.
Taormina said, so we have something to act on.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-14-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-01-08-02, submitted by Sarah
Estates Site Condominiums Phase II, requesting approval of a
site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium
development on property located at 34745 and 34655 Eight Mile
Road in the Northwest%of Section 4, be tabled.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Mr. Bak, what we're going to request from you, is to
22062
work with the Planning Department and provide a plan that we
can formally approve. We could put this on the agenda for our
meeting as soon as you're ready.
Mr. Bad : What I was going to ask is, wasn't it possible to gel like an
approval motion with a stub on the south side?
Mr. Walsh: I think what Mr. Shane has asked for, I think makes us all more
comfortable. If we can see the plan and make sure we're all in
agreement And I assure you that should you have that in, we'll
gel in on the next agenda and we'll keep you moving.
Mr. Bad : We can do that
Mr. Walsh:
Okay.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mark a question?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, now that plan will show the stub at the south, but also the
stub at the north. Is that correct.
Mr. Taormina:
That is my understanding, correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Two stubs. Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Baki.
ITEM #3 PETITION 99-02-08-08 FOUNTAIN PARK
Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 99-02-08-08, submitted by A.F. Jonna Development on
behalf of Fountain Park, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to modify the plans approved for the
development located on the northeast comer of Plymouth Road
and Farmington Road in the Southwest %of Section 27.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, I think we simply have a request from the
petitioner to keep this item tabled.
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Walsh: No additional information?
22063
Mr. Taormina: No.
Mr. Walsh: Do I have a motion to continue to the tabling?
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-15-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Pefilion 99-02-08-08, submitted by A.F. Jonna
Development, on behalf of Fountain Park, requesting to modify
the plans which were previously approved by Council
Resolution #436-03 on August 27, 2003, in connection with the
development located on the northeast comer of Plymouth Road
and Farmington Road in the Southwest % of Section 27, shall
continued to be tabled.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Y1=1A43 =:J =k IY Ile] LI W1111, K11:111:15 F:�lel: 17[Ke] 41IKy
Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Pefition 04-09-08-18, submitted by John Colucoi requesfing
approval of a landscape plan as required by Council Resolution
651-04 for the property located at 10811 Farmington Road in
the Northeast'%of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: On December 6, 2004, John Colucoi received site plan approval
to demolish and reconstruct a small office building on property
located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth Road. As part of the
approval, it was condifioned that landscaping was not approved
at that time, and that a Landscape Plan needed to be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission
and City Council within 60 days of this resolution. On January
3, 2005, the landscape plan shows defined planting areas
integrated within the grassy areas adjacent to Farmington Road
and next to the site's driveway. These irregular shaped plots
would be planted mainly with ornamental type shrubs and
flowers, including fragrant sumac, rose bushes, and daylilies.
Three evergreen trees and a number of dwarf mugo pines
would also be introduced. New plant material would also be
introduced around the foundations of both the existing office
building and the smaller new office building behind it. These
planting beds would be made up of mostly low-lying plantings,
22064
including dense yews, reed grass and daylilies. The rest of the
site's landscaping would consist of existing vegetation, including
the mature trees along the east (rear) property line, and four
existing smaller trees along the south property line. The
evergreen hedge that exists along the north property line would
remain and screen the front office building and its walkway from
the adjacent properties.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated January 24, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 13, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The barrier free parking as drawn is incorrect. The space is
to be 8 feet wide with an adjacent 8 foot access aisle. (2) The
plan states 'seed orsod'in certain areas. The Commission and
Council may wish this clarified. (3) This plan does not seem to
incorporate condition #3 for a protective wall along the south
property line or condition #10 to complete the drainage Swale
along the south property line. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Mr. La Pine:
Yes. Mark, can you expound on what you mean bythe males?
I don't remember that at our original meeting.
Mr. Taormina:
I believe there was discussion regarding the construction that's
taking place on this property, as well as on the property to the
south and the fact that the area was not fully improved. The
indication, as I recall, is that a swale is being constructed along
the south line of this property, but is actually being constructed
on the northern portion of the properly to the south. So its
actually part of the construction that's talting place by, I believe,
it's his son on the property to the south. Is that correct? Maybe
Mr. Colucd can darify that But it actually straddles the property
line and may actually be more on the adjacent property than this
one.
Mr. La Pine:
What about the comment that 'Vhis plan does not seem to
incorporate condition #3 for a protective wall?" Is a wall
required there?
22065
Mr. Taormina: I'm gang to refer that to Mr. Miller
Mr. Miller:
This property abuts residential along both its south and west
property line. A protective wall is required in order to screen this
OS property from the adjacent residential. The existing
greenbelt along the west property line is over 10 feet in depth
and can be substituted in place of the protective wall. The
greenbelt along the south property line is not a confinuous 10
feel in depth, so herefore it does not meet the criteria and does
not quality for a greenbelt substitution. Along the south property
line, the petitioner has the option of either erecting a prolective
wall or entering in to a separation agreement with the abutting
residential property owner
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
George Hartman, George Hartman Architects, 6905 Telegraph, Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan 48301. Mr. Colucci, the property owner, is here.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation or
respond to Mr. LaPine's inquiry?
John Colucci, 10811 Farmington, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'd like to address
the issue of the swale. The swale will be graded. It happens to
be on my son's property. We would put it down automatically
anyway because it's a natural drain to Farmington Road. It's
been tom up because we put a sewer line through there, but in
the spring, my son and I will have that area graded so that we
have proper drainage. But it's not on my property. Its on my
son's.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Morrow: As far as the separation of the residential from the office, do
they need a document indicating there is an agreement that the
wall is not required?
Mr. Taormina: I suspect there is some history with respect to the fact that we
have a residential property abutting an office property without
there being a wall, maybe even a vanance. But if that variance
has expired or is about to expire, they can enter into a
separation agreement. It's valid for a period of five years, and
there is a forth that needs to be filled out and submitted to the
City Inspection Department and the Zoning Board office. That
22066
would be recorded as well, so that any future purchasers of the
property are aware of the conditions that exist.
Mr. Morrow:
In other words, they would research it to see if that expired?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I would like to make a comment here. When we went through
Item #1, #15 is part of that resolution. I think we covered that. If
we could add that, #15 of Item #1, into this one here, I think we
would resolve that issue. #15 here says, 'That for the south
property line, the petitioner shall have the option of either
erecting a protective wall immediately, going to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a temporary wall variance or seeking the
consent of the abutting property owner."
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Pieroecchi, you're referring to the resolution we adopted
Previously?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yeah.#15 seems to apply there.
Mr. Walsh:
I think @ addresses that point in Item 3.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
We have it covered here?
Mr. Walsh:
We have it in there. Anything else, Mr. Pieroecchi?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions or comments for the petitioner?
There is no remaining audience, so unless there are any other
questions or anything else from the petitioner, a motion would
be order.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously approved, itwas
#02-16-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of a
landscape plan, submitted by John Colucoi, in connection with
Petition 2004-09-08-18, which previously received site plan
approval by the City Council on December 6, 2004, (Council
Resolution #561-04) for the property located at 10811
Farmington Road in the Northeast'% of Section 33, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
22067
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated
December 16, 2004, as revised, prepared by George J.
Hartman Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the west
property line, as shown on the approved landscape plan, is
hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective
wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts
effectiveness as a protective barter, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
7. That for the south property line, the petitioner shall have
the option of either erecting a protective wall immediately,
going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a temporary wall
variance or seeking the consent of the abutting property
owner(s);
8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for; and,
9. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#561-04 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are
not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
22068
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
898TH
Regular Meeting
Mr. Pieroecchi,
Acting Chairman, announced the
next item
on the agenda,
Approval of the Minutes of the 898"' Regular Meeting held on
January 11, 2005.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-17-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 898" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on January 11, 2005, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecohi, Morrow,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Smiley
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 900"' Regular
Meeting held on February 8, 2005, was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Daniel Piercecchi, Acting Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman