HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-03-1522117
MINUTES OF THE 902n" REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 902n° 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 Carol Smiley
John Walsh
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 writing, 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 2005-02-08-03 FINISHLINE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-02-
08-03 submitted by Finishline Power Sports requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a commeroial building
on property located at 29200 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest
Z of Section 1.
22118
Mr. Miller: Finishline Power Sports is requesfing approval to construct a
commercial building on property located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Parkville
Avenue. This site is presently vacant and is located between a
CVS Pharmacy and a Toys R Us store. Finishline Power Sports
is a motorcycle and snowmobile dealership. The proposed
building would be 14,000 square feet in size and two stories in
height. The second story would consist of a partial mezzanine
that would cover approximately half of the upper space. The
remaining porton of the upper level would be open or what is
classified as a "clear 1oor." There would also be a 12 -foot wide
catwalk along the upper level of the front interior wall. This
platform would be used to display merchandise. Because of the
large windows of the storefront, items exhibited on this raised
stage would be visible from the outside. The petitioner has
explained that because of this interior platform there would be
no need to display vehicles outside. The building itself would be
situated approximately in the middle of the site, about five feet
from the east properly line. Parking for the site would be
located in two separate lots, one in the front between the
building and Seven Mile Road and one behind the dealership.
A 20 -fool aisleway would ran along the western side of the
building and conned the two parking lots. The plans depict two
man doors opening out into this narrow connecting
passageway. Twenty-two parking spaces are required, and
they are providing 20 spaces. Because this dealership would
be deficient in parking by two spaces, this site would have to be
granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The
site's enclosed trash dumpster area would be located in one of
the landscape areas behind the building; straight up the main
aisleway that connects the two parking lots. A single two-way
drive off Seven Mile Road would provide the primary access to
the site. There is also a connecting drive that links this site's
rear parking lot with a section of the Toys R Us parking lot. The
floor plan shows a section called 'Work areas," and it is believed
this space would be used to repair motorcycles and
snowmobiles. They are providing the required landscaping of
15% of the total site. The proposed building would be
constructed out of split face block. Notes on the elevafion plan
maintain that the building is to be a pre-engineered steel
structure. The bulk of the south elevation (facing Seven Mile)
would be block with a series of large picture windows, two
stories high.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
22119
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 10, 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, and the legal description is
comect. We have no objection to the proposal. In order to
construct the new building, the existing storm sewer easement
in favor of the City must be vacated and replaced by a new
easement along the route of the proposed sewer. Since this is
a long process, we urge the petitioner to start on the vacation as
soon as possible. The drive approach to Seven Mile Road
requires a permit from Wayne County. Further, detention
facilities in accordance with Wayne County's storm water
management ordinance have been required for similar projects
in this area." The lefler is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated February 28, 2005, which reads as follows:
'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to construct a commercial building on property
located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If
subject building is to be provided with an automatic sprinkler
system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet
from the Fire Department connection. (2) Adequate hydrants
shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300
feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500
FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (3) Due to the noted
width of 20 feet, this Division requests that the entrance drive be
posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking.' (4) Hydrant
spacing in bre commerciat/retail groupings shall be consistent
with City of Livonia Ordinances. (5) Fire lanes shall be provided
for all buildings that are set back more than 150 feet from a
public road or exceed 30 feet in height and are set back over 50
feet from a public road. (6) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20
feet of unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire
apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical
clearance. (7) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall
be provided where an access road is a dead end and is in
excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a
minimum centedine radius of 50 feet. The authority having
jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the
fire lane. (8) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be
permitted. (9) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding
signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other traffic surfaces that
have the words 'Fre lane — no parking' painted in contrasting
22120
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 March 4, 2005, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by Finishline
Power Sports located at 29200 Seven Mile Road. We would
submit for your consideration that a stop sign be placed at the
exit onto Seven Mile Road from this property." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 11,
2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
February 7, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This plan as drawn would
not be approved at this Department's plan review. A storage
mezzanine is limited to 3,000 square feet without being
accessible (i.e., having an elevator, etc.). This will be mom fully
addressed at our plan review upon submission. (2) Itis unclear
as to how much space is provided at the display mezzanine.
This could increase the floor space and thus increase the
required parking. As it is now, this petition will require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking.
Not counting mezzanines, this space requires 22 spaces with 20
provided and is then deficient a minimum of 2 spaces. (3) The
parking striping is required to be double striped. (4) The front
building sidewalk will need to be level with the parking area for
accessibility. The accessible parking should be closest to the
front door with the accessible aisle centered on the entry. (5) It
is unclear as to exit doors opening into the west driveway. With
only a 20 feet wide driveway and doors opening into the
driveway, it may create a dangerous situation. The doors need
protection, and the driveway will need to be widened which will
result in decreased landscaping. The Commission and Council
may wish to address this. 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? Is there anything you'd like
to add? Our commissioners may have some questions for you.
Kurt Beleck, Atwell -Hicks, 6303 26 Mile, Washington, Michigan 48094. We are
the engineers and site planners for the project.
Mr. Walsh: Welcome. Is there anything you would like to add to what the
staff has already described? Mr. Camey, you can come forward
if you would like.
22121
Mr. Camey:
Oh, thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Good evening.
John Camey, 13407
Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Camey:
One of the things we would just like to say is that the mezzanine
is going to be down to 3,000 feet. That may eliminate the need
for more parking space. The reason they have the west side of
the building as a road is to allow tractors/trailers to deliver
product to the rear of the building, and also a tum around so
they wouldn't have to back all the way in. Is there anything
else?
Tom Durocher,
4321 South Road, East China, Michigan. I heard some of the
things that were said about the mezzanine and the doors. I
think we addressed those. We put sliding doors on the one that
open out into the access lane going to the back parking lot.
Also we did cul the mezzanine down to 3,000; it was 6,000. We
did cul it down to 3,000 square feel and to eliminate any more
additional parlang. We know we're two parking stalls short. We
could probably add the two parking spaces in the back, but I
feel, and maybe I'm wrong, but I feel that it's better for a semi to
pull in instead of backing in from Seven Mile and causing
congestion in the traffic.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
You mentioned you're going to have the sliding doors on the
side that faces the CVS?
Mr. Durocher:
Right.
Mr. Morrow:
How many doors will be along there?
Mr. Durocher:
There will be three. There will be a rollup door and there will be
a service door and the sliding door. The door for the sliding
door is just for getting inventory in and out into the showroom.
The overhead doors will bring repair stuff into the building.
Mr. Morrow:
How will you prevent the customers from using those doors?
How will they be marked or how will they be managed?
22122
Mr. Durocher:
I think that's something that would have to be managed by the
operator of the building and the business, but also they could be
marked on the building and on the asphalt drive - no parking.
I'm sure that you're never going to stop it, but you're going to
have to enforce it when you see somebody park there. You're
going to have to go out and ask them to move.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess I'm more concerned about somebody walking outside
rather than walking in.
Mr. Durocher:
Well, there will be some posts put in by the doors but the doors
are swinging in, so when they do swing in, it doesn't swing out.
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to highlight it because it can be a safety hazard.
Mr. Durocher:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Just be aware that whatever you can do to preclude any type of
traffic going in and out of there other than when you're
managing it with inventory.
Mr. Durocher:
Mostly there are going to be employees back there. Customers
are not allowed back there, I believe.
Fred Owen,
Finishline Power Sports, 8025 Telegraph, Dearborn Heights,
Michigan 48127. Good evening. I'm the guy that's trying to
build this store. The question you asked about the sliding doors
on the side - on the side there, those are designated sliders.
They will be locked. They are not for public use. The only
reason we have them there is for the convenience of the
employees to bring product in and out as we sell and we stock
the showroom. The other door down the side of the building,
which is an entry door — that door will enter inward right? That
steel door. It will go inside. It does not open to the parking lot.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, a couple questions. Our notes say that you will be doing
motorcycle repairs. Will you tell us what kind of repairs you will
be doing there?
Mr. Owen:
We're a licensed motorcycle dealership. We just acquired a
Suzuki Corporation franchise. With any franchise agreement to
sell your product, you must be able to service the product. So
whatever the product needs. We sell them. If customers bring
22123
them in to get them fixed, we have licensed technicians from the
State to service them.
Mr. Alanskas:
My biggest concern is, of course, noise. A lot of car facilities
when you run engines, you have an exhaust hose attached to
the end that goes outside with the doors being closed.
Motorcycles are very noisy, and if you're going to be running
these, I'm concemed about the noise levels.
Mr. Owen:
That shouldn't be a problem. We're designing it under the
tech's benches. There will be a similar setup - an exhaust
system to make it safe to pull the exhaust out of the thing, and
all our service, as far as engines running, 90 percent of it will be
done inside the store. We do not allow test drives. Its against
our policies, so nobody will be taking a bike down Seven Mile
and that kind of stuff unless they own it.
Mr. Alanskas:
But while the bikes are running, you'll have the doors closed so
the noise will not go outside?
Mr. Owen:
No, we're building an internal exhaust system.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Number two, in regards to your landscaping, it says 15
percent, but I dont see a landscape plan and what you're going
to be doing to the landscaping.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, if you will go over to the tripod, there's a portable mike that
you can use.
Mr. Owen:
There should be a landscape plan in your packet.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just didn't see it yet. I'm sorry.
Mr. Beleck:
It should be the Iasi plan in your packet. Again, we're meeting
the 15 percent requirement. We have landscaping here along in
the front. We're putting in a couple trees, frontage trees, and
we have shrubs in all of the islands here that prated the parking
spaces. What we doing is, looking at what CVS already had,
they already have some existing landscaping along that side
and its right on the property line. So being mindful of that, we
were trying to maintain that as well asjust expand that area.
Mr. Alanskas:
To try to match it?
22124
Mr. Beleck:
To further enhance it a little bit more, and even though some of
it, again, it's right on the property line, it was best that we just
lett it where it was.
Mr. Alanskas:
And it will all be irrigated?
Mr. Beleck:
Yes. And then maintaining the buffer along this side, we have
sod all along the east side of the building. Then again in the
back, we have landscaping screening around the dumpster and
several trees and shrubs in back.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shane:
I believe there's 12 parking spaces in front of the building?
Mr. Beleck:
Pardon me?
Mr. Shane:
Ithink there's 12, is there not?
Mr. Beleck:
I still can't hear.
Mr. Shane:
Twelve parking spaces?
Mr. Beleck:
Yes, exactly. There's 12 parking spaces in front. There was a
comment relative to the handicap spaces from one of the
correspondences. It's very simple for us to just move those
over in front of the building so the striping is right in front of the
door.
Mr. Shane:
What my question was going to be was, due to the nature of
your business, do you foresee 12 parking spaces being
sufficient for your customers?
Mr. Owen:
I've been in this business for four years at another location I
partly own. I wish I could fill those 12 on a daily basis. I'd be a
wealthy person. We sell high end product as far as expenses,
and that shouldn't be an issue at all.
Mr.Shane:
Okay.
Mr. Owen:
Our employees will be parking in the back so they will be
dedicated to our customers.
Mr. Shane:
All right. Thank you.
22125
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I think you're a big step forward with this plan here compared to
the one we originally received. I have one question if I may ask
in regard to this flat roof site. What about the mechanical
equipment? Will it be up on the roof? Is this plan here the
screened version or are you going to have a parapet or what to
hide the mechanicals?
Mr. Durocher:
There will be a screen. I think there's a note on there because
this was done quite quickly. We didn't have really a lot of time
to get it back to you. But there is going to be a screen. The
mechanicals will be on lop of the roof, but there will be a screen
around the whole thing.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So you're going to go higher than what we see here?
Mr. Durocher:
I can't tell you just how high, but I'm going to say probably about
30 inches high.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. And what type of material? Is ilgolng to match?
Mr. Durocher:
It will be a color, t will be a vinyl type of a screen. It will be a
color match with the building.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you planning on giving us that revision so when the City
Council gets it ...
Mr. Durocher:
Correct. The drawings, renderings, everything will be done
differently. This was done within a couple days and we had to
gel it back to you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I know you were rushed.
Mr. Durocher:
So I tried to do the best we could to gel it done. It's not really
the color we wanted, but it was hand done.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I appreciate your efforts in getting this thing expedited, but when
this thing goes to the City Council, then we need a complete
package so the fathers and mothers can make the right decision
on this.
Mr. Durocher
That's correct. It will be. I will have that done. Its just like I
say, it didn't gel done.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That's all, Mr. Chairman.
22126
Mr. LaPine:
I have a number of questions. Number one, getting back to the
repairs inside the building, will there be any material lett over
like if you replace a fender, if you replace a carburetor and
things like that? And if you do, how do you dispose of this
material?
Mr. Owen:
As far as plastics and so forth?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Owen:
A plastic part doesn't require any special disposal. We have oil
disposal tanks at our present store that are serviced by a
company that comes in and removes any oil from the tank.
Mr. LaPine:
Will the oil disposal tank be inside the building?
Mr. Owen:
Yes. And its all property done with fire extinguishers, you know,
and so forth.
Mr. LaPine:
I was looking on the plans here. Where is your dumpster? I
assume you're going to have a dumpster?
Mr. Owen:
The dumpster is on the outside.
Mr. Durocher
Kurt, could you show them?
Mr. Beleck:
There's a dumpster located right here on the back comer.
Mr. LaPine:
The next question I have, seeing that these use gasoline, do
you store any gasoline on the site?
Mr. Owen:
No. The only thing we plan on doing - from the store we
operate now, we have what they call a gasoline buddy. Are you
familiar with it?
Mr. LaPine:
No.
Mr. Owen:
It's like a 10 gallon on wheels. That's all we keep, because you
have to have some fuel to start the product.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that. That's what I'm getting at.
Mr. Owen:
Once that drains out, we put it in the pickup truck, get gas, and
maintain it there.
Mr. LaPine:
So that's kept inside the building loo?
22127
Mr. Owen:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any requirements, Mark, on the storage of a ten gallon
can of gasoline inside?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure that will be an issue. That will be addressed at the
time of plan review.
Mr. LaPine:
Otherwise, to be honest with you, I'm not really over -enthused
about the location you picked for this, but overall, I like your
plan. Thankyou.
Mr. Owen:
Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one come forward, a motion is
in order. Yes, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Anticipating an approving resolution, if I could just make two
suggestions. One, that a slight modification be made to the plan
with respect to the landscaping along the front of the building.
Where the parking spaces are located adjacent to the Seven
Mile Road right-of-way, we could shorten the depth of those
spaces to 18 feel and thereby pick up another two feet for
additional landscaping immediately adjacent to the right-of-way
line. Secondly, a condition could be added that would prohibit
any outside storage on the site. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm glad you brought that up. I want to make sure that is in the
motion - no display of any merchandise outside. I did have one
otherquestion.
Mr. Owen:
That's the reason for the meaanine- to store everything inside.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Would it be more prudent, Mr. Chairman, we can add the
outside storage condition to the motion that was prepared and
then to return with a landscaping plan?
Mr. Walsh:
We have a landscape plan. He reviewed the plan, Mr.
Piercecchi. The plan is in your packet and he just reviewed the
plan with us in response to your question.
Mr. Piercecchi:
This is the same plan we received before, isn't it?
Mr. Walsh:
That's correct.
22128
Mr. Pieroecchi: And I hearlonight, like ...
Mr. Alanskas: No. I said I didn't not see the landscape plan.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Alanskas wasn't that sat stied with it.
Mr. Alanskas: No. I didn't see it. I'm satisfied with it.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Oh, you're satisfied with it?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I'll make a motion if you want.
On a motion by Pieroecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, It
was
#03-25-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-02-08-03,
submitted by Finishline Power Sports, requesfing approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building
on properly located at 29200 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest
of Section 1, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan dated February 3 2005, prepared by
Atwell Hicks, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and outlines
the terms of how the subject properly(s) would share
parking, be supplied to the City;
3. That the Landscape Plan dated February 3, 2005,
prepared by Atwell Hicks, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to except for the fad that an additional two feel of
greenbelt shall be added to the landscaping along Seven
Mile Road;
4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
22129
6. 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;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2,
as received by the Planning Commission on March 14,
2005, prepared by THA, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
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 the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same block used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated February 28, 2005:
- That if subject building is to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feel and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connection;
- That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants;
most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a
residual pressure of 20 PSI;
22130
That the 20 foot wide entrance drive be posted (both
sides) "Fire Lane— No Parking';
That hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail grouping
shall be consistentwith City of Livonia ordinances;
That 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;
13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Departments
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated March 4, 2005:
That a stop sign be placed at the exit onto Seven Mile
Road from this property;
14. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
15. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
16. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the window;
17. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolufion shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
18. That no outside storage, placement or display of
merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: I will support the motion providing Mr. Piercecchi would agree to
a small addifion. Item 3.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Number 12 you're talking about?
22131
Mr.Shane:
Number 3.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Number 3? The landscape plan.
Mr. Shane:
Pursuant to Mr. Taormina's recommendation, that two feet of
landscaping be added to the front landscaping area. I'd just like
this to read that the "landscape plan dated February 23, 2005,
as revised" and hoping they will revise it by the time it gets to
City Council.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay, what date do you want that?
Mr. Shane:
The date is fine, just add revised.
Mr. Morrow:
As revised.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Just add as revised. Okay. I didn't bother reading the parts
from the Fire Department, because that letter was already read
and it's in the record.
Mr. LaPine:
I'd just like to add an Item 18, the point that Mr. Taormina
brought up that there will be no outside display of merchandise
outside of this building.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Pieroecchi, are you willing to add that?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I have no problem with that.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional comments? Hearing none, I'd like to
take the opportunity just to thank the petitioner. It was very
evident that you worked hard to meet our requirements. You
even went so far as to gel some plans done before tonight's
meeting, and I think we all greatly appreciate that. If is any
indication of how you're going to operate your business, I would
expect you to be a really good corporate citizen for us.
Mr. Owen:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
22132
k1�Ai E:3'M»IYOle]7W1I1I.ZrYZrRES �9 Y ATA: Eel 101olL
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
02-08-04
00502-08-04 submitted by Steven Gluck requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a dental office on
property located at 15552 Newburgh Road in the Southwest '%
of Section 17.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a dental office
on property located on the east side of Newburgh Road
between Five Mile Road and Ladywood Avenue. This property
is in the process of being rezoned (Pet. 04-09-01-10) from R -2A
(One Family Residential) to OS (Office Services). The Planning
Commission, after holding a public hearing on October 12,
2004, recommended approving the requested rezoning.
Following a public hearing, the City Council gave First Reading
on the requested rezoning at its December 6, 2004, Regular
Meeting. The Second Reading and a Roll Call Vote are
scheduled at the time the site plan is presented to the Council
for action. Review of this petition is based on the assumption
that the property will be rezoned to OS. The proposed building
would be one-story in height and a total of 3,080 square feet in
area. A single driveway oft Newburgh Road would provide
access to the site. All of the site's parking would be situated on
the south side of the building, with all of the parking spaces
lined up along the south property fine. Parking required for this
site is 13 spaces, and 15 spaces will be provided. The site plan
shows that the site's enclosed dumpster and loading areas
would be located behind the building, extending off the parking
lot. The petitioner has stated that there would be no rooftop
mechanical equipment. A note on the plan explains that all
mechanical equipment would be located either in an interior
utility room or, if outside, screened in the service court. This
exterior service court is located next to the rear loading area
behind the building. A 'typical light standard" cutout shown on
the landscape plan stipulates that the site's light standards
would be 20 -feet in height. A 50 -fool wide greenbelt area
located between the building and the east (rear) property line
would be utilized for storm water detention. A note on the plan
indicates that storm water storage would be handled by
underground piping or above ground detention. The petitioner
has stated that all specific details pertaining to storm water
detention would be worked out with the City's Engineering
Department. Required landscaping is not less than 15% of the
total site; the petitioner is providing landscaping on 50% of the
22133
site. The plans do not indicate the protective walls that are
required between this property and the abutting residential
properties to the north (RC) and east (R -2A). The landscape
plan illustrates a row of evergreen trees along a berm adjacent
to the west property line and a number of trees along the north
property line. The petitioner has indicated that greenbelt
substitutions for the protective walls would be sought. The
greenbelts that extend along both property lines would qualify
and could be granted permanent approval status. The look of
the proposed building can best be described as residential in
character. It would be constructed out of brick on all four sides
and would have a multi -peaked asphalt -shingled roof.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 7, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. Additional right -of my
is not required at this time and the legal description is comect.
We have no objection to the proposal. The detention area east
of the building with an outlet to the east is appropriate since the
City storm sewer in Newburgh Road experiences problems
during a heavy rain event." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 7, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a dental
office on property located at the above referenced address. We
have no objections to this proposal with the following
stipulations: (1) If subject building is to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between
50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection. (2)
Due to the noted width of 22 feet, this Division requests that the
entrance drive be posted (on building side) 'Fire Lane — No
Parking.' (3) Hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail groupings
shall be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. (4) Fire
lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, able
to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a minimum of
13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (5) An approved
turnaround for fire apparatus shall be provided where an access
road is a dead end and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The
turnaround shall have a minimum centerfine radius of 50 feet.
The authority having jurisdiction shall approve the grade,
surface, and location of the fire lane. (6) T or Y turnaround
arrangements shall be permitted. (7) Fire lanes shall be marked
22134
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. Fre Inspector. The third letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 7, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 1, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The greenbelts noted along the north and east property lines
are required. (2) Signage as detailed at 16 square feet is at the
maximum allowed. (3) The Commission and/or Council may
wish to consider rotating the dumpster enclosure slightly to
allow for better servicing access. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The fourth letter is
from the Hunters Grove Court Condominium Association of
Livonia, dated March 3, 2005, which reads as follows: `The
Hunters Grove Court Condominium Association concurs with
Dr. Gluck's proposed and submitted plan of an evergreen
landscape on the property line between the condominiums
abutting up to the property line of Dr. Gluck, DDS, as opposed
to a cement and/or brick wall. We would appreciate your
consideration and acceptance of this proposal." The letter is
signed by Dolores McGuire, President, and Crag Girard, Vice -
President. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dennis Krestel, Guido Architects, Inc., 23419 Ford Road, Dearborn, Michigan
48128. 1 am the architect representing the property owner. This
proposed dental office has been placed in the northwest
quadrant of the site. An area around the building, measuring
190 feet in the east -west direction and 48 feel in the north -south
direction defines a proposed OS district, within which the
building can only be placed or expanded. There is a heavy line
that is shown on your site plan that would indicate that district
boundary. Placement of the building here sets its furthest from
the subdivision properties to the east and is satisfactory with the
condominium owners to the north As you just heard from Mr.
Miller, the residents at the condominium project to the north
would rather see an evergreen screening in lieu of the brick
screen wall. It's been indicated by the developer that the
property owners to the east in the subdivision would also prefer
the evergreen screening in lieu of the brick screen wall. I'd like
to point out that the required storm water detention will be
accomplished by the construction of a pond as shown, the
22135
placement of underground storage pipes or a combination of
both. All stone water run off will be contained on site. I think
that this type of business use is one of the most sedentary type
with only 15 parking spaces, six operatories and scheduled
appointments, the daily traffic should be at a minimum.
Business hours are typically nine to five. Parking is at least 50
feet from the residential properties. If you will notice, the
automobile headlights as they turn into the parking spaces will
be aimed away from the residential properties toward the
existing masonry screen wall along the south property line.
Architecturally, the lox pitched roof line, the brick walls, the
earth tone colors and an abundance of landscaping would
certainly allow this building to fit in adjacent to any residential
district. I think our work with the City's Planning Department
has helped to create one of the least obtrusive and most
compatible developments. I have a sample board and a color
rendering if you would like for me to place them up on the easel.
Mr. Walsh:
If you could do that, please.
Mr. Krestel:
It further depicts the materials that you have shown or indicated
on the submittal in your package with pitched roof lines and
earth tone colors as I indicated. This elevation is the elevation
closest to the parking area along the drive. This elevation here
is the west elevation that would be seen from Newburgh.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
How many dentists are going to be in there?
Mr. Krestel:
There is one. Potentially, down the road, there could be another
dentist brought in. Hence the six operatories he can handle
himself. As he got older, he might want to bring another one in
to reduce the amount of patients he saw, but we only have the
ability oflhe six operatories.
Ms. Smiley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just two questions. Is this a five day or six day operation? Are
you open on Saturday?
Mr. Krestel:
To the best of my knowledge, they are open on Saturdays.
Mr. Alanskas:
They are? Okay. I would like to compliment you on the
building. It's a gorgeous looking building.
22136
Mr.
Krestel:
Thankyou.
Mr.
Morrow:
Just a comment. I appreciate the presentation that you made.
It's one of the finest ones I've heard. It touched all the bases.
Mr.
Krestel:
Thankyou.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
This lower elevation, that's going to face Newburgh?
Mr.
Krestel:
Yes, sir.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
The one facing up there, that's going to face north?
Mr.
Krestel:
South, to the parking lot.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
That's going to face the parking lot?
Mr.
Krestel:
Yes.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
What about the elevation that faces the neighbors to the north?
Mr.
Krestel:
To he north, its very similar. There will be more windows along
this side, one in each one of the operatories, but it would be a
very similar looking elevation.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
Il will have the look of a residence from that side too?
Mr.
Krestel:
Yes.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
My compliments.
Mr.
Krestel:
Thankyou.
Mr.
La Pine:
I'd just like to say I thank you for all your patience. I know this
has been a long drawn out thing for your diem, but I think at the
end we got a good building site here, and I think he's going to
be proud of it. I know the citizens of Livonia are going to be
very proud of it. We thank you very much.
Mr.
Krestel:
You'rewelcome. I'm surewe all agree with you.
Mr.
Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On
a motion by
Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, itwas
22137
#03-26-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Pefilion 2005-02-08-04
submitted by Steven Gluck requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a dental office on
property located at 15552 Newburgh Road in the Southwest
of Section 17, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked A+1 dated February 23, 2005,
prepared by Guido Architects, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked 42 dated February 23,
2005, prepared by Guido Architects, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that a
continuous row of evergreen trees, planted in a staggered
line not more than 10 feet apart, shall be installed along the
entire east property line;
3. 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;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked A-0 and
A-5, both dated February 23, 2005, prepared by Guido
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 the three walls of the trash dumpsler area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
22138
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building, and the endosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
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 the Developer shall submit for approval an ongoing
mosquito control program, as approved by the Department
of Public Works, describing maintenance operations and
larvicide applications to the City of Livonia Inspection
Department prior to the constriction of the stormwater
retention facility;
12. That the owner shall provide annual reports to the
Inspection Department on the maintenance and larvicide
treatments completed on the stormwater detention pond;
13. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
14. That the petitioner shall coned to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated March 7. 2005:
That if subject building is to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feel from the Fire Department
connection;
That the 22 fool wide entrance drive be posted (both
sides) "Fire Lane — No Parking';
That hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail grouping
shall be consistentwith City of Livonia ordinances;
That 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;
22139
15. 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;
16. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
17. That the landscaped greenbelts along the north and east
property lines, 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;
18. That any change of circumstances in these areas
containing the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the
greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective 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; and
19. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
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 #3 PETITION 200442-08-22 ST. MARTINS COMMONS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a revision to
Petition 2004-12-08-22 submitted by Schafer Development, on
behalf of St. Martins Commons Condominiums, requesting
approval to modify the plans approved for the proposed
condominium development on property located on the north
side of St. Martins Avenue between Middlebelt Road and Melvin
Avenue in the Southeast %of Section 2.
Mr. Miller: On February 9, 2005, this site received site plan approval (CR
#40-05) to develop a multiple family condominium project on
property located on the north side of Sl. Martins Avenue
between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue. The proposed
22140
development would be known as "St. Martins Commons
Condominiums." The approved plan included six buildings,
comprised of 12 condominium units each, for a total of 72 units.
Each two-story building had an overall dimension of
approximately 175 feel in length by 60 feet in depth. Buildings
idenfifed as 2, 5 and 6 were oriented lengthwise from East to
West, while Buildings 1, 3 and 4 were situated in the opposite
direction, from North to South. Concerns were raised over
vehicular access around each building, and the site as a whole.
Roadways were available to all four sides of Buildings 2, 5 and
6, but were limited to only three side of Buildings 1, 3 and 4. As
a result, dead-end drives were created between Buildings No. 3
and 4 and on the west side of Building No. 1. The revised plans
shoe the same number of buildings and units, but with a slightly
different building orientation and road configuration. The
proposed layout provides vehicular access around each
building. Buildings 1 through 4 would be oriented lengthwise
from North to South and Buildings 5 and 6 are positioned from
East and West. The development would still contain a total of
72 condominium units. Some units would have two -car garages
and others just one -car. Because of the new arrangement, a
majority of the garage doors would face St. Martins Avenue. In
order to provide screening and to help soften the look, the
pefifioner is proposing to install a two to three fool high
landscape berm along the road right-of-way. The exterior
elevations of the buildings would basically be the same as
originally proposed with just a few ornamental changes.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 1, 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-of-way is not
required at this time. The detention facilities will require the
approval of Wayne County." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 25, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the St. Martins
Condominiums site revision plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct a condominium development on property
located on the north side of St. Martins Avenue between
Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue. We have no objections to
this proposal pending resolution of the items stipulated in our
initial site plan review letter of December 14, 2004." The letter
22141
is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Inspector. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 4, 2005, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the revised plans in
connection with the proposal for the St. Martins Condominiums.
We have no further recommendations with the revised plans as
submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Stuck, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated March 2, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of February 23, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
Although the continuity of the northerly access road is an
improvement, the southerly access mad is now not continuous
and will increase backing up, turning around, etc., which may
not be as safe. This Department has no further objections to
the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Steven J. Schafer, Schafer Development, LLC, 25800 Northwestern Highway,
Suite 720, Southfield, Michigan 48075. The plan on the bottom
originally was the approved plan. What we've been able to do is
reconfigure some of these buildings. Actually, we now have
more green space on the plan and some thicker buffers against
St. Martins Street. We have added a berm with substantial
landscaping through that area. We also haw these common
green areas now that weren't on the earlier plan. Also, these
buildings now are further away from the homes, which at one
point was a concern of some of the residents. The biggest plan
change is that we have some two -car garages now, decreasing
some of the impervious surface and less on -street parking as a
result of that. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer
them. One other thing I would like to comment on is the
Building Department did have a comment that I hadn't heard
until tonight, but this plan that we have up here tonight is vastly
improved over the other because we did have ... I think there
were four dead ends where now that's been eliminated on what
would be the north end of the site. So if you have any
questions, I'd be happen to answer them.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Schafer, I understand by looking at your latest plan here,
which, by the way, it seems to get better and better with each
presentation. Now there is access all the way around the
buildings.
22142
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Every one you can get at. There's no stopping, backing up, no
T?
Mr. Schafer: No, these would be the entries into the individual garages but
now we have complete circulation all the way around. We did
meet with the Fire Department, and they were a lot more
comfortable with this plan versus the earlier plan.
Mr. Pieroecchi: If you recall, we were quite concemed about that. I'm sure each
and every one of us looks forward to this plan, and we're
grateful for the safety aspects that you were able to develop
there. I know it look a lot of innovation, a lot of fresh thinking in
order to gel this project the way it is, and with either
enhancement, I think the people that will ultimately occupy
these facilities are going to be very grateful to you.
Mr. Schafer: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Schafer, I just want to be sure you dont want to revise it one
more lime?
Mr. Schafer: I promise I won't revise it one more time. We were hoping to
break ground on it some time late spring or early summer.
Mr. Morrow: I just want to echo what Mr. Pieroecchi said. This last revision, I
think, touched a lot of bases. We kind of liked the plan before,
but we like this one better.
Mr. Schafer: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I would like to thank Mr. Schafer. As you know, I voted against
him. I was up at the Council when he submitted his plan that
was approved by this Board, and the Council actually approved
his original site. He could have went ahead and built it the way
he had it, but he listened to some of our comments and went
back and came back with what I think is a much, much better
plan. I think we all appreciate it, and thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, itwas
22143
#03-27-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that a revision to Petition 2004-
12-08-22 submitted by Schafer Development, on behalf of Sl.
Martins Commons Condominiums, requesting approval to
modify the plans which previously received site plan approval by
the City Council on February 9, 2005 (Council Resolution #40-
05), for the proposed condominium development on property
located on the north side of Sl. Martins Avenue between
Middlebell Road and Melvin Avenue in the Southeast % of
Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated January 10,
2005, as revised, prepared by Creative Land Planning
Commission & Design, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 dated
February 22, 2005, as revised, prepared by Nagy &
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -2 dated
February 22, 2005, as revised, prepared by Nagy &
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. 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;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet #4
dated December 24, 2004, as revised, prepared by Ronald
E. Mayotte & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet #4
dated September 21, 2004, as revised, prepared by
Ronald E. Mayotte & Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
22144
9.
That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick
or stone, on all four (4) sides, and the total amount of brick
or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 65%;
10.
That all exterior chmneys shall be brick;
11.
That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
12.
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;
13.
That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
14.
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 properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
15.
That the entrance marker shown on the approved
Landscape Plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
16.
That the Master Deed and bylaws for this condominium
development shall be submitted to the Planning
Department within sixty (60) days of this approval;
17.
That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the hspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for, and
18.
That all other condifions imposed by Council Resolution
#40-05, which granted approval for the construction of a
condominium development, shall remain in effect to the
extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing
condifions.
Mr. Walsh: Is there
any discussion?
22145
Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to say to Mr. Schafer, to get Mr. La Pine to go
from a no vote to a yes vote, you made the proper changes.
Thankyou.
Mr. Schafer: Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
k9=1A43l9=kik Ole] �F*XarSQ97S1S�-1i 1=1 III 'Eel 1NMI Yj II III=
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced be next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
01-SN-01,
00501SN401, submitted by Shell Oil Products requesting approval
for signage for the gas station located at 37449 Five Mile Road
in the Northeast '% of Section 19.
Mr. Miller: Shell is requesting approval to replace be existing signage of
the gas station located on the southwest corner of Five Mile
Road and Newburgh Road. According to the applicant, this new
proposed signage is in accordance with Shell's re-imaging for all
their stations. All the existing building and ground signage for
this particular station would be replaced. This gas station has
three functioning service bays in which vehide repairs are
performed. What is permitted for a gas station is 100 square
feet of wall signage, which includes all window signage and
those attached to the building, and/or canopy facade. They are
also allowed one ground sign not to exceed 40 square feet in
area. The petition is proposing two wall signs on the building for
a total of 19 square feel in area. This site also has two
canopies on the site, and the petitioner is proposing a total of 91
square feet of sign area on the canopies. There is the Shell
sign on the canopy and then a six inch illuminated red bar that
runs along two of the sides of each canopy, for a total of 91
square feet. Adding that to the building signage, there is 100
square feet, so they meet the required square footage allowed
for the building and canopy. Also, one of the canopies has a
peak roof at this time. The petitioner is proposing to box in the
top of the canopy to match the other existing canopy and also
help display the new signage on this canopy. They are
proposing a 43 square feel ground sign, which is three square
feet in excess of what is allowed. Because the proposed
ground sign is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign
Ordinance, the applicant would need a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The illuminated red bars that would wrap
22146
around two sides of each canopy consist of fluorescent lamps
enclosed in plastic. All proposed signage would be internally
illuminated except for the two wall signs on the building. Along
with the signage, the applicant is also planning on repainting the
building. The building would be painted white with dark gray
trim. A note on the plan stales, "25% of the fascia length will be
red and the remaining will be yellow' and points to the sign band
across the front of the building. A small (&' x 11) color
rendering has been submitted depicting the color scheme for
this station.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 16, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition as
presented will require variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for excessive signage. (la) The ground sign is allowed
40 square feet, as proposed, it is 42.64 square feet. (lb) The
lettering, insignia, etc., on the fuel pumps is limited to 3 square
feet for each pump. As depicted, this exceeds that figure. (2)
All wall signage, window signage, canopy fascia signage and
poster panel signage is limited to a maximum of 100 square
feet, if the building has 50 lineal feet of frontage. As down, this
petition is 93.5 square feet, which would leave only 6.5 square
feet for any other type of signage in this class. (3) This site is
currently providing `free air' to its customers. (4) The front and
rear building fascia needs repairandpaint (5)Parkinginthelot
needs to be double striped with proper barrier free striping and
signage. (6) Theo is an unenclosed dumpsterin the rear. 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?
Thiery Dechape, Tech Express, 16801 Newburgh, Suite 112, Livonia, Michigan
48152. Our firm has been involved in expediting the permits
and trying to get the necessary public approvals. With me is
Greg Ludwick.
Greg Ludwick
from Knoxville, Tennessee. I'm general contractor for Shell
nationwide.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the description?
22147
Mr. Ludwick:
No the descdpfion is really well. I understand everything, and
we do this nationwide. There's going to about 80 sites in the
general Detroit area that's being done. These sites were owned
by Shell and have been sold to individuals. Most of them are
the individuals that have been there for many years. One of the
stipulations is, with the sale, that they upgrade to the new Shell
look and bring it up to standards across the country, and also do
some much needed renovation. So that is part of the sale.
They do have a lump sum in there to do this. Anything that's
above and beyond the normal image look will be something that
will have to come out of the new owners' pockets.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
The repair of the front and rear of the building, and the painting
and deaning up, is that something that is included in this?
Mr. Ludwick:
Yes, we will be repairing the building as needed, boards, things
that are rotted, busted, and also we will be painfing he building
top to bottom.
Ms. Smiley:
Oh, good.
Mr. Ludwick:
This is a white paint that is very strong and clean that is easy for
them to maintain. They use it nationwide. It does have a gray
base along the bottom. Its very nice looking, very bright
looking, clean looking station.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, is that an oil base paint or is that a latex paint?
Mr. Ludwick:
It's on oil base paint, two part paint, epoxy type paint.
Mr. Alanskas:
So it can be washed?
Mr. Ludwick:
Yes, sir. It also revolts against petroleum products. If gas is
spilled on something or whatever, it wouldn't deteriorate the
paint.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I have a comment, and I know I speak for my colleague over
here, Bill La Pine, but I'll let him speak for himself. Why do you
need so much signage? You know, BP has changed all their
signs. They're very small.
Mr. Ludwick:
The actual signage on this site we're looking at ... first of all,
the food mart and the snack shop . . . or the snack shop
22148
lettering and the service lettering fiat's on the building ... those
are very small. The colors are actually what tell people at a
Shell station what it is. The food marts or snack shops are
always blue and yellow. At a glance, you can tell that it is a food
shop or a snack shop. The service is gray and yellow. But the
words themselves are very small. The sign out front, the pole
sign, free-standing sign, we're just re -facing what's there mostly
for economic reasons. We are putting the Shell logos on the
canopy, which basically currently right now on these canopies
there is a Shell logo and also a Shell pecten, the Shell look
itself. So we're actually reducing the amount of signage. They
are considering the light bar, which is an accent -like stripe that
goes around the canopy as signage, and that's what is really
running numbers up. That light bar is merely just a way of
lighting the canopy up at night so you can get a glow of the
yellow canopy. It's not very bright. It is a fluorescent bulb,
unlike neon or anything like that. But it also has a little bit of
down lighting to help with traffic and lighting up the station at
night so that people can see where they're going. It makes it a
little more safety conscious so the surrounding people will be
able to get in.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I dont want to have an adversarial relationship over signs, and I
hale to use BP again.
Mr. Ludwick:
No problem.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But you know, you've got three different ... you said earlier this
is going to be like the standards for your signage for around the
country?
Mr. Ludwick:
Yes, sir. This is nationwide.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But I don't understand then why one of them has a 63 square
fool ground sign and the other two are 43 square feet if you're
standardizing.
Mr. Ludwick:
It's just because we're re -facing what's there. If we put in a new
sign, of course we could change the sizes of signs and things,
but your economics, it's so much more expensive to put in new
foundations, poles and put in a brand new sign, where if you're
taking the existing cabinet...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You're replacing all the ground signs, aren'tyou?
22149
Mr. Ludwick:
No, we're just re -facing it. All we're pulling in is new faces and
repainting the cabinet that's already there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is there any reason why you can't meet our ordinances?
Mr. Ludwick:
We would have to put in a brand new sign then, and its just
economics.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So.
Mr. Ludwick:
We could look at that and see if that's ... I mean, its just an
economic thing. It's just a matter of costing these new owners a
lot more money that what theyve predicted or needed out of R.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But if other companies can meet our standards, I don't see why
Shell ...
Mr. Ludwick:
If this were a new station, that wouldn't be a problem at all. We
are meeting all the sign requirements except for the pole sign if
I'm not mistaken here.
Mr. Dechape:
Right. That particular sign is 2.6 square feet over and it is ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
You're pointing three feel over on ... of course, we'll get to that
later. But I thought earlier in your remarks you said these are
going to be like standards for all your stations, and I want to
point out that ...
Mr. Ludwick:
The standard look and the standard type of signage is standard
across the market. There are different sizes for different
markets. Of course, there are several signs in different areas
that have high rise signs. There are also monument signs.
There are different types of signs. This is one of the smallest
signs, and this is just one that was of like size, and being just a
Idtie over 2 feet.
Mr. Dechape:
The physical size of the sign is 2.6 square feet over the
maximum required. If you take a look at the actual configuration
of the sign on Sheet A-1 that came along with the plans ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
You're talking about the one that's been brought up right now on
Five Mile Road. That's the one you're talking about right now?
You said 46 feet. That's what your monument sign is right now.
Mr. Ludwick:
Actually, that is a brand new monument sign there. That one is
a brand new at this site.
22150
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, how did you get it in with 46?
Mr. Ludwick:
Basically, they make two sizes of monument signs without being
something custom. This one here is one of the smallest. We do
have one a little bit smaller than that and we can do that, but the
numbers and things will be so small, it will be hard for.. .
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, we like them to meet our standards. When you come right
down to it, what the people look for is the pricing on the signs.
Mr. Ludwick:
That's correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You can do all you want, but its the price that brings ... today
especially, brings people into your stations.
Mr. Ludwick:
Right. I agree to that. Thats not an issue. We were just trying
to stay as close as we could and get the maximize amount of
signage for each site, and this one being only 2 fool over, was
so close, and we reduced the amount of site signage drastically
from what was there before.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I wont dominate the conversation.
Mr. LaPine:
Number one, are these the only three Shell stations in Livonia
that you will be doing?
Mr. Ludwick:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
There's only three of them? I guess my position is, seeing that
there's only three, and seeing that they are all Shell stations, I'd
like to see the signage the same on every station. Otherwise,
whatever signage is on the station on Five Mile, the same
should be on Six Mile and the same should be on whatever the
other one is. To me, that makes sense. Now, you're saying at
the Five Mile location, you're putting a new ground sign in. Is
that correct?
Mr. Ludwick:
Yes, the Five Mile is a new sign. Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
You keep talking about the cost and everything here. Why can't
we get a new sign at the Six Mile location so that all the signs
are exactly the same size, the free standing signs, and all the
signage on the canopies and on the pumps are all the same?
So if you went to any three stations in Livonia, everything would
be the same.
22151
Mr. Ludwick:
We can't do that. Right now, two of them are the 5A x 8 foot
signs, and then we have one that is proposed as a larger sign.
If the City likes, we could take them all to the same.
Mr. LaPine:
That's what I would like to see. I would like to see them all the
same size. Let me ask you one other question. On the one
sign you have in town, you've have the word "Subway' on there.
Is that something that Shell allows these stations to do, put
other things on the sign?
Mr. Ludwick:
They do allow it if it is a leased space. If the gas station is
leasing an area of that space to Subway, that is allowed. I don't
believe any of these have Subway on it, so they will no longer
have it.
Mr. LaPine:
The one on Six Mile and Farmington does.
Mr. Ludwick:
They are leasing space, so they will have it on that one, I'm
Sony.
Mr. LaPine:
What's that V power?
Mr. Ludwick:
V power is their brand of premium gas. It is a clean gas. It is a
clean burning gas, and it is a nationwide name they're using for
their premium gas.
Mr. LaPine:
It's nolgoing to have a price panel for it?
Mr. Ludwick:
No, sir. They just advertise that they sell that premium gas
there. It will only be a one price sign. Just the regular price will
be posted.
Mr. Shane:
A question for Mr. Taormina. If Shell Oil Company wanted to
only change the face of the free-standing sign, would that still
come before us?
Mr. Taormina:
Typically, if it only involves a modification to the message itself,
its not something that is reviewed. But in the context of this
project where it was indicated that this is a replacement free-
standing sign, then certainly that's within your purview to require
that it be in full conformance, and also in consideration of the
review of the other items or the elements of the sign package on
the building. And I do have one question, Mr. Chairman, if I
may at this time.
22152
Mr. Taormina: Taormina: A question to the contractor regarding the lighting. I think
there's a notation on the plan that indicates you will enclose the
old light well. What does that refer to and does that impact the
canopy lighting at all with the fascia being installed on the
canopy? Does that actually conceal any of the lighting that's
beneath the canopy? Our concern is that it not only be properly
lit, but also that there not be any glare from the canopy lights. If
this will allow them to be recessed underneath the lower part of
the fascia, then I think that would be a positive improvement to
the plan.
Mr. Ludwick:
The actual light well was actually a built in step around the
canopy that had just exposed fluorescent light bulbs that shone
down and you could actually see them from the street at certain
levels. It was a distraction to a lot of the public, but it did
provide a down lighting around the canopy. The new light bar is
basically taking that place and doing the same thing. It will
shine some light up on the canopy, yet also shine some light
down, but it is a covered light system, so it is not an eyesore or
a distraction to anybody driving by. It doesn't shine out into the
people's eyes. It glows red out. But everything else, the clear
light does shine down. As far as dosing up the light well,
basically the material we use to wrap these canopies is an ACM
aluminum composite material which is used nationwide on
canopies. That material will actually dose in that light well so
you have a nice clean smooth face ofthe fasia.
Mr. Taormina:
Is that the only means by which there is illumination on the
pump area?
Mr. Ludwick:
You'll still have the canopy deck lights. All those stay there.
This is just the perimeter lighting only.
Mr. Taormina:
There's no change to the deck lights?
Mr. Ludwick:
No change to the deck lighting at all.
Mr. Morrow:
What is the square footage ofyour standard size signs?
Mr. Ludwick:
Actually, we have a whole family of signs here, but as far as
monument signs go, which is basically what we're looking at in
this area, which are the smaller square signs, they make
actually three sizes. They make a 4x8 monument, which is the
smallest.
22153
Mr. Morrow:
And what is the square footage on that?
Mr. Ludwick:
The square footage of 4x8 is 32 square feet.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. Ludwick:
It is a double sided sign, of course, and then the next one is a
5'4x8 fool, which is what we're proposing here.
Mr. Morrow:
Which is two square feel roughly over?
Mr. Ludwick:
Exactly. Its 42.6 square feet.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay, and then the other one ...
Mr. Ludwick:
From there we have a larger sign which is 8x12 foot monument,
which is a very large, 96 square fool type sign.
Mr. Morrow:
I just happen to use Shell products, and one thing I'm always
having a hard time seeing is the price of the gasoline as I go by
without driving into somebody else.
Mr. Ludwick:
Right.
Mr. Morrow:
As one commissioner, without incurring a lot of expense to the
new proprietors, you would have to go down to 32 square feet.
Right?
Mr. Ludwick:
Yes, sir. That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
If we could agree to around a 42 square fool sign for all three
locations, as one commissioner, I could support that, but you
would have to ... if I did prevail, you would have to go to the
ZBA for approval.
Mr. Ludwick:
Right. And then, of course, we would like to do that, the reason
being because the things are so much more readable on that
sign. The 32 square fool is just really hard to read at any
distance at all.
Mr. Morrow:
I get the feeling that once you start getting into custom signs,
the cost of the product goes up.
Mr. Ludwick:
M goes way up, yes, sir. That's coned. Before we would make
a custom sign, we would rather put the Iitllesl one in there.
22154
Mr. Morrow:
I'm sure the new operator wouldn't be too happy with it.
Mr. Ludwick:
Exactly.
Mr. LaPine:
I can go along with what Mr. Morrow says. My whole contention
was, I wanted to make sure every station had the same size
sign. I think that just makes for good continuity throughout the
whole city with all the Shell sites, and that the rest of the
signage, that each one of these stations is basically the same
too. That's all I'm interested in.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
They will sti l have to go to the Zoning Board for the 42, won't
they?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes, Mr. Mor ow had indicated that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. You say that all the other lighting is the same. How
many square feet are you going to have for all three of the
stations? Two of them meet the 100, and one does not.
Mr. Ludwick:
That is cored. We will take that sign and also go ahead and
lower it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The reason why it doesn't make it is because of the two Subway
signs, which are 45 square feel. Is that going to be remedied
then down to 100?
Mr. Ludwick:
We will take it down to the 100. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, did you have a question?
Mr. Taormina:
Is the spacer panel going to be utilized by the co -brand?
Mr. Ludwick:
It will not. The spacer panel is required by Shell, and what that
does is keep somebody from driving down the road from trying
to gel the messages so close together and mixed up and harder
to read. Shell requires a blank to be in between them to
separate any information so that it's easier for the customer to
read going down the road.
Mr. Taormina:
What is it between? I see it's below the pecten, and I'm just
wondering what it separates.
Mr. Ludwick:
Basically, it's required underneath every pecten. Most of the
signs when Shell does them, they are the vertical signs, and it's
22155
just the normal pattern. Any lime you have a pecten, Shell
requires a blank below it, and it just makes it stand out a little bit
more, makes it cleaner.
Mr. Taormina: I see.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one from the audience coming brward, a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#03-28-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-01SN401,
submitted by Shell Oil Products requesting approval for signage
for the gas station located at 37449 Five Mile Road in the
Northeast % of Section 19, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Sign Plans marked Sheets 41, A-2 and A-3 all
dated September 15, 2004, prepared by Tech Express, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the
following:
- That the ground sign shall not exceed 42.6 square feet
in area or exceed 12 feet in height and shall have a
minimum setback of 5 feet from any right -0f way lines;
2. That all wall signage shall be in conformance with the
ordinance and that the ground sign is subject to the
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive sign
area;
3. That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business doses;
4. That no exposed neon shall be permitted on this site
including, but not limited to, the building or around the
windows;
5. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
22156
6. That all site landscaping shall be brought into compliance;
7. That the petifioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated February 16, 2005:
- That the front and rear building fascia shall be repaired
and painted;
- That the entire parking lot shall be deaned up, repaired,
resealed and doubled striped;
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
8. That the site's trash dumpster shall be enclosed and the
three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed
out of the same material as the service station or in the
event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design,
texture and color shall matdi that of the building and the
endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use
closed at all times; and
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Pieroecchi: And Mr. Chairman, should it be stated in here that No. 9 will be
in compliance with all canopy and building signage shall be in
conformance with the ordinance, meaning 100 square feet
maximum?
Mr. Walsh: I think we've covered that in Item ... all the signage has to be
in conformance with Item 2.
Mr. Morrow: They will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals forthe 2.6?
Mr. Pieroecchi: The only one that goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals ...
Mr. Morrow: I'm talking about the ground sign.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, the ground sign, yes.
Mr. Morrow: I'll support that.
22157
Mr. Walsh: I think we can add that. Otherwise, I'm confident that we've
covered the ground in the existing eight conditions, Mark, unless
you're telling me we're missing something.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, we can actually modify Condition 2 to read something to
the effect that "all wall signage shall be in conformance with the
ordinance and that the ground sign is subject to the approval of
the Zoning Board of Appeals"
Mr. Pieroecchi: That's what I wanted for Condition 9.
Mr. Morrow: I support it.
Mr. Walsh: We have support from Mr. Morrow. Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine: No, I agree.
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 PETITION 2005 -01 -SN -02 SHELL OIL - PLYMOUTH
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
01-SN-02,
00501SN-02, submitted by Shell Oil Products requesting approval
for signage for the gas station located at 36420 Plymouth Road
in the Southwest'% of Section 29.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Miller, is there anything in particular on this you'd like to
cover?
Mr. Miller: No. Its basically the same as the previous petition.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence on this?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 16, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition as
presented will require variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for excessive signage. The ground sign is allowed 40
square feet. As down, it is 58+ square feet. (2) All wall
signage, window signage, canopy fascia signage and poster
panel signage is limited to a maximum of 100 square feet if the
building has 50 lineal feet of frontage. As drawn, this is at the
22158
maximum for all available signage. No other poster signage,
window or wall signage would be allowed. (2a) The lettering,
insignia etc. on the fuel pumps is limited to three square feet to
each pump. As depicted this exceeds that figure. (3) The mar
and front fascia and wall needs repair and paint. (4) The free air
is out of order at this station. (5) Dumpster is in mar
unenclosed. (6) There is an unlicensed vehicle parked behind
the station and debris and five feet tall weeds at rear wall. (7)
The ice machine is damaged and has been hit several times.
(8) There is a satellite dish exceeding 24 inches on the building
without permit or review. This Department has no further
objections to their 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?
Mr. LaPine:
I have one question. Nowadays, gas stations are not gas
stations anymore. Theyre food marts. Now they get into
restaurants, Subways, donuts, etc., etc. Seeing that these are
now owned by individuals, what policy does Shell have for the
future if a station decides they want a canyout restaurant, a
Subway or donuts and coffee and things of that nature, and they
want additional signage. How will Shell Oil handle that with the
individuals?
Mr. Ludwick:
Shell has a stnct policy on their signage, their main ID sign.
They would have to follow those rules and regulations. Al this
particular place, there's really not going to be room for any extra
signage. Anything they would do outside of that, they would
have to come and apply for a difference sign permit and treat it
as a separate identity.
Mr. LaPine:
So you don't have any control over that. Your only control is
over anything that says Shell Oil or anything of that nature?
Mr. Ludwick:
What goes on that actual Shell sign ... so they would either
have to conform with that Shell sign thats there or apply for a
brand new sign with the City of Livonia and try to put up a
second sign or whatever. So that would be a totally separate
thing.
Mr. LaPine:
Seeing that you put these signs up throughout the country, do
you find that's the trend throughout the country where the food
marts and the small restaurants are going inside all these
restaurant?
22159
Mr. Ludwick:
By all means, especially new facilities. That's where it's at. We
do work for not only Shell, but we do work for all the different oil
companies across the country, and that is the way it happens on
new sites.
Mr. LaPine:
Thankyou.
Mr. Taormina:
With respect to the concem outlined in the letter from the
Inspection Department on the landscaping issues, will those
obligations be on the part of the owner/operator or as part of this
improvement? In other words, is that something that the
contractor will bring in to compliance and then bill the operator
for those expenses, because we're going to induce certain
conditions that probably fall outside of your contractual
obligation between the corporation and the franchise owner.
How is that going to be addressed because I'm going to ask the
Commission to include as a condition of all three of these that
the landscaping be brought back up to the standards of the
original approved site plan.
Mr. Ludwick:
Shell has set aside a certain amount of money in this
transaction. That money will be used totally for this renovation
into the Shell program. Once it hits that limit, then Shell will
have to work out directly with the owner what it will take to bring
R up to speed.
Mr. Taormina:
To the extent that you're the permit holder, though, and that
certain improvements need to be bonded, how will that be
addressed?
Mr. Ludwick: That will be addressed, exactly. We will be ones to be closing
out the permits at the end. It will have to be done under our
deal. Before we proceeded and got everything done and
completed, it would be an agreement between Shell and the
new owner - exactly what expenses would be incurred by who
so that way we would know who is going to be responsible in
the end. Of course, ultimately we will be responsible to make
sure everything gets done correctly.
Mr. Taormina: Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any more questions or comments. I will go to the
audience just in case, but I don't expect anyone out there. A
motion in order.
22160
Ms. Smiley:
I'll make the motion, but Mark, what's the wording on the
neon shall
landscaping that needs to be included? Can you help me with
permitted on this
that?
Mr. Taormina:
We can embody it within Condition 6 and probably the second
limited to,
item 'that the trash and debris strewn about the site shall be
building or around
cleaned up" I think I'm reading the same one. This is Item #5.
windows;
And that all landscaping be brought up to the standards as
approved on the original site plan.
Ms. Smiley:
All landscaping brought up lo...
Mr. Walsh:
The site plan as originally approved.
Mr. Morrow:
We will also have to freshen up that ground sign. This is the
one we're going to go to 42.6 as opposed to 40.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-29-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-01Sh402,
submitted by Shell Oil Products requesting approval for signage
for the gas station located at 36420 Plymouth Road in the
Southwest % of Section 29, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Sign Plans marked Sheets A-1, A-2 and A-3, all
dated September 15, 2004, prepared by Tech Express, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the
following:
That the ground sign shall not exceed 42.6 square feet
in area or exceed 12 feet in height and shall have a
minimum setback of 5 feet from any right-0iway lines;
2. That all wall signage shall be in conformance with the
ordinance and that the ground sign is subject to the
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive sign
area;
3. That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business doses;
4. That no
exposed
neon shall
be
permitted on this
site
including,
but not
limited to,
the
building or around
the
windows;
22161
5.
That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
6.
That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated February 16, 2005:
- That the existing guardrail shall be weather coaled;
- That trash and debris strewn about the site shall be
cleaned up and all landscaping be brought up to the
standards as approved on the original site plan;
- That light pole on the south side of the south
Farmington Road approach shall be replaced;
- That the entire parking lot shall be cleaned up, repaired,
resealed and doubled striped;
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Banner Free Code;
- That the rear building fascia shall be repaired and
weather coated;
- That the site's landscaping shall be reestablished and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition
7,
That the site's trash dumpsters shall be enclosed and the
three walls of the trash dumpster areas shall be
constructed out of the same material as the service station
or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's
design, texture and color shall match that of the building
and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not
in use dosed at all times; and
8.
That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there
any discussion?
22162
Mr. Shane:
For a point of information, unless I'm reading this wrong, Item 2
seems to conflict with Item 1 because in Item 1 we say the sign
can be 2.6 square feet larger than the ordinance allows. Item 2
says it's got to be 40 square feet essentially. It says brought
into conformity. That sounds to me like it conflicts.
Mr. Taormina:
I think what we can do is use the same condition #2 that we
used in the first resolution to address that.
Mr. Walsh:
If we could, that would be great. If there are no more questions
Mr. Alanskas:
Are any of these stations have 24-hour service?
Mr. Ludwick:
I do not know, sir, to be honest with you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because if they are, then we don't need Condition #2 regarding
closing your sign one hour after closing if they dont close.
Mr. Ludwick:
Most Shell stations are open 24 hours unless its a service
center, which these lend to be service centers, so I really can't
answer that right now. I'm sorry.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2005 -01 -SN -03 SHELL OIL -6 MILE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
01-SN-03,
00501SN403, submitted by Shell Oil Products requesting approval
for signage for the gas station located at 33422 Six Mile Road in
the Northeast % of Section 16.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Miller is there anything you need to add to this pefifion?
Mr. Miller: No.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence that needs to be
read into the record?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 16, 2005, which reads as follows:
22163
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition as
presented will require variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for excessive signage. (a) The ground sign is allowed
40 square feet, as proposed it is 42.64 square feet. (b) All wall
signage, window signage, canopy fascia signage and poster
panel signage is limited to a maximum of 100 square feet, if the
building has 50 lineal feet of frontage. As drawn, this petition
exceeds the 100 sq feet allowed. (c) The lettering, insignia etc.
on the fuel pumps is limited to 3 square feet to each pump. As
depicted this exceeds that figure. (2) This station is charging for
the compressed air it provides its customers. (3) The existing
guardrail needs to be weather coated. (4) There is trash and
debris strewn about the lot, especially to the rear of the station.
(5) The light pole on the south side of the south Farmington
Road approach is damaged and needs to be replaced. (6) Two
dumpsters are outside, not in enclosures. (7) Parking in the lot
needs to be double striped with proper barrier free parking
striped and signed. (8) The rear of the building needs
maintenance and weather coating. (9) The lot is in poor repair.
It will need repair and/or resurfacing. (10) The landscaping
need maintenance. 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
petitioner?
Mr. La Pine:
I just have one question. Maybe Mark can answer this or the
petitioner. This is a location where they have two Subway
signs: one 25 square foot on the northeast section and one on
the northwest side of the building. Now would they have to be
eliminated? Remember I asked at the study session? I thought
they got a variance and then I understand that did not happen.
Mr. Taormina:
I believe that if the signage as it exists today is in conformance,
then that's not something that we would have any history of the
Zoning Board action, but as noted here, with the changes, they
are going to exceed the wall sign allowance. It either has to be
reduced to comply, possibly by eliminating one of those Subway
signs or approved bylhe ZBA.
Mr. La Pine:
Excuse me for interrupting, but they could keep one of these
Subway signs or both as long as they are within that 100 square
foot limitation we're giving them. Is that correct?
22164
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct. I don't believe there is a limitation on the
number of identification signs. Again, this is a content neutral
sign package so we really don't have any concem on what the
message is, justthe total amount of signage.
Mr. La Pine:
Going back to the other question about the flee air, can we
include that in our motion that the air has to be free because
they've been charging for air? We can't do that?
Ms. Smiley:
How much is that?
Mr. La Pine:
But the other two, the Inspection Department didn't indicate that
they were charging for air, so we assumed they're not charging
for air.
Mr. Taormina:
The first one that I think he noted did provide free air. The
second one, I think he said that the air was broken. And this
one, he indicates in his letter that they are actually charging for
the air.
Mr. La Pine:
I think you're right. I think we have an ordinance that says all
stations have to supply free air. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But Mark, no matter what signage is, what generates it, they
have a limit of 100 square feet. Is that corect?
Mr. Taormina:
The total of the signage provided cannot exceed 100 square
feet and that includes all the wall signage on the building as well
as the canopy fascia signage.
Mr. Piercecchi:
They can put a Subway right on their main deal. Thais what
the people look at. They look at how much the gasoline costs
and its silting right underneath it. So they don't really need it on
the building. In fact, it used to be pima place. I don't know if
they had any signs.
Mr. Ludwick:
There's one on the front and one on the side of the building.
The one on the side of the building will be removed. The one on
the front of the building will be slightly smaller than the existing
one there. And then including the Subway sign and all the rest
of the signage that's on there, our total proposed signage is
101.75 square feet. This is the only one of the three signs
which is just a hair over the requirement.
Mr. Piercecchi:
There shouldn't be any problem gefling rid of 1.75, should it?
22185
Mr. Ludwick: No,lsuppose....
Mr. Piercecchi: C'mon. C'mon, guys.
Mr. Dechape: (inaudible) ... length of the beam and then having the light bars
extending ... we can go ahead and lop off 1.75 lineal feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you sign people or are you employees of Shell?
Mr. Dechape:
We're solely here as architects worlting as consultants lo...
Mr. Piercecchi:
You're sign people and consultants. You dont work directly for
Shell?
Mr. Dechape:
We work with planning and zoning and ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
But you dont get your paycheck from Shell?
Mr. Ludwick:
I'm a general contractor. They hired us directly to do that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So you're from Shell but...
Mr. Ludwick:
But I'm not.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. I just wanted to know that. Not that it matters.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Piercecchi, let's return. Sir, did you have a comment?
Mr. Dechape
I wanted to be able to make that point, that the one Subway sign
had been removed from the side of the building. We just have
the one on the front, and inducing that Subway sign and the
balance of our side, we end up being at 101.75 square feet
down from an existing 118 squarefeet.
Mr. Ludwick:
And that includes all the light bars. They're counting that as
signage loo, which is ... I mean, if you didn't count a lot of our
signage, itwould be so much lover.
Mr. Dechape
Out of the 40 sites we've had to work on, this is the only
community that has induced that light bar as signage. I wanted
to discuss also the details on the canopies. I realize that the
detail of the canopy that's showing on CA -3 does give
dimensions of the overall detail, but if you take those
dimensions, this section on top of the balance is roughly 7
square feet all by itself. If you actually consider what proportion
of that is signage, which I believe you would agree would be this
22166
small sea shell and the text "quality fuel", the number 8 here,
direction signage as far as any direction sign we would use, and
then as far as the other signage on here, we have "quality fuel"
and once again and the sea pecten. That's basically
reassurance to the customers when they head to the site and
they pull up to the pump that they weren't really paying that
much attention as they pulled into it, that when they get to the
pump, theyll know that they re going to be able to be good Shell
customers and use a Shell credit card. We would ask that any
review and interpretation of the plans, that rather than
considering the rough dimensions of the overall stickers that go
on the particular pump, if you would consider just the portion of
the sign which is the portion of the appearance of the dispenser
that qualifies as actual signage or actual advertising or whatever
you want to call it. We would like very much to be able to
maintain the same graphic representation on the dispensers for
the benefit of the customers, and I would like you to consider
that on these three stations in light of the comments that were
made by the Planning Commission. Thank you very much.
Mr. La Pine:
If I'm understanding you right, are you saying that the signage
that you just talked about, the 7 feel and the 8, that's not
included in the 100 square feel? Is that what you're telling us?
Mr. Dechape
According to Council, we have from the Commission is that
three square foot of signage is permitted per pump.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay.
Mr. Dechape:
This particular balance detail, the overall detail is 12 inches by
87 inches, but that's wrapping from the middle of this end of the
dispenser to the other end. If you lake that in all together, its
roughly 7 square feet.
Mr. LaPine:
Let's get a clarification, Mark.
Mr. Taormina:
The pump island insignia and other signage is not computed as
part of the 100 square foot allowance for the wall and canopy
fascia signage. It's a separate item in the ordinance. The two
previous resolutions were silent on this issue. He can take that
to the Inspection Department and make his argument. I dont
think the Planning Commission has concerns relative to whether
or not he has three square feet or three and half square feet or
part of it is directorial in nature and can be waived. This is
signage that is limited just to the pump. Its not really designed
to attract attention to passerby traffic. So I think that we handle
22107
it the same in all three cases. Let the Inspection Department
determine whether or not it's in compliance. In the end, if they
determine that its not, I don't think our approval should
necessarily restrict him from going to the ZBA and seeking an
additional half a square foot orwhatever it ends up being.
Mr. La Pine: I just wanted a clarificafion, and that's fine. I have no problem
with that. Just one other question. Do any of these three
stations have ATMs?
Mr. Dechape I believe one may, but...
Mr. Ludwick: I'm pretty sure the one with the Subway does have it in, but
Mr. Morrow: There are some other, you know, Inspection Department items
thatwe should probably make sure go into the resolution.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Yeah, that's got to be included.
Mr. Alanskas: We can add that to that.
Mr. Pieroecchi: They are all the same except the Inspection report.
Mr. Shane: Move the prepared resolution.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0330-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-01SN-03,
don't know that for sure.
Mr. LaPine:
So now they may have a sign for an ATM on there someplace.
Mr. Ludwick:
Most ofthem post it inside.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other comments or questions for the petitioner?
I'm going to assume no one in the audience has any comments
on this. A motion would be in order.
Mr. Alanskas:
I would make it a public record that we just approve this as the
other two pertaining to all the approving resolutions. They are
all the same.
Mr. Shane:
I will support it.
Mr. Walsh:
It took a few long resolutions for us to realize we could do that.
Mr. Morrow: There are some other, you know, Inspection Department items
thatwe should probably make sure go into the resolution.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Yeah, that's got to be included.
Mr. Alanskas: We can add that to that.
Mr. Pieroecchi: They are all the same except the Inspection report.
Mr. Shane: Move the prepared resolution.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0330-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-01SN-03,
22168
submitted by Shell Oil Products requesting approval for signage
for the gas station located at 33411 Six Mile Road in the
Northeast Z of Section 16, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Sign Plans marked Sheets A-1, A-2 and A3 all
dated September 15, 2004, prepared by Tech Express, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for he
following:
That the ground sign shall not exceed 42.6 square feet
in area or exceed 12 feet in height and shall have a
minimum setback of 5 feet from any right-0iway lines;
2. That all wall signage shall be in conformance with the
ordinance and that the ground sign is subject to the
approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive sign
area;
3. That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business doses;
4. That no exposed neon shall be permitted on this site,
including but not limited to, the building or around the
windows;
5. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Departments satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated February 16, 2005:
That the front and rear building fascia shall be repaired
and painted;
That the entire parking lot shall be deaned up, repaired,
resealed and doubled striped;
That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Banner Free Code;
7. That the site's trash dumpster shall be enclosed and the
three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed
out of the same material as the service station or in the
22169
event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design,
texture and color shall match that of the building and the
endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
8. That all site landscaping shall be brougN into compliance;
and
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
allhe time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section
of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item
section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at
length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary
please read the next item?
ITEM #7 PETITION 2005-01-08-02 SARAH ESTATES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
01-08-02,
00501-08-02, 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.
Mr. Miller: This item was tabled at the February 8, 2005, regular meeting.
The Planning Commissioners were apprehensive about
approving this site plan without some assurances that the
adjacent property to the east (Lot 14) was not being landlocked
and would be provided with adequate access so that it might be
developed in the future. They also had difficulty with only one
means of entering and exiting the sub, especially by way of a
busy street like Eight Mile Road. The revisions to the site plan
submitted February 28, 2005 provide two alternative road
layouts in order to accommodate the future development of the
adjoining land to the east. The first Layout Plan assumes
residential zoning for Lot 14 in its entirety. It shows two stub
streets — one that terminates at the midpoint of the north half of
22170
#0331-2005 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 removed from the
table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Lot 14 and the other that terminates at the midpoint of the south
halt of Lot 14. The second Layout Plan differs to the extent that
assumes the north half of Lot 14 will ultimately be rezoned to
OS, Office Services, and therefore does not require access from
Sarah Estates. It shoes a stub street just to the lower half of
Lot 14.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
There is no additional correspondence, but as a point of
clarification, in our report relative to Alternate Plan B, this does
not preclude the future development of Lot 14 as being all
residential. While the stub street providing access to the
southerly half of Lot 14 would suggest a continuation of that
street to the east for the purposes of residential development,
the absence of a similar stub street to the north half of Lot 14
doesn't guarantee that the site would be rezoned to Office.
Thafs something that will be taken up by the Council tomorrow
evening. If they do decide to rezone that property to OS, then
this issue is moot. On the other hand, if they decide to go
along with the Planning Commission's recommendation and
rezone all of Lot 14 to R-0, then even under this design,
development is possible via a split of the northerly half into two
residential building sites. I just wanted to point that out that it
doesn't guarantee or doesn't preclude that northerly half from
being developed as residential.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Miller, we did table this, correct?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
So we will need a motion to remove this from the table.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0331-2005 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 removed from the
table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
22171
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
To the staff, would it be prudent for us to wait until the Council
makes their vote on what they're going to do with the OS to the
residential before we pass this?
Mr. Taormina:
That's only if the Council believes that their action, one way or
the other, is going to influence your decision on the approval of
the site plan. If you approve the plan as presented here and the
Council decides to follow the Planning Commission's original
recommendation on the zoning, I guess the question is it then
absolutely necessary that we go back to the first altemative
which provides a stub access to the north half of Lot 14. Of
course, the Council can ultimately choose to approve whichever
plan they prefer.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, just one darificafion. No matter which way the Council
goes, am I guaranteed that I'm going to get that road going out
to Gill Road, all the way out?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Its not guaranteed until a plan is approved for the
development of that land to the east. It's an indication of what
the City would like to see. What we can do, although it would
be something that would take a while, is amend our
Transportation Plan to show the continuation of a road to Gill
from this location.
Mr. LaPine:
1, for one member, want to make darn sure that somewhere
along the line somebody won't change their mind again and
decide they're not going to put that road out there. The only
way I know to guarantee it is to put it in a motion that
guarantees me that I know that road is going to go through.
Mr. Walsh:
I don't think we can do that, Mr. LaPine.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I don't think so either.
Mr. Walsh:
I think the best we can do is approve or disapprove this site
plan.
Mr. LaPine:
Then I'll have to vote against it.
Mr. Shane:
It seems to me the best we can do is provide the opportunity by
leaving that stub street there.
Mr. Morrow:
Is this Plan B what we're going to consider approving tonight?
22172
Mr. Walsh:
That's subject to whether a motion is put foM.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, that's what I mean. I mean we're not looking at Plan A, or
are we suppose to choose between A or B?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I would suggest that the Planning Commission, if they want
to act on this petition this evening, select either site plan, not
both.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I would like to hear from the petitioner somewhere down
the line.
Mr. Walsh:
If there's no other questions for the staff, why don't we go ahead
to Mr. Baki?
Sam Baki, Sarah Estates, LLC, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan 48152.
Good evening. The two plans I submitted to show the
alternatives ... plus we have the first one that we submitted
prior to that. The more probable and the best layout that we
found that will do this project good and the future of the road to
go to Gill Road, Plan B. As you notice, Plan A shows the
property next door, which is the properly east which is in
question. If you do two stubs like it shows right now, the
southern part of Plan A, the upper lot on the southern stub, are
only 110 feet deep because we will have deficiencies in the
actual depth to have two stubs. We have 600; we need
technically around 620 to make it work because any time you
back into Eight Mile, you need the 30 foot buffer, which is on the
north area. We accommodated everything we needed to
accommodate it to work it. If it goes R-4, then the southern part
is deficient by about 20 feel. So some of these lots are going to
be deficient for R-4. That's why we prefer Plan B, Mich is with
one stub. As you notice on Plan B, the southern part has 320
feet. So technically the northern part is only 280 in depth
instead of 300, so we couldn't divide it in half. So this way we
will make the lots fully compatible to R4 without any problem.
Plus that shows the two cul-de-sacs almost symmetrical for the
whole development. Now the question about the stub going out,
our intention is 100 percent to put that stub in there the way the
Commission will approve, if they approve Plan B, because this
is the one we really like the most. The property to the east, his
intention is to sell us the rear property. We have a contract with
him, but his contingency is for him to gel his office zoning on the
north. If he doesn't, he was not going to sell us the southern
part so we will not be able to stub it out. We can stub it out the
22173
way we shay it, but we're not going to be able to go Gill Road to
finish up Phase 3, which is our intention from the beginning. We
already talked to all the neighbors off Gill Road to run the road
out. So Plan B is the best to make it work and hopefully
tomorrow the City Council will approve him for an Office so we
can proceed with the continuation all the way to Gill Road. On
the other hand, if the Council chooses bmorrow night to go all
RA, still it does not alleviate from this development to go in the
same way as Plan B because the southern lots have an access
already. The northern lots, he still has an option of having ...
he still has an access for two homes facing Eight Mile since he
has the width to accommodate for two homes on Eight Mile. So
he still won't be landlocked. The landlocked area is the
southern part, not the northern part. So its still feasible for the
other owner to do whatever they want i he doesn't sell us the
southern half.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, let's assume for a minute that he wants OS but it goes to
R4. He holds onto it, and he puts two lots on it with entrances
off Eight Mile Road. I think that lot is 155 feet.
Mr, Baki:
155, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
If he has two houses, that means two driveways.
Mr. Baki:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Is he going to have enough room there to put a circular drive,
because I can'lsee anybody backing out into Eight Mile Road.
Mr. Baki:
He'll have enough room to do whatever circle drive he wants
inside. Wayne County will not allow cirde driveways anymore
toanymajorroads. That's been out forthree, fouryears.
Mr. LaPine:
Is that right?
Mr. Baki:
Yes. That's what we had to do on Seven Mile Road. We had to
make one drive. One of the homes, since you have the depth of
300 feet, you can move the house back. One of the homes on
Seven Mile, when I built it for one of the clients, we did a circle
drive inside their property, then they came out with one
driveway.
Mr. LaPine:
I dont care how he does it.
Mr. Baki:
No, I'mjust saying, there's options, yes.
22174
Mr. LaPine: There's options. Okay
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing
none, is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak
for or against this petition item? No one is coming forward. A
motion would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0332-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council 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
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws for this condominium
development shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission and City Council within sixty (60) days of this
approval;
2. That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick
or stone, on all four (4) sides, and the total amount of brick
or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 65%;
3. That all exterior chimneys shall be brick;
4. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
5. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set
forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail
and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements;
6. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument
wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the
City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred
for the storm water detenfion/retention and outlet facilities,
and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on
22175
each lot owner's properly proreta and place said charges
on their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are
not paid by the condominium association (or each lot
owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of
Livonia;
7. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit ancVor surely bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development;
8. That the Site Plan marked C-1 dated January 31, 2005, as
revised, prepared by Landmark Engineering Company
showing a total of 35 lots and a single stub street abutting
the southern half of lot 14 of the Fairway Subdivision, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
9. That the Landscape Plan dated January 26, 2004,
prepared by Unique Builders & Developers of Livonia, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
10. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
11. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
12. 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;
13. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
14. That the petitioner shall cored to the Police Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated January 28, 2005:
- That a stop sign shall be erected for vehicle exiting
Sarah Beth Lane onto Eight Mile Road;
22176
That a street light shall be installed at the intersection of
Sarah Beth Lane and Eight Mile Road;
That street lighting be installed throughout the complex;
That sidewalks be installed throughout the complex;
15. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Departments
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated February 1, 2005:
That if any of subject buildings are to be provided with
automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feel from the Fire Department
connections;
That 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;
That all cul-de-sacs shall be 50 feet with a minimum
right-of-way radius of 60 feet to provide for sidewalks
and utilities; and
16. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the hspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: I want to take exception to the last item on Condition 15 wlth
respect to on -street parking. These streets are built to
standards that would allow on -street parking, so I think we
should strike that.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Shane was lulled by the preceding 14 conditions. Is that
fine with the two of you?
Mr. Morrow: I concur.
Mr.Shane: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: That was my question also. I don't know why they cant park in
the streets.
22177
Mr. Morrow: I thought there was some reason for it, but there's none.
Mr. LaPine: I'm going to vote for the proposal because I've got nothing
against Sarah Estates and what he's trying to building there. I
think it's a good plan. He's building some beautiful homes in the
$500,000 bracket, but my position has not changed on Lot 14,
that it should be zoned only R4.
Mr. Alanskas: I just want to ditto what Mr. LaPine said. I'm still not comfortable
voting tonight not knowing what the Council is going to do
because I certainly don't want to see the OS go into that top
section. Are you comfortable with Plan B, Mr. Taormina, as
stated tonight?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, I am.
Mr. Alanskas: You are. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Oh, we did that. I was lulled to sleep. I
apologize.
Ms. Smiley: These are long.
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 #8 PETITION 99-02-08-08 FOUNTAIN PARK
Ms. Smiley, 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: May I have a motion to remove this from the table?
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#03-33-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 99-02-08-08, submitted by A.F. Jonna
22178
Development, on behalf of Fountain Park, requesting to modify
the plans which were previously approved by Council
Resolution #523-01 on August 13, 2001, in connection with the
development located on the northeast corner of Plymouth Road
and Farmington Road in the Southwest % of Section 27, be
removed from the table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller: The petitioner has submitted a revised plan. He is now
proposing to develop this portion of Fountain Park as originally
approved with two buildings. The larger building of the two retail
buildings would be 12,639 square feet in size. According to the
doors shown on the elevation plans, it could accommodate
approximately eight tenants. The smaller building would be
5,287 square feet in area and possibly could be divided into four
tenant spaces. There would be a 20 -fool wide walkway
between the two buildings. This corridor would be landscaped
and include a courtyard with benches. The greenbelt behind the
buildings would be approximately 13 feel wide and bermed to a
height of 3 feel and planted with four Japanese flowering crab
trees as well as a number of compact European cranberry
bushes. The rest of the site's landscaping would remain as
originally proposed. The new elevations of the proposed
buildings are very similar to what was originally approved for
Building B and C. The architectural elements from the specific
design criteria for Fountain Park have been incorporated into
the buildings. The asphalt shingled roof would encompass the
entire top of the building and would have dormers and sided
chimneys. The walls of the buildings would be back on all four
sides with a cast stone base. Other elements include
decorative lintels, multi -paned windows, and metal seam
canopies over the windows and doors.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: We have one new item of correspondence dated March 4, 2005,
from the Plymouth Road Development Authonty, which reads as
follows: "In connection with the above -referenced petition, the
Plymouth Road DevelopmentAuthority at their Board meeting of
February 18, 2005, reviewed the proposed plans for the
Fountain Park Retail Center in detail with the project architect.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board members voted to
support the proposed development for the reason that the
revised plans were found to be fully consistent with the
22179
Mr. Pieroecchi: Oh
previously approved plans for this project. The revised plans
were consistent with respect to site layout, site landscaping,
building architecture and building materials selected. The Board
members also expressed a high degree of confidence that the
new development company, A. F. Jorma, has the experience
and is committed to do a fine job on this project by his
willingness to conform to the high standards envisioned for
Fountain Park." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, PRDA
Director.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the pettioner here this evening?
Arkan Jonna, A.
F. Jonna, 4036 Telegraph Road, Suite 201, Bloomfield Hills,
Michigan 48302. Good evening. I believe Scott and Mark
covered just about everything that needs to be. If there are any
questions, I'd be more than happy to respond.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I have just one question. We generally try to get all the
chimneys in brick. Are these commercial sites going to have
brick chimneys or wooden?
Mr. Jorma:
Right now, they are planned to be wood, I believe.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is that a problem? It looks so much more rugged and
substantial. I don't know what the durability of that wood is over
the long haul. It's really a new feature that's come along.
Mr. Jorma:
I'm just thinking about the structural aspect. This is on lop of a
mansard that's not going all the way down. The stability
of
building structurally, putting all that weight up on the roof, I
guess we could look at it. This is a mansard. It's not going all
the way down.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What goes down to the floor? Something's got to get from the
floor. You've got a power plant there right?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Pieroecchi or Mr. Jonna, these are not real chimneys.
Mr. Jorma:
No, theyre not real chimneys.
Mr. Walsh:
Theyre not operable chimneys.
Mr. Jorma:
No, they're fake chimneys.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Oh
22180
Mr. Morrow:
They're just architectural enhancements.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You guys are losing me here.
Mr. Walsh:
These are not workable chimneys. These are just
enhancements to the building.
Mr. Jorma:
Just architectural features and they're silting on a roof deck.
Thars why I hesitated for a second. In the back of my mind, I
was thinking how am I going to supportthis.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
In my house, the chimney goes from the basement tothe roof.
Mr. Jorma:
Mine also.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. Well, I understand.
Mr. Alanskas:
On the separated building, you're showing a green roof and the
other one you're showing brown. They're not consistent. Why
is that?
Mr. Jorma:
Thais what was asked of me to do. That was on the previous
plan.
Mr. Alanskas:
With different color roofs?
Mr. Jorma:
They are trying to get more distinction between the two
buildings.
Mr. Alanskas:
But they were different color roofs, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
As I recall, the rear doors on your stores . I think it was
indicated they stand out a little bit more. You indicated they
would be painted the same color as the brick.
Mr. Jorma:
Yes, they will be, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
They won't stand out. They will more or less blend into the ...
Mr. Jorma:
It will be the same color as the bricks.
Mr. Morrow:
All up and down the line there. Thank you.
22181
Mr. Shane:
I don't have a question, Mr. Jonna. I just want to say thank you
for stepping up to the plate and bringing this back to where it
was before. I think we're all delighted.
Mr. Jorma:
I appreciate that. You know just one comment. I came into this
project not knowing that the architecture had to be a part, the
same architectectuml features that were there before. So I
came into this and did my own plan trying to do whatever I
thought was the right thing. After I was told that you got two
gentlemen that know how to twist anus real easy like.
Ms. Smiley:
Enforcers.
Mr. La Pine:
I loo want to thank you for coming back with the plan. But as
you well know, this has been a very controversial location for us.
One of the big items is the type of stores that are going in there.
We have a number of letters here from a couple civic
associations. When this originally came in, we were led to
believe we were going to gel Starbucks and a nice ice cream
parlor. It was like a local place where people could go and
gather and sit outside and eat and things of that nature. Now, I
know that we can't pin you down. Probably you don't know
what stores are going here at this point. But do you have any
idea? Are you going to try to keep to what was originally told us
that we thought was going to go in there?
Mr. Jorma: I dont have any tenants right now. I can tell you that's why
Steve Schafer and the Thomas and the George family brought
me in because this is what I do. I do this repeatedly over and
over again. Just convenience, neighborhood, well located, real
pretty type shopping centers. I cant tell you for sure, but what
you're asking for will 99 percent right now happen. That's what I
do. With the type of tenants you're talking about is exactly who I
go after.
Mr. La Pine: If I may, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Walsh: Sure.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Morrow, one city councilman and I went alt and checked
three of your locations as you told us. And we were, to be quite
honest with you, not very impressed with the tenants you had in
there.
Mr. Jorma: Which ones did you go see?
22182
Mr. La Pine: We went to Square Lake and...
Mr. Morrow: The one off M-5.
Mr. LaPine: They were typical, a pima place, a small little restaurant, a
telephone place. Typical things we find in all our strip malls in
Livonia. Our envision of this location was more upscale than
those types of things, and we're hoping that's what we're going
to gel. That's all I'm aslang, to do the best you can. I cant tell
you what to put there. You've got to rent the buildings. You've
got to pay for them. You're going to do what you have to do, but
that's what we envisioned. That's what we're hoping for.
Mr. Jorma:
You didn't think that Square Lake and Woodward had upscale
tenancy, or Long Lake and Telegraph? Did you go to Long
Lake and Telegraph?
Mr. LaPine:
Yeah, we went to three different locations.
Mr. Jorma:
You didn't think that was upscale?
Mr. LaPine:
In our opinion. I mean, the upscale I'm talking about, what we
were told we were going to get here.
Mr. Jorma:
I wasn't here at that time.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that. That's why I'm saying we can't hold you to
that. There's no way we can tell you what to bring in. You're
going to bring in what you bring in. Just try to get the best you
can get for us. That's all we're aslang.
Mr. Jorma:
Absolutely.
Ms. Smiley:
I really like what you did with expanding the greenbelt and
putting that landscaping in the back. Its really going to be very
nice.
Mr. Jorma:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any comments from the audience this evening?
Raymond Grix,
11716 Farmington Road. Good evening. We're in Building #2 of
the Fountain Park condominium complex. We are the building
that directly faces the back of the proposed retail property.
Some of the concerns that I am here to address ... I assume
22183
from the stipulations that have been in other approvals tonight
that such things as the garbage dumpsters will be brick
enclosed for these locations. You indicated there are no
tenants committed at this point. I know that they indicated from
what I've read in articles in the Livonia Observer that there's a
potential for a restaurant in the location and I'm concemed. Is it
going to be something along the lines of a Big Boy that's going
to be a limited hours type thing? In others words, not a 24 hour.
Are we right to be assuming something like this?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Jonna, unless you have anything else to add, you don't
have any specific tenants in mind?
Mr. Jorma:
I wish the newspaper would call and ask me. I didn't even know
the article was in the paper. I don't have any tenants
whatsoever right now.
Mr. Grix:
Okay.
Mr. Jorma:
I can't see a 24-hour tenant being at this location within this
shopping center.
Mr. Walsh:
Thankyou.
Mr. Grix:
Another concern would be the delivery hours. We have the
Walgreens store now. Again being in that building, I know from
experience since I'm on that side of the building, that their
deliveries come at 5:30 on Saturday morning. Would there be
the opportunity to provide for stipulating delivery hours during
say 9 to 5 as opposed to all hours day and night, and maybe
another point, too, is delivery vehicle traffic. Would that be
entering and exiting from Plymouth Road and not using the
residential road which part of the complex? I know it's designed
to be separated, but with the construction traffic that's been
going on within the thing, we've had a lot of traffic back and forth
on the road that parallels the front of the unit and exits onto
Farmington. I'm concerned about if we have heavy truck traffic,
heavy tmdc delivery, whether they are going to be required to
use an entrance and exit off of Plymouth Road rather than using
that road that's really part of the residential rather than the retail
part of the complex.
Mr. Walsh:
We don't have anything in the resolution at present, Mark, but
aren't we able to . . . can we add any time parameters for
deliveries?
22184
Mr. Taormina:
Well, we can. What's difficult is communicating that to the
people who make those deliveries. We've seen it time and
again that placing restrictions on delivery hours is difficult to
enforce. I think this is really a question for Mr. Jonna knowing
the plan as it's been laid out and some of these concerns as
expressed by this gentleman. Is it possible to restrict any
deliveries from the rear of the property? I think you've indicated
previously that from a practical standpoint, that really isn't
designed to be a delivery area at the rear. I dont know if you
can impose any restrictions either by designing the site or
something else that might address this gentleman's cencems.
Mr. Jorma:
I can address both. I think as far as delivery, I think I can use
8:00 in the morning if that's good for you. I can make it part of
my lease arrangements and just put restrictions on the tenants
that they not have any deliveries prior to 8:00 and nothing later
than S00 in the evening. Again, its enforcement. If a guy gets
there at 7:30, what are you going to do to him? You know?
Mr. Gnx:
Well, as I say, the concem being like with Walgreens. We know
and we've been there long enough now that we're starting to
sleep through it, but you do hear it every Saturday morning at
530.
Mr. Jorma:
I can do that with 8:00. The access drive is not designed, this
thing is not designed so that trucks park in that access drive
because simply if they do park back there, there's no way to get
to the rear of the building. So that the area that's designated for
delivery is probably the best area along the eastern or even the
western access drives if they don't want to park in their
designated area. That's where they're going to park their
trucks. If they park over by where your home is, there's no way
to get ... you look at that landscape area to the north, there's
no way to gel through there. It's bermed so if they want to make
a delivery, they've got to walk around the vhole thing. So the
most convenient way to do that is to park either on the western
eastern access drive or in the delivery area itself.
Mr. Grix:
So then the building would be basically abutting the bermed
area?
Mr. Jorma:
Yes, there's a sidewalk adjacent to the building and then the
bermed area.
Mr. Grix:
It's not a traffic area for deliveries, etc.?
22185
Mr. Jorma:
No, no. There won't be. You can see that there's no way to
easily gel to the back of the stores from that access drive that
abuts to your property. I think that was done deliberately so that
it doesn't conflict. It minimizes the traffic that goes in front of
your home.
Mr. Grix:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion is in order if there are no other questions or
comments.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0334-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 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 #523-01 on August 13, 2001, in
connection with the development located on the northeast
comer of Plymouth Road and Farmington Road in the
Southwest % of Section 27, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP dated March 2, 2005,
as revised, prepared by Aserm & Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and outlines
the terms of how the subject properly(s) would share
parking, be supplied tothe City;
3. That the Landscape Plan dated November 30, 2004,
prepared by Calvin Hall & Associates, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
4. 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;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. 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
22186
Department and thereafter pernanentiy maintained in a
healthy condifion;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2
dated March 2, 2005, as revised, prepared by Aserra &
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
8. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
9. 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;
10. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times; furthermore, service of
this dumpster shall be done during normal business hours;
11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
12. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
13. That the petitioner shall cored to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated December 17, 2004:
- That if the subject building is provided with an
automatic sprinkler system, hydrants shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connections;
- That access around the building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 55 feet
wall to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet
6 inches;
22187
That hydrant spacing in the commercial/retail groupings
shall be consistentwith City of Livonia ordinances;
That fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of
unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire
apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of
vertical clearance;
That 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;
That the east and west access drives shall be marked
as fire lanes;
14. That the petitioner shall coned to the Police Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated December 28, 2004:
That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Banner Free Code and Livonia aty
Ordinance;
That slop signs be installed at the east and west exits
of the parking lot for vehicles exiting to the access
drive;
15. That only conforming wall 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;
16. That a Master Sign Plan establishing ground signage for
the entire Fountain Park development shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council; included in the application
shall be the location and graphics of each Business Center
Sign, all identification signs and any directional signage;
17. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
22188
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthetimethe building permits are appliedfor, and
19. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#523-01, which granted approval for the commeroial
portion of Fountain Park, shall remain in effect to the extent
that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane:
I'd like to add that service of this dumpsler shall be done during
normal business hours to Condition 10.
Mr. Alanskas:
After you go to Council, when are you going to brake ground for
this?
Mr. Jorma:
When is Council? The next couple weeks?
Mr. Alanskas:
Three weeks.
Mr. Jorma:
Will you accept construction drawings prior Council?
Mr. Miller:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
But you'll start probably May or June at the latest?
Mr. Jorma:
At the latest, yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 901" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 901s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on March 1. 2005.
On a motion by Piercecohi, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
22189
#0335-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 901" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by tie Planning Commission on March 1,
2005, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Pieroecchi, Shane, Alanskas, La Pine, Smiley
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Alanskas, Walsh
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the mo0on is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 902n° Regular
Meeting held on March 15, 2005, was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman