HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-02-1423008
MINUTES OF THE 920° REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 14, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 920" 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
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a pefilion on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating pefilion. 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 ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2006-01-08-02 CADEMEADOWS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-01-
08-02, submitted by Cade Investment, on behalf of Cade
Meadows Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
a condominium development on property located at 36905 Ann
Arbor Trail in the Northwest % of Section 32.
23009
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to develop a site condominium
project on properly located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail
between Newburgh Road and Dowling Avenue. The proposed
development would be known as "Cade Meadows Site
Condominiums." The site includes portions of two adjacent lots
(Lots 759 & 758) that are part of the Supervisor's Livonia Plat
No. 12. The majority of the development would take place on
Lot 759. The overall area of Cade Meadows would be 3.02
acres. The proposed land of the Cade Meadows development
is in the process of being rezoned (Pel. 2005-04-01-03) from
RUF (Rural Urban Farm) to R-1 (One Family Residential). The
Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing on May 10,
2005, recommended approving the rezoning. Following a public
hearing, the City Council gave First Reading on the requested
rezoning at its August 15, 2005, Regular Meeting. Second
Reading and a Roll Call Vole are scheduled at the time the site
plan is presented to the Council for action. Cade Meadows
would be made up of 11 lots. All of the condominium lots would
front on a proposed new street, identified on the site plan as
Cade Court. The street's right-of-way would only be 50 feel in
width rather than the standard 60 feel. The new street would
extend approximately 220 feel in a southerly direction from Ann
Arbor Trail where it would terminale in a cul-de-sac. An Rl
zoning district requires each lot to have a minimum land area of
7,200 square feel, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, and a
minimum lot depth of 120 feet. All the proposed condominium
lots of Cade Meadows would meet or exceed these R-1 lot size
requirements. One of the proposed lots alongside Ann Arbor
Trail would not be in compliance with the requirement that lots
platted with a side yard abutting a major thoroughfare shall be
increased in width by at least 30 feel. Lot 11 would only be
approximately 65 feel wide at its front yard setback line,
whereas, it needs to be a minimum of 90 feel in width to be
conforming. In order to build on this lot, a variance for deficient
lot width would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Storm water would be handled by a detention pond on the
southeasterly portion (within the south 120 feel of Lot 758) of
the development.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 25, 2006, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time and the legal description
is correct. Twenty-seven feet of additional right-of-way for Ann
Arbor Trail needs to be dedicated in conjunction with this
23010
development. A detention area is shown on the plan to
accommodate facilities in accordance with Wayne County's
Storm Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 11, 2006,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a site
condominium development on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants (2) shall
be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet
between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall Flow 1,500 GPM
with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) This Division requests
that Cade Ct, including the cul-de-sac, be posted (on both
sides) "Fire Lane — No Parking". (3) Minimum diameter of cul-
de-sac shall be at least 110 feet. (4) Any curves or comer of
streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning
radius of fifty-three feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius
of twenty-nine feet six inches. (5) Fire lanes shall be marked
with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE — NO
PARKING painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size
and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction. (6)
Please provide this Division with a set of revised site plans for
review." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
January 16, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in connection with Cade Meadows Site Condominiums
located at 36905 Ann Arbor Trail. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 13,
2006, revised, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of January 9, 2006, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The recreational
open space has not been provided. This may be waived by
Council by super majority. (2) The Commission may wish to
have someone proofread the Condominium document. On
page 13, Line 11, the word insurance should be 'issuance' and
on page 14, sub letter 'h', there is an error in the size of the
greenbelt; there are two (2) different size connotations. Is it 10
or 15 feet? (3) Ann Arbor Trail in that location is designated as
a 120 foot mad. Therefore, the units (lots) abutting it must be
30 feet longer in length and/or width. Unit 11, even though
longer, does not meet this requirement. Therefore this proposal
will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for
deficient size of Unit 11. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
23011
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to make sure on Lot 11 that the variance is 25 feel.
Is thalthe variance?
Mr. Taormina:
The requirement for that corner lot is that it be 90 feel and the
plan shows it 65 feel at the building line where Mr. Miller is
pointing on the diagram. Yes, that would be a deficiency of 25
feet.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Lou Ronayne,
Cade Investment, LLC, 310 W. Dunlap, Northville, Michigan
48167. 1 represent Cade Development.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add tonight?
Mr. Ronayne:
The only thing I wanted to add is, when we came up for
rezoning, there were several comments that I took back to the
engineer because originally we had talked about maybe putting
two lots facing on Ann Arbor Trail. There was some concern
with the Planning Commission on whether or not they should be
facing on a busy street like that, and it came up again in front of
Council, even though I wasn't up for site plan approval at the
time. I was giving them some concept drawings. That's why we
switched it and the engineer went back and pushed the cul-de-
sac back and did some improvements on there. But as pu can
tell, the one lot still needs a variance. That's the only way we
could do that. I understand that the Planning Commission hears
this all the time, but I just want to bring it up again because the
next door neighbors to the east there, abutting the property,
have been very cooperative and working with us so that we can
put in a development. They're used to having open space and
now they're going to have 11 homes. They are here if you want
to hear from them also. But they have been very cooperative in
putting this all together and that's why we ended up with 11 lots
and then putting our stonnwaler and that in the back piece of
the property which we're going to be purchasing off of them. So
we've taken great strides here in trying to work with everybody
so we wouldn't have any complaints, and back during rezoning
we didn't have anybody complaining. I'm not sure if anyone is
here tonight on it, but I haven't heard anything negative on it.
23012
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you tell me what the slope is on the detention pond? It
doesn't show on the site plan.
Mr. Ronayne:
I'm not sure.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, do you happen to know?
Mr. Taormina:
We have not seen any preliminary engineering plans but
typically, to avoid having to fence the basin, the maximum side
slope would be a one on six, which is a relatively gradual slope,
and that's established by the county. For the most part, its a
safety standard, but it also reduces the likelihood of erosion with
the fluctuating water levels. To the extent that they can design it
in accordance with those regulations, it should be a relatively
shallow basin.
Mr. Alanskas:
So thalwould be taken care of by the Engineering Department?
Mr. Taormina:
They will review it. In cases where there is not sufficient land
area and they have to design the basin with steeper slide
slopes, then there is a requirement to fence the basin. But that's
not something that we're privy to at this point with the amount of
information that has been submitted.
Mr. LaPine:
The lot directly to the east of this that abuts the retention pond,
does that neighbor know that the retention pond is going in
there? That's the first question. The second question is, are
you putting a fence around that retention pond or are you just
going to slope it down?
Mr. Ronayne:
Again, we are purchasing a substantial piece in back of the
property there, so I don't believe we need to fence it. Our
thought was to have a ...
Mr. LaPine:
Excuse me for interrupting, but there are two separate lots
there. Is that right? There's lot 36825 and 36801, or are those
two parcels owned by one owner.
Mr. Ronayne:
They are owned by one owner. That's who we're purchasing
the properly from.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. And the second question I have, because of the problem
with Ann Arbor Trail and the setback, have you considered
maybe we have loo many lots here? Maybe we can eliminate
one lot and reconfigure this so we can meet all the requirements
of the ordinance.
23013
Mr. Ronayne:
Again, that was considered and I think the likelihood of Ann
Arbor Trail getting widened, for one thing, is going to be pretty
slim now that they're doing the work they're doing there now
and redoing the storm sewer and everything. But second, and
again I know this isn't something that they like to hear when
you're coming in front of a government body, when you try to do
your costs and put all your costs together, and in this case,
we're trying to work with the neighbors so we can have a win-
win solution. This seemed to be the best way to do it. If we
didn't do that, Mr. LaPine, then we'd have to change the
drawing a little bit. I imagine it could work that way, but this
seemed to be the best solution to work with the neighbor. The
neighbor now is used to having ... I'll let them speak when I'm
done if you'd like to talk to them. This gives them the benefit of
making some money on their properly and embracing a
development next to them. What you don't see on that plan is
that the lot line before this drawing was very close to their
house. So close I don't think we could have even got a
driveway on the west side of their house with the properly being
so close. So part of the transaction between us is a win-win.
As we are exchanging a piece of property to make the width of
their properly an extra lot wider, plus we're compensating them
financially loo. So there's actually two things going on there.
Mr. LaPine:
The other question I have, when you developed this parcel, you
knew that the road had to be a 60 fool road. I'm not normally in
favor of a variance in our ordinance from a 60 to a 50, and it
seems to me all these lots are pretty deep. Did you ever
consider making that road a 60 fool road?
Mr. Ronayne:
We could do that, but I think if you check completely to the
south of this property, there's a condominium property that
abuts to the southern border of this that's even ... I mean it's
smaller than 50 feel I believe. I mean it's tight down there.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Good evening, sir. From my point of view here at this moment, I
can see some highly potential scenarios, one of which could
reduce the number of lots in your project from 11 to 10, and if
that does occur, you do have several options and some of them
may be advantageous in income. Let me show you. Lot 11, as
has been stated here, is out of spec in the front yard setback by
25 feet. That's an awful lot of footage. My calculations show
that by reducing the westerly number of units by one, this
setback deficiency could be eliminated, and in the process,
each of the other lots would could gain 8 feel in width, making
23014
them 68 fool lots and making them premium lots, which I think
you could obtain additional funds from that. Another scenario is,
you could lake 25 feet across from the south lot, but in the
process of doing that you would make just a few 45 feel and so
you would lose a lot in that case. And, of course, you could go
to the ZBA for a variance for the deficient width based on
hardship, which is questionable, but we don't make those
decisions. And so the Iasi issue here is the matter of the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations associated with a
subdivision. And the Rules stale that for every lot 720 square
feel of open space should be set aside. Ten lots times 720 is
exactly the lot size of an R-1 lot, which, in my wisdom, I think
you should give up. Can you comment on that, sir?
Mr. Ronayne:
It comes back to my experience over the years in being front of
government bodies that usually when you do a development, no
matter how big or small it is, you do have a lot of resistance to
people having a development next to them when they're used to
open space. We considered all those options and fell that doing
our tradeof with the neighbor next door by giving him a wider
piece of property and then taking off a back end of piece to
accomplish meeting our open space requirement for storm
retention, I'm going to guess that's not going to count as open
space that we have a storm retention there, but I think that the
plan we have here, if you look at the dales, we spent a lot of
time working on this in the last few months to try and
accomplish this and also to try and make it where it was
financially feasible for us to develop also.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The tradeoff with your neighbor, that's fine. But it's a different
ballgame than a tradeoff on the ordinances. We have
ordinances and, frankly, you are in gross violation on the front
setbacks. I was hoping that you could see thaland ...
Mr. Ronayne:
Excuse me, I probably am in compliance with the setbacks. I
thought we were in compliance with the setbacks except for Lot
11.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Or Lot 1. Lot 11. That's what we're discussing. That's 25 feel.
That home is set 25 feel shy of the requirement distance on a
major street. Every house that's adjacent to it has to have an
additional 30 feel. We dont want houses sifting on lop of major
roads. That's what the ordinance stales, and you, sir, are in
violation of that. And like I said, the Zoning Board can waive
that, but whether they will or not I don't know.
Mr. Ronayne:
I do think that if we went in front of the ZBA, we could prove
there was a hardship. If you look down that street, down Ann
23015
Arbor Trail and see low close other houses are, this is very
unusual that that large of a setback is in place. According to my
engineer, there's plenty of them that are closer already,
including the house next door.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, we can't let a bad precedent dictate the future decisions by
the city. I didn't measure those other homes. All I know is that
we have an ordinance, and you're not in compliance. Its easy
enough for you to be in compliance, in my opinion, I only speak
for myself of course, just by eliminating one lot. Now of course
@'s going to take your profits, perhaps 10 percent if you give up
one lot. This is going to reduce your profls by 10 percent, but
by increasing those lots to 68 feel, you're making some
premium lots and you could lie in a couple thousand bucks
more for those lots than the standard lots. It happens all the
time.
Mr. Ronayne:
I appreciate your thoughts on that, sir, and we did consider all
those things. It's more than 10 percent. A lot of that size is a lot
more expensive than that, plus extra costs involved, and that's
why I'm here tonight. I'm hoping that you'll look at those and
hopefully I can gel a favorable vole on it, but we did consider all
those things, and we fell strongly with our engineers that we
could get a variance on that with the ZRA. I appreciate your
insight, but ...
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Ronayne and Mr. Piercecchi, I think we've got Mr.
Ronayne's answer to the question. Is there anything else, Mr.
Piercecchi, you'd like to address?
Mr. Piercecchi:
No. I was just going to say, what about the matter of the
subdivision? That has to be waived by a super majority of the
Council. That's going to take 7,200 square feet if they say you
have to do it. I would be prepared for any of those scenarios if I
were you.
Mr. Ronayne:
Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
I had a question about that island in the middle of your
turnaround. Is that just for aesthetics?
Mr. Ronayne:
Normally, you have to landscape that and there will be a fire
hydrant in there, is what I'm assuming the way our engineers
are going to draw that. That's how other developments are
done around in Livonia and other communifies. It's usually an
area that's landscaped and has water access. It has to be
watered and there will be a hydrant in there.
23016
Ms. Smiley:
I wondered if the Fire Department wouldn't rather it be
eliminated for the emergency vehicles. Do you have any
feelings on that?
Mr. Ronayne:
Again, I'm dealing with an engineer who has dealt a lot with
Livonia and draws these things up and knows what the
ordinances are and what he has to do comply engineering -wise
and setbacks and everything like that. I'm confident that we'll
be able to achieve what the Fire Department wants.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
I have a couple other questions. Have you ever built any homes
in Livonia?
Mr. Ronayne:
I'm not a homebuilder, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Who is going to be the builder of these homes?
Mr. Ronayne:
Right now, we've talked to several people but we haven't
committed to anybody necessarily. Now I can tell you some
things I've done before. I've done several subdivisions in
Livonia. The most popular one that you'll recall is at Seven Mile
and Newburgh called Fox Creek Meadows back in the 80's. I've
worked very close with the city before. Mr. Nagy is in the
audience tonight. I'm sure you could talk to him if you wanted
history. But I've got a good record in Livonia for complying and
building new projects and nice homes and making sure that we
leave a piece of property better than when we found it.
Mr. LaPine:
What is the square footage of these homes going to be?
Mr. Ronayne:
For the ranches, I believe I put in there 1,600 square feet and
2,100. It's in the Master Deed.
Mr. Taormina:
The Master Deed indicates that the ranch units will be a
minimum of 1,500 square feet; colonials 1,800 square feet, and
the story and a half or capes will be 1,700 square feet minimum.
Mr. LaPine:
One of the problems I have with these smaller lots, these R1
lots, the only problems developers have today, the cost of the
property is sky high. I realize that. Putting in all the
infrastructure costs a lot of money. And then they go in and to
make a profit on the land, they build these humungous houses
on these small lots. When its all done, quite frankly, they don't
look too well because you don't have any land between you.
That's the reason I asked about the square footage. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
23017
Mr. Piercecchi: There's one other thing. If I recall, in your ... this is the one
where we got the deed, right?
Mr. Ronayne: Right.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think it was on page 14 of your project, you staled that you
were going to do the brick in the front. Yes, its page 14. You
stale here, "brick to be used shall be full face four inch brick, no
exceptions." You should know that Mr. Alanskas coined that.
Its used all the time. The 'front first floor of each condominium
unit shall be brick." Now, we have been requesting and
obtaining 65% brick, period, on all two-story homes, and 80%
brick on ranch homes. What about that requirement? Well,
thats not a requirement. I know it's in our motion.
Mr. Ronayne:
I'm well aware of Livonia's desire to have on a ranch, for
instance, all four sides brick. That's a requirement that you
request and thafs something we have to look at changing if we
want to do what we want to do. I dont have a problem with that.
I would just say that I've been in the business since 1983 and if
you go around to a lot of communifies, and some in Livonia, I
mean not every house is all brick anymore. A lot of times
people prefer to take the money that's in the inside of it and be
more ...look at gas prices this year. Energy efficiency is a lot
more important to some people that putting brick around the
back of the house that they're not going to see. I personally
don't have a preference either way, and if you're insistent about
that, I can recall at other meetings where they talk about brick
on all four sides, either on the first floor of a two-story or on a
ranch. I really don't have an opinion either way. It does add
cost to the house, but I'm not a builder and if that's a
requirement that you feel is important, we would change that
and the builder would have to adhere to it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So you will go along with it?
Mr. Ronayne:
I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you going to have sidewalks in here?
Mr. Ronayne:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
How about street lights?
Mr. Ronayne:
Whatever the ordinance requires. I don't have a problem with
street lights at all.
23018
Mr. LaPine: We'll make sure we get street lights because I like to see street
lights put in at the time the subdivision is developed because
later, if somebody wants street lights, they have to get a petition,
they have to come before the Council, and you always have
people for and against it. In my opinion, street lights are
important. I think it's a safety issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ronayne: I agree, Mr. LaPine. I appreciate your thoughts on it, and I
agree with that, especially nowadays since the trend is for
sidewalks and lighting for safely with Idds and all that. I don't
have a problem with that at all.
Mr. Shane: In listening to Mr. Piercecchfs three scenarios, I was sitting here
thinking of another one. Although you encountered some
resistance at the public hearing for the rezoning, the other
alternative would be to lake Lots 11 and 10 and tum them and
front on Ann Arbor Trail. You'd have an 80 fool lot and a 60 fool
lot, with the 60 fool lot having the average depth of around 140,
and the 80 fool lot somewhere around 125 — 130. That's the
fourth scenario.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina has a point, if he can share it.
Mr. Taormina:
Its shown on the initial conceptual plans that were submitted
with the rezoning petition, and there was quite a bit of concern
related to that design because of the direct access onto Ann
Arbor Trail, its proximity to the intersection and the way the
geometrics of the road are at that point. So that was really
something that was discouraged by the Council when this
matter was discussed as part of the rezoning petition.
Mr. Shane:
Yes, I recall that, but I just wanted to throw that out as a fourth
alternative.
Mr. Ronayne:
That's the way we originally had it designed, Mr. Shane. We
looked at it. I mean I don't disagree with that from a sales
standpoint.
Mr. Shane:
I haven't heard that and I have to agree that I would want to see
these lots meet the zoning ordinance requirements. If that
means losing a lot, then so be it. If it were only 5 fool defcienl
or something like that, I would look at it differently, but again,
you're siding to what could be a major thoroughfare. That is the
reason why the zoning ordinance was changed a few years
back, to provide additional footage on large roads for those
adjacent to lots so that you've have room to put in a good
greenbelt and set those houses a little further back. And here
you only have something like 65 feet of building envelope, which
23019
means the front part of the house is going to be substantially
closer to Ann Arbor Trail than we would like. For the same
reason you're telling me the Council didn't like the traffic
situation on Ann Arbor Trail because of egress and ingress, I
have a problem with the houses being so close. Lot 1 is great,
but Lot 11, 1 would think we should do something even if it
means losing a lot.
Mr. Ronayne: Again, I appreciate the comments, Mr. Shane, but I think we're
dealing with a different major road with Ann Arbor Trail than if
you look Plymouth Road or Joy Road or anything like that. I
really think that the ordinance for that setback is a good
ordinance, and in most cases, it is there, but if you did take the
time to go back over there and see again, I just think Ann Arbor
Trail is an exception to the rule with those major streets and
whether or not that's going to be a real impediment or not being
on that, having to gel a variance, because of the setback.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions before we go to the audience? Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Jim Hollowell, 36825 Ann Arbor Trail. I live at the lot east to this project. I'm the
neighbor that he kept referring to. I worked with him on this plan
and basically supported his plan. I'm not an expert on any of
the details. My house was built in 1923, and part of the thing I
never liked about the lot is that my lot line is seven feet from the
corner of my house. Making this arrangement with him to sell
him part of the back of my property to meet his purposes for the
retention pond, he was going to give me a little elbow room, so
to speak, to the west of my house. So I have this new project,
11 new houses coming in. Its going to be really different for
me, but R's important to me that I don't have these houses like
right up in my window. So, I'm here to support his plan. I hope
the details can be worked out, and we can make the project
work.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, are there
any additional comments or questions?
Mr. Piercecchi: It seems like we're kind of pouncing on this particular individual
with some rules that apparently he didn't know anything about. I
would like to suggest that we table this and lel him chew over
some of the items we discussed, like eliminating a lot. He can
judge that on an economic basis and increasing the lot sizes
and the Subdivision Rule on the 720 feel, etc., etc., things that
have been discussed tonight. I'm going to offer a motion to
23020
table and hopefully he can come back with a couple scenarios.
I appreciate the neighbor that came up here loo, sir, but he
negotiates with the city. I'm not questioning the integrity of this
investment company, but as Mr. Shane pointed out, 25 feel is
an awful lot of out of spec. I'll offer such a motion.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#02-18-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2006-01-08-02, submitted by Cade
Investment, on behalf of Cade Meadows Site Condominiums,
requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection
with a proposal to construct a condominium development on
property located at 36905 Ann Arbor Trail in the Northwest''/. of
Section 32, be tabled.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Piercecchi, LaPine, Alanskas, Shane, Smiley
NAYS:
Morrow, Walsh
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Mark, can we take a look at the calendar and see
when we might have an opportunity to look al this?
Mr. Taormina: I don't see any problem with the next meeting.
Mr. Walsh: The next study session?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Ronayne, we'll pick this up at our next study session on
Tuesday.
Mr. Ronayne: Okay. I spent six months on this. I feel confident saying I'd
rather have you just deny me than to table it because we've
gone through all these scenarios.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Ronayne, I understand that. We're a little bit constrained by
Roberts Rules and how we have to proceed. The motion has
taken place.
Mr. Ronayne: I understand. I should have said that before. I would have
rather had a denial than a table because you're going to get the
same plan.
Mr. Walsh: I do understand, but we will see you on Tuesday. Thank you.
23021
k1=lAi EF?M9=k IY I[e] 7 E'ADI--ErSDRf*k *Ie] 76% Add Y9=1: I=1zlefi
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
01-08-03, submitted by Consumers Energy Company
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and
reconstruct a public utility city gale on properly located at 11966
Newburgh Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 29.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner, Consumers Energy Company, is requesting
approval to demolish and reconstruct a public utility substation
on property located at the east side of Newburgh Road between
Plymouth Road and Amrhein Road. Consumers Energy
operates a "city gate' or regulator station at this location. The
equipment at this site is used to reduce gas pressures between
the high-pressure transmission lines, which enter the facility,
and the customer distribution system. The site consists of three
separate properties whose addresses are 11962, 11964 and
11970 Newburgh Road. The site has approximately 238 feel of
frontage on Newburgh Road and has a combined land area of
about 1.13 acres. All three parcels are zoned RUF, Rural Urban
Farm. Public utility buildings require waiver use approval in an
RUF zoning district. Consumers received waiver use approval
(CR 1187-89) on December 20, 1989 for the existing building.
Since the waiver use has already been established, this request
only requires site plan approval. The existing building on the
site is one-story in height and measures 36 feel along its east
and west elevations and 40 feel along its north and south
elevations for a total area of 1,440 square feet. The new facility
would also be one-story in height, but would be slightly larger at
55 feel along its east and west elevations and 44 feel along its
north and south elevations for a total of 2,420 square feet. The
new city gale would be situated in the same approximate
location as the existing building, which is near the center of the
site. It appears that the existing driveway off Newburgh Road
would remain and provide vehicular access to the site. This
existing drive extends from the road, travels along the north half
of the site and then turns south and dead -ends behind the
building. Because these types of utility buildings are generally
unmanned, there are no provisions for parking. The proposed
landscaping for this site would include a greenbelt along the
south property line and defined island elements along the
Newburgh Road frontage. The remainder of the site would
remain "as is", which is essentially lawn and a few trees. The
plan shows a new six (6') fool high chain link fence proposed to
be installed along the rear (east) lot line. The proposed building
would look very similar, if not exactly, like the existing station. It
would be constructed out of brick on all four sides with a
23022
standing metal roof. The structure would have a number of man
doors but no windows. Oversized aluminum louver panels
would furnish ventilation for the equipment inside.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There are four items of correspondence. The first ile m is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 23, 2006, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time and no additional right-of-
way is required at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 20, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to demolish and
reconstruct a public utility city gate on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
February 1, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in connection with a proposal by Consumers Energy
Company in connection with a reconstruct located at 11962-
11970 Newburgh Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 9,
2006, revised, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of January 18, 2006, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. This Department has no 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?
Greg Meyer,
Area Manager, Consumers Energy, 11801 Farmington Road,
Livonia. The reason for this project is to meet the growing
demand for natural gas in the area. With me this evening are
two of the project engineers, Jeremy Willett as well as Joe
Taylor. They should be able to answer any questions that you
might have on the project.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
I had no question with the size of the depth, but why does it
have to be so high?
23023
Joe Taylor, Senior Pipeline Engineer, SSOE, Inc, 1001 Madison Avenue, Toledo,
OH 43624. The increase in roofline is due to the larger
capacity heater that is inside the building. The heater is
required to preheat the high pressure gas before we reduce the
pressure through the regulators.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have any of the newer buildings with smaller heights?
Mr. Taylor:
Not that handle this larger capacity of gas.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Now that we're pulling this new building in for more gas, does
that mean the price of my gas is going to go down?
Mr. Taylor:
No, but hopefully the gas will be there in ample supply.
Mr. Shane:
How much higher is this building?
Mr. Taylor:
Al the peak of the roof, it's 9 feet higher. Currently, its roughly
20 feet, and the peal of the new building will be 29 feel or very
close to 29 feel from grade.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-19-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-01-08-03,
submitted by Consumers Energy Company requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct a
public utility city gale on property located at 11966 Newburgh
Road in the Southwest % of Section 29, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet 57 dated
January 11, 2006, as revised, prepared by SSOE, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. Thal the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
23024
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 56
dated January 3, 2006, as revised, prepared by SSOE, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick; and
7. 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 2006-01-08-04 MOGHUL INVESTMENT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
01-08-04, submitted by Moghul Investment requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a medical building on
properly located at 15150 Levan Road in the Northeast '/. of
Section 20.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner seeks to construct a two-story office building on
property located on the east side of Levan Road between Five
Mile Road and Jamison Road. The subject site consists of a
single parcel, which has a land area of approximately 0.95 acres
and is zoned OS, Office Services. The properly has 176 feel of
frontage along Levan Road and measures 286 feel in depth
along its south property line. This site is currently undeveloped.
It contains natural trees, vegetation, and a portion of a tributary
of the Bell Branch of the Rouge River, which flows from west to
east and bisects the property in nearly equal halves. Because
the watercourse divides the upland portions of the properly, the
proposed development would consist of two separate parts: the
proposed office building and a parking lot would occupy the
southerly half of the properly, while a second parking area
would occupy the north half. A pedestrian bridge, spanning the
waterway, would connect the two sections of the development.
The proposed office building would be two -stories in height and
23025
contain a total of 5,860 square feet of floor area. The footprint
of the proposed building has an irregular shape along its north
side by following the contour of the stream. The building would
measure 85 feel along its north and south elevations, 27 feel
along its east elevation, and a little over 54 feet along its west
elevation. All building setbacks would be met. Both parking lots
would be illuminated with light fixtures on 12 -fool high steel
poles. The submitted plans show no lighting on the exterior of
the building itself. Each parking lot would be accessible by a
single driveway off Levan Road. According to notes on the site
plan, the building's interior tenant space would be evenly
divided, 50% office and 50% medical. Parking provided is 34
spaces which meets the parking requirement. The north
parking lot would contain 20 parking spaces, 11 of which would
be only 9' in width. A potential problem occurs due to the
placement of two parallel parking spaces along the northern
edge of the northern parking lot. These two spaces, being just
off the main driveway and relatively close to the Levan Road
right-0iway, could be hazardous. The south parking lot would
contain 13 parking spaces, including two barrier free spaces.
The zoning ordinance requires all parking spaces to be a
minimum len (10') feel in width. A variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals would be required. Landscaping for the site
would incorporate much of the site's existing trees and plant
material with a few extra trees to help buffer the building from
the residential property to the east. Landscaping required is
15% of the total site and provided landscaping is shown as
59%, which far exceeds the landscape requirement. Because
this site abuts residential to the east, a screening wall or
greenbelt would be required along this property line. The
petitioner is requesting approval to substitute a permanent
greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall. The petitioner believes
the existing natural vegetation along the east property line
would provide an adequate buffer. The proposed office building
would be constructed mainly out of brick. Also incorporated into
the architecture would be insulated metal flat panel siding, and
windows constructed with an insulated lowe glazing system.
Metal siding would screen any mechanical devices on the
building's roof. The north elevation would serve as the front of
the building. Taking advantage of the river's attributes, a
section of this elevation angles to follow the meandering
channel. In order to provide a pleasant natural view of the
watercourse, this is the only elevation composed primarily of
windows. The south elevation, which is the side that would be
visible from the Levan Medical Center, would be composed
entirely out of brick with soldiered courses visually breaking up
the wall. The second story would overhang the first story
creating a seven fool five inch (7' 5") overhang above the
23026
building's main entrance, located on the structure's northwest
corner.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated January 25, 2006, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time and the legal description
is correct. No additional right-of-way is required. Flow in the Bell
Branch at this location has caused severe erosion downstream
of this site. Extreme care should be employed to maintain the
current cross-section of the drain across this site and detention
will be required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm
Water Management Ordinance. We recommend that any
approval by the city be contingent upon approval by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality concerning the
location of the wetlands boundary and approval to construct the
pedestrian bridge across the wetlands." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 25, 2006,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a medical
office building on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated January 24, 2006, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 20,
2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) That all site work, to include work within
the flood way and/or Flood plain shall be approved by the
Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. (2) The dumpster enclosure requires a separate
building permit, and its exterior appeamnce shall match the
building facade. The gates shall remain dosed when not in use.
(3) Provide all barrier free accessibility requirements for the
required amount and placement of handicap parking and travel
frem this point to the building entrance. (4) Double stripe all
parking areas. (5) Provide the required protective wall along the
east (rear) property line to separate residential property or a
greenbelt as approved by Planning and City Council. (6) The
site plan depicts nine foot wide parking spaces This would
require application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
deficient parking space width. (7) No signage was illustrated on
the site and building elevation plans. Depending on the
Petitioner's future proposal, this may require application to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. (8) The Planning Commission may
23027
wish to evaluate the parking space layout to assure ease of
maneuvering passenger vehicles within the parking area;
vehicle movement becomes more difficult due to the nine foot
wide parking spaces. This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Randy Abrahamson,
Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Taormina, does this building have a basement in d?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not aware that it would have a basement. We do know that
there are a number of retaining walls that are proposed on the
site. One is along the north side of the building where it's
adjacent to the creek. I dont believe it indicates there would be
a basement. I'm guessing because of the high water table in
this area that it would not have a basement.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In the literature that was submitted to us for tonight's agenda,
several documents came from the Department of Environmental
Qualitydated October 3, 2005.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Has this information been reviewed by you and your staff?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. We did receive copies of the Welland Assessment Report
from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Essentially, that is a determination as to the boundaries of the
wetland adjacent to this watercourse. The DEQ goes out to the
site, they flag the boundaries of the wetlands at the petitioner's
request, and that serves as a basis for a survey to show
precisely where those wetland boundaries are for site
development purposes. That is all that has been done. I'm not
aware that they have made application to the Department of
Environmental Quality for any permits associated with this
project, but there would be a number of issues related to it. One
would be the pedestrian crossing. Some of the work would be
conducted in and around those wetlands. Some of the retaining
walls appear to be very close to the edge of those wetlands, and
some of the associated fill with constructing those retaining
walls may actually require disturbance to the wetlands. So
there are a number of issues that are going to have to be
reviewed by the DEQ. Lastly, and probably most importantly, is
the stormwater management plan for this site. We do not have
any information relative to slormwaler detention facilifies, and
because this site is bisected by a watercourse, there are two
23028
sub -drainage areas. You have one on the south side of the
stream, and you have on one the lower side of the stream. So
it's likely that any stormwater management plan is going to
require separate facilities for each side of that stream. It's not
possible to tie both sides of the stream into a single stormwater
detention basin just given the grades of the site. So thafs going
to be a costly venture for the applicants, especially if it's done
underground, and those facilifies will require discharge permits
into the creek because the amount of outflow from those
detention basins cannot exceed the natural rale of agricultural
flow that is presently on the site. There are a number of issues
related to this project that we, quite frankly, dont have sufficient
information on.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Will they be allowed to bring in fill dirt? There's about a six or
eight foot difference between certain areas.
Mr. Taormina:
They will be allowed to fill those portions of the site that are
classified as upland. They will not be permitted to place any fill
within the wetlands area, floodplain or the watercourse without
proper permitting by the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality. They will be entified to do some fill activities. Of
course, those will all be subject to engineering permits, both
from the city and from Wayne County, but that would not violate
any of the wetland or floodplain restrictions as long as its kept
outside of those designated areas.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thanks very much. That was an excellent report on that
property. You're obviously on top of this very difficult piece of
property to develop.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, I have to say, you did an excellent job and you answered
a number of questions. When people park over in this far
parking lot, how will they gel down to the bridge to get to the
building? I can'tfigure that out on my plan here.
Mr. Taormina:
Scott will point to where that bridge is located. Really it lies
from one parking lot over to the sidewalk that goes straight into
the main entrance to the building. There would be a ramp of
some sort provided right at that curved point providing access
across the bridge.
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me ask you a question. From where that parking lot is there
to where the building entrance would be, how many feet would
that be away from the building? It's quite a long distance, isn't
d?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm just estimating that it would probably be about 80 feet or so.
23029
Mr. La Pine:
I'm trying to figure out where the dumpster is on here.
Mr. Taormina:
Its right there.
Mr. La Pine:
How do the trucks get in to empty the dumpster?
Mr. Taormina:
That's another issue that we point out in terms of potential
problems associated with this plan. We're not sure there's
sufficient area provided for that enclosed trash area for trucks to
be able to properly service it. The second issue related to that
would be the sheer distance between the refuse container area
and the building itself. That's an awfully long way for people to
have to carry their garbage. I'd like to also point out with
respect to this plan something that is not readily picked up. If
you consider the building immediately to the north of this site,
and Scott will point it out on the graphic, that properly sits
probably four to five feet above this property or the area
immediately south of the property line. Because of that, there's
a retaining wall that's going to be required right at that building
line. That building has a zero setback. The way this plan is
proposed, they're showing the parking going right up to that
property line, and the established elevation of that parking lot
would be several feel below the established elevation of the
parking lot on the adjoining parcel to the north. So there are
some issues related to how they're going to build that retaining
wall so close to the building. We would recommend that they
provide some cross-sectional diagrams not only in that area, but
also other areas where this project is immediately adjacent to
that watercourse so that we can get a better handle on what the
impacts are going to be on this site.
Mr. La Pine:
Seeing that we have so many problems here, we don't know
where the retention pond is going to go, we will have concerns
with the DEC, if we were inclined to approve this tonight, would
we be better off waiting until we knew how all those areas are
going to be corrected orwhat's going to happen?
Mr. Taormina:
I'd feel very uncomfortable with the Commission approving this
plan without having additional information regarding some of
these grading matters and how stormwater management is
envisioned to be handled on the site.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
My questions were about the DEQ and you covered them.
Thank you very much.
23030
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Steven Schneemann, S3 Architecture, 23629 Liberty, Suite 200, Farmington, MI
48335. Good evening Chairman Walsh and lady and gentlemen
of the Planning Commission. I'm the architect representing the
owner of the property, Mr. Moghul, who is present with us this
evening. Based on the discussion that I've just heard, as well
as our meeting Iasi week during the study session and
subsequent drawings that we submitted, I'd like to talk about a
couple of items. Let's talk about what we were just discussing,
and I'll lake them one by one. The dumpster access — the way
that this was designed would be such that a truck would access
off of Levan Road. It would actually back into the dumpster
location, open the doors, load up the dumpster, and then pull
straight out and back onto Levan Road. That's not an unusual
way for a truck like that to access a dumpster, and believe it or
not, that's not really that far of a distance for a truck to back up
to pick up a dumpster. I also wanted to talk about the distance
from the parlang lot in this area to the front door. It may seem
like 80 feet is a long way; however, if you compare it even with
the parking lot just to the south, actually these spaces are
further from the door of the building to the south than the spaces
are from our building. So 80 feel is not an atypical distance for
one to park and walk to the building. We've also provided
parking that is immediately adjacent to the building, including
the barrier free spaces which are right next to the front door. So
we feel that this is actually quite a comfortable relative distance
for the users to walk. It is true that there are retaining walls
along the north properly line, and we have left a distance there
to construct the wall. We're also proposing a retaining wall right
at the edge of this parking lot, the south parking lot, the north
edge of the south parking lot. It is our intent not to disturb any
of the wetlands, not to fill any of the wetlands, and so we have,
in fact, kept all of our development at least a couple of feel
outside of the border of the wetlands as determined by the
MDEQ. The other issue that was discussed last week is that it
is up to the Planning Commission whether or not a greenbelt or
a wall will be constructed between a development of this nature
and the residential properties that are immediately adjacent to
the east. Based on the recommendation of one of the
commissioners last week, we actually did send packets to these
three neighbors, the three parcels immediately to the east,
describing to those folks that we believe that keeping this area
of the parcel natural and providing a greenbelt in this area that
completely screens the building from any view that they might
have with evergreens would be preferable aesthetically really for
them. We also explained to them that the owner is willing to
construct a wall on the property line if that be the desire of the
23031
Commission. So we're willing to do that but we really thought it
would be best to not disturb this part of the parcel as much as
possible, both for the residents as well as for the new
development. Storm retention was also discussed, and the
intent, and really the only way for this to work, there's no room
for a retention pond on this parcel. We understand that you
can't just dump it into the river. In fad, I think somebody did
mention underground retention. There would be separate
systems. There would be a system that would collect runoff
from this paved area and held in oversized underground pipes,
and then released at a controlled rale. Of course, all of this
would be approved through the Engineering Department.
Similarly, on the south side of the Bell Creek branch, the runoff
from the roof as well as this additional hard scape would be
collected in oversized pipes underneath this parking area and
then also released at a controlled rate. I think that I've covered
all of the loose aids. I'm a little concerned that the Planning
Department would feel uncomfortable with an approval this
evening. That was a new one to us. So I hope that at least the
items that I've discussed now help to bring some clarification
and perhaps can give you a comfort level in considering what
we're proposing.
Mr. Alanskas:
Number one, I'd like to compliment you on that good-looking
building that you proposed. Number two, it's certainly my
opinion that ... how can you ask people to walk 160 feet over a
bridge, turn east and go into the refuse where they dump their
garbage? If you have bad weather or cold weather, min, people
are not going to do it. They're going to let that garbage or
whatever buildup in the building. And you've got the front of the
building facing the gas station.
Mr Schneemann:
I guess I was unaware that there was a gas station immediately
across the street.
Mr. Alanskas:
Its right on the corner of Levan and Five Mile.
Mr Schneemann:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
Which is not that far away.
Mr Schneemann:
Yeah. Well, really, the front of our building is here and would be
screened by all of this vegetation as far as view to the corner.
Mr. Alanskas:
And you still have 9 fool parking spaces, which you can't have.
They have to be 10' x 20'.
23032
Mr Schneemann:
Based on what I've heard tonight, we would suggest that we
eliminate any of the 9 foot spaces, reduce the size of the
building so that we wouldn't have to go before zoning. Based
on the study session last week, somebody had suggested from
the Commission that we keep part of the parking designated as
staff parking, 9 fool spaces, so we had put that in the plan. But
upon further discussion with the owner, we believe that it would
probably be most beneficial for us and for the Commission,
hearing the comments tonight, to just go with 10 foot spaces,
thereby eliminating one of the spaces along the north property
line and having all 10 fool spaces, reducing the square footage
of the building by that amount.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm just one commissioner, but I really don't think that the
property needs another two-story building. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'd like to touch upon the refuse that was mentioned. Is it
possible for your facility to be serviced with a compactor to
compact everything, and gel it out to the street?
Mr Schneemann:
Yeah, its not that big of a building, so I think that can be
handled reasonably. I might add that, again, if you compared
this development to the development to the south, their
dumpster enclosure, I believe, is right along the north property
line. So 160 feel might not be the nicest distance to travel on a
cold wintry evening, but it's not unprecedented either. But we
would be willing to eliminate the dumpster enclosure and find
alternative means of refuse.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm not trying to tell you what to do. What is the size of that
dumpster area? It's probably a parking lot spot, right?
Mr Schneemann:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You could pick up another spot? That's something to think
about.
Mr. Morrow:
I think in a couple of those you mentioned, I think I was the
commissioner that made those recommendations. I wanted to
touch base with your neighbors to the east, and we'll probably
hear the results of that before we leave here tonight. Secondly,
I did say that if you could not work in the 10' x 20', as one
commissioner, for staff parking it could be 9'. 1 was mainly
coming from the standpoint that I don't want to sacrifice
anymore, even though there's ample green space there, and the
tenuous of the buildable space with the creek running through
there. If you could pull off 10' x 20's, that's fine. I only said 9' if
you couldn't work it out another way. As far as the site plan, I
23033
don't have any trouble with the site plan, but it seems like, for
lack of a better term, the infrastructure is not something that
we're normally confronted with, such as retaining walls and a
large grade separation. Even though I like the plan, I'd be
hesitant to move forward when my Planning Director says that
he would be uncomfortable sending this forward to the next
level of government, which is the City Council. I think he had
asked for further information, as well as some illustrations as to
grades and cross sections. I think it has the potential for being
a very pretty site if all these other infrastructure things can be
overcome. You've already anticipated the stonnwater retention
and you're prepared in that area. Those are my comments.
Mr. Shane: Mr. Morrow pretty much preempted what I was going to ask.
However, I would like to comment that I don't have any problem
with 9' bays either as long as they're staff parking. I certainly
hope that the neighbors are here to comment on the their
position on the greenbelt. I'd like to be sure of what their
position is on that. Thirdly, I'd also like to see the trash
dumpsler eliminated if possible. If they can go to another
method, that would be great. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Just one question. Al this point, do you have a tenant for that
building? Do you know who is going in the building?
Mr Schneemann:
No, we do not.
Mr. LaPine:
You dont know if it will be one, two or three tenants? See, the
problem I have, I'm all for the compactor. If we can eliminate
the dumpsler, I'm for it. But depending on how many tenants
you have in the building, I don't know how big of a compactor
you have to have because the compactor will have to be inside
the building. It's not like a compactor you have in your house
where you can pack it all down. If you're just going to have
paper and things like that, it might work, but I mean that's
something you're going to have to look at if you decide you're
going to go with the compactor. That's the only concern I have.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You mentioned something about reducing the building in size.
You started out with 6,050, and the last time it was 5,860. What
do you plan on reducing it to, sir?
Mr Schneemann:
Based on the relationship of the one parking space and the
square footage for office and medical office, I believe we lose
approximately 170 to 180 square feet if we lose a space.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Additional.
23034
Mr Schn mann: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Fine. That will do it
Mr. Walsh: Are there any addifional comments before we go to the
audience? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition?
Roger Degen, 15127 Woodside. I live directly behind part of this project.
There's three issues that I have. First, I want to lel you know
that I just got this Friday. It was delivered to my house Friday.
So I didn't have much time to do some research on this that I
maybe would have liked to have done. The first issue is that the
picture you see up there, if you look at the parking lot to the
south, they have at least a 10 foot setback from the sidewalk. It
looks like this project is right up to the sidewalk. If cars are
backing in, they're going to be hanging over this sidewalk area
interfering with the pedestrians walking on the sidewalk, and the
area between the sidewalk and Levan is very narrow. I do walk
that on occasion and the sidewalk there is very unlevel. So
obviously the people are going to have to use that bridge quite a
bit. Another issue is the difference in the height. The parking
lot on the north side, as you know, is at lead five feel. I walked
by there today. It's at lead five feel lower. If they're going to
park cars there and have a retaining wall, I think that there's
going to be some measurement problems here. Its looks like
they're trying to squeeze in as many parking spots as they can
with the narrowing of the spaces, and then backing in a truck all
the way to the dumpster to pick up their trash seems a little bit
unique. I haven't heard of that before. The second issue we
have is with the bridge. I've driven around the city and I haven't
seen any businesses where over 50% of the property is
accessible by a 60 or 70 fool bridge over a river. I personally
think that's not appropriate for people who might be in
wheelchairs or on crutches or have problems. You're walling
across a bridge that's dark. Right now its dark at 6:00 at night.
In the dead of winter, its 5:00, 4:30 at night. Walking across a
60 fool bridge over a river. If this is going to be a doctor facility,
you're going to have children walking over that. I certainly think
it's an issue you should be concerned about it. I would certainly
be concerned with it. Another issue with the bridge is what I call
an attractive nuisance. We have these all over the city. Kids
like to rollerblade on them, rollerskate on them, skateboard on
them. There's going to be skateboarders up and down this
bridge at all times of the day and night, and nothing can be done
about it. If you look at this piece of artwork out here beside the
city hall between here and the police station, there are signs
posted all over, don't skateboard here. Twenty feel away from a
23035
police parking lot that's actively policed 24 hours a day, on any
good day, there's two skateboarders there at all times. You
can't keep them away and I see this as sort of an attractive
nuisance because of where it's at. The third issue, which I think
is the most important issue, is erosion. There's going to be
significant erosion downstream. If I remember correctly, at least
a year or two ago, the City of Livonia with Wayne County spent
millions of dollars on Idyl Wyld for retention ponds to correct
damage from erosion and try to slow down future erosion.
What's going to be done to protect my property? With all this
parking lot coverage, with all the building coverage, all this
water . . . there's going to be an increase in water and an
increase in the water speed, and that's going to increase
erosion to all those houses that run along that creek. So I think
those three issues, in a nutshell, are what I'm concerned about.
I'm also concerned about the two-story building. I dont know of
another two-story building around there. I think that should be
something that should be considered also. Thank you very
much for your time.
Larry Coffey, 15099 Woodside. I live on the property directly east of this
proposed building. My concerns are pretty much the same as
the rest of my neighbors regarding the storm drainage and how
@'s going to be controlled. I heard this gentlemen say that they
were going to have oversized pipes underground, I guess,
collecting the storm drainage. My question would be, where is
that going to be discharged? Into another storm drain or directly
into the Bell branch drain? I had a question about the greenbelt
loo. Is that going to be bermed up or is there going to be
enough access to the east of the greenbelt to where they can
cul the grass? And is there going to be a sprinkler system
there? There is also an elevation difference there on that
backside of the property that is adjacent to my property. I have
questions about the grading and being a two-story building also.
I wondered if they had any kind of dimensions or figures on how
the height of that building would compare to the existing medical
building that's already there. I guess that's about it.
Janice Prokopenko, 36126 Parkhurst. We're three homes away northeast of the
Coffey's house or from this, and the building is lovely to look at,
but I would like to just give you a brief history. When we moved
in 18 years ago, nothing had been built on the wetlands on Five
Mile. Amazingly that was overturned, and there are three
buildings there now. I can attest to the stress on the creek and
the wildlife. I don't see pheasants any more. There are still
some muskrats though. We have a great amount of erosion. I
don't know if the city is not deaning out the silt, but when it
rains, it does go up over the banks. We've had two trees that
23036
have slid, large trees, that have slid down and are almost
toppling over right now. We are behind the credit union and the
car wash. When we first moved in, the car wash road ren a
decent distance, but the city allowed it to be extended. It's
sloping down. Right behind us looking down, I think it's five feet
from the drop off. So, I just want you to be aware of how much
erosion there has been there, and if this went forward, I would
hope that the city would maintain and would look at this very
carefully at what can be done to keep the land from being
eroded any more because we have lost a lot of property. Thank
you.
Jim Russo, 15081 Woodside. I live next to Mr. Coffey. To put it very simply, I'm
a little concerned about the unknown variables. It seems like
there's a fair degree of uncertainly in regard to what the storm
runoff is going to be, and consistent with my neighbors, I just
want to make sure that we don't have an issue downstream.
Certainly, I'm aware that the properly is there to be used;
however, we want to make sure that we don't, then, suffer
repercussions based on additional . it seems like there's
additional stress already on the land that's causing a fair
amount of concern in terms of runoff primarily. So until those
issues are addressed, until we have some firm conclusions in
regard to what its going to actually bear putting an extra
building on that properly, I personally feel very uncomfortable
having that sifting in close proximity to my house. Thank you
very much.
Ceclia Coffey, 15099 Woodside. I do want to read a letter from one of my
neighbors who was unable to come here this evening. Its from
Patrick and Colleen Cannon. They live at 36066 Parkhurst. Its
regarding this development. 'To whom it may concern. It has
come to my attention that a new building is being planned for
Levan Road just south of Five Mile Road. As you know, this
building will back up to Reynolds Ravine. 1 have confidence the
Planning Commission will insure appropriate green space
around and behind the building and will be sufficient enough so
as not to adversely affect the adjoining property values. My
concern lies with the increased stress being put on the creek
that runs through this property. The creek 1 speak of runs west
to east and borders a number of homes along that stretch. The
concern for me and the neighbors around me has to do with
severe erosion we have experienced since the subdivision has
been built. Our neighbors to the west of us have lost nearly
their entire backyard, while we have lost approximately seven to
eight feet in eight years. In fact, last spring an entire 12 to 14
foot spruce tree fell into the creek. We have had a number of
landscapers and other contractors take a look at the site and
23037
propose solutions. Many never respond back to us. We feel it's
important for some kind of holding pond or some other measure
to be taken so runoff does not adversely affect mine and
neighboring properties by putting more pressure on the creek
banks. Also, the City of Livonia should help facilitate owners
who want to repair property damaged by helping to cut through
the red tape or since the Commission approved the house to be
built on this unstable bedding, provide some of type of aid in its
repair. Thank you. Sincerely, Patrick and Colleen Cannon." I
would like to reiterate, there is, in fid, a home that probably
should never have been built on that properly because of the
stress of this creek. I am really concerned about around that
bend there where the shrubs are, there has been a significant
amount of erosion there, so I don't see those trees lasting too
long. I was concerned about the different elevations. I guess
we need more answers. How much water flow if we're all going
to experience more of this erosion and thereby lose more of our
property. I dont know if a greenbelt meant a berm and trees or
just a flat space. I don't know what that plan for landscaping is
there. I mean we appreciate that you're doing it and leaving
some of that properly back there. My husband takes care of
that properly. We mow it and it would be very hard to gel a
lawnmower through all those shrubs to try and cul it. We
appreciate that you're leaving it open, but I want to make sure
that if we're not laking care of it, someone will. And its hard to
get to. How can you get to it if there's trees there with a
lawnmower? So I hope the Planning Commission considers
this. Come out and look at the property firsthand and talk to the
neighbors there because we are very concerned that it will just
be more stress on this creek. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this item? Seeing no one, I'm going to go to Mr.
Morrow.
Mr. Morrow: Just as it relates to the greenbelt in lieu of the wall, I'm sure the
developer will respond and answer some ofthe questions that
he's heard from the residents. As it relates to the stress on the
creek, this Commission certainly shares the same concems you
have. Our dilemma is, though, those kinds of decisions are not
really part of our approval. In other words, what this will be
between is the DEQ, the engineering and the developer to
address all the concems that you have as it relates to retention,
runoff and stress on the various communities. It's certainly
above my pay grade, so I can't respond to that tonight, but I did
want to lel you know that this Commission shares those
concerns. We don't want to develop a site that's going to cause
23038
a lot of problems downstream for the current residents. Thank
you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow, I appreciate you saying that. We don't want you to
think that we are ignoring your engineering concerns, but if this
should move forward pass this body, and it goes to the Council,
they will work with engineering assistance and the County
opines the DEC. There is plenty of work here still for us but I
think that's a worthwhile statement. Thank you for making that.
Are there any other statements or questions? Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, I'm just curious. I have concerns about the retention
ponds. Where will that water from the retention ponds go? Will
that be dumped into the Bell Creek or is there a storm sewer
along Levan Road that it would be dumped in?
Mr. Taormina:
That is difficult to say. We don't have that information.
Mr. La Pine
But where that water is going to go is a concern that will be
looked at sometime during this process. Is that cored?
Mr. Taormina:
That is information that I believe would be very helpful to the
Planning Commission's review of this petition. We're not asking
them to engineer the slormwater detention basin at this point,
but it would be very helpful as it relates to the site development
to show how that would be equipped and the points to discharge
would also be very helpful, especially if it is determined that
there is an available storm sewer on Levan where that water
can be discharged to so as to mitigate any further erosion along
this watercourse. That would be very helpful information.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one question. Would the owner please come
forward? Sir, how long have you owned this property?
Farrukh Moghul, Moghul Investments, LLC, 1870 Canterbury Court, Bloomfield
Hills, Michigan 48302. About two years.
Mr. Alanskas:
Two years?
Mr. Moghul:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional comments from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
I would like to table this.
23039
Mr. Morrow: I dont what to jump in here, but I was hoping at least to have
the developer address some of the quesfions that he heard as it
relates to the greerbelt. Is it going have an irrigation system?
Is it going to be bermed? If that's in order, Mr. Chairman, I ask
the questions. If it's not, disregard it.
Mr. Walsh: If its the Commission pleasure, the question is asked. There is
no motion on the floor. If Mr. Schneeman would like to come
forward, he may not be equipped to answer that at this point,
but certainly he can respond.
Mr Schneemann: Thank you for one last opportunity. I did want to address two of
the issues that I think were brought up fiat are very important.
One is the question of the greenbelt. It was our intent to
actually leave the enfire eastern portion of the property exactly
as it is today. The owner of this parcel has a play structure that
actually extends into Mr. Mogul's property probably 10 to 12 feet
by our estmaton, and there are also some trees existing in this
area right along the edge of the property line. What we were
proposing to do is put a thicket, if you will, or evergreen trees in
this area, a little further to the west, to try and leave this as open
green space. With the recognition that there is erosion that is
occurring here, that's really why we tried to avoid any sort of
construction or building in this portion of the site to leave it as
natural as possible. In fact, the owner of this property would be
responsible for maintaining any of the landscape, including this
which would all be irrigated. The other item that has been
talked about is the engineering of this site. We did meet with the
Engineering Department and they made it quite clear that based
on what the regulations are, as with any new development,
there can be no runoff from our building or from our parking lot
onto adjacent lands or into this branch of the creek without
going through some sort of a retention system. There is a
whole set of criteria that govern the capacity that one needs to
retain and the rale of release. The point being that in theory
there should be no increased stress on this branch based on
this new development. That's why the regulations and the
engineering specificatons are written thus. Then the one other
issue I did want to bring up is, as far as cross-sections go, it was
not something that's been requested of us until this evening.
We'd be happy to provide those. As I menfioned, we did have a
retaining wall along that edge. We're planning on just a
concrete wall because that takes up the least amount of area
and is the strongest. Outside of that, I guess we'd be happy to
provide any information we need to satisfy the Planning
Department. Thank you.
23040
Ms. Smiley: I'm not confident that I have enough information at this point, so
I am going to make a motion that we table this so that they have
an opportunity to get more with the DEQ and come up with
more information.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-20-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2006-01-08-04, submitted by Moghul
Investments, LLC, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a medical building on property located at
15150 Levan Road in the Northeast % of Section 20, be tabled.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Mark, do you want a dale open until we've had a
chance to confer with the petitioner?
Mr. Taormina: I think that would be appropriate in this case.
Mr. Walsh: This will be reconsidered at a future meeting that will published.
Will the neighbors within the circle be notified?
Mr. Taormina: We are not required by code to send out notices, but we did in
this case, courtesy notices, because of the greenbelt situation.
So we will send out notifications to those abutting properly
owners. That should suffice I think.
Mr. Walsh: If there is anybody that is not an abutting property owner, would
you let the Planning Department know what your name and
address is, and we'll make sure that you're notified as well of
the future meeting. With that, as soon as the petitioner meets
with the staff and can address some issues, we'll schedule the
meeting as quickly as we can.
ITEM#4 PETMON84-01-08-03 LAUREL OFFICE PARK - BLDG. 1
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a request to
modify the approved landscape plan by Levine Properly
Management, on behalf of Laurel Office Park — Building 1, in
connection with Petition 84-01-08-03, which received site plan
approval to construct a high-rise office building at 17177 Laurel
Park Drive in the Southeast % of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: If the Planning Commission has no objection, I would like to
present Items 4, 5 and 6 together.
23041
Mr. Walsh: There would be no objection to that
Mr. Piercecchi: No problem.
Mr. Walsh:
Mark, do we need to read each item into the record? Do you
think we should do that at this point?
Mr. Taormina:
Why don't you read all three, and then when a motion is made,
we can just reference each petition number at the beginning and
the minutes will reflect an approving resolution for each
separate petition.
Mr. Miller:
The petitioner is requesting to modify the landscape plan that
was approved for the Laurel Office Park — Building 1. Laurel
Office Park consists of three similar looking high-rise office
buildings located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive between
Six Mile Road and University Drive. These buildings sit
adjacent and to the west of the -275/96 Expressway. Building 1
is four (4) stories in height. The City granted Site Plan Approval
on April 18, 1984 (CR 328-84). In the request letter dated
January 16, 2006, the petitioner explains that the landscape
plan "has been revised to eliminate all Ash trees that were
destroyed by the Emerald Ash" borer. The new submitted
landscape plan shows the existing conditions of the site. The
main difference between the new proposed plan and the original
approved plan is the elimination of trees in the parking lot
islands. The petitioner explained that when the trees were
removed they were cut below grade, filled in with dirt, and then
the area was covered with stones. With the old root system still
existing under these islands, it would be very costly to dig them
up in order to replant. The petitioner also pointed out that none
of the islands are irrigated. He believes that if new trees were
planted in the islands, they would have to be replaced once they
matured and outgrew the confined space. With the new
landscape plan, he is trying to avoid the foreseen cycle of
replacing trees continuously overtime.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 2, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 24, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
The plan submitted is purported to be landscape as existing and
the revision is being made to change the required landscaping
as originally approved. However, site spot checks show the
counts of plant materia/ are not accurate. If it is the applicant's
intention to have an existing as -built plan approved, then
23042
accurate counts should be supplied or they will be liable to add
plant material. 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 for daft? Seeing none, I'm going to
invite Mr. Nagy up who is speaking on behalf of the petitioner.
John J. Nagy: I'm here representing Levine Property Management in
connection with this request. Mr. Levine and his partners were
developers of this property. It was done in phases. That's why
you have on tonight's agenda three separate petitions. Over the
years that this project was developed, it was developed in
phases. Mr. Levine is not only the property developer; he was
also the designer of the buildings. He is an architect, and even
to this day, he has his office in the 5 -story building on the north.
Just by way of history, shortly after the 1-275 corridor was
developed and opened, and the first building was attracted to
that area, the Holidome, the office property then started to
proceed. The first four-story building was, in fact the first of the
major office buildings built in Livonia along the 4275 corridor.
Mr. Levine was very successful in that first building, and he
followed it with a twin building right next to it in the second
phase. He was successful with that and then proceeded on to
acquire additional property and came forward with a companion
building, the five story building as opposed to the four-story that
the initial two buildings were constructed at to make that a larger
footprint as well as a larger building. They all followed the same
formal in terms of architectural materials and the architectural
style. I thought for the ease of reviewing of the plans for
tonight's meeting, we'd put them all together because it
obviously was a separate site plan and separate landscape plan
as a companion to the site plan for each one of the phases. So
that's why there's really three separate items. But in order to
really evaluate the site, you would see it today as one total
functioning site, and it's just easier to look at it as one on the
one plan. So I assembled all three plans and put it together to
represent what is there. I got kicked out of the report that came
from the Inspection. I too had difficulty in going around that site
and trying to identify all of the trees and try to come up with an
"as -built" plan. When you're dealing with clusters of trees,
particularly evergreen trees, they are so large and massive, and
as you can see from the photographs that I passed around last
week, those evergreen trees are now 12 inches in diameter or
larger, and their branches actually swoop down to the ground.
In spot-checking, you just can't get an accurate account. You
can't sit in your car or walk around your car and do a windshield
survey because the one blocks the other, one is behind another.
23043
You really have to get out of your car and walk around. I had to
do it three limes to actually come up with an accurate count. So
I've got a Iitfie thing going with Mr. Bishop right now that we're
going to go out there and walk around and see who really has
the accurate account. Whatever it is, we'll come up with the
right number. That's not really a problem. Our focus tonight,
and what really brings us before you, is not because of
something my client hasn't done or something we want to
change. It's really because of the devastation of the Emerald
Ash borer that resulted in the loss of so many trees. As I
indicated at our study meeting, when I put the three plans
together, I counted pretty close to 600. Of those 600 trees,
there were 83 Ash trees, and those 83 Ash trees represent
something like 14% of the total trees on that property. So there
is lett 86% of the trees that are at full maturity. In fact, as we
talked last week also, rather than more trees, we probably have
to start trimming and pruning back and trying to open up the
buildings a little more and make them a little more visible. Our
problem, however, in trying to re -install the Ash trees in the
parking lot area is that because the Ash trees were growing
there for something like 14 to 15, in some cases 16 years, they
had very mature root systems. They were very large trees, and
unfortunately, when the ash borer problem came around, my
client very vigorously attempted to save the Ash trees by
inoculating them with a recommended substance because of
the numerous trees and where they were situated. My client
has a considerable amount of investment in those trees to try to
retain them. He went through and tried to conform to the latest
science of the time. He injected the trees, he sprayed the trees
with inhibitors for the Emerald Ash borer, but obviously it didn't
work out. All of the Ash trees died. When he was first cited by
the Inspection Department to remove those trees, they removed
all the trees, removed the stone mulch that's already there,
pulled it aside, cut the trees down at the grade, right at the
ground level, took away all the tree litter, all the stumps and
branches and so forth, and look it to a designated landfill area
for proper removal and then reinstalled the stone mulch. No
sooner had he done that then along comes the Inspection
Department and again tells him to comply with the previously
approved plans. That's where the rubber hit the road. What's
lett there in those islands is the slump and root system of hose
trees. You can see evidence of the number of those trees
where those islands still have some trees. Either the Lyndon
tree or some Elm trees are still surviving that weren't infected by
the Emerald Ash borer. So in order to really try to reinstall trees
in that area, it is extremely cost prohibitive. While you could
maybe gel the core of the slump out, there still will remain a
mature root system that spread out under the curbing, under the
23044
actual pavement. And any new trees put in there would have to
compete with those existing root systems. I dont know how you
would be able to do that without a major reconstruction of the
parking lot to remove all that. And then also, there is no
irrigation out there. So without irrigation, any new planted trees
would struggle even more than the original trees. So with that
hardship and the costliness, we are just simply asking to have
that eliminated, to have the existing site landscape plan as we
identified as the "as built" plan to be approved. We have
supplemented that on the north with six additional trees where
the Laurel Wood Condominiums abut our property. There was
a duster of Ash trees in that area that were lost and exposed
that area to the office parking lot area. So we filled that area in
with four evergreens and two deciduous trees to help screen
and separate that parking area from our parking area. With
that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have, and
we ask your support to approve the revised plan.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
I appreciate what you're saying. Has your client shown any
interest in pruning back the trees?
Mr. Nagy:
Yes. We are looking at that and will probably come forward with
a plan along those lines as well.
Mr. Alanskas:
John, when they took out the trees, you said they went below
grade. How far below grade did they go?
Mr. Nagy:
They went flush with the grade. They took the stone mulch
away, and then cul the tree trunk off right at the ground level.
There's about 4 to 6 inches of rock there. So they removed the
rock and then cut the stump of the tree trunk right at grade.
They didn't have to take any dirt out of there. They just
removed the rock out of the way so the chainsaws could get
down as low as possible.
Mr. Alanskas:
So they didn't use a stump grinding machine to grind the stmmp
down?
Mr. Nagy:
No. There's concrete curbing in that area.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many inches of stone are laying on lop of the slumps now?
Mr. Nagy:
Four to six inches.
Mr. Alanskas:
Four to six. Okay. That's fine. Like Carol said, they are going
to agree to prune all the trees this spring?
23045
Mr. Nagy:
I wouldn't say all of them, but they are looking at the worst case
first.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you say worst case, what are you talking about?
Mr. Nagy:
Around the buildings themselves, where the two twin buildings
adjoin, in that corridor through there, would probably be one of
the first areas that we're looking it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Will they be doing that in the spring?
Mr. Nagy:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
As I indicated at the Iasi meeting, I'm not really happy about the
rocks. Is there any other solution for that?
Mr. Nagy:
Really not. We just feel that's the best solution for us, the
heavier rock as I indicated because of the problems with snow
removal and a parking lot of that size, exposure to the elements
out there, other than to keep something inorganic like the heavy
stone to compete with the auto traffic and the snow removal.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm going to vole for your proposal, but it doesn't enhance the
site. I see loo many of these rocks put out along Farmington
Road on private property by homeowners because the road salt
kills vegetation. Then you find out those rocks come flying out
of there. I just don't think its a good solution, but if that's the
only solution we have, that's the way it has to be. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Along that same line, John, how long have those rocks been
there?
Mr. Nagy:
They were used initially right when the tree was planted. Rock
was the choice for the mulch. The rock wasn't just added
because the tree was removed. The rock was always there.
Mr. Morrow:
So you just covered the area with what was there?
Mr. Nagy:
Exactly.
Mr. Morrow:
What has been your experience with some of Mr. LaPine's
concerns as far as rock flying out of there? They look like fairly
stable rocks.
Mr. Nagy:
Right. These are not small, like the smaller stones called egg
rock. These are larger stone, heavier stone. They have a little
more weight and a little more substance, and they're protected
23046
because of the raised curbing around there. They really don't
get the auto traffic where tires that would kick it out and spread
it all over.
Mr. Morrow: So they lend to be stable?
Mr. Nagy: They're stable in the area. We have a lot, for instance, around
our own civic center parking lot area. If you parked in there you
could see what large rock will do and how it can sustain itself.
Mr. Alanskas: I went out there again last week and, like you say, the rock you
have there, they're big. They're not stone. Those are rocks,
and they're not going to go anywhere. They're not going to fly
out and hit cars.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments or quesfions? We've
emptied the audience. At this point then, a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#02-21-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
approve the modified landscape plan submitted by Levine
Properly Management, on behalf of Laurel Office Park —
Building 1, in connection with Petition 84-01-08-03, which
previously received site plan approval by the City Council on
April 18, 1984 (Council Resolution #328-84) to construct a high
rise office building at 17177 Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast
I/ of Section 7, be approved subjecttothe following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated January
10, 2006, as revised, prepared by Seymour J. Levine
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated February2, 2006;
3. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#328-84, which granted approval to construct a higlrnse
office building, and Planning Commission Resolution #4-
08-84, which approved the Landscape Plan at the April 24,
1984, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, shall
remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict
with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Alanskas: Thalwill go for all three at one time, correct?
23047
Mr. Walsh: Yes, Mark, can we apply that to all three?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, the only difference is we'll have to reference the Council
Resolution in each one of those, but that's fine.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM#5 PETITION 85-03-08-04 LAUREL OFFICE PARK -BLDG.2
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a request to
modify the approved landscape plan by Levine Properly
Management, on behalf of Laurel Office Park — Building 2, in
connection with Petition 85-03-08-05, which received site plan
approval to construct a high-rise office building at 17187 Laurel
Park Drive in the Southeast % of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting to modify the landscape plan that
was approved for the Laurel Office Park — Building 2. Laurel
Office Park consists of three similar looking high-rise office
buildings located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive between
Six Mile Road and University Drive. These buildings sit
adjacent and to the west of the F275/96 Expressway. Building 2
is four (4) stories in height. The City granted Site Plan Approval
on May 8, 1985 (CR 378-85). In his letter dated January 16,
2006, the petitioner explains that the landscape plan 'has been
revised to eliminate all the Ash trees that were destroyed by the
Emerald Ash Borer." The new submitted landscape plan shows
the existing conditions of the site. The main difference between
the new proposed plan and the original approved plan is the
elimination of trees in the parking lot islands. The petitioner
explained that when the trees were removed they were cut
below grade, filled in with dirt, and then the area was covered
with stones. With the old root system still existing under these
islands it would be very costly to dig them up in order to replant.
The petitioner also pointed out that none of the islands are
irrigated. He believes that if new trees were planted in the
islands they would have to be replaced once they matured and
outgrew the confined space. With the new landscape plan he is
trying to avoid the foreseen cycle of replacing trees continuously
over time.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 2, 2006, which reads as follows:
23048
"Pursuant to your request of January 24, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
The plan submitted is purported to be landscape as existing and
the revision is being made to change the required landscaping
as originally approved. However, site spot checks show the
counts of plant material are not accurate. If it is the applicant's
intention to have an existing as -built plan approved, then
accurate counts should be supplied or they will be liable to add
plant material. 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 comments or questions? Al this point then, a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#02-22-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
approve the modified landscape plan submitted by Levine
Property Management, on behalf of Laurel Office Park —
Building 2, in connection with Pefition 85-03-08-04, which
previously received site plan approval by the City Council on
May 8, 1985 (Council Resolution #378-85) to conslmct a high
rise office building at 17187 Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast
%of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated January
10, 2006, as revised, prepared by Seymour J. Levine
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the petitioner shall conect to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated February 2, 2006;
3. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#375-85, which granted approval to conslmct a higlrrise
office building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they
are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
23049
ITEM#6 PETITlON86-04-08-19 LAUREL OFFICE PARK - BLDG. 3
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a request to
modify the approved landscape plan by Levine Property
Management, on behalf of Laurel Office Park — Building 3, in
connection with Petition 86-04-08-19, which received site plan
approval to construct a high-rise office building at 17197 Laurel
Park Drive in the Southeast''/. of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting to modify the landscape plan that
was approved for the Laurel Office Park — Building 3. Laurel
Office Park consists of three similar looking high-rise office
buildings located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive between
Six Mile Road and University Drive. These buildings sit
adjacent and to the west of the -275/96 Expressway. Building 3
is five (5) stories in height. The City granted Site Plan Approval
on June 25, 1986 (CR 605-06). In the letter dated January 16,
2006, the petitioner explains that the landscape plan 'rias been
revised to eliminate all the Ash trees that were destroyed by the
Emerald Ash Borer." The new submitted landscape plan shows
the existing conditions of the site. The main difference between
the new proposed plan and the original approved plan is the
elimination of trees in the parking lot islands. The petitioner
explained that when the trees were removed they were cut
below grade, filled in with dirt, and then the area was covered
with stones. With the old root system still exisfing under these
islands it would be very costly to dig them up in order to replant.
The petitioner also pointed out that none of the islands are
irrigated. He believes that if new trees were planted in the
islands they would have to be replaced once they matured and
outgrew the confined space. With the new landscape plan he is
trying to avoid the foreseen cycle of replacing trees continuously
over time. The plan also shows the proposed planting of six (6)
additional trees along the north property line. The letter
explains that they would be added "to further enhance the
landscaping screening in that area." Adjacent and to the north
of the Laurel Office Park are the Laurel Woods Condominiums.
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated February 2, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of January 24, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
The plan submitted is purported to be landscape as existing and
the revision is being made to change the required landscaping
as originally approved. However, site spot checks show the
counts of plant materia/ are not accurate. If it is the applicant's
intention to have an existing as -built plan approved, then
accurate counts should be supplied or they will be liable to add
23050
plant material. 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 comments or questions? Al this point then, a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#02-23-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning commission does hereby
approve the modified landscape plan submitted by Levine
Property Management, on behalf of Laurel Office Park —
Building 3, in connection with Petition 86-04-08-19, which
previously received site plan approval by the City Council on
June 25, 1986 (Council Resolution #605-86) to construct a high
rise office building at 17197 Laurel Park Drive in the Southeast
%of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated January
10, 2006, as revised, prepared by Seymour J. Levine
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outined in the
correspondence dated February 2, 2006;
3. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#605-86, which granted approval to construct a higlrrise
office building, shall remain in effect to the extent that they
are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #7 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FEES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a notion to hold a
public heading, submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant
to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.58 of Article XVIII and Section 19.03 of Article XIX of
Ordinance #543, as amended, in order to establish new Les
and increase existing fees charged for the review of Site Plans
and Waiver Use petitions.
23051
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#02-24-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not
to amend Section 18.58 of Article XVIII and Section 19.03 of
Article XIX of Ordinance #543, as amended, in order to
establish new fees and increase existing fees charged for the
review of Site Plans and Waiver Use petitions
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 920r" Regular
Meeting held on February 14, 2006, was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman