HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-10-09MINUTES OF THE 952ntl REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 9, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 952n° 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: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ashley Varloogian Ian Wilshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Mr. Scott Miller, Planner III, was also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these peftions 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 oflhe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2006-07-0844 GALLAGHER GROUP
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-07-
08-14 submitted by Gallagher Group Construction Company,
Inc., which previously received approval by the City Council on
September 13, 2006 (CR #449-06), requesting a one-year
extension of the plans approved in connection with a proposal to
construct a medical office building on properties located at
29945 and 29929 Six Mile Road, on the south side of Six Mile
Road between Oporto Avenue and Middlebell Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
October 9, 2007
24386
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Scott?
Mr. Miller:
This is a request for a one year extension of the approval
granted in connection with a proposal to construct a medical
office building. The subject property is located on the south side
of Six Mile Road between Oporto Avenue and Middlebelt Road.
The proposed medical office building would be one-story in
height and contain a total of 14,300 square feel of floor area.
The City of Livonia originally granted approval of all plans on
September 13, 2006 by Council Resolution #449-06. The letter
dated August 22, 2007, Richard Gallagher, President of
Gallagher Group Construction Company, requests: "Please
extend all approvals on our project, Petition 2006-07-08-14 for
one year'. There is no new infonnati on.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. No additional information. This is simply a request for a
one-year extension of site plan. Would anybody like to hear
from the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
I don't see any reason for that.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience hal wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
Mr. LaPine:
Due to the economy, this petitioner isn't in the position to build
just yet. I'll make the approving recommendation.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-113-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-08-14
submitted by Gallagher Group Construction Company, Inc.,
which previously received approval by the City Council on
September 13, 2006 (Council Resolution #449-06), requesting a
one-year extension of the plans approved in connection with a
proposal to construct a medical office building on properties
located at 29945 and 29929 Six Mile Road, on the south side of
Six Mile Road between Oporto Avenue and Middlebell Road in
the Northeast 114 of Section 14, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the request for an extension of Site Plan Approval by
Richard Gallagher, President of Gallagher Group
Construction Company, Inc., in a letter dated August 22,
2007, is hereby approved for a one-year period; and
October 9, 2007
24387
2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #449-06
in connection with Petition 2006-07-08-14, which permitted
the construction of a medical office building, shall remain in
effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the
foregoing condition.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-02-08-05 S&N DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 03-02-
08-05 submitted by S & N Development Company, which
previously received approval by the City Council on April 23,
2003 (CR #183-03), requesting a fourth one-year extension of
the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct
an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, on the north side
of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Victor
Parkway in the Southeast %of Section 6.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Miller, is there anything new?
Mr. Miller: There is no new information. This is the fourth request for a
one-year extension of site plan approval granted in connection
with the construction of a three-story office building. In a letter
dated September 20, 2007, Sam Shamie, managing member of
S & N Development Company, explains, 'As a result of the
economic conditions at this time, there is no construction
financing available on speculative officelhi4ech research
development buildings."
Mr. Walsh: Like the last request, this is a request to extend a previously
approved plan. Is there any need to hear from the petitioner?
Unless there is anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this item, a motion would be in order.
Mr. LaPine: Here again, this is an extension of a plan for a three story office
building that the petitioner's client is not in a position to build
right now because of the climate of the economy, so herefore
I'll make the recommendation for approval.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
October 9, 2007
24388
#10-114-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 03-02-08-05
submitted by S & N Development Company, which previously
received approval by the City Council on April 23, 2003 (Council
Resolution #183-03), requesting a fourth one-year extension of
the plans approved in connection with a proposal to construct
an office building at 37640 Seven Mile Road, on the north side
of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Vidor
Parkway in the Southeast''/. of Section 6, be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. That the request for a fourth extension of Site Plan
Approval by Sam Shamie, managing member of S & N
Development Company, in a letter dated September 20,
2007, is hereby approved for a one-year penod; and
2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #183-03
in connection with Petition 03-02-08-05, which permitted
the construction of a of a three-story office building, shall
remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict
with the foregoing condition.
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 2007-09-0845 JOHN STEWART
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
09-08-15 submitted by John Stewart Architects requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a dental
office building (Dr. Gmnberger) on property located at 15939
Middlebelt Road, located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between Wentworth Avenue and Puritan Avenue in the
Southeast'''/ of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: The subject site is 0.46 acres in area with 100 feet of frontage
along Middlebelt Road by 200 feel along Wentworth Avenue.
The subject property is zoned OS, Office Services. Under
Section 9.02 of the Zoning Ordinance, professional offices
including dentistry are a permitted use in an OS district.
Adjacent to the west of the subject site are a number of
residential homes fronting off Wentworth Avenue. To the north
are three residential lots, all containing houses fronting on
Middlebelt Road. Immediately north of the three lots, on the
October 9, 2007
24389
southwest comer of Middlebelt Road and Puritan Avenue, is a
bank. Straight south, across Wentworth Avenue, is the Sedar
Wood multi -tenant office building. Going west along the south
side of Wentworth Avenue is the Apostolic Christian Church.
Heading south along Middlebelt Road on the other side of the
Sedar Wood building is a chiropractic clinic and the Manoogian
Manor Assisted Living facility. Directly across Middlebelt Road
to the east are a number of commercial type uses including the
Newlon Furniture store, the House of Lights showroom and
Steve's Family Restaurant. The proposed office building would
be one-story in height and have a gross floor area of 4,150
square feel. The floor plan reveals that the building would be
divided into two tenant units. The northern 3,150 square feel of
the interior would be ufilized as a dentist office and a 1,000
square feel bump out extending to the south towards Wentworth
Avenue is intended for general office space. The proposed
building would be positioned 125 feet back from Middlebelt
Road. This conforms to the required front yard setback for
buildings in an OS zoning district. The required side yard
setbacks for OS buildings are 15 feel when abutting residential
and 25 feel when abutting a street less then 120 feel wide. The
proposed building would be set back 15 feel away from the
residenfial properties to the north and 25 feel from the 60 foot
wide Wentworth Avenue. The OS district rear yard setback
requirement is 15 feel. The proposed building would set 15 feet
from the rear lot line. Between the building and Middlebelt Road
would be the site's parking lot. Access to the parking lot would
be by a single two-way drive off Wentworth Avenue. This site
would not have direct access from Middlebelt Road. This
building would be required to have 17 parking spaces and the
site plan shows 17 spaces. All proposed parking spaces are
conforming and measure 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep. The
landscape plan shows that the site would be 36% landscaped,
which exceeds the requirement of not less than 15% of the total
site. Because this site abuts residential along both the north
and west property lines, a screening wall or greenbelt would be
required along these lot lines. The plans indicate that a new 6
fool high decorative masonry wall would be erected along the
entire length of the west property line. Along the north property
line, the plan shows a 10 fool wide landscaped greenbelt would
be installed. The proposed building would be constructed out of
brick on all four sides with decorative stone segments
incorporated under the windows. The fascia trim at the eaves
would be painted wood. The metal standing seam roof of the
building would slope on the sides and also at both ends (a hip
roof). The structure would have a maximum height, measured
from the finished grade to the top of the roofline, of
approximately 21 feet.
October 9, 2007
24390
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
Is there a trash enclosure on the site?
Mr. Miller:
No, there is not. They show a trash can area behind the
building. It would be gated off with a wall, and then this would
have trash cans.
Mr. Morrow:
For normal pickup.
Mr. Miller:
Yes, for normal pickup, and they do show kind of a sidewalk. I
guess they would lake it down the sidewalk and then put it out
for curbside pickup.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller:
There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 2, 2007, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal. The address for this location is
correct. This site will be required to meet the Wayne County
Storm Water Management Ordinance. The entrance radius from
Wentworth to the parking lot may need to be increased slightly
to accommodate the traffic movements onto Wentworth
because of the existing narrow pavement (20' wide). Other than
the aforementioned, we see no other problems as it relates to
traffic for this project." The letter is signed by John P. Hill,
Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia
Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 1, 2007, which reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a dental 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 Division of
Police, dated September 27, 2007, which reads as follows: 'We
have reviewed the plans in connection with Grunberger Dental
Office, located at 15939 Middlebeft. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 2, 2007,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September
21, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) Any rooftop mechanical equipment
must be properly screened and meet all applicable codes. (2)
October 9, 2007
24391
Parking spaces art= required to be a minimum of 10' wide and
20' deep and double striped per City Ordinance. (3) Barrier free
parking spaces are to be property located, sized, signed and
striped. The access aisle must be eight feet, not five feet (4)
The protective wall as shown does not appear to continue to the
property lines to the east and to the south as required. The
height of the protective wall within 10' of any right-of-way must
be 3'. (5) It appears that the required protective wall as shown
on the plans submitted runs along side existing fences. We
recommend that the Commission and/or Council clarify this
issue to their satisfaction so that maintenance problems are not
created. (6) The Commission and or Council may wish to note
the painted trim on the building. This would require maintenance
and may be better served covered with finish metal trim. (7) No
signage has been reviewed at this time. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: If there are no questions for the staff, would the petitioner
please step forward?
John Stewart, John Stewart Associates, 1645 N. Milford, Milford, Michigan
48381. I'm the architect for the project. One of our goals for this
project from the beginning was to create an environment. Scott,
could I have the site plan back up again? I'm going to throw the
sticky wicket in the project tonight. One of the goals for this
project was to continue the office building environment to the
south of Wentworth, which has landscaping in the front yard.
One of our first designs was, our preliminary design, showed
landscaping within the front yard, the building set forward to
align with the Sedar Woods office building, and parking was in
the rear. We wanted to enclose our parking in the rear to
contain it. Dr. Grunberger has a lot of elderly patients and
young children, and we were trying to make it as safe as
possible to the rear. During the course of the review, as of a
week ago Tuesday, in a study session, they requested us to
revise the plan for resubmittal, which we started on Tuesday
and worked on it Wednesday and Thursday and resubmitted on
Friday. And on Friday, we came up with this plan for the city,
but in doing so, we also did a presentation to the owner who
absolutely disliked it. She still wants it the way we had originally
drawn the plan with the parking to the rear. We feel that parking
in the rear would be much better suited and visually enhance
the city more than a large encompass of asphalt in the front.
Plus you can make it more like a park environment in the front,
and the building would have a better visibility setting up even
with the office building to the south rather than being behind it.
October 9, 2007
24392
So in saying that, I guess we're at a point where we're not going
to be able to do much, but we'd certainly like to have your
guidance as to how to proceed because what we've drawn and
what we've submitted tonight is really unacceptable to us and
the owner.
Mr. Walsh:
We'll have questions, I'm certain. So for purposes of our
consideration tonight, you want us to consider a facility with the
parking in the rear?
Mr. Stewart:
Yes. We would like the parking in the rear rather than in the
front. That issue didn't come to us. I mean, we had come in
with preliminary drawings and discussions and that issue had
never come forward, but in talking to Scott, he indicated that
during the study session, it was pointed out to him that during
rezoning of that property from residential to OS, that the
previous owner had indicated that he would put the parking in
the front and we were unaware of it. So, we're here tonight to
just ask if we could have you look at this again to see if that
would, in fad, be possible to move the building forward and
have the parking in the rear.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
I was one of the ones that first brought up the issue about the
parking. The reason I'm opposed to the parking in the rear,
basically, where your property ends on the west, and the rest of
the way back, it's all residential. If you have the parking back
here, the cars come in that parking lot, in my opinion, infringe
upon the residential property owner that has been there for
years, and I'm not here to hurt the individual property owner.
They've been there and they've kept up the property real well.
Now, I'm not loo much in favor of a brick wall across there.
Maybe if the home owner would be amenable to a berm and
landscaped area back there, I probably could buy that, but I just
don't like the idea of the parking being that close to a residential
neighborhood, especially when you're coming up Wentworth
and the people have to tum almost in front of their houses to go
back to the convalescent home in the back. It creates a
problem for the individual that owns that home, in my opinion.
Mr. Stewart:
There is traffic on that road.
Mr. LaPine:
That's right.
Mr. Stewart:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
There's a lot of traffic because of the ...
October 9, 2007
24393
Mr. Stewart:
Typically, a dental office has very minimal traffic. We're
probably going to generate between six and ten cars an hour.
So it's minimal at best. If you think about it, we have five
patients in there at one time, and chats not really a whole lot of
people.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, but see, you're not telling the whole story here. Maybe if
you were talking strictly about the medical center I might agree
with you, but you also have a space in front that you're leasing
out. That generates traffic. In going to the plans, that was one
of the questions I was going to ask you. You show five offices
in that building thalyou're leasing out.
Mr. Stewart:
I show five separate office spaces within. That could happen,
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
So that leaves me to believe, unless one tenant is moving in
there, you're going to have people in those offices working, and
if there's transient people coming in to do business, that creates
more traffic.
Mr. Stewart:
That 1,000 square feel is going to be rented out to only one
person.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you know who that is and what kind of business it is?
Mr. Stewart:
No. Its not going to be subdivided into small little spaces.
Hopefully, we would have another dentist in there or a small
medical practice.
Mr. La Pine:
So that's going logenerate...
Mr. Stewart:
According tolhe ordinance, itwill generate aboutfourcars.
Mr. LaPine:
If you talk about a doctor, a receptionist, and one other person,
you have a minimum of three employees, so that takes up three
parking spaces right there.
Mr. Stewart:
I'm not concerned about the amount of parking. We've been
doing dental offices for a long time, and they don't generate a lot
of traffic. Their hours of operation are staggered. Normally they
only work part days on Thursday and Friday. They're never in
on Saturday and Sunday. You're talking about an operation
that's using ...
Mr. LaPine:
I understand your position, but that's where I'm coming from and
that's my position. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
October 9, 2007
24394
Mr. Morrow:
Of course, I think when we were looking at flipping this site, we
were trying to be sympathetic to the neighbors to the west. Of
course, your client has pretty much rejected the plan that you
came up with and she wants to go back to the original plan. So,
based on that, could you again, for my own edification, tell me
exactly what her objections are to having it this way?
Mr. Stewart:
I can actually lel her give you her objections, if you'd like.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I want.
Mr. Stewart:
Okay. This is Dr. Grunberger.
Mr. Walsh:
If we could have your business address for our record please.
Dr. Zuzana Grunberger,
29105 Buckingham, Michigan 48154. Its a practice.
I've been there for about 14 years now.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you.
Dr. Grunberger:
I've been practicing in Livonia for the past 20 years, and this is
my first venue into owning my own business. So I was excited
when I found the property and I really wanted to maintain, as
John mentioned, the kind of continuation of kind of a park -like or
nice green area, preserving the trees and preserving the
neighborhood. So when John showed me and mentioned to me
about the changes, I understand certainly your point of view, but
my concern was that, to me, that plan when I looked at it, it tmly
looked like a strip mall, and that was not my idea of what my
practice should be like. I'd rather have something that is quiet.
My concerns are the same as yours, Mr. La Pine, the traffic
generation and all these other things. You know this is not an
office where I have patients coming in and going every few
minutes like an orthodontic office or some other offices where
they generale a lot of patient flow. I mean it's a typical dental
office. So I felt it was within reason to ask to have the parking
done in the back because I mean, truly, to maintain the
landscaping, and I agree with you that the landscaping around
the parking lot can be done instead of a wall, with maybe some
green area. I'm very for them and I really would like to maintain
the trees and everything in that area where they are. I really
don't want to cut them down because there are some beautiful
big trees in there and that's what I'm trying to maintain and
that's why my objection. The objection is also with the traffic,
and the other change in zoning to the other area.
Mr. Stewart:
The lots to the north.
October 9, 2007
24395
Dr. Grunberger:
Yeah. That will create definitely a lot of traffic and its a liability
for me. As John mentioned, I have a lot of kids. I have a
general practice. I do a lot of families and I have handicap
patients and lot of kids and they do con around. So we try to
contain them. I thought that would be the best way so I don't
have to worry about them running out of the building. You have
the common throug h way and then you have Middlebell, so that
was the reasoning behind that - to maintain the kind of
quietness to have the parking in the back.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess what you're saying is that you want to maintain a park-
like atmosphere in front and you've got safety concerns with the
parking being in the front. Is that primarily it?
Dr. Grunberger:
Yeah. Right now, when I look at the plan, it really looks very
busy with the cars parking up here. Everything is like up front.
It's pretty much like when you pull up to, I mean pardon me, I
hope I'm not picking on it, like a 7-11 or some kind of store front.
Mr. Morrow:
You do have a very nice looking building.
Dr. Grunberger:
Thank you. John did that. I hope that you can consider my
point of view. I would really appreciate that.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Dr. Grunberger, how many employees are you going to have at
this dental precfice.
Dr. Grunberger: I'm the only doctor. I have one full time hygienist and I have
one part-time hygienist. She works only two days a week. I
have two full time assistants and two front desk. We are
working presently, in the office I'm in right now, Monday through
Wednesday only, and on Thursdays we were working until
about 2:00. 1 haven't work on Fridays for the past seven or
eight years, so I'm not in that office on Fridays at all presently,
and I'm not planning on changing my hours. I'll be honest.
Mr. Wilshaw: So you have aboulsix employees.
Dr. Grunberger: Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw: What I saw was about seven hygienist stations. That's what
kind of concerned us.
October 9, 2007
24396
Dr. Grunberger:
It's five operatories. I'm sorry. When these plans were drawn, it
was just kind of thrown in. You know, how many ops can we fit.
I mean, I have to be honest, the dental company that was trying
to design indoors got kind of carried away. They didn't hear
what I had to say. It's five ops. That's it. I cannot have more
people working and being treated. I cannot treat more than one
person at a time.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That was our concern was the amount of parking. You have to
think of all the employees that could potentially be there, plus
your 1,000 square feet of space, plus your customers.
Dr. Grunberger:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So you think 17 parking spaces is adequate?
Dr. Grunberger:
Yes, we talked it over with John and figured that should be more
than enough. When I calculated where my patients park
presently and how many are usually at a particular time in the
office, it's usually like three or four cars that are outside.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Now, the buildings materials ... yeah, go ahead.
Mr. Stewart:
Actually, we have room for 19. We originally showed 19 spaces
and then we banked two spaces to the north side of the parking
lot to put a bene in there. We would like to have 19 but right
now we're only showing 17.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So you're Iandbanking two. Okay. The building material
was something that we talked about as well. There was some
discussion. It looks likes, at lead on the revised plan, that they
addressed some of those concerns, particularly with brick
veneer. Is that going to be a full brick that's going to be on this
building or is iljusl a partial?
Mr. Stewart:
Its a masonry building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Full Brick. And the wood windows and trim, it looks like
the wood trim has been removed but the wood windows remain.
Mr. Stewart:
The windows are clad. They are a metal clad window.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Its all commercial grade. Okay. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
If you could just review your hours of operation again?
Dr. Grunberger:
On Monday, my hygienist starts at 8:00 a.m. I start at 9:00 a.m.
and we work until 7:00 p.m. That's our long day. The hygienist
October 9, 2007
24397
does finish at 6:00 p.m. On Tuesday, I start at 7:00 a.m. until
5:00 p.m. and on Wednesday from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. I'm
not there on Thursdays now.
Mr. Morrow:
How about the balance oflhe week?
Dr. Grunberger:
Excuse me.
Mr. Morrow:
The balance of the week?
Dr. Grunberger:
That's it. I'm not there on Thursdays and Fridays. The
hygienist is there on Thursday. The one hygienist that is there,
usually she's finished by 12:00 p.m., sometimes 2:00 p.m. if she
has some patients that are very flexible. Last week, for
example, she was done at 10:00 a.m. But I'm not there on
Thursdays. I'm helping a colleague on the other side of town
and I've been doing that for the past two years, two and half.
So if I were to start Thursday hours, they would be very limited,
how I used to be. I used to work until 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m.
tops.
Mr. Morrow:
Currenty, you do not have a tenant for the other office space?
Dr. Grunberger:
No. I've put out some feelers, some people that I know, thinking
of a doctor's office.
Mr. LaPine:
I have one other question. Maybe the architect can answer this.
One of the letters we got from Public Works was about the
narrow pavement 20 feet wide that may need to be increased to
accommodate traffic movements onto Wentworth. I assume
they're talking about off of Wentworth into your parking lot.
Mr. Stewart:
They're talking about the approach. I talked to John Hill. I
talked to your engineer and all he really wanted was a wider
throat into the drive and a larger radius on the ingress side,
which we look care of. We put a 20 fool radius on the ingress
and we opened up the throat to 24 feel. We actually had a long
conversation with him about drainage and the way the site
flowed, and he was fine with it.
Mr. LaPine:
From the Inspection Department, they talked about the height of
the prolective wall within 10 feel of the right-of-way has to be
reduced down to 3. Do you have a problem with that?
Mr. Stewart:
I'm sorry. What was that?
Mr. LaPine:
The prolective wall within 10 feel of any right-of-way. We don't
want the wall to be 5 or 6 feel high or whatever you're going to
October 9, 2007
24398
make it. But when you gel down to where you go out to the
parking lot, it dips down to three. Do you have a problem with
that?
Mr. Stewart:
No. None.
Mr. LaPine:
The other one was, "it appears that the required protective wall
as shown on the plans submitted runs along side existing
fences. We recommend that the Commission and/or Council
clarify this issue to their satisfaction." Is that existing fence
coming down? What's the story about that?
Mr. Stewart:
We were given the charge of taking down the wall and in place
putting up a landscape buffer because of the future zoning to
the north. It would no longer be residential. So we, in fact,
removed the north wall and installed a treed, landscaped
greenbelt.
Mr. LaPine:
You're going to do that or has it been done?
Mr. Stewart:
No. That's what we're going to do.
Mr. LaPine:
I didn't see anything in our minutes about that, but that's okay.
Also, maybe Mr. Wilshaw covered this: they claim here that the
painted trim on the building would require
maintenance and that
it may be befler served covered with finish
metal trim. Have you
considered that?
Mr. Stewart:
That was already taken care of. We revised that to metal.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Now I have one more question to you. What type of
practice do you have? Are you just general dentistry?
Dr. Grunberger:
General practice.
Mr. LaPine:
You're not an orthodontist?
Dr. Grunberger:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
You don't make any false dentures in this building?
Dr. Grunberger:
No, no, no. Regular, typical general pmdice, general dentistry.
Mr. LaPine:
You must have an awful good practice where you only have to
work a few hours a week.
Dr. Grunberger:
Well, I work on the other side of town on Thursdays. I wish it
were that nice.
October 9, 2007
24399
Mr. LaPine: I'm still concerned about the parking, but I'm willing to go along
with your original plan.
Dr. Grunberger: Thank you.
Mrs. McDermott: I just wanted to voice my opinion because I wasn't at the study
meeting. I appreciate the fad that you want to keep the trees,
as many as you can, but I do have a concern also for the
neighbor because while you may look at it with the flipped
version as being like a strip mall to you, I have a feeling that to
the neighbor, that the version you want might look like a strip
mall. If that were my house, I really wouldn't want the parking
right there.
Dr. Grunberger: I understand. I mean you know any proposal where we can
improve on landscaping and make it pleasant. I will do anything
that I can. I really don't want to just have a wall in there to
separate us. Really, that is not my goal. We talked about it with
John if it can be finished with landscaping. I have certain
landscaping at my house between the neighbors, desires of the
neighbors and I know it can be achieved. So its a matter of
maybe working it out, and I'm more than happy and wiling to.
Mrs. McDermott: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Vartoogian, and adopted, it was
#10-115-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-09-08-15
submitted by John Stewart Architects requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a dental office building
(Dr. Grunberger) on property located at 15939 Middlebell Road,
located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Wentworth
Avenue and Puritan Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 14,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet G7 dated October 5,
2007, as revised, prepared by John Stewart Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
October 9, 2007
24400
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet No. L-1 dated
October 5, 2007, as revised, prepared by Allen Design, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the landscaped greenbelt along the north property
line, as shown on the approved landscape plan, is hereby
accepted and shall be substituted for the protective wall
required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2
dated October 5, 2007, as revised, prepared by John
Stewart Associates, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face
four (4") inch brick;
8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across properly lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
9. That this site shall meet the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance and shall secure the necessary
permits, including storm water management permits,
wetlands permits and soil erosion and sedimentation
control permits, from Wayne County, the City of Livonia,
and/or the Slate of Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality;
10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated October 2, 2007;
11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated October 3, 2007;
October 9, 2007
24401
12. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
13. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
14. 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; and,
15. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building peril is obtained this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, I have one question for the Doctor.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine, its unusual for questions at this point, but if there
are no objections from our colleagues, I'll allow it.
Mr. LaPine:
It's a question on the motion. The question came up about the
dumpsler. I understand you're going to put your garbage out on
the curb. Is that correct?
Dr. Grunberger:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Don't you have needles that you use and things of that nature.
That's not going out in to the curb.
Dr.Grunberger:
No. Its required by law. (inaudible)
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Just a comment. The plan does meet the ordinance in every
respect, and I was one of the commissioners that was in hopes
that the plan could be flipped. But because the petitioner feels
so strongly about her building and she's going to build it and it
meets the ordinance, I think we can come up with a plan that
will accomplish the objectives of our ordinance, so I will be
voting for the motion.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any additional discussion?
October 9, 2007
24402
Mr. Wilshaw: I just wanted to add b that comment that I do have concern
about the plan being presented with parking in the rear, not only
for the fact that it pushes traffic further down onto Wentworth
Avenue than it would have if the parking was in the front, but
also the fact that this property may at one point be connected to
the adjacent properties to the north, which may be commercial
properties at some point, which would be indicative of more
traffic going through this parking lot and onto Wentworth
Avenue. I think that traffic should be as close to Middlebelt
Road as possible.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments? Seeing none, would the
secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, Vartoogian, LaPine, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYES: McDermott, Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
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 #4 PETITION 2007-08-0235 MAYFIELD PARTNERS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
08-02-35 submitted by Mayfield Partners, L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval to construct and operate a child care facility
at 32520 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven
Mile Road between Mayfield Avenue and Shadyside Avenue in
the Southwest'''/ of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: There are a couple changes since the public hearing. The
petitioner submitted revised plans that show the dumpster
endosure gales would now be steel, the fencing that would
surround the outdoor play area is correctly labeled as 6 feet
high, and additional landscaping would be installed between the
building and Middlebell Road. Also attached to the plans is a
new color rendering of the building. Those are the changes
from the public hearing.
Mr. Wilshaw: I would make a motion to remove this from the table.
October 9, 2007
24403
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you very much.
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#10-116-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 25, 2007,
on Petition 2007-08-02-35 submitted by Mayfield Partners,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate
a child care facility at 32520 Seven Mile Road, located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Mayfield Avenue and
Shadyside Avenue in the Southwest I/ of Section 3, the
Planning Commission does hereby remove this item from the
table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for Mr. Miller? Seeing none, we will go
to the petitioner. Good evening.
Timothy Hader,
Schonsheck, Inc., 51331 W. Pontiac Trail, Wixom, Michigan
48393. Good evening. I'm representing Mayfield Partners,
L.L.C.
Mr. Walsh:
Do you have anything you'd like to add thus far?
Mr. Hader:
Just real briefly, as you know, we did revise and resubmit our
drawings. They now include the appropriate screening for the
dumpsler with steel gales instead of wood. We've also gone
through and revised our landscape plan as you recommended
and provided 35 new shrubs along the parking lot facing Seven
Mile and two street trees as well. With me today, as I brought to
the study meeting last week, are the intended colors for the
building, both E.I.R.S., brick and shingle. Other than that, I'd
just like to clarify that we're again asking for the waiver use
which requires approval of 55 percent of the property owners
within 400 feel of our property; we brought in 72 percent. So I
think we're covered there. I do look forward to answering any
questions you may have.
Mr. LaPine:
I just want a clarification because I might have misunderstood
what we talked about last week. People come in off of Seven
Mile Road onto Mayfield Avenue and they tum left into your
establishment.
October 9, 2007
24404
Mr. Hader:
That would be one way to get in, correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, when they leave, do they go out the same, or do they go
back around and you're going to have a cul -through to the
property to the west.
Mr. Hader:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
That's the way I understood it.
Mr. Hader:
If they were to come in, they would go out to the west, unless
they could
park their car and then for some reason to go into the
building with
their child, send them out, then they could
technically tum around and go back the other way.
Mr. LaPine:
But if they want to go back around to the west into the little
shopping center, that's the way they can go out because you
have a joint agreement.
Mr. Hader:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. That's what I thought
Mr. Hader: We have two agreements, a cross access agreement, which I
think was included in our first submission, that requires both
properly owners to keep 40 feet cleared on each side that would
assure there is always access between the two properties.
Then again we have an ingress/egress easement which
provides for the use of the dumpster enclosure and for people
intending to come in or exit the day care center from the
neighbor's property.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. That's what I thought.
Mr. Wilshaw: I gave the petitioner a hard time at our last public meeting about
his color renderings and his building materials. He did submit
new color renderings which are much more accurate and also
has the building materials here for us, which I appreciate very
much. Do you want to spend just a minute quickly for the
people who are in the audience to explain these colors that we
see in front of us?
Mr. Hader: Sure. First, this is the masonry that will be around the building
on all three sides. On the north side of the properly, it will be 8
feet high. That's where the children are going to be playing and
where the building itself is susceptible to most damage from the
children outside. Again, it's not a veneer. It's a four inch big
thick unit. And then as you note on the color rendering, which is
October 9, 2007
24405
a little mute in the light, we got four colors of E. I. F.S. The lighter
color here is going to be on the building above all the windows
and across the back of the building above the block. We have
this accent color, which will be at the piers on the corners and
above the side covered entry. This E.I.F.S. color here, this will
be between all the windows and over the windows on the lower
part of the building. The lighter color here, this will be around
the soffit area at the lop of the E.I.F.S. where it meets the
shingles. We'll also have while gutters, downspouts and trim.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw, anything else?
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's it. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for the petitioner? Thank
you, sir, for being here this evening. If there is anyone in the
audience wishing to speak for or against this item, if you would
please come forward. Good evening.
Pam Tanner, Open Arms Church, 33015 Seven Mile Road, Livonia. I attended
the last meeting and I just wanted to reiterate a couple things
and just clarify from you about percentages. What percentage
did you need of the residents for approval?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Miller, if I'm not mistaken, its 55 percent of the property
owners.
Mr. Miller:
Fifty-five percent of the residential property owners.
Ms. Tanner:
Okay. Residential property owners. Does that exclude the
residents that live right behind the site?
Mr. Miller:
The apartments?
Ms. Tanner:
Yes.
Mr. Miller:
Forthe apartments only, the property owner was notified.
Ms. Tanner:
Okay.
Mr. Miller:
It doesn't go to each apartment; it goes to who owns the
apartment complex property.
Ms. Tanner:
Okay. So the residents have no say.
Mr. Miller:
No.
October 9, 2007
24406
Ms. Tanner:
Okay. All right. Also, the parking that you had discussed for a
building that houses 150 people. How many spaces do they ...
Mr. Walsh:
She's asking about parking?
Ms. Tanner:
Yes. They have a capacity of 150, and I know, being a day care
provider, they come in the early morning and they pick up at the
end of the day. So you've got like the morning rush hour traffic
and the end of the day. That's where the bulk of the families
come to pick up their children.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Miller, do you have the parking ratios?
Mr. Miller:
Yes. Its based on the number of employees. Its one parking
spot per employee, plus significant off street spaces for safe
and cone nienl loading and unloading of students. So basically,
it's up to the Planning Commission and Council as to what they
feel is adequate.
Ms. Tanner:
Okay. Do you feel that is adequate? Was it 12 staff parking
spots from what I can recall for potentially 12 staff people and 8
spots for visitors and families?
Mr. Walsh:
Would that meet our ordinance, Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller:
Yes. They have 20 parking spaces. They are providing 12
spaces for employees and 8 spaces fordropping off.
Ms. Tanner:
I kind of recall you talking with the woman who wanted to open
up the dental office and the concern about traffic and how she
said her clients come in and theyre staggered; they're not all at
one time. I'm just thinking that would create a problem,
especially being so dose to Seven Mile Road in the early
morning drive and the late drive coming in and having all those
people waiting because the entrances, from what I saw in the
picture, are pretty close to Seven Mile off of Mayfield and you
may have a big backup coming in and exiting. I have signatures
but I was unaware of the fact that you needed them from
homeowners. I have some from homeowners but I have quite a
few from residents that were concerned about traffic and noise
as well and they presented to you two weeks ago.
Mr. Walsh:
Correct. We have that in our record.
Ms. Tanner:
That's all I have to say.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, ma'am. It is customary for the petitioner to have the
opportunity to speak again.
October 9, 2007
24407
Mr. Hader: Just one thing, she happened to mention the ingress/egress off
of Seven Mile Road. I assume she's talking about Mayfield.
We met with both Bob and John, the engineers for the City early
on. Mike Baker, who happens to be here today, is director of
architecture for our building and Alpine Engineering, our
engineer, met with them. I don't know if you were there; maybe
it was Mark, to discuss where that approach should be. I think it
was mutually decided upon that would make an acceptable area
to cut in through that median and enter into our site. Hopefully
that hasn't changed as far as engineering
Mr. Walsh: If there are no further comments or questions, a motion would
be in order.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-117-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 25, 2007,
on Petition 2007-08-02-35 submitted by Mayfield Partners,
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate
a child care facility at 32520 Seven Mile Road, located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Mayfield Avenue and
Shadyside Avenue in the Southwest '/. of Section 3, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2007-08-02-35 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the maximum number of children to be cared for at
this facility shall be one hundred and fffy seven (157);
2. That the Site Plan marked Sheet AS -100 dated September
28, 2007, as revised, prepared by Schonsheck Inc. is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to any
revisions as noted below;
3. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and ou0ines
the terms of how the subject property(s) would share
parking and access, be supplied to the City;
4. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-100 dated
September 28, 2007, as revised, prepared by Schonsheck
Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
October 9, 2007
24408
6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
7. That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-300
dated September 28, 2007, as revised, prepared by
Schonsheck Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be of steel
construction and maintained and when not in use closed at
all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils,
including storm water management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits,
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Slate of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feet in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
12. That the fencing that encompasses the outdoor play area
shall be at lead five (5) feet in height;
13. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
14. That no LED Iightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
October 9, 2007
24409
15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the bulding permits are applied for; and,
16. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is
valid for a period of one year only from the dale of approval
by the City Council, and unless a building permit is
obtained and construction is commenced, this approval
shall be null and void at the expiration of said period.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#5 PETlTION2007-08-0230 AVIS BUDGET GROUP
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
08-02-30 submitted by Avis Budget Group requesting waiver
use approval to operate a car rental facility at 29070 Plymouth
Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebell Road and Camden Avenue in the Southwest'''/ of
Section 25.
Mr. Walsh: We will need a motionto remove this from the table.
On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
October 9, 2007
24410
#10-118-2007
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 25, 2007,
on Petition 2007-08-02-30 submitted by Avis Budget Group
requesting waiver use approval to operate a car rental facility at
29070 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Middlebelt Road and Camden Avenue in the
Southwest % of Section 25, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that Petition 2007-08-02-30 be removed
from the table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Miller:
The plan has been revised to show a 6 foot high white vinyl
fence matching the fence on the adjacent KFC property will be
installed across the north and west side of the northerly parking
area. In the landscape areas adjoining the north and west
boundaries of the northernmost parking area, the plan shows a
series of 6 fool high white spruce trees and also provides for
plant materials around the dumpster enclosure. In regard to
parking lot improvements, the plan indicates that the entire
paved parking lot inside the fenced area will be resurfaced and
double striped. For illumination of the parking area, the plan
shows that a proposed light will be installed by DTE on an
existing utility pole located near the east line of the subject
property. Thatisthe extentofthe changeslolhe plan.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for Mr. Miller? Seeing none, we will go
to the petitioner then. Good evening. Is there anything you'd
like to add to the presentation?
Patricia Fisher,
Avis Budget Group L.L.C., Detroit Metro Airport, Building 287
Lucas Drive, Detroit, Michigan 48242. Did anyone gel to go see
the property? I dont know if you had the opportunity to go by
there, but we did start the work and it's really cleaned up. We
got all the vegetation out. We have the fence up. It looks real
nice, and I'm just ready to move forward with your approval.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
I appreciate the work the petitioner has done. Is the existing
asphalt parking lot, other than the one directly behind the
buildings where you come in off of Haller Street, as I recall, it
needed a little work. Have you addressed the driveway back
there? Are you satisfied with the condition of the asphalt
coming off of Haller behind the building?
October 9, 2007
24411
Ms. Fisher:
Off of Haller, the approach is fine but we're going to do the
whole area that's ours, the whole parking lot in the back will be
redone.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I'm talking about the area ...
Ms. Fisher:
No, it has to be all.
Mr. Morrow:
I was hoping you'd say that because at the last meeting you
indicated that Avis wanted to put their best foot forward and
make it look nice. So, I guess I didn't understand when you said
you were going to add the asphalt. I wasn't sure it was in that
area.
Ms. Fisher:
It will be the whole, entire area.
Mr. LaPine:
Did you have any more conversation with the owner of the
property and the recommendation I made about the import
rebuilders rebuilding a portion of that corner. Is he going to do
any fixing up of that?
Ms. Fisher:
He can speak better to that really.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I'd like to know if he's going to do anything on that
building.
Angelo Maut,
17017 Doris, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Yes, we thought a lot
about what you said last time and we spoke with John Nagy
about putting up vinyl veneer around that building, taking off
some boards, replacing boards and I told him I'd work with him
on the parking lot, like you said the approach. I want to rip all
that out and bring in some asphalt and build it all back up. We
installed the fence yesterday. We were out there all day in the
heat so that part's done. We ripped up all the vegetation.
We've been doing what we can.
Mr. LaPine:
I just want to tell you one thing. Be careful with all you do
because we pass this on to the Council. You don't get a final
okay to do anything until the City Council approves it.
Mr. Mauti:
It can't hurt.
Mr. LaPine:
That's true, but I'd hate to see you go in there and do a lot of
things and then the Council says, "Hey we don't want this; we
want this."
Mr. Mauti:
We already cleaned up the site.
October 9, 2007
24412
Mr. La Pine: We appreciate that and I appreciate you laking our
recommendation. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything else for the petitioners? Thank you both for
being here this evening.
Ms. Fisher: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this pefifion?
Unidentified audience member: Are we allowed to speak on something other
than the petition?
Mr. Walsh: No, ma'am, we only accept commentary on the petition.
Unidentified audience member: I called and they said I could speak on
something other than the petition, but it had to be related to the
pefifion.
Mr. Morrow: She may be thinking about City Council.
Mr. Walsh: Do you have a comment for the City Council, ma'am?
Unidenfified audience member: The City Planning, actually.
Mr. Walsh: You're not speaking on an item?
Unidenfified audience member: Its in regards to a situation that I wasn't even
aware of. It's about another Walgreens proposal and I just
wanted to mentioned something.
Mr. Walsh: Ma'am, the open forum for that is with the City Council at the
beginning and end of each of their meetings. Our agendas are
restricted in terms of the intake of commentary and what we can
do with it.
Unidentified audience member: There could have been a miscommunication,
but basically for City Planning but not City Council.
Mr. Walsh: Unless we have a petition before us, we dont have the authority
or ability to do anything but listen. Now, the Council ...
Unidentified audience member: If you want to just listen, that's okay loo.
Mr. Walsh: Well, we're going to complete this item, but ma'am, truly ...
October 9, 2007
24413
Unidentified audience member: It's probably a miscommunication. I called
twice.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. And I apologize for that. We would not be able to
effectuate any change or any investigation.
Unidentified audience member: She said I still could address.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Walsh: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: I think it would be better served to talk to the City Council.
Before and after each meeting, they have audience
communication. You can talk on any subject even if its not on
the agenda. They are the final authority on anything relative to
cityplanning. So atthe next Council meeting ...
Unidentified audience member: I just thought it was more appropriate because
you folks are up there and you listen to people who have ideas
about building and what's happening to Livonia. It wouldn't be
more than two minutes.
Mr. Walsh: Ma'am, we need to leave it to the Council. It would be more
effective, truly.
Unidentified audience member: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: I appreciate your being here and I apologize if there was a
misunderstanding. On the subject matter at hand, if there
anybody wishing to speak for or against this item? In the
absence of anybody coming forward, would somebody like to
offer a resolution?
On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, 9
was
#10-119-2007 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 25, 2007,
on Petition 2007-08-02-30 submitted by Avis Budget Group
requesting waiver use approval to operate a car rental facility at
29070 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Middlebell Road and Camden Avenue in the
Southwest % of Section 25, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-08-02-
30 be approved subject to the following conditions:
October 9, 2007
24414
1. That the Site Plan submitted by Avis Budget Group, dated
October 2, 2007, as revised, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the issues listed as items #1, #4, #8 and #9 in the
correspondence dated September 10, 2007, from the
Inspection Department shall be resolved to that
department's satisfaction;
3. That all existing landscaped areas shall receive needed
maintenance and all new planted materials specified on the
above -referenced Site Plan shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
4. That parking lot lighting equipment shall not exceed a
height of 20 feet above grade and shall be aimed and
shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across
properly lines and glaring into adjacent roadway;
5. That the northerly paved parking lot inside the fenced area
shall be resurfaced and the balance of the parking lot shall
be repaired, resealed and double striped;
6. That a six (6) fool high vinyl fence shall be installed across
the northerly and along the westerly sides of the northerly
parking area as depicted on the above -referenced Site
Plan;
7. That the landscaped greenbelt along the north properly line
that abuts R-6 zoning, as shown on the above -referenced
Site Plan, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for
the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance provided, however, that any change of
circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt
resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as
a prolective barrier, the owner of the property shall be
required to submit such changes to the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval
or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
8. That the existing dumpsler enclosure shall be provided
with steel gales which, when not in use, shall be closed at
all times;
9. That the issues specified in the Plymouth Road
Development Authority Resolution #2007-26 shall be
October 9, 2007
24415
resolved to the satisfaction of the PRDA Executive
Director;
10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
11. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
12. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for the Certificate of Oe upncy.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2 That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 950'" Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 950"' Regular Meeting held by the City Planning
Commission on August 28, 2007.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-120-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 950" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on August 28, 2007, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
October 9, 2007
24416
AYES:
LaPine, Wilshaw, McDermott, Morrow, Vartoogian,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 952n° Regular
Meeting held on October 9, 2007, was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman