HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-04-22MINUTES OF THE 962nd REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, Apnl 22, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 96200 Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Ian Wilshaw Ashley Vadoogian Carol A. 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 petition on tonight's 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 petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2008-03-08-05 IS TELEGRAPH
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2008-03-
08-05
008-0308-05 submitted by IS Telegraph L.L.C. requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas
station (Mobil) at 31420 Schoolcmft Road, located on the
northwest comer of SchoolcraR Road and Merriman Road in the
Southeast % of Section 22.
April 22, 2007
24703
Mr. Miller: The subject property is zoned C-2, General Business. It
measures 135 feel along Schoolcraft Road and 115 feet along
Merriman Road. North of the site is Merri-Craft Florist and to
the west is a multi -tenant office building. Directly to the east
across Merriman Road there is another gas station and to the
south is the I-96 Expressway. The existing building is
approximately 384 square feel in size and is situated near the
middle of the site, halfway under the existing pump island
canopy. The existing station sits back approximately 50 feet
from Schoolcraft Road and 80 feel from Merriman Road. The
proposed one-story convenience store/gas station would be
located approximately in the same place as the existing
building. Some of the walls of the existing station would remain
and be used in the construction of the new building. The new
station would have two main entrances, one on the north side of
the building and one on the south. The dimensions of the new
station would be approximately 60 feel by 24 feel, which
calculates out to a gross floor area of 1,473 square feet. The
majority of the interior space, about 834 square feet, would be
utilized for the sale and display of convenience items. The
remainder of the interior would be occupied by a cashier area,
separate his/her bathrooms, and a mechanical room. Parking
for gas stations is based on the amount of interior floor space
devoted to the retail sales, plus one space for each employee.
Based on that, this station requires 7 parking spaces and the
site plan shows 7 spaces. It should be pointed out that there
would also be 12 'pull-up" spaces in front of the gas pumps.
Factoring these in would result in a total of 19 parking spaces
available. Historically, the spaces provided at the pumps are
not considered as part of the required parking allowance on the
basis that the sale of gasoline is thought to be a separate entity
and independent from additional customers utilizing the
convenience store. However, most gas station owners daim
that at least 75% of their convenience store customers are
people using the gas pumps. The site's four existing driveways
would remain in their present confgurafion. Vehicles could
either enter or exit using one of the two exisfing driveways off
Schoolcraft Road or one of the two existing driveways off
Merriman Road. Because this properly abuts commercial or
office along its north and west property lines, the Zoning
Ordinance does not require any building setbacks from these lot
lines. The required front yard setback from Schoolcraft Road is
75 feel from road right -0f -way. The new station would only set
back 52 feel. The required side yard from Merriman Road is 75
feel, and the building sets back only 52 feel. Because the
proposed building would be deficient in both front and side yard
setbacks, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would
be required. Two overhead canopy structures, one on the north
April 22, 2007
24704
and one on the south sides of the building, would cover the 12
proposed gas pumps. Both canopies would extend
approximately 40 feet out from the building. The Zoning
Ordinance specifies that canopies shall not exceed 18 feet in
height. Most canopies would measure 1 foot 6 inches in profile
height and would have a clearance height of 14 feel 6 inches,
for an overall height of 16 feel. The support columns illustrated
on the cutout do not appear to be brick. In the past, the City has
required that support columns be brick. The plans reveal that
additional plant materials would be established within the
existing landscape areas. The required landscaping for the site
is 15 peroenl; the site shows only 7 percent of the site would be
landscaped. The rebuilt station would be constructed out of a
combination of brick, decorative block and Dryvil on all four
sides. The bottom four feel of the building would be built out of
decorative block. The main body of the station would be
constructed out of brick. The lop 2 feel 8 inches adorning the
flat roofline would be a band of Dryvil. Ribbons of large picture
windows would frame the entrances on both the north and south
elevations. The proposed one-story station would have a
maximum height, measured from the finished grade to the
highest peak, of approximately 14 feel 6 inches.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 9, 2008, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposed petition. There are no additional right-of-way
requirements for this site and the address is correct. A legal
description should be added to the drawings. Since there are
no changes to the storm drainage facilities which outlet to a
Livonia sewer and there is no increase in the amount of
impervious surface, no detention will be required for this site."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E. The second letter
is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 4, 2008,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a
commercial building on property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: Access around building shall be
provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical
clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius of 53 feet wall-to-
wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches." The letter
is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter
is from the Division of Police, dated March 18, 2008, which
reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection
April 22, 2007
24705
with Mobil Gas located at 31420 Schoolcraf. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April
11, 2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
March 7, 2008, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Barrier free parking to
property sized, signed and striped. At least one van accessible
space must be provided which requires a minimum of an 8 foot
wide hashed access aisle along side of parking space. The
petitioner shows only a 5 foot access aisle next to the
accessible space. (2) The petitioner shows the parking spaces
with a width of 8 feet and 9 feet. The minimum required size of
a parking space is 10 feet wide by 20 feet long. Seven spaces
are required, property sized and double striped. A variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required unless
corrections are made. (3) The petitioner only shows one
restroom where two restrooms are required. one male restroom
and one female restroom. This will be addressed at time of plan
review if this project moves forward. (4) The petitioner shows
the setback of the building at 51.25 feet on the south side and
52.24 feet on the east side. A minimum of 75 feet is required
from a major thoroughfare with a right-of-way of 120 feet. To
maintain this deficiency, a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required. (5) A drinking fountain is required.
This will be addressed at time of plan review if this project
moves forward. (6) Currently this station is required to provide
free air to the public per Zoning Board of Appeals Case 8208-
84. The Commission and/or Council may wish to address this
item and add the statement. That free air shall be provided at all
times this station is open for business. The free air shall be
dispensed at the point of service without having to enter the
station or the performance of any extra action in order to obtain
the air without charge. (7) The petitioner did not present
elevation drawings of the proposed canopies. The maximum
height permitted of the canopy is 18 feet (8) Signage has not
been reviewed. This Department has no further objections to
this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior
Building Inspector. And Mr. Chairman, if I may, as it relates to
Item #2 with respect to the size of the parking spaces, Item #3
as it relates to providing two restrooms where originally they
only showed one, and Item #7 with respect to providing
elevation drawings, new information has been submitted which
addresses each of these items. I believe it corrects those to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
April 22, 2007
24706
Mr. Morrow: Does that include the drinking fountain, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: I'm going to refer that question to Scott or the project architect.
I'm not aware that they added that to the plan.
Mr. Miller: No, he hasn't. I considered that was a review issue for the
Inspection Department.
Mr. Morrow: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Hakim Shakir, Engineering Service Inc., 32232 SchoolcraR Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48150. Good evening. I'm the project engineer for
this project. Mr. Scott Miller did a very good job explaining the
project. Like I said, we look care of most of those comments,
and we understand we are to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
regarding the setbacks.
Mr. Walsh: Can I interrupt for moment? If you're going to show us some
material, I'm going to suggest you go to the other microphone
so the people at home can see what you're doing.
Mr. Shakir: The only thing we wanted to show was that we already located
the fountain.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. Very good. Then we're all set.
Mr. Shakir: Yes. Tonight, the owner could not make it because he had
some other emergency. That's why we are here to answer your
questions.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine: Just a couple questions. The station that is there now, is that
the owner who is going to be building the new station?
Mr. Shakir: Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine: Its not a new owner?
Mr. Shakir: No, it's not a new owner.
Mr. LaPine: The second question I have, is this a 24-hour operation? Are
you open 24 hours a day?
April 22, 2007
24707
Mr. Shakir:
I'm sorry. I'm not sure, but we can probably gel back to you on
that because, like I said, we're not sure.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Did you bring building material samples? Are the building
materials that we see on the color rendering that was shown
prior, is that a reasonable representation of what we're going to
see?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Miller will gel you set up with a tripod.
Mr. Walsh:
We do have people who like to watch. If we set up here, they
actually can see it on TV.
Sina Elmoussa,
Dynamic Building and Design, L.L.C., 1520 Maple, Dearborn,
Michigan. Its not something unusual. Its a very common color.
We're trying to match the colors to be homogeneous with each
other. This is pink, this is burgundy and this is more into beige.
Its also pinkish. So this is going to be E.I.F.S. This is the brick.
This is the block. If the department would like to ask to provide
you with samples, we will do so. Of course, it is going to be
according to the Michigan building codes, the specification. So
that's all I can say about the samples. If you have any
recommendation or objection regarding the colors, we are
willing to change.
Mr. Wilshaw:
No. Thank you. I appreciate that. It seems reasonable
enough. The one question about the design I did notice was the
east elevation has a single window on it.
Ms. Elmussa:
Oh, this one?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes, which faces Merriman Road.
Ms. Elmussa:
This is the cashier area. They want to use the wall for stacking
stuff, shelves, because the cashier area is so small.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Ms. Elmussa:
So that's why we provided them according to his request. The
owner requested a small window to look what's behind because
he cannot see over everything without the window because
everything is going to be blocked behind his back, while the rest
is going to be used as shelving and displaying goods.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I appreciate your explanation because I'm used to seeing a lot
of windows on gas stations.
April 22, 2007
24708
Ms. Elmussa:
I am loo, but he wanted R. I wanted to do the whole thing, more
into continuous windows but that's what he wanted. Atter all,
we have to balance between what he wants and what is
reasonable.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I understand. The plans that I looked at show that the dumpster
enclosure has a wood gate on it. Typically, we require a steel
gale. Is that acceptable to you?
Mr. Shakir:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
It's a small detail.
Mr. Shakir:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I think that's it for now. Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I have a question about the support columns under the canopy.
Can you explain what those are made of?
Ms. Elmussa:
The canopy is going to be overlapped over the building, like two
feel, because we're going to have separate canopies. We will
not make one. The height of the building is going to be lower
than the canopy and there will be a two feel overlap.
Mr. Miller:
Do you want the site plan?
Ms. Elmussa:
Yes. Those are the pumps. So we're going to have a column
here and a column there. And the other columns are close to
the building because I cannot put them inside the building. This
is going to cause of vibration with the wind, and it is going to be
very dangerous. So we don't have any choice. If I put it away,
outside the sidewalk, this is going to be blocking the aisle here.
So the only way is taking a little bit of the sidewalk, like one fool
by one fool, which is going to be maximum there to support the
columns. So there will be four columns.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Can you explain what material they will be made of?
Ms. Elmussa:
According to my knowledge, it has to be faced with brick.
Normally, we're going to have steel columns then cover it with
decorated bricklo match the building.
Ms. Varloogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Elmussa:
You're welcome.
April 22, 2007
24709
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions?
Mr. Morrow:
Just to follow up with what Mr. Wilshaw said, it might be
productive to bring samples to the City Council so they can see
actual colors. We'll move it along tonight, or at least I will based
on the input. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, both of 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 McDermott, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#04-32-2008
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-03-08-05
submitted by IS Telegraph L.L.C. requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas
station (Mobil) at 31420 Schoolcmft Road, located on the
northwest comer of Schoolcraft Road and Mernman Road in the
Southeast % of Section 22, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site & Landscape Plan marked Drawing No. C-02
dated April 11, 2008, as revised, prepared by Engineering
Services, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. 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;
4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2
dated April 17, 2008, as revised, prepared by Dynamic
Building and Design, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face
four (4") inch brick;
6. That the three walls of the trash dumpsler 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,
April 22, 2007
24710
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;
7. 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;
8. That the gas pump island canopy shall not exceed
eighteen (18') feel in height, and its support columns shall
be covered with the same brick used in the construction of
the building;
9. That the leading edge of the pump island canopy shall not
be any closer than len (10') feel from the property line;
10. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be
recessed in such a way that the intensity of the illumination
is decreased;
11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/orthe State of Michigan;
12. 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 property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated April 11, 2008;
14. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the item outlined in the correspondence dated
April 4,2008;
15. No outside storage, placement or display of merchandise
shall be permitted at any time on this site, however the
foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the
pump islands only, of oil based products as permitted in
Section 11.04(a) of the Zoning Ordinance;
16. That free air shall be provided at all times this station is
open for business. The free air shall be dispensed at the
point of service without having to enter the station or the
April 22, 2007
24711
performance of any extra action in order to obtain the air
without charge;
17. That no vehicle vacuum equipment or the outdoor
placement of propane cylinder storage units shall be
permitted on the site;
18. That the sale of ice shall be restricted to the inside of the
building;
19. 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;
20. That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the
exception of the embossed logos, shall be illuminated;
21. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the pump island
canopy, building or around the windows;
22. 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,
23. 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 permit is obtained this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to confirm. I believe I heard the
petitioner or engineer say that the drinking fountain had been
added to the plan. Is that correct?
Mr. Walsh: She did.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. I thought I heard it but I wanted to verify it because I did
mention it ear. ier.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
April 22, 2007
24712
k1=lAi EibM9=k IY ILel E'ALkErkIIrkEQ)• t111111<H N12917Yt1101=I0AI
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
03-08-06 submitted by L.J. Griffin Funeral Home requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to expand the parking
lot of the funeral home located at 8809 Wayne Road, located on
the northwest corner of Wayne Road and Joy Road in the
Southwest % of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to expand the parking lot
of the L.J. Griffin Funeral Home. Presently the funeral home
and its parking lot occupy the property (8809 Wayne Road) that
is located on the northwest corner of Wayne Road and Joy
Road. Immediately north of the funeral home is a piece of
property (8859 Wayne Road) that is vacant. It is on this
adjacent vacant properly where the proposed parking lot
expansion would lake place. Both properties are zoned OS,
Office Services. Funeral homes require waiver use approval in
an OS zoning district. The existing funeral home received
waiver use approval (Council Resolution #609-83) back on July
27, 1983. Once waiver use approval has been granted for a
piece of property, unless otherwise specified, it runs with the
land. Since the funeral home is already established and
because parking lots are permitted in an OS district, this
proposal only requires site plan approval. The L.J. Griffin
Funeral Home sits approximately in the middle of 8809 Wayne
Road. The rest of the site is basically asphalt. The large
amount of asphalt area is needed for parking and to allow
vehicles to line up for funeral processions. There is very little
(approximately 4%) existing landscaping on the properly.
Parking for funeral homes are based on the amount of floor
space dedicated to the parlors or individual funeral service
rooms. The building is approximately 8,000 square feel in
overall size and has 2,484 square feel dedicated to parlor
areas. Based on today's ordinance standards, the required
parking for this facility is 75 spaces; however, there are only 70
spaces, so they are short of the minimum number of parking
spaces. The proposed parking lot expansion would bring this
facility into conformity. The entire vacant piece of property
(8859 Wayne Rd) would be developed into a parking lot. This
property measures 107 feet along Wayne Road and has a depth
of 186 feel. The plans show that the new extension of the
parking lot would have 31 striped spaces and perimeter
landscaping. Two 17 foot high light standard would illuminate
the new lot. To integrate and combine the new lot with the
April 22, 2007
24713
existing, 16 parking spaces and edge curbing along the northern
section of the existing parking lot would be eliminated. Along
with the development of the vacant piece, an additional
landscape area would also be created on the funeral home's
existing site. The existing 7 parallel parking spaces between
the building and Wayne Road would be removed and replaced
with a greenbelt. New landscaped parking islands would also
be created in front of the north entrance of the funeral home and
between the center parking spaces of the new expanded lot.
Adding up the landscape areas of the parking lot extension and
the newly created landscape areas to the existing funeral home
site, as well as the remaining existing landscaping, the total
overall landscaping of the two sites would increase to
approximately 10%. The submitted plans do not show any type
of enclosed trash dumpster area on site. Because this site abuts
residential along its west property line, a screening wall or
greenbelt is required along this lot line. Presently there is an
existing screen wall that runs along the entire length of the west
lot line of the funeral home property. This wall stops and does
not continue onto the subject vacant piece of property. The
petitioner is proposing to screen the new parking lot extension
from the adjacent residential district with a greenbelt in lieu of
the wall. The proposed greenbelt would be approximately 20
feet wide and ran the entire length of the lot, approximately 107
feet. This greenbelt would be landscaped with grass and a
defined planting bed. That is the extent of the proposal.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated April 9, 2008, which reads
as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposed petition. There are no additional
right -0f -way requirements for this site. The legal description for
Parcel 2 is missing two words (beginning at) in its second line.
The address of the existing building of 8809 Wayne Road is
comect. Since the storm drainage facilities outlet to a Livonia
sewer, there is no Wayne County detention permit required.
Detention facilities for the additional parking lot area should be
provided and will be permitted by the City of Livonia. The new
sidewalk in Wayne Road should be shown on sheet C-1 and will
require a Wayne County permit." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated April 4, 2008, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to expand the parking lot of the funeral home on
property located at the above -referenced address. We have no
April 22, 2007
24714
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Donald F.
Donnelley, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated April 4, 2008, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with L.J. Griffin Funeral Home,
located at 8809 Wayne Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 11, 2008,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 19,
2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) All parking spaces are required to be
double striped. (2) Barrier free spaces are to be property sized,
signed and striped. One van accessible space must be a
minimum of 8 feet wide with an adjacent 8 foot wide access
aisle. Other spaces must be a minimum of 8 feet wide with an
adjacent 5 foot wide access aisle. (3) The location of the
dumpster or enclosure is not shown. Planning and/or Council
may wish to review this to their satisfaction. (4) The west
section of the property without a protective wall abutting
residential property must have one of the following: (a) a
protective wall installed, (b) an approved greenbelt (c) a
property separation agreement, (d) a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. (5) Signage has not been reviewed. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. We also
have two items of correspondence from adjoining residents.
The first is dated March 29, 2008, which reads as follows: '/Aw
have seen the parking lot and landscape plan proposed by L.G.
Griffin Funeral Home and approve of setbacks and materials."
The letter is signed by Ronald Phillips, 8872 Roslyn Street. The
next letter is dated April 17, 2008, which reads as follows: '/Aw
have seen the parking lot and landscape plan proposed by L.G.
Griffin Funeral Home and approve of setbacks and materials
with the following stipulations: L.J. Griffin and Barton Foster will
split 50150 sharing the cost of purchasing and replacing the
fence when helpful with a no maintenance fence as well as
share the maintenance. See note below. L.J. Giffin 1 agree to
fix any damage to existing fence and will be responsible for
maintenance and repairs of their side of the fence. This
agreement applies and binds the future owners of the funeral
home and Barton Foster's related property." The letter is signed
by Barton Foster, 8854 Roslyn Street, and there is a second
signature which I am unable to confirm whose signature it is.
That very well may be the representative of the petitioner.
Maybe he would like to verify that this evening. Thank you.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
April 22, 2007
24715
Ms. Smiley:
I was wondering if you could show us where those two
neighbors are in relation to the funeral home?
Mr. Miller:
They are the two parcels abutting at the new parking lot. One
address is 8872 Roslyn; that's this parcel here. The other
address is 8854, which is this one.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
The wall ends on the west side. Would that be extended all the
way to where that red line ends up at the top?
Mr. Miller:
No. Where the properties are separate, the wall ends there.
The petitioner is proposing a greenbelt the rest of the way.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess my question is, we have the wall all the way down
except for this new addition with the parking lot. Wouldn't it
make more sense tojusl extend the wall to the north?
Mr. Miller:
There is also a wall along this shopping plaza. The wall stops
here and then it slops here. There is no wall on these two
pieces of property.
Mr. LaPine:
What you're saying is, we have two parcels where there is no
wall. If we go ahead and say we want a wall extended through
this new parking area, then the next parcel, if somebody
develops that or something happens to that part, we can get a
wall there and we'll have a wall on the whole row.
Mr. Miller:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
My second question is to you, Mark. Seeing that they don't
have to have any water detention here, what will they do? Will
they put a crock in the middle of the new parking lot and tie it
into the existing sewer on the properly?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, there will be a certain amount of underground
detention provided. I had a brief discussion with Mr. Schron,
who is undertaking the plan review, and he indicated that the
latest engineering plan for this development does provide for
underground detention in an amount that will satisfy the city's
requirements. Apparently, that is being addressed already as
part of the plan eview being undertaken by the Engineering
Division.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
April 22, 2007
24716
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for the Planning Department?
Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. Please give us your
name and address for our records.
David Griffin,
L.J. Griffin Funeral Home, 8809 Wayne Road, Livonia, Michigan
48150.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Griffin:
No. The question comes up regarding what Mr. LaPine said
regarding the extended wall. I was under the understanding
that there were three things that needed to be done so I didn't
have to put in a solid wall. One of them was to have a setback
of 10 feet. We went 20 feet. Another item is what we've done.
I've had the permission of both the homeowners behind me and
both homeowners have signed off, Barton Foster, and also the
other gentlemen who I went to see, Ronald Phillips. Both the
neighbors behind me were satisfied with what we're doing on
the properly behind him, along with the materials that were
being used, it says in the letter. I've agreed to put up a brick
wall when needed along that right -0f --way that is actually falling,
in part, on Barton Foster's property. So I think I've addressed
both concerns, that being about the greenbelt and/or the letters
by my neighbors.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
There's two things involved here. There's already been a wall
established. Okay? To come along now and put a landscape
area for 105 feel, and then we have another vacant property
beyond you. If he comes along and says he wants to put up a
wall — he probably wont — he'll probably want to extend the
landscaping. My problem with the landscaping, the wall is
permanent. My experience for the years I've been around here,
those landscapes are fine when they start out. Unfortunately,
they are not taken care of. I was out there Saturday, Mr.
Morrow and I. You're putting in a lot of new landscaping all
around your building. You're doing a lot of nice work there. But
it seems to me, the wall is more permanent and that way if the
other properly to the north gets the go, then we have a solid wall
all the way down.
Mr. Griffin:
Sure. Mr. LaPine, have you been to either of my other two
funeral homes, either in Westland orin Canton?
Mr. LaPine:
No, I have not, sir.
April 22, 2007
24717
Mr. Griffin: We've been in business since 1954. We're probably one of the
largest family-owned funeral homes on the west side. What I
did to the inside of this funeral home when we look it over in
October, we completely gutted the inside from carpeting to the
ceilings, the furnishings. There's not one piece inside that
funeral home that remains as it was when I took ownership. I've
got a reputation in the community now. I should say in the
Western Wayne area community. I'm certainly not going to do
anything, put any materials in, or invest the amount of money
and time that I have in this industry and on this property to make
and spend the amount of money that I'm currently going to be
spending on the parking lot, to at all jeopardize any type of
appearance for my reputation because of a wall. I think what I
put on the plans, along with the okay by my neighbors, and I
have agreed should that wall need to be replaced with a solid
wall, I'll do it. I've given my word to the neighbor behind me that
when that time arises and when there needs to be that wall, I'll
do it. So I guess my point being is I just want to do what's right
and that being right with the neighbors and also right with the
community. The proposal with the setback and the existing wall
right now is what I'm asking for.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no problem with how you take care of your other
properly. Mr. Wilshaw at our study session attested to that. He
said he checked them both out. He saw them both. You do a
real good job. My position is, we've already got the wall started.
If the wall wasn't there and there was a landscape area there
and you were just continuing it, I'd have no problem with that.
But I don't like the idea of wall, landscape, the possibility of
another wall, and the wall going the rest of the way. That's my
personal opinion. I'm only one vole. I don't know what the
other members think about it, but that's just my position. Now
the other argument I'd like to make, there's no guarantee.
Twenty years from now, you may sell it to another funeral parlor
and they may not be as conscious as you are at keeping up the
property. There's always that's possibility. I'm just looking out
for the interests of the neighbors and trying to get what I think is
in the best interests of our city.
Mr. Griffin:
Understood, and so am I. 1 believe what I proposed here is
what's in the best interest for the parcel right now.
Mr. Walsh:
We'll go on to another question. Ms. McDermott.
Mrs. McDermotl:
On my site visit, I did notice that the dumpsler that is out there
right now is on the southwest comer of the building. Its using
two parking spaces. Since it doesn't note on the plan where the
April 22, 2007
24718
dumpster is going to be, do you have a plan to move the
dumpster and enclose the dumpster?
Mr. Griffin:
Yes, we will.
Mrs. McDermott:
Okay.
Mr. Griffin:
When we decide to move it from the place of the existing onto
the properly right now, if it's going to be moved, we may not
even have a dumpster there. If we do, we may take it in and out
of the garage only on garbage days. We have a big garage
that's not being used. Its like a three car garage. Most of my
work is done at the Canton and Westland funeral homes. This
is just a small facility right now, but if there needs to be a
permanent dumpster, we will address the enclosures.
Mrs. McDermott:
Do you have any idea where it would be located?
Mr. Griffin:
It would be behind the building also, similar to the place where
its at.
Mrs. McDermott:
Okay. So it would stay utilizing two of the parking spaces.
Mr. Griffin:
Maybe.
Mrs. McDermott:
Okay. The other question I had, I notice the trees that are
marked with the bright pink x's. Those are the trees being
removed.
Mr. Griffin:
Yes.
Mrs. McDermott:
How close does the parking lot come to the house that's north of
you?
Mr. Griffin:
I think it abuts right up to the property, which are the 2, 4, 5
spaces to the north. The gentleman at that properly is running a
business out of there. It's an accounting business. He has
parking in front for his customers, three or four spots in his
driveway, but I believe the property is zoned Office. I'm not sure
its zoned Office.
Mrs. McDermott:
And he's aware of your plans?
Mr. Griffin:
Yes.
Mrs. McDermott:
Okay. That was my other question. I do want to attest to the
fact. Darlene took me for the lour today. It is a very nice facility.
April 22, 2007
24719
Mr. Griffin:
Thank you. We put a lot of time and thought into making it right.
Thank you, Deborah.
Mr. Morrow.
Just an observation. I'm going to assume that you're going to
handle the trash inside unless it becomes untenable. Is that
what I'm hearing?
Mr. Griffin:
Absolutely. That's correct, Mr. Morrow.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I do have one more question for the staff. Is the staff
satisifed with the plantings and the landscape area? Did you
work with the petitioner in that regard?
Mr. Taormina:
We will take a second look at the landscaping plan. Typically,
what we like to see is a variety of evergreen trees to separate
the non-residential use from residential properties. Another
point regarding that, he is seeking a permanent greenbelt in lieu
of the protective wall. There is a provision in the ordinance that
says any diminution of the effectiveness of that screen or buffer
would be reason to construct a wall or to replant the area. It's
something we can fall back on if for any reason there is a failure
to maintain the greenbelt and it is not effective. Secondly, there
is the option of executing a property separation agreement,
which would be valid for a period of five years. Since he already
has the approval of the homeowners adjacent to his property,
then that agreement would last for a period of five years. It
would have to be renewed after five years, and if either of the
homeowners said no, he would have to install the wall or come
back to the Planning Commission and City Council, or the
Zoning Board of Appeals. You have that option. What he is
proposing right now is a permanent greenbelt. It does meet our
ordinance in that respect. Again, there are provisions in the
code dealing with the maintenance of the greenbelt.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay, sir, then should the greenbelt proceed forward here
tonight, do you have any difficulty working with our staff b iron
out some of the ordinance provisions as it relates to
landscaping?
Mr. Griffin:
No, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Because we kind of leave thatto our professionals.
Mr. Griffin:
I've already taken out the landscape around the building three
times since they started last week.
April 22, 2007
24720
Mr. Morrow:
We did observe you putting in some plants around your building,
and I just want to make sure that should the greenbelt be
approved, that the staff, if they're satisfied with it, at least I will
be satisfied with it.
Mr. Griffin:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional comments or questions?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a comment that as there is at lead one commissioner on
this body that appears to have some concern over the greenbelt
in lieu of a wall, the proposed properly separation agreement
that Mark spoke of, may be sort of a nice '" before you buy"
type altemafive that we could go with that would give the
petitioner the chance to put in the greenbelt, have five years to
see it develop, which of course as you put in landscaping
initially its going to be small and it will f11 in. And then after five
years, assuming things are still going well and the residents who
live behind there are still satisfied with it, and he comes forward
to renew that property separation agreement, at that time he
could always ask for a permanent greenbelt at that point. For
many years, we've seen, before we had permanent greenbelts,
we saw petitioners continue to come back year after year after
year or every few years to renew greenbelts. In this situation,
maybe that wouldn t be a bad thing. Just a comment.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any more questions or comments? Thank you, Mr.
Griffin.
Mr. Griffin:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Since there is no one else in the audience, a motion would be in
order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
#04-33-2008
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-03-08-06
submitted by L.J. Griffin Funeral Home requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to expand the parking lot of the
funeral home located at 8809 Wayne Road, located on the
northwest comer of Wayne Road and Joy Road in the
Southwest % of Section 33, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
April 22, 2007
24721
1. That the Site Plan marked Drawing A-101 dated March 7,
2008, prepared by G.H. Forbes Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan submitted by L.J. Griffin Funeral
Home, as received by the Planning Commission on March
19, 2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and
shall be amended in the future should the staff and the
petitioner agree;
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 there shall be no outside dumpster located on the
site, and all trash must be contained within the building
except on the day trash is scheduled for removal;
6. That detention facilities for the additional parlang lot area
shall be provided and permitted by the City of Livonia;
7. That the new sidewalk along Wayne Road, as shown on
the approved site plan, shall secure the necessary permits
from Wayne County;
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 property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated April 11, 2008;
10. That the landscaped greenbelt along the west 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;
11. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's
effectiveness as a protective barrier, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
April 22, 2007
24722
immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
12. 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,
13. 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 A the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
I don't see anything in the motion, Mark, about the double
striping of the parking lot. Is that going to be done? The whole
parking lot should be double striped.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. LaPine, that would be referenced in Item #9 in the
Inspection Department's correspondence.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I just want clarification that we are approving the permanent
waiver of the greenbelt.
Mr. Taormina:
That is the proposal.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Very good. Then with that, I want to at least make a comment
that I appreciate Mr. Griffin's investment in this property and to
his building. He's done a nice job and he's really spending a
significant amount of money to upgrade this particular location.
I think its good to see that. I think the fact that the two
neighboring residents that are directly affected by this particular
wall versus greenbelt issue have slated that they are also in
agreement with the greenbelt. I think that says a lot. I
appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
As Mr. Wilshaw indicated earlier, we do have that one
paragraph related to the diminution of it and should he fail to
keep it up to par so to speak, he would be required to install the
wall. So I think, as one commissioner, I have enough guaranty
that d will be maintained. Thank you.
April 22, 2007
24723
Mr. Walsh: I am familiar with your other sites. They really are quite well
maintained, and I would expect the same here. If there are no
additional comments, we will proceed with the vote.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, Smiley, McDermott, Wilshaw, Varloogian,
Walsh
NAYES:
LaPine
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#3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 961" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 961s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on April 8, 2008.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
#04-34-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 961s' Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 8,
2008, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, Wilshaw, LaPine, McDermott, Vartoogian,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTANI:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 962n° Regular
Meeting held on April 22, 2008, was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
John Walsh, Chairman Carol A. Smiley, Secretary