Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-04-25232% MINUTES OF THE 920 REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 25, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 924" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order a17:30 p.m. Members present: Robert Alanskas William La Pine R. Lee Morrow Carol A. Smiley John Walsh Members absent: H. G. Shane Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a pefition on tonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in wnting, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their 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 oflhe proceedings tonight. ITEM#1 PETITION 2006-03-08-08 COMMUNITYCHOICE CREDIT UNION Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-03- 08-08 submitted by Wilkie & Zanley, Architects, on behalf of Community Choice Credit Union, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the credit union located at 15420 Farmington Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 15. n207 Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct additions to the Community Choice Credit Union located on the east side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and RoycroR Avenue. The subject properly is zoned OS, Office Services. The petitioner is proposing to construct three additions to the north elevation of the existing Credit Union building. One of the proposed additions would be two stories in height and constructed near the northwest corner of the building. This addition would extend parallel along Five Mile Road about 90 feel and would add 10,411 square feel to the building. The floor plan shows that offices, conference rooms, and a boardroom would occupy the second story. A call center, support service area and additional administrative offices would be located on the first floor of the addition. A secord addition would be built near the northeast comer of the building. This addition would be one-story in height and 520 square feel in size. This addition would allow the member service stations to be relocated, which would expand the Credit Union's existing lobby area. The third addition would enlarge the main entrance area by creating a new vestibule space. Combined, the three new additions would add 11,295 square feel to the existing building, which is currently approximately 9,412 square feel in sis. Inducing the additional space, the Credit Union would become a total of 20,707 square feet in overall size. The minimum required front yard setback for buildings in an OS district is 40 feet. The existing building has a zero setback along Farmington Road. Because of this pre-existing deficiency and nonconformity, a variance will be required for construction of the additions. To accommodate the proposed additions, it will be necessary for the Credit Union to expand the existing parking lot. They are required to have 85 parking spaces. The new site plan shows 95 spaces, so they meet the parking requirement. Al one time, Westmore Avenue extended south from RoycroR Avenue and ran along the eastern edge of the Credit Union's property. The proposal is to use this land to create a new 62 -space employee parking lot and construct a new driveway off RoycroR Avenue that would service the expanded drive -up service facilities. Customers of the drive-lhm would enter the new one-way drive from RoycroR Avenue and drive south for approximately 230 feel, then turn west and proceed approximately 150 feel where they would slop and wail for the next available teller. The new parking area is identified on the plan as 'Employee Parking." The existing parking lot, which is located on the north side of the building, will be reserved for 'Member Parking." The existing drive-thru canopy would be extended in order to accommodate 23208 two more dnve-up teller devices. The plan also shows that a new Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) would be installed near the site's existing southern driveway. The one-way drive would continue in a westerly direction on the south side of the building where it would provide access and stacking for the new ATM. Customers of the ATM would access the machine by way of RoycroR Avenue, using the southerly most drive, which is marked "ATM Lane," and exit onto Five Mile Road. The existing ATM, which is located in the credit union's main entrance area, would be removed. The site's enclosed dumpsler area is shown in the southeast corner of the employee parking lot. The entire site would be re -landscaped. Required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; they are providing landscaping on 25% of the site so they exceed the landscaping requirement. The architecture and building materials of the proposed additions would match that of the existing credit union. The one story addition near the northeast corner of the building would be constructed out of brick. The two-story addition's first floor would be bnd< and the second story dryvil. The new entrance atrium would be constructed out of glass and aluminum framing, lopped with a dryvil parapet. The elevation plan shows a new wall sign proposed for the west (facing Farmington) elevation. The credit union already has an existing wall sign on its south (towards Five Mile) elevation. There is an existing sign on the south elevation and a ground sign. They are proposing an additional wall sign along the west elevation. Because the existing signage and the proposed signage is in excess of what is permitted by the sign ordinance, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 6, 2006, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description is correct and no additional right-of-way is required. The detention facilities shown and the storm outlet within Farmington Road will require Wayne County approval." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 17, 2006, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition to the credit union on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the 23209 following stipulation: If subject building(s) are to be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on-site hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 19, 2006, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal from Community Choice Credit Union located at 15420 Farmington Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 13, 2006, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request of March 16, 2006, the above- referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition will need to obtain variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following. (a) Deficient numberofparking spaces (108 requimd, 95 provided); (b) Entire signage package, (c) Deficient front yard setback (west - 40 feet required); (d) Deficient side yard setback (south - 15 feet required). (2) The protective wall along the east property line needs to continue fully to the northeast comer (the last 10 feet at a 3 foot height). This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff? Mr. Morrow: At the study meeting, there was some talk about a bypass lane in conjunction with the ATM machine. Has that been resolved? Mr. Taormina: We have not received any new information relative to that. We did discuss that with the architect. Perhaps he has new information this evening. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? John Wilkie, Wilkie & Zanley, Architects, AIA, 4242 Biddle Avenue, Wyandotte, Michigan 48192. We did look at the bypass lane and we are able to widen it enough to allow two vehicles to pass. It looks like we can gel it about 16 feet wide, which would enable us to do that. I've had some discussions with Mr. Miller in the Planning Department in terms of the parking. I think if we're able to use 80% of the floor area as the useable area, assuming that 20% 6 not useable, which is sort of the north in the 23210 industry, I think we meet the parking requirement. We perhaps would not require a variance. In terns of the other variances, the existing building is right up on the property line on Farmington Road. We're adding on to the two-story section, which is currently back only about 10 feel. So in order to make it work, we have to encroach within 10 feel of the property line. Its a much better arrangement than they currently have. We are able to provide landscaping between the addition and Farmington Road, and it's a condition that exists with several buildings along Farmington Road. We've done our best to provide an ample amount of landscaping. We had intended to fully sprinkle the building. It will have to be done in phases because the first phase is a very small addition, and we would provide the infrastructure for the sprinkling of that addition. And then when the two-story addition is added, we would extend the fire protection over to the small one-story addition and the existing building. We had intended to provide a hydrant. Ithink we can take care of all of the issues presuming that the Zoning Board of Appeals understands some of our predicaments on setbacks. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. LaPine: I have two questions. Are you making any improvements on RoycroR Road? There are no curbs or anything on RoycroR on your side of the road on the south side. I just wondered if you're doing anything on RoycroR at all. Mr. Wilkie: I don't think we've shown any right now, but we would work with your Engineering consultant and whatever the requirements are for the City of Livonia. Mr. LaPine: Let's see, what was the other question I had? A senior moment. Mr. Walsh: We'll come back to you, Mr. LaPine. Ms. Smiley: Thank you for that ATM lane. I'm one of those that could possibly get up there and realize the line is too long or I forgot my card and need to getout. So thank you. Mr. LaPine: I know what the question is now, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned you're going to do this in phases, or is it all going to be done at one lime? Mr. Wilkie: It has to be done in phases because the new parking has to be added before we can start the new two-story addition because n211 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet P -la dated March 7, 2006, as revised, prepared by Wilkie & Zanley, Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a bypass lane shall be installed for the ATM; 3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated March 7, 2006, as revised, prepared by Wilkie & Zanley, Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the Maple trees shown on the landscape plan be replaced with trees from the City's Approved Tree Species List; 4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader; there wouldn't be adequate parking for both employees and members if we didn't have the additional parking already in place. Mr. LaPine: When you're talking phases, once you start and you get the parking lot done, then you'll move to the next phase? Mr. Wilkie: Its fully their intent to follow through with the entire project. But because of the phasing, it could lake us 18 months to complete this project as opposed to perhaps 10 or 12 months if we didn't have to phase it. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? It looks like we have a scout in the audience who has joined us tonight. How are you? Welcome to our meeting tonight. Are there any additional questions? A motion would then be in order. On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #04-46-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-03-08-08, submitted by Wilkie & Zanley, Architects, on behalf of Community Choice Credit Union requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the credit union located at 15420 Farmington Road in the Southwest % of Section 15, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet P -la dated March 7, 2006, as revised, prepared by Wilkie & Zanley, Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That a bypass lane shall be installed for the ATM; 3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated March 7, 2006, as revised, prepared by Wilkie & Zanley, Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that the Maple trees shown on the landscape plan be replaced with trees from the City's Approved Tree Species List; 4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader; 23212 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan Sheet PA dated March 7, 2006, as revised, prepared by Wilkie & Zanley, Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. That the brick used in the construction of the additions shall match the brick of the existing building; 9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 10. That the three walls of the trash 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, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 12. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the item outlined in the correspondence dated March 17, 2006; 14. That a prolective wall shall be erected along the east properly line to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; 23213 15. That the signage shown on the elevation plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 16. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 17. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on to a nonconforming building and excess signage and any conditions related thereto; and 18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Alanskas: I'd just like to say that I had no questions this evening because everything we had at the study was covered to our satisfaction. And now with this going on to the Council with an approving recommendation, we'll be able to sit in Bales restaurant and look across the street and see this nice looking addition. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: If the maker of the motion would consider one minor amendment, and that is, that the Maple trees shown on the landscape plan be replaced with trees from the City's Approved Tree Species List. Mr. LaPine: I have no problem. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Morrow? Mr. Morrow: No problem. Mr. Walsh: The resolution will stand as amended. Thank you and we wish you the best of luck. Mr. Wilkie: Thank you very much. We appreciate you help and I just want to compliment your Planning staff. They were very helpful and that's one of the reasons we dont have a lot of issues with you tonight. We tried to lake care of all of them ahead of time. Mr. Walsh: Great. Well, thank you for saying that. n214 Mr. La Pine: We hope thatyou are very successful. 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 2006-03-08-06 LEARNING EXPERIENCE Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006- 03-08-06 by Talon Development Group, on behalf of The Learning Experience, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a childcare facility on property located at 37555 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 6. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a childcare facility on properly located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Victor Parkway and Bethany Road. This properly is zoned RC, Condominium Residential. The subject site is irregular in shape. To the south, it is bounded by an open drainage course that flows in an easterly direction. The other boundaries include Victor Parkway to the west and residential homes to the north and east. At the easterly end, the properly extends on both sides of the creek and contains 60 feel of frontage on Seven Mile Road. In May of 1998, this site received Site Plan Approval in connection with a proposal by Oakwood Health Systems to construct a three-story medical office building. That project was never developed. The development of the Oakwood medical building was based on a Consent Judgment between the City of Livonia and the petitioner. The review and development of the proposed childcare facility is based on a modified version of that original agreement approved by the Livonia City Council at their Regular Meeting on March 8, 2006. This is the second amendment to the original Consent Judgment. The first amendment, approved by the City Council on April 23, 2003, granted approval for an office building for the portion of the property that lies south of the drainage creek. Similar to the first amendment, the recently approved second amendment incorporates in the documentation as a component of the agreement a preliminary site plan for the childcare facility. The new use is permitted regardless of the RC zoning classification and consistent with the requirements for such use under a PO, High Rise Professional Office, classification. Plans and specifications for final site plan approval shall comply with all ordinances and 23215 regulations of the City, and all building codes and engineering requirements and is subject to review and approval by City Council. Access to the site would be from a driveway extending north from Seven Mile Road approximately 360 feel and then tum west into the facility's parking lot. The proposed building would be one-story in height and 12,000 sq. ft. in size. To handle the storm water runoff, the site plan shows a large detention basin south of the building, just west of the driveway off Seven Mile Road. The plan shows a total of 59 parking spaces. This provides a total of 34 spaces above the requirement of 25 spaces for employees. These 34 spaces would be available for loading and unloading of students. According to the "Licensing Calculations" submitted on Sheet SA -1, the proposed facility would be licensed to accommodate a total of 180 children. The size of the outdoor play area is based on the number of students attending the childcare facility. Based on 150 square feet per student, this facility would be required to have 27,000 square feet of outdoor play area. The site plan shows 5,000 square feet. They are deficient 22,000 square feet, but the amended Consent Judgment stipulates that the size of the outdoor fenced play area shall be designated on the final site plan and shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. Moreover, the size of the approved outdoor fenced play area, if less than required by ordinance, shall not require the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Slate of Michigan standard requires a total of 1,200 square feel of outdoor play area. They are required to have 15% of the total site landscaped. They have 75% of the site landscaped so it far exceeds the landscape requirement. The amended Consent Judgment specifies, "there shall be a 100 foot wide buffer strip along a portion of the northerly property line of Parcel C (subject site) which buffer strip shall remain in its natural state with its current dense vegetation as supplemented by such additional landscaping material as shall be reasonably required by the City." The Landscape Plan shows a 100 foot wide "preservation area" along the north property line. This entire strip of land is labeled 'existing vegetative area to remain undisturbed in this area." The elevation Plan shows that the proposed building would be somewhat residential in appearance. The bottom three (3') feet of the building would be concrete block with a limestone cap. The remainder of the building would be covered with hardipanel siding. The peak roof would be asphalt shingled. The main entrance would be covered by a porch roof supported by columns that look like stacked building blocks. The elevation plan illustrates a wall sign on the building over the main entrance and a ground sign on the east side of the 23216 driveway off Seven Mile Road. Signage was reviewed under the PO signage regulations. They are proposing a 30 square fool wall sign and a ground sign at 30 square feel, which is in conformance with the sign ordinance. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 21, 2006, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal at this time. The legal description is correct and no additional right-of-way is required. A detention area, as required, is shown on the plan to accommodate facilities in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. The drive to Seven Mile Road requires the approval of Wayne County. Restrictions governing left turns or the need for a deceleration lane would be delineated during the County's review process." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 13, 2006, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a childcare facility on property located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) This division requests that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking.' (2) Access through parking lot shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (3) Any curves or corner of streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. (4) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words 'Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 24, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 2, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Pending the final results of amending the consent judgment to allow this plan, we have no objections. (2) There seems to be a sufficient amount of parking. (3) If the consent judgment does not address the 5,000 square foot play area, this proposed plan could be approved by an affirmative 23217 five vote majority of Council done by separate resolution. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Michael Polsinelli, Talon Development Group, Inc., 550 Hulel Drive, Suite 103, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302. With me this evening is Steve Vanden Bossche of Talon Development who has been our coordinator with the Learning Experience project. We are currently working with the Leaming Experience, who is a New Jersey corporation. As a point of reference, the principals of the Learning Experience are the former founders of Tutor Time to give pu an idea of their experience in the past history in the childcare industry. So they have experience in the past operation of over 200 units worldwide. They currently have approximately 80 units in some form of development throughout the eastern United Slates. Talon is doing seven units in Metropolitan Detroit. This would be either the third or fourth unit that would be under construction. We have one opening up in Farmington Hills on Orchard Lake Road just south of Ten Mile in about 30 days. The next one would be in Lyon Township, and either Troy or Livonia, depending on the approval process, would be the next two that are coming up, with a number of them coming next year. I don't know if Mr. Miller can put the site plan back up. It would be helpful. This is a site that, interestingly enough, is a very difficult site. It's seven acres. The Learning Experience needs approximately one and an half to one and three quarter acres in a typical location. Everything that is in that light green area between the dark green conservation area and the panting light is a fill material that can't be built on. Its lernble soil. It's one of the reasons why you see the site plan being designed in the building location and parking location as it shows on the drawing. This is a 12,000 square fool building. It's one of their larger buildings. They will have 180 children. They operate six days a week. They have summer programs and special weekend programs besides typical childcare. Childcare runs anywhere from infants up to six or seven year olds in a preschool basis. I think the balance of the development was fairly well explained by Mr. Miller, and I think the best thing to do would be to field any questions that the Planning Commission may have at this time. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? 23218 Mr. Alanskas: Could someone explain the 180 students that you may have? How many would be playing outside at one time, the maximum amount? Mr. Polsinelli: Probably somewhere between I'd say30 and 60. Mr. Alanskas: Al the max? Mr. Polsinelli: Al the max. Mr. Alanskas: So that deficiency you have would not be a problem. Mr. Polsinelli: No. Their consistent play area is 5,000 square feet. I think this is a point of information and I don't have the document with me, but in a formal approval in the City of Livonia for a childcare unit, Mr. Fisher of your Law Department did research relative to why Livonia's ordinance may be so stringent and require so many square feet. Part of the reason was in prior years, the Michigan School requirement for play areas was much greater. It's now been reduced. One of the other things to take into consideration in childcare is that you don't have the free form play as you would with kindergarteners up through eight graders or high schoolers. These are infants and toddlers. You don't want them more than a few feel away from you. They can't run that far. They need to be in a very small area. The other reason being is that they're broken up into age groups and classes that normally are about 25 or 30 at the most, and they all go out at separate times and staggered times. In addition, there's an interior play area that has a city and slides and stairs and other things that they can do internal to the building. So there's a varied play schedule from class to class, and its not just an "at noon everybody goes outside' environment. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: Mike, I apologize for not recognizing you. Its been a while since I've seen you. Mr. Polsinelli: Its good to see everyone here again as well. Mr. Morrow: I think the last time we both had a little darker hair. Mr. Polsinelli: Al least mine was much darker, unfortunately. Mr. Morrow: Anyways, a couple things came up at the study session, and I don't know if it got back to you or not, but one thing is 23219 considering more brick for the building as opposed to what you show on the plan. Has that been considered? Mr. Polsinelli: One of the things to take into consideration when you look at the elevation, the upper elevation, there will be a six foot fence because the play area is on this west elevation from the left column all the way over to the north end of the building. Then on this north elevation, that six fool fence will run to the corner. So two sides of that building will have a six fool fence where you won't be able to see hardly any of the building. The other side is on the short side that is heavily landscaped, and then there is the south elevation, which is the bottom location. That is probably the most prominent but its 600 feel from Seven Mile Road, I think if the dimension is right. So we grapple with how to ... this building looks much more residential when you see it in person rather than as a flat elevation. Some of the things we talked about is putting some shutters up or doing some other things to add to it, but you get a nice flavor from the hardiplank which looks like it's a wood siding and brick. It's a nice red bright brick. I think we have the material here. One of the things with all brick, it looks very office-ish. Again, you have two sides that are covered that you're really not seeing. Mr. Morrow: Well, I think the south elevation, the one facing Seven Mile, is the one that I was hoping that perhaps you could give us a little more brick without getting loo much into the architecture. Mr. Polsinelli: The reason I hesitate is I don't know what to put there so it doesn't look like it's missing someplace else. Mr. Morrow: Because you indicate the setback is, what, 600 feel you said? Mr. Polsinelli: Yes. Its a long way away. Mr. Morrow: I assume there will be some landscaping along there. Mr. Polsinelli: There's a fair amount of landscaping. There are trees that run up the aisle on the east side, and then some lower shrubs because oflhe visibility that's on the west side. Mr. Morrow: The second thing, the parking lot that faces the west side of the building next to the play area. Mr. Polsinelli: Scott, could we see the site plan? 23220 Mr. Morrow: You can't see it that well because you've drawn some trees in there. My thought was that a sidewalk could be added there which would keep the people parking and at least have a lane not to use the parking lot as a means of getting to and from the building. Mr. Polsinelli: That was a good suggestion. Word got back to us relative to putting that in and we will put that in. Mr. Morrow: Is that feasible? Mr. Polsinelli: Yes. There are also two emergency gales out of the play area. These are two separate areas that will have walks that will lead to that. We'll put the sidewalk running from the north end of the parking lot down and tie it to the sub. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Great. Thankyou. Mr. Alanskas: That six fool fence, what color is that fence going to be around the building? Mr. Polsinelli: While plastic, while vinyl. Mr. Alanskas: White vinyl. All right. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: I'm assuming this is a licensed day care center by the Stale of Michigan? Mr. Polsinelli: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Your Tutor Time, there's no facility. It's a transition from Tutor Time to Learning Experience? Mr. Polsinelli: No. They sold Tutor Time and had a noncompete agreement, which has now burned off. and they're back in the business under a separate operation. Ms. Smiley: But you don't have a facility open right now in the State of Michigan? Mr. Polsinelli: Not in the Slate of Michigan. They are open in New Jersey. Ms. Smiley: Okay. And its infants to preschool? Is that like six weeks to five? Do you know approximately? vnt Steve Vanden Bossche of Talon Development. Six to 12 months all the way up to five to six years. Ms. Smiley: Okay. You said you operate six days a week. What are the hours of operation? Mr. Walsh: If you would stand up to the microphone please. Mr. vamen Bosxee: Roughly around 6:00 in the morning until about 7:00 in the evening. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Your target clientele then, are you looking for the clients to come from the offices and that around Vidor Parkway? Mr. VaMen Bosscee: We actually look in two locations. They like to draw from the neighborhood so they get the going to work parents, and they also look for the office worker who will drop off as they go to work. And there's a plus and minus to both approaches. Some parents like to spend the time in the morning as they take their child and then drop them off and be close to work where they can gel them and go in a car. Others like to gel them quickly someplace and then gel to work have their cup of coffee. Different type of parent, an A and a B parent. Ms. Smiley: You mentioned there's a gross motor room inside the building, like a gym area. Is that what you have inside the building also? Mr. vamen Bosxee: It's a play area. I wouldn't say a gym. What they've done is built store fronts that you can go into and under and around, and there's a big oval in the middle of the room where you can ride tricycles. You can go upstairs and peek your way out through buildings and come down a slide. It's really an indoor play area. Mr. La Pine: Mike, just one question. I know you mentioned that you couldn't build anything to the west because of the soil. Does that include a detention basin. It could not be built in that area? Mr. Polsinelli: The flow of the water comes south and east. We originally did have a detention barrier if you looked where it says zoned RC. The problem is that its going the wrong way. Mr. La Pine: So that's the reason you didn't put it over there? Mr. Polsinelli: Right. nm Mr. LaPine: I don't particularly like it in front of the building. I think it takes away from it. The second thing I have, to be honest with you, I'm not the designer of the building. When I looked at this I mentioned it looked more like a medical building or a nursing home. I was hoping the colors would be more colorful, more children friendly than what this looks like to me. Like the roof, you've got a dark roof. A brighter roof would look kind of like more for a child than it is. I guess I don't have any big hangup on it. That's just my personal opinion. The other thing I'm interested in, 5,000 square feet for the play area. You figure that's going to be enough to take care of all the children? Mr. Polsinelli: They are in operation in all their Tutor Times. That is what they put in. I think the key to that is the staggered - individually each room is a classroom that goes out separately. You can see that each of those play areas is a separate size. The smaller size is for the smaller children. So theyre also staggered by age. It's something that they have done. Historically it has been proven to work, and as Mr. Miller said as well, the State requirement today is 1,200 square feel for an outdoor play area. Mr. LaPine: The final question I hare, you've probably heard that there's a dental office going in just west of this site, and they were turned down by Wayne County to have a curb cut off of Seven Mile Road. They have to come in off of Bethany. Mr. Polsinelli: Correct. Mr. LaPine: I would assume you may have the same problem. You mentioned something about Victor Parkway. You'd have to come in off there. Mr. Polsinelli: We have preliminary correspondence from Wayne County that has advised us that we will be able to get the curb cul on Seven Mile Road if we meet the criteria. It will be radius criteria for the entry. We're going to need an easement from the adjacent property owner to put the radius in. We also need a MDEQ crossing and some wetland work as we come across the stream. As a fallback position, we have the right to come off of Victor Parkway, but as you can see, that's a long way to come from west to east. Al current, as I say, we have already been in contact with Wayne County and have correspondence. Mr. LaPine: I was just curious why they would give it to you and they wouldn't give it to this dentist? 23223 Mr. Polsinelli: We don't side to a side street and we're a long way away. There is a potential wetland in that conservation area along the west side of the conservation area, and we did a fairly good job of convincing the County that they should do something about this. Mr. LaPine: That roadway - how long is that from Seven Mile back to the building? Its quite a long way. Mr. Polsinelli: Its about 600 feet. Mr. LaPine: Is that going to be concrete or asphalt? Mr. Polsinelli: Asphalt. Mr. Alanskas: Tonight it said that you shifted the driveway. Did you shill it? Mr. Polsinelli: Did somebody say they shifted the driveway? Mr. vamen Bosxee: The drive coming in from Seven Mile was shifted just a couple of feet to the west, and it was also reduced a couple of feet in width. The reason for that was to eliminate one of the curved radiuses from going in front of the office center parcel. So one of the reasons for that was so that we only needed to ask permission from our neighbor to the west for the ability to have our curb cut front his property. It also slightly eliminated some of the grading that would have to occur as part of the drain crossing atthe road a little bittothe north. Butthatwas the only change. Mr. Alanskas: Okay, because when I look at the two drawings, the new one and the old one, they look identical. You can't even see that there's a difference. Mr. vamen Bosscee: Practically speaking, you would never know. It's just a two foot difference in the width of the road, and its shifted a foot or so to the west, and that was all. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Mike, is there going to be a deceleration lane coming from the east? Mr. Polsinelli: Thatwould be part of the County approval of the curb cut. 23224 Mr. La Pine: I would assume there isn't going to be a light at this location. Is that right? So people coming out of here picking up their kids at 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon, as you well know, Seven Mile Road is pretty heavily traveled. Do you think you're going to have any problem with people trying to make a lett hand tum trying to go east on Seven Mile Road? Mr. Polsinelli: I think its far enough away from Vidor, and I think that was one of the reasons why the adjacent development didn't gel a curb cut because they fell they needed separation and Bethany was right there on the corner of their properly. I can't tell you that it will take some time to get across in rush hour, but it would not be atypical from other locations. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? Seeing none, then a motion would be in order at this point. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously adopted, it was #04-47-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-03-08-06 by Talon Development Group, on behalf of The Learning Experience, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a childcare facility on property located at 37555 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the maximum number of children licensed for care at this facility shall be one hundred and eighty (180); 2. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-3 dated January 12, 2006, prepared by JCK & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to any revisions as noted below; That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated January 13, 3006, prepared by JCK & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to the following revisions: a) that the deciduous trees shown on the plan shall be replaced with an equal number of trees selected from the City's Approved Tree Species List; b) that additional trees and shrubs be planted around the detention basin subject to the approval of the Planning Department; and c) that the buffer strip along the north property line shall be supplemented by such additional 23225 landscaping material as shall be reasonably required by the City; 4. That a sidewalk be installed on the east side of the parking lot providing access to the walkway leading to the building's main entrance; 5. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader; 6. That all disturbed lawn areas around the building and parking lot shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding, and that the proposed bene to the west of the parking lot and the detention basin be seeded with a mix of grasses approved by the Planning Department; 7. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas around the building and parking lot, and all planted materials shal be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 8. That the natural greenbelt along the north property line and the landscaped greenbelt along the east properly line where the property abuts residential, as shown on the approved plans, are hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 9. That any change of circumstances in the areas containing the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts 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 immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 10. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Drawing SA -2 dated April 20, 2006, as revised, prepared by Jarmel Kizel Architects and Engineers, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 11. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick; 23226 12. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 13. That tie three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 14. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils, including storwater 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; 15. That the Developer shall submit for approval an ongoing mosquito control program, as approved by the Department of Public Works, describing maintenance operations and larvicide applications to the City of Livonia Inspection Department prior to the construction of the slormwaler retention facility; 16. That the owner shall provide annual reports to the Inspection Department on the maintenance and larvicide treatments completed on the slormwater detention pond; 17. That all light fixtures shall not exceed eighteen (18') feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 18. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated March 13, 2006; 19. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated March 21, 2006; 20. That the conforming signage shown on the plans is approved with this petition; 23227 21. 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 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. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Oh, we need to add the sidewalk. If the maker is willing to add reference to the addition of the sidewalk, and if that's okay with Mr. LaPine, it will stand as amended. Mr. LaPine: That's all right with me. 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 922"" Regular Meeting Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 922n0 Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on March 21, 2006. Mr. Walsh: As of that dale, I know that all members were present, and if there are no objections, if the Secretary would show five in support of the minutes. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I just want to gel some clanfcalion. On the Zoning Board of Appeals waiver, they say that "seeking to reconfigure the existing parking layout and construct a new parking area resulting in deficient parking space width" from 10 feet to 9 feet. Now, are we talking about the new parking spaces in the emergency area? I thought those were going to be 10'x 20'. Mr. Taormina: You're talking about the most recent action by the Zoning Board of Appeals in connection with Petition 2006-03-08-05 submitted by Sl. Mary Mercy Hospital? Mr. LaPine: Yes, dated April 17, 2006. Mr. Taormina: It's my understanding they approved the 9 foot wide spaces for the additional parking areas, but they also stipulated that all 23228 other conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council must be adhered to, one of which is that the emergency parking lot have 10 foot wide spaces. So the 9 foot wide spaces would not apply to the emergency parking area. Mr. La Pine: The new parking they're putting in next to the cancer center, they're going to be 10' x 20'. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Yes, because that's the reconfigured emergency lot. Those will all have to be 10' x 20', correct. Mr. La Pine: Then I'm confused by the motion that we had. It says here "that with the exception of the abovementioned emergency lot," which says they have to be 10' x 20', that "all newly constructed parking spaces for the hospital shall not be less than nine (9') feet in width and twenty (20') feel in length" Now are we talking about future parking or are we talking about what's there now? Mr. Taormina: That was for future parking. Mr. La Pine: I thought that in the future we wanted anything that came in after that would have to meet the requirement of the ordinance of 10' x 20'. I'm just confused here. Then it goes on to say, .'and all pre-existing spaces shall be nine (9') feel in width and twenty (20') feel in depth, except that where owing to special circumstances this requirement would result in a loss of parking spaces, the Petitioner may seek relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking stall depth, but in no case shall be less than eighteen (18') feet" All I'm saying, I want to make sure from this point on everything we gel is 10'x 20'. Mr. Taormina: I don't think it was the intent that evening to impose that condition. Mr. LaPine: That isn't the way I remember it. Mr. Taormina: Because we were only considering the parking lot with the additional 142 spaces, and the Commission that evening was allowing those to be 9' x 20', as I understood the resolution. Mr. Morrow: If I may, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: Yes. Mr. Morrow: We came way, I think, with the idea that the new parking would be 10' x 20' and they would reconfigure the remaining parking, 23229 which meant that we thought it was going to be the emergency room and then the new parking up in the northwest corner was going to be 10' x 20'. And then the parking that was there would be whatever we could get out of them as far as size. I think what Bill is saying ... in other words, any future parking we'd like to see conform to our 10' x 20' space requirement. We recognize there is pre-existing parking. Ms. Smiley: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Walsh: Yes, Ms. Smiley. Ms. Smiley: Is the northwest corner the employee parking? Mr. Taormina: Yes. Ms. Smiley: So that wasn'lgoing to be 10' x 20'. Mr. Taormina: That was staffs understanding, but if we misunderstood the Commission's direction, we will relisten to the tape and make any corrections. Mr. Morrow: Well, I don't want to stir @ up. I guess I got confused on what was new. Mr. LaPine: All I'm saying, we had a discussion with the Mayor, and he's in favor of the 10' x 20' parking spaces. He doesn't think we should roll our parking requirements just because its Sl. Mary Hospital. All I'm saying, I just want to make sure in the future they understand that we're not going to give them any more 9' x 20', 9'x 18' or anything like that. We want 10' x 20'. It would be one thing if they did not have the land to do it with. They have the land. So Tel's gel them to abide by the ordinance. If they have problems with the land, that's one question. But they don't have problems with the land as far as I'm concerned. Mr. Walsh: I think what would be the best, because I have a different recollection and not to open the debate here, is to ask the staff to listen to the tape again and bring it to our attention. Mr. LaPine: Yes, I mean I don't want to change anything at this point, but in the future, I want to make sure we can gel that. That's all. Ms. Smiley: I want that structure. nno Mr. Walsh: It's difficult to predict what they'll ask for, if anything, in the future. Mr. La Pine: I understand. Mr. Walsh: So if the staff would take a listen and just lel us know if you have any additional comments, that would be great. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #04-48-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 922n° Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 21, 2006, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Alanskas, LaPine, Morrow, Walsh NAYS: None ABSENT: Shane ABSTAIN: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the mofion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 924" Regular Meeting held on April 25, 2006, was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman