HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-03-2123108
MINUTES OF THE 922ntl REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 922n° Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William La Pine C. Daniel Pieroecchi
R. Lee Morrow H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a 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 len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome oflhe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2006-03-08-05 ST. MARY MERCY
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-03-
08-05, submitted by the Farbman Group, on behalf of Sl. Mary
Mercy Hospital, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the hospital located at
36475 Five Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 20.
23109
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an addition to
the St. Mary Mercy Hospital to provide the hospital with a new
cancer center. St. Mary is located on the southwest comer of
Five Mile Road and Levan Road. The proposed cancer center
would be constructed on the east (Levan side) elevation of the
existing hospital and world "fill in" the area or elbow created by
Sl. Mary's Pavilion and the Manan Professional wing. Except
for a couple pedestrian doors, possibly for emergency exits or
employee passage, the new cancer center would not have an
exterior main entrance. Patients would enter the center through
the hospital's interior. The addition would be one-story in height
and 15,840 square feet in size. To make room for the proposed
addition, the hospital's existing emergency ward parking lot
would have to be reconfigured. The new addition would extend
out towards Levan Road and into part of the existing lot. In
order to provide parking needed for the cancer center and make
up any eliminated from the emergency lot, additional parking
would be created elsewhere on the hospital's campus. The
hospital's northwest lot, which is located on the west side of the
main boulevard entrance drive off Five Mile Road, would be
expanded. Because of the complexity of the hospital's makeup
and the different elements that must be factored in order to
come up with an overall parking requirement, the following
parking summarization is based on numbers supplied by the
Inspection Department: Required parking is 2,445 spaces;
proposed parking is 1,657 spaces resulting in a deficiency of
788 spaces. The net loss to the emergency parking lot is one
space. The cancer center addition would require a total of 115
spaces. The extension to the northwest lot would provide the
campus with an additional 150 spaces. So by subtracting the
spaces needed for the addition and the one displaced from the
emergency lot, the hospital would gain 34 parking spaces. The
existing parking spaces of the hospital and the additional ones
planned for the northwest parking lot expansion only measure
between 8 and 8% feet wide and 18 feet in length. The plans
for the proposed cancer addition show that the parking spaces
in the reconfigured emergency lot would measure 81/2feel wide
by 20 feet in length. The Zoning Ordinance requires all parking
spaces to be a minimum 10 feet in width and 20 feet in length.
Variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required
for deficient number of spaces and the undersized dimensions
of the parking spaces. The landscaping for the new addition will
blend in with the existing landscaping of the site. The
architecture and building materials of the proposed addition
would match that of the existing hospital. All three sides of the
addition would be constructed entirely out of brick. The
submitted color rendering illustrates that the existing hospital
and the addition would complement one another.
23110
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 13, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the project with the following exceptions concerning
sidewalks and detention facilities. Sidewalks: The Code of
Ordinances requires that sidewalks be installed along city roads
adjacent to developments. In the case of the current
development, we would look for sidewalks to be installed along
Levan Road from the north drive into the Hospital Main
Entrance to the north edge of the drive to the Marian
Professional Center. Detention Facilities: The City is aware of
severe storm water erosion problems downstream of Levan
Road in the Reynold's Ravine Subdivision and the City's Storm
Water Study identified the hospital property as a valid candidate
for a regional detention basin. In addition, we believe that
Wayne County would treat the northwest parking lot expansion
as an area, which would fall under the jurisdiction of the
County's Storm water Management Ordinance. Given this fact,
we believe that the County will require some degree of detention
in conjunction with the current project." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 7, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition
to St. Mary Hospital on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal with the
following stipulations: (1) 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. (2) Adequate hydrants shall be
provided and located wth a maximum spacing of 300 feet
between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall Flow 1,500 GPM
with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (3) This division requests
that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane —
No Parking.' (4) Access around building 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.
(5) Any curves or comer of streets shall accommodate
emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall-
to-wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six
inches. (6) Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of
unobstructed width, able to withstand live loads of fire
apparatus, and have a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical
clearance. (7) 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 Donald F. Donnelley, Sr. Fire Inspector. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 16, 2006, which
reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection
with St. Mary Hospital — Cancer Center located at 26475 Five
Mile Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the
plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Studt,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 15, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 28, 2006, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This site will need a variance from the Zoning Board
of Appeals for deficient number of spaces and deficient size,
2445 spaces are required and proposed are 1,657, deficient
788 spaces. The site is indicated as 8.5 feet by 15 feet when 10
feet by 20 feet is required. If the 8.5 feet width is to be used,
consideration should be given to waiving the double striping.
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. Alanskas: I just have one question. Scott, on the northwest proposed new
parking lot, what is the walking distance from there to the front
lobby of the hospital, roughly, in feel?
Mr. Miller: I would estimate between 350 and 400 feet.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: Mark, are you going to read into the record the letter from the
Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Taormina: Ican.
Mr. Walsh: The February 24, 2003, letter?
Mr. Taormina: Actually, I believe there is a new lette r dated March 20, 2006.
Mr. Walsh: Yes, if you could read that.
Mr. Taormina This letter is from the Zoning Board of Appeals, dated March 20,
2006, addressed to Sl. Mary Mercy Hospital, attention Mr.
Glenn Pavey, Campus Development, which reads as follows:
The Zoning Board ofAppeals of the City of Livonia, at a Special
23112
Meeting held March 14, 2006, adopted the following Resolution:
RESOLVED, APPEAL CASE NO. 2006-03-15. St. Mary Mercy
Hospital, 36475 Five Mile Road, Livonia, MI 48154, seeking to
reconfigure the existing parking layout and construct a new
parking area resulting in a continued deficiency for the total
number of parking spaces and also resulting in deficient parking
space width and depth. Total parking spaces required includes
a future building addition. Parking Spaces: Required 2,445,
Proposed 1,657, Deficient 788. Parking Space Width:
Required 10 feet, Proposed 8 ft. and 8.5 ft., Deficient 2 ft. and
1.5 ft. Parking Space Depth: Required 20 ft., Proposed 18 ft.,
Deficient 2 ft. The property is located on the south side of Five
Mile (36475) between Levan and Newburgh, Lot No. 07859-
0001-001, PO -1 Zoning District. Rejected by the Inspection
Department under Zoning Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.37(0),
Off -Street Parking Requirements, and Section 18.38(4)(18), Off -
Street Parking. Schedule, be tabled to allow the Petitioner to
revise their proposed plans to address the Board's concems of
at least a minimum 9 ft. wide parking space." The letter is
signed by Sam Cammagno, Secretary, Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Gary Gampeding, Trinity Design, 34605 Twelve Mile Road, Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48331. I'm an architect with Trinity Design. With me
is Mr. Glenn Pavey, who is the owners representative, and also
Mr. Mike Gusho, who is the CFO at St. Mary's Hospital. At the
informal meeting last week, there was some concern about
parking, not only specifically the lots that we were presenting,
but overall parking. So we've taken this opportunity to
supplement our proposal, our presentation, with a few sketches.
The first diagram shows what the existing configuration is. I
think perhaps there is a misnomer in assuming that all parking is
striped at 8% feel width. That is not correct. We were
proposing 8% feel width for only the two new lots that we were
putting in place, and one existing northwest lot is currently
striped at 8% feel. The first diagram kind of indicates how the
parking is distributed, and it indicates numbers and also
basically what the striping width is. The second diagram
focuses more on the two new lots that we are proposing. We
have shown it at several different striping widths to show what
the different striping means in terms of capacity. Sl. Mary
Hospital is concerned with overall parking capacity in the facility
as well as its location. One of the reasons why we were
pursuing the narrower spaces is to increase capacity. The third
diagram kind of shows what was the master plan in 2003. 1
think there was some concern also from this group that we were
23113
being loo myopic and not looking comprehensively at parking on
the campus. This was done in 2003, and following that is a
2006 study of parking. It's a little bit different layout and
basically we're studying several different options and
implementation methods in terms of maximizing parking and
providing parking as close as possible to the entrances for our
customers. And finally, in this packet is a note from Wayne
County indicating that they have seen the proposed parking
structure and the proposed parking in the northwest lot and they
do not feel that it is needed to have any site water retainage.
Glenn Pavey, Farbman Group, P.O. Box 5188, Southfield, Michigan 48154 Just
one other thing that I would add to that relative to the new lot
and a question that you had asked relative to the distance of
that new northwest lot to the front door. The intention of the
new northwest lot ....actually you can see it on the first page of
your handout. On the south side of the building there is a south
employee lot of about 124 spaces kind of in the middle. The
intention with the new northwest lot is that will be an employee
only parking lot freeing up more spaces within a closer proximity
to the hospital for patients and for visitors. The intent of what
we're doing here is to increase the number of total spaces on
the campus as well as enhance the spaces for visitors and
patients relative to their proximity to the multiple front doors, if
you will, of the hospital. So I just wanted to clarify that because
you had that question.
Mr. Alanskas: I have one question. How do you police that your employees
park in these parking lots?
Mr. Pavey: We do have security that roams the parking lots during the
course of the day. There are human resource policies relative
to how we handle employees that park in the wrong locations.
All employees have stickers that go in the window of the cars
and their cars are registered with the hospital. So we know
whose car is a visitor and who is an employee. If employees
are parked in visitor spaces, first their car is lagged under the
windshield wiper with a warning. After a warning, there is
disciplinary action that goes through, you know, that goes on
their record, normal disciplinary actions that you would do with
any employee in any business depending on what the issue
might be. And we've gone so far as there have been
employees that have received one, two, three day suspensions
because they weren't able to follow policies. Typically, what we
found is we very rarely get to that point, and when you have an
employee who can't follow the rules and it actually gets to a
disciplinary action, it really becomes a good image for the rest of
the employees who aren't following in line to step in line. So it's
23114
not something that we have a lot of problems with, but there are
policies in place to deal with them.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Now that south employee lot with 124 spots, low far
would that be to get to the Marion Center?
Mr. Pavey: Well, you can see the curved red lines kind of dictate about a
350 fool radius, which from a design standard is kind of where
you would like your visitor parking to be, within that 350 feel. So
you can see there's three entry points to the building on the
north end on the emergency lot, which is on the east side of the
building, and then on the south side where the Marian Center is.
So you can see that the south employee lot is almost completely
within that 350 fool radius.
Mr. Alanskas:
So what you're saying is you're asking people that are going to
the hospital, that have problems, to walk at least 350 feet from
their parked car to gel into the building?
Mr. Pavey:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Shane:
Since this parking is going to be so far spread out, in some
cases a lot further than 350 feet, have you considered parking
structures at all in your thinking?
Mr. Pavey:
A parking structure is always an option. I mean its certainly
been something that has received some discussion. There is a
very big challenge financially to construct a parking garage.
The capital programs that the hospital is going through right
now, the cancer center, the other work in the hospital, is
obviously an enhancement of services that they provide to
patients in an effort to build up our business and be able to
create a cash flow that would allow us to do future projects such
as that. Obviously, a parking garage is a noncash flow item.
Its cash out the door and not in the door even though it does
provide certainly parking for our patients and visitors. I think its
part of a long range plan of what we would like to see out there,
but not part of the short term plan.
Ms. Smiley:
When you say short term plan, are you thinking the next five or
ten years?
Mr. Pavey:
I would be safe to say that over the next five years for sure a
parking garage isn't something that would occur. Beyond five
years, things change a lot. I think its something that's
discussed a lot and as things change, it might become more of
a reality.
23115
Ms. Smiley: I'm disappointed that its even five years down the road because
looks like you're expanding, expanding, expanding. I've had
the unfortunate opportunity to go to many hospitals, U -M,
Providence, Beaumont in Royal Oak, and I find the structures
very, very, very helpful, particularly when you're laking patients
in that are going through chemotherapy or radiation or anything
else. This parking plan I'm not excited about at all, as one
commissioner.
Mr. Pavey:
If I could make one response to that?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Pavey:
The entry points that we have to the building, you know, we do
offer valet service to our patients to aid in that issue so they
don't have to walk so far. They all have covered drop off areas
so the patients can be dropped off right at the door. We
understand that given the piece of land that we have as long
and thin, it is a challenge to get parking close to those doors.
We try to address that as best we can given the constraints that
we have. I mean it's certainly something we try to be sensitive
to and if we could achieve it with a parking deck to put
everybody within 10 feel of the door, we would love to do that. I
mean it's just certainly constraints and challenges that we have
to achieving that, but I can understand where your thoughts are
coming from.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just one more question with regard to parking. Have you
considered possibly having a shuttle pickup at all these parking
areas for people where they could just park their car there and
be picked up by a shuttle service and taken to the front door?
Mr. Pavey:
That hasn't been an option that we've discussed, but as we're
looking at sort of long range, you know, what we're going to do
with the campus plan, how we're going to redevelop parking. I
mean that can certainly be something we discuss.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I'm asking is because my wife is a frequent visitor of
your hospital and I've taken her at various limes, and she's
handicapped. We have a handicap sticker. And we have found
at various times people who park there dont even belong there.
And number two, because you're a hospital, there's not enough
handicap spaces to take care of people for that service. So
that's another thing you might consider, making more handicap
spaces. Thank you.
Mr. Pavey: If I could, in response to that, in the campus plans that you see
here, the 2003 and certainly the one that we're working on now,
23116
it does address that on the north side of the building by adding a
new handicap parking lot that's right to the lett, if you will, of the
entry circular drive. And then with the redevelopment of the
parking on the south side would allow us to create more spaces
for handicap accessible vehicles.
Mr. Alanskas:
But there again, how far would that handicap area be from
getting to the building?
Mr. Pavey:
If you look, its right at the front door. On the north end of the
building it's practically ... you cant park any closer than where
we would be planning on putting it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Isee. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I too was going to cover the area in regard to
shuttle service, which is not uncommon in any big hospital
complexes of the day. You say, sir, that's not been considered
an option?
Mr. Pavey:
It hasn't been ruled out, but it hasn't been an option that's been
discussed. I mean it certainly can be something that we
consider, but its not something that we're looking at at this
point.
Mr. Piercecchi:
How much space does the hospital control west?
Mr. Pavey:
Very little. Pretty much where you see the parking ending. We
are in a lease configuration for the land and the land to the west
is not ours.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. I know there's a creek that runs through there. It would
be nice if you could reconfigure that whole area for parking
because everybody is concerned about the parking and so are
you. We all share that concern, but I would think with some
reconfigurations of the parking lots, adding, etc., etc., and
shuttle service, that you would avoid some of the pitfalls such as
350 feel walking in the winter time is a long walk. That
northeast lot is probably 450 feel. But I think you ought to look
into that option, sir, and I think it could be well worthwhile and
there seems to be a lot of empty space, loo, around there.
South of where the warehouse lot is there, I know it's a treed
area, but some of that area could also be converted into
parking. In combination with a shuttle service, I think you could
resolve pretty much your problems of parking, or at lead make
a step forward on it.
23117
Mr. Pavey:
I appreciate those comments, and a lot of them, minus the
shuttle, are addressed sort of in the study we are doing now
about how we can improve our parking if you look at the
expansion as sort of the west areas down by the warehouse.
Trust me, its definitely on our radar and its something that
we're working with. We fully understand that when we get to a
point of ready to move forward with that, we're back in front of
this body to show you what we want to do and gel your
feedback, and hopefully gel your support for that as well.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine:
I'll let Mr. Morrow go first.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you, Mr. LaPine. There is a sheet in here marked 2006
Campus Parking Study. What is that in here for? Can that be
explained to me?
Mr. Pavey:
I believe last week when you were together in your study
session you had concerns globally about what's going on with
parking. What we didn't submit in our original package was that
campus parking is an issue that we were already looking at long
before we were at the meeting. So this was just an illustration
to show you that this was one of the ideas that we were working
through. We wanted to illustrate to you that it was on our radar.
Its something worth thinking about. We haven't come to a final
configuration of what we're going to do and what's the best thing
for our patients and our visitors and our staff as well. But this is
really to illustrate, this one and the 03, to illustrate where we
were and where we're going.
Mr. Morrow:
So this is proposed. This is not part of your current proposal.
Mr. Pavey:
Correct. Its a work in progress, if you will.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Certainly, as one commissioner, and as a community,
we're excited about the new cancer center joining the city. It will
be certainly a wonderful addition for the residents. One of our
responsibilities is parking. Now when I saw the deficiency, it's
almost like a catch 22. There's really nothing we can do about it
except to try to make it better. I know enough about the hospital
to know that your idea is to have ultimate customer care.
Mr. Pavey:
Without a doubt.
Mr. Morrow:
But right now, with the parking consideration, it seems that it's
only once you gel inside the building ... it makes it tough to gel
inside from some of the advantage. So like I say, I don't have
M18
any magic wand, any solutions, and I really don't know what can
be done. We certainly can't approach the deficiency; that's
going to exist by a big number. I'd sure like to see a minimum of
9 foot parking spaces, but you persist in saying that you want to
have some 8Y foot parking spaces.
Mr. Pavey:
I appreciate your comments, and if you find that magic wand, I'll
borrow it. Relative to the letter that was read from the Zoning
Board, we discussed with them Iasi week about 8Y fool spaces.
They made it clear to us that it wasn't something that they were
willing to accept. We've kind of gone back to the drawing board
and looked. We're going back to the Zoning Board. We figured
out a way and we're accepting of the 9 foot spaces. So that's
the direction we're going in. So that I think falls in line with your
comments.
Mr. Morrow:
The one thing that I was hoping to be made a part of this is
where you designated contractors parking and staging.
Mr. Pavey:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And the blue area to the west as future parking. I assume when
you say contractors, you're talking about during current
construction?
Mr. Pavey:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
So what will happen to that once the contractors pull out? Will
that remain an undeveloped lot or is your thinking to add staff
parking there?
Mr. Pavey:
Its a catch 22. There's two answers to that. One is that even
though we're in a major capital program right now, there's
always improvements going on in the hospital. We always have
contractors there, and so we want to dedicate a location where
they park that isn't commingled with visitors and guests because
they're coming with large vehicles and trucks and whatnot. So
there's always a need to have sort of an undeveloped lot for
their location. The expansion of the lot to the west of there,
again, isn't land that we own. If we can expand our lease area
and expand into those areas, that's what we would like to do to
be able to serve our patients better.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Well, thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Do I understand you're now saying that, in your opening
remarks you said something about new 8Y fool width parking
M19
Mr. Pavey: If you look on the cover page, it goes through ... I myself went
out and measured spaces of where we have 9 fool and where
we have 8%, and in the current northwest lot is where we do
have 8Y fool spaces. If you look at the ideas of what we're
contemplating in our mind relative to master planning of how
we're going to do this, we're not looking at 81/2fool spaces any
longer. I mean we've come to the understanding that this body,
the Zoning Board, it's just not a good idea. We're going to be
moving away from those 8Y foot spaces so that we can
accommodate larger vehicles and those kinds of scenarios don't
happen.
spaces. You only want them in the new parking lot. Is that
correct?
Mr. Pavey:
The original application asked for the 81/2in the two new lots that
we're talking about here. The Zoning Board has made it clear to
us that 8% isn't acceptable, that 9 is acceptable to them, and it's
our intent to go back to them and agree to the 9.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. In talking about the new building, how did you come to
the conclusion this was the best spot for the cancer center?
Wouldn't it be better building it somewhere else because
doesn't the cancer center operate independently? Al least they
do at Beaumont Hospital. They have a building all by itself.
They operate it by themselves. If you have a building
somewhere else, say the north end of the complex, and have
the parking, you may not have the problems. Is there a reason
why that was done?
Mr. Gamperling:
Yes. Basically, there are currently facilities within the Marian
building that service the same group of patients. So the linear
accelerator is in that area, rather than rebuilding some of these
areas in another location, we put this component next to it, and
it just made the most sense in terms of construction and
relationships between existing facilities.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Mr. Morrow and I were out there Monday and we drove
all through the parking lot. We were there for about half an
hour, I assume. We measured a lot of the spaces. There are a
lot of spaces 81/2 by 18 feel. We were amazed that when you
get the double striping and you gel a big one of those Explorers
parked between those two yellow lines, and you open the door,
there isn't any way in the world you're not going to hit the car
next to it. It's just an impossibility. So why can't you go in there
and reconfigure all the parking throughout the whole complex
and give us 10 by 20 and only 9 by 20 in areas where it's strictly
going to be parking for the employees of the hospital?
Mr. Pavey: If you look on the cover page, it goes through ... I myself went
out and measured spaces of where we have 9 fool and where
we have 8%, and in the current northwest lot is where we do
have 8Y fool spaces. If you look at the ideas of what we're
contemplating in our mind relative to master planning of how
we're going to do this, we're not looking at 81/2fool spaces any
longer. I mean we've come to the understanding that this body,
the Zoning Board, it's just not a good idea. We're going to be
moving away from those 8Y foot spaces so that we can
accommodate larger vehicles and those kinds of scenarios don't
happen.
23120
Mr. LaPine: Howdid you gellhe 8% fool parking spaces in the first place?
Mr. Pavey: Honestly, that pre -dales me. It's a hard question to answer.
Mr. LaPine: All right. As you come up Levan Road going south, and you
enter the exit to go into the Marian building, and then go down
about another 100 feel, there's another road that goes in there.
To the south of that road, it's woods and you've got a lot of cars
and trucks parked there that are working on the building. Why
wouldn't you consider using that area and develop that into a
parking lot? It would be a lot closer to the hospital entrance.
Mr. Pavey: Again, as I explained to Mr. Morrow, we don't own that land.
Mr. LaPine: Who owns the land?
Mr. Pavey: The Felician Sisters own the land.
Mr. LaPine: Do you lease this land from them?
Mr. Pavey: We lease the land that we are on.
Mr. LaPine: Couldn't you go to them and say you need x number of
additional feel for the convenience of the hospital?
Mr. Pavey: As part of what we're looking at as a master plan, that would
probably be a discussion that happens, but I would like to say . .
. but I'm not part of those discussions, so I don't know how easy
or how difficult it is to expand the lease relative to land. I'm not
sure what other commitment they have.
Mr. LaPine: Because it seems to me, you want to get your parking, at least
for patients coming in, as close as possible to the entrance, and
that's about the closest you can gel. There's a road there.
They'd have to cross over the road, probably would have to be
some reconfiguration. But it seems to me when we looked at
that, we said boy this would be an ideal spot for parking.
Mr. Pavey: And I support the thought that we want to gel patients close, but
if you look on that first page where the 350 fool aro is, that lot
south of that road is outside the 350 feel. That's why our intent
with the rorthwest lot is to move employees to that portion so
that we create more patient parking within the 350 foot aro.
Putting it south of that road defeats really what we're trying to
achieve right now.
23121
Mr. La Pine:
I dont know how far it was, but it sure looked like it wasn't that
far. Maybe it is. I cant argue that point with you. But are you
telling me at this point, you're not going to do anything to any
existing parking, upgrade to the larger parking spot?
Mr. Pavey:
Correct. Unlit we figure out exactly what our master plan is,
we'd like to do everything all at one time.
Mr. La Pine:
When is thalgoing to be? Maybe that might be anotherfve, ten
years.
Mr. Pavey:
Its our intent to do it quickly. We recognize that we need to do
something to create more parking for our employees, our
visitors, our guests. It's something that's in the works. We will
be back in front of this board with what that proposal is so that
we can gel your feedback and get your approval for it. It's just
the scenario that we're in unfortunately.
Mr. La Pine:
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas:
Let me ask you a question. With this new cancer research
center, how many new employees would that entail roughly?
Michael Gusho, CFO, Sl. Mary Mercy Hospital, 36475 Five Mile Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48154. The business plan on the cancer center calls
for about 20 to 25. We're going to ramp up as the volume
grows. It's starting outwith around 20.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. So you're talking a minimum of at lead 20 additional
cars using the parking lots. If your totals are correct, you say to
go from a 9 fool on all the parking would be 1,586 parking
spaces. Is that correct? And then to go to 9%, you'd go down
to 1,570. You'd only lose 16 parking spots to go to 9Y feet?
Mr. Pavey:
Nine and half feel in the new lots.
Mr. Alanskas:
Why couldn'lyou go 9Y feet instead of 9 feet?
Mr. Pavey:
Our intent is to try and create as many parking spaces as we
can for everybody, so we're trying to ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Bullhey're still cramped parking spots.
Mr. Pavey:
I understand that. We're trying to create as many parking
spaces as we can for our employees.
Mr. Alanskas:
For your employees but how about the people?
Bin
Mr. Pavey:
The northwest lot is for employees.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, but besides the northwest parking lot, you still have 392
spaces besides the staff parking where they have to walk from
there to get to the building, which is over 350 feel you said a
minimum. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Pavey:
The chart identifies for the new parking lot.
Mr. Alanskas:
I see that. It says 130 staff people.
Mr. Pavey:
Right.
Mr. Alanskas:
Total of the whole lot is 392 spaces. Correct?
Mr. Pavey:
No. You're looking at the northeast lot?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Pavey:
We're doing an expansion to the northwest lot.
Mr. Alanskas:
I understand that.
Mr. Pavey:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
They're supposed to walk at least 350 feel minimum to gel to
the hospital. Correct?
Mr. Pavey:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
If I remember correctly, last week we discussed the emergency
ward lot with respect to the size of the spaces. When people
come to the emergency room, they're in a hurry to gel their cars
parked and gel back in to see to their loved ones. We talked
about maintaining 10 feel wide spaces in that particular area
because people are not in the best frame of mind when they're
parking the car. You're getting in there and getting out and
getting into the building. So do you have a problem with 10 feel
parking spaces in that area?
Mr. Pavey:
I would prefer to do 9. It's a much smaller lot so, going from 9 to
10 means a deficiency of a lot less than it would in another area.
I guess from an emergency mind set standpoint, that was your
disposition, I guess I could understand where you're coming
from.
vtv
Mr. Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
You keep talking about wanting to get as many parking spots as
possible, and I agree with you. But you're forgetting a very
important point here. If I go to park my car someplace, I don't
want to come out and be in a light spot where the guy next to
me with a big SUV opens his door and whams the side of my
car and damages it. I dont know who he is. Now if you want to
have parking, six fool wide parking spaces, for your employees
Mr. LaPine:
and your employees want to be there all day and lake the
chance that they're not going to get their cars damaged, I'm
looking out from the point of view of the visitors that come to the
hospital. I don't want to go someplace and come out and my
car's damaged because the parking spots are too narrow.
Mr. Taormina:
You're only looking at it from the point, we need as much
parking as we can get, so the smaller we can gel them, the
more people we can jam into the parking lot. And that's what
causes the problems.
Mr. Pavey:
I respect your opinion although I differ on it.
Mr. LaPine:
How do you differ? In which way?
Mr. Pavey:
I do construction in many different cities. Parking spaces vary
from 9 to 10 feel in many cities, so you can go places where you
find 9 fool as standard. You can go places, such as Livonia,
where you find 10 foot as a standard. I believe that you can
have just as many problems with getting dings on a door in a 10
fool space as you will on a 9 foot space. I respect your opinion
on that. I'm not trying to point out that you're wrong with your
opinion. That would be my view on the issue.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Fine. Mark, let me ask you a question. I'm land of
curious about the letter we got from Wayne County about the
water retention. Does Sl. Mary's at this time have any
retention? How do they handle their wale/? Do they just dump
right into the sewer?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm guessing that most of the stonnwater collected within the
parking area and the roofs probably finds its way into the storm
system unattenualed, although there may be some degree of
detention provided within those parking lots. Generally
speaking, it's probably not close to what the County would
require under the current regulations.
Mr. LaPine:
Just about every case we gel before us now, Wayne County
demands the slormwaler ordinance now not to dump all the
23124
water into these drains. I was curious why in this case they see
fl they don't have to do il. It kind of surpnses me.
Mr. Taormina: I dont know the answer to that. We did make that point in our
initial meetings with the petitioner. We asked them to approach
the County regarding what, if any, requirements they would
have, and apparently they secured a commitment from the
County saying that at bis stage of the development, there's no
stormwaler detention facilities required.
Mr. La Pine: None of that water dumps into the Bell Creek, does it, to your
knowledge?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, that branch of the Rouge River flows beneath Levan Road
and through the Reynolds Ravine subdivision. It actually drains
directly into that creek, and that is the subject of the petition
later on this evening.
Mr. LaPine: We have all that erosion of the Bell Creek, and I don't know how
much more water is going to come from this project.
Mr. Morrow: We talked about a lot of parking and different plans and
everything. In my mind, when we looked at it last week, we had
a deficiency of 788 spaces. I reviewed the March 20 letter from
the Zoning Board of Appeals and the deficiency is, again, 788.
The plans that we see here tonight, does that remain 788?
Have we gained any? Have we lost any?
Mr. Pavey: I believe that the calculations that the Zoning Board has done
and the Planning Department has done is based on the original
submissions which was based on the 8Y fool spaces. So if we
were to do the northwest lot and a new emergency center lot as
9 foot spaces, we would lose 11 spaces. We would be deficient
an additional 11 spaces off those numbers, but relatively
speaking, they still stand.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. So we've added the new cancer center and we're
deficient 11 more spaces.
Mr. Pavey: Right.
Mr. Morrow: So now we're up to 799.
Mr. Pavey: The deficiency is an issue that has obviously existed for quite a
long tme. It's been a variance that's been granted by the City
of Livonia as recently as 2003. It was a variance that was
renewed based on actual usage of the lot versus what the letter
of the law is.
23125
Mr. Morrow:
Does your administration receive any complaints about the
parking al the hospital?
Mr. Pavey:
We gel very few, if any. Honestly, if you go out there, there are
always parking spots available. Again, they're not the close
spots, but there are always parking spots available.
Mr. Morrow:
When Mr. LaPine and I went out, we did note there were some
open spots, but we didn't know if when shifts changed if those
filled up.
Mr. Pavey:
Depending on the time of day you go out there, I mean I'm
certainly out there all day, as is Mr. Gusho, and there are
always parking spots available.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess you're getting the sense that we're concerned about the
parking?
Mr. Pavey:
And hopefully you understand that we're concerned about it as
well. We are honestly going through a study trying to figure out
what's the best way to enact them after a plan of how we can
address the issue, how we can increase the total number of
spaces, how we can provide more handicap spaces, closer
spaces, all those things. I mean you had mentioned before, we
are a service organization, and without our patients, you know,
we won't be in business. So we need to provide something
that's better for them and we're working towards that. Its not
something we can do overnight, but its something that we're
definitely striving to do.
Mr. Morrow:
Based on what Mr. LaPine said and what we discussed when
we site checked it, it would sure be nice if the administration
could work with the sisters over there to perhaps lease some
space to the south to alleviate the situation in the future.
Mr. Pavey:
Mike Gusho is here who is part of the executive team. I meet
with the executive team on an every other week basis. I will
certainly communicate that to them so that they can respond to
R.
Mr. Morrow:
When other petitioners come in, we've reduced the size of the
petitioners building just to meet the parking requirements. So
it's tough to come in here faced with almost an 800 car
deficiency after making a person reduce the size of his building
to make sure he meets the parking requirements.
Mr. Pavey:
I understand.
23126
Mr. Morrow: So its something we want to see take place as far as the cancer
center and just do what you can as far as the parking spaces.
Mr. Pavey: Thank you.
Mr. Taormina: He indicated that the net difference would be 11 spaces. That's
if you go from 8Y to 9 fool wide spaces in both lots. But as was
discussed previously, going with the 10 fool wide spaces in the
emergency lot, that would increase the deficiency to 17 spaces.
So the net difference would be 17 lost spaces a Itogether.
Mr. Alanskas: One thing that concerns me is that you're asking us to approve
this cancer building now, and what you're saying is, you'd like in
the future on your master plan to look into improving the
parking. I think what should be done is, we should gel this
parking thing done first, and then give you approval to put up
your cancer building. Thankyou.
Mr. Shane: My current posifion right now is that I don't have any problem at
all with 8 fool spaces where the parking is for staff only,
employees, because they're usually all day and it's not an in
and out thing. But all the rest of the parking, as far as I'm
concerned, has got to be at least 9 feet and the emergency
parking spots 10 feet wide. Before we're done, I hope we see a
plan that says that.
Mr. Walsh: How many patients do you estimate that this facility will serve?
Mr. Pavey: The new cancer center?
Mr. Walsh: Yes.
Mr. Pavey: I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to answer that. I don't have the
numbers with us. I want to say that on a daily basis, the
patients that come here, it's an infusion center. So they're there
for a number of hours at a time. Between the three infusion
areas that we have, I think there was a turnover of about maybe
40 to 50 a day as the shift turns at a maximum if every chair
was filled during the course of the day.
Mr. Walsh: How long does an infusion take?
Mr. Pavey: It can be anywhere from a couple hours to six or seven hours,
depending on ...
Mr. Walsh: So you're going to have a long term patent. It's probably
unlikely that they would have a visitor in addition to their car.
23127
They may come with somebody, but no one will drive up to see
them while they're there. Not like an overnight patient.
Mr. Pavey: Correct.
Mr. Walsh: All right. So its a stable visit.
Mr. Pavey: Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
And then they leave. I know its going to create about 24 jobs.
We'll have to account for that in parking requirements. What do
you estimate the cost of these improvements will be?
Mr. Pavey:
The cancer center project is about a $10 million project.
Mr. Walsh:
I'm going to assume you did a needs analysis. You would not
make that kind of an investment if you didn't believe that there
was a patient need for this.
Mr. Pavey:
Correct.
Mr. Walsh:
What's the level of urgency for this?
Mr. Gusho:
We consider it high. We actually went to work with the Stale
because there's a Certificate of Need requirement from the
Slate, which has been granted.
Mr. Alanskas:
Excuse me, sir, could you talk a little bit closer to the
microphone. I'm having a hard time hearing you.
Mr. Gusho: We're trying to build to provide what we know our service area
needs. So that community needs assessment was performed
and many of the customers that right now are our patients,
sometimes drive to Ann Arbor to Sl. Joe's Hospital there or the
University Hospital when, in fact, they could have the care
closer to home.
Mr. Walsh: So the needs certificate was saWied, and you're satisfied from
a business standpoint that this is a worthwhile investment for
your patients?
Mr. Gusho: Absolutely
Mr. Walsh: You have the existing parking deficiency, but I must say I'm at
your hospital on a regular basis. I have an elderly mother who
goes there from time to time. I go for my own care or my
childrerts care. I haven't noficed a shortage of parking.
Numerically under our requirements, you're short, but
23128
operationally you're telling me . . my observations, I'm not
there everyday. My observation is that you dont have a critical
problem. And you're saying, I just want to confirm, you're not
logging excessive complaints from your patients or visitors for
that matter?
Mr. Gusho:
Actually, before we came here, I asked three other vice
presidents to make sure I was current. There haven't been any.
We offer complimentary valet parking for those that need it, but
we really haven't gotten any. We get concerns from employees,
particularly in the winter months, but that's been it. That's been
the real extent of it.
Mr. Walsh:
Your valet parking is at the Marian entrance or is it at both the
front and the rear entrance?
Mr. Gusho:
Its at the Marian but we're planning to put it at the front
entrance as well, particularly during this construction period it's
going to be a little bit hectic we think. So we wanted to make
sure we're doing as much as we can.
Mr. Walsh:
If you bottom line this, tell me if I'm incorrect, you're going to
add 24 employees who are going to need some place to park
during their shifts. You're going to have a maximum turnover of
50 patients, but not all of them will be there at one time. Is that
correct?
Mr. Gusho:
Right. And the 24 employees, by the way, is around the clock,
so that's really about eight employees on a shift.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. That's better. It helps me understand exactly what the
needs are. With that, is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, are
there any additional comments or questions?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, the only lax we gel on Sl. Mary's Hospital is the Marian
building. Is that right because it's leased out to doctors. Is that
correct?
Mr. Taormina:
I did not investigate that aspect. I cannot answer that with any
degree of certainty.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you know if you pay any taxes?
Mr. Gusho:
Your understanding is correct.
Mr. La Pine:
Those are the only taxes we gel out ofthere.
23129
Mr. Gusho:
That's correct.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Has anybody ever entertained the idea of moving the doctors
lot? Its within both those 350 radius.
Mr. Pavey:
How much can I pay you to tell them that? We have not
discussed that.
Ms. Smiley:
That's not an option. I notice the 9 fool though. The only ones
are 8.6. Is that right in the emsfing parking, the northwest lot
those are 8.6?
Mr. Pavey:
Correct. The northwest lot is the only lot that's at 8.6. The rest
are all at 9 feet.
Mr. Morrow:
We've done a lot of talking about the width of the parking
spaces. Could you tell me what the proposed length of the
parking spaces will be?
Mr. Pavey:
I believe we proposed 18 fool spaces.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Then that's for the 10 fool wide in the emergency lot as
well as the 9 footers ...
Mr. Pavey:
It would be a global depth.
Mr. Morrow:
So we need a variance of two feel on that.
Mr. Pavey:
Yes. And that was discussed with the Zoning Board Iasi week.
Mr. Walsh:
Anything else, Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
No, I just want to make sure we cleared up with the length of the
parking spaces.
Mr. La Pine:
Just one more question. I understood they were going to be 9
by 20. Now you're telling me they're going to be 9 by 18. Why
do they only have to be 18 feel?
Mr. Pavey:
We proposed them at 18. That's how we designed it. If going
to a 20 fool deep space is an important issue, then we would
certainly consider that as well. I think what we want to do here
is work to compromise something that works for both sides, and
if that's something that you feel is a critical issue, then we would
certainly consider that.
23130
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: A motion would be in order at this point.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#0332-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-0308-05,
submitted by the Farbman Group, on behalf of Sl. Mary Mercy
Hospital, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to the hospital located at 36475 Five Mile
Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 20, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Campus Site Plan marked Sheet SP -2 dated
February 24, 2006, prepared by Trinity Design, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Paving and Layout Plan marked Sheet C2.0 dated
March 1, 2006, as revised, prepared by Trinity Design, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all parking spaces in the new reconfigured emergency
lot shall measure ten (10') feet in width by twenty (20') feel
in length;
4. That with the exception of the abovementioned emergency
lot, all newly constructed parking spaces for the hospital
shall not be less than nine (9') feel in width and twenty
(20') feel in length, and all preexisting spaces shall be
nine (9') feel in width and twenty (20') feet 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
panting stall depth, but in no case shall be less than
eighteen (18') feet;
5. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 11.0 dated March
1, 2006, as revised, prepared by Trinity Design, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
7. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
23131
8. 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;
9. Thallhe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked SheetA3-
1dated February 2, 2006, as revised, prepared by Trinity
Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
10. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face 4
inch brick;
11. 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;
12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the Stale of Michigan;
13. That sidewalks shall be installed along Lean Road from
the north drive into the hospital main entrance to the north
edge of the drive to the Marian Professional Center, as
described in the Engineering Department's
correspondence dated March 13, 2006;
14. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fre Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
March 7, 2006;
15. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
number of parking spaces and parking width (not less than
9 feet) and any conditions related thereto; and
16. 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 a ny discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: Even though we are getting or asking for the 9 foot parking
spots in width, that doesn't solve the problem of all the patients
and people going to the hospital to get to the facility. I still think
that if we put in a shuttle service, ilwould solve all our problems.
So I'll be voting no on this approval.
23132
Mr. LaPine: I intend to support the motion very, very, very reluctantly
because we have ordinances, and we should try to keep as
close as possible to those ordinances. I realize Sl. Mary
Hospital is very important to the City of Livonia. Its the only
hospital we have. We want you to expand. We want the best
service and care that we can gel from that hospital. But on the
other hand, we owe an obligation to our ordinances that says
certain things should be done and certain widths should be
done and so on and so forth. I hope in the future if you do any
other expansion, if I'm still sifting on this Board, I'm going to be
a little tougher than I am tonight, because I think we should go
by what the ordinance calls for. We just got through with a big
battle with Wonderland Shopping Center. They wanted to go
down in parking and we held fast. We wouldn't allow it. They're
surviving. They're going to building. They're going to put
parking spaces in the numbers we requested. I want you guys
to be successful, but on the other hand, its really going against
the way I would normally vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow:
I made the approving resolution, and I'm convinced that the
gentlemen here tonight are aware of our concerns and that
between now and perhaps by the time the thing is complete,
maybe they will come up with some ways to alleviate this
parking problem should it manifest itself. Without that
assurance, I'm not sure I would have offered the approving
resolution, but I'm convinced that you want to do the best you
can on the outside as you do on the inside.
Mr. Pavey:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Taormina:
I have a question to the maker of the motion, and that is,
whether it is his intention to allow the petitioner to seek relief as
it pertains to the depth of the parking stalls from 20 feet to 18
feet?
Mr. Morrow:
Well, if he could configure the 20 feel, that's exactly what I want.
Mr. Taormina:
But in those areas either preexisting or where there might be a
need to go to 18 feel, then this would not preclude him from
seeking that relief?
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I think it goes along with what we're saying, Mark. Yes. In
other words, we're trying to make this project happen, and if 18
feel is what they've got to have in some areas, it's all right with
me.
23133
Mr. La Pine
I want to understand. I thought I was voting for 9 by 20 foot
parking spaces. Is that correct? That's what the motion says.
Mr. Taormina:
The resolution stales the parking spaces are to be 10 by 20 feet
in the emergency lot and 9 by 20 feel in all other areas, but Mr.
Morrow did indicate that if that varies, they will take that up with
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. LaPine:
The approving Condition 4 says, 'Thal with the exception of the
abovemenlioned emergency lot, all parking spaces for the
hospital shall not be less than nine (9') feel in width and twenty
(20') feel in length." That's what it says. That leads me to
believe we're talking about all the possible spaces that are in
there now. Are we not saying that?
Mr. Taormina:
As this motion has been fashioned, that would mean that all
parking spaces that exist at the hospital that are not 20 feel
would have to be modified to comply with the 20 fool
requirement.
Mr. LaPine:
That's how I read R. Now if its different, I want to know before I
vote.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, that was the basis for my question to Mr. Morrow.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
Where I'm coming from, because we're kind of not looking at
plans that have been defined, and then we spent a lot of time on
R tonight. By going to the 20 foot length, would that further
diminish the number of parking places that we have? I am
trying to move the thing forward. I'm assuming that they will
make the spaces 20 feel wherever possible.
Mr. Taormina:
If I may respond, Mr. Chairman? I understood the petitioner is
willing to go to the 20 fool depth as it relates to all of the newly
constructed
parlang spaces. I'm not sure thafs feasible with all
of the pre-exisfing spaces. Is that correct?
Mr. Pavey:
That's correct.
Mr. La Pine:
But that isn't what it says here.
Mr. Taormina:
No, that's not what is says here. You're right, and that's why I
needed clarification. Now it cold be that many of the pre-
existing spaces are already 20 feel. I guess maybe that's a
question for the designer.
23134
Mr. Pavey: I don't know what the depth is off hand.
Mr. Taormina: No, and we don't have those on any of our plans. But clearly I
think the intent is, as it relates to any new parking, they would
have to be 20 feet and anything that's pre-exisfing, they would
have to seek relief.
Mr. LaPine: One other question just came to my mind that we haven't
discussed tonight. Do any of these lots have lights in them?
Mr. Pavey: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Okay.
Mr. Shane: As a seconder of the motion, I understand where Lee's coming
from. I don't have a problem with what he's trying to do. Maybe
that condition ought to be redone somehow so that it says that
all parking spaces shall be 20 feet in length unless there's a pre-
existing condition that would preclude them from a properly
constructed parking lot, or some such thing as that. You know
what I'm saying? That would mean all your new parlang spaces
would meet the 20 fool requirement.
Mr. Pavey: As we develop new spaces, they would need to conform to the
20 feet.
Mr. Shane: But I wouldn't want you to lose parking spaces just because of
two feet.
Mr. Pavey: Right, and that's the way I understand it.
Mr. Morrow: That's where I'm coming from.
Mr. Walsh: Mark is making notes to the motion. Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow: I would certainly hope that by the time this gets to the City
Council that they don't have to thrash around the way we are
tonight as to what the plan is going to be. The plan would be
complete based on our comments tonight and what they're
presenting to City Council.
Mr. Pavey: We will certainly revise them so they are reflective of what you
want.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, because it's been kind of a handicap here trying to figure
out what's what.
23135
Mr. Pavey: We definitely want to make it dear, and we will do that, make
sure that they and the Zoning Board also are very clear.
Mr. Walsh: Any additional comments? I intend to support the motion for the
following reasons. I share every concern that's been stated
about parking. The fact of the matter is, we have a piece of
property that has a history of a deficiency. It's been approved
by the City. Whatever the history is, we have 50 years,
whatever the number of years, of operating history over its
period and by observation and report, it hasn't caused a
tremendous problem. Despite the size of the addition, my
feeling is that we're not talking about a significant increase in
that deficiency. It's also clear to me that if the hospital wishes to
do anything else, you are stuck. You either going to need more
land or you're going to need a parking structure. It's just that
simple. So I truly am supportive. I want it to go forward. I have
the same concerns you've heard tonight, but I think in my mind
in the scheme of things, this expansion can be accommodated
in a positive manner. Are there any additional comments?
Hearing none, will the secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Shane, LaPine, Piercecchi, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYES: Alanskas
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#2 PETITION 2006-03-08-07 SUNSETVIEW
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
03-08-07, submitted by General Properties Co., LLC, on behalf
of Sunset View Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
a condominium development on property located at 30250
Morlock Street in the Northwest % of Section 2.
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to develop a site condominium
project on property located on the west side of Sunset Avenue
between Eight Mile Road and Fargo Avenue. This property was
recently rezoned (Petition 2003-04-01-12) from RUFA, Rural
M36
Urban Farm, to R-3, One Family Residenlial. On August 31,
2005, a request to develop 11 site condominiums on the subject
properly was denied. The rejection was basically due to the fact
that one of the proposed lots did not meet the minimum lot width
requirement at its required front yard setback. According to the
submitted documentation, the name of the new proposed
development would be the same as the previous one, "Sunset
View Site Condominiums." This project would be made up of
only 10 units. All 10 homes would have frontage on an existing
55 -fool wide street called Sunset Avenue. Sunset Avenue is a
continuation of Sunset Boulevard, and after a slight jog to the
east from the boulevard, runs approximately 700 feel to the
north where it ends in a cul-de-sac. Across Sunset Avenue, on
its east side is a residential development known as Sunset
Subdivision. This subdivision was developed in 1997 and
consists of 10 lots. The stormwater detention for the proposed
site condominium development would be handled underground.
An R-3 zoning district requires each lot to have a minimum land
area of 9,600 square feet, a minimum lot width of 80 feel, and a
minimum lot depth of 120 feet. All the proposed condominium
lots of Sunset View meet or exceed these lot size requirements,
with the exception of Lot 1. Because of its unique shape, Lot 1
is deficient in width at the setback line. In an 123 district, the
minimum front yard setback for a house is 35 feel and at that
point the lot must be at least 80 feel wide. The width of Lot 1 is
estimated at 76 feet as measured at the front setback line. The
lot can easily be made to conform by repositioning the lot lines
of one or two of the other lots.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 16, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-refemnced petition. The legal description is
correct. No detention area, as required, is shown on the plan to
accommodate facilities in accordance with Wayne County's
Storm Water Management Ordinance. There is no
encroachment of the proposed driveway for unit 1 which would
impact lot 10 of the Sunset Subdivision." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 14, 2006,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to develop site
condominiums on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal with the
following stipulation: Fire hydrants on Sunset shall be looped."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
23137
third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 15,
2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
March 7, 2006, the above-refemnced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This property has been
rezoned from RUF (Rural Urban Farm single family residential)
to R,3 (single family residential) zoning under Petition 2003-04-
01-12 with the development of the land shown to be in
conformance with that zoning district (2) The subdivision
identification ground sign is not shown on the site plan and
should be addressed as a separate issue and located in the 20
foot wide easement on the south side on site no. 10 in the
southeast comer of site no. 10. (3) A portion of a 6 foot high
chain link fence that is sho wn to exist along the front lot line of
unit no. 1, 2 8 3 is to be removed from the development site
before building permits can be issued for these sites. (4) There
is a lack of 'Greenspace' shown on the site plan as per
Ordinance 543, Section 20.03(d) of the Planned Residential
DevelopmentThis maybe waived by an affirmative vote of not
less than five Council members by separate resolution. (5) The
lot width of site no. 1, as measured at the required minimum
setback is at 70.0 feet where a minimum lot width is required to
be 80.0 feet at a 35.0 ft setback. This may be waived by an
affirmative vote of not less than five Council members by
separate resolution. The proposed rear yard will still be
conforming to the ordinance with the dwelling being moved to
the west by 7.0 feet This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Ron Slanow, Plan
Examiner. Thal is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine: We don't need any retention ponds at this location?
Mr. Taormina: That will be determined ultimately by the county. There may be
a requirement for some amount of detention, which in this case
would have to be provided underground, probably within an
easement somewhere along the rear of the properties.
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley: Its not a problem to move that one house that's deficient, is it?
Mr. Taormina: Well, it's not the house that's deficient. And again, this is really
a technical matter with respect to him the lot width is
determined. It's really calculated as the least straight line
distance that's measured between the side lot lines, measured
at but not encroaching into the front yard setback. When you
take that line and you measure it on Unit 1, it falls just short of
23138
the 80 feet. But this can be easily corrected at the time of final
engineering by shifting the side lot lines of the other lots by a
slight amount so that you can pick up the required 80 feet. So
we don't see it as being a problem with the final design, but it's
certainly something that should be corrected when it comes
before the city for final engineering.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Elliott Schubiner, General Properties Co., LLC, Box 250966, West Bloomfield,
Michigan 48325.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Schubiner:
No. There really isn't anything. Everything is agreeable except
the greenspace, which I don't understand. The lots are
considerably larger than what we had proposed in a previous
hearing, and more importantly, 11 lots were sometime ago
approved by the Planning Commission. Now, we've reduced it
to 10 lots and we have 88 fool lots by 134 feel, which I think are
quite large for the area, but we're doing it in order to comply with
the requests from the Council and we feel that this may be to
the best interests of all. However, perhaps Mark could tell me
what the greenspace area is that we are deficient in, which I
don't understand. The lots are far larger than anything in the
area.
Mr. Walsh:
Mark, are you able to just give him a summary of that?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Actually, this isn't related to the size of the lots. All of the
lots are of adequate land area. What the Inspection
Department's report is referring to is a requirement in our
Subdivision and Land Division Regulations that each
development of this sort provide park space equivalent to 720
square feel for each lot. So in this case with 10 lots, he would
be required to provide 7,200 square feel of park space within
the subdivision, general common element, used for that
purpose. But that is something that can be waived by the
Planning Commission and the City Council and is typically
waived for these smaller subdivisions.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Schubiner, anything else?
Mr. Schubiner:
No, that's fine. The seven feet, we have to go to the Council for
that or can we go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for that?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm sorry, the seven feet?
23139
Mr. Schubiner:
It seems so insignificant. Can the Planning Commission
approve that or do we have to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals, which I think might be faster for us. The market is
pretty bad right now and we're very anxious to get our project
underway. I was hoping the seven feet could be waived if that's
possible, and we would agree here tonight to certainly
compensate for that seven feet as requested.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
I think the resolution we prepared for this evening would require
a change in the plan so that all of the lots conform to the
minimum required lot width. So while the Council would
ultimately have that option available to them to waive that, I
think where there's an opportunity to conform, that they will want
the final plans to be in full conformance with the ordinance. So
again, our prepared resolution this evening seeks to have all the
lots conform with the final engineering.
Mr. Walsh:
To answer Mr. Schubiner directly, its a waiver issue for the
Council to consider.
Mr. Taormina:
It is a waiver issue for the Council, that's correct, but our
recommendation this evening is that they not waive that
requirement, that instead a plan be made to conform which
should not be a problem at all considering the fact that he has to
go back to his engineer and final engineering plans have to be
drawn up. As long as the Council is willing to see to it that the
administrative review and final engineering has all the lots
conform, then it shouldn't be a problem.
Mr. Schubiner:
That's agreeable. That's fine.
Mr. Walsh:
Anything else, Mr. Schubiner?
Mr. Schubiner:
No. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow:
As long as Mr. Schubiner understands what the requirement is,
I'm happy.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions or comments? 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
La Pine, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
23149
#0333-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-03-08-07
submitted by submitted by General Properties Co., LLC, on
behalf of Sunset View Site Condominiums, requesting approval
of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section
18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a condominium development on property located at
30250 Morlock Street in the Northwest % of Section 2, be
approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement
of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the following
additional conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set
forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail
and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements;
That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument
wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the
City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred
for the storm water delenflon/retention and outlet facilities,
and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on
each lot owner's property proreta and place said charges
on their real estate lax bills in the event said charges are
not paid by the condominium association (or each lot
owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of
Livonia;
4. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated July 20, 2000, as
revised, prepared by Warner, Cantrell & Padmos, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that
all ten lots of the development shall meet the minimum lot
size requirements and conform to all required setbacks,
including the minimum lot width requirement at the required
front yard setback;
That streetlights and sidewalks shall be installed
throughout the development to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department;
M41
6. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for;
7. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
8. That the portion of six P') fool high chain link fencing, as
described in the Inspection Department's correspondence
dated March 15, 2006, shall be removed:
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the item outlined in the correspondence dated
March 14, 2006;
10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated March 16, 2006; and
11. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section
of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item
section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at
length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary
please read the next item?
ITEM#3 PETITION 200440-0849 APPLE CREST DENTAL
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a request to
modify the approved plans by Apple Crest Dental, in connection
with Petition 2004-10-08-19, which received site plan approval
to construct a dental office on property located at 37500 Seven
Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 6.
23142
Mr. Miller:
The petitioner is requesting to modify the plans and one of the
conditions that were approved for Apple Crest Dental. This
dental office is to be constructed on property that is located on
the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road
and the k275/96 Expressway. The City granted Site Plan
Approval on June 8, 2005 (CR 299-05) with the condition that
no vehicular ingress/egress would be provided from Bethany
Street. In the request letter dated March 3, 2006, the petitioner
explains that Wayne County has denied this property a curb cul
off of Seven Mile Road. Attached to the petitioners request
letter is a copy of the Wayne County's response. Under
"Driveway Location" the Wayne County Department of Public
Services dictates that, "the driveway is to be located on the side
street, Bethany, not on Seven Mile Road." The new revised
plans show a single two-way driveway off Bethany Street, about
25 feel north of Seven Mile Road. The driveway off Seven Mile
Road, that was shown on the original approved plans, has been
removed. Because of the shifting of the driveways, the parking
lot layout and some landscaping had to be slightly modified.
The new plans show the exact same number of parking spaces
as were provided on the original approved plans. There are no
other changes to the plans that were approved originally on
June 8, 2005.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Taormina, the City Council was really emphatic in reference
to driveways on Bethany Street. Wayne County, I guess
because they own Seven Mile Road, has that power to limit curb
cuts. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is there any appeal process that we can go through to change
that?
Mr. Taormina: I don't know the answer to that. I do know that our Engineering
Department did represent the city and its position relative to the
desire to have the curb access from Seven Mile Road. They
had a meeting directly with representatives from the Permits
Division of Wayne County, and apparently that appeal, if you
will, was rejected. The County still takes the position that
access should be provided off Bethany as opposed to Seven
Mile Road.
Mr. Piercecchi: So if I understand you correctly, the curb cul on Seven Mile
Road will be nonexistent. It's cast in cement and there's nothing
we can do about it.
23143
Mr. Taormina:
According to the petitioner's letter, that has been denied. They
have been denied a curb access onto Seven Mile Road by
Wayne County, leaving their only option to take the access from
Bethany.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I assume that some of these people here are from that area.
That's why I wanted to bring that subject up so they know that
it's not the City that is making the change, but Wayne County is
making the change.
Mr. LaPine:
Just one question. It is my understanding, Mark, when we
heard this case, it's been so bng I felt sorry for the poor guy.
But isn't Bethany a private road? Ifs not dedicated to the city as
far as l know.
Mr. Taormina:
The westerly half of the right-of-way, that portion that abuts this
parcel, is public right-of-way. The easterly half of the right-of-
way where it abuts the commercial property to the east, that
parcel is described to the center of Bethany. So there is a
prescriptive easement, possibly, allowing for public access
along that travel portion of Bethany. But where it abuts this
parcel, it is public right-of-way.
Mr. LaPine:
The point I'm trying to make is, can the owner of the parcel to
the west, that's a private road, can he come along and say, I
don't want anybody driving on my side of the street, and then
they only have one lane going up there.
Mr. Taormina:
Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mr. La Pine:
They can't do that?
Mr. Taormina:
No, because it's been used as a public thoroughfare for all
these years.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Fine.
Mr. Taormina:
Or ft's been used for roadway purposes.
Mr. LaPine:
Even if another person owns that property?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct, and that's not unusual. There are many
circumstances where properties are described to the center of
roads but there are easements that exist for public roadway
purposes.
23141
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm just saying that being that the curb cul is only going to be 25
feet off of Seven Mile, it's almost like it is on Seven Mile, so I
don't see any problem with it. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Eric D. Zylinski,
DDS, Apple Crest Dental, 13992 Merriman, Livonia, Michigan
48154. I'm a general dentist. I'm here out of necessity. I have
no other choice. I have a necessity of easement to this
property. I've tried everything that I can do to have a curb cul
off of Seven Mile, and I've been told in no uncertain terms it's
not going to happen. Wayne County is following their written
guidelines that have been around since the early 70's, so I have
no recourse but to be here.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
Two questions. You own the property now?
Dr. Zylinski:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. How long has it been? It seems that this case has been
going on for two years. Has it?
Dr. Zylinski:
Its been over three years.
Mr. LaPine:
Three years. Its been that long.
Dr. Zylinski:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by
Alanskas, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0334-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request to modify the
approved plans by Apple Crest Dental, in connection with
Petition 2004-10-08-19, which previously received site plan
approval by the City Council on June 8, 2005 (Council
Resolution #299-05), to construct a dental office on property
located at 37500 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of
Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions:
23145
1. That the wording, "then= shall be no vehicular
ingressregress provided from Bethany Streef shall be
removed from Council Resolution #299-05;
2. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 2 dated August 17,
2005, as revised, prepared by Mickalich and Associates,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1.1 dated
October 5, 2005, as revised, prepared by AZD
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
and
4. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#299-05, which granted approval to construct a dental
office, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not
in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi:
In regard to the motion, I would like to offer a Condition 5, and I
think it would give additional comfort to the people that live on
Bethany concerned about traffic - that a no left turn sign be
placed on the Bethany exit, if Bob will buy that.
Mr. Alanskas:
I really don't think that's needed myself.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Pardon me?
Mr. Alanskas:
I said, I dont think that's needed.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Piercecchi, does your second still stand?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yes, but I think it would help the people that are concerned
about traffic.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason I say that is, in so many areas where we put these
signs, they're not adhered to anyways. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, I think that the traffic this will generate through the course
of the day will be minimal at best. I think most of traffic will be
going south onto Seven Mile Road.
Mr. LaPine:
I'd just like to say to you, as one member, I'm really sorry it look
three years to gel a little dental office built on this location. It
seems an awful long time. I hope it hasn't caused you loo many
inconveniences. I know it has. It's probably cost you a lot of
dollars that you'd rather have spent in other ways. Let's hope
vt�
and pray we get it done now and you can start construction and
be very, very successful at that location.
Dr. Zylinski: I appreciate that, Mr. La Pine.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 200540-0821 SPECTRUM BUILDERS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-08-21, submitted by Spectrum Builders, on behalf of
Harrison Square Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to renovate the exterior of the commercial strip center
located at 28400 Five Mile Road in the southwest % of Section
13.
Mr. Miller: Harrison Square Plaza is located on the northwest corner of
Five Mile and Harrison Avenue. The petitioner is requesting to
increase the height of the parapet wall along the entire south
side of the building, which is the side that faces Five Mile Road.
The new vertical extension would increase the height of the
building by approximately 2% feet, making the overall height of
the building just over 16' feet. The parapet would be
constructed out of dryvil and would be utilized as a backdrop for
the tenant's wall signs. A new pitched overhang would also be
created over the existing flat beam shelf that slicks out over the
storefronts. The new overhang projects approximately 6 feel
from the parapet above. Asphalt shingles would cover and
protect this new storefront overhang. The petitioner believes
that with the added height the wall signage would be more
visible. Dryvit would also be installed over the brick boxouls
located along the wall between the units. This item was tabled
at the January 27, 3006, Regular Meeting. The petitioner was
not present at the meeting and the Planning Commission had
some concerns and wanted some reassurances about items
listed on the Inspection Department correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is. I will read the item from the Inspection Department
that is dated December 13, 2005, as it pertains to this item. The
other department letters indicate that they have no objections to
this request. The Inspection Department letter reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of October 26, 2005, the above-
M47
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This facelift presents the owners an opportunity to upgrade
the barrier free parking and disperse the required spaces. (2)
The front (south) parking areas need sealing, repair and double
striping. The rear (north) parking areas have deteriorated and
merits repaving and double striping. (3) The wood dumpster
enclosure (in the rear) is in poor repair. (4) A junk/abandoned
car was parked in the rear and should be removed. (5) The rear
building gutter needs to be refinished and several rear doors
need to be refinished also. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Ms. Smiley:
Was this tabled? Does this need to be removed from the table?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
#0335-2006
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-10-08-21, submitted by Spectrum
Builders, on behalf of Harrison Square Plaza, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior
of the commercial strip center located at 28400 Five Mile Road
in the southwest % of Section 13, be removed from the table.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, would the
petitioner please give us your name and address and tell us
about your petition?
Chris Wolfe, Spectrum Builders, P.O. Box 489, Milford, Michigan 48381.
Mr. Alanskas:
And you are the petitioner?
Mr. Wolfe:
I am the President of Spectrum Builders Incorporated.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anything you'd like to add aboullhe petition?
Mr. Wolfe:
I have nothing to add except we will conform to the five items
that you requested.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
23148
Ms. Smiley:
What are you going to do about the signs on the front?
Mr. Wolfe:
Do you have a print? There's 27 prints I had left and there's
going to be a projected area for the new signs. They have to fl
within the projected area.
Mr. LaPine:
A couple things. I was out there today. The Inspection
Department says the front parking lot only needs repair and
double striping, but you've got some pretty good sized potholes
there. The parking lot should really be lore out and redone.
Mr. Wolfe:
I originally wasn't asked to take care of the parking lot. I was
supposed to just reface the building, but I know the owner very
well and he's going to have that all taken care of.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. The other thing is, behind the building, the parking lot is
in bad shape. The dumpster is really in bad shape. Some of the
doors back there look like they need painting and the gutter. I
noticed you've got three vacancies in here right now. But I
believe, I really believe what pu're doing here is good. I think
it's going to help regenerate that building as it did across the
street with the remodeling they did there. I think you're on the
right track. Good luck, and I hope it luras out and you're able to
lease all your space. There is one thing, though, that I want to
say. On the building, there are two signs on the front of the
building in front of the tanning salon, the 29 years or the $29 or
something, then two on the west side of the building, which are
illegal. They should be taken down and I assume they'll be
taken down when you reface the building.
Mr. Wolfe:
That's correct. I brought that to the owner's attention.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for the petitioner? Seeing
none, then we will go to the audience. 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 Piercecchi, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0336-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-08-21,
submitted by Spectrum Builders, on behalf of Harrison Square
Plaza, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
renovate the exterior of the commercial strip center located at
23149
28400 Five Mile Road in the southwest % of Section 13, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Elevation Plan marked 2 of 2 dated October 20,
2005, prepared by Classic Designs LLC, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the E.I.F.S. material encasing the brick box -outs of
the south elevation shall be reinforced with high impact
Panzer mesh;
3. 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;
4. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated December 13, 2005;
6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
7. 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
8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
23150
ITEM #5 PETITION 2006-01-08-04 MOGHUL INVESTMENT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
01-08-04, submitted by Moghul Investment requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a medical building on
property located at 15150 Levan Road in the Northeast I/ of
Section 20.
Mr. Walsh: May I have a motion to remove this from the table?
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0337-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2006-01-08-04, submitted by Moghul
Investments, LLC, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a medical building on property located at
15150 Levan Road in the Northeast % of Section 20, be
removed tabled.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Miller: This item was tabled at the February 15, 2006, Regular
Meeting. The Planning Commission wanted additional
information inducing: (1) how stormwater would be handled; (2)
cross-section views of the retaining walls adjacent to the
wetands/watercourse, pedestrian bridge, and the existing office
building and parking lot located immediately north of this site;
(3) conforming parking; and (4) the removal of the dumpster
enclosure. On February 22, 2006, the petitioner submitted
revised plans. The new plans show that all the parking spaces
for the proposed office building would be 10 feet by 20 feet in
size. In order not to be deficient in number, the building has
been downsized to 5,760 square feel. An office building of this
size requires 32 spaces and the revised site plan shows that 32
spaces would be provided. The plans reveal that underground
detention areas underneath both parking lots would handle the
site's stormwater runoff. Notes on the plan explain that these
underground detention areas would, 'connect to existing storm
system per Wayne County regulations." Also submitted is a
sheet illustrating conceptual cross-sections of the property
looking both west and east. The side view represents the
design and layout of the parking lots, pedestrian bridge and
retaining walls. The landscape plan now shows Sterling Silver
Linden as the street trees along Levan Road. The dumpster
enclosure has been removed from the plans.
M51
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Steven Schneemann, S3 Architecture, 23629 Liberty, Suite 200, Farmington, MI
48335. We're the architect for the project.
As Mr. Miller noted,
based on the requests from the Commission
at our Iasi meeting,
we've provided the information that was required. We've also
provided site sections that show the parking lots and the
building in relationship to the Bell branch. I don't know if it was
mentioned or not, but we did revise the street trees to conform
with those that are recommended by the city from what we had
prior. I also would request one further thing based on the fact
that we feel we have provided all of the information that was
requested. We would ask that there would an up or down vole
on this tonight as opposed to any further tabling.
Mr. Walsh:
We'll keep that in mind, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I was looking at the plan. Did we have a resolution on whether
we're going to have the wall on the east or will there be a
buffer?
Mr Schneemann:
Currently, we are showing no wall.
Mr. Morrow:
And that's based on your comments with the neighbors or just
feeling there's enough green space there to buffer it?
Mr Schneemann:
Based on the comments that we received at the last meeting, d
seemed that the sense we got from the neighbors was that they
would prefer just a thicket of trees and a greenspace and
extending the greenspace that's there now.
Mr. Morrow:
The reason I ask that is in our approving resolution we have
something that's referencing the six fool high wall, and I
wondered from the last time we talked, if there had been some
change.
Mr Schneemann:
Not that l know of.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have a question for the owner of the property. Sir, at this
present time, because I go by Levan all the time, you have a for
sale sign. Is the properly for sale?
Farmkh Moghul,
Moghul Investments, LLC, 1870 Canterbury Court, Bloomfield
Hills, Michigan 48302. Its for lease or for sale. I'm looking for
another physician. If there's going to be two suites in it, I may
23152
be doing physical therapy and another physician office would go
in there.
Mr. Alanskas:
So lel me understand, but you still want to go ahead with the
building?
Mr. Moghul:
Correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
But you want to sell the enfire properly?
Mr. Moghul:
If somebody comes up and wants it more badly than I do.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Just one question to Mark. At the Iasi meeting we had, I
questioned where the slormwater is going to go. Is it going to
be dumped into a storm sewer on Levan or is it going into the
Bell Creek?
Mr. Taormina:
The plans shows that the discharge from the underground
detenfion basins would go into the enclosed storm system,
which would then outflow at the abutment and into the stream.
So it would not be discharged directly into the stream from the
retention basins. It would first go into the public sewer on
Levan, but only for a very short distance before oullelling in the
open watercourse.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for the petitioner before we
go to the audience? Thank you for your time. I know we have a
number of residents here. Is there anybody wishing to speak for
or against this petition?
Jim Russo, 15081 Woodside Drive. Lel me give a brief description of the
property for the proposed developments, which adjoins my
backyard. The terrain of the area is sloping with a gradual
indinalion with the lowest points at the creek. Simple geometry
and experience shows that a surface with a contour has an
overall surface area that corresponds with a flat plane, although
different dimensions. For example, if you walk up and down a
hill, this gives evidence of that thought. Similarly, you could
demonstrate by flexing a piece of paper. There is more surface
area if you extend it fully out. So all I want to say is that there is
surface area that is in the terrain that is sloping. While the
course of inventions obviously aren't going to change if, in fact,
you change and count the surface area. Still the dimensions of
the properly remain. Keep in mind, however, in the Iasi meeting
23153
we had, the developer mentioned that he was going to fill in the
low-lying areas, which, in fact, then would tum it from this
sloping area to a plane. Consequently, that has some
importance and let's find out why I think that's important.
Intuition kind of tells us that reducing the surface area of a
geographic area should then have some impact. It's clear that
the larger surface area would naturally allow for a greater
absorption of rain, snow, sleet and so on. Since the surface
area here acts like a sponge, its a natural area. It acts like a
sponge. It absorbs the water. Let's contrast that with what the
proposed building is going to be like. What would be the
anticipated absorption of the building and the parking lot? Does
concrete and asphalt have a tendency to absorb water in the
fashion that soil does? No, of course not. Consequently, its
logical to conclude that the serious condition of erosion and
over -saturation of the soil along the creek, evidenced by trees
which continue to fall into the creek, can only be exacerbated by
reducing the surface area of the properly and replacing it with
nonabsorbent materials, such as buildings and parking lots.
Even if an underground cistern or whatever retention method
you use is put in place to contain water that comes off the
building and parking lot, what tests have been done to ensure
that the rale of containing the water will be at lead equal to the
rale of dispersing the water at present? How can you convince
nature to adhere to these blueprints? Again, it's clear when
looking at the creek that there is already an existing problem.
Too much erosion, too much soil saturation. It's obvious that
putting additional strain on the property which is being proposed
for development would make the situation considerably worse.
Which brings me to my question to both the developer and the
Planning Commission. In light of my concerns, what studies
have you performed to prove that there will be no negative
impact brought about by this development? And if, in fad, the
answer is that no studies have been performed, how then in
good conscious can you proceed with this development? Thank
you for your time.
Gerald Malec, 36114 Parkhurst. Good evening. These are all my neighbors.
With your permission I would like to submit some photographs I
took today.
Mr. Walsh: Yes, if you pass them to Mr. Miller, he will pass them out.
Mr. Malec: On the backside is a brief description pertaining to each
photograph. I also share the concerns of my other neighbor that
was just up here. These pictures show the erosion to the creek
and the dose proximity to the existing buildings and the creek.
For instance, the car wash that is on the other side of the creek
M54
where you enter in, that roadway is already starling to sink into
the creek. Its very, very close. I walked around the property
today, and I was trying to figure out how a two-story building
would fit in. I mean it's such a small, cramped space. There's
already pollution building up in the creek with this recent rain
that we had, which was not really that severe in my opinion. I've
only lived in the area for two years, and I saw a good two and
half, three foot rise in the water in the creek which is normally
inches, and debris was just flowing down like crazy. As the
pictures show, the erosion is getting increasingly worse and I
am concerned with where the water and runoff from the snow
during the winter when the plows come to plow it, that's just
going to ... I mean it looks like a bunch of sticks now and its
going to get worse with any more further development. With all
of the other prime pieces of property in the city, I think the
developer's construction would be better placed someplace
else. I just think that the ecosystem that is already existing is
very fragile, and I think any further commercial development,
anything that's that close to this creek, is only going to
exacerbate it further. I oppose the construction for that reason,
and the other fact that it was a two-story building. It's the only
one on that side of Levan, and the backyards are going to be
facing up to this building. We already have a very fine medical
facility across the street with Sl. Mary Hospital, one of the finest
in the state, if not the country, and just to the south of the
proposed site, there's another medical building. I'm not quite
sure if we need that in that particular area. It's a very tenuous
kind of piece of property. The plans that we've seen and the
pictures, its a nice looking building, but I think it would be better
in another site. Thank you.
Marsha Malec, 36114 Parkhurst. Could I just have clarification? I didn't
understand from the first presentation, they talked about
building a walkway over the creek. Is that still a part of the plan
to gel to the parking lot from the building?
Mr. Walsh: Scott, if you could put that up. There's been no change to the
walkway.
Mr. Miller: No. I think I had a cross-section view.
Ms. Malec: I think as you can see from the pictures that my husband gave
you, there's a view of .. I'm just trying to imagine this walkway
over the creek.
Mr. Miller: This isn't a very good picture, but this is the cross-section view.
That's the bridge crossing over the creek. This is the building
here. You can see the profile. This would be the bridge and
23155
then the parking lot is on this side. There's a little parking lot
here.
Ms. Malec:
Again, with my neighbor and my husband, again just concerned
about the walkway over the creek and again the additional
facility being built so close to the creek and the existing
buildings in that area. Thank you.
Ceclia Coffey,
15099 Woodside. I am directly behind the proposed building. I do
have a couple concerns in addition to what my neighbors'
concerns are. First of all, I have a question about who does
own the creek? Who is responsible for its maintenance?
Mr. Walsh:
Mark, is the creek city properly or county?
Mr. Taormina:
This gentleman would own the bottomlands in that portion of the
creek.
Mr. Walsh:
He owns the bottomlands?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. He would be responsible for clean up. Of course, any
type of improvements made to the drainage course, as well as
wetlands and floodplains, are all subject to permits from the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Ms. Coffey:
Because a good part of the creek is dammed up with much
debris and it does need a lot of cleanup. And I was wondering,
then he would be responsible for deaning it up. The flow of the
water, it disturbs the flow of the water, all these dams that have
been accumulafing. My other concern is the parking lot that
they're going to have. The parking lot on the other side of the . .
well, there. The traffic. I wonder if you've thought about the
traffic going from this medical building to this building to the vet
to the gas station. In a fairly small area, there's going to be a lot
of traffic coming and going in and out and I was concerned
about ... I dont know how late ... I dont know what kind of,
you know, they're saying medical, how Tale are the hours going
to be, cars turning into that parking lot, because there won't be
any more trees there. There will be lights continually going
toward my neighbor's backyard. Is there going to be a wall or
something to kind of deter because in the winter, it gels dark
quite Tale. I dont know how late things are going to be open in
this medical building if it is built. I really want to reiterate my
neighbors' concerns about ... I don't know how they will not be
affected by erosion like the other residents. And some of my
neighbors, and quite a few in particular along the creek, have
lost so much property, I don't now how they will sell their house
because the creek has literally gone to their deck. And those
23156
people work evenings; they could not be here, but I don't know
how much more stress causing on the creek will even destroy
their property and the subdivision because people will know
about Reynolds Ravine. Do you live in Reynolds Ravine where
the property is disintegrating? I mean I think it's a properly
value issue loo. Some of those homes should ... that properly
should never have been approved by the Planning Commission,
but we didn't know probably what erosion was taking effect
because it is quite a tragedy what they're experiencing in their
yard. I don't see why the medical building would be exempt
from that erosion. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else coming forward? With that, I'm just going
to ask the petitioner to stand back up. We will close the public
hearing portion. If you could just answer one question on the
hours of operation? Do you know what the hours of operation
will be?
Mr Schneemann:
Boy, I do not. I presume regular business hours.
Mr. Walsh:
You're not going to have a 24 hour operation?
Mr. Moghul:
Most likely it is going to be a physician's office and they usually
run from about, depending on the type of specialty, between
8:30 or 9:00 to about 5:00— 5:30.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you.
Mr. Moghul:
If its let's say, orthopedic surgery, then you're most likely talking
about evening hours or afternoon and on different days because
they're not there every single day. They're either operating or
sometimes they're only there two or three days a week instead
of five days a week. Where you would have a family practice or
traumas, and they're there five days a week.
Mr. Walsh:
Scott, if I remember correctly, the landscaping plan had left
some vegetation and added vegetation at the rear of the
property.
Mr. Miller:
Yes. This will be basically untouched, same as here. She was
talking about lights here. This is not their properly, but this is
basically a wooded area now, so that would remain as it is now.
Mr. Walsh:
The property line ends atthe rear of the parking lot?
Mr. Miller:
Yes, right here, and then it goes across here. So whatever
trees are here now would remain. This would all be untouched.
23157
They're adding trees in this area between the building and the
properly line to help buffer.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. Thank you. Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
My main concern right along for this project as I think you've laid
it out about as well as you can do, but my concern has always
been the discharge going downstream to the residences. What
research have you done? Have you got the necessary permits
from DEQ, engineering, and everybody saying that you will not
exacerbate the flow?
Mr Schneemann:
No. We've not gotten those permits at this time. It's just not
required aphis point in the development process.
Mr. Walsh:
I think its important to just explain for everyone here that it's
beyond our purview in terms of engineering. We're interested in
it and we've heard your comments. As this progresses, it's
actually at the Council level, with the assistance of the City
Engineer in compliance with Wayne County requirements,
where those kinds of discussions would take place in great
detail.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I just wanted to share my concerns because I guess my
hope is, as far as the ordinance is concerned, they're meeting
the ordinance, but hopefully somewhere down the line if it's
going to not be productive to put that facility in and not erode
any more property down there, I hope the brakes would be put
on. I guess that's what I'm saying.
Mr. Walsh:
They can't move without Wayne County's official approval, and
the city has to agree with that.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct, if I may elaborate a little bit on that. One of our
responsibilities in this was to consider a site plan that, to the
extent possible, would show compliance, or at least address all
these issues as it relates to stormwater management and
placement of the building, the parking areas and all other
improvements outside of any designated wetlands and
floodplains. That was one of the primary reasons why we tabled
this from the last meeting. The new information we've received,
in fact, addresses those issues, at least to the extent that it's
been provided on this site plan. We did receive information
from the MDEQ regarding the floodplain elevation. He has
mapped that on the site plan and he is not showing any
improvements directly to those areas. He has shown the
wetland boundaries as they've been flagged by the MDEQ and
surveyed by his engineer. And he is showing areas where
23158
stormwater detention would be provided on the site. Now, of
course, as this progresses through the review process, our
Engineering Department will have to review it for all the
standards necessary to comply with the ordinance for discharge
into the drainage course. MDEQ will have to review the plans to
make sure that there is actually no fill occurring within the
wetlands. Otherwise, permits will have to be issued for that and
the same holds true with the 100 year floodplain established on
this site. So I think what we've done here is at least addressed
those issues on the site plan to the extent that he is sufficiently
considering those, and it does not appear to be problematic at
least from our level of review at this stage. But there could be
certain permits needed as the plans progress certainly with the
MDEQ if any f11 material is shown in those areas, but it cannot
be inconsistent with the plans we're reviewing this evening.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Morrow, anything else?
Mr. Morrow: No. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Between Mr. Morrow and Mr. Taormina, they covered it
perfectly. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. LaPine: I'd just like to say, I wasn't on the Commission when Reynolds
Ravine was built, but I was on the Commission when the two
office buildings that are on Five Mile Road were built. The
neighbors at that time were up here, and they were complaining
about the two office buildings. I think it used to be a credit union
and another office building. But anyways, I went out there the
other day and, unfortunately, I didn't I want to go behind those
properties, but that creek has really deteriorated from when we
approved those two buildings along Five Mile Road. Looking at
these pictures, I think one of the problems, no doubt about, the
creek really needs a cleanup. There's all kinds of trees that fall
over into the creek. I don't know if that's the responsibility of the
homeowners. You're talking about the debris in the creek. A lot
of that debris could be coming up from miles away for all we
know. This is a tough call for me. There's no doubt, looking at
those pictures, that the creek has really deteriorated. How
much more can that creek stand or how much building can be
done there and not affect people's homes there? Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas: I go by that property every evening because I live only two
blocks south of there and I walk my dog every night. I've been
Irving there for 29 years and, like I said earlier, that is a very nice
building but I don't believe it belongs on that properly. I don't
believe any building belongs on that property because we have
vt»
a very serious problem with erosion, and I dont think its going
to stop. I just cant visualize having a building there where you
have to walk over a bridge to get to a parking lot that has 20
spaces. I think its very, very unsafe. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments from the commissioners?
Seeing none, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
#0338-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-01-08-04,
submitted by Moghul Investments, LLC, requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a medical building on
property located at 15150 Levan Road in the Northeast I/ of
Section 20, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA -101 dated February
17, 2006, as revised, prepared by S3 Architecture, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet SPA -102 dated
February 17, 2006, as revised, prepared by S3
Architecture;
3. Thal the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the east
property line, as shown on the approved site and
landscape plans, is hereby approved and shall be
substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45
of the Zoning Ordinance;
7. 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
INr:ll
Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
8. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
SPA -400 dated January 18, 2006, as revised, prepared by
S3 Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
9. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet
SPA -401 dated January 18, 2005, prepared by S3
Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
10. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
11. 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;
12. That there shall be no outside dumpsler located on the site
and all trash must be contained within the building except
on the day trash is scheduled for removal;
13. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
14. That this approval is contingent upon approval by the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality concerning
the location of the wetlands boundary and approval to
construct the pedestrian bridge across the wetlands;
15. 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 property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
16. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
17. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
23161
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: As Mr. Morrow indicated earlier, I think from the beginning we
were concerned about how slormwaler was to be handled and
the effect on the creek and so forth. We, on the Planning
Commission, have to rely on the DEQ and the county and the
Engineering Department to make sure that stormwater is
handled in a proper manner. Assuming that particular issue will
be adequately taken care of, I have agreed to support this
petition.
Mr. Walsh: Is there additional discussion? Seeing none, would the
Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Shane, Smiley, Morrow, Walsh
NAYES:
Alanskas, La Pine, Pieroecchi
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. Ladies and gentlemen, the hearing is over.
Unidentified audience member: Somebody should be sent out to check on the
creek. There's a huge tree. The City did send someone out.
Two people worked half a hour, like it was their responsibility
and then left. There's a huge tree.
Mr. Walsh: Madam, the hearing is over. I will ask Mr. Taormina if he would
inform the Inspection Department. Thank you for your
participation tonight.
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 920'" REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 920" Regular Meeting held on February 14,
2006.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
23162
#03-39-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 9201" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on February 14, 2006, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolu0on resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, Morrow,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the mo0on is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 922n0 Regular
Meeting held on March 21, 2006, was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman