HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2008-07-08MINUTES OF THE 9W REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesda�, July 8, 2008, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 965 Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order a17:00 p.m.
Members present: Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow Lynda Scheel
Ashley Vartoogian Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has 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 fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight. And on behalf of my colleagues, I'd like to
welcome Lynda Scheel. This is her first meeting as our newest Planning
Commissioner.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-08-0844 LIVONIA PLAZA
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-08-
08-14 submitted by Rocky Zebari, on behalf of Livonia Plaza,
requesting approval of a landscape plan as required by Council
Resolution #500-07 in connection with a proposal to renovate
the exterior of the commercial building located at 19618
Middlebell Road, on property located on the east side of
July B, 2008
24802
Middlebell Road between St. Martin Avenue and Bretton Road
in the Southwest''/. of Section 1.
Mr. Miller:
On October 10, 2007, the petitioner received site plan approval
to renovate the exterior of the Livonia Plaza, which is a
commercial strip center located on the east side of Middlebell
Road between St. Martin Avenue and Bretton Road. As part of
the approval, it was conditioned that a fully detailed landscape
plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council within 60 days following approval
of this petition by the City Council. The submitted plan shows
that the petitioner is proposing to enhance some of the existing
landscape areas with additional plant materials and plant a few
bushes near the front of the building. Three additional trees
(Flowering Dogwoods) would be planted between the existing
apple trees that run along the right-of-way of St. Martins
Avenue. Along the street frontage of Middlebelt Road, the plan
illustrates four Flowering Dogwoods would be planted between
the existing low -profile shrubs. Along the patio area in front of
the center would be low evergreen shrubs and then he shows
four planting boxes right in the front of the center into the
parking lot. Thal is the extent of the landscape plan.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated June 16, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 2, 2008, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) All existing and proposed landscaped areas must have a
functioning irrigation system installed. (2) All parking spaces
are required to be 10 feet wide and 20 feet in length and double
striped. The four proposed bushes located in the front of the
building appear to be located in four separate parking spaces,
which would decrease the required length of 20 feet. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for our staff before we go to the
pelifioner?
Mr. Morrow:
This is a little bit off the subject, but on my landscape plan here
it says, in the front and rear, existing asphalt parking and drive
to remain as is. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Are you referring to the driveway that is off Sl. Martins?
July 8, 2008
24803
Mr. Morrow:
The parking lot in the front and the back.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I think he was going to do some repairs to that, but the
drive approaches are going to remain in their current location
with no changes.
Mr. Morrow:
Because the way it reads, I know we're looking at a landscape
plan, but I was out there today and it looked pretty much in
disrepair.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure what additional improvements are anticipated or
required for the parking lot. He's not completed yet with all the
work so maybe the petitioner can indicate that. I know the
striping still needs to be done, but there may also be another
wearing course that has to go down on the surface of the
parking lot.
Mr. Morrow:
I'd appreciate it. Like I say, we're looking at a landscape plan
here and I just wanted to gel current on that. So I'll do a little
homework on that. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Zebari, welcome. If we could just have your name and
address for the record.
Rocky Zebari, 37731 Slableview, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs
presentation thus far?
Mr. Zebari:
I really dont have anything to add. Concern about the parking
lot would be some repairs done after we finish and then
stripping. And about the bushes in front of those piers, there is
enough. I mean the parking lot is long enough. There is over
70 feel. But if there is any concern, I will remove this.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for Mr. Zebari?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Zeban, the planters that you show that are essentially in
parking spaces right now, can you describe what those are
going to look like for me?
Mr. Zeban:
Already there is some evergreen bushes in them, and I was
planning to put parking bumpers in front of them so the cars will
not slick too far on the sidewalk. That was the reason really
behind it. If they are going to interfere with my parking spaces, I
will eliminate them.
Mr. Zeban: I'm sorry.
Mr. Morrow: As you know, right across the street, Livonia Mall appears to be
redoing their center.
Mr. Zeban: Yes,lknow.
Mr. Morrow: This is really our first opportunity to begin to upgrade that area,
and I, as one commissioner, am concerned about the landscape
plan that goes with this particular building. And I might, Mr.
Chairman, if I may ask the Planning Director, if he feels that this
July B, 2008
24804
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. But as they are right now, they do not interfere with the
parking spaces?
Mr. Zeban:
I don't think so because I measured it. There is about 70 bet
total. So 20 from each side would be about 30 feet for the cars
to back up.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. The other question I have for you, Mr. Zebari, is the
Dogwood species of tree. Do you feel that placing those
Dogwood trees in the front of your property is going to obscure
the view of your center in anyway?
Mr. Zeban
No. I already changed my mind. I have different trees if you
want to look at them from the list you gave me. They are very
low trees.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. They're going to be an ornamental small tree?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Zebari:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
I was out there today, as I said, looking at it. You have a very
pretty building out there. Once the packing lots are repaired and
put back in shape, they should look fine. The one concern I do
have is the landscaping. I don't think it matches what the
building will eventually look like.
Mr. Zeban:
The landscaping is not finished yet.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, let me continue.
Mr. Zeban: I'm sorry.
Mr. Morrow: As you know, right across the street, Livonia Mall appears to be
redoing their center.
Mr. Zeban: Yes,lknow.
Mr. Morrow: This is really our first opportunity to begin to upgrade that area,
and I, as one commissioner, am concerned about the landscape
plan that goes with this particular building. And I might, Mr.
Chairman, if I may ask the Planning Director, if he feels that this
July 8, 2008
24805
is about as good as we can do or do you think we could come
up with something better as a professional landscape architect?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, I'm not a professional landscape architect. Let's start out
there.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, you are in my book.
Mr. Taormina:
What Mr. Zebari is presenting this evening, as far as changes, is
an improvement, at least as it relates to the trees he has
proposed along Middlebelt Road. He was showing the
Dogwoods, but under these conditions, I don't think that's the
appropriate tree. Actually, the Red Oak, while thatwould be a
nice tree, there are others from our list that are full size
deciduous trees that we could recommend. We need additional
detail on the landscape plan as it relates to not only the species,
but also the irrigation system and some of the other items
around the foundation of the building. If we're going to plant
areas adjacent to the building, I'm not sure that what he's
showing right now is going to work. I just can't see those shrubs
in the wells surviving. I think they need to be made larger
without affecting the parking. There's probably some additional
work that can be done there to make whatever he does plant
survive. In our opinion, right now, its going to be difficult for
those evergreens to last very long in the areas where he has
them shown. They're just going to be damaged either by
vehicles or by the salt.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you for your input. I certainly want, at this opportunity, to
put our best fool forward when we send it along to the City
Council. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions? Seeing none, thank you,
Mr. Zebari, for being here tonight.
Mr. Zebart:
Thank you.
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.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm going to offer a tabling resolution to a dale to be determined
when Mr. Zebari can meet with our Planning Staff and get some
more input as to landscaping to be used on his site.
July 8, 2008
24806
On a mot on by Morrow, seconded by W lshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0730-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Pefifion 2007-08-08-14 submitted by Rocky
Zebari, on behalf of Livonia Plaza, requesfing approval of a
landscape plan as required by Council Resolufion #500-07, in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located at 19618 Middlebell Road, on
property located on the east side of Middlebell Road between
Sl. Marlin Avenue and Bretton Road in the Southwest'''/ of
Section 1, be tabled.
Mr. Walsh: The motion passes. Mr. Zebari, we will have our staff contact
you to schedule that opportunity.
Mr. Zebart: Thank you.
ITEM#2 PETITION 2008-06-08-07 16' DISTRICT COURT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petifion 2008-
06-08-07 submitted by French Associates Architects requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a new
courthouse (W District Court) on property located at 32765
Five Mile Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road
between Library Drive and Brookfield Avenue in the Northwest
%of Section 22.
Mr. Miller: The proposed new W District Courthouse would front on Five
Mile Road and be located between the Civic Center Library and
Brookfield Avenue. This northeast corner of the Civic Center
campus presenfly consists of a small wooded area and the east
parking lot of the library. To accommodate the proposed new
courthouse, a portion of the library's east parking lot would be
removed, as well as much of the trees and vegetation that exists
between the north end of the east parking lot and Five Mile
Road. The entire Civic Center area, including the area of
proposed courthouse, is zoned PL, Public Lands. The proposed
courthouse would be two stories in height and have an overall
gross floor area of 39,380 square feet. At 21,393 square feet,
the first floor would contain slighfly more than half of the overall
building area and consist oflhe following main components: the
main entrance lobby, the probation department, the court
administrative offices, the magistrate's offices, wailing area and
hearing room, an archive storeroom, an employee break room,
July 8, 2008
24807
a sally port and a mechanical room. The second floor would be
18,380 square feet in size and contain two courtrooms and
associated judicial chambers, jury assembly and deliberation
rooms, holding cells, a law library and a public waiting area.
The new courthouse would be set back approximately 165 feet
from the right-of-way of Five Mile Road, 68 feel from Brookfield
Avenue, and approximately 28 feet from Library Drive. The
building would front on Five Mile Road, but its main entrance
would be oriented south towards the main parking lot that would
serve the courthouse. To provide the necessary parking, the
existing east parking lot will be reconfigured and expanded. An
additional smaller lot for employees only would be provided on
the east side of the building adjacent to Brookfield Avenue.
Secured access to this lot, as well as the sally port, would be
provided by means of a separate driveway off Brookfield
Avenue and would be enclosed by a 6 foot high decorative
aluminum fence and a security gate. To help screen the small
employee only parking lot from the condominiums to the east,
While Spruce trees would be planted along the parking lot's
eastern border. The proposed building would have a classical
appearance with multiple projections and offsets, flat rooflines,
decorative cornices, and multiple building materials and colors.
The main building materials would be brick and cast stone. Tall
decorative panel widows would run along the north and south
elevations. A pre -finished standing seam metal mansard roof
feature would adom the top of the building. That is the extent of
the proposal.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated June 18, 2008, which
reads as fol lows: "At your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposed petition. There are no additional right-of-way
requirements for this site. The new building has been assigned
the address of 32765 Five Mile Road. The following preliminary
comments deal with storm sewer facilities. (1) The existing
catch basins at the north end of Library Drive must be
incorporated into the new improvements. (2) Detention should
be provided based on the increased area of impervious surface
in conjunction with the proposed development. (3) The legal
description describes the entire parcel bounded by Farmington
and Five Mile Roads, Civic Center and Library Drives,
Brookfield Avenue and the subdivision to the south. There are
also calls missing to arrive at the point of beginning and there
are mathematical inaccuracies that have been noted by the
surveyor. These items should be corrected and the boundary
July 8, 2008
24808
refined, if necessary, to include only the Court development."
The letteris signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E. The second letter
is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 18, 2008,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a
courthouse on the property referenced above. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1)
Subject building is 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 with spacing
consistent with the use group. (3) This division requests that
the north side drive closest to the building be posted (on both
sides) 'Fire Lane — No Parking'. (4) Any curves or comer of
streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning
radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning radius
of twenty-nine feet six inches. (5) Fire lanes shall be marked
with freestanding signs that have the words FIRE LANE — NO
PARKING painted in contrasting colors (on both sides) at a size
and spacing approved by the authority having jurisdiction. (6)
This division has concems regarding access to 'secure parking'
to address vehicle fires or rescues in this area should the need
arise." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
June 20, 2008, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in connection with the 16`" District Court located at 5 Mile
and Brookfield Ave. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 17, 2008,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 12,
2008, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This
Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. The next
lette r is from Elizabeth Duggan, dated July 3, 2008, to members
of the Planning Commission, which reads as follows: "On your
agenda for Tuesday, July 8, 2008, item Number 2, you will be
discussing the plans to construct a new courthouse for the le
District Court. While 1 agree that the new courthouse is needed,
1 feel that the current proposal to place the building between the
Civic Center Library and Brookfield is not the appropriate site for
the building. Other sites on city -owned property have been
discussed, and those areas are not contiguous to residential
property. 1 have been a member of the Brookfield Condominium
Board for several years, and 1 feel that asking the citizens of the
Brookfield community to accept the court building right outside
our windows is expecting too much. There are many elderly
people who reside in these condominiums and even though we
July 8, 2008
24809
have been subject to crime in our area, as have other
neighborhoods in the City, we feel that being within sight of the
Police Department gives us some sense of security. Many of
you know me and 1 am not an alarmist 1 want the City of Livonia
to be the best that it can be! 1 have tried to think of courthouses
in other communities that are next to residential property. Not
one comes to mind. 1 would like to see a beautiful courthouse on
another site in the municipal complex. 1 will still be out of town
on Tuesday night and wanted to let you know how 1 feel about
the building. Thank you for any consideration." The letter is
signed by Elizabeth Duggan. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions for the Planning
Department? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. Good
evening, Judge.
Kathleen McCann, W District Court, 15140 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan
48154.
Suzanne Carlson, French Associates Architects, 1600 Parkdale, Rochester,
Michigan 48307. We are the architects for the project.
Mr. Walsh:
Would you like to add anything to the presentation?
Ms. Carlson:
Not at this point.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
Its more of a review really. The only way the officers of the
court or police officers could gel in would be through that
secured drive on Brookfield?
Ms. Carlson:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
And there will be some sort of a code?
Ms. Carlson:
There will be a secured sliding gale with a key fob that would
allow access to that lot and only those people carrying the key
fob would have access.
Ms. Smiley:
Good. Thankyou.
Ms. Vartoogian:
It seems that there is some concern about the location of the
courthouse. Can you explain why this location was chosen?
Ms. Carlson:
After reviewing several locations on the city campus, the
thought is to create a Five Mile frontage for the City of Livonia.
July 8, 2008
24810
The placement of the building with the setback establishes a
green space in front of the building similar to the library adjacent
to it and to the City Hall building adjacent to it. It establishes a
frontage to the Livonia City complexes, and it also matches
down the road just a bit the Rec Center. So we feel that it's
starting to really define the city complex.
Judge McCann:
Can I add to that? There's an identity issue. People who are
users of the courthouse, for them to be able to find it, they need
to have access right on a mile road instead of Civic Center Drive
where it's more difficult. We spend loo much time directing
people where to go. It was not bad when it was on Farmington
Road. It's easy on Five Mile. Its a locafion where people can
find it. I think it is something that makes a community feel safer
when they see a courthouse in a community. If they see it, it's
central to the community. Its a symbol of justice. It's a symbol
of safety, and I think that, all in all, people will ultimately feel that
when they see it accomplished.
Ms. Varloogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I would assume that most of your traffic going into the parking
lot will occur in the morning and then again in the evening.
Judge McCann:
Most of it will be in the morning. We do have probation in the
evening, usually beginning at 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and that
would not necessarily be in that area next to Brookfield, but
there will be people going in the back area and probation
officers will see them. It's limited. We do see night probation
usually at least four nights a week.
Mr. Morrow:
Butit is primarilystaff thatuses that parking lot.
Judge McCann:
Just staff and those probationers. And those are non-violent
offenders. We don't take violent offenders at night.
Mr. Morrow:
Right. And how often would the police bring in people to appear
in court?
Judge McCann:
Well, they may bring them in, well, usually at least four days a
week. Maybe not Friday.
Mr. Morrow:
Maybe like once a day, twice a day?
Judge McCann:
On Tuesdays and Thursdays it may be several limes, but on
Mondays and Wednesdays, its usuallyjusl once.
Mr. Morrow:
Soildoesn't appearwe create a lot oflraffc from lhatstreet.
July B, 2008
24811
Judge McCann
No, I don't think so.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Hello, Judge McCann.
Judge McCann:
Hi.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I do have a question for you just to get your thought process. I
talked about this at the study meeting a little bit. As I think
about going to the courthouse, a vast majority of people who are
going there are going to pay a parking ticket or drop off
paperwork for a small claims case or something along those
lines. You know, just a quick in and out type trip.
Judge McCann:
Right.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And because of all the security requirements that exist today in
these types of facilities, they have to go through metal detectors
and kray machines and so on. Is there any thought that you
guys gave in your design process to having some sort of a
service window or something where someone could just walk up
and quickly do a transaction without having to go through all the
security?
Judge McCann:
We've thought about it a lot, and the only thing that we can do . .
. we thought about having a drive -up kiosk so that people could
pay tickets through it. And that may be a possibility someday,
but the cost was prohibitive at this time. We hope that we will at
least have a night deposit box there, which we currently use so
that people can pay their tickets at night. Right now, its just a
question of how much can we do with the money that we have,
and when we gel that opportunity some day in the future,
believe me, we will try to implement it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Forgive me, I haven't got a ticket in a long time, but can
people pay tickets by either mail or the internet or some other
method anyway?
Judge McCann:
Yes, and we will be implementing on-line ... so you can pay
your tickets on line. That will come within the very near future.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Good. Because that will probably be the majority of the
way people pay tickets anyways, I would think. Okay. Good.
Thank you. I do have a couple questions about the design of
the building. As I looked it over, one that struck me as a bit of a
concern is the traffic flow of cars going into the court property.
July 8, 2008
24812
Obviously you're going to gel a lot of people coming in off of
Five Mile. They're going to come down Library Drive and turn
into your court parking lot, but you do have a lot of people who
come to the court from other communities who may come up
Farmington Road and are used to turning onto Civic Center
Drive to gel to the court. If they do that, they have a pretty
difficult path to gel to the court in this current location. They're
going to have to go down Civic Center Drive to the bend right
here by City Hall, through the City Hall parking lot, through the
library parking lot, and into the court parking lot. Has there been
any thought to designing that roadway to continue on so that its
clear that they can lake roadway around the parking lot, around
the perimeter of the existing parking lot and go to the court if
that's where they're coming from?
Judge McCann: I need to refer to Suzanne on that issue
Ms. Carlson:
I agree it is a circuitous route that they have to take to find their
way. I myself come up Farmington and weave in and out even
just to gel to here. I think maybe it could be eased with some
appropriate signage that might help quite a bit. Aside from
redoing the entire campus road and making it a really clear
path, I think signage is our best bel al this point.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay, because in the existing City Hall and library parking lots
there are islands on the south end of that parking lot creating a
sort of roadway, if you will, along that southern border of the
parking lot. If there is a way that could be made clear that's the
way to gel to the court, I think that would be very helpful, and
certainly as you guys go through this process, if you consider
that, I think that would be good for your patrons who are going
to go there so they can find the courthouse.
Ms. Carlson:
I think you're right. Thank you for that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The other concerns I have, just looking at the design, of course,
we do know residents are concerned about what they're going
to see. The residents who live right to the east of this property,
what are they going to see from their homes? If you describe to
me the landscaping and the berming that's been put in place to
address that.
Ms. Carlson:
The landscape plan shows some very dense Whte Spruce you
can see along the eastern edge of that secured lot. That
spacing is, we have our landscape architect here, I think its 16
feet on center. She can talk to the landscape better than I can.
July B, 2008
24813
Wendy Belcher, Michael J. Dul & Associates, Inc., 212 Daines Street,
Birmingham, Michigan 48009. We're the landscape architects
working with French.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Wilshaw?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. Can you describe for me the landscaping that's on the
east end of the properly and the kind of screen that it will or will
not provide to the residents there?
Ms. Belcher:
Yes. Actually, the task we were given along the east side is that
there probably would be a concern that we're taking down the
canopy trees that are existing currently. When you're driving
down Brookfield, the first thing I notice is that there isn't really a
wall screen provided there currently. However, I know there is
only just a parking lot there now and a building will be proposed
in its place. So our job was to sort of provide these residents
with a screen, full year, all year around. So we chose While
Spruce. They are extremely hardy evergreens used on
commercial applications all of the time. They gel to be rather
large evergreens. I've already said they're really hardy. We've
spaced them staggered so that, over time, we will end up
creating almost a double row of them. So if you can imagine
ultimately you're going to have an evergreen wall. Essentially
that's what they're going to see. We've spaced them 12 feel on
center staggered. Al the time of planfing, we're proposing 7 to 8
footers, which a lot of time commercial developments will go 5
to 6 feet. So I think we're talking a little bit of a step up without
getting too expensive because of the amount that we're
proposing, and within a few years they will definitely start to
grow together and they won't see the gaps in between.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And these spruces are going to be on a berth as well, or
is there berming proposed?
Ms. Belcher:
I believe the intent with the engineers thus far is that the parking
lot will be fairly flat, of course, providing drainage, and then once
we hit where the evergreen trees, because you'll want the fence
to be level, will start to slop down to meet the properly line. So
these trees will be planted. It will be berm but it will sort of be a
one-sided berm if you can imagine that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you, Ms. Belcher, I appreciate that. That's the
landscaping question I had so I think I'm good for now. The last
question I had was the secure parking lot. How many people do
you think are going to be parking in that lot on a typical day?
July 8,, 2008
24814
Judge McCann:
We normally have about 35 employees and that would include
the judges, that's everyone. But then we also have usually at
least maybe three or four officers that we look to coming
everyday.
Ms. Carlson:
We have 42 parking spaces.
Judge McCann:
Right. And then we have volunteer probation officers that will
be there. That's the reason we have staggered amounts and
room for the officers ...
Ms. Carlson:
Who come in patrol cars and are not in the van in the sally port.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I just want to gel a feel for how much traffic this facility will put
onto that street during a typical day. So you're looking at about
40 cars off and on throughout the day.
Ms. Carlson:
Once per day mostly for the staff and then the patrol cars and
van, as the Judge described, come twice a day.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. Okay. That is all I have. The only comment I'll make at
this point is that I haven't talked about the design of the building,
which obviously you spent a lot of time on. We've seen it go
through a couple different revisions. I do think it's a beautiful
building. I think its contemporary in a sense that it matches the
other buildings in our campus which are sort of timeless
buildings in their design, yet it still portrays the aure of a judicial
building with the pillars of justice in the front of it and so on. I do
like that very much. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Any other questions?
Mrs. rvbDermott:
Judge McCann, I was wondering if maybe you could explain to
the viewing audience the reasons for building a new courthouse.
We've spent a lot of time talking about what its going to look
like and where its going to be placed, but just so the community
knows.
Judge McCann:
Maybe some aren't aware but there's been articles in the
Observer since back in 1990 talking about how desperately
we've needed space and how crowded we are. In our probation
department, we have people in areas designed for 20 people,
there will be 70 waiting every morning to see probation people.
That was in 1990. So you can imagine what its like in 2008.
We have prisoners sifting in cells built for three where its 25
everyday. We have no ability for a disabled person to come in
and testify as a witness or to come in and become a juror. We
are so woefully inadequate when it comes to anyone who is
July 8, 2008
24815
handicapped in our court. We just absolutely don't meet any
criteria for handicapped people. There are just standards that
we do not meet. We have no means to keep our files current.
We don't have enough room for everything, and it's a situation
that is to the breaking point. We can't do it anymore. We don't
have room. We don't have desks. We dont have furniture. We
have no security. We have prisoners marching right through the
public, sometimes murderers. I mean it's not often in Livonia
but it happens. Murderers march right through women and
children and right back out again. It's not a situation that's
tenable. It is just not. That's just the way it is. That's not a
tenable situation. That's not the way it's supposed to be.
Ms. Vartoogian:
This kind of goes along the same lines as the last question.
You mentioned one of the reasons for the new courthouse is
because of the need for more space. Has this building been
designed with that in mind in the future in the event that you
need more space in the future?
Judge McCann:
There are certain limitations on everything that you can do in
life, and we have looked at every possible way to gel the most
that we possible could out of a building in terms of square
footage, in terms of technology, in terms of accessibility and do
it for the least cost that we possibly can. We've tried to do that
in an effective way so that its not on the backs of the people.
All I can tell you is that this is the best that I can do. Its the best
we've been able to figure out. The Mayor, the Council, Mr.
Taormina, everyone, has worked so very hard with me. I think
that we will be able to live in this building, we're hoping 30 to 40
years without any changes. That's my best hope.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel:
When the police officers bring the prisoners over to the
courthouse, will they be going on the main roads then, and
coming down that one street to go into ...
Judge McCann:
I'm sorry?
Ms. Scheel:
When the police officers bring the prisoners over to the
courthouse for trial, right now they don't go on a busy road.
Correct? They just go across the way.
Judge McCann:
And they can still come through the back.
Ms. Scheel:
They can still come through the back and they'll be able to get
through the secure driveway?
July 8, 2008
24816
Ms. Carlson:
Yes.
Ms. Scheel:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Any other questions?
Mr. Wilshaw:
My question is just a follow-up to Ms. Scheel's. How can the
police gel to that secure parking lot without going on Brookfield?
Ms. Carlson:
Oh, I'm sorry. They do have to go on Brookfield but they can
make the most of their travel through the campus. They would
have to go out to Five Mile, down Brookfield and enter through
that access.
Judge McCann:
Did we cul off that entrance?
Ms. Carlson:
We don't have that on the plan currently.
Judge McCann:
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we could gel through there.
Ms. Carlson:
Its an easy change to make if that is what is required.
Mr. Wilshaw:
All right. Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.
Mr. Walsh:
If I can just follow-up, is the stub road ... see the curve going
up the parking lot?
Ms. Carlson:
That was just a turnaround. We will have signage on Brookfield
saying authorized vehicles only, but in case somebody can't
read that, doesn't read it and they make a turn and gel to the
gate where they can't access it, it will provide them a way to
back up and get back onto Brookfield.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. All right. Are there any other questions at this point?
Seeing none, thank you for joining us this evening. Al this point,
we will go to the audience for any of their comments. If you
could please step forward. All we need, ladies and gentlemen,
is just your name and your address for our record. Good
evening.
Derrick Fisher, 32641 Brookfield. Good evening. Not only do I represent myself
this evening, but I do represent the Brookfield co-owners who
are not in attendance here tonight. There are several. A couple
questions for the Planning Commission this evening. Please
bear with me. One of the things the co-owners have come to
me with their obvious concern about this project, is when
looking at the amount of available property that the city does
have behind the police station, adjacent to the current
July 8, 2008
24817
courthouse, why other options aren't being entertained or
looked at for a possible location. The concern is pnmanly with
safety and certainly the things that I've heard tonight, now
knowing that there will be transportation of prisoners, possibly
entering off of Brookfield, does not make me, for one, feel any
more comfortable, nor will it make the co-owners who reside at
Brookfield or in that Five Mile -Brookfield -Fairfield area feel any
more comfortable. In the past, we've had issues of vandalism,
solicitations of ides, issues with being approached by prisoners
who left the current courthouse or people who have been there
and couldn't gel a ride whatnot, and my fear is that this will
continue now because the proximity is going to be that much
closer to our property. Also in regards to the bid process, we
obviously know about French Associates. From how many
other organizations have bids been procured from? Do we
know?
Mr. Walsh: Was the bidding process in accordance with our normal
procedure, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: If he is referring to just the architectural services, yes. There
were a number of firms that were interviewed and French was
selected. Its actually a joint venture of French Associates,
which is the lead architect, and Newman Smith Architects. And
yes, there was a compefifive process for the review and
selection of that architect, as there will be for the general
contractor and all the other bidding that will take place during
the construction of this building.
Mr. Fisher: Also, Mr. Wilshaw somewhat addressed this as well in regards
to the traffic. As a resident of Livonia and someone who has
lived off of Five Mile Road for some time now, I've seen an
increase in traffic due to our library here and also with the rec
center. A concern from our residents is that we're going to see
a continued increase in traffic and that may present safety
issues or safety concerns because that area there off of
Brookfield where we have the boulevard and the island, it is a
high accident area. People are often T-boned there. There is a
backup of traffic that is created when people move across Five
Mile off of Brookfield. So that is a concern. I hope you will
certainly review that and take that concern to heart in
considering this project. Has there been a proposal to add an
additional light at Brookfield and Five Mile at this point? Do you
know?
Mr. Walsh: That's not before us at the present time.
Mr. Taormina: If you're talking about a traffic signal, no
July B, 2008
24818
Mr. Fisher:
I do appreciate the fact that there was a traffic and safety study
done. I'll trust in the legitimacy of that because that was one of
my questions. One of my other questions this evening, and I'm
sure it will be a question of the residents, is what the difference
in square footage is between the current courthouse and the
proposed courthouse?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, do you know that?
Mr. Taormina:
It essentially doubles the size. It goes from about a 20,000
square foot facility close to a 40,000 square foot facility.
Mr. Fisher:
When looking at the proposed courthouse, was a renovation or
an addition to the current facility, was that entertained or was
that explored at all?
Mr. Walsh:
I do know that it was explored but the costs were prohibitive in
comparison to new construction because of the age of the
building, in particular, if I'm not mistaken, the ADA requirements.
Mr. Fisher:
As far as the Planning Commission itself, do you have any
concern about how this proposed location will impact the
residents of this area?
Mr. Walsh:
Well, that, sir, is what we're here to determine. We've heard
from the petitioner, which is the City and Court. We will accept
comments as it proceeds as we approach a vote. People will
express their different opinions and perhaps other questions.
Mr. Fisher:
Certainly, and, you know, in dosing, I think our main concern,
especially realizing now that we're going to see the
transportation of potentially dangerous criminals, murderers,
etc., onto that strip of Brookfield, please realize we do have a lot
of long time Livonia residents who have lived in this area 30
years plus. They're elderly and they're very concerned. My
purpose here this evening is to lobby for their concems and
speak on their behalf because, you know, there are numerous
people that are concerned about this, and ultimately, we would
like to see another location. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you for being here. Is there anybody else wishing to
speak this evening?
Joseph Sorokac, 32631 Five Mile. I'm facing Five Mile and the ice cream stand.
I will say, I'm quite impressed by the court building. It's really
quite lovely. I have a number of interesting questions. I hope
we can gat some answers, and I'm sure that in the name of
Mr. Sorokac: Okay. Interesting question. Routinely, when a city building is
put up, suppose it were to impinge on a residential area, like
Brookfield, even though you own the city ground. I know you
own it. Do you routinely send out any kind of notices to the
adjacent residents, like we're pulling up a Walmart, a Costco or
even a Court next to you. How would you feel about that? Is
there anything that is routinely sent out because we don't
believe we received any.
Mr. Walsh: Mr.Taormina, do you want to address this?
Mr. Taormina: This is a type of permitted use project that under our procedures
does not require formal notification as would a rezoning or other
special land use requests. However, recognizing the concern
that has been expressed by the residents, while there was not a
formal mailing that went out to the people for tonight's meeting,
what we're going to do for tie meeting next Monday, which is
the Council hearing, is send copies of that agenda to the
July B, 2008
24819
prudence and full and complete disclosure, the Planning
Commission will want to hear some of my questions. I
appreciate Judge McCann being here and people from the
architectural firm. I looked up your firm on line. You do a lot of
work. Now, comments. Who is paying for the new court? Is
the city, the county or the stale? Who is putting up the dough?
That's a legitimate concern.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, we're going to answer if we can, but remember, our mission
here is simply site plan.
Mr. Sorokac:
Okay. Site planning. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, do you happen to know?
Mr. Taormina
Its a combination of funds. There is a Court Construction Fund
that was established several years ago. That fund has been
growing over time. The court, through that fund, will pay a
majority of the costs. Actually, this will be financed through the
Municipal Building Authority with the sale of bonds. Both the
city and the court will pay off that debt over a period of time yet
to be determined. But the majority of funds to pay for the
construction will be coming from this Court Construction Fund,
which is financed primarily through court fines and other costs
collected by the Court.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Taormina. We're going to try and slay on site
plan, but when we can answer your question, we'll certainly
attempt to do so.
Mr. Sorokac: Okay. Interesting question. Routinely, when a city building is
put up, suppose it were to impinge on a residential area, like
Brookfield, even though you own the city ground. I know you
own it. Do you routinely send out any kind of notices to the
adjacent residents, like we're pulling up a Walmart, a Costco or
even a Court next to you. How would you feel about that? Is
there anything that is routinely sent out because we don't
believe we received any.
Mr. Walsh: Mr.Taormina, do you want to address this?
Mr. Taormina: This is a type of permitted use project that under our procedures
does not require formal notification as would a rezoning or other
special land use requests. However, recognizing the concern
that has been expressed by the residents, while there was not a
formal mailing that went out to the people for tonight's meeting,
what we're going to do for tie meeting next Monday, which is
the Council hearing, is send copies of that agenda to the
July 8, 2008
24820
surrounding residents. You'll probably be receiving those in the
next couple of days. So that will provide notification for the
Council's review of this item, which is scheduled for next
Monday, and then following that, the regular voting meeting, but
you will be advised when that meeting will take place after next
Monday.
Mr. Sorokac:
I have a computer copy of the agenda. Was this particular
agenda placed in the Livonia Observer as is customary. I've
seen a lot of your materials in the Observer. Did you place this
one in?
Mr. Taormina:
This one was not.
Mr. Sorokac:
It was not?
Mr. Taormina:
No.
Mr. Sorokac:
You forgot?
Mr. Taormina:
No. It wasn't required to be placed in the Observer.
Mr. Sorokac:
It wasn't required?
Mr. Taormina:
No.
Mr. Sorokac:
Thank you. It seems like a lot of low publicity. If I were a radar
person, I would say I didn't see your plane, Mr. Taormina, on
the radar screen.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, let's keep to your questions.
Mr. Sorokac:
The library now. The library is used by a lot of Livonia people,
Livonia citizens and taxpayers, like myself. Now, we've been
told that a good bunch of this money is coming from Livonia
taxpayers. Did the Court or anybody talk to the people using
the library or things like that, because it's used by citizens,
families, children. It looks to me, with that structure as if, and
I'm not saying that you're pushing your way onto a Five Mile
site. I would never say that, but it looks like you're placing that
there and the library is losing a lot of parking area. Plus you're
permitting Livonia citizens and old folks and seniors and
children to come to more immediate contact with those who are
termed, Judge McCann, you termed them as nonviolent yet you
said ...
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, I'd like you to direct all of your comments to this Planning
Commission. We are here to answer your questions.
July B, 2008
24821
Mr. Sorokac:
Okay. Okay. The Judge said, for example, it would be
nonviolent offenders. Now we're told its a wide variety and
they're going to be trucking them down Brookfield past the
Brookfield Condominium complex. Just so that would be noted.
I also want to just mention one thing and I will let you off the
hook, sir. I appreciate your listening to me. I did email Mayor
Jack Kirksey. I'm sorry that he's not here because I would like
to look him in face. Mayor Kirksey, when I said about this, he
gave me a nice young aid, Mr. David Varga, who called me
twice. David Varga was employed by the City at that time for
two days. He was on his second day at work. So welcome to
our new people here loo.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, how can we help you on the Planning Commission?
Mr. Sorokac:
I'm just surprised that Mayor Kirksey didn't want to discuss this
or say anything. I mean, usually you would hope ...
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, again, we will answer questions you have on the site plan.
If you want to discuss that with the Mayor, you can do so.
Mr. Sorokac:
Okay. I just think, I was under the impression that with such a
large area of property here, and you know it's large, that you
could have found other areas of this vast site. It seems like
you're trying to cram that into a site that was not say particularly
for that usage initially, and it seems like you could have got over
closer to the Police Station to make the place more accessible
for the officers. I'm thinking of all their time and walking and
everything. We could have them closer to the site, and again,
one final comment, and I will address this to all of you. We're
told that the site is being put at 36765 Five Mile. Just for the
record, sir, the geographically challenged will have just as lough
a time finding Five Mile as they will in finding Farmington Road,
geographically challenged. So I'm not all that happy that you're
going to locale by us. That's all I have to say. Respectfully,
thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to
speak?
Richard Brawley, 32691 Fire Mile. I just want the group here to know that,
number one, has anybody thought of putting a light right at the
corner of Brookfield and Five Mile where Derrick has talked
about all the T-bones we've had there and people that were
almost killed? And when we start this courthouse and those
people come around there, if you dont do something with a light
there, you're going to have a lot of problems. Number one.
July 8, 2008
24822
Number two, do you have any idea, any idea whatsoever, how
much Brookfield is going to have? There's ladies here that have
to pull out there to go to work every morning, and right now,
there's people going down. Can you imagine when we gel the
courthouse there and you gel those cars coming down there, 35
or 40 of them in the morning, and prisoners in the afternoon,
can you imagine, if you lived here, if you had to gel a loaf of
bread? How would you gel out to go to Stan's and gel it? First
thing you have to think about is put a light there somewhere to
slop some of that traffic so the people coming out from
Brookfield, whether they live where I do or they live down the
street, can come out and at lead gel out to Five Mile without all
of this traffic coming in, coming in, coming in. Now I realize
there's a light at Hubbard. They may not want b put one at
Brookfield, but if the courthouse was in there, they certainly
should. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, sir. Good evening.
Charles Smith,
32681 Five Mile. Excuse me, I'm going to lose my voice. I
always go hoarse. I live in the Brookfield Condos. I have to two
concerns here with this secured parking that the employees
have to use, which means when they pull in the morning, 7:30,
quarter to 8:00, there will be a big line of traffic on Brookfield
waiting to gel into this secured panting lot, with the cars idling.
There's a lot of senior citizens in this complex that are not happy
with this. Also, what the Judge said about her being elbow to
elbow with the bad guys, what about us that live in this complex
when all these bad guys start driving in? That's all I got to say.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you.
Sharlene Peterson, 32635 Five Mile Road. I'm extremely nervous already, just
the thought of prisoners. I'm almost 75 years old. I will be
frightened to sit out on my patio and know that the police are
going up and down my street with prisoners. I'm sorry. I would
hope that you could find another way, or another driveway, that
they could use without exposing us. I've had my car already
broken into. I've had my stereo system already cul out of my
car. They did $1,200 worth of damage. I do not like the idea of
you bringing prisoners down Brookfield. I have always loved
Livonia and I love living in the Brookfield Condo, and I have
always fell very secure and very safe, but right now, I am
extremely upset with the idea of you bringing prisoners down.
Thank you for listening to me.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
July 8, 2008
24823
Marlene Kriscovich, 32633 Five Mile Road. I have a question for the committee
concerning the location. You're talking about this great Livonia
campus that we have. You're putting a district court next to a
library that's family used. But on the corner of Five Mile and
Farmington, which is part of the campus, we have a restaurant.
Why? That's a campus. It's right on the corner of Five Mile and
Farmington. Everybody can find it. It's part of the campus and
why can't you put it there? Its almost a skip and jump from the
other one. It's close to everything.
Mr. Walsh:
There is an existing lease for that property.
Ms. Kriscovich:
Does that matter to the City?
Mr. Walsh:
It matters in a court of law to the person that leases it.
Ms. Kriscovich:
So that person who has a lease to run a restaurant has more
power with the City of Livonia or more, yeah, they can use that
and people live right across the street from something that you
want to building have nothing to say?
Mr. Walsh:
No, ma'am. You have everything to say about the site plan
tonight, and we will listen to that and discuss it.
Ms. Kriscovich:
That's what I'm saying about the site plan. Why cant we use
the corner of Five Mile and Farmington?
Mr. Walsh:
Because the site plan before this body is only the court. That's
all that we can consider. We can take in your concerns about
its location and attempt to address those as we proceed this
evening. But we are not empowered, we don't have the legal
authority or right to dictate any other changes. We can approve
or deny this application.
Ms. Kriscovich:
I hope you deny it. Tha nk you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this pefition? Seeing no one coming forward, then we
will close the public hearing. The petitioner has the opportunity
to speak and address the number of issues. There certainly will
be questions from my colleagues.
Judge McCann:
I just want to clarify one issue and that is, before Suzanne
begins, and that is with regard to the prisoners. I dont want any
of the residents to be so fearful. What I'm taking about in terms
of dangerous prisoners are only the ones that are in the custody
of the police, and they are brought back and forth from the
police station to the courthouse. They are not the ones that are
July B, 2008
24824
walking around. If they are that dangerous, believe me, I don't
release them back so that they are walking through the
neighborhoods. Second of all, that's one of the reasons we
want the new courthouse, so that we can have much greater
security. So they never leave the building whatsoever unless
they are locked in chains in a vehicle and that vehicle goes
straight from our courthouse either straight to the jail downtown
or straight to the police department. Anyone who is released
from my courthouse is only released if I truly believe they are
not a danger in the community. If I think they're a danger, I'm
not releasing them no matter what the bond is. I'm not releasing
them if I think they're a danger. Suzanne.
Ms. Carlson: Just to follow up with what the Judge was saying about prisoner
transport, the sally port, which is on the eastern side of the
building, is accessed from the secured parking lot. The way that
functions is that the police transport vehicles enter into the sally
port. The doors close behind them and they are interlocked.
So only one door can be opened at a time. So the way it would
work is that the police would pull into that garage, the doors
close behind them, and then there are two prisoner transport
officers who transport the prisoners. From that point, all of
where they can go is into the building. There is no way they can
gel out of the building at that time. It is completely secured. So
the sally port helps the security of the site. And to address
some of the residents' concerns, and I appreciate those. We
did look at ....this is our third site option. We looked very
carefully at three options. One was adjacent to the existing
court and the senior citizen building. The logistics of
constructing a new building and keeping the senior citizen and
the court in its current location operational and constructing a
building at the same time seemed insurmountable and still
provide a safe access point for everybody at the same time.
Our second option was just south of the location of this building,
the civic center building, backing up to the wooded area. We
did extensive soil borings there and found that the soil was
unsuitable for building at that point. The cost to make the soil
suitable would be prohibitive for the building project. So our
third site to look at was east of the library. I appreciate the
residents concern with the proximity. I do think that the site
addresses a lot of the security issues, but I would offer one thing
that I think might alleviate quite a bit of concern here with the
residents. And that would be, and I'm not sure this is the right
place for this, but its a suggestion, and that would be to
eliminate the access point from Brookfield and provide access
to the secured lot through the parking lot, so all the traffic
concerns that the residents are expressing tonight would be
July B, 2008
24825
eliminated. The access to the secured lot would be from the
campus side of the court.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there questions?
Ms. Smiley:
What your suggesting is that they would come in to the parking
lot and then again have the key bobble whatever access so that
only authorized personnel can go into that special parking lot.
Ms. Carlson:
Yes. Essentially where the drive comes to Brookfield, we would
just flip that and enter from the parking lot.
Ms. Smiley:
I, as one commissioner, think that's an excellent suggestion.
Mr. Walsh:
Other questions or comments?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I agree thoroughly. I think that's an excellent suggestion. We
talked earlier about perhaps making that secure parking lot
accessible through the parking bt, but not closing the Brookfield
entrance, and that concerned me obviously because that now
becomes a cul through point for people to gel in and out of the
courthouse onto Brookfield, and obviously the residents aren't
going to want that. So I do think the idea of slipping the parking
entrance to the parking lot makes a lot of sense and I do
appreciate the background that you provided. I was going to
ask the question if you didn't already do it, is how did we arrive
at this site because that is a question that many residents have.
I think it's important that they realize and that everyone listening
realizes that this isn't the first site that you looked at. This is
one of many sites that have been looked at over a multi month
process. So l appreciatethat background. Thank you..
Mr. Morrow:
Just a comment, Judge. You coexist now next to the Senior
Center, do you not?
Judge McCann:
Yes, we do.
Mr. Morrow:
Now, you've indicated earlier that this is even a much more
secure area than what you're going to have with the new
building, infinitely so.
Judge McCann:
In the new building, it will be infinitely more secure.
Mr. Morrow:
And I think if you can co -exist next to a senior center, that we
are improving security issues, not only to the residents in the
area, but the people that are in the courthouse and for that
matter, the library.
Ms. Carlson: Thank you
July 8, 2008
24826
Judge McCann:
And I think that was one of our concerns. We had looked at the
area out near Five Mile and Farmington and, frankly, it's a
beautiful site. It's one that I initially wanted, but because of the
restaurant and the lease, and because of the traffic problems in
trying to construct a building and moving everyone during that
period of time, it was going to cost so much in terms of time,
confusion. It was such a major cost and inconvenience, we
determined that it was just not feasible. This was really the only
viable site, and frankly, I think that the seniors have managed
without any problems. We never had a single complaint to my
knowledge from a senior that they've been bothered by any of
our probationers, by anybody that has come in the evening or
come at any other time. Not a single complaint in the entire
time I've been there since 1994.
Mr. Morrow:
This was the point I was trying to bring out. If pu could offer
your experience over the years as it relates to the location
you're at now ...
Judge McCann:
And we do have security cameras and we will have even more
at that time. I don't think anyone has reason to fear from what
we have. People that we keep on probation are people that we
are trying to make better to bring them back in the community to
have a better life. Honestly, that's a mission of ours. It's not,
we don't go there to punish and destroy people. We're trying to
make them better people, and most of them come out better by
the time they're on the end. They're not out there trying to
commit more crimes. If they do, they' in jail. We don't let them
stay out there anymore.
Mr. Morrow:
I think with this change, as it relates to how you get to your
secure lot, will certainly help the Brookfield traffic because it
really doesn't impact it if we make that switch. With the way
you're addressing the security and the way you've screened it
from the residents on Brookfield, I think with those changes, it's
a great plan.
Judge McCann:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions?
Ms. Scheel:
I do appreciate the change. I think its much better for the
transportation of the prisoners and for the traffic down Brookfield
Avenue. So thank you very much for suggesting that.
Ms. Carlson: Thank you
July 8, 2008
24827
Mr. Walsh: Thank you for being here. Al this point, unless there are any
other questions, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, 8 was
#0731-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008-06-08-07
submitted by French Associates Architects requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a new courthouse
(le District Court) on property located at 32765 Five Mile
Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Library Drive and Brookfield Avenue in the Northwest '/. of
Section 22, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A1.01 dated June 9,
2008, as revised, prepared by Neumann Smith
Architecture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except that vehicular access from Brookfield Avenue to the
secured parking lot shall be eliminated and shall instead be
provided from the main parking lot;
2. That the Dimensional Site Plan marked Sheet C0.1 dated
June 9, 2008, as revised, prepared by French Associates,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Landscape Plan and Planting Details Plan marked
Sheets Ll & L2 both dated July 1, 2008, as revised,
prepared by Michael J. Dul & Associates, Inc., are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to; and
4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets
A4.01 & A4.02 both dated June 9, 2008, as revised,
prepared by Neumann Smith Architecture, are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
Ms. Smiley: Mark, are we going to do anything about that driveway?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. If I could offer a suggestion and that is, revise Condition
#1 to stale that it is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except that vehicular access from Brookfield Avenue shall be
eliminated. We will word it to indicate that access will come
from the west of the main parking lot.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: So we have a motion on the table as prepared with the change
that there will not be access from Brookfield. Are there any
July 8, 2008
24828
comments? Seeing that there are no comments, would you
please call the roll?
Mr. Walsh: The motion passes. This will go on to the City Council with an
approving recommendation with that change that was indicated.
The petitioner has requested a seven day waiver letter. Judge
McCann has spoken to both myself and to President Toy of the
Council. With a vole this evening, they will be able to move on
to the next agenda of the City Council. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously approved, itwas
#0732-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
dale of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2008-06-08-07 submitted by French Associates
Architects requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a new courthouse (16r" District Court) on property
located at 32765 Five Mile Road, located on the south side of
Five Mile Road between Library Drive and Brookfield Avenue in
the Northwest % of Section 22.
Mr. Walsh: Mark, could you give me the dale of that meeting again for the
people in our audience?
Mr. Taormina: That will be Monday, July 14.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. So this matter will be again considered by the City
Council on Monday, July 14 at 8:00 p.m. in this same room.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen for being here.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2008 -05 -SN -03 CAMBRIDGE CENTER
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
05Sh-03 submitted by The Blain Group requesting approval for
a ground sign for the high rise office building (Cambridge
Center) located at 38777 Six Mile Road, on the south side of Six
Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the -275/96
Expressway in the Northwest % of Section 18.
Mr. Miller: This is a request for a ground sign for the Cambridge Office
Center located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Haggerty Road and the -275/96 Expressway. This building is
July 8, 2008
24829
four stones in height and is located in a PO, High Rise
Professional Office district. By virtue of the PO zoning, this
high-rise multi -tenant office building is permitted one wall sign
based on the lineal footage of the building frontage and two
ground signs. This property is permitted two ground signs
because it has more than 400 feet of frontage along two major
thoroughfares (Six Mile Road and the 1-275/96 Expressway).
The Cambridge Office Center already has an existing wall sign
on its east elevation. The petitioner is proposing to erect only
one conforming ground sign on the east side the site's driveway
off Six Mile Road. This proposed monument sign would have a
brick base and the sign area would consist of exchangeable
tenant panels. The sign would be internally illuminated.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated June 13, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 9, 2008, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The required 'no parking fire lane' signs are missing at the
front entry and must be replaced. (2) There are missing shrubs
at the enclosure around the generator. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the Planning Department? Seeing
none, I know the petitioner is in the audience. Sir, could you
please step forward? Good evening.
Brady Blain, The Blain Group, 39209 Six Mile, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good
evening.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Blain. There's probably not much more to add
to the presentation. Are there any questions for Mr. Blain this
evening? It's a conforming package. Pretty straight up. Mr.
Blain, thank you for being here. We don't have any questions.
We appreciate you being here but we won't tax your memory or
anything tonight. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes
to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward and the absence of any additional comments, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by McDermott, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it
was
July 8, 2008
24830
#0733-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008 -05 -SN -03
submitted by The Blain Group requesting approval for a ground
sign for the high rise office building (Cambridge Center) located
at 38777 Six Mile Road, on the south side of Six Mile Road
between Haggerty Road and the 1275/96 Expressway in the
Northwest % of Section 18, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by The Blain Group, as
received by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2008, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated June 13, 2008; and
3. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2008 -05 -SN -05 WALGREENS SIGN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
05Sh105 submitted by Diamond Holdings, on behalf of
Walgreens, requesting approval for signage for the commercial
building (Walgreens) located at 33239 Eight Mile Road, on the
south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest % of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: On July 2, 2007, Walgreens received waiver use approval to
construct a commercial building within the Eight Mile Place
development. Eight Mile Place is a commercial development
consisting of a Tim Horton's restaurant, a multi -tenant
commercial building, Taco Bell and the subject Walgreens. As
part of the approving resolution for Walgreens, it was
conditioned that the proposed signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission
and City Council. The subject property is zoned G2, General
Business. By virtue of the C-2 zoning, this commercial building
is permitted two wall signs because it has exposure along two
major thoroughfares, Eight Mile Road and Farmington Road,
July 8, 2008
24831
and one ground sign. The sign area for the principle wall sign is
based on the lineal footage of the building's frontage and the
secondary wall sign is based on half the allowable area of the
first permitted sign. All proposed signage would be internally
illuminated. Therefore, they are allowed one wall sign on the
north elevation, which is the elevation facing Eight Mile, at 130
square feel, and one on the west elevation, which faces
Farmington Road, at 65 square feet. They also are permitted a
ground sign at 30 square feel. What they are proposing is two
wall signs, one on the north elevation and one on the west
elevation. Both signs would be 65 square feel in size, so they
are conforming wall signage. They are also proposing a ground
sign. They are allowed 30 square feet. they are proposing one
at 22 squarefeel. Sothis is also a conforming sign package.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated June 16, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 5, 2008, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The petitioner shows seven proposed wall signs where only
two wall signs are permitted. The first wall sign would be
permitted to be a maximum of 130 square feet. The second wall
sign would be permitted to be a maximum of 65 square feet. A
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to
maintain the excess number of wall signs and excess square
footage. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building
Inspector. Just as a note, this letter was written at a time when
the petitioner was proposing five additional wall signs. He has
since revised this application to show the two signs as
discussed by Mr. Miller this evening. It is a conforming sign
package at this point and would not require review by the
Zoning Board of Appeals. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Varloogian:
Is there just the two wall signs? There's no ground sign any
longer then?
Mr. Taormina:
The ground sign is proposed in addition to the two wall signs.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. So there is a ground sign and two wall signs.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. That's the sign that Scott is showing right now. It's a little
difficult to see. It's actually the mortar and pestle logo on a box
July 8, 2008
24832
sign with Walgreens scdptjust below that. The size of that sign,
as was indicated, is under the 30square fool allowance.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening.
Mike Rein, Bowers & Rein Associates, 2400 S. Huron Parkway, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48104. Good evening. I'm representing Walgreens
and Diamond Holdings this evening. I really have nothing
further to add. If there are any questions, I'd be glad to try and
answer them.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I just want to make a comment that I appreciate the work that
you've done on the sign package in coming in to us with a
conforming package. It's very much appreciated.
Mr. Rein:
We tried to work closely with Mr. Miller and Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you for being here, sir. If there are no further questions
or comments, then a motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Varloogian, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, 8
was
#0734-2008
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2008 -05 -SN -05
submitted by Diamond Holdings, on behalf of Walgreens,
requesting approval for signage for the commercial building
(Walgreens) located at 33239 Eight Mile Road, on the south
side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and
Shadyside Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 3, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Diamond Holdings, as
received by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2008, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour after this business closes;
3. That no LED Iighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
July 8, 2008
24833
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval; and
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2008 -05 -SN -06 LAUREL PARK SIGN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2008-
05 -SN -06 submitted by Schostak Brothers & Company
requesting approval for wall signage for the office buildings
(Laurel Park) located at 17370, 17380, and 17390 Laurel Park
Drive North, on the east side of Laurel Park Drive between Six
Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southeast'''/ of Section
7.
Mr. Miller: This is a request for wall signage for the Laurel Park Office
Buildings located on the south side of Laurel Park Drive
between Newburgh Road and the 4275/96 Expressway. The
Laurel Park Buildings consist of three high rise multi -tenant
office buildings that are connected by separate atriums. These
buildings are part of the Laurel Park Place Mall development
and are located in a PO, High Rise Professional Office district.
By virtue of the PO zoning, these three multi -tenant office
buildings are each permitted one wall sign based on the lineal
footage of their building frontages. One of the subject office
buildings already has an existing wall sign. On the west
elevation of 17390 Laurel Park Drive is an existing wall sign that
identifies the University of Phoenix. Because 17390 Laurel Park
Drive already has an existing wall sign, any additional signage
for that office building would require a wriance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The other two buildings, which are identified
as 17370 and 17380 Laurel Park Drive, are both permitted one
wall sign at 52 square feet. The proposed signage is for one
wall sign on the north elevation of each building at 52 square
feel and both these signs are conforming. That is the extent of
the proposal.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
July 8,, 2008
24834
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated June 16, 2008, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 5, 2008, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
The petitioner shows a proposed wall sign located on the north
side of 17390 Laurel Park Drive, where an existing wall sign is
located on the west side of the building. A variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the
additional sign and excess square footage. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, we will go
to the petitioner. Good evening.
Stephen Duczynski, Newburgh/Six Mile Limited Partnership II, 17672 Laurel Park
Drive North, Suite #400E, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm a Vice
President with Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. I'm also the
Director of Real Estate Development and Construction Division.
Tonight, accompanying me to answer any questions, are
representatives of both the Tower tenant, whose name appears
on the previous plan, and the AAA tenant. I have Mr. Dave
Darida of Legal Counsel with Tower Automotive. I have Mr.
William Hanby, a Senior Vice President with AAA Life Insurance
Company and also the Chief of Information Officer. And I have
Mr. Robert Dotson who is General Counsel and Secretary with
the AAA Life Insurance Company. We're all here tonight
because this discussion is very important to us, important to
AAA, important to Tower and their ability to operate a business
at the Laurel Park Place office building. We are collectively
seeking your approval on tonight's agenda. To give you some
background about Tower in case you aren't aware, Tower
Automotive is not a field supply company, previously based at
the intersection of Twelve Mile Road and Haggerty Road, and
has decided to come to Livonia to provide its headquarters at
the Laurel Park Place office building, to locale it headquarters
there. It is very important both to Laurel Park because it
increases their occupancy rale, and I think having an
automobile supply company in the City of Livonia, to be able to
say we have one as maybe a local township near us says and is
important to us, as we say the universities in Livonia are very
important to us. But their space is under construction. There is
79,000 square feet. They're taking in the three buildings and
I'm here tonight to talk to you that this is not one building; this is
three buildings. They're taking the fourth floor of what we call
the east building. They're taking the fourth floor of the center
July 8, 2008
24835
building. They're taking 75 percent of the fourth floor of the
west building. If that wasn't enough, they're taking first floor
space within the west building which will contain their exercise
area for their employees, will contain a display center which will
show what they produce as an automobile supply company, and
a receiving area to accept that display material. I'm told they
have 300 employees. Schostak is their landlord and we are
building the space for them and construction started two weeks
ago. The second tenant, AAA, containing 50,000 square feel,
just recently completed their construction. I'm told that they,
loo, have 300 employees that reside within the space. To make
all that happen, Schoslak, a tenant in that space, a resident of
Livonia, vacated their space, their 23,000 square feet, and went
from the fourth floor in each building to the second floor center
building and opened up approximately a week and a half ago for
business. Schoslak's 23,000 square feet, their 84 employees,
the square footage of AAA, 50,000 square feet, the square
footage of Tower Automotive, 79,000 square feet, allowed
152,000 square feel to be under construction in Laurel Park
Place office complex since the beginning of the year. We're
quite pleased with that. That's the reason why we're here
tonight. That's the good news and we only have good news.
We are petitioning the city, both in this meeting, the City Council
meetings, as Mr. Taormina said, the Zoning Board of Appeals,
to consider Laurel Park Place as three individual buildings
rather than a building, as it is considered now. We're asking for
the approval of multi exterior building signage. We make this
request based on hardship, and we are petitioning the city
based on the following hardships that I'd like to recite to you.
Building design. If it were not for the glass atrium at the
entranceway and the glass roof, these three office buildings
would exist with open exterior walls. But in 1988, 89 and 90,
that was the thing that architect did rather than letting the three
buildings sit as they were, created an interior atrium, created an
interior feeling, make it good for the employees. To make
matters worse or, in my case, matters better, there is a parking
structure building, and it truly is a building because it occupies
tenants, it occupies their cars, but more importantly, it occupies
a theater and six in4ine tenants. And again, that part of the
atrium which is at the south section of the office building, if the
atrium didn't exist, the common area would still exist, but those
buildings would have been designed with an open type
insulated exterior wall. But for the architect, again, enclosing
the roof with glass and the entrances to that common area with
glass, it may look like and may work as one building, but we
believe we have three buildings that contain offices. We have
another building that contains a parking structure within which is
lucked in the theater and six additional tenants. So because of
July 8, 2008
24836
that, we believe that, although we designed something properly
and benefits the City of Livonia, we kind of punished ourselves
in doing so. We further learned that when we tried to operate
the building, the U.S. Post Office would not consider this one
building. They consider our complex four buildings. The parking
structure building with the theater and six tenants is building one
and those have separate addresses. And each office building
has a separate address as we recited earlier today, 17370,
17380 and 17390, and if you're a tenant within those buildings,
a variation of that number, that's your address and that's how
the post office delivers the mail. So in their eyes, this is three
buildings. The buildings itself located where they are, are not
on Six Mile Road. The buildings are not on Newburgh Road,
but are on Laurel Park Drive, which in one section of it is a
northbound collector street and another portion of it is an east -
west collector street. So the office building itself only really has
two locations for signs, on the north side or on the west side.
As we spoke earlier today, the west side already has the
University of Phoenix and, therefore, we're not proposing any
more signs on that side of the building, but we're proposing it on
the north side of the building. We're trying to identify each
building. Building A, Building B, Building C, in this case,
building Tower, building AAA and building tenant. We don't
have a name for the third tenant at this point. If I tell you a little
story at the end of my presentation, you'll think that Schoslak
may need a sign, but that's not why I'm here tonight. We have
no opportunities or any rights for signage on Six Mile Road or
on Newburgh Road. So that's a hardship. So because of the
multiple building structures, the atria that we have, the
entrances where they're located, because of a good design and
because we have been fortunate enough to bring Tower
Automotive to Livonia, with your help, and AAA Life Insurance to
Livonia, we have a problem. And that problem is we have
insufficient way finding signs. And of course in doing that, also
we recognize the sign ordinance and we're not proposing a sign
that's any bigger than the ordinance. We know that 52 square
feet is the rule of thumb, and each building will have a sign no
more than 52 square feel. So we don't want to change the
ordinance. We just would like to have a way finding sign on the
building so that these tenants can operate as they expect to. In
the case of Tower, to acknowledge that it is an automotive
supplier headquarters. I guess the best way I can say and tell
you what our problems are is to relate a little story to you that
came across my desk a few days ago. It's from a tenant who
actually operates in the Laurel Park office building and it goes
something like this. The tenant shortly settled into their new
offices and they were going to entertain a client. The client
lands by plane at Metro Airport, called the receptionist and
July 8, 2008
24837
requested directions to the Laurel Park Place office. The
conversation went something like this. Take 1-275 north and
exit on Six Mile Road east. Not so bad. Proceed right to the
first center median opening. Oh by the way, that's Laurel Park
Drive. I hope there's a sign but there is a traffic light. If you
miss that, don't worry. Schostak has an office space for lease
sign. If you find that, turn there. The girl then proceeded to give
further directions. When you go on Laurel Park Drive north, you
will be going in a northerly direction but as you turn the corner,
there's a 90 degree tum half way down. You'll gel going east to
Newburgh Road. But don't worry about it, there's office
buildings on the left and there's office buildings on the right.
Just about that time, the receptionist was interrupted by the
voice on the other end of the phone saying, well, which office
building should we go to? She said, not a problem. Continue
on the easterly path of Laurel Park Drive until you see the
Parisian department store. Turn right into the main driveway
and park in front of what looks like three office buildings, with
glass enclosed front and the glass enclosed roof, and go to the
first building. The phone conversation ended and several
minutes later, the receptionist got a call. The gentleman said,
I'm in the parking lot. Is the first building on my left or is the first
building on my right? It's a true story but an embarrassing
moment for the tenant that was in the building because of the
lack of way finding signs. This out -of lown visitor wasn't able to
find the building. I'm asking you today, as well as Tower and
AAA, to approve the petitioners request and welcome them to
Livonia. Thank you. I'm ready for questions. They are here for
questions. We're all ready to answer any questions you might
have. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions?
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Duczynski, that's a very good presentation you gave us. I
have no problem with the request for the signage. I'm thrilled to
see Tower Automotive coming to Livonia. I know AAA Life has
already been in Livonia and is moving to this facility. I think
that's excellent as well. I will say that perhaps you may need to
have addresses on your building as opposed to company
names because it sounds like you obviously have difficulty
giving directions to the building. But that being said, I know that
people are creatures of habil and if you say it's the Tower
Automotive building, its the one with the AAA logo on it, those
work just as well as an address on the building, so I'm fine with
this. Thank you.
July 8, 2008
24838
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other comments or questions? Seeing none,
thank you, sir, for being here. We appreciate you all coming
tonight. At this point, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Wilson, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, 8
was
#0735-2008 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Pefilion 2008 -05 -SN -06
submitted by Schostak Brothers & Company requesting
approval for wall signage for the office buildings (Laurel Park)
located at 17370, 17380, and 17390 Laurel Park Drive North, on
the east side of Laurel Park Drive between Six Mile Road and
Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 7, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Schoslak Brothers &
Company, as received by the Planning Commission on
June 4, 2008, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour afierthis business closes;
3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: Again, I'd like to compliment the fine presentation and, as one
commissioner, welcome Tower Automotive for selecting Livonia
and AAA Life selecting to remain in Livonia. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
July 8, 2008
24839
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 9647HPUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 960 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on June 10, 2008.
On a motion by Vartoogian, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
#0736-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 964" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 10,
are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Varloogian, Smiley, MdDermoO, Morrow, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Scheel, Wilshaw
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3951h SPECIAL MEETING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 395"' Special Meeting held on June 17, 2008.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0737-2008 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 395"' Special Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on June 17, 2008, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Wilshaw, Scheel, McDermott, Morrow, Varloogian,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
July 8, 2008
24840
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 965" Regular
Meeting held on July 8, 2008, was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary