HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-02-10 15887
MINUTES OF THE 758th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 10, 1998, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 758th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Daniel Piercecchi Elaine Koons* Robert Alanskas
William LaPine Michael Hale
Members absent: James McCann
Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. Alanskas informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision in writing to the City Council; otherwise the petition is
terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat
and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days
after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions
upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying
resolutions. They may use them or not depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to welcome back to the Planning Commission Bill LaPine.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-12-1-
21 by L. T. Company L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located on the
southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Louise Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section
2 from M-1 to C-2.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it
was
#2-13-98 RESOLVED that, Petition 97-12-1-21 by L. T. Company L.L.C.
requesting to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Eight
Mile Road and Louise Avenue in the NE 1/4 of Section 2 from M-1 to C-2
be taken from the table.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
15888
Mr. Nowak: There is no new information regarding this petition.
�► Mr. Alanskas: Being that we have no one in the audience wishing to speak on this
petition, we will let the petitioner speak.
Richard Taubman on behalf of L. T. Company: We did meet with you at the Study
Meeting. My client wanted to make clear that in our discussion of tile that
we meant exterior architectural tile. I understand that some members of
the Board have driven by my client's property and have reviewed what's
being done and I think that you can see that he is keeping his promises in
terms of what he is going to do with the property. It is going to be a real
benefit and a positive thing for the City of Livonia. We ask that the zoning
be changed for all the reasons that we discussed recently. It will be a
benefit both to my client and to the City. As a practical matter, it has
always been a gas station and it always will be a gas station. It has a new
tank system in there.
Mr. Alanskas: Just to let the viewing audience know, this is an M-1 district and the
petitioner is asking for a C-2 zoning. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Pierchecci, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was
#2-14-98 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
�., January 27, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 97-12-1-21
by L. T. Company L.L.C. requesting to rezone property located on the
southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Louise Avenue in the NE 1/4 of
Section 2 from M-1 to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 97-12-1-21 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the existing
M-1 zoning district occurring on the lands on the south side of Eight Mile
Road both east and west of the subject property;
2) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage
future requests for zoning changes to C-2 along Eight Mile Road in the
vicinity of the subject area;
3) That there is no demonstrated need for additional C-2 zoned land in
this section of the City;
4) That the proposed change of zoning is not restrictive enough as to
insure compatibility with surrounding uses.
15889
5) While the Planning Commission believes there is merit in
encouraging the redevelopment of the subject property, it is felt that this
matter could be more appropriately handled through an appeal to the
`.► Zoning Board of Appeals without having to deviate from the Master Plan
and introduce commercial zoning in this manufacturing district.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. LaPine: The reason I put condition 5 in there is that I want people to know that we
are not opposed to the gas station per se, we are opposed to deviating from
the Master Plan.
Mr. Piercecchi: You have been operating through the ZBA at that particular station
for a long period of time. This body, when we met with you, thought it
would be best if you would continue to work with the ZBA. You are
grandfathered in there and I'm sure they would be very cooperative with
you. As the motion states, we see no reason to have C-2 there because it
could cause actions up and down Eight Mile Road for people to change
that M-1 zoning.
Mr. Alanskas: I was by there again today and I think you are doing a good job of getting
it done, cleaning up that site, but as we have already said, even by staying
M-1, the only thing you would have to go to the ZBA is for sign variance.
Is that correct, Mr. Nowak?
Mr. Nowak: Yes, he will have to get a variance for the sign that he is proposing.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is the approval of
the minutes of the 756th Regular Meeting held on January 13, 1998.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-15-98 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 756th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on January 13, 1998 are hereby approved.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-1-8-1
by Danny Veri requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a cluster housing
development on property located at 9350 Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 32.
15890
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Joy Road
and Ann Arbor Trail. The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a cluster
housing development on the property. This property was recently rezoned from
R-1 to R-C which is the zoning for residential condominium. The new
development would consist of 12 separate housing units. Each housing unit would
contain 3 bedrooms. The required front yard setback off Newburgh Road is 75'
and the petitioner shows 55'. Therefore it is non-conforming and they are required
to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. They have gone before the
Zoning Board prior to being presented to the Planning Commission, and have a
variance for insufficient setback. Access to the site would be by one curb cut off
of Newburgh Road. The street in the development would be a 24' wide private
drive and would be an upturned "L" shape and end in a"T"turn-a-round. The site
shows two common areas. One would be just south of the north property line and
behind units 12, 11 and 10, and the other would be located behind unit 6 just north
of the south property line. He also shows two 15' earth berms between the
development and Newburgh Road. The elevation plans show that the buildings
would be two stories in height, but I believe he will have ranches too. Brick to the
first floor and then siding on the remaining portions of the buildings. The roof
would be asphalt shingled.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated February 3, 1998.
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. It is recommended that the legal description provided with the
�.., petition be utilized in connection therewith. The proposed development is
currently serviced by all public utilities, although restriction of storm water into the
storm sewer system may be required due to the capacity of the storm system." We
have a letter from the Traffic Bureau dated February 2, 1998. "In response to the
captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as
submitted." We have a letter from the Department of Fire& Rescue dated
February 6, 1998. "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a proposal to construct a cluster housing development on property located on
the east side of Newburgh Road between Joy and Ann Arbor Trail. Because of
partially combustible construction and separation distances of 15 ft. between
exposures, this Department is requiring a site hydrant, preferably located at
entrance to complex, with a minimum flow of 1,000 gallons at a residual pressure
of 20 lbs. Because of a lack of parking areas, this Department is requiring that the
hydrant side of Blake Drive be posted as a fire lane per City ordinance. If Blake
Drive was increased in width to 26 ft., it would allow for the required 18 ft. wide
fire lane with an allowance of 89 ft. for parallel parking and snow encroachment."
Signed by Rockney Whitehead, Fire Marshal.
Danny Veri, 18442 Van Road, Livonia: The one comment I do want to make on the Fire
Department's request, is we want to have no parking on the fire lane side. I was
telling you about the development we have Pittsfield Township. We have the same
thing. We kept the hydrant side of the lane as a fire lane so we restricted the
15891
parking to one side. There's very, very little parking in the street. The exception
is when they have company and their driveway won't accommodate it. The other
reason, our site on Six Mile, Glenn's Farms, I believe has a 27' street and it
`10. doesn't have restricted parking. If you have a car on both sides, it is very tight, so
we had planned on restricting the parking.
*7:40 - Mrs. Koons arrived at this time.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am very pleased you are bringing up two points here. I would like
to bring two suggestions to you. Number 1, you have to of course satisfy safety
requirements. With an 18' lane you certainly can't put cars on both sides. In
reference to that overflow parking, I think I have a solution for you. Adjacent to
the east side of Lot #9, there is roughly a 35' side yard. When you take parking
off both sides of the street, you can create a problem on certain days where you
are going to need some overflow parking. I think you could put 5 parking spaces
in there, 20'x10', adjacent to that wall. They would have to be shielded of course
with landscaping.
Mr. Veri: I don't have a problem with that, but if I were a potential customer of Lot
9, I would be hesitant to have cars parked 15' from me.
Mr. Piercecchi: Not if it were done right. It has been done on Farmington Road
and other places.
N... Mr. Veri: I would not object to that.
Mr. Piercecchi: As far as the 26', the main body you would move the front setback
back a foot and instead of 25' you would have 24' on each side. Over on that
extension where hopefully you will continue to build in that area, you have plenty
of room there and would only have to take a couple of feet.
Mr. Veri: Yes, that property is a larger area where we could widen the road and put
in more parking.
Mr. LaPine: You talk about the common recreation area, and you mentioned that each
one of these units could put up a fence. The largest area in the corner - once you
put up a fence, does that not still become a common area? To me, if I live there
and I put up a fence and someone uses the common area, I am going to be a little
upset because it is not common, it belongs to me. How do you take care of that
with the residents?
Mr. Veri: That was a suggestion of what we may do. If we did do that, then it would
not be a common element. It would be what is called a blended common element.
With a general common element, it means anyone can use it. At the site we have
at Pittsfield Township, we had it set up as a limited common element where they
cut the grass and took care of things themselves. If you have it as a general
15892
common element, then the Association is responsible for maintaining the common
areas. We have not put it in stone yet on what we want to do. If the Commission
or Council wanted us to go one way or the other, it doesn't really matter to us. To
continue the single family site look that we wanted to do, the limited common
element is the better way and that would be rephrased as limited rather than
general. When we originally drafted it, we hadn't discussed what we were going
to do, so I will leave that up to you which way you want to design the bylaws.
Mr. LaPine: It isn't for me to say how you should handle it, I am just looking at the
point from the people who live there. They have to have a recreation place for the
kids to play. Usually in condos they don't have that much area to play and that is
why we put in this ordinance that they have to have these common areas. Unless
they have access to that, they don't become common areas any more. To me,
once you put up a fence, that becomes my private property. I can see some
conflicts that I guess could be worked out with the Association. You have no
objection to the proposal that Mr. Piercecchi stated?
Mr. Veri: No, not at all. That could actually solve a problem that could happen on
special days where extra parking is needed.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have two parking spaces for each condo, or just one?
Mr. Veri: All the units have two parking spaces in attached garages and then the
driveway.
Nem-
Mr. Alanskas: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#2-16-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-1-8-1 by Danny Veri requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal to construct a cluster housing development
on property located at 9350 Newburgh Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 32
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc.,
as received by the Planning Commission on December 1, 1997 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Plan 1759 Sheet
1 and 2 and Plan 1906 Sheet 2, as received by the Planning Commission on
December 1, 1997 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
15893
3. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan for the berm areas shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review
and approval;
4. That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction
the following requirements as outlined I the correspondence dated
February 6, 1998:
- That a site hydrant, with a minimum flow of 1,000 gallons at a
residual pressure of 20 lbs. shall be required.
- That Blake Drive shall be increased to a width of 26 feet to allow
for the required 18 foot fire land.
5. That five (5) additional parking spaces shall be provided between
the east elevation of unit nine and Blake Drive and these parking spaces
shall be landscaped so that they are adequately screened.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Veri: I would like to request to waive the 7 day requirement.
Mr. LaPine: About these 7 days, I am not in favor of giving these 7 day waivers unless
it is for the health and welfare of the community. It gives us the
�.., opportunity if someone else finds something to change their mind. Unless
it has something to do with the health and welfare of the community, I
don't think we should allow these 7 day waivers. Another 7 days isn't
going to make that much difference.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-1-8-2
by Victor Parkway Associates L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
two office buildings on property located at 19400 Victor Parkway in the North 1/2
of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven
and Eight Mile Roads, to the south and adjacent to Livonia Hills
Subdivision and The Villas condominium development. The petitioner is
proposing to construct two office buildings on site. One office building
identified on the plan as Building 1 would be 4 stories in height and
206,496 sq. ft. in size. The other building, identified as Building 2, would
be 4 stories in height and 184,896 sq. ft. in size. The site would also be
serviced by a retention pond. The two office buildings are required to have
1,566 parking spaces. The site plan shows 1,578 parking spaces. At this
time the landscape plan has not been submitted and they will be called back
if this plan is approved. I did count up the areas that could be landscaped.
15894
They are required to have 15% of the total site, and areas that could be
landscaped add up to about 37%.
'r. Mr. Alanskas: We are showing only two entrances, correct?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: How wide are the entrances?
Mr. Miller: 22'. Both buildings would be architecturally similar in appearance. The
building materials would be mainly brick and you have a concrete paneling
between the windows. The entrance would be a glass feature with
concrete around it.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Nowak, is there any new correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated February 3, 1998:
Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. It is recommended that the legal description provided
with the petition be utilized I connection therewith. Since the lot is
currently served by all public utilities, except storm sewer, an issue that has
been addressed by the proposed retention pond, the Engineering Division
has no problem with the proposal. There is a letter from the Livonia Fire&
Rescue Division dated February 6, 1998: This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a proposal to construct two office
buildings on property located on the west side of Victor Parkway between
Seven Mile And Eight Mile Roads. The following shall be posted as a fire
lane per City Ordinance: The most southern east/west access route from
Victor Parkway to the north/west corner of Building#1 in its entirety, and
The most northern east/west access route from Victor Parkway to the
north/west corner of Building#1 in its entirety. That is signed by Rockney
L. Whitehead, Fire Marshal. We also have a letter from the Traffic Bureau
of the Police Department. In response to the captioned petition, the
following is submitted for your consideration: 1) The developer desires to
leave the wooded area north of the north drive undisturbed. The only
conflict that this would create with respect to traffic safety is the
encroachment that the wooded area has upon the sight line. 2) It is the
Traffic Bureau's recommendation that any vegetation higher than 3' be cut
back or removed if it is within 25' of the west curb. 3) It is recommended
that any area within 25' of the west curb north of the north drive be
maintained as a clear vision area. That is signed by Officer John B. Gibbs.
That is the extent of our conversation.
Mr. Piercecchi: Scott, we approved 20' double striped parking spaces. Does that
facility have that?
15895
Mr. Miller: There is a note on the site plan that says it will be double striped.
Mr. Piercecchi: How about people who repair lots? Let's say half of their lot is not
_.. double striped. Do they have to go to double stripe there, or can they
continue with single?
Mr. Miller: The ordinance lets them keep single stripe so it won't be hodgepodge.
Mr. Alanskas: From the southern part of that parking lot to the building, how many feet is
it from there to the building?
Mr. Miller: About 600'.
Robert Yurk, Ghafari Associates, 17001 Michigan Ave., Dearborn, Michigan: We have
submitted, in addition to the material that the Planning Commission
reviewed, a sketch of the separation of the two parking lot areas. At last
week's meeting there was some discussion about the retaining wall, the
appearance of the wall and what the material might be. We have continued
on with our detailed engineering and we have determined that the change in
elevation between those two parking areas will not be as great as we had
originally anticipated. We don't feel that there is a need for that wall. We
feel that we can provide a fully landscaped area without the need for a
retaining wall. If you would look at the sketch, this is shown at the
southern end of the site where we have the greatest grade differential;
somewhere in the neighborhood of 7'. As we go north, that grade
differential is smaller. What we have done, we have actually created a berm
2' higher than the parking level in an effort to screen the higher parking
from the lower parking so that as someone would enter the site from the
east, there is even more of a separation in that parking area so it is broken
down in a smaller scale and doesn't appear quite so large. The intention
would be that it would be a fully landscaped area. To help us hold that
bank, we would establish a ground cover type vegetation to hold the soils
and then the berm and the entire width would be landscaped with trees and
low vegetation.
Mrs. Koons: What is the width of the berm?
Mr. Yurk: The berm at the southern end is about 28' and at the northern end it
narrows to 20'.
Mr. Piercecchi: Will it cause any loss of parking?
15896
Mr. Yurk: No. We have maintained the dimensions of the original site plan submitted
and the dimensions I just related are as per the site plan previously
submitted.
Mr. Alanskas: Being it is 28' wide and in one section 7' high, the northern part, how high
would it be?
Mr. Yurk: In the neighborhood of 3' to 4'. The great difference between the parking
areas, the berm would be 2' above that parking area, again maintaining an
elevation trying to screen the parking of the upper level.
Mr. Alanskas: Any problem with water coming down from the high point as far as
erosion?
Mr. Yurk: No. Our intention there, if it is necessary, we can place geotech style fabric
before the plantings go in, and there are a variety of ways to maintain the
bank along that area so we don't have to worry about erosion. The
buildings are designed mainly as red brick to harmonize with the neighbors
that are there in Victor Parkway. They have precast concrete accents
similar to some of the neighbors in that area. Our effort was to blend in
with the neighborhood and harmonize with what is there. We have also
taken a look at that not only with the appearance of the building and what
we see by day, but also what you would see by night. What we are
proposing is a round hockey-puck shaped fixture which is the predominant
...• fixture in the Victor Corporate Park except for one site. We are proposing
to use metal halide lamps which produce a white light and that is used on
two sites there. Again, it is an effort to blend in at night as traffic would go
by on I-275 to keep uniformity there in Victor Corporate Park. (Mr. Yurk
showed samples)
Mr. Alanskas: It says that the lighting poles in the northern section will only be 20'
instead of the 34'?
Mr. Yurk: That's correct.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to have seed instead of sod?
Mr. Yurk: I don't think so. We haven't gotten into that much detail as far as the
actual specifications for the lawn areas. We would predominately have
grass around the buildings with landscaping at the entrances and around the
perimeters to try and soften that. The rest of the site we want to maintain
in a natural state with mulch, low plantings and trees throughout the site
and throughout the parking areas in the islands.
Mr. LaPine: You have two entrances into this complex with approximately 1500 cars.
Those vehicles are going to come in between 7:00 and 9:00 and leave
15897
between 4:00 and 6:00, I would assume. The roads are 22' wide which
means it's one way each way. Don't you believe there ought to be more
than two ways to get in and out with that much traffic coming in? It seems
to me from office buildings I've seen, there is a backup of traffic. The
large building on the south side, the only way to get out of there is off the
parkway.
Mr. Yurk: That's correct. The only way to get in and out are from the entrances on
Victor Parkway.
Mr. LaPine: You don't see this to be any problem?
Mr. Yurk: The way we have this laid out - we have two main drives, one on the north
and one on the south to help distribute that traffic. The actual entrance
drive could be made wider than the 22'. I think the southern drive is wider.
It would allow easier ingress and egress for the vehicles. We certainly
could consider another curb cut along Victor Parkway, but what that
would do, it would enter from the east in the middle of a parking row and
our concern there would be (#1), that is 3 curb cuts in a very close
proximity and (#2), it invites ingress and egress traffic down the parking
row where cars may be backing into a spot. So we try to keep the ingress
and egress separate in the parking aisles because generally there are two
different intents. When you are looking for a parking space you are driving
a little slower. After you are finished with business, your goal is to get out,
and we try and separate that.
Mr. LaPine: I understand what you are saying. It is just a concern that I have. Maybe
the solution is just to widen that drive a little more than you normally do.
This berm that separates the two, you are going to put ground cover in
there I understand. Have you thought of putting big boulders in there to
hold that dirt in there?
Mr. Yurk: That is certainly an idea. As we are doing work on the site, I am sure we
will uncover some rocks and boulders too.
Mr. LaPine: I noticed that on some office buildings out in Troy and it seemed to work
out nice. For my own, I don't like the two buildings side by side. At the
time you designed the building, was there any time you thought about
moving the smaller building so that it is at an angle so that it doesn't look
like we have rows of buildings. Did you look at that at all?
Mr. Yurk: Yes we did. We looked at a number of building layouts, not only along
the north side and south side, and a variety of combinations. For a couple
of reasons we cited the buildings on the north side of the site, the first
to 4 being that's the high part of the site and the site naturally drains to the
.�. south. By placing the buildings anywhere to the south, you create a natural
15898
problem there trying to divert the drainage, and in heavy rainfall you could
have a problem with that. The other thing we looked at is if you turned the
building perpendicular in any fashion, again because the slope of the site is
from north to south, the buildings take on a larger appearance than what
they truly are. If the finished floor is at grade on the north side as the site
slopes away, the buildings become taller, appear taller than they really are
and we are trying to minimize that.
Mr. LaPine: It is all wooded there now and I'm hoping that we will try to save as many
of the trees as we can.
Mr. Yurk: That is definitely our goal. We have stayed away from the landscape buffer
so that we can perform all of our construction outside of that area. We
certainly don't have any problem with the Police Department's
recommendation to cutting that back for vision. We can work with the
City on that. In the front we also have the retention pond and in that area
we are trying to keep it as natural as possible and keep a soft appearance
on that site.
Mr. Piercecchi: You realize that when this is approved tonight, you are still going
to have to come back with a fully detailed landscape plan.
Mr. Yurk: Yes. We have noted that on our site plan along with the signage so that
when it is read into the record that would become official to meet the
City's requirements.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to your dumpster which is in the back towards the Villas
condos, could you put that on the side of the building so that it is farther
away from the residences?
Mr. Yurk: I understand your concern. The reason we located them there is that is in
the center of the main building we have a lobby and we also have a rear
entrance and when tenants move in and out of the building that is where
they would go. There is an elevator there that has two doors, one on each
end, so that the movers can come and go without disrupting the visitors. It
is easy access out the back of the building. The owner is proposing to use
compactors back there, the whole idea being that with the compactors, it
cuts down on the number of times the dumpster has to be emptied.
Mrs. Koons: You have 12 extra parking spaces, which isn't many, but I would be happy
to see you give them up to either widen that drive in or additional greenery
in the back area. The parking lot seems to be so massive, so expansive,
and while I think the berm will be really nice, any extra greenery, even in
the back area, then I would be happy to see those 12 spots go.
15899
Mr. Yurk: I would have no opposition to that and if the Planning Commission would
so desire to set the minimum number of spaces at the calculation, we would
be more than happy to work administratively with the Planning Department
\" to strategically eliminate those 12 spaces to either help with the ingress and
egress to the site, or retain any natural vegetation that we can.
Mr. Alanskas: We want to make sure you are not deficient on your parking. Mr. Nowak,
they want to keep that driveway at 3' high and 25' in width, will that be a
problem as far as being exposed to the residents?
Mr. Nowak: What they are proposing is that the trees within 25' west of the west curb
be eliminated that are higher than 3' for visibility.
Mr. Piercecchi: Bill, you were worried about the trash pickup. Don't we have an
ordinance that says that 7:00 is the earliest they can start removing trash?
Mr. Nowak: Yes, there is an ordinance.
Mr. Alanskas: Even though we have an ordinance, it doesn't mean they are going to be
right at that time.
Mr. LaPine: The retaining wall will be on the landscape plan?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved,
it was
#2-17-98 RESOLVED that, The City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-1-8-2 by Victor Parkway Associates
L.L.C. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct two office
buildings on property located at 19400 Victor Parkway in the North 1/2 of
Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet CO.10 prepared by Ghafari
Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on January 21, 1998 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A2.10
prepared by Ghafari Associates as received by the Planning Commission on
January 21, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan which shall include retaining
wall details shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council for their review and approval;
15900
4. That the petitioner shall meet to the Fire Department's satisfaction
the following requirements as outlined in the correspondence dated
February 6, 1998:
That the following shall be posted as a fire lane:
- The most southern east/west access route from Victor
Parkway to the north/west corner of Building#1 in its
entirety.
- The most northern east/west access route from Victor
Parkway to the north/west corner of Building#1 in its
entirety.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hale: This is a very nice building.
Mr. Piercecchi: Welcome to Livonia.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-1-8-3
by Zef Martin Ivezaj requesting approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and a site
plan required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal for a site condominium development on property located at 30176
Munger Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Ivezaj will not be here tonight as he is very ill. If the commissioners
think there are any questions that we feel he should be here for, we can
table this petition.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Munger between Henry Ruff and
Oporto. The petitioner is requesting to develop the site as a condominium
development. The development would consist of two condominium lots or
units. The development is zoned RUFA and each lot would conform to the
requirements of RUFA. Access to the site would be off a new road, Doris
Avenue. It would be a north and south direction road.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Department dated February 2,
1998: Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above referenced petition. It is recommended that the legal description
provided for parcel"A"be utilized in connection therewith. The lot is
currently served by all public utilities, and the Engineering Division has no
problem with the proposal. That's signed by David Lear, Civil Engineer 1.
We have a letter from the Department of Public Safety, Livonia Fire&
rescue: This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with
,,� a proposal to construct a site condominium development on property
15901
located on the north side of Munger Avenue between Henry Ruff and
Oporto. With minimal information supplied, requirements for turning
emergency vehicles around, providing adequate building access by
emergency vehicles or hydrant locations cannot be addressed. There is
another letter from the Division of Police dated February 5, 1998: The
Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted. That's
signed by John B. Gibbs, Traffic Bureau. That's the extent of our
correspondence.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#2-18-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-1-8-3 by Zef Martin Ivezaj requesting
approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and site plan as required by Section
18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site
condominium development on property located at 30176 Munger Avenue
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 prepared by Stellar Consulting
Services, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on February 5,
1998, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapters 16.04-16.40 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance#543, Section
20.01-20.06 of that ordinance.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to thank the Law Department because I read this Master Deed
twice and if you are not an attorney, you certainly would not understand it.
I thank them for looking this over and giving us approval.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-1-8-4
by Manor Care Health Services requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
senior care facility on property located at 32440 Seven Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Farmington and Osmus. The site is located between Mayfield Avenue and
the Courtyard Manor nursing home. The petitioner is proposing to
construct an assisted care facility on the site. The new facility would be
v.�. one story in height and 27,500 sq. ft. in area. It would consist of 52 units
15902
and allow a total of 60 beds. Parking for this facility requires 27 spaces
and they show 31, so they meet the parking requirement. They are
required to have 15% of the total site for landscaping and they show 64%
and that excludes the property shown on the site plan labeled "Future
Potential Parcel Split", so they do meet the landscaping requirement. As
you see, the front of the building is nicely landscaped with decorative trees,
deciduous trees, and the back would have pine trees along the fence line.
They also have decorative trees and flowers in the courtyard and up the
walk into the facility. The building would be a combination of brick and
vinyl siding. The front of the building would be brick and up to the
wainscot brick, and the remainder of the building would be a vinyl siding.
The roof would be asphalt shingled.
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated February 3, 1998:
The Engineering Division would like to note the following concerns: 1.
Sidewalk will be required along the Seven Mile side of the property to
connect existing pieces of sidewalk together. 2. Both the sidewalk and
approach location and layout will need to be approved by Wayne County
prior to obtaining a permit from this Department. That is signed by David
Lear, Civil Engineer 1. We have a letter from the Department of Public
Safety, Livonia Fire& Rescue: This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a senior housing
facility on property located on the north side of Seven Mile between
Farmington Road and Osmus Avenue. Because of the overall size of the
complex, this Department is requiring an access route to the north side of
the building with provisions for turning emergency vehicles around at the
route's most remote end. Options to the above requirement may include,
but not be limited to an access route east off of Mayfield or along the east
side of the complex. This Division also requires a minimum of one on-site
hydrant. Overall square footage indicates an automatic fire suppression
system is required. A hydrant shall be located a minimum of 50 ft. and a
maximum 100 ft. from building. That's signed by Rockney L. Whitehead,
Fire Marshal. We have a letter from the Division of Police dated February
2, 1998. The Police Department has no objection to the site plan as
submitted. That is signed by John B. Gibbs, Traffic Bureau. We have a
letter from the Inspection Department dated February 10, 1998. "The site
plan for the above subject petition has been reviewed and the following is
noted. The proposed fences do not conform to the residential district
regulations (Section 15.44.090 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance) for
height and location and would require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. That's signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr. Building Inspector.
That's the extent of our correspondence.
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: The Planning Commission recognizes that I was
not at the Study Meeting because I was out of town. The absence of a
revised elevation plan does not mean that the petitioner is not interested in
15903
revising the substance of the material. We talked about it before the
meeting and there is a willingness and a desire to try to accommodate some
of the recommendations that were made by the commissioners last week to
r..- have some additional brick. We have a representative of Manor Care here,
Mr. Topjian, and also a member of the architects, Mr. Wiseman. If you
like, we can review the drawing of the elevations and indicate to you what
the petitioner is going to do as far as bricking and some of the other things
that were mentioned at the Study Meeting. The other thing was the trash
enclosure, to turn it around and to be constructed of brick so that only the
brick side would be exposed to Seven Mile Road. It is my understanding
that the Commissioners would like to see the front elevation of brick.
Some of the material shown is vinyl siding and the petitioner is willing to
remove that and make the entire front of the building in brick. On the sides
of the building, I think that the recommendation is that where the peaks
are, they would also be made out of brick. In between the wainscoting
would be brick veneer.
Andrew Wiseman, Nowak& Fraus, Engineers. The rear would be 3' of wainscoting.
There was some concern about brick in the courtyards for mowing. The
courtyards will be landscaped right up to the walls.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am very disappointed that we don't have a rendering if you
accepted those recommendations that we discussed in the Study Meeting.
I don't see how personally in good judgment I could approve this package
without seeing this. We can't see the whole thing. We can't see the
fencing and the landscaping around the fence. You are not prepared for it.
We don't know how the fence is going to be screened from Mayfield.
Mr. Tangora: I apologize. I think that if I had been back in town I would have
recognized that you would have liked to have something to vote on
tonight. I expected that the plan was going to be here, but I just found out
before the meeting that it wasn't available, but I wanted you to know that
the petitioner is willing to cooperate.
Mr. Wiseman: There will be a decorative wooden fence that could be landscaped.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Tangora, the letters that Mr. Nowak read, do you have a copy of
those?
Mr. Tangora: None yet, but I will get a copy of those.
Mr. LaPine: One of the letters we got from the Fire Marshal about an exit off of
Mayfield, have you considered that?
Mr. Wiseman: I talked to the Fire Marshal about that, and what we decided would be the
best alternative would be to put a curb cut in Mayfield and an access gate
15904
which the Fire Department would have a lock box with a key. It would be
an 18' wide fire lane with a hammerhead turnaround in the back. We
would also provide a hydrant in front.
Mr. LaPine: The people there who have Alzheimer's and can wander - is this whole
thing fenced in? How is that controlled? There's the shopping center there
and they could wander and get injured or lost.
Nishan Topjian, Development Director for Manor Care Corporation: The facility is 100%
for Alzheimer's. The only way we would admit a patient is on
recommendation of the patient's doctor. Alzheimer's Disease has three
stages. It has an initial stage which lasts about two to three years and
normally is very mild and they can stay at home and their loved ones can
take care of them. The second stage is normally from stages three to seven
and is when we would be treating them. The last stage would be too
serious and we would have to move them to a nursing home. The middle
stage Alzheimer's that we would have would have difficulty in getting
dressed, or having difficulty in maintaining their personal hygiene. They
have some difficulty in cognitive functions, but they are not in the last
stages where they are completely helpless, totally unable to take care of
themselves. We would be assisting them, but most of the functions they
would be doing themselves. The fencing is a very important feature of our
facility. It is not for decoration, it is not for keeping people in and out, it is
just for their own health and welfare and safety. That is one of the reasons
`"' an 8' fence is important to us. Anything shorter than 8' they have the
ability to sort of see over it or hear over it and dementia is not just a mental
state, it is also the noises and visual impairments that are affected by it. It
is fully gated so that if any one of the doors are open, there is an alarm so
we would immediately notice if any of the residents were outside of the
building. Once they are out of the building, they are still confined by the
fence which starts at the first door in the back to the front gate. Obviously,
there is no fencing in the front of the building,just the two sides and the
back and it has an interior courtyard. Those fences are highly maintained
by us because they are not for decorative purposes, they are part of their
treatment. There is no way they can get out if we have the right type of
fence and the right type of gate mechanism. It's a board-on-board wood
fence. It's like three dimensional.
Mrs. Koons: You answered one of my questions. I was concerned that some mentally
impaired people may be mixed in, but you said it was exclusively for
Alzheimer patients. As much as I appreciate your willingness to work and
change the plan and your time restraints, I have to agree with Mr.
Pierchecchi. Even when we bring the resolutions, we usually refer to a
design of some type, and without that to refer to, I don't feel ready to vote
tonight. It does seem like you have a lot of internal controls to help people
15905
stay organized with the different pods and the different colors - the way to
make it feel like home and break it into smaller pieces.
~` Mr. Alanskas: You say you are going to have 60 beds. If they were completely full, how
many people would you have on staff? If there were people walking
around, how many people on staff would see these people walking around?
Mr. Topjian: Our typical daily staffing would be the Director, the Administrative
Services Manager, a Coordinator and his assistant, a Marketing
Coordinator, a Program Services Coordinator, a Program Services
Assistant, a cook, a Food Services Coordinator and a Food Services
Assistant, a housekeeper, a Building Services Coordinator, 4 Resident
Services Coordinators (these are nurses), and Resident Services
Supervisors and Senior Resident Caregivers and Resident Caregivers.
These are all full time employees, there every day.
Mr. LaPine: Does each patient have their own room?
Mr. Topjian: Yes. At one time we used to have 52 units, which is 52 rooms, but 56 beds
which meant that four rooms had double occupancy. They were set aside
for family members with the same disease who wanted to be in the same
room. The last few years we have gotten away from that and now we build
56 units with 56 beds.
Mr. LaPine: Do the patients who live there make their own bed and take care of their
own room?
Mr. Topjian: Each one of the 56 residents is at a different stage of the disease. Some
need more assistance than others.
Mr. Hale: What is the monthly fee for people there?
Mr. Topjian: When a patient is first referred to us by a doctor, we have an initial
consultation to look over and see what functions they need assistance on.
Based on the number of services a patient is going to need, we price that.
On an average, I would say $2300 to $2400 a month to a top of$3000.
Mr. Hale: You have no other Manor Care facilities in Livonia, is that right?
Mr. Topjian: Not in Livonia. We have one in Sterling Heights. We have this same
building in Sterling Heights.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this item.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was
r..
15906
#2-19-98 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
98-1-8-4 by Manor Care Health Services requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
N" proposal to construct a senior housing facility on property located at 32440
Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 until the Study Meeting
of February 17, 1998.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 758th Regular Meeting
held on February 10, 1998 was adjourned at 8:50 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
C
al
( C. Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: ,1'
Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman
"ft. /du