Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-07-3019513 MINUTES OF THE 848"' REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 30, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 848" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. William LaPine, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Walsh Members absent: James C. McCann John Pastor Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present. Acting Chairman La Pine 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 turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2001-01-08-09 ARDMORE DEVELOPMENT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2001-01- 08-09, submitted by Ardmore Development, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on property located at 19730 Farmington Road in the West'/Df Section 3. 19514 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Farmington between Seven Mile and Fargo. The petitioner is requesting approval to develop a mixed residential condominium project on the former Ardmore Center site. To the north of this site is Woodlore Condominiums. To the east and wrapping around part of the south property line is Livonia's Jaycee Park. The remaining area bordering to the south of the subject properly consists of single family residential. The north portion of the site (identified as Parcel A on the Site Plan) is approximately 12.50 acres in size and is proposed to be developed as an attached condominium project. In an RC district, the minimum lot area required for each two-bedroom dwelling unit is 4,350 sq. R. Dividing the square footage of the land by 4,350, the north half of the site could, by ordinance, accommodate a total of 125 two-bedroom units. The petitioner is proposing a total of 76 two and three bedroom units. The plan shows a total of 19 buildings, each of which would contain four (4) dwelling units. The buildings would be a maximum of two (2) stories in height. The units range in size from 1,624 sq. R. for the end units (Unit A) to 1,683 sq. R. for the internal units (Unit B). A 31 R. wide private street would provide access to all of the attached condominiums. The petitioner is also requesting approval to develop a site condominium project on the south 11.32 acres of the site (identified as Parcel B). The submitted Site Plan shows that the new development would be made up of 28 condominium lots. All the site condominiums would front on a new 60 R. wide public street that would con immediately north/south from the boulevard entrance drive area, then curve to the southeast and end in a cul-de-sac. The required storm water detention basin is shown at the southwest comer of the site. Portions of the basin would be located within the 100 -year flood plain of the Tambusi Creek, which traverses this part of the site. None of the proposed building envelopes of the site condominium units are located within the flood hazard area. The petitioner has submitted conceptual drawings of the font elevations of the units and a number of different floor layouts. Each condominium would be two -stones in height. According to the floor plans, each would have four bedrooms. They would range in size from 2,463 sq. R. in area to 2,036 sq. ft. The petitioner has stated that the exterior of each unit would not be less than 65% brick. Mr. La Pine: Are there anyquestionsfromthe Commissioners? Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Miller, in the notes here from Mr. Bishop, our Assistant Director of Inspection, it states: "Although the footprints of Units 1 thru 28.... are correct as to setbacks, they do not reflect the maximum site coverage of 25% total." My question is, do all sites in the R3 have 19515 footprints that only cover 25% or less? Do they all meet that requirement? Mr. Miller: Well, I believe he is talking about the site condo, which is Parcel B. I don't know if Mark wanted to address this because that issue did come up in connection with another site plan. Mr. Piercecchi: Do they all meelthe density, Mark? Mr. Taormina: Yes, the plan is in full compliance with the density limitations, both for the R -C portion of the development, as well as the R3. What Mr. Bishop is referring to, and I'll read his correspondence in a minute, is the lot coverage limitation for the single family units for the site condominiums. Its 25% maximum ground coverage. The building envelopes that are shown on the plan simply illustrate what the maximum envelope world be for each of those sites. But he's also noting that there is a second requirement that no more than 25% can be covered by buildings. He's basically bringing that to our aflention, as well as to the developers attention, that to construct within the full limits of those envelopes may exceed that 25%. Some adjustments would have to be made at the time the plans are presented to the Building Department. Mr. LaPine: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated July 23, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to the proposal with respect to traffic or points of ingress or egress. The roadways are of sufficient width to provide for onatreet visitor parking. Existing storm sewers across the site must be relocated where necessary with appropriately sized sewers. The drive approach and deceleration lane on Farmington Road will require a permit from Wayne County. The project is subject to the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance. Because of its location, the proposed detention basin will require the approval of both Wayne County and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. It is our understanding that this may be difficult because of the location of the basin within the 100 year flood plain. It should be further noted that the petitioner has removed the basin from the City park property as previously proposed. If a regional basin were constructed on City property in the future, the basin on the Ardmore site could be tied to the regional basin with an enclosed storm system across the Ardmore single family development." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, City Engineer. The second letter is 19516 from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 3, 2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a building on property located at the above-eferenced address. The Fire Division has no objections to this proposal. However, our approval is contingent upon the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants must be provided and located within a maximum spacing of 300 feet betwen hydrants. (2) Most remote hydrant shall Flow at 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (3) If any of the subject buildings are to be provided with automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located between 50 and 100 feet from the Fire Department connections. (4) Access around buildings shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a turning radius up to 45 feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13.5 feet (5) Minimum diameter of cul-de-sac shall be at least 90 feet. (6) Any curves or corners of streets shall accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 55 feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13.5 feet. (7) Trees, shrubbery or other landscaping that would interfere with emergency vehicles shall be prohibited in the area delineated by the 60' radius on the eastern most cul-de-sac located on Parcel B." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated July 24, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in regard to the proposal to develop property located at 19810 Farmington Road. We submit the following recommendations for your consideration: (a) A deceleration lane be installed south of the entrance for northbound Farmington Road so that slowing traffic will not interfere with the normal flow of traffic. This will greatly reduce the possibility of rear end collisions. (b) Sidewalks are recommended for both parcels. Sidewalks will enhance pedestrian safety and will allow children to travel safely within the complex whether they are on foot or tiding a bicycle. (c) There is no indication of street lighting on the plans reviewed. It is our recommendation that shielded street lighting be considered in order to deter crime and improve traffic safety within the complex. (d) At the entrance to the property a 'Keep Right, sign should be installed on the west and east end of the median. (e) A 'Stop' sign should be installed at Farmington Road for exiting vehicles. (f) 'Yield' signs are recommended for northbound and southbound traffic at the 4 -way intersection just east of the entrance to the complex. (g) A 'No Outiet'sign is recommended at the entrance to the complex to limit the amount of traffic driving into the complex seeking an alternate route to Jaycee Park." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July 30, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 21, 2002, the 19517 above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition has been revised as proposed by the Petitioner. 11.32 acres R3A and 12.50 acres RC. (2) The side yard setback of Unit 27 (north side) should be denoted as 19 feet or more. (3) The footprint of Unit 28 does not reflect the required front setback of 35 feet. (4) Although the footprints of Units 1 thru 28 (except as noted above) are correct as to setbacks, they do not reflect the maximum site coverage of 25% total. (5) This petition as proposed will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient rear yard setback in Parcel A (Units 13 and 14). A 50 - foot setback is required and 30 feet is provided. (6) The units in Parcel A will be required to meet accessibility codes, which will be addressed at plan review. (7) No signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent ofthe correspondence. Mr. La Pine: Is the petitioner here this evening? Steven Schafer, Ardmore Development, L.L.C., 32000 Northwestern Highway, Suite 220, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. I'm sorry we weren't able to attend the last study session. We have your comments. We're prepared to address those comments and meet the spirit of those comments. I don't know exactly how you would want to handle that. If we would actually be looking at a tabling this evening for the revisions or subject to it. Mr. LaPine: It depends on what you present to us this evening. If we think its clear enough, we may be able to go ahead and rule on it. Otherwise we may table it. Mr. Schafer: Essentially what we have here are four unit attached condominiums with two -car garages. In this particular area, we have the 28 single family lots which comply to the R3 zoning standard. The intent of shoving these envelopes was just to show the maximum setbacks of what could fit into the lot, but certainly we would be able to comply with the 25% requirement for the single family units that would be constructed on these lots. We have done some preliminary research into placing the basin. We understand there are some hurdles that we have to get over. We have some preliminary soil borings that are looking favorable. If this plan is approved, we will be moving quickly to determine the feasibility of the location of that basin. Obviously there are some other alternatives - underground storage and pipes and things like that. But in the spirt of the trying to keep the water quality good, I think an open basin would be something that would be much more 19518 favorable for the development. On the attached units, I have elevations here at the four units. They will all comply with the percentage of brick that is required under the ordinance. The same thing on the single family units. We have submitted some elevations at a proposed type of home that would go in there. Although once we get under way, that could change. They could become larger or maybe some variation in elevation, but that would all be submitted to the Building Department for their approval as well. We've tried to be conscientious about the condominiums to the north. What we've done from earlier plans obviously is switch this road around, and we've put a line at heavy screened landscaping in this area. Also, we've provided some landscaping and tried to preserve some of those larger evergreens up in the front of the site. This particular section at road, as we have discussed and was mentioned in the Engineering review, is 31 feet so it would accommodate parking as well as for the condominium and pedestrian access through the development. Again, I don't think we would have a problem integrafing that into the current plan, and we're prepared to address those. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Mr. Alanskas: What can we do to gel that 50 yard setback on Buildings 13 and 14 instead of 30 feet in the rear yard? Mr. Schafer: The buildings would have to be moved closer to the road, and I think what we've tried to do is keep that back. The development would have to shift up. The buildings would have to shift up. We would potentially lose some of this green area as you come into the entrance. I think there were some earlier discussions that we really didn't want to congest this area. We wanted some openness left at the front and not have the development right up on the road. Mr. Alanskas: What about if you removed Buildings 13 and 14 completely? That would really open that up. Mr. Schafer: It certainly would, but I think that the current plan reflects a lot of change, more of the units from a senior standpoint, a little bit larger envelope than what was originally proposed. So we're really trying to bridge the gap here. Again, there are some considerations beyond the economics that are becoming an issue for us. But we aren't maxed out on any of these zoning designations. But to lose eight more units on this would be very difficult. Mr. Alanskas: Because basically I think you have a really nice plan there. I really do. I think you've done a great job except for the fad on those two 19519 buildings not having a 50 foot setback. Could you take Building 14 and move it down and tilt it? Mr. Schafer: There was some discussion that we may even slide these because of some neighborhood considerations. I am going to be meeting with some individual neighbors that are in this area that have indicated that maybe if we could slide these over a bit that it would lessen the impact somewhat. Mr. Alanskas: If you tilted it, wouldn't it alloy a portion of the building to be at least 50 feet, at least for half the building? Mr. Schafer: Yes, we could make some adjustments between here. Whether it's a shift or a shift and tilt and maybe even a slight adjustment through here. Although we don't really want to impact this green space area. Mr. Alanskas: No, I don't want to either. Mr. Schaffer: Certainly we could do that by moving these units over, but I think we want to try to keep this open. Mr. Alanskas: If you just move 13 and 14 down, and maybe possibly tiff it a little bit, you might pick up a few feet from the rear yard set back, I would think. Would that be possible, Mark, in your estimation? Mr. Taormina: You're saying to shift Building 14 to the south? Mr. Alanskas: Going to the south, yes, and then tilting it a little bit towards the north. You've got that big open area between 14 and 15. 1 would thinkthal ifyou brought 14 down, you could shift a little bit. Mr. Taormina: There might be some opportunity to adjust the location of these buildings in order to increase the rear yard setback. I'm not sure that it would affect the entire length of the building. Mr. Alanskas: No, but it might affect at least half of it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shane: That same area, what landscaping are you providing in back of those two units? Mr. Schafer: We were going to try to leave some of the natural landscape in this area. If required, we would be more than happy to place some additional landscaping in there. We're going to have some further discussions with the neighbors. I know that as this thing moves along, there will be some more neighborhood involvement. We 19520 thought it was prudent to meet with some of the individuals in that area and try to get some further agreement as to the impact of these units on their direct properties and bang the landscape plan forward. Mr. Shane: One other item that is faidy minor I suppose. Unit 12 as it relates to Unit 3 ... its a little bit close. I was just wondering if you could move that ddveway entrance down a little bit and curve it so that Unit 12 might be dropped south to open up that area a bit. You might want to consider that. That might be helpful. Mr. Schafer: The back-to-back relationship between Unit 3 and Unit 12 ... we're talking about40 feet. Mr. Shane: Could you look at that and see if you can open that up a Iitfle bit? Mr. Schafer: We could move Building 12 towards the road and keep 20 feet of a ddveway apron. Mr. Shane: Whatever you can do. To the east of that where it opens up a little bit, is there an opportunity to gain some additional landscaping in that area to open that up a little bit? Mr. Schafer: Yes, I think there is. Mr. Shane: Because units are looking to units and you might want to be a little sensitive in that area with landscaping. Mr. Schafer: Right. Mr. La Pine: Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? I have a couple questions. On the first floor of the condos, the ones to the north, are they all going to have a first floor bedroom and laundry room? For the second floor, they have an option of one, two or three bedrooms. Is that correct? Mr. Schafer: Yes, they have an option to add a bedroom or loft, something of that nature, upstairs. All of them will have main floor masters with main floor baths and facilities. Its geared more for an empty nester. Mr. La Pine: That seems to be what the empty nesters are looking for. This is the first proposal I've seen where they are all that way. The second question I have is what Mr. Alanskas was just talking about. If you shift Building 14 to the south and you tum it, you can only tum it so much because you still have to come off the road there. Right? 19521 Mr. Schafer: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Now, my problem is that if you shift that, wont that mean the north part of that building will be closer than 35 feel? Mr. Schafer: Maybe not because of this curve. We may be able to make some adjustments and make some shift on that. We don't want to lessen that any less than 35 feel. Mr. LaPine: Okay. I was just wondering. The next question is, behind Buildings 13 and 14, it's all wooded. Mr. Schafer: Yes. Mr. LaPine: And I think there is only one home that really looks at those two parcels. Is that correct? Mr. Schafer: I think the lot is right here. Mr. LaPine: So actually, if its less than 50 feel, there's nothing really behind it but woods anyways. Mr. Schafer: Yes. Right over here? Mr. LaPine: No, I'm talking to the east, behind there. Behind there is all woods. Mr. Schafer: Well, there's woods, a little green area and then there's a parking lolfor cars and then there are the soccerfields. Mr. LaPine: The next question I have, the letter we got from the Division of Police recommended a deceleration lane on the south end. Are you going to do that? Mr. Schafer: Yes. We'll work with the County. Mr. LaPine: They are recommending sidewalks on both parcels - the RC and the R3. Do you have any problem with that? Mr. Schafer: We had not planned on putting in those sidewalks. We had increased the standard on the streets within the condominium area to accommodate 31 feet. Mr. LaPine: I, for one, have a problem with that. Maybe I can go along with the RC, but on the R3, these are single family homes where they're probably going to have more children than you may have in the 19522 other one. Kids need to nide their bicycles. I'd rather see sidewalks than riding in the streets especially when all the traffic has to use that one street. I wish you would take than into consideration. Mr. Schafer: We will. Mr. La Pine: The other thing about the street lighting... my personal feeling is that you should have the street lights. Mr. Schafer: Yes, I understand. Does Edison still have their street lighting program that they had a number of years ago? We would work with Edison to provide some type of lighting. Mr. La Pine: And we put in ornamental lights. Al the entrance of the property, the "keep right" sign ...that's no problem for you? The "stop" sign should be no problem foryou. The'yield" and "no outlet" signs ... Mr. Schafer: None ofthose are a problem. Mr. La Pine: That's all I have. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn. I have a preliminary question. I sent in a four page letter with 12 pages of additional information on this petition. I might have made a mistake on the petition number, but when I handed it in, I clearly indicated it was regarding Ardmore. Mr. LaPine: We each got a copy of it. Mr. Craig: Okay, so that wouldn't have been part of that correspondence that was read? No sense in reading it all, but you can see that I've clearly reviewed this proposal, and I have a concern regarding the detention basin. It was mentioned today that Engineering certainly has an eye on it. Regardless that Engineering has an eye on it, it has to go to the County for their approval, and it has to go to MDQ for their approval. I don't know that this is likely to happen. I would like to at lead have the City start having a higher cencem about the protection of the flood plain and wetlands. We have a serious problem with our water course, and even though the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance was designed to start being a remedy affixed to our problem, it is really based on minimum standards in order to get something on the table, something to use. I've looked at the calculations as it says in my letter. I've looked at the calculations for this basin, and they are not at the absolute lowest coefficient for runoff, but they aren't at the highest either. This property is going to be extremely developed. We have a drawing 19523 before us and it shows some buildings - the condominium sections and some roadway - but it certainly doesn't shoe the size of the houses. It doesn't really give you a fair representation of the degree of impervious surface on this property. There is going to be an extreme burden of storm water runoff on this site, and its going to have to go to this detention basin. Its going to be very problematic to put a detention basin in a flood plain when we don't have enough flood plain for the system as it exists. Our flood plain is evolved for how our properties used to be managed in pre- setflement days. We've come to a point in our development of our communities that our aver system, our flood plains and our wetlands are no longer sufficient to handle that volume of water. To even consider putting it in the flood plain is a fatal flaw for this development, and I hate to see that we move forward in this community or any of the 42 communities in the watershed with this idea that we can get away with reducing even more of our capacity for our flood plain. This community needs to start raising its concern right from the beginning to developers not to even consider these kinds of options. There is an alternative. The first one for Mr. Schafer was to put it on City property. Thankfully that never happened. Now he has proposed to put it on his property, which is a step in the nghl direction, but it's in the flood plain. Ultimately, the better solution to this problem would be to actually have the detention basin out of the flood plain on his property. I understand that comes out of his profit margin, but that's where it has to be. And we have a precedent in this community for just that kind of consideration. Mr. Roskelly had a development on Soave Street. I think that's the name of the street over near Seven Mile. He put in some houses, and his detention basin came out of his property on the uplands while he had some flood plain properties that he was trying to use. That was denied. So he had to put his detention basin on his upland and lost two building spaces. So there is already a precedent of cautioning about this practice. I also caution this practice of putting anything in a flood plain. There is beginning to be a higher reluctance on the part of the Slate to allow these kinds of things. So I don't like to have this project seem to move forward and come into the same kind of bog that we've had at the George Bums Theatre site. Gentlemen, that was over three years ago, and we had a problem with the wetland over there. And nothing has happened over there. The same thing can happen with this site. With the highest expectation of adding the Ardmore buildings as the blight concem that we have over there, this might be tied up for a long time. We might go a long time before those buildings are ever demolished. So while there seems to be a pell- mell pace to move this forward, I think that there should be an expectation that there might be a severe brake put on this as 19524 everybody starts looking at the location of this detention basin. I go to a lot of meetings, and I see a lot of people. I go to a lot of their backyards and they are all worried about losing their property, their garages, their trees. They want to know how this is going to be fixed. Putting this detention basin in the flood plain is not how their problem is going to be fixed. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't help these people and fix their problem, you shouldn't make 9 worse by allowing this basin to be put in the flood plain. Thank you very much. Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Craig. We appreciate your time and all you went through to gel this together. I read it all and to be honest with you, I'm not an expert on any of this stuff. I have to depend upon the DEQ, Wayne County and our City Engineers that this project will not go forward unless they meet all the requirements that are needed. Therefore, you know, I think what you've brought up is a lot of good points, and I think the City is looking at some of the problems around the City that is causing erosion along our waterways, but that's another issue. As far as George Bums, that thing has all been approved. It's just a matter of when Mr. Schafer is going to start moving on developing and tearing down the building. But we thank you. We appreciate you coming in. Mr. Craig: Okay. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Lynne Obsorne, 33017 Fargo. I live in Woodlore Condominiums. I am actually in one of the buildings closest to the property line. I've spoken with Mr. Schafer. I have a number of concerns and questions. I can mise them and you can lel me know if this is the appropriate place. At the July 16" meeting, which is the last one that I was aware of regarding this issue, at least two of the people who voted on the topic of rezoning, at least two of you or two that were in attendance, indicated that they would prefer that this be rezoned fully single family homes. Yet they still voted for the rezoning of a combination of single family and RC. And that concerns me. If your desire is to see single family homes, then don't vote in favor of condominiums. At least that seems to be a logical thought to me. I don't know. I think all of us would like to see single family homes that would have less density, and why not wait until that plan is put forth? Maybe that plan will be put forth in as timely manner as we want. I know we want to get those buildings torn down. I know that they are an eyesore, but why dont we wait until the right plan is in front of us instead of just accepting what's there. So that's concem number 19525 one. Concern number two is just in regard to the notficaton about these meetings. I was under the belief that because I am within a certain number of feet, that I would be notified of any sort of City meetings. I was notified of this. Am I incorrect? How does that work? Mr. LaPine: No, you should have got a notice if you were within 300 feet. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: Not for this petition. Mr. LaPine: Not for this petition, okay. Mr. Taormina: Only for the rezoning. Mr. LaPine: You don't get a notification when we're going over a site plan. Ms. Osborne: So how would the residents of WOodlore find out about these meetings so we can be here? As you can see, there are very few of us here. Mr. LaPine: If you came to the rezoning hearing and left your name with our secretary and said you wished to be notified for any additional meetings concerning this property, you would have been notified. Ms. Osborne: Okay, so the Planning Commission secretary ... is that who we contact? Mr. LaPine: Correct. Ms. Osborne: Because I understand that Steve said there was a study session that I also wasn't aware of. I'm afraid that your thought is that we don't care because we're not here. Well, we're not here because we don't know about it. So I guess, just to make that point. The other thing with regard to the July 16" meetng, was that everyone who spoke and everyone who wrote letters was against the rezoning, and yet you all voted for it. I guess I would hope that there would be some listening to what people are asking, what people are saying. And I didn't hear any of that given the affirmative vote. So that's another thought. With regard to the natural banner, I'm glad to see some trees included as I do live 30 feet from the property line. I'd like to see more obviously. My concern is that with no parking, there's going to be on -street parking so there will be cars all along those roads. That concerns me with regard to a privacy banner and trees, to a noise barrier, to all kinds of things. Also, to the lack of sidewalks. I know that you 19526 expressed a concem about there being sidewalks in the single family homes because of kids. Well, seniors walk too and if you have ever driven through Woodlore, there's a lot of seniors there. They like to walk. They can walk safely in Woodlore because we have a lot of parking and people don't have to park on the roads. That doesn't look like the case in this picture. People will have to park on all those roads which will make any walking difficult and unsafe possibly. So I'd like to see some assistance on both the barriers between Woodlore and this property and also some sort of sidewalks to make it safe for everybody. There was a comment made at the July W meeting about a dedicated road. It wasn't really ever answered. Am I to understand that a dedicated road is a road only within the property exifing onto and off of Farmington Road, and that's what's going to be built? Mr. LaPine: The question is, will the road be dedicated, which means the City takes control of it and is responsible for the upkeep and everything. If it's not a dedicated road, it belongs to the owners of the property, each individual homeowner, the condominium association, and they are required to maintain it. Al this point, correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Taormina, no decision has been made on that. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: I think it's apparent that the RC porfion of the development will be a private road system. I think what is still in question is whether or not the road within the single family portion of the development will be dedicated public rights-of-way. Maybe Mr. Schafer can update us on whether or not that is going to be the case. Mr. LaPine: Let me just say this, ma'am. It makes no difference if the condominium owns it or the City owns it. The only difference is who is going to maintain it. Ms. Osborne: Okay. My biggest concern about the road is that it not be built through the neighborhood to the east of us. Mr. LaPine: Its not. Ms. Osborne: Which has been requested by some ofthose residents. Mr. La Pine: That's nolgoing tohappen. Ms. Osborne: Okay. That was my concern if it wasn't dedicated. My last question is also related to the detention basin in that it seems that DEQ would be the first to approve or not approve that building of the detention basin where the flood plain is. Have they not seen this proposal? 19527 Mr. La Pine: I can't answer that. Mr.Schafer, can you answer that question, sir? Mr. Schafer: We've just had some preliminary discussions. There's been no formal submittal or proposal, but we did make some initial inquiries as to what we would need to have to make a full submittal. We have to get through this process first. Certainly that's going to be something we want to tackle right away. Ms. Osborne: So that's the normal procedure ... for the City to vote on it and then go to DEQ to see if its even feasible? Iguess it seems backwards. It seems like DEQ would say yes or no, and then the City would be involved with it. Mr. LaPine: You have to remember, ma'am, all we're doing is making a recommendation. Ms. Osborne: I understand that. Mr. LaPine: Before they approve this whole plan, all that stuff has to be in order. Ms. Osborne: I guess what I don't want to see happen is that DEQ gets approached with the comment, "Well, Livonia has approved everyUiing" Then DEQ is feeling almost forced to approve it. Mr. LaPine: It's no different than some people thinlang that if the Planning Commission approves something, it automatically goes through. That isn't true. The Council has to approve it. This is usually the procedure. If you don't get an approval of this torn us, why go to the DEQ and do all that work for nothing? Ms. Osborne: Okay. I understand that. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. We appreciate you coming in. Mr. Alanskas: Ma'am, what I think you ought to do is ... this is just the very beginning. Ms. Osborne: Okay, well, then we want to be involved in it. Mr. Alanskas: What I would do is call the Council office and say, "Look, for any future meetings in regards to the Ardmore project, I'd like to be notified." Ms. Osborne: Well, I believe I've done both those things 19528 Mr. Alanskas: Because once it leaves us, we wont be notifying anybody. Ms. Osborne: Right, I understand. But, for example, at the last Council meeting when we voted on the last rezoning, all we had the opportunity to do was present new information as opposed to mising questions. Mr. Alanskas: You can do it all over again with the Council. Start all over again. Ms. Osbome: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefition? The public hearing is now closed. Is there any other discussion? Mr. Pieroecchi: Water retention or detention, whatever term you prefer, seems to keep surfacing all the time. Are you pursuing aggressively any alternatives with this current proposal here? Aggressively now, really looking it over, costing it out, seeing how its going to affect homes, etc.? Mr. Schafer: On the initial proposal when we looked at the City property, we were going to provide additional detention and certainly the problems that Mr. Craig is raising we're going to try to solve. That was one of the options. The other option is just underground storage. We're able to store it in pipes, upsize the size of our storm sewer and then put in a restricted outlet. Although the water quality that comes out of closed system like that is nowhere near the water quality that would come out of a detention basin. Maybe not in a flood plain but even if it were up in this area or that area ... that is something that could comply. So there are other options. We're trying to have a user friendly option here. I think this will work well. This flood plain is not loaded up with wetlands. It's grass. Its mowed. It's an open area. If you drive by the site, its very apparent where that basin is going to go. We're not going to be clearing out to the edge of the river, clearing out wetland vegetation. Probably 87% of the time, flood plains are wetlands. But in this situation, it's just a green grass area. No hydrological connection indication from our borings, and we just think that this will be very well suited. We certainly don't want to fill any of those flood plains. I know Mr. Craig has concerns about filling those and pushing that water into another area downstream. We're going to be very conscientious of that. We put a lot of time and effort sizing this to make sure it was feasible to present to the Commission. And as we go forward, as we move down and gel into some more 19529 formal approvals, if things change then certainly we will be willing to address them in whatever fashion. Mr. Pieroecchi: How many cubicfeet ofwaterdoesthat particular system hold? Mr. Schafer: I had some calculations here. Mr. Pieroecchi: I was wondering just how you could store so much underground? It looks pretty large. Mr. Schafer: Well, you put it into larger storm pipe like you did on Six Mile and Farmington. In this area here, you could put a series of piping systems in here that could probably take as much detention as in this area and just put it underground under a green space area although the water quality that you're going to end up with is not anywhere as near as good. You like it to be out in the open sunlight. You want it to be able to sediment this dosed system. It functions very much the same from a storm water holding back water dudng major storm events, but I think studies show that those closed basins are not the most favored way to go. They like you to do an open basin. Mr. Piercecchi: That may be true. It may not be the most favored way to do it, but don't you think it would alleviate some of the problems and concerns that people have if you put additional piping up between those condos underground? Mr. Schafer: Certainly that would be something that we could address as we move through the engineering phase and we've addressed those calculations and we've determined that that's not a feasible area. Yes, those are things that we would and could address. Mr. Pieroecchi: And you would address them? Mr. Schafer: Absolutely. Mr. Pieroecchi: As costly as they are? Mr. Schafer: Yes. Mr. Pieroecchi: Thankyou. Mr. Shane: I had a simple question on the building elevations. Are you planning to use bdck on your chimneys? 19530 Mr. Schafer: On the condominium units, no. But those are probably all going to be direct vent fire places so they wouldn't have them. On the single family homes, we typically have not built with brick chimneys but that's something we're going to have to work on with the Planning Commission and Council. We're certainly open to discussions on that to have the appropriate materials. Mr. Shane: I think the majority of the Commission would like to see brick on the chimneys on all units. Mr. La Pine: Just a couple questions, Mr. Schafer. We've heard different price ranges between the condos and the single family homes. What is the price range? Mr. Schafer: I think you're probably going to see mid -twos and up on the condos and probably in the upper twos to mid -threes on the single family homes. Mr. La Pine: I heard the single family was up around $400,000. Is that right? Mr. Schafer: I dont know if it will peak to that point, but potentially, depending on what the demand is going to be ... certainly if they want a larger house, you can load up with $50,000 in options. Mr. La Pine: The second question I have is, as far as the condos are concemed, I understand they're basically going to be all the same. But the single family homes, are you going to have a number of elevations? Are you going to have different builders? Are you going to have different bricks, or is it all going to be the same? Mr. Schafer: No, it would have varied elevations. We're not going to want to put identical units next door to each other. We're not going to be Ioolting for the type of commonality that we typically would be looking at in a condominium situation. People will be able to choose color selections and things like that on the single family, whereas on the condominiums that will be more of a controlled situation. Mr. La Pine: Okay, just one more question. Between 10 and 5, 9, 6 and 8 and 7 up above where the condos are, that one area in there ...just that whole green area right through there, is that all going to be grass? Mr. Schafer: Yes, and potentially some landscaping. Mr. La Pine: How about if we maybe have two or three paver areas where you could have some benches out there for people in the condos? 19531 Mr. Schafer: I prefer to try to keep those out near the street areas rather than behind the actual units . maybe up in this particular area or something back here towards the park area. Mr. LaPine: For the basin, is there any chance of getting a fountain in there? Mr. Schafer: Like Fountain Park? Well, I'm not sure how the DEQ looks upon that. The area is nice, but we put one in and the wetlands commission had us shut it off. Mr. LaPine: I know we have a fountain at Newburgh and Pembroke. And there's a fountain north of Six Mile at Haggerty, but that's not in Livonia. They look nice. Mr. Schafer: If this is going to be a wet basin, once we look at the design, if we have an opportunity to do that, we could potentially look into that. But I'm not sure at this point, once we gel through the engineering design, if it's going to be a wet basin or dry culvert. Mr. LaPine: Well, thank you at lead for your consideration. A motion is in order. Mr. Shane: Because of the number of issues we've talked about here, I want to make a motion to table this item until our next regular meeting to give Mr. Schafer time to firm up the plan and consider some of the suggestions that have been made. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was #07-01-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-01-08-09, submitted by Ardmore Development, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a mixed condominium development on properly located at 19730 Farmington Road in the West Y�of Section 3, be tabled until the next Regular Meeting of August 20, 2002. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi NAYS: LaPine, Walsh ABSENT: McCann, Pastor Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The next study meeting will be on August 13, followed by the voting meeting on August 20. 19532 ITEM#2 PETITION 2002-04-02-08 ROGVOY ARCHITECTS Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2002- 04-02-08, submitted by Rogvoy Architects, requesting waiver use approval to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy with drive-through service facilifies on properly located on the northeast comer of Plymouth and Middlebell Roads in the Southwest%of Section 25 Mr. LaPine: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, the petitioners are here. If you just give them a moment, they will be in to present the changes that were made to the site plan. Following the presentation by Mr. Drene, there is some additional correspondence from the Plymouth Road Development Authority to the Planning Commission that I would like to read into the records. Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, 32500 Telegraph Road, Bingham Farms, Michigan. Tonight I am representing the Walgreens Corporation in retail development who is putfing a proposal before you tonight. We would like to take the bank and raze it, increase the landscaping, and put up the Walgreen's building with a drive-thru facility. We have a commitment from the adjacent shopping center to make substantial improvements to their property. We were kind of joking today, that we never saw the landlord. We have the landlord's representative here tonight so she can address some of the improvements on her property. I've seen all the staff comments. As far as the Walgreens site is concerned, I don't have any issues. I think that extending the wall is a fine idea. Incorporating the signage into the wall ... the Plymouth Road wall is okay. I don't think it's going to be as effective as the sign we have proposed, but I would like to discuss that further with you. As you know, we have been here before. We've decreased the height of the building. We have the full brick on the Livonia prototype with the peaked gable roofs. I think its an attractive facility for that comer. If you have any questions for me, I'm here. Nadine Nakamura is also here representing the landlord. She is here to answer questions. Mr. La Pine: Are there any quesfionsfromthe Commissioners? Mr. Pieroecchi: When this first came up, I made the motion to table it because we all fell that we just didn't want to consider that southwest comer of this plaza by itself. We felt we should have a comprehensive plan, at least a somewhat comprehensive plan to revitalize the whole plaza. As yet, we haven't seen anything of that nature. Frankly, some double striping has been done. 19533 Mr. Drane: Well, you'll notce in your packets there is a new sheet added which is a total landscape plan which increases the landscape islands, increases the landscape material and provides for the dumpster screen at the back of the shopping center. So those are the improvements that we had discussed in the past. Mr. Pieroecchi: The latest we heard, the dumpster screens were going to be made out of wood. We always have masonry dumpsters. You're talking about the three of them behind the first building? Mr. Drane: The landlord is here. I understand we talked about dumpster screens. I don't know if we specifically talked about the material, but I think the landlord is here to commit to do masonry enclosures. She can speak to some of those issues. Mr. Pieroecchi: As far as landscaping is concemed, things have been done, but I really don't consider landscaping when you take mulch and hand spread it between the islands. There's 40 feet between the trees if my calculations are correct. There should be something in between there. I dont see it. Mr. Drane: I'm sorry. We weren't invited to the study session. I was out of town. But anyway, I think that the landlord is here to address some of these issues. I think that she may be able to commit to some addifional improvements. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you prepared to give us a plan that we can work on tonight and study to see if we're really increasing the vitality of this plaza or just putting another drugstore in town? I don't object to more drugstores, you know. A lot of people say, enough is enough. I've heard that statement before. In fact, there was an excellent letter written by a young student here in Livonia. But I don't know when enough is enough. When do we have enough restaurants and all that? So I dont necessarily buy into that scheme because I think we have no power to control free enterprise. I don't think we should get involved in that, but we would like to have something in addition to a drug store on that corner. I cant recommend anything to do to the other buildings. Maybe they don't need it. I don't know, but all I saw in my last visit was red mulch and most of the parking lot double striped. The eastern area up against the wall was not double striped nor were some other areas. And there was a mess behi rid one of the buildings too, but that's not your fault. Mr. Drene: Some of the site improvements are a function of the general maintenance of the shopping center. Every couple years its 19534 painted. Every couple years seal coating and crack sealing and striping is done. Some of that has been done. But we have a proposal before you tonight with a new landscape plan. And I know there were some comments from Beckett & Raeder, the consultant to the Plymouth Road Development Authority, and there were comments from staff and what they would like to see. We're prepared to make commitments based on staff comments to increase landscaping and make some changes. Mr. Pieroecchi: Are these brand new plans that we haven't seen before? Mr. Drane: No, I'm just saying we're here to make a commitment to you. We have not revised the plans because we got these Friday, or I got my mine Monday because I was out of town. I didn't have time to prepare all the changes. Maybe what I should do is introduce Nadine and she can address the issues on the landlord parcel. Mr. Pieroecchi: And these are substantial changes from what we've seen originally here? Mr. Drene: There will be improvements to the plan that you have in your package based on what the staff has recommended. Mr. Taormina: Actually, the modifications to the plan have not been presented formally to the Commission by the applicant. So maybe this evening he could present the changes that have been made up to this point. That would then provide a basis for the discussion that took place at the study meeting with follow up quesfions to the representatve ofthe center. Mr. Pieroecchi: What you're really saying is, listen and then table it and go on to a study and then analyze it. Mr. Taormina: I'm not suggesting necessarily that you table it, but I think it would be to the benefit of the audience as well as the Commission to have Mr. Drane present the changes from the last time this item was discussed. Mr. LaPine: Why don't you go ahead and do that, Mr. Drene? Let me ask you one question. I read the letter from Beckett & Raeder. Most of the landscaping and the things that he's referring to has strictly to do with Walgreens. Now, is the young lady represenfing the property owner of the shopping center going to tell us what she's going to do because I'm not only interested in getting something on the outside of Plymouth Road and Middlebelt. I want some work done on the 19535 landscape and the interior of the parking lot and things of that nature, which I Will talk to her about. Mr. Drene: Just a quick overview of the site ... what you see different from the last time is that the shopping center has added a substantial amount of landscape islands and trees to the interior landscaping scheme of the shopping center. We're talking about a unified development. We've increased the islands. We've added trees and increased the width of the islands. We're going to get rid of the red bark. I cant disagree that its a little unusual out there. And to be specific, we have Doug Gardner from SSOE. He's a landscape architect. He's representing the landlord. He can answer specific questions on the shopping center parcel. As far as what I've read in staff reports and Beckett & Raeder, the Walgreens team is willing to extend the walls to match the landscaping scheme exactly the way Beckett & Raeder would like to do it. Maybe I missed it in my mail, but I had expected to get some details from Beckett & Raeder. I never received them, or maybe it's lost in my in box. But our intention is always to do whatever the Plymouth Road Development Authority would like us to do. Mr. LaPine: Before you go away, are there any other questions? I have a question. On your parcel, the PRDA has concrete curbs and then it stops at a certain area and then it picks up on your property. Its asphalt down Middlebell. Is that going to be concrete all the way along there ... the curbing inside the parking lot? Mr. Drene: We can commit to concrete curbing on our parcel. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Then are all those bumper blocks that are laying out there near Plymouth Road going to be taken away? Mr. Drene: If the bumper blocks are not required to be there ... Mr. LaPine: Well, the PRDA put a curb in there so the bumper blocks were lett there. Mr. Drene: Walgreens will never have a bumper block on their site. Mr. LaPine: Thank you, that's all I have. Now we will hear from the shopping center. Nadine Nakamura, RD Management, 810 Seventh Avenue, Floor 28, New York, New York 10019. I'm not Waller Samuels. I work for RD Management, who is the managing agent of the shopping center. I am here this evening so I can be a conduit for the City of Livonia to 19536 be able to discuss what we would like to do as a landlord and also to hear what the City would like us to do with improvements to the shopping center. I think that part of the problem is that you didn't get a chance to see the new landscape plan that's been incorporated into the package that you have. We brought a color rendering this evening br you to take a look at. This just gives you some idea of what we've incorporated so far. I'm going to have Doug explain it. Doug Gardner, SSOE, Troy, Michigan. This is a new color rendering of the overall plan. These are the existing islands along be front of the store which now have the red mulch. We have taken those out, increased the size and added two trees in each one. We're always showing some ground cover, whether it be day lilies or whatever in the islands. We've beefed up the landscaping along Middlebelt Road and also we've beefed up the landscaping along Plymouth Road. Mr. Alanskas: If I could stop you for a second. You put two trees in each island? What type of trees? Mr. Gardner: These along here are the Honey Locusts. These down here are Ash which, according to Beckett & Raeder, we can certainly change the species. That's no problem. Ms. Nakamura: We would certainly be willing to match the plant material with the specs from Beckett & Raeder, so that's not a problem. We just didn't have that information prior to submittal. Mr. Alanskas: What is the circumference of the trees you put in? Mr. Gardner: They are two inches in caliper. Mr. Alanskas: That's a little baby. That's not even ... Mr. Gardner: Well, we can go two and half. Mr. Alanskas: How are you going to stop them from blowing over in the wind in the wintertime? Mr. Gardner: A two and half inch caliper tree is a fairly good size for a new plant. Mr. Alanskas: Are you going to stake them? Mr. Gardner: It can be staked, yes. 19537 Mr. Alanskas: So that the wind will not blow them over. Mr. Gardner: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: How about inigation? Mr. Gardner: Right now the site is irrigated along the perimeter both on Middlebelt Road and Plymouth Road. Al this point in time we were not looking at irrigating these islands here. Mr. Alanskas: Is that a problem? Mr. Pieroecchi: You've got to cut some holes in some asphalt. Mr. Gardner: That's the problem of saw cutting asphalt and extending a line, whether it be from either end. It could be expensive. And I don't know what the pressure is of the existing system. Mr. Pieroecchi: What I've seen too often is that nice landscaping is done and then its not irrigated and the next thing you know, its dead. If you don't water and fertilize it, it dies. Were you planning on having a service maintain the landscaping or was that going to be done internally? Ms. Nakamura: We have a landscape contractor that maintains this site. Torre & Bmglio maintains the property for us. They installed the plant material that's there, and they also maintain the shopping center. Mr. Pieroecchi: You donthave anyproblemwith inigation? Ms. Nakamura: Well, part of the problem, the reason why the red mulch was installed, was problems with plant material that had been there in the past. Unfortunately, when they inigated the site, they didn't irrigate the planter beds. That's why they had taken out the low shrubs in there and plants that didn't do well without inigation and put in trees and red mulch. Unfortunately, part of the other problem is the sand and salt spreaders in the wintertime because of the amount of snow we get here. Even when you irrigate, if you have healthy plants in a bed and you go through a harsh winter of sand and salt, you can end up losing shrubbery whether you irrigate or not. Its something that you build in on an annual basis for replacement. The reason why it hadn't been done to this point was because we knew going forward we were boking to upgrade the landscaping as a whole in conjunction with the Walgreen's development. 19538 Mr. Walsh: On the landscape plan, please verify something for me if you would properties. please. On the south end right along Plymouth Road to the left of Mr. the ingress, you show plant material and then parking stripes. Will Okay. That's good. there still be vehicles parked there? Mr. Gardner: Yes, the width of that planting strip will not be increased. The Frankly, it would be a mulch. Frankly, landscaping within it will just be beefed up. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: As you have it now, there are asphalt curbs around each of the Mr. islands. Mr. Gardner: That's correct. Mr. La Pine: Are they going to stay? Most of them are broken down. Mr. Gardner: No. They will be saw cul out and curb and gutter will be put in. Mr. LaPine: All of it? The complete thing? Mr. Gardner: All new islands will have curb and gutter, yes. Mr. LaPine: What are you going to put in there? You're going to take out the If it's just going to be wood chips red stuff, whatever it's called. You're not going to put in stone, I hope. Ms. Nakamura: No, we wouldn't put in stone. I don't use stone on any of my properties. Mr. LaPine: Okay. That's good. Mr. Gardner: Frankly, it would be a mulch. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the red mulch. Mr. LaPine: To me, that's not landscaping. Mr. Gardner: The color of the mulch, whether it be red or brown or whatever, I mean that's ... Mr. LaPine: If it's just going to be wood chips or mulch . . . that's not landscaping. Mr. Gardner: It would be shredded hard bark. 19539 Ms. Nakamura: There will be shrub material in the islands. There will be trees There will be low shrub material, but the perimeter will be mulched. Mr. Pieroecchi: Some of those trees are 40 feet apart. Will there be some other plantings in between those? Ms. Nakamura : The trees will not be 40 feet apart. Mr. Gardner: The parking stalls are 20 - 20. We've got two trees, so they're basically 20 feet apart. Ms. Nakamura: But there will be low shrubs in between them as you can see on the rendering, and just a perimeter of mulch. Mr. LaPine: The problem we have here ... Mr. Samuels ... we've been after him for years and years and years. Ms. Nakamura: I should just darify something. Walter Samuels is a partner in this properly. However, there are five families that are partners in this properly. I know that there have been some problems with another properly that used to be owned by Waller Samuels. It's the Shelden Plaza. That was poorly maintained. Unfortunately, I think it's lett a bad taste in the aty's mouth. That's one of the reasons why I'm here this evening to show the distinction between our partnership and how we maintain our properties and what we're willing to do in order to work with the City as opposed to some of the problems you may have had with Walter Samuels. Mr. LaPine: I dont want to expound on that but I used to live down in that area. I've been a resident of Livonia for almost 50 years. And the first shopping center he built up there, he had Topps Discount Store in there. And from the day that went in, that place was never kept up. To this day, it still isn't kept up. I'll gel on that in a few minutes. Mr. Shane: Do you have ownership control over the site upon which the auto service facility exists? Ms. Nakamura: Theyare a tenant of our shopping center, yes. Mr. Shane: The concem I have, and a couple of other commissioners have as well, is the most easterly driveway entrance for that doesn't appear to be used all that much. Ms. Nakamura: That driveway is used predominantly for truck delivery traffic around the back of the building. By eliminating that, and I saw some of the comments from the planner, by eliminating that drive we would 19540 Mr. Shane: And the final item I have is with respect to off-street parking. I don't know if you're aware or not, but this site is going to be somewhere around 96 or 97 parking spaces short upon the construction of the Walgreens facility. I think you should be aware of it. Any future tenants that go in that building are going to have to face that difficulty. I certainly don't want to interrupt the landscaping you're planning to do by keeping some parking spaces, but the fad that you're short on parking gives me some mncem for the future. But force trucks to go through the main ingress into the property and cut sideways to go around the back. So we feel as though ifs fairly important to keep the drive in tact in order to have the ingress for trucks around the back of the property and keep them away from the main traffic flows. Mr. Shane: When I was at the site, I didn't see the truck traffic. But if thafs true, then I can see your point. Another issue would be the dumpsters, which I think you mentioned. Are you willing to endose all those dumpsters with a masonry wall? Ms. Nakamura: Yes, we would be willing to enclose them. There are five dumpsters around the back. We would be willing to do a masonry consistent with our building, painted a matching color to our building around the back of the property. Thafs not a problem. Mr. Shane: The wall on the north side of the site needs some repair. Do you have any problem with that? Ms. Nakamura: No, we don't. We've already had preliminary meetings with the City. There was some mncem expressed to us about the lopsided appearance of the wall. So we had somebody look at putting a cap on it and giving it an even level at the lop and then painting the wall. So we dont have a problem with that either. Mr. Shane: Another item was the outdoor storage of trailers and trucks and so forth in the back ofthis site. Ms. Nakamura: The tenant that you are refening to, the Thrlfi Store, does not have anything in their lease that allows them to have the trailers on site. We will do everything in our ability to have them removed. The one thing that I think we were up against was, prior to my local person taking over the position, the trailers had already been in place for several years and I guess there was an assumption that these were allowed under the lease. They are not allowed under the lease and they will have to either bring it indoors or they will have to remove the trailers from the back of the site. Mr. Shane: And the final item I have is with respect to off-street parking. I don't know if you're aware or not, but this site is going to be somewhere around 96 or 97 parking spaces short upon the construction of the Walgreens facility. I think you should be aware of it. Any future tenants that go in that building are going to have to face that difficulty. I certainly don't want to interrupt the landscaping you're planning to do by keeping some parking spaces, but the fad that you're short on parking gives me some mncem for the future. But 19541 right now, I know it's not a problem because of the tenants you have. Ms. Nakamura: We actually have current leases which require that we have a five to one ratio, so we would never want to do something that would not be consistent with the leases that we have there. We would hope that possibly the landscape that we did, if we have to go back for future tenants, which we hope we will, part of the reason for wanting to have improvements at the shopping center and also to bring a good tenant like Walgreens to the property is in the hopes of fully leasing our property. But we would hope that there is a possibility to land bank the spaces that we might be giving up in order to increase the landscape and then look at it in the future or have it looked at favorably when we move forward. Mr. Alanskas: How many years has your firm been taking care of that area? Ms. Nakamura: We've had that properly since it's been constructed, which is probably 30 plus years. Mr. Alanskas: When is the last time you did a makeover of the facade of all the buildings? Ms. Nakamura: When Office Depotwent in approximately four years ago. Mr. Alanskas: And what did you do? Ms. Nakamura: New facade. Mr. Alanskas: On just Office Depot, correct? Ms. Nakamura: No, there was a new facade put on Party City, the Avenue as well as the Thrift Store. There was an overay of the parking lot done. We put a new store front on the vacant 1600 square foot space that we have. It used to be an old cafeteria. It had an old ugly wooden store front. We removed that and put a regular glass door front in there. The lighfing has been upgraded. And the landscaping has been upgraded. Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Lel me just for a moment go back to landscaping because I know we are going into other areas. Are there other recommendations or suggestions that you're malting to the plan we see right now? 19542 Ms. Nakamura: The plan that you are seeing right now is without the benefit of the information that we received from Beckett & Raeder. We're certainly willing to change the plant material and adhere to consistency with the City of Livonia's specifications. However, this is what we're presenting. Obviously it's open for comment and discussion. Mr. LaPine: On the east side of your properly where the wall is ... that wall has an I-beam and these concrete things. How are you going to straighten those out. I mean, you talk about a cap across there. Ms. Nakamura: We're not able to straighten them. Mr. LaPine: To me, that's not really doing anything. It looks like crazy. Some are down. Some are up. Ms. Nakamura: Well, we would put a cap straight across tie top and the lop would be level. We wouldn't have the drop downs. However, with the body oflhe wall itself, you will see some inconsistency. Mr. LaPine: There's no way they can put anything... Ms. Nakamura: Short of demolishing the entire wall and replacing it, that's the only way we could look at doing it. The cost to do it, what we've looked at doing in reparations, is somewhere in the $20,000 neighborhood. To demolish the wall and put something else back in its place would be quite a bit pore expensive. The only other suggestion that I could make, if the City wasn't willing to do a reparation which is still going to have some inconsistencies in the wall, is we could put a fence running along that area in front of the wall just so it wouldrtt be visible. But short of taking the wall down, which I don't feel the partnership is looking to do, this was our resolution. We had a couple people look at it. Mr. LaPine: All the parking along that wall has never been double striped. Is that going to be done? Ms. Nakamura: Yes, it should be done. As a matter of fact, the entire property was to be double striped. When we came in about a month ago to meet with the City, it was brought to our attention that the property was not striped to code. Al that time, we were doing the seal coating and striping of the parking lot, so I had my local contractor meet with the code official and had him tell him exactly what he wanted. So it's probably they just haven't completed that area yet. But the entire property will be double striped. 19543 Mr. La Pine: My next question is about the rear of the building. All of the storage outside behind the Thrift Store . they got some old furniture laying out there. How long do they let that stuff lay back there before they haul it away? Ms. Nakamura: None of the furniture that's behind the Thrift Store is part of the Thrift Store's dump, I'm sure. We have somebody that goes through the property on a regular basis so we don't leave anything there for a period of time. We have someone there seven days a week sweeping the property and removing trash from the property. Mr. La Pine: Is that right? Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Mr. La Pine: Well, there's an old snowmobile back there that was burned, and it has been there for over a year. Ms. Nakamura: Well, I'm not aware of any snowmobile back there, but you can believe that it will be gone by tomorrow. Mr. LaPine: Believe me, it's there. At least it was there the last time I was out there checking. Ms. Nakamura: Okay. Well, we do have somebody that is there on a regular basis. And as I said, they're there seven days week. Mr. La Pine: How about painting the rear of the building? Ms. Nakamura: We don't have a problem with painting the building. Mr. Walsh: I think I'm comfortable with the idea on the wall. You're going to level it off completely. Ms. Nakamura: Yes. Mr. Walsh: Then you're going to paint R. Ms. Nakamura: I have a sketch of what it might look like but its not a great sketch. I'm sure you can imagine the top is going to be one consistent level butyou are going to see variations in height still in the block itself. Mr. Walsh: It will be a solid wall, then painted? Ms. Nakamura: It will be a solid painted wall. It won't look as if sections have sunk down. That is correct. 19544 Mr. La Pine: Did you say you have something to show us? Ms. Nakamura: Yes, it's a sketch. Mr. La Pine: I'd like to see the sketch because I'm just curious how you're going to do that. There are steel beams across there, unless you're going to put steel beams all the way along. In the meantime, Mr. Taormina, do you want to read this letter from Beckett & Raeder? Mr. Taormina: This letter was provided to John Nagy, who is the Director of the Plymouth Road Development Authority. It is dated July 18, 2002. It is from Beckett & Raeder and it reads as follows: "Here are the comments 1 have for the site plan to be accepted by the Plymouth Road Development Authority. Sheet SPA -2. The two drive approaches are being shifted, and no wall is being proposed for the additional landscape buffer area. (a) On Middlebeft Road, the existing sign wall needs to be removed, and 85 additional linear feet of masonry wall with five piers is to be installed. Additionally, a new sign wall matching the old sign wall needs to be installed next to the relocated drive approach. Walgreens is to use our sign wall to install their store sign. (b) On Plymouth Road, 48 linear feet of masonry wall with three piers need to be installed between the sign wall and the relocated drive approach. Sheet SPA4 The Youngstown Andora Juniper that is being used between the parking lot and the sidewalk is not one of the approved plant species to be used in conelatlon with the PRDA. In front of the wall is to be Rudbeckias, with Euonymus Coloratus in front of it, and lawn behind the wall. The islands on the southeast comer and the northwest comer of the building show gold stone mulch in the islands. This is very unattractive, and no trees are even planted in these islands. They need to have lawn and a tree in the island. The Ash trees that are shown to remain will not live. There is an epidemic that is wiping out Ash trees, so these trees need to be removed and replaced with a different species of tree. We prefer that Ginkgo biloba 'Princeton Sentry' be used, but do not require this species. Several Ash trees are proposed on this site plan. Please change the species for the same reason as in note number 4. Sheet SPA -7. The actual location of the second ornamental light east of Middlebe/t Road slightly confilcts with the new drive approach location. The plan location is wrong. 1 am aware that the new masonry work will be quite expensive, but Walgreens is moving to an intersection that the PRDA spent 1.7 million dollars on, and is not truly utilizing or expanding our improvements. We have two sign walls, and neither are being used by Walgreens. They decided to relocate the drive approaches, and add their own 19545 type of sign, and not even extend our improvements, but instead add a few plantings for a buffer. It is the recommendation of BRI that if Walgreens moves to this already improved intersection, then their site improvements shall correlate exactly with the design of the rest of the comer. We have the sign walls, and Walgreens is to use them, not add their own. And they shall add more masonry wall to continue our exact theme for the comer. If we do not require Walgreens to add the masonry wall, and relocate at least one of the signs, then we are jeopardizing our improvements that we completed only a year ago. Thank you." Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Any other discussion? A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #07432-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-04-02-08, submitted by Rogvoy Architects, requesting waiver use approval to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy with drive-through service facilities on property located on the Northeast comer of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest %of Section 25, be tabled until the next Regular meeting of August 20, 2002. Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Walsh: I would like to have this on the August 20r" meeting. My intention is not to sloe down your project, but we talked about a lot of things tonight. I think for all of our benefit and the benefit of the City its worth laking a look at a final plan, and I suspect that the discussion will be shorter at the next meeting. Mr. LaPine: August 13 will be the eadiest we can gel it on a study. Is that cored, Mark? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: Then the next voting meeting is August 20. Mr. Walsh: That's what I'm saying. If we can gel it on those agendas, it would be good. Mr. Alanskas: In the meantime, they might have a lot of that landscaping done by that time. Mr. LaPine: The sooner you get the plans to us, we will all have a chance to look at it. We appreciate you coming in tonight. 19546 ITEM #3 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING Waiver Use Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolution #361-02 to determine whether or not to allow various types of athletics schools and similar facilities as permitted or waiver uses in industrial zoning districts. Mr. LaPine: Mark, could you give us some background on whats involved here? Mr. Taormina: This evening's action would merely set the public hearing. I believe that date would be scheduled for September 24, 2002. This would be to consider a language amendment impacting the permitted and waiver uses within our industrial districts to consider whether or not to allow certain recreational facilities within those industrial zones. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Then a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, d was #07-03-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #361-02, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to allow various types of athletics schools and similar facilities as pennitted or waiver uses in industrial zoning districts FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 19547 ITEM #4 PETITION 2001-06-06-07 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Open Air Sales) Mr. Pierohecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001- 06-06-07 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #395-01 and Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 10.02 and 10.03 of Article X and Section 11.02 of Article XI of the Zoning Ordinance to make open- air sales of nursery stock, fruits and vegetables a permitted use for food stores, grocery stores and meat markets subject to certain restrictions contained in Section 10.03. Mr. Pieroecchi: This is a proposed amendment reading as follows: Proposed Amendment to Article X G7 District Regulations Section 10.03(a) Waiver Uses. (a) Open air sales of nursery stock or fruits and vegetables, provided such use is only temporary and carried on between April 1 and October 31, and subject to reports being fled with the Commission indicating approval of the Police Department and that there is a safe and suitable ingress and egress to parking facilities, and prior approval of the Fire Department that all fire rules and regulations can be complied with, and the approval of the Inspection Department that such use complies in all other respects with this ordinance, the building code ordinances, and the regulations of the Inspection Department, providing also that open air sales involving the sale of any food stuff shall additionally be subject to the approval of the Wayne County Department of Health. Mr. La Pine: Thank you Mr. Pieroecchi: The only real change is the date being extended from October 15 to October 31. Mr. La Pine: Mr. Taormina, do you have anything to add? Mr. Taormina: I think Mr. Pierchecoi has summarized the amendment. As you recall, this initially came to the Planning Commission last August as an amendment to the ordinance that would have permitted open air sales of nursery stock, fruits and vegetables within the G7 district regulations. Presently, they are waiver uses. It is the consensus of the Planning Commission that it remain as a waiver use with the only change being the extended period which businesses can 19548 operate these temporary uses from April 1 through October 31 as opposed to April 1 through October 15. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pieroecchi, and unanimously approved, it was #07-04-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on July 24, 2001, on Petition 2001- 06-06-07, submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolutions #395-01, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 10.02 and 10.03 of Article X and Section 11.02 of Article XI of the Zoning Ordinance to make open-air sales of nursery stock, fruits and vegetables a permitted use for food stores, grocery stores and meal markets subject to certain restrictions contained in Section 10.03, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-06-06-07 be approved only with respect to amending Section 10.03(a) of Article X, C-1 District Regulations, Waiver Uses, so as to lengthen the outdoor sales and display season from April 1 through October 31 with the use remaining as a waiver use in the C-1 and C-2 districts, for the following reasons: 1. Thatthe proposed language amendment will provide reasonable standards with respect to outdoor sales and display ofthe specified merchandise; 2. Thatthe proposed language amendmenlwill allow additional time for the outdoor sales and display ofseasonal merchandise later in the fall; and 3. That the proposed language amendment will extend the length of the time period for outdoor sales and display while still maintaining necessary control with respect to the location and nature of the use. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine: Is there any discussion? 19549 Mr. Alanskas: Mark, why do gas stations now have what they call food stores? They are termed as food. Could they sell pumpkins and everything else that the regular nurseries will be selling? How would we stop that if they started doing that? Mr. Taormina: It has always been a requirement that they obtain the necessary waiver use approval for that type of sales operation. Mr. Alanskas: What if they didn't and we saw that happening? Could we get the Inspection Department involved? Mr. Taormina: The Ordinance Enforcement Division would have to cite them for anyviolatons. Mr. Alanskas: Now, more and more food chains are going into gas stations. They even sell pizza and Subway. I'm just wondering if they want to start growing and selling more products, like pumplans, Chnstmas trees and what have you ...I want to make sure we can stop that before even spreads. Mr. Taormina: This language amendment does not facilitate that any further. Had R been a permitted use, it may have reached to the extent that they have those accessory groceries. Mr. Alanskas: It would strictly be a visible check? Mr. Taormina: But it still remains a waiver use. Mr. LaPine: Theystill have to come in fora waiver use. Mr. Taormina: That is correct. ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 84C Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval oflhe Minutes oflhe 846"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 4, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #07-95-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 846"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 4, 2002, are hereby approved. 19550 A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Shane, Walsh NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Pieroecchi ABSENT: McCann, Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 387TM Special Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes ofthe 3W Special Meeting held on June 11, 2002. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it was #07-16-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 3W Special Meeting held by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2002, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, NAYS: None ABSENT: McCann, Pastor Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 848th Regular Meeting held on July 30, 2002, was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: William LaPine, Acting Chairman