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