HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-08-1523436
MINUTES OF THE 930TH REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 15, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 930" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William La Pine R. Lee Morrow
H. G. Shane Carol A. Smiley Ian W lshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Mr. Scott Miller, Planner III, was also present
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition 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 writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome oflhe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2006-07-0843 LIVONIA MANOR CONDOS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-07-
08-13, submitted by Crosswinds Court Subdivision, Inc., on
behalf of Livonia Manor II Site Condominiums, requesting
approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by
Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a condominium development on properties
located at 31700 and 31750 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast
% of Section 3.
23437
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to develop a ste condominium
project on properly located on the north side of Seven Mile
Road between Auburndale Avenue and Merriman Road. The
subject site consists of two adjoining parcels, 31700 and 31750
Seven Mile Road. Each parcel presently has a single-family
house located on it. The two lots have a combined total
frontage of 303 feel along Seven Mile Road by a depth of 820
feel, for a combined total area of 5.70 acres. Immediately east
of the subject site is a single parcel that is zoned RUFB (Rural
Urban Farm). This piece of properly contains a single-family
residence and a dog kennel facility. Further to the east are
three parcels that were recently approved (CR 519-05) for the
development of a site condominium project known as 'Livonia
Manor Site Condominiums." This first Livonia Manor
development consists of twenty-six (26) condominium lots and a
street that extends approximately 650 feel north from Seven
Mile Road and then turns towards the west and terminates at its
western boundary. Because of the road's distance, City Council
required a "T" turnaround be installed. Livonia Manor II is
proposing a similar road layout that would somewhat mirror that
of the eastern development. The aligned stub streets would
allow for their continuation and linking should the single parcel
between the two condominium subdivisions be developed. The
subject properly is in the process of being rezoned (Pel. 05-09-
01-11) from RUFB (Rural Urban Farm) to Rl (Single Family
Residential). The Planning Commission, after holding a public
hearing on October 25, 2005, recommended approval of the
requested rezoning. Following a public hearing, the City
Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning at its
June 26, 2006, Regular Meeting. Second Reading and a Roll
Call Vole are scheduled at the time the site plan is presented to
the Council for action. Review of this petition is based on the
assumption that the properly will be rezoned to R7. According
to the submitted documentation, the proposed development
would be known as "Livonia Manor 11 Site Condominiums' and
consist of twenty-one (21) condominium units that would all front
on a proposed new street. The right-of-way would be 50 feel in
width rather than the standard 60 feel. The new street would
extend approximately 650 feet north from Seven Mile Road and
would then tum towards the east and terminate at the eastern
boundary of the subject project. The stub street would conclude
without any type of permanent or temporary turnaround. As
mentioned above, City Council required a "T" turnaround for the
first Livonia Manor development because of the distance of the
road. The plan also shows a 50 -foot wide access easement
between Lots 1 and 2. This easement would allow a short road
to be installed should the lower half of the single parcel to the
east ever be developed and divided. An Rl zoning district
23438
requires each lot to have a minimum land area of 7,200 square
feet, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, and a minimum lot depth of
120 feet. All the proposed condominium lots of Livonia Manor II
meet or exceed these lot size requirements. In accordance with
the requirement that the width of lots platted with a side yard
abutting a major thoroughfare shall be increased by at lead 30
feel, the two proposed lots siding to Seven Mile Road (Lots 1
and 21) would be 90 feel in width. With respect to the existing
houses on the subject parcels, the plan indicates that the home
on 31700 Seven Mile Road would remain and be incorporated
into the new development's layout. The existing house would
occupy Lot 3. No information has been submitted in regard to
what modifications, if any, are planned in order to adjust or
adapt the existing structures to a new orientation, facing the
new street rather than Seven Mile Road. The other existing
house would be tom down. A development of this size is
required to provide 15,120 square feet of open space for
recreation. Between Lots 18 and 19, the site plan shows a
common area of only 11,692 square feet in size. Because of
the deficiency, City Council would have to waive the open space
requirement. The site plan shows a 30 -foot wide greenbelt
along the development's Seven Mile Road frontage. No
information as to how this area would be fashioned, including if
it would be bermed or what type of landscape materials would
be installed, has been submitted. The storm water system
would be handled underground on the open space lot.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Miller, I know we have several items of correspondence as
well.
Mr. Miller: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 10, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the legal description contained therein. With the verification
of the sanitary sewer, we we no additional dght-0f-way
requirements for this site and we have no other objections."
The letter is signed by James Zoumbaris, Superintendent of
Public Service. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated August 2, 2006, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to construct a site condominium development on
properties located at the above -referenced addresses. We
have no objections to this proposal with the following
stipulations: (1) Any curves or comer of streets shall
accommodate emergency vehicles with a turning radius of fifty-
three feet wall-to-wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-
nine feet six inches. (2) An approved turnaround for fire
23439
apparatus shall be provided where access is dead -ended and is
in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a
minimum turning radius of fifty-three feet wall-to-wall and an
inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority
having jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location
of the fire lane. (3) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be
permitted. (4) Please submit a revised site plan to this office
wdh the stipulated changes." The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated July 11, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of July 6, 2006, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The
north and south street is listed as Canterbury Drive. As there is
already a Canterbury in Livonia Manor 1, this street name may
need to be changed to prevent confusion. (2) At 720 square
feet of open space per lot (unit), this site would require 15,120
square feet, 11,692 square feet has been provided. Council
may waive this provision. 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 for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes. The 50 fool wide access easement, what is that for? I
don't understand what that is for.
Mr. Miller:
On the plan, that's the shaded area here.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Miller:
If that property to the east is ever developed, you would need
that to split
the lots here. If not, you'd only be able to do a road
across here with a lot to the north, a lot to the south, and then
one big lot that would front off of Seven Mile Road. With this
road, you could divide the lot more proficiently.
Mr. LaPine:
So the owner of this property is making this available to
whoever buys the property next door, which would probably be
the guy that owns it now, but that's not here nor there. The other
question I have, on Lot 3 where the existing house is, is that
house going to stay?
Mr. Miller:
Yes, that house will stay.
Mr. LaPine:
That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you.
23440
Mr. Morrow:
Does the site plan satisfy the Fire Department's requirementfor
a or a Y' turnaround?
Mr. Miller:
No, it does not show one. The petitioner will either have to
revise it when he goes to Council, which he did on the original
Livonia Manor to the east. We approved one without it, and
then when he went to Council, he had to put in a'7 turnaround,
so he will probably revise his plans to satisfy Council.
Mr. Morrow:
So it will be there by the time it gets to Council?
Mr. Miller:
It will have to be there, yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Terry Sever, 34436 Beechwood, Farmington Hills, MI 48335. I came before you,
it's almost a year now, but I think it was back in the fall of Iasi
year, to begin this process. If you could show the site plan, I'll
just make a few comments. When we were here, the
Commissioners passed it but gave some comments with regard
to some of the things they'd like to see. One of the things they
preferred to see is closed retention rather than an open
retention, which we've done. One of the compromises we've
made through the process with regard to the properly east was,
in fad, the easement. When it was originally shown to the
Planning Commission conceptually, the property to the east,
which is about 120 feel in width, would have had two curb cuts
to the front in order to develop it in the future if that owner sold
it, and then the street would be connected at the north end,
which would allow them four lots. But by putting in the
easement, what it does is eliminate the curb cuts off of Seven
Mile and provides for the opportunity for that individual or
someone in the future to extend that road on the easement,
create a cul-de-sac and actually end up with four lots rather than
two that would come off at Seven Mile. So from our original
proposal, this actually worked out and has improved in terms of
access to Seven Mile Road in the future. And this is what we
proposed to the City Council at the time they moved it forward
with the First Reading.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, are you the petitioner or is Mr. Soave the petitioner?
Mr. Sever:
I petitioned representing the owners. Mr. Soave is now the
owner. I continued in the process and I'm representing Mr.
Soave.
23441
Mr. Alanskas: The reason why is because I see on the plant list, it says
landscape plan for Mr. Leo Soave.
Mr. Sever: Yes. Mr. Soave is Crosswinds Court Subdivision, Inc.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Sever, right now, when the first part of the development was
made to the east, there was an agreement made with the
homeowners that abut that property that ranch homes would be
developed only alongside the existing R-1 homes that are
behind it so that they didn't have large colonials overlooking
them, that type of thing. You abut a street to the west and also
a street to the north. There's a number of homes that you're
going to abut with this development. Are you going to do the
same type of agreement where you're only going to put in ranch
homes?
Mr. Sever: I've never represented that from the beginning of the process.
I'm not sure. I am a realtor. I sell homes. I'm not sure that this
property from a market standpoint would warrant that many
ranches. On his other site, he had benefit of the ranches, or the
property that was abutting existing homeowners, was only on
the north side and was five or six units.
Mr. Wilshaw: Correct
Mr. Sever: I don't think from a marketing standpoint either that the City
wants to end up with handcuffing a builder to build all ranches
when they may not be desirable. I believe what's going to
happen is that whatever the market is doing, if the ranches go
well on the other site, and actually he's done some not only
abutting on the north side, but he's done some ranches that are
across the street that abut at the north. So I would think that if
it's going along successfully, he'd do that, but because of the
amount of units that would abut, which would be about 50
percent, we never represented that. We never had that brought
up by residents and, in fact, from the very first Planning
Commission meeting when I was here, there was only one
resident that had an objection to it, and it was the resident who
was to the east, the dog kennel, and we worked with him to get
things resolved and the easement seemed to be of a benefit to
him.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Good. That's where my question was leading. Obviously
if you were to have an agreement like that, you would end up
with a significant amount of ranch homes, and I didn't know if
23442
you had gotten any feedback from residents that are abutting
one way or the other.
Mr. Sever:
My guess would be the residents would like it, but I'm not sure
you want to build ranch homes that don't sell and be handcuffed
in this market, particularly the residential industry.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Tell me a little bit about property number three where the
existing home is. What are you going to do with that home?
Obviously you're going to leave it, but are you going to upgrade
it?
Mr. Sever:
Yes. Actually, there are two homes, the one where the retention
pond is, is a much smaller home. It has a basement, is brick.
Its about 1,100 square feet. So the feeling was that one would
come down. The home that you're referring to actually is about
2,600 square feet with a full basement. And the second level
connects to the garage, so that has a lot of potential in terms of
being upgraded. It's all brick. Inside it's in pretty good shape.
So that's a home that I think is very much indeed worth saving.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So you're going to leave it as is with some minor
upgrades or what have you. Is that what I'm hearing?
Mr. Sever:
Yes. I think they'll probably be maybe more than minor because
they would want the price range to be consistent with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Will that home also be sold or is the property owner going to
stay there?
Mr. Sever:
No, I think the plan is to sell that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And then the easement that's right next to it, is that going
to remain just a greenbelt until such time as you're going to put
a road through, if you ever did that?
Mr. Sever:
I think what will happen is that it will remain with a driveway to
that existing house because right now we want to eliminate
another curb cut. There is a curb cul that comes off of Seven
Mile to that house, and eventually when those two lots are
developed, the driveway from that house would probably go on
the easement and access on the side street as opposed to
continuing onto Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I see. So that will bean L-shaped driveway then?
Mr. Sever:
Yes.
23443
Mr. LaPine:
To the best of your knowledge, because I asked you this
question when you were here before, is the kennel property still
not up for sale?
Mr. Sever:
I can't represent that except that we had some discussion with
him, and from an economic standpoint, it didn't work with this
project. We had some discussions about whether to include it
or not, and the price that they seem to feel they needed to get
for it was substantially higher than any of the other pieces there.
So what we did, and I had some conversation with them, the
best thing for them was to give them the access with the right -
of way street, the easement and to give them access in the rear.
They're at 123 feet, so they could, on their own, in the future do
well enough to come dose to the money they would like to get
out of their property. So we've actually enhanced the value of
their properly as opposed to affecting it adversely.
Mr. LaPine:
One last question, the 50 fool wide access easement, will that
easement belong to the city, Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller:
Yes, once its developed.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-82-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-08-13,
submitted by Crosswinds Court Subdivision, Inc., on behalf of
Livonia Manor 11 Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
a condominium development on properties located at 31700
and 31750 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 3, be
approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement
of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the following
additional conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning
23444
Ordinance #543, except for the fad the following shall be
incorporated:
- That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be
brick or stone, on all four (4) sides, and the total amount
of brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less
than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story
dwellings;
- That the brick used in construction shall be full face,
four (4") inch brick;
- Thatall exterior chimneys shall be brick;
2. That streeflighls shall be installed throughout the
development as recommended by the Engineering
Department;
3. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set
forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail
and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements;
That the petitioner shall include language in the Master
Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument
wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the
City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred
for the storm water detenfion/retention and outlet facilities,
and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on
each lot owner's property proreta and place said charges
on their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are
not paid by the condominium association (or each lot
owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of
Livonia;
5. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. 2 dated May 25,
2006, as revised, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc.,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That should this site condominium project be develop
before, and not in concurrence with, the properties to the
east, a "T" turn -around, as approved by both the
Engineering Department and Fire Department, shall be
installed at the east end of the proposed road (Bridge
Street);
23445
7. That the Landscape Plan received by the Planning
Commission on August 9, 2006, prepared by Engineering
Services, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
8. That the entrance marker shown on the approved
landscape plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the Stale of Michigan;
10. That the petitioner shall cored to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
August 2, 2006;
11. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for;
12. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surely bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development; and,
13. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void al the expiration of said period.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Y 1 =1 r4 FYM» Y Y 1 [a] 01KQ*Er)OI:15 E lH.1 I I_CH:I =1 ¢Zr] z1@1111:
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
07-08-14 submitted by Gallagher Group requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a medical office building
on properties located at 29945 and 29929 Six Mile Road in the
Northeast % of Section 14.
23446
Mr. Miller: The petitioner seeks to construct a medical office building on
two adjoining parcels (29945 and 29929 Six Mile Road) located
on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Avenue and
Middlebell Road. The subject site was recently rezoned from
RUFA (Rural Urban Farm) to OS (Office Services) and P
(Parking). The proposed medical office building would be one-
story in height and contain a total of 14,300 square feel of floor
area. The proposed rectangular -shaped building measures 285
feel in length by 50 feet in width. All building setbacks would be
mel. The proposed structure would have three main entrances
located along its east side. An enclosed trash dumpster area is
shown near the south elevation of the building, in the northwest
corner of the southern parking lot. Access to the site would be
by a single drive off Six Mile Road. There would be a row of 23
parking spaces between the building and the east property line.
A separate main body of parking spaces would be situated
south of the building. One hundred four parking spaces are
required, and they are providing 105 spaces. The parking
spaces are conforming at len (10') feel in width by twenty (20')
feel in length. To handle storm water runoff, a large detention
basin would be created between the southern parking lot and
south property line. This basin would lake up the entire south
170 feel of the site. According to the proposed grading plan, the
storm water detention basin would gradually slope down to a
depth of approximately 11 feel and have a 4 -foot deep
"permanent pool at its bottom. Required landscaping, including
the retention basin, is not less than 15% of the total site, and
they providing landscaping on 50% of the site, so they far
exceed the landscape requirement. Because this site borders
residential along parts of the east, west and south property
lines, a screening wall or greenbelt would be required along
these areas. The site plan illustrates and notes that there is an
existing six-foot high screen wall along the east and south
property lines. The petitioner is requesting approval to substitute
a permanent greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall along the
part of the west property line where it abuts residential. The
greenbelt would be a minimum of 10 feet in width next to the
building and spread out wider as it continues past the parking lot
and detention basin. It would be planted with an assortment of
plant materials including evergreen trees, deciduous trees and
shrubbery. The proposed medical office building would be
constructed out of brick on all four sides. Shallow structural
canopies, supported by decorative columns, would slick out and
define the three entrances along the east elevation. Ornate
block window elements would embellish the comers of the
structure. The roof would be sectional -peaked and shingled.
23447
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated August 8, 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. No additional right-of-way for Six
Mile Road is required. The legal description should be verified
in comparison with the dimensions shown on the drawing.
Detention facilities have been shown and will require approval in
accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water Management
Ordinance. The drive approaches will require County approval.
Extensive off-site storm sewers are shown to serve the
properties to the east, south and west of the proposed
development" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E.,
City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated July 25, 2006, which reads as follows:
'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to construct an office building on property located
at the above -referenced addresses. We have no objections to
this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate
hydrants shall be provided and located with a maximum spacing
of 300 feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow
1,500 GPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) This Division
requests that the entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire
Lane — No Parking.' (3) The parking lot shall be a turnaround
for fire apparatus. The turnaround shall have a minimum
turning radius of fifty-three feet wall to wall and an inside turning
radius of twenty-nine feet six inches. The authority having
jurisdiction shall approve the grade, surface, and location of the
fire lane." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
August 7, 2006, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
plans in connection with a proposal for Pros Medical Building
located at 29945-29929 Six Mile road. We have no objections
or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated August 7, 2006,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 12,
2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The parking spaces east of the building
scale at a width of 97 to 96". There is no definitive
identification of the required 10 -foot width. This should be
clarified to the Commission and Council's satisfaction to
ascertain if the site has the required 104 parking spaces. (2) All
parking spaces are to be double striped. (3) If this medical
building were to be used as rehabilitation facilities or outpatient
physical therapy facilities the required accessible parking
23448
spaces would change from 5 required to 21 required. This
could cause them to lose 2 parking ypaces and be below the
required minimum number of spaces and thus require a zoning
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (4) The accessible
parking locations may need to be located/dispersed differently
to meet the code. (5) This portion of the property that is zoned
OS or parking and abutting residential property must have the
required protective screening wall or an approved green belt or
an approved property separation agreement. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The lBfler is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Miller?
Mr. Wilshaw: I just have one question. The detention area on the landscape
plan is listed as a hydroseeded lawn instead of sod. Is that still
in conformance with our typical standards or will they need to
sod that area?
Mr. Miller: We typically require that the lawn be sodded, but we have
allowed hydroseed in some areas of detention just because it
takes better, but it will be up to the Inspection Department. We
prefer sod, but if the Inspection Department feels that seed is
better, we will allow them to do that.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay.
Mr. Shane: Scott, the portion of the west property line, which abuts the
proposed building, is that part of the area where they are
proposing a greenbelt?
Mr. Miller: Yes. From just about the middle of the building to the south is
where they abut residential and that's where the greenbelt will
be.
Mr. Shane: That particular area doesn't meet the 10 -fool wide space, does
d?
Mr. Miller: It should. From the plan I measured 10 feet. If its not, we're
going to make them conform to 10 feet. I think its close enough
that they can make it 10 feet.
Mr. Shane: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
23449
Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger, Livonia. Good evening. I live right behind all
this. We put together the drainage systems for the pond picking
up the neighbors that need it behind us, just about everybody,
and Joe Stenrose here has done all the civil engineering on
that. Council wanted to see that when they approved all this.
Anyway, we have the color renderings that you wanted. The
lighting is all strictly down lighting. The poles are 16 feel with a
2 -fool base so no lights will be shining in anybody's backyards.
There are three of them, one on both ends of our parking lot and
then one in the back right adjacent to the pond right about in the
center. There are details on the drawings explaining that and
there are details on the drawings explaining the fence that was
brought up to protect the fence with the gale. That's also on our
first floor plan. I think everybody has seen that now. I believe
everything has been covered by us that we needed to show you
people. We're here for your blessing, I hope.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Gallagher, your properly is the property on the west side of
these two proposals before us here tonight. Is that right?
Mr. Gallagher:
The west what?
Mr. La Pine
On the west side. Next door to you is an older home and next
door to that older home is a brand new one. Is that correct?
Mr. Gallagher:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, what is going to be between the older home and this
property? What are you going to put there? Are you going to
put up a fence or a brick wall or landscaping or what?
Mr. Gallagher:
Bevacqua Building Company is going to construct a building
and he's going to occupy an office building next to us. There's a
rendering of it behind ours here. We're picking up his
slonnwaler and running ...
Mr. LaPine:
You're getting away from what I'm asking. Now you just told me
the building next to yours, they're going to build another
building.
Mr. Gallagher:
Right.
Mr. La Pine:
Is that the building that is our next case?
Mr. Gallagher:
Yes, it is.
23450
Mr.
La Pine:
So thathouse is coming down?
Mr.
Gallagher:
Right.
Mr.
La Pine:
Mr. Morrow and I were out there today. We talked to the man
there. We asked, "Is your house going to be torn down?" He
told us, "No."
Mr.
Gallagher:
They have to tear that house down, but I'm not hearing you that
well. My hearing is not all that great, you know.
Mr.
La Pine:
Okay.
Mr.
Gallagher:
There's two things that happen when you get older. One of
them is your hearing; the other one is your memory. I can't
remember.
Mr.
La Pine:
What we have here, the older home is going to be torn down.
That's going to be the next case where an office building is
going to go there. And then we have the new home on the
other side that has the white vinyl that goes all the way back. Is
that coned?
Mr.
Gallagher:
Right.
Mr.
La Pine:
Okay. I just wanted to get that straight in my mind.
Mr.
Morrow:
To follow up on what Mr. La Pine said, is that home still there,
the one whalyou said was going to be torn down?
Mr.
Gallagher:
Yes. Its a rental property right now.
Mr.
La Pine:
You're going nowhere.
Peter Bevacqua, 34020 W. Seven Mile Road, Suite 114, Livonia, Michigan. The
old home where we have the building next to it, we're going to
lake it down.
Mr.
Walsh:
Do you own the property at the present time?
Mr.Bevacqua:
Yes.
Mr.
Walsh:
And the person that lives in the home is a renter?
Mr.
Bevacqua:
He knows what's going to happen.
Mr.
Walsh:
Thank you for clarifying that. Mr. Morrow, any additional
questions?
23461
Mr. Morrow:
No, I just wanted to attempt to clear that up because the guy did
tell us that the house is not coming down.
Mr. Walsh:
Any further questions? Thank you, Mr. Gallagher. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? If so, would you please step forward?
James Gibson,
16978 Oporto. I'm just west of the proposed site. I'm very
pleased with everything I see. My neighbor, Mr. Boyd, is not
available. I thought he was going to write you a letter. Once we
received the landscaping proposal and we saw the height of the
berm, the only thing that both of us directly to the west are
concerned about is the height of the bene. It's four feet high.
Our fences are four feet high and we get all the headlights
coming through. Now, I know he's going to put trees and
landscaping in there, but our only request on the western side is
if that bem could be made higher. That way it would be a
permanent wall in the wintertime. It wouldn't get any headlights
or anything through the trees. Trees do come and go and so
does shrubbery. But if the bene was six feet high, that definitely
would kill all the headlights that would be coming towards us. In
looking at the drawing, and I explained to my neighbor I didn't
think we could move the dumpsler basically because they're
light on parking spots. Realistically, I don't think there's a better
place for the dumpster. So I'm going to forego that one
because I heard you guys say that you might need more spots if
it was a different usage. The other thing I noticed on the
architectural drawing was the decorative fence that's going to be
on the south side blocking the entrance to the pond. Thais
another four foot barrier that we don't have on our side. My
neighbor is more concerned than I am about people climbing
over the wall, climbing over the barrier and onto our properties
because that's a good way to gel into the neighborhood. But
other than that, I'm really pleased. I think they've gone out of
their way to solve this situation. I know at the first meeting you
guys were concerned about putting in homes, and I know
personally this is going to be much easier to live with them than
I would with neighbors that were five fool off the property lines.
So I appreciate what you've guys have done collectively.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Gibson. We appreciate you coming. Is there
anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Good evening.
Nancy Reppke,
29900 Munger. Good evening. My properly is just to the east of
this proposed site. Of all the proposals over the last decade,
this is probably the one that is the most appealing, and I really
23452
don't have any objections to it. Nothing stays the same. The
woods have been nice, but the water has been a problem, and
Mr. Gallagher is hoping that this will alleviate some of our water
problems. My understanding also is, and somebody can correct
me if I'm wrong, is that the retention wall, that runs on the west
side of my property, would be the east, will stay. The wall that
runs north to south. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller:
If she's talking about the one that's along the east property line .
Ms. Reppke:
Yes.
Mr. Miller:
That will stay.
Ms. Reppke:
Ok. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
The prolective wall that may not be on your properly, but the
one to the east, what kind of condition is that in?
Ms. Reppke:
There are some spots that need some repairing here and there
that I see on my side. Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Behind this development, the same thing is true. You don't abut
this development, do you?
Ms. Reppke:
Ido. Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Oh, you do.
Ms. Reppke:
I'm Lot 27, which is directly to the east of this proposed
development. He just highlighted where the wall runs down.
Mr. Morrow:
Where does her lot ...
Ms. Reppke:
Right there. All the way down to Munger.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Well, I was thinking about the wall. We have a partial
wall and then landscaping on that particularly site, and I was
interested in the partial wall, not the one that runs north and
south but the one that ...
Ms. Reppke:
I'm the one that runs north and south. I'm adjacent to that.
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you.
23453
Mr.
Morrow:
I have one other question. I wonder if he could address the
condition of that partial wall to the south?
Mr.
Walsh:
Mr. Gallagher, if you could step back up, we have a question or
two more for you. Mr. Morrow.
Mr.
Morrow:
Yes, the partial wall that is on the south property line, what
condition is that in? We had a little trouble getting to it and
finding it.
Mr.
Gallagher:
On the south end?
Mr.
Morrow:
Yes.
Mr.
Gallagher:
That's going to be a six foot high fence.
Mr.
Morrow:
Is there an existing wall there?
Mr.
Gallagher:
No, we hadn't planned on a wall. We planned on a woven wire
fence.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. I thought I saw on the plan there was an existing wall
there.
Mr.
Miller:
That's what I believe. He shows it on the plan as awall.
Mr.
Morrow:
We're not talking about the fence around the detention pond.
We're talking about the prolective wall between the residential
and your site.
Mr. Gallagher: There is one on her side of the property all the way back
running down from our pond to the very end over there. We've
got to go underneath it or through it to pick up her water
problem. That's where you see that drain over on the east side
of the property. Then that wall turns and goes past ...
Mr. Morrow: That's not what I'm talking about.
Mr. Miller: He's showing here that there's a wall. I have a plan here
showing that there's a wall along the south property line.
Mr. Gallagher: Right, but it only runs up to right about there.
Mr. Miller: Up to this point.
Mr. Gallagher: Right where you slopped, and then the rest of it is woven wire
fence. You know, typical fencing and we'll just do that six feel.
23454
Mr.
Morrow:
The wall we just established that is there, is that in good
condition or does that have to be repaired?
Mr.
Gallagher:
What? The existing masonry?
Mr.
Morrow:
Yes.
Mr.
Gallagher:
I think there's one area that's going to have to be fixed.
Mr.
Morrow:
Well, I just want the area to be fixed, and I think you indicated
that the balance of that lot line will be a bene or some type of
landscaping.
Mr.
Gallagher:
Right. Well, the rest of it is all landscaping.
Mr.
Morrow:
You indicated that the neighbors were in favor of that?
Mr.
Gallagher:
That's what they were in favor of.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr.
LaPine:
To follow up on that to get it straight in my mind, we have an
existing wall that runs from the north to the south. Then it looks
like on my plan, then it goes west. How far does ilgo west?
Mr.
Gallagher:
It goes up to just about where that slop is. It should show up on
your plan. It's on those plans.
Mr.
Miller:
Itgoes rightwhere those trees are.
Mr.
LaPine:
Where those trees start?
Mr.
Miller:
Yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay. And how many houses exist where the wall won't be
because we weren't able to get back there and look at it. How
many homes are behind the area where the wall will not go on
the south side?
Mr.
Walsh:
It looks like there are two.
Mr.
Gallagher:
One and a half. It doesn't go all the way across, about one-
third or two-thirds.
Mr.
LaPine:
So you're telling me that people who live behind those two, one
and half houses, do not want a wall?
Mr.
Gallagher:
No, they do not want a wall.
23455
Mr. LaPine:
Do we have anybody here tonight who lives in those houses?
Do we have any correspondence where they say they don't
want the wall?
Mr. Gallagher:
No, I do not have any correspondence from them - just what we
talked to people about.
Mr. LaPine:
It seems to me if the wall goes half way, why not finish it off?
Now, if there's a reason why these people didn't want it, that's
another question, but it just doesn't seem to make any sense.
We've got the wall on the east side, and then comes down and
starts going west behind the property and then slops and then
picks up a landscape berm. I mean it just doesn't make good
sense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gallagher:
Now that's ... I talked to these people about that. They did not
want that concrete wall in their backyard.
Mr. LaPine:
And I have no reason to not believe you, but I'd like to talk to
them to understand why they didn't want d and what lheyre
thinking is.
Mr. Shane:
Two questions, Mr. Gallagher. The wall we've been discussing,
is that an old wall that's been there a long lime?
Mr. Gallagher:
I'm sorry?
Mr. Shane:
Do you know if that wall has been there quite a while?
Mr. Gallagher:
Probably 30 years, 25 years.
Mr. Shane:
Would it make any sense to get rid of it and extend the
landscaping all the way across?
Mr. Gallagher:
Not really. There's just one area where its kind of ... it looks
like it tilted a little bit butthe wall is in pretty decent shape.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. LaPine has the same problem, I think, I do and that is, we've
got a wall half way and landscaping. Let's make it all the same
if it's not ...
Mr. Gallagher:
The people that this wall comes up to and stops, and the people
next door to them covered it up with wood. They didn't want to
look at the concrete and these people next door to me wanted
the berths and so did everybody else.
23455
Mr.
Shane:
Maybe you should gel rid of the wall and extend the berm all the
way across.
Mr.
Gallagher:
And the bene still runs all the way through it anyway.
Mr.
Shane:
Right. The second question is, the neighbor who had the
problem with the four foot berm on the vest, is there enough
room to heightened the berm another two feel?
Mr.
Gallagher:
Well, we show it at three feet here, I believe.
Mr.
Shane:
I think its four feet.
Mr.
Gallagher:
But we've only got 35 feet across here to come up, so we can't
come up loo high.
Mr.
Shane:
Thalwas myquestion.
Mr.
Gallagher:
Yeah, right, so.
Mr.
Shane:
So the alternative to that is to put a considerable amount of
landscaping along there.
Mr.
Gallagher:
And that's what we've done.
Mr.
Shane:
I think he's concerned about lights and a good evergreen
landscape berm will do that. So let's just make sure that's what
you have, is a good number of evergreen trees across there. It
will do the same job as a berm.
Mr.
Gallagher:
Yes.
Mr.
Shane:
That's what we're concerned about. That's what he's
concerned about.
Mr.
Gallagher:
I know this. I live right across the street from all these people
and if this isn't right, I'm going to hear about it.
Mr.
Morrow:
This is a berm in lieu of a wall, is that correct?
Mr.
Gallagher:
Thais right.
Mr.
Morrow:
So you'll have to gel thalwall waived at the Zoning Board, right?
Mr.
Walsh:
No, we can do that, Mr. Morrow. We have the authority to do
that.
23457
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I guess where I was coming from is, is it possible to
condition it with a certain time frame where it would have to
come back in the event that what we heard here tonight did not,
in fact, happen and it was a problem for the neighbors?
Mr. Miller:
If you look at one of the condition, if we don't believe that it's a
good enough greenbelt, it will come back before you.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any time frame connected with it?
Mr. Miller:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Number six.
Mr. Miller:
If the Inspection Department or the neighbors ....
Mr. Morrow:
You've already addressed my concerns. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Gibson, did you have something to add?
Mr. Gibson:
I personally talked to the two neighbors that don't have the wall.
Mr. Walsh:
Could you step up to the microphone?
Mr. Gibson:
I personally talked to the two neighbors that don't have the wall.
And they're not for a wall. They enjoy looking at the greenery.
So I know for a fact lheyre not requesting a wall. The
gentleman that has the wall, that's where it's partially down, he
can't afford to do anything. He lives in his parents' home.
That's the area that you guys didn't get back to see. It is bad.
It's cracked. But when they put in all the drainage, that's going
to solve the failure of the wall. So I can't see making Mr.
Gallagher tear down the wall when half the people don't want it
and the other half didn't request it, and the people that have the
wall, they were here at the meeting, the first meeting. So it's
hearsay but I think they're happy or theyd be here today.
Because I went around enough and I know Richard's gone
around enough and asked them to participate. Me asking for
the berm to be higher is something that came out once we saw
this, and only because in other areas where they have parking
lots, berms are normally higher. I can only trust they're going to
do what they say they're going to do.
Mr. Walsh:
I appreciate you coming forward. That is helpful for us. I think it
gives some brass to what Mr. Gallagher said.
Mr. Gibson:
Richard has really tried, and I believe the doctors have good
intentions. I certainly don't want this to go by the wayside. I
23458
don't want to spend any more money trying to get it approved,
personally. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Gibson.
Mr. La Pine:
My position is, we can have a situation where these people want
a wall, these people want a berm, these people want a vinyl
fence, these people want a cycle fence. We have to be
consistent in what we do. To me, it sure doesn't make good
planning when you have two or three different types of barriers
back there. That's my personal opinion. I've always fell that
this way and probably always will. To me, the wall is halfway
there; we should finish it off. That's just my position.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional comments? Hearing none, a resolution
would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-83-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-08-14,
submitted by Gallagher Group requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a medical office building
on properties located at 29945 and 29929 Six Mile Road in the
Northeast % of Section 14, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. C-1 dated June 24,
2006, as revised, prepared by Gallagher Group
Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be
adheredto, exceptforthe following;
That the lower level of the building (basement) shall be
utilized for storage purposes only
2. That the Landscape Plan marked LP -1, dated August 7,
2006, as revised, prepared by Gallagher Group
Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
23459
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
That the landscaped greenbelts along the west property
line and the south zoning line, as shown on the approved
landscape plan, are hereby accepted and shall be
substituted for the prolective walls required by Section
18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance, and that the Petitioner shall
remove that portion of the concrete protective wall that
exists along approximately the east 200 feet of the south
property line, and in its place, install landscaping in the
same manner as the landscaping proposed along the west
140 feet of the south property line;
7. That any change of circumstances in these areas
containing the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the
greenbelt's effectiveness as a prolective 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 prolective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
8. Thal the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet No.
A-3 dated May 12, 2006, prepared by Gallagher Group
Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
9. That the brick used in the construction shall be fulkface 4
inch brick;
10. 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;
11. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building. and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary permits,
including storm water management permits, wetlands
permits and soil erosion and sedimentation control permits,
23460
from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality;
13. 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 slormwater
retention facility;
14. That the owner shall provide annual reports to the
Inspection Department on the maintenance and larvicide
treatments completed on the stormwater detention pond;
15. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
16. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
July 25, 2006;
17. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
18. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
19. 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; and,
20. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the dale of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void al the expiration of said period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I really am in support of this building but, however, I do agree
with Mr. LaPine that because one neighbor wants a fence, one
wants a berm, one wants a wall, I think that's very poor
23461
planning. I would like to see something consistent in regards to
the back, either all wall or all trees and shrubbery. I mean I just
don't think its good that we have one person wants a fence, one
wants ... I'm being redundant but I like the plan except for all
these different types of walls and landscaping. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Could we amend it then to say that the greenbelt be extended
and the wall removed?
Mr. Miller:
We approved the greenbellwhen we prepared the conditions.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
Mr. Miller:
The wall would have to be extended to be approved as a wall.
Since it doesn't extend, we can't approve a wall on that. We
approved the greenbelt. So he could take the wall down without
any problems.
Ms. Smiley:
Good. That sounds like a good plan. It is a beautiful building
and ilwould be a shame to goof up the back.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any further discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
This lady wants to speak.
Mr. Walsh:
Ma'am, we normally don't permit additional information. I will do
so just because this wall is ... is this on the wall issue?
Ms. Reppke:
Yes, it is.
Mr. Walsh:
You're going to shed some light maybe on ....
Ms. Reppke:
By your discussion, would this be to remove all walls, including
the wall that's to the west of my properly there? The one that
runs north and south?
Mr. Walsh:
Ms. Smiley has made the suggeston that it would just be the
south wall.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Ms. Reppke:
It's just the south wall that's under discussion right now. The
other wall as of right now remains. Cored?
Mr. Walsh:
Correct.
Ms. Reppke:
That's all.
23462
Ms. Smiley:
Good. Mr. Morrow, do you have ...
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I'm kind of turning it over in my mind, but if fit's the wishes
of the Commission that the old wall comes down and we now
have a continuous buffer with landscape, I will concur with your
recommendation, Ms. Smiley.
Mr. Walsh:
The motion then would be amended as staled. Any additional
discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw:
I think that's an excellent suggestion by Ms. Smiley. I think what
we saw here tonight was very little discussion about the building
itself because it's a very attractive building, and I don't think
anybody has any problems with that. I think the retention basin
will do a fine job of trying to help the water problems that are in
that neighborhood area. I hope it does help those neighboring
residents. But I also did not feel comfortable with the
hodgepodge of fence, wall and berm. Its nice to see a little bit
more consistency and I like that.
Mr. Walsh:
Just for my comment on it, I'm with Mr. Morrow. Pm of two
minds on it but it doesn't make me any smarter. But for the
sake of moving this forward, I'm going to support it as amended.
The petitioner certainly has the opportunity to work with the
Council when you gel to that stage if there's any trouble with it.
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 PETITION 2006-07-08-15 BEVACQUA BUILDING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
07-08-15. submitted by Bevacqua Building, Inc. requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
office building on property located at 29965 Six Mile Road in the
Northeast % of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner seeks to construct an office building on property
(29965 Six Mile Road) located on the south side of Six Mile
Road between Oporto Avenue and Middlebelt Road. The
subject property is 0.32 acres in area with 60 feet of frontage on
Six Mile Road by a depth of 230 feet. Presently there is an
existing single-family house located on the site. The house
would be demolished to make room for the proposed office
building. This site was recently rezoned from RUFA (Rural
23463
Urban Farm) to OS (Office Services). The proposed office
building would be one-story in height and contain a total of
1,730 square feet of floor area. Access to the site would be by
a single drive off Six Mile Road. Two standalone handicap
spaces would be located between the building and Six Mile
Road. The remainder of the parking spaces would be situated
south of the building. An office building of this size is required to
have seven parking spaces, and they show nine spaces so they
exceed the parking requirement. All packing spaces would
conform to the Zoning Ordinance, which requires all parking
spaces to be a minimum ten (10') feet in width by twenty (20')
feel in length. The petitioner has explained that stone water
runoff for this site would be handled by tapping into the large
detention basin of the medical office building that is being
developed on the neighboring properties to the east. They are
required to have not less than 15% of the total site landscaped,
and they are providing 36%. Because this site borders
residential along parts of the west and south property lines, a
screening wall or greenbelt would be required along those
areas. The site plan illustrates that a six-foot high screen wall
would be erected part of the way along the west property line.
This proposed screen wall does not meet the intent of the
Ordinance because it does not continue the entire length of the
property line. The wall segment would extend only on the
portion of the property line that lies between the existing
residential house of the neighboring properly and the proposed
office building. The petitioner would have the option of either
continuing the wall the entire length of the property line or
getting temporary written approval from the neighbor
circumventing the wall. The petitioner does not have the option
of a permanent greenbelt along this property line because it
does not have the required width of landscaping along its entire
length. A greenbelt can only be substituted if it is a minimum 10
feet in width. The petitioner is requesting approval to substitute
a permanent greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall along the
south property line. This greenbelt would be 35 feel in width.
The existing natural vegetation along the southern property line
would provide screening. The proposed office building would be
constructed out of brick on all four sides. A structural vestibule,
with doors on each side, would stick out and define the main
entrance on the west elevation. Ornate peaked windows,
outlined in beck "rowlock stack" accents, would adorn the front
and sides of the structure. The roofline of the building would
have a decorative horizontal band of brick along its upper edge
(frieze). The roof would be peaked and shingled.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
23464
Mr. Miller:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated August 9, 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. No additional right-of-way for Six
Mile Road is required. The legal description is not shown on the
plans we received. Detention facilities to serve this site have
been shown on the proposed site to the east of this parcel and
will require approval in accordance with Wayne County's Storm
Water Management Ordinance. The drive approach will require
County approval. Off-site storm sewers are shown to serve this
property on the proposed plan for the development to the east."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated July 25, 2006, which reads as follows: `This office has
revewe d the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct an office building on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulation: The Division requests that the
entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane - No
Parking'.". The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
August 7, 2006, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
plans in connection with a proposal from Bevacqua Building,
Inc., for an office building located at 29965 Six Mile Road. We
have no objections or recommendations to the plans as
submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated August 7, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of July 14, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The protective wall noted in the plan will need to be installed
across the south lot line and the west lot line with the north 10
feet of the west wall reduced in height to three feet. 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 for Mr. Miller? Seeing none, we will go
to Mr. Bevacqua. Is there anything you'd like to add?
Peter Bevacqua, Bevacqua Building, 34020 W. Seven Mile Road, Suite 114,
Livonia, Michigan 48152. No. I'd like you to bless the buildings.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
On the east side of your building, which abuts Mr. Gallagher's
building, there is a six foot high cyclone fence that goes all the
23465
way back and there are all kinds of trees and vines growing.
Are you going to do anything to that side?
Mr. Bevacqua:
On the east side?
Mr. LaPine:
Let me explain it to you. On the east side of his property, which
abuts your property, there is a cyclone fence about six feel high
that goes all the way back. Along that area there are a lot of old
trees and shrubs and vines growing on that fence. And that
fence looks in very bad condition. Is that fence going to be
removed and a new fence put up, or are you going to leave the
fence there, leave all the trees, leave all the shrubs? What's
going to happen on that side?
Richard Gallagher,
29991 Munger, Livonia. That's all going to go.
Mr. LaPine:
That's all going to go. Okay. That's what I wanted to know.
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Sir, looking at your site plan and the size of the building and the
number of parlang spaces, generally when we, you know, at
least make a request for the petitioner, you know in lieu of the
trash dumpsler and the investment you're putting in that, would
it make more sense to invest in a compactor and a shredder
and maintain your trash inside as opposed to a dumpster
service?
Mr. Gallagher:
That's fine.
Mr.Bevacqua:
That's fine.
Mr. Gallagher:
That makes sense. That's what I do in my little office where I'm
at now.
Mr. Morrow:
That way you dont have to pay for pickups or have the expense
of installing it, and for a fraction of that you could buy a
compactor and a shredder. We'd like to delete that and have
you handle @ inside and just put @ out for the city to pickup.
Mr. Bevacqua:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
My question is in regard to lighting. Are you going to have light
poles on this
property or are you just going to have light shining
from the building?
Mr. Bevacqua:
On the building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Lights shining onto the parking area?
23466
Mr. Bevacqua: From the building, yeah.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. And then how about this wall? This is your night for wall,
Mr. Gallagher. How about this wall on the west side of the
property? Are you going to extend that wall or how are we
going to resolve that?
Mr. Gallagher: We've got to match the wall that the gentleman in the house -
he built that house by the way for those people. The same
plastic six fool high fence we're going to be using in the back.
Mr. Bevacqua: In the back.
Mr. Gallagher: In the back to match the fence and then we're picking up that
man's stonnwater too. So we had to run a little easement
across there to pick his water up next door to this building. So
we're picking both those up at the same time. It should be a
nice little development.
Mr. Wilshaw: So on the west side, you're going to have ...
Mr. Gallagher: Maybe if I sell my building off ...
Mr. Wilshaw: It's an atredive building. So on the west side ...
Mr. Gallagher: I'm so tired of cutting grass and trimming bushes, and the guy
that used to trim my bushes isn't in town.
Mr. Wilshaw: So just to understand, on the west side, you're going to have a
vinyl fence that's going to extend the lower portion of the
properly and then it will conned to the brick wall on the northern
part of the property. Is that what I'm hearing?
Mr. Bevacqua: That's okay with you?
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, then. It sounds a lot like the last properly.
Mr. Walsh: Anything else, Mr. Wilshaw?
Mr. Wilshaw: No, thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Mr.Gallagher, the wall that we just discussed on your property,
on the south side, which we want to eliminate now and its going
to be all landscaped. Does this property align with your property
so that we can extend that landscaped area right across there?
Mr. Morrow: No. Its not even close.
23467
Mr. Gallagher:
We're going to have landscaping between our building and that
building.
Mr. La Pine:
I'm talking about this farthest, southern portion of your property
does not align up with his property. Is that right?
Mr.Bevacqua:
No.
Mr. Morrow:
Its a long way away.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. It's a long way away. It looks like he doesn't know the
answer. You're saying that this property does not align up.
Your two properties do not align on the south property line so
that we can line up the bene that was going to go across there.
Is that correct?
Mr. Gallagher:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
James Gibson,
16978 Oporto. I live next door to Mr. Robert Passmore who is
adjacent to the property where this is being built. He is unable
to be here tonight but we had a discussion about the four foot
fence, the white one you guys just discussed, and I told him that
I believe from the first meeting they talked about extending it
with the six foot all the way to his property line. Now, there is no
fence on Mr. Passmore's north side of his property at this time.
I was in discussion with Mr. Slenrose. Did you say they were
going to build a brick wall on the north side of Mr. Passmore's
property?
Mr. Walsh:
No, it's going to be the white plastic wall.
Mr. Gibson:
While vinyl fence. That's what I thought it was. Okay. No more
brick walls anymore, right? I would be more than glad to give
up some of my property if we could extend that. We'd have to
move the doctor's office. You asked about the bene. Just
before the meeting and because we got this architectural
drawing, ideally the four fool bene all the way down would be
good, but you'd have to move the doctor's building the other
way. I'd give up some property but I don't know if Mr. Passmore
would.
23468
Mr. Walsh: I think it's something for you all to discuss between this meeting
and the City Council meeting. I mean there's always an
opportunity to change the plans.
Mr. Gibson: I think its going to go great. He's in favor of anything. I've got
to gel that swamp out of there.
Mr. Walsh: Thanks. Any additional questions? Seeing no one, is there
anybody else in the audience wishing to speak? Seeing no one
coming forward, a motion would be in order.
Mr. Wilshaw: I will go ahead and make an approving resolution. I think this is
an attractive building on a nice piece of properly there.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Alansaks, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#08-84-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-08-15,
submitted by Bevacqua Building, Inc., requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
properly located at 29965 Six Mile Road in the Northeast %of
Section 14, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. C-1 dated June 29,
2006, as revised, prepared by Gallagher Group
Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked C-1, dated June 27,
2006, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction
Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the landscaped greenbelt along the south property
line, as shown on the approved landscape plan, is hereby
23469
accepted and shall be substituted for the prolective walls
required by Section 18.45 ofthe Zoning Ordinance;
7. That any change of circumstances in these areas
containing the greenbelts resulting in a diminution of the
greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective barrier, the owner
of the property shall be required to submit such changes to
the Planning Commission for their review and approval or
immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to
Section 18.45;
8. That for the west property line, the petitioner shall have the
option of either erecting a protective wall immediately,
going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a temporary wall
variance or seeking the consent of the abutting property
owner(s);
9. Thatthe Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet No.
A3 prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company,
as received by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2006,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
10. That the brick used in the construction shall be ful4face 4
inch brick;
11. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
12. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary perils,
including storm water 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;
13. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel in
height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize
stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring
into adjacent roadway;
14. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
July 25, 2006;
15. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
23470
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
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 the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
18. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the dale of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void al the expiration of said period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: Just a minor technicality that the dumpster that we deleted, that
area will be returned to the green landscape plan.
Mr. Walsh: It is noted and the resolution will stand with the permission of
the maker and the second.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything else?
Ms. Smiley: Just a comment. Those are two of the most very attractive
buildings. You did a really nice job on those. We appreciate the
color renderings loo. I need the visual aids. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2006-07-0846 BYBLOS CONTRACTING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
07-08-16, submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and
reconstruct the gas station (Mobil) located at 29401 Five Mile
Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 23.
23471
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to demolish and reconstruct the
existing gas station located on the southwest corner of Five Mile
Road and Middlebelt Road. The location of the existing gas
pumps and island canopy would not change. The subject
property is square in shape, measuring 150 feel along Five Mile
Road and 150 feet along Middlebell Road. Surrounding the
property to the south and west is the Mid -Five Shopping Center.
To the east across Middlebell Road, there are a number of
commercial establishments including Precision Tune and the
Szechuan Empire Restaurant. Directly to the north across Five
Mile Road, there is Thrifty Florist and McDonald's Restaurant.
Diagonally to the northeast is another gas station. The
proposed new two-story convenience store/gas station would be
located in the southwest corner of the site with its main entrance
facing east in the direction of Middlebell Road. The footprint of
the structure measures 37' x 75' and has a ground floor area of
2,775 square feel. The partial second story extends above the
northernmost 24 feel of the building and measures
approximately 24' x 37'. The upper floor would add 888 square
feel of office area to the building. The lower and upper levels
would have heights of 17 feel and 26 feel, respectively.
Buildings in the C-2 General Business district are allowed to be
two stories with a maximum height of 35 feel. The majority of
the interior space of the first floor would be used for the display
and sales of convenience items. A building of this size is
required to have nine parking spaces. The site plan shows 14
spaces so they exceed the parking requirement. In order to
provide a parking lot area for the proposed station, one of the
existing driveways off Five Mile Road would be closed off.
Vehicles could either enter or exit using the single driveway off
Five Mile Road near the intersection or the two existing
driveways off Middlebell Road. All parking spaces would
conform to the Zoning Ordinance, which requires all parking
spaces to be a minimum 10 feet in width by 20 feel in length.
The submitted site plan shows that the five existing gas island
dispensers would remain in their present location. A single
existing overhead canopy structure, which measures
approximately 120 feel in length, covers all 20 existing gas
pumps. The existing large canopy is supported by a number of
metal beam type columns. In the past, the City has required
these support columns to be brick. This site is required to
provide landscaping of not less 15% of the total site. The site
plan shows 13%, so they are deficient in landscaping. Eleven
Maple trees and 46 Korean Spice Viburnum shrubs would be
planted sporadically throughout the site. There are two very
wide greenbelts that exist along the west and south property
lines of this site. Even though these greenbelts are part of the
23472
abutting shopping centers property, the petitioner would still like
to point out that they provide an abundance of landscaping
around his site. The rebuilt station would be constructed out of
brick on all four sides. The corners of the buildings would have
dryvit quoins. A d"t band would ran along the lop edge of the
roofline. The east elevation (facing Middlebell) would present
itself as the front of the station. A slack window treatment would
cover a large part of this facade and surround the main
entrance. A cable suspended trellis would be installed over the
entrance doors. The upper floor of this elevation would also
incorporate a similar window component.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Miller: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated August 8, 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 and the legal description is craned.
Detention may be required in accordance with Wayne County's
Storm Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 25, 2006, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to demolish and rebuild
the gas station on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated August 7, 2006, which reads
as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal by Byblos General Contracting Company for
renovations to the gas station located at 29401 Five Mile 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 August 8, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of July 18, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This site has proposed non -accessible, non-public, second
Floor office space of 850 square feet. This is not allowed. By
MBC 2003, the maximum nonaccessible space of this type
would be limited to 500 square feet and 5 occupants. (2) In
addition, this space requires separate restroom facilities formen
and women that are accessible and open to the public. They
cannot be located in a storage room or an office. (3) This
building, as configured, requires two separate exits located
remotely from each other per the code. (4) A barrier free
service counter is required in this instance (where one is
23473
provided). (Although #1, #2, #3 and #4 are not zoning issues,
they are design issues that would not be addressed until our
plan review, which is much later in the process. We felt it
prudent to make the applicant aware of these issues as early as
possible.) (5) No mention is made of providing free air at this
service station. If the Commission and/or Council wish this
practice to continue, we recommend its inclusion in the
resolution as follows: That free air shall be provided at all times
this station is open for business, the free air shall be dispensed
at the point-0faemice without having to enter the station or the
performance of any extra action in order to obtain the air without
charge. (6) We calculate that with the second floor office, 13
parking spaces are required. 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 for Mr. Miller?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Miller, do we have any other station in our city that has a
second story like this?
Mr. Miller:
No, we do not.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything you'd like
to add?
Nasser Choucair, Byblos General Contracting, P.O. Box 607, Dearborn Heights,
Michigan 48127. Mr. Miller look care of most of the things I'm
supposed to say, but about the deficiency in landscaping, as he
said, our neighbor next door, the strip mall, their landscaping
buffer is more than enough, I think, next to our property. I think
two percent is not going to be a big issue.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Would you explain to me what you want to do on the second
floor? You said it was for an office?
Mr. Choucair:
What I'm trying to do, I always put ... you guys approved them
in the past for me, a gas station on Levan and Plymouth and
you liked it. I'd like to have like a new look of gas stations
because they're all the same, identical, like a box. I'm trying to
put some architectural sense and design, plus we're using the
second story as an office for the owner because he owns more
than the gas station. He would like to have a nice dean office
23474
which is viewed like his headquarters. That's his main office.
So he would prepare paperwork in there and work from that
location for his other locations.
Mr. Alanskas:
I don't have a problem with the two parts of the building, but on
the one side, it just has one window showing on the one side. It
looks kind of odd.
Mr. Choucair:
Actually, it's not. If you have a fire in that building downstairs,
he's going to jump from that window on the roof, and then he'll
jump down.
Mr. Alanskas:
I see.
Mr. Choucair:
He needs some window that he can break and go oulfrom.
Mr. Alanskas:
Did you design the gas station at the comer of Levan and
Plymouth Road?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now, that is a gorgeous looking building.
Mr. Choucair:
Did you like the other one that you approved for me on Six Mile
and Middlebelt, the strip mall?
Mr. Alanskas:
That looks nice also, but this one looks kind of blaze because of
that one window. I would hope that you could somehow add
another window or make it ... because it looks like it's off
balance.
Mr. Choucair:
I can put another window on the other side for balance, but the
main purpose I put it there was for a fire accident, really.
Mr. Alanskas:
I understand that, but I just think the way you have it shown
there right now just looks ... I think it would look better with
another window on the right hand side to make it look more
appealing because the way it looks to me it doesn't look that
good. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Two questions. I notice in the write up it says you're going to
have 13 employees on this upper level. Is that true?
Mr. Choucair:
How many?
Mr. LaPine:
Thirteen.
Mr. Choucair:
No.
23475
Mr. LaPine:
How many employees will you have up there?
Mr. Choucair:
One, two, three. The owner and his daughter. No one is
allowed to go to the upper story because it's a personal office
use.
Mr. LaPine:
The second question, is there a convenience store here too?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there anything connected with a carry out restaurant?
Mr. Choucair:
I don't think at the time being we're thinking about putting in a
restaurant. Maybe we'll have a deli or from the coolers, but not
like a restaurant.
Mr. LaPine:
No ice cream parlors orthings of that nature?
Mr. Choucair:
No.
Mr. Morrow:
I was looking at the Inspection Department's letter. Maybe I
missed it, but is the petitioner aware of what the Inspection
Department listed? Have you corrected those? They make
reference to 850 square feel for the second floor and that this
would be limited to 500 square feel.
Mr. Choucair:
Yes, that's fine.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to make sure. And how about the restroom facilities?
They are requiring separate ones and you can't have them in a
storage room or an office.
Mr. Choucair:
Yes, we have to redesign the inside, the cashier area, and we
try to gain as much as we can. Yes, we can work on that.
Mr. Morrow:
Then we have the building is going to require two separate exits
located remotely from each other per the code. Now, is that
required, the two exits?
Mr. Miller:
According to the Inspection Department, it is required by code.
Mr. Morrow:
Can thatbe accomplished?
Mr. Choucair:
Another exit?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, another place to getout otherthan the main door.
23476
Mr. Choucair:
From downstairs? I mean, we can put one ...
Mr. Morrow:
I guess what they're saying for kind of the same reason you
want the guy to jump out the window. There's got to be another
exit.
Mr. Choucair:
We're going to build a staircase that goes from the back all the
way down and up the first roof to the window, so he'll have an
exit from the second story. If this is the reason why they want
another exit, then we'll do that. If they want another exit, we'll
have to put it obviously from the front or from the side under the
staircase.
Mr. Morrow:
Just another option.
Mr. Choucair:
Where the staircase goes to the second story, we can put one
on the side under that staircase going to the outside, but I think
R's not necessary to have that door especially where the cashier
is because maybe they'll have like a situation. So we would like
not to have any doors in that area.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, wherever you can find R.
Mr. Choucair:
I'll arrange that layout and maybe we can ....
Mr. Morrow:
And they make reference to a banner free seMce counter. I'm
not sure what that means.
Mr. Choucair:
For handicapped probably to the cash register when you come
up to the cashier, then they have a step down for handicapped
in a wheelchair to sign. Yes, I've seen that in olhergas stations.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I was looking at your current station that you have there.
There's an air pump that currently you have to pay for. Do you
have any problem making that a free air pump?
Mr. Choucair:
I designed the building, but when we came to the construction, I
look maybe the conception half way and they took over because
they wanted to save some money. So also you guys said you
wanted free air. I don't know why these guys put one without
free air there. So I guess some officer can go there.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Several of my questions are really pointed toward the owners.
Mr. Choucair:
Are you talking about this one or the one that we had before?
23477
Mr. Wilshaw:
No, this one here at Five Mile and Middlebelt.
Mr. Choucair:
Is it free? I thought you were talking about the old one.
Mr. Wilshaw:
No, no, no, no.
Mr. Choucair:
Oh, this one here? Definitely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
You also have a vacuum machine in the back right where the air
pump is. Are you going to keep that vacuum cleaner there for
people to vacuum out their cars?
Mr. Choucair:
I have no idea about that. Do you want to see a vacuum?
Mr. Wilshaw:
No. You have one now. I was just asking. I don't want to see
one.
Mr. Ali:
You dont want to see it?
Mr. Wilshaw:
No.
Mr. Choucair:
Okay. Its not a problem. We can remove it from the back.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. You don't have a problem removing that?
Mr. Ali:
No, but some customers like it for convenience to clean their
Cars.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, can we gel your name and address for the record please?
Alex Ali:
I'm the owner of the Five Mile and Middlebell station.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay, the other question I have is, right now you have some ice
chests outside your facility.
Mr. Ali:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Are you going to remove those at this new facility?
Mr. Ali:
Sure, because we can have a bigger room so we can have it
inside because we'll have a bigger machine. Now there is no
room inside atall.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Very good.
Mr. Choucair:
We have a bigger cooler. I think the cooler is a three door
freezer and 17 door cooler, so we don't need that setup.
23478
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's excellent. The only other question I have was regarding
signage. Are you going to be changing the signage on the
building or on the awnings?
Mr. Choucair:
Definitely. I think that's another thing that I have to get
approved from the city because we have to follow the new
ordinance about the sign on the street and on the building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Right. So you're going to bang that back to us?
Mr. Choucair:
I think we are allowed on the street 48 square feel and not
higher than 8 feel, and on the building we're allowed to have a
maximum of 40 square feel.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay, but you're going to bring that back to us?
Mr. Choucair:
Yes, when we gel this going.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Any additional questions? Thank you both for speaking this
evening. I dont think there is anybody in the audience wishing
to speak for or against this petition? I think you're all together.
With that, a resolution would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-85-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-08-16,
submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and
reconstruct the gas station (Mobil) located at 29401 Five Mile
Road in the Northeast % of Section 23, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Site & Landscape Plan marked Sheet SPA dated
July 17, 2006, prepared by Byblos General Contracting
Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials
23479
shall be installed to the saflsfacflon of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevalion Plan dated July 17,
2006, prepared by Byblos General Contracting Company,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that an
additional window shall be added on the upper floor of the
west elevation;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4
inch brick;
7. 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;
8. That the gas pump island canopy shall not exceed 18 feet
in height and its support columns shall be covered with the
same brick used in the construction of the building;
9. That the leading edge of the pump island canopy shall not
be any closer than 10 feel from the properly line;
10. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be
recessed in such a way that the intensity of the illumination
is decreased;
11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the Stale 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 Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated August 8, 2006;
14. No outside storage, placement or display of merchandise
shall be permitted at any time on this site, however the
foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the
pump islands only, of oil based products as permitted in
Section 11.04(a) ofthe Zoning Ordinance;
23480
15. That free air shall be provided at all times this station is
open for business. The free air shall be dispensed at the
pointof-service without having to enter the station or the
performance of any extra action in order to obtain the air
without charge;
16. That no vehicle vacuum equipment or the outdoor
placement of propane cylinder storage units shall be
permitted on the site;
17. That the sale of ice shall be restricted to the inside of the
building;
18. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
19. That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the
exception ofslandard signage, shall be illuminated;
20. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the pump island
canopy, building or around the windows;
21. 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; and,
22. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the dale of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void at the expiration of said period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: To the maker of the motion, could we also add that we could put
that second window at the lop of the building?
Mr. Shane: Sure. No problem.
Mr. LaPine: No problem.
Mr. Walsh: We have no objections, so that will stand as amended. Any
additional discussion? Before we vole, I just want to say, Mr.
Choucair, I think the design concepts that you brought to the city
23481
are really to be commended. And I thank you clients for being
willing to spend some extra money because I know it costs
more to make these stations look better, but they really are a
nice addition to our city and I appreciate your talents and your
willingness to support that.
Mr. Choucair: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 928"' Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 928"' Regular Meeting held on July 11, 2006.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-86-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 928" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on July 11, 2006, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Wilshaw, LaPine, Alanskas, Shane, Morrow,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 392"" Special Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 392n° Special Meeting held on July 18, 2006.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, ilwas
#08-87-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 392"d Special Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on July 18, 2006, are hereby
approved.
23482
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Smiley, Alanskas, LaPine, Wilshaw,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Shane
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 930r" Regular
Meeting held on August 15, 2006, was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman