HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-10-1723617
MINUTES OF THE 934TH REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 17, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 934" 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: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw John Walsh
Members absent: H. G. Shane
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a 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 ofthese 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 2006-09-0848 SOAVE BLDG. COMPANY
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-09-
08-18, submitted by Leo Soave Building Company requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office
building on properties located at 37751 and 37771 Seven Mile
Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 7.
23618
Mr. Miller: The petitioner seeks to construct an office building on properties
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between
Newburgh Road and the 4275/96 Expressway. The two subject
parcels equal 0.55 acres in area with 160 feet of frontage along
Seven Mile Road by a depth of 150 feet along Blue Skies Drive.
Both lots are in the process of being rezoned (Petition 2006-05-
01-03) from R -3C (One Family Residential) to OS (Office
Services). The Planning Commission, after holding a public
hearing on June 13, 2006, recommended approval of the
requested rezoning. Following a public hearing, the City
Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning at its
September 27, 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 subject property is rezoned to
OS. The current site plan shows an office building that would
be one-story in height and have a gross floor area of 4,508
square feel. The proposed structure would comply with the
minimum required building setbacks of the OS district. Access
to the site would be by a single drive off Seven Mile Road. The
parking requirement of 18 spaces has been mel. All parking
spaces would conform to the Zoning Ordinance, which requires
all parking spaces to be a minimum 10 feel in width by 20 feel in
length. The plan shows and notes a storm water detention
easement running between the proposed building and the south
(rear) lot line. Storm water runoff for this site would be handled
underground. The provided landscaping covers 40% of the site,
which exceeds the 15% minimum ofthe total site. Because this
site was previously part of and would continue to border
residential properties both to the east and south, a screening
wall or sufficiently landscaped greenbelt is required where the
proposed office would abut these areas. The site plan provides
for a six -fool high precast concrete wall along both property
lines. In addition, a 30 fool -wide greenbelt containing a row of
evergreen trees would be maintained between the rear of the
building and the screening wall on the south side of the
property. The other main features of the site's landscaping
include planted berms between the parking areas and Seven
Mile Road and Blue Skies Drive, measuring 15 feel and 25 feel
in width, respectively. The proposed building would contain
brick on all four sides. The one-story structure would have a
hip -style roof with a maximum height, measure from the finished
grade to the highest peak, of approximately 20'-8". Aluminum -
framed windows are shown along all four elevations.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
23619
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated September 19, 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 is required. The drive approach to Seven
Mile Road and the detention facilities will require Wayne County
approval. We assume that the concrete apron Southwest of the
building is intended as a turnaround to avoid use of the
residential driveways on Blue Skies. It should be noted that
there is currently no curb on this street as shown." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
September 19, 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."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September
25, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
September 18, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The protective screening
wall must continue to the property line at both ends with the last
10 feet abutting the right-of-way being 3 feet high. An
alternative to this could be to have these two areas where the
wall is missing approved as a greenbelt area. (2) The
handicap/accessible ramp and aisle may not be correct. The
aisle must be 8 feet wide and the ramp must meet certain
parameters as to slope and proper landings for turning. In
addition, the site plan may have an incorrect width of the
sidewalk in front of the entry door. It must be 5 feet wide. (3) If
there is to be a basement area, it would be for storage and/or
mechanical areas due to parking and code limitations. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The
next letter is from the law firth of Akiva Goldman & Associates,
dated October 12, which reads as follows: "Please be advised
that the undersigned represents the property owners at 37739
West Seven Mile, Livonia, Michigan, legally described as
Melody Manor, Lot No. 1. My clients have engaged me to set
forth the serious health concerns and quality of life concerns
that they have regarding the proposed building site adjacent to
their home. The first concem that they have pertains to the
proposed parking that would abut the property line. My clients'
home actually has three bedrooms on that side of the house
and, in the past, vehicles being parked in that area have caused
a significant pollution -problem that has resulted in respiratory
distress to my clients. At one point they actually had to vacate
the home and take up residence in a motel because of how bad
the pollution was. There is no circumstance under which my
clients would tolerate any parking in that area. Secondly, the
proposed site plan contains a storm retention pond. My clients
need assurances that here will be no contamination from that
wall into their home, pool, or existing well system. The third
concern pertains to the proposed driveway. The proposed
driveway is within approximately 15 feet of the property line.
This particular property already has a condition of flooding for
various reasons. As it turns out, the sewer main in the area is
only 5 feet beneath the ground surface, so there are flooding
issues. My clients are concerned that the proposed driveway
and the runoff therefrom will further exacerbate the flooding
problem. This needs to be alleviated by moving that driveway to
the western side of the lot Left where it is, it will simply serve as
an instrumentality to cause more flooding on my clients'
property further diminishing their ability to have the quiet
enjoyment of their home. Their concems that we are highlighting
are not specific to this developer or this project. Should this
developer transfer the property to someone else, we would
retain the same objections, as my clients are entitled to make
sure that their problems are addressed before any such project
could be approved. In summation, my clients are in favor of the
city's further development and growth and believe that new
projects that come to the city are ultimately in everybody's best
interest. At the same time, though, there are certain concems
that must be addressed and are non-negotiable. My clients feel
that, with the proper approach, these issues can be worked out
and look forward to the opportunity to do so. Litigation of these
matters should never be anything but a last resort." The letter is
signed by Akiva E. Goldman, Esq. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Wilshaw: Just one question to Mr. Taormina. Did the Police Department
review this particular item at all?
Mr. Taormina: It would have been submitted to their office, but apparenty we
have not received any correspondence back from them.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you.
2W21
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions for the staff? Seeing none, I
know the petitioner is in the audience. Mr. Soave, if you could
join us please. Good evening.
Leo Soave, Leo Soave Developments, LLC, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. Good evening and thank you very much. I'll
answer your questions.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Wilshaw: This is sort of a follow-up on my previous question. Just looking
at the property, it appears that the driveway will be about
somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 feet or so from Blue
Skies Drive. Do you have any thought about restricting left
turns out of your driveway or do you feel that will be an issue -
people turning left out of the driveway onto Seven Mile?
Mr. Soave: Since the light is there, it would be like a moot point. I don't
think itwould be an issue.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. I'm just thinking because that driveway is fairly close to
the light, if cars were to stack up, it may be difficult for them to
pull out of that driveway.
Mr. Soave: As far as a left tum?
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, just left turns.
Mr. Soave: Typically, of all the places I've built, when you restrict a turning,
that kind of limits the people going in and out of there.
Sometimes they'll avoid it just because they don't want to be
restricted to just turning one way or another. So that would be a
detriment to the site, I would say.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. What's the nature of the businesses that are going to be
in this building?
Mr. Soave: Its going to be two tenants - myself and an architect.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay.
Mr. Soave: That's it.
Mr. Wilshaw: Do you expect to get a lot of transient traffic coming to your
building?
2W22
Mr. Soave:
None whatsoever, sir. We do most of our business out of
models. It's a place b keep our books. There will be two
people from our company and the architect will have probably
fourtosix people, and thalwould be it.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So probably about eight emloyees maximum working
there?
Mr. Soave:
Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Taormina, I just want to get something clear about the letter
we received from the attorney about the house. Is that the
house that's to the rear or is that the house to the east?
Mr. Taormina:
That would be the house to the east.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. That's what I thought. I wasn't sure. So how many
parking places does he have altogether?
Mr. Taormina:
The plan shows 18 parking spaces.
Mr. La Pine:
And he has six employees plus two. Say he has 10 employees.
They have eight spaces over here. In reality, hopefully, there
only will be parking spaces used on the side that the neighbors
complaining about, the pollution from the cars. Okay. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes b speak for or
against this petition? If so, please give us your name and
address for our record.
Eric Kuszyns1k,
18775 Blue Skies. I've spent a lot of time silting down with Mr.
Soave and working on this plan that you've seen. Basically, we
tried to take into account a lot of the different concerns. I talked
to a lot of the neighbors who were
just around there, and this is
the best compromise that we could
come up with if we have to
have the office building. A couple of my questions were, there's
some details that we discussed, Leo and I, that we agreed on
that don't necessarily show up in the site plan. There were
things that weren't mentioned. There was an iron gate that
goes from the back of the building to the privacy wall. That is
part of the site plan that we've got and that would be
incorporated?
23623
Mr. Taormina:
The site plan does show a fence and gate that would extend
from the southwest corner of the building to the adjacent
screening wall to the south. Actually, it is pointed out as a
wrought iron fence on the landscape plan. Scott, please point to
it.
Mr. Miller:
It says right there, "wrought iron fence."
Mr. Taormina:
So it does show on the plan.
Mr. Kuszynski:
Okay. We want to make sure these got integrated because, as
you know, the site plan is going to actually become part of the
zoning under the new contractual zoning, so these were details
that were important. Another thing and Mr. Taormina maybe
you can help me on this: Mr. Soave asked that there be a gate
on his driveway from Seven Mile into the property that would be
closed after hours. We like that idea because it will keep people
from silting in the parking lot maybe littering or just loitering.
Would that present a problem in terms of police or fire protection
because we'd like to see that incorporated.
Mr. Taormina:
Its certainly something that the Police and Fire Department
should review and should be shown on the site plan.
Mr. Kuszynski:
How do we gel that incorporated and gel that checked out by
the powers that be?
Mr. Taormina:
It would have to be shown on the plan presented to both Police
and Fire for their response back, if not to this body, then to the
City Council prior to any final action.
Mr. Kuszynski:
All right. Oh, things that were missing, things like a dumpster.
We want to make sure that there are no dumpsters. Obviously
there is no spot shown on the plan for a dumpster, and with the
intensity of the usage of the property, we didn't see a need for
one. How do we know that there won't be one put there in the
future? How can we assure that won't happen?
Mr. Taormina:
If I can respond to that?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
That would be part of the Statement of Conditions that would be
embodied within the conditional rezoning agreement that is
being discussed right now and is currently under review. One of
the things we're wailing for is for this body to make its
23624
recommendation before that Statement of Conditions is put forth
in the final document to be presented to the Council at the time
they look at both the site plan and the rezoning.
Mr. Kuszynski:
Lighting was another issue. I know we didn't want lighting. It's
a big public safety issue. We asked for the lighting to be either
soffit lighting down or landscape lighting that you'd see typically
of a house in the area. Again, this is something that Leo and I
talked about. We said, yeah, that sounds good. We want to
make sure there were no issues with the City that this doesn't
come up later on and they say, we need a big light post or
something. What can we do, again to guarantee that we get
something that's obviously safe and protects the property but
doesn't spread light all over the place for the other residents?
Mr. Walsh:
Well, the plan itself doesn't have any light poles on R. That's
one protection because that's what we'd be approving.
Mr. Kuszynski:
Right. Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
And I would suggest to Mr. Taormina if we could have that
included in the Contractual Agreement as that's finalized.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, that in fact ...
Mr. Walsh:
Its in there?
Ms. Smiley:
It's in there.
Mr. Kuszynski:
Okay. I think that's about all. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition this evening? Seeing no one coming
forward then, a motion would be in order at this time.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-111-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-09-08-18,
submitted by Leo Soave Building Company requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
properties located at 37751 and 37771 Seven Mile Road in the
23625
Northeast'''/ of Section 7, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Al dated September 12,
2006, prepared by The Foresta Group, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked LP -1 dated October 9,
2006, 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;
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 Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A2
dated September 12, 2006, prepared by The Foresta
Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be fulkface 4
inch brick;
8. 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;
9. 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;
10. With respect to any outdoor lighting fixtures, that there be
no pole mounted lights and that all lighting be in the form of
either soffit lights on the building or low ground lighting,
subject to the approval of the Planning and Inspection
Departments;
23626
11. That all light fixtures shall be aimed and shielded so as to
minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and
glaring into adjacent roadway;
12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated September 25, 2006;
13. 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;
14. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
15. 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;
16. 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;
17. That there shall be no outside dumpster; and
18. That any forth of gate across the entrance drive shall be
subject to the approval of Public Safety divisions and, if
necessary, the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: As a footnote to what we just discussed about lighting, that
there are none shown on the site plan and that it will probably
be a condition of the contract that there shall be no light poles.
Mr. LaPine: If I may have just a few moments here. As you all know from
the beginning when this case first came before us a number of
years ago, I've been opposed to the rezoning of that property. I
think it should have stayed residential, but unfortunately, I
fought the best battle I could fight and my good friends here on
the Planning Commission thought differently, and I lost the
2W27
batfle. But now we're in the second phase of this thing and at
this point, the petitioner has submitted a site plan that pretty
much meets all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, plus
the fact that he has worked very diligently with the people in the
area. Al this point, I see no reason why I shouldn't go ahead
and vole for the site plan approval, although I still believe very
firmly in my belief that the properly never should have been
rezoned. So I will be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes. We didn't spend any time dwelling on some of the
concerns in the attorney's letter. Some of those really are not
part of our responsibility, such as the flooding. To the best of
my knowledge, those things, the flooding and the water
containment, has to be worked out with our Engineering Division
to their satisfaction so there is no flooding on adjacent property.
As it relates to the fumes from the traffic, I feel this would be
very minimal, and we have a home on a major mile road such
as Seven Mile. It's going to be pretty lough to preclude any type
of polluflon from the major amount of traffic that's moving on
Seven Mile Road. So its not that we're not sympathetic to it,
but it's a little bit outside of our area.
Mr. Taormina:
If the maker of the motion could consider changes to Item #10
with respect to the light fixtures; that there be no exterior light
poles and all outside lighting be handled by soffit lighting only.
We can reword that condition. Secondly, that a condition be
added that there be no outside dumpsler.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, I kind ofclumsily handled that but that's what my intention
was as far as the light standard, and I have no problem with a
condition to make sure there will be no dumpslers added
separately to the approval of this should it go through.
Mr. Walsh:
Is that acceptable to the second, Mrs. Smiley?
Ms. Smiley:
Absolutely.
Mr. Walsh:
Then the motion stands as amended. Is there any additional
discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
I would only like to say I'm giving this my full support because I
think Mr. Soave has gone out of his way. In the few years that
I've been on the Commission, I've never seen a builder work so
hard to gel something through and be so accommodating. I
appreciate your efforts.
23628
Mr. Wilshaw:
I sort of echo a lot of Mr. LaPine's comments. I was not on this
Board at the time of rezoning. Had I been, I may have been
with him on denying the rezoning. I certainly can't speak to how
I would have voted seeing that I wasn't here, but I certainly
would have looked at it with a lot of skepticism. That being said,
the rezoning is basically done at this point, or at lead it's
certainly pending, until the site plan meets up with it. And we're
looking at a site plan today, not a rezoning. And I think the site
plan itself is good. I think it's an attractive building. I think Mr.
Soave has done a nice job of working with the residents in the
area to address the vast majority of their concerns, which is a
good thing. And I do think that the concept of the contract
rezoning also makes this particular package quite palatable.
Mr. Morrow:
Is this not our first handling of a contract -type zoning?
Mr. Walsh:
Is it the first one?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, it would be.
Mr. Morrow:
So this is something new. This is new ground that we are
plowing here tonight.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#2 PETITION 2005-08-08-16 LIVONIA MANOR CONDOS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
08-08-16, submitted by Soave Building Company, on behalf of
Livonia Manor Site Condominiums, requesting approval of
landscaping for the 30 fool wide greenbelt easement along
Seven Mile Road in connection with a proposal to construct a
condominium development on properties located at 31540,
31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of
Section 3.
Mr. Miller: Al the October 26, 2005, Regular Meeting, City Council
approved plans in connection with the development of the
Livonia Manor Site Condominiums. As part of the approval, it
was conditioned that a fully detailed Landscape Plan for the 30 -
fool wide greenbelt easement along Seven Mile Road be
submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their
23629
review and approval. This proposed condominium development
is to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue. Livonia Manor would
consist of 26 lots or units. On the approved plans, a 30 -fool
wide greenbelt easement was shown between the building
envelopes of Lots 1 and 26 and Seven Mile Road. The road
system of the development also had a boulevard entrance,
including a 20 -foot wide island. The submitted landscape plan
demonstrates that the easement area would consist of a free
form earth berm and landscaping. The berm would meander
across the frontage of Lots 1 and 26, parallel to Seven Mile
Road, and climb to a height of 4Y feet. Planted on the bene
would be a variety of plant materials including deciduous trees
(Hawthorn, Hackberry, Linden, Crab), evergreen trees (Spruce,
Yew), a number of shrubs (Forsythia, Spirea, Viburnum) and
ground cover (Oat Grass, Hosla). The boulevard island would
contain the development's previously approved entrance marker
and landscaping. The landscape planfor Livonia Manor is very
similar, if not exact, in terms of planting scheme as what was
approved for Livonia Manor II Site Condominiums. Livonia
Manor II is a development of 21 lots located just west of this
development. Both developments basically mirror each other
and have a single piece of properly between them. The same
petitioner is developing both projects.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is none.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff? Seeing none, Mr. Soave if
you could join us again please.
Leo Soave, Leo
Soave Developments, LLC, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Morrow, I
have to apologize. The entrance marker is lit
Mr. Morrow:
Pardon?
Mr. Soave:
Al the study meeting, I said to you that the entrance marker
wasn't lit. It is lit. So I'm sorry I misinformed you.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. Soave:
And I'll answeryour questions. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for Mr. Soave?
23630
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'm going to ask the obvious question. How is the entrance
marker going to be lit? Is that internally illuminated or a spot
IgM?
Mr. Soave:
We have a couple ground -mounted lights on both sides.
Nothing that is going to glare into the street. Nothing like that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a mofion
would be in order.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-112-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of a
landscape plan, submitted by Soave Building Company, on
behalf of Livonia Manor Site Condominiums, in connection with
Petition 2005-08-08-16, which previously received Master deed,
bylaws and site plan approval by the City Council on October
26, 2005 (Council Resolution #519-05), to construct a
condominium development on properties located at 31540,
31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of
Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan marked Drawing No. 05 -86 -LP -
198 dated November 9, 2005, prepared by Engineering
Services, 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 ofthe 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
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. 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
2asat
6. 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
resolufion.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2006-06-08-12 SPEEDWAY GAS STATION
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-08-12, submitted by Lewandowski Engineers, on behalf of
Marathon Petroleum Company, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas
station (Speedway) located at 33405 Plymouth Road in the
Northeast % of Section 33.
Mr. Walsh: Mark, do we need to remove this item from the table?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: May I have a motion to remove this item from the table?
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-113-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
remove from the table Petition 2006-06-08-12 submitted by
Lewandowski Engineers, on behalf of Marathon Petroleum
Company, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
demolish and reconstruct the gas station (Speedway) located at
33405 Plymouth Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 33.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Miller: I don't know if you want Mark to read the letter the petitioner
submitted, or I can go through the letter and point out the
changes.
23632
Mr. Walsh: Mr.Miller, why don't you point out the changes for us
Mr. Miller: Okay. This item was tabled at the July 11, 2006 Regular
Meeting. The Planning Commission had several problems with
the plans as presented. On September 25, 2006, revised plans
and a clanfcation letter were submitted by the petitioner. The
letter specifies that the following improvements have been
made. (1) The site vacuum unit has been moved adjacent to
the first parking stall. Originally the vacuum unit was located in
such a way that anyone using it would have blocked one or
more parking spaces. It has now been shifted over so that
someone utilizing the vacuum unit would park in the western
most space, out of the way of traffic. (2) Two parking stalls
adjacent to the right-0fway of Farmington Road have been
removed leaving 16 total stalls. Speedway realizes that this
revision will require ZBA approval as Livonia's code would
require 18 spaces. The site plan now shows 16 conforming
parking spaces. With the new parking scheme, the site would
be deficient 2 spaces and a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be required. As with most gas stations,
Speedway would like to point out that a majority of its customers
would utilize the "pull up" spaces in front of the pumps as
parking. (3) The amenity unit is planned to remain in its original
location. Speedway realizes that this will also require review
and approval by the ZBA. The back storage building located
along the south property line, next to the trash dumpsler area,
encroaches into the required setback of Farmington Road. It
needs to be 75 feet back from the building. A variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. According to the
petitioner, this building would be used for maintenance
equipment and storage. (4) The HVAC screen at the rear of the
building will be painted to match either the roof or building brick
color. The hip roof of the proposed building would have a
recessed area in the back. This is where the building's
mechanical equipment would be installed. This equipment
would be exposed and visible from the rear. According to the
site plan, this equipment would be screened by an "alucobond
screening panel," which is to be painted so that it matches either
the color of the roof or the back of the building. (5) Proposed
signage has been reduced to 100 square feel including the
.reader board" and as such no variance is being requested. It
is the understanding of Lewandowski Engineers that the site will
also be allowed the 20% window signage per code. The
proposed signage has been reduced and is now conforming.
The signage for the canopy has been decreased from four to
two signs. The size and location of the reader board has not
23633
changed. Window signage is included in the allowable 100
square feel of sign area. Based on the amount of proposed
signage (98 sq. ff.), this station would only be allowed 2 square
feel of window signage. (6) Speedway will brick all of the
canopy columns. In compliance with the Planning Commission's
preference, all of the canopy columns are to be bricked. (D
Outside sale of propane is prohibited. This station would not
offer the sale of propane. Originally the plans showed a
propane exchange cage in front of the station. That is the
extent of the changes from the last meeting.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one other item of correspondence from Edwards Glass
Company, dated November 9, 2006, which reads as follows: 7
am writing as a concerned property owner and a former PRDA
Board member. 1 had an occasion to visit Professional Village
Pharmacy today and in casual conversation was made aware of
the renovations which are being planned at the above location.
Our discussion centered on the location of the dumpster
enclosure and the adjacent stooge building. It is my opinion
that placing this in proximity to the southeastern corner of the
property will make it an eyesore and certainly not add to the
effect of the work which the PRDA worked long and hard to
achieve. It would be my humble request that the commission
locate these visually negative but necessary structures at the
southwest corner of the property where they presently are. This
will remove them from the public view and will not detract from
the work that has been accomplished to date. In all other
locations, including my own, these structures are placed in an
out of the way and obscure location. 1 hope you will look on this
suggestion as a positive comment, in the spirit in which it is
offered." The letter is signed by Gerald Wordhouse, Jr., CEO.
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley:
Have we heard from the PRDA?
Mr. Taormina:
The PRDA did take this matter up at a committee meeting
several weeks ago. They are offering their support in a letter
dated July 31 to the Commission. I beileve that was read into
the record at the previous meeting. If not, I can certainly do that
again.
Ms. Smiley:
No, no. That's fine. Thank you. I just needed a reminder.
23634
Mr. LaPine:
In our last meeting we had some discussion about the air
conditioning units and things on lop of the roof and about the
possibility of moving them down or somehow shielding them
better than what they had proposed. What became of that?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure if the petitioners have anything new to offer for the
Planning Commission this evening. I think what they're still
proposing is the option which places those mechanical units on
the roof. So what you would have is a hip -style roof along the
front and the two sides, but along the rear, it would be adjusted
to make room for these units. There would be an additional
screen placed on lop of those. I think Scott showed you a
photograph of what that might look like. I think what their letter
is addressing this evening is that they would paint the screens
for those units in a color that would either match the roof or the
brick of the building. Scott, do you have that?
Mr. Miller:
No, not in this slide show.
Mr. Taormina:
I think you might have copies of that in your material. Yes, in
fad, Mr. LaPine, that's the photograph lhallhey provided to us.
Mr. LaPine:
When I looked at this the last time we studied this, I thought
these were the whole units. Apparently, this is what's going to
cover these units? Isthatright?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, what that photograph is showing is the actual roof
screening. So that darker gray panel that you see on top of the
roof is actually the shield. The mechanical units are concealed
behind that. The other option that was brought to our attention
early in the review of this was a ground -mounted mechanical
unit. And I think what the Commission wanted to ask the
petitioner this evening is whether or not that's still an option at
this site, and if they could move those units to somewhere on
the ground behind the building.
Mr. LaPine:
All fight. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening.
Troy Barman,
Lewandowski Engineers, 234 North Ede Street, Toledo, Ohio
43624.
23635
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Unless you have something to add to what's been
presented, maybe we can start with Mr. LaPine's question on
the air conditioning.
Mr. La Pine:
Have you considered moving those from the roof down to
behind the building?
Mr. Barman:
The standard for the design of the building is a roof mount. It
sits way back in the roof. It is difficult to see from the road the
way its incorporated into a well inside the roof area. It is well
screened. The picture shows the back of a building that doesn't
have hardly any landscaping behind it. Its got a wide open area
behind it. So it really kind of sticks out in that picture. On our
site, its going to be difficult to see it from anywhere unless you
were standing in the trees behind there looking up. It will be
well screened on our site.
Mr. La Pine:
This is our location, right here, is it not?
Mr. Barman:
I think that location right there is an actual building at a different
site.
Mr. La Pine:
You could see that if you were driving up either one of the mile
roads. My concern is, I think they're unsightly. Now, if you're
going to paint it, I would hope that you're going to paint d similar
to what the roofing is so it looks like it might be part of the roof.
Mr. Barman:
That's no problem, matching the roof color.
Mr. La Pine:
Now, the only other question I have is concerning the vacuum
cleaner. Is that a new one you're going to be installing or are
you just moving the one that's there now to this new location?
Mr. Barman:
That would be a new unit.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Following up on this roof -mounted equipment, I'm not engineer;
I'm not an architect; but I'm curious why it's not contained inside
the roof? Is there something that precludes that?
Mr. Barman:
I'm also not an architect.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there something that causes that not to be able to be
contained within the roof itself?
23636
Mr. Barman:
It does have to let in the fresh air and exhaust out. Why its not
fully contained inside the roof, I've just never seen an air
conditioning unit fully enclosed inside a roof. They're always
outside.
Mr. Morrow.
Well, like I say, I'm not an architect or an engineer, but I think
my recommendation would be if you could do it, I'd have it
ground mounted behind it because there is plenty of space
down there and, of course, maybe this is an unfair rendering,
but to me thatjust doesn't do it. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The existing site plan, I do appreciate the modifications that
have been made, the brick columns and so on are very nice.
The existing site plan, though, does show an ice chest still
outside of your facility.
Mr. Barman:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
You're going to have a significant amount of internal freezer
space and refrigerator space. Can that ice be put somewhere
inside your building?
Mr. Barman:
As discussed at the last meeting, our preference is to have them
outside of the store for two reasons: one is a safety concern
and another one is a convenience concern. We don't want
people carrying around two, three or four bags of ice, dropping
ice cubes inside the store. Plus for convenience, if you're
buying ice or multiple bags, you can pull up, get the ice bags,
put them right in your car. Also discussed at the last meeting
was if that would be a locked ice box or unlocked. It would be
unlocked. It is on good faith that they're going to take the ice
that they purchased and go directly to their cars. So if they buy
three bags, we don't have anybody going out there to escort
them. They gel the three bags out, conveniently put it into their
car, and use it that way. So we do prefer having the ice chest
outside for those two major reasons.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. From an aesthetics perspective, I think it would look
nicer being inside, but that's just my opinion. And I do believe
some of the other gas stations that we have approved recently,
we have had them keep their ice storage inside. Just a point
there. The reader board that you're going to have outside, what
sort of information is going to be on this reader board?
Mr. Barman:
Milk on sale, $1.99 or whatever the price of milk is. Pepsi Cola,
two liter bottle, sale price is this. Its going to be something like
23637
that. It's not a LED lit board. It is one that you slide the letters
into.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a changeable letter sign?
Mr. Barman:
Yes. But it's not an electronic changeable reader board.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Barman:
I know there was some concern about flashing lights or
electronic lights. Its not that style. It's just so when you're
pumping gas, you can see some of the things to buy inside.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. And you do realize that this will count toward your total
signage? It would leave your window signage to pretty much
almost nothing because you would end up with, according to our
calculations, two square feet of window signage left.
Mr. Barman:
Oh, I believe window signage, we're allowed 20% of the window
area.
Mr. Wilshaw:
No.
Mr. Miller:
No. You gel 100 square feel of signage; window signage is
included in that 100 square feel. So if you have 98 square feet
of signage, you get 2 square feel of window signage according
to our Ordinance.
Mr. Barman:
Wewould complywith your current ordinance.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I just want to make sure you're aware of that.
Mr. Barman:
Okay. I appreciate that. I was under the impression that
window signage was in addition to the 100 square feet.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Barman:
So I appreciate that clarification.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So basically, the ice chest I would like to see inside if you
really could do that, and I do agree with the comments from Mr.
LaPine and Mr. Morrow about if it's possible to move those
mechanical devices down to the ground level. You have
certainly excellent landscaping. I think it would make it difficult
to see those mechanicals, but the roof life is still visible from
23638
people traveling up Farmington Road. I think a solid roof would
probably be a little more attractive than a partial roof.
Mr. Barman: I would really like the ice chest and the mechanical roof. We'd
prefer keeping the ice chest as we discussed before, and if we
have to move the mechanicals, HVAC, down to the ground as a
compromise that is something we could work with and do.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That's an interesting idea. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: You heard the comments of the gentleman from Edwards
Glass?
Mr. Barman: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Would you review with us exactly how that dumpster area will
be constructed?
Mr. Barman: That would be a masonry construction to match the building
itself.
Mr. Morrow: When you say masonry, are we talking brick?
Mr. Barman: Brick. Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And the one building will have a roof on d?
Mr. Barman:
Yes. The amenity unit would have a roof on it. That's used for
storing recycled materials, the lawn mower, sluff to lake care of
the landscape area. A lot of it is for when somebody brings
something for recycling, it's stored out there. They do have to
have a roof on lop of it for that purpose.
Mr. Morrow:
And as far as the gales, what type of gales will you have on
them?
Mr. Barman:
Gates, I believe, would be a chain link fence. Gale material.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. And as far as going back to the concerns of your
neighbor, what type of landscaping will you have around the
walls?
Mr. Barman:
We would prefer to provide landscaping as we've shown it.
Unfortunately, their comment came in rather recently. We
haven't had a chance to see it, to lake a hard look at it. We
looked at a few things with it, but ....
23639
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I'd like to encourage you that it appears you have some
lawn area behind there and some type of shrubs or something
to break up the stark brick wall.
Mr. Barman:
We will work with the neighbor to landscape the back of that.
Mr. Morrow:
So it's pleasing to the eye and not just a plain ... not that the
brick isn't pretty, but sometimes with a little relief ...
Mr. Baran:
We'll make a greenscape with it.
Mr. Morrow:
With planting material. You said you'd kind of work with your
neighbor.
Mr. Barman:
Yeah.
Mr. Morrow:
I know we had looked at it in the study session that there is an
easement to the west that precludes you from building on that
side.
Mr. Barman:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
A permanent structure. So we just wanted to make sure we had
that part of the record.
Mr. Barman:
Okay.
Mr. La Pine:
I have two more questions. Is this a 24-hour operation?
Mr. Barman:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
It is. Okay. The second question is, you sell pop and slut like
that. Do you lake the relumables back and where do you store
them, inside or outside in that little garage or whatever you have
there?
Mr. Barman:
Recyclables are stored in the outside amenity unit that we show
oulthere.
La Pine:
They wont be put in bags and stacked behind the building?
Mr. Barman:
Nope. That's why we have that enclosure. It is part of our
Michigan design to have that amenity unit for recyclables. We
do like to roof it to keep it nice and clean and neat and keep
everything dry inside there.
23640
Mr. LaPine:
In the convenience store, are you going to be selling any hot
sandwiches or anything like that?
Mr. Barman:
The operation of the building, I'm not quite sure of it at this time
as far as what they'll be selling inside the building.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you.
Mrs. McDermott:
I just want to add to the gentleman that already spoke, I also
agree; I'd like to see the HVAC unit moved to the ground. I think
that, in my opinion, is a rather unattractive position where it's at
right now, and I think it would be visible from the road.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments?
Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? If you would please
come forward, sir.
Joseph Lanzon,
11583 Farmington. I own the properly directly south of the
Speedway. I did email Mr. Taormina. Apparently, maybe he
didn t gel it. I emailed you about the issue about the dumpster.
I talked to you on the phone.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I recall that.
Mr. Lanzon:
And then I emailed you and I think I spoke to this gentleman.
You're talking about the HVAC units. I think the line of sight
down Farmington Road is more about eyesore and aesthetics
because where he's talking about positioning that dumpster is
right adjacent to our parking lot. I'm concerned about the trash.
For the Iasi 15 years, we've been picking up the trash because
the dumpster currently doesn't have any coral around it. So my
concern is why can't that dumpster be put right where it's at with
a corral around it? So since my comments didn't make it into
the minutes, I figured I'd come up and speak, but I did speak
with Mr. Wordhouse. He is a patient at the pharmacy, and when
you look at that through the drive-thru window, its within 20 feel
of the dumpster. There's a drive-thru area there where there's a
flag and a bermed area. There are three or four parking spots
directly behind where they want to locate the dumpster. I'm also
concerned that the dumpster gates will be left open. So as you
drive down Farmington Road south, what you'll see is two
dumpsters and then this building that their contention is for
landscaping. But they have a landscaping service, so I think it's
more for storage. I'm concerned now they're talking about
keeping the recyclables out there. That's my comment, but I did
email you, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina: I apologize. If I received it, I was not made aware of it
Mr. Lanzon: So my concern is that the aesthetics of my property and then
the vision down Farmington Road will be obscured from that
dumpster area. The PRDA did a wonderful job across Plymouth
Road. I don't think we should forget Farmington Road.
Mr. Walsh: All right. Thank you, sir. Are there any additional questions or
comments, or a motion would be in order at this point.
Kevin Sable, Marathon Drilling Company, 539 South Main Street, Findlay, Ohio
45840. Just to address a couple of this gentleman's comments.
We will work with him to try and minimize the impact on that.
Unfortunately, the location that he had asked we attempt to put
that dumpster location where it is existing, there is an 11 fool
diameter storm sewer easement there. We don't feel
engineering -wise and long-term wise, we dont feel that's a good
option. If there is anything done to that line, we'd have to tear
that building out and rebuild it. I think there are some options
we can probably look at on this side that would minimize the
impact to his properly, and we would definitely be willing to work
with him on that. In regards to what's stored in there, it is
recyclable materials. The door is closed. It's not going to be an
impact or a detriment to his property I don't feel. As far as the
trash, we do have a corral here now as he was calling it. The
impact to his property should be none in that manner. The
gates are shut when they're not hauling or unloading the
dumpster. Those are just my address to the Commission, and I
think that with his concerns, we can work with him to come to an
agreement on that if that appeases the council.
Mr. LaPine: If I just may add, one of my pet peeves with the dumpsters in
Livonia, and probably in the metropolitan area, is the people
who are responsible for the dumpsters are not doing a good job
of policing them. Now I know these locations, a lot of the stuff
going in your dumpster is going to be cardboard boxes. A lot of
places don't break the cardboard boxes down and just throw
them in. Consequently, it fills up the dumpster quicker than it
should be filled up, number one. Number two, for some reason
or another, nobody wants to lake and enclose the dumpster at
the lop. Once its up, they leave it up. I guess they figure, we're
going to be coming out here two or three times during the day,
why should we keep lifting up the door. I think its very
23642
important that the personnel who is responsible for taking the
garbage out makes sure that the top of the dumpster is down
and that the gates are closed at all times. That's another pet
peeve. They leave these gates open. I guess they figure when
the dumpster company comes in and picks up the dumpster,
they're responsible for closing the gales. Unfortunately,
probably the dumpster company says that's not my deal. That's
your responsibility. If we gel those three things taken care of, it
would make it a lot better at these dumpster locations. Thank
you, Mr. Chainnan.
Mr. Morrow:
When I asked what type of gate you have on the dumpster, did I
hear cedar?
Mr. Barman:
Chain link as it's shown on the plan.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm just wondering, is there any type of gate that could be used
that would shield the dumpsters better than a chain link fence?
Mr. Barman:
Can I add real quick hat there is a slat that goes inside the
chain link that basically, rather than having big holes there,
you've golsome kind ofseparetion there.
Mr. Morrow:
I've seen those and those look fine as long as they're
maintained, but over time, they become unsightly because the
strips that are in there get broken and not replaced and that type
of thing. I think it comes under the same area as what Mr.
LaPine referred to, it's housekeeping around the dumpster
should be maintained. If there are slats within the chain link
fence, that would come under housekeeping to keep those
looking nice because coming down Fannington Road, you're
going to be seeing those dumpster. They're very close to the
mile road there and anything that can be done to mitigate how
they appear would be most helpful.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, did you have a comment to make?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. It is a somewhat unusual location for the trash enclosure
to be located within the required front yard setback like this.
There is space located on he west side of the building, as the
gentleman noted; however, it would be located within an
existing utility easement. While he would be permitted to place
these within the easement, any permanent structure used for
screening, he would be limited in whathe could do there and he
would also have to sign a hold harmless waiver so that if the city
ever had to go in there and maintain the server, we could
23W
remove those structures and not be responsible for their
replacement. So while it is possible to locate the dumpsters on
the west side of the building, it does come with some amount of
risk relative to its permanency and possible additional cost. As
far as the gates are concerned, we do have a detail that
provides for steel gales. The Council and the Planning
Commission, in fad, on many projects have required those steel
gales. I would expect nothing less at this location and for that
detail be included in the approving resolution, especially if we're
going to locale these dumpslers at this location. And lastly is
whether or not we could gel by with a single dumpster as
opposed to two, which are shown here. Maybe he could use a
compactor inside the building and reduce his waste storage
outside.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Barman: If I could address those comments as well as Mr. LaPine's
comments?
GIiTNI171i7v[m-
Mr. Barman: I believe that the one dumpster, that is an option we could look
at. I think that it would contradict some of the problems that
we're having as far as overflowing the trash there and keeping
the lop closed. I'd have to check on this, but I think that the
cardboard you mentioned, Mr. La Pine, that might be a
recyclable item, so that would possibly be coming out of the
dumpster, which would help alleviate that. As far as the
operational issues of keeping the doors shut and keeping the
gates closed and the lids turned down, we could certainly make
that demand of our operational folks. If steel gates are what you
require here, then that's certainly something we will look at and
meetthe needs oflhe Commission.
Mr. Wilshaw: Just a comment that I think that going down to one dumpster
and putting a proper steel gate in front of that dumpster goes a
long way toward addressing some of the concerns of the
neighboring business owners. It certainly would make that
whole area with the double dumpster and the storage shed a lot
smaller. It would reduce it by a third and maybe address some
of the concerns about the aesthetics as well as how the
dumpster area looks. If you find that you have a dumpster that's
filling up quickly, typically what most business owners do is just
increase the frequency of the servicing of that dumpster. And I
23644
think you could probably get away with one with increased
service. Those are my comments.
Mr. Walsh: We've asked for a lot of changes. I just want to make a couple
comments for the commissioners to consider and for you, sir, to
consider as well. We have options available to us, and we can
put forth a resolution that perhaps will attract the voles of four of
us that will dictate some changes to the plan that aren't there
presently and then go on to the Council. We could table the
item, but if we do so to give you an opportunity to revise the
plans, we're not going to be able to see you at lead until mid-
December, if not until later because of holidays and our
schedule. We wont be able to accommodate you that quickly.
So my comment is really to you and to my colleagues. I'd like to
help you to continue to move on because you have been
cooperative. I think you wish to do well, and I've said this again
and again, and I'm going to keep saying it until the economy is
fantastic, to the extent that businesses are willing to invest in
our community, I want to encourage that every step of the way.
So I'm going to look to my colleagues because as a Chair I'm
not in a position to offer a resolution procedurally. We might
look for a resolution that will attract the attention of most of us
and perhaps you can work with the Council moving forward on
particular items to finalize it. That might be the best if people
agree to that.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-114-2006 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-06-08-12
submitted by Lewandowski Engineers, on behalf of Marathon
Petroleum Company, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas station
(Speedway) located at 33405 Plymouth Road in the Northeast
% of Section 33, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked 8800 -CS dated June 16, 2006,
as revised, prepared by Marathon Petroleum Company, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, subject to any
revisions as noted below;
2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
23645
parking and deficient building (utility building) setback and
any conditions related thereto;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked L-1 dated June 16, 2006,
prepared by Landscape Architects, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point ofthe top leader;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked A4.1
and A-4.2, both dated January 6, 2006, as revised,
prepared by Marathon Petroleum Company, are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
8. That the brick used in the construction shall be fulkface 4
inch brick;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be metal and
when not in use closed at all times;
10. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be relocated to
ground level and concealed from public view on all sides
by either screening that shall be of a compatible character,
material and color to other exterior materials on the
building and/or landscaping;
11. 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;
12. That the leading edge of the pump island canopy shall not
be any closer than 10 feet from the property line;
23646
13. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be
recessed in such a way that the intensity of the illumination
is decreased;
14. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
15. 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;
16. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Departments
satisfaction the item outlined in the correspondence dated
July 6, 2006;
17. 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) oflhe Zoning Ordinance;
18. That free air shall be provided at all limes this station is
open for business. The free air shall be dispensed at the
point of service without having to enter the station or the
performance of any extra action in order to obtain the air
without charge.
19. That there shall be no outside propane cylinder storage
units permitted on the site;
20. 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;
21. That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the
exception of the individual letter and logo signs, shall be
illuminated;
22. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but rot limited to, the pump island
canopy, building or around the windows;
23647
23. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time the building permits are applied for; and,
24. 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, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley: For Condition #9, just by adding steel doors, would lhaldo it?
Mr. Taormina: That's fine.
Mr. Walsh: And why don't we address the single dumpster in this condition,
Mark, do you think?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Okay.
Mr. Morrow: We could delete "in the event of a poured wall" to brick.
Mr. Walsh: Yes. Did you hear that? So we're going to delete some
language about the poured wall. It will be adjusted with some
language from the Planning staff regarding the steel doors and
dropping the dumpster to one, a single dumpster.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. And then it's my understanding that we decided to take
the roof -lop mechanical equipment down? Is that right, Mark?
Mr. Walsh: Well, 8s up to us to accept. Marathon has offered to keep the
ice box and move the air conditioning unit.
Ms. Smiley: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Mrs. Smiley, I would suggest that we allow for the ice chests if
we're in agreement with the relocation of the air conditioning
unit.
Ms. Smiley: Okay.
zasaa
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 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 932"" Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 932n° Regular Meeting held on September 19,
2006.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, d was
#10-115-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 9320° Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on September 19, 2006, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Wilshaw, McDermott, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Shane
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 934" Regular
Meeting held on October 17, 2006, was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman