Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-04-02 14799 MINUTES OF THE 722nd REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 2, 1996, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 722nd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Jack Engebretson William LaPine Robert Alanskas James C. McCann Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: Patricia Blomberg R. Lee Morrow Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present. Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-1-1-3 by Jose and Stella Evangelista requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1. Mr. Engebretson: This matter was tabled at our last Regular Meeting. We need a motion to remove it from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #4-48-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-1-1-3 by Jose and Stella Evangelista requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1 be taken from the table. 14800 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: The matter was tabled because the petitioner did not appear that night. We did conduct the public hearing but there was a little activity involved so if the petitioner is with us tonight we would ask that he come forward and give us your name and address and present your case. Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger, Livonia: This property is, as we know, presently zoned RUF. We are trying to put six little condominiums in there, detached units approximately 1500 sq. ft. each. The site is 600 feet long by 132 feet wide. You haven't seen this plan yet, I believe. Mr. Engebretson: We haven't seen anything yet. You weren't here last time so this is the first opportunity we have had to see this. Mr. Nagy: This represents a change in what you originally submitted so you may want to just talk about your new plan. Mr. Gallagher: (He presented the site plans) We are looking to build little ranch, 1500 sq. ft. units in here, brick, some siding but very attractive little units that will sell in the neighborhood of about $150,000 apiece. This will be "'�•• a private little development next to Dr. Evangelista's office. He will be maintaining the property. There are two bedroom and three bedroom units. This is a very simple plan, well constructed with walk-in closets, two bathrooms, two bedrooms. We do have an alternate plan for someone that wants three bedrooms. That is pretty much what we are thinking about doing on that property, if the zoning gets changed. I am open for questions. Mr. Piercecchi: This particular plan that you have, according to our write up here is for the cluster housing, correct? Mr. Gallagher: That is correct. Mr. Nagy: Dick why don't you explain why you made the changes. Our background notes the staff has written were predicated on the plan you submitted with the application. Due to the report we got back from Engineering, you made a change and maybe you should bring the Commission up to speed as to where you are now with your proposal. Mr. Piercecchi: I notice there are only six there, correct? 14801 Mr. Gallagher: That is right. It was originally seven and Engineering went to the Fire Department and they said we needed a turnaround down there for the fire equipment so we eliminated one unit and put some space down �,.. there in the back for the turnaround. We have put some landscaping back there for the people in that area. Then we will get six new little homes in Livonia. Mr. Piercecchi: You are asking us to rezone two of the five lots, correct? Mr. Gallagher: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Was there ever any attempt to purchase the other three lots? Mr. Gallagher: Yes there was and it wasn't available. The owner didn't want to sell them. Mr. Piercecchi: The gentleman that was here at our last meeting, if I remember correctly, he owned the other three lots, did he not? Mr. Engebretson: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: And he wanted to come to some kind of a compromise that could do the whole package at one shot. This is really the ultimate in spot zoning when you take two lots of a five lot package and convert it into R-1. Plus if this classifies it as a cluster, and it does, it really doesn't qualify as a cluster. If you look at the ordinance, section 20.02A a cluster, in order to grant a waiver, shall include documentation substantiating that the land area shall contain one or more of the following characteristics: Contains natural assets; it is just flat land. Has a substantial portion of its perimeter adjacent to major office, commercial, industrial, institutional or high rise residential development; it doesn't qualify for that. Contains flood plain; it doesn't qualify for that. Contains poor soil, and contains acute angles or is very shallow in depth; it is a rectangular package and it is certainly not shallow in depth when it goes back 600 feet. So it really doesn't qualify for a cluster package, plus I am a little reluctant to put my stamp of approval, though the rest of the people may feel differently, when you only want to zone two out of five. It seems like it is the ultimate in spot zoning, and I don't think it fits there. Mr. McCann: To the staff, we have 132 foot depth. Is there enough depth there to just build R-1? Why do we need the cluster? It appears you should have enough for a private road in R-1 and meet the requirements and everything else necessary in an R-1 zoning, don't you? 14802 Mr. Nagy: No we don't. The minimum lot depth for an R-1 is 120 feet, 60' x 120', so it only leaves 12 feet left over for road right-of-way. Even with a private road it isn't enough. That is why they wanted to take advantage of the cluster option which gives them the flexibility to not have to adhere to the rigid lot requirements of the R-1. It allows them to put in their private road. It allows them to vary the yard requirements, the front yard setbacks in order to develop such a shallow lot. In addition to that, we believe it does meet some of the text of the cluster option. It does have frontage, significant frontage, over 600 feet. It is immediately adjoining an office zone. It has awkward proportions that go with the depth ratio that you need the flexibility of a cluster option in order to develop that kind of property. It has ingress and egress through a major thoroughfare rather than onto another residential street. So it is the Commission's determination but in many respects it does meet the text. Nevertheless right now we are really at a zoning stage rather than really trying to make a determination as to whether it does or doesn't meet the cluster. We are trying to look at whether R-1 in this area is appropriate. Mr. McCann: But isn't it true that for us to look at the zoning right now, we have to determine if R-1 can't fit in there except for the cluster, we have to look at whether or not to turn it into R-1 if you aren't going to put cluster in there. Thank you for the information though. It does help me. It is then, in your opinion, eligible for cluster but that is the only way this property could be used in an R-1 zoning under the waiver use for cluster? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, the other three parcels to the west of this are under the same classification so if we are going to rezone, we should rezone the whole deal. Therefore if they were all zoned R-1 it would make more sense to develop all the properties as one subdivision. We have a cul-de-sac at the Wellington Subdivision behind. We cut the road through there so we have an access for those people. To me to develop one lot like this is not the way to go. The gentleman that was here last meeting, the attorney that owns the other three properties, he tells us he is willing to negotiate and either Evangelista buy him out or he buys their property or there be a joint venture together to develop the whole property. Apparently the two owners can't seem to get together and agree on a price or a development or whatever, but in my opinion to develop this one parcel is the wrong way to go about it. As Mr. Piercecchi pointed out, I think we shouldn't just take one parcel when we should be looking at the whole parcel and take all five lots. I still maintain that if the two parties can get together and do some negotiating, each of them 14803 may have to give a little but that is the route to go as one subdivision in that whole area. Mr. Gallagher: If he was here last week, that is a step in the right direction as far as I am concerned because we talked to these people before and that just seemed to get nowhere. Stella have you talked to them? Stella Evangelista, 10475 Farmington Road: That is our office, which is two doors down from the property. The property on the south side is also another medical building. This is the first time I have heard that Mr. Colucci is willing to maybe either work with us to rezone the whole five lots together, so we would be willing to go back to him and see if that is possible because I do believe we should rezone the whole five parcels together. It is kind of odd to have one little piece here and then the rest of the pieces will be taken for granted. I agree with the Commission but I didn't think he was interested. At the time we talked to him he wasn't, so we just went ahead and said just do it. The best thing is cluster for this area. I don't think an office building would be good for that area because we have a large office complex behind us that is still vacant up to now. We would be willing to withdraw today's petition and come back another time with a better plan. Mr. Engebretson: That sounds like a good approach. Just for interest, Mr. Colucci did appear at your public hearing on March 12, you didn't. I am just letting you know you expressed some surprise that he was here and we were surprised that the petitioner wasn't here, but in any case he did go on record with a number of comments including a willingness to work with the Evangelistas, and we suggested that the City would perhaps be a facilitator in getting the two parties together to see if there wasn't some satisfactory way to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all parties. So it appears that we are on the right track. John, what do you think? Dr. Evangelista used the word withdraw. Is that appropriate or perhaps table it? Mr. Nagy: Table it and we could amend it to include the larger area and re- advertise. Mr. Engebretson: Rather than kill the proposal, leave it on the books, and see what we can do. Mr. Nagy, you are certainly willing to be a facilitator? Mr. Nagy: Absolutely. Mr. Engebretson: Has Mr. Colucci been in touch with you? Mr. Nagy: Not since the hearing but I will be happy to contact him. 14804 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was `. #4-49-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 12, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-1-1-3 by Jose and Stella Evangelista requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 96-1-1-3 for the purpose of getting support together and hopefully expanding the area to be rezoned. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Good luck. We really sincerely wish you well getting this issue settled between you and Mr. Colucci. It is a nice piece of property and we know that we visited this issue several times over the past six or seven or eight years and it is time. Dr. Evangelista: For the record we just want to tell you that we were not here last time �.. because we did not get the notice. Between the two of us the mail got mixed up. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 721st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on March 12, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #4-50-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 721st Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 12, 1996 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: Morrow, Blomberg ABSTAIN: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 14805 Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the 374th Special Meeting held on March 26, 1996. Now On a motion duly made Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was #4-51-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 374th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on March 26, 1996 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Engebretson NAYS: None ABSENT: Morrow, Blomberg ABSTAIN: McCann Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-3-8-4 by Botsford General Hospital requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an Oncology Center on property located at 28425 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Angling Avenue and Brentwood Avenue. Existing on the site right now is a kidney center. They are proposing to construct an oncology center behind the existing building. The new building will be 16,000 sq. ft. in size, one story. To accommodate the new building with the existing building the entire parking lot will be redesigned, repaved and restriped. New landscaping will be put in along this new building here. Most of the existing landscaping will remain with some new landscaping in front to buffer Eight Mile Road. The trash dumpsters will be located between the two buildings. Parking for this site, they are required to have 255 parking spaces; they show 124 so they are deficient. They are also deficient, because this is zoned PO they are required to have more than two stories but not more than four stories; they are proposing a one-story building. They are also deficient in side yard and rear yard setbacks. Because of those reasons they need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, which they have, so based on that variance the site plan meets all the requirements. Mr. Engebretson: Scott, the 124 parking spaces, are they new parking spaces? 14806 Mr. Miller: There are some existing but because of the new layout, maybe the petitioner can explain, that is including what is there already but they are also refiguring the parking lot. Mr. Engebretson: Let me ask the question perhaps a better way. Will we end up with 124 more parking spaces than we have there now? Mr. Miller: No. The 124 is what you are getting total. Mr. Engebretson: How many new spaces are we getting? Petitioner: Approximately 54. Mr. Engebretson: So you are not quite doubling. You are adding 40%. Mr. Miller: There is also parking here that is land banked that could be future parking if they need it. So there is the possibility of more parking if they need it. The building will be a combination of brick and split face block. The roofing system will be a metal type of roofing system. Mr. Alanskas: Scott, you pointed to two locations for the land bank. Does that mean there are only 10 per area for a total of 20 additional spaces or is it 20 per land bank area? Mr. Miller: A total of 20. Mr. LaPine: Normally I am opposed to not having the required parking but in this particular case I think the petitioner pointed out to us a lot of people that are going to be coming here for chemo treatment and other treatment for cancer are in a position where they are brought here and dropped off and the people go away and come back later in the day and pick them up. Therefore, that is one reason they feel they don't need the amount of parking that is required in the ordinance, and they are probably right. Most people I know that go in for chemo treatment, they are in no position after they get through with that treatment to be driving home by themselves. In most cases they are not feeling too well so I can understand in this particular instance why the number of parking spaces required would not be required. I think they have done a nice job of laying this out on the parcel they have. It looks like a nice facility. I think it is going to be an asset to the area. They have done a nice job with what they have there now and hopefully they are going to continue it. Mr. Piercecchi: For informational purposes Mr. Chairman, would this particular addition be tax free, typical of this type of structure? 14807 Mr. Nagy: I don't believe that is the case. I think it is taxable. Now Mr. Piercecchi: We will get some taxes out of this. There will be some office space in this facility then that will be taxable. Mr. Alanskas: Scott, could you explain how the shuttle service works? Mr. Engebretson: That shuttle is from the hospital. Bringing patients over for treatment and then returning to the hospital. That was my understanding but we will let them talk about it. Mr. Alanskas: If the lot is full, is there a shuttle service for that? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: If you wanted to park your car and the lot was full and you couldn't park there, what would happen? Mr. Engebretson: Let's let the petitioner come forward and address those matters. Debra Kruz: I am with Harley Ellington Design. I was the site planner for this project. Now Mr. Alanskas: I am saying because of your deficiency, if I had to go there for service and the lot was full and I couldn't park my car there, what would happen in regards to the shuttle service, nothing? Ms. Kruz: We have anticipated the parking for this facility and we don't anticipate there to be any problem with the parking. Mr. Alanskas: You are saying you don't think you will ever be full? Ms. Kruz: Right now the fullest we have ever seen the kidney center is about three quarters full, the parking lot, and so we have taken the numbers and projected the parking we will need and we have provided additional parking beyond that so we are not anticipating that we will have a problem with parking at this facility. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding, if I understand how this operates, everything that goes on in that facility is on a schedule so you only can handle so many people in so many hours, each hour in a day, and then after their treatment is given to them they may have to stay there for a couple of hours so you have built that all in to how many parking spaces you are going to have there. Is that correct? 14808 Ms. Kruz: That is correct. r.. Mr. LaPine: Secondly, it is my understanding you bring people over from the hospital but they come over in vans and when they are ready to be picked up they may pick up three or more people. Is that correct? Ms. Kruz: That is correct. In addition, we do have the shuttle service available. I think I am going to let someone from the hospital speak now. Mr. Zweig: I am an attorney. The hospital, as one of its subsidiaries, has Community Emergency Medical Service. I think you have seen their ambulances. They have 114 vehicles. They operate full time, six days a week, a shuttle service. The shuttle service does two things. If you call, they will pick you up at your home, drop you off at the center, and then at the appointed time take you back home, or in the alternative if you are in the hospital, they will take you from the hospital and at the appointed time take you home. The kidney center, which is located on the same property, was recently expanded by adding I think 14 more stations and that operates on three shifts a day, and there has been no increase in parking at all. Basically we are talking about very sick people who basically are picked up by a shuttle and dropped off and the shuttle runs on a regular basis, and then they are carried either back to the hospital or back to their home. r.. Mr. Engebretson: Did the person who did all this layout work wish to make any additional comments? Did you have any other boards or elevations that you wanted to go over tonight? (Ms. Kruz presented additional plans.) Mr. LaPine: Once you get all your approvals, are you thinking you are going to do construction this year? Mr. Zweig: Once we get our approval this facility will be built almost immediately. It will be scheduled to be open next year. Our partner in this project will be the University of Michigan Oncology Department. It is really a boom to the entire area because what you are getting is University of Michigan treatment at community hospital rates. Mr. Engebretson: What about the building materials that you plan on using with this new building. Are they compatible with the existing building or complimentary? 14809 Ms. Kruz: The color of the brick is very similar to the brick on the kidney center, and the style is somewhat different but we feel that it will be compatible. Mr. Engebretson: The other gentleman is from the hospital, I believe. I would like to ask him a couple of points before we wrap this up. I was there today, and I tend to agree with your characterization of your parking needs being adequately met with what you have. The questions relative to the parking are triggered in part by the fact that the variance from our ordinance requirement is pretty substantial but we have come to learn that your type of facility isn't necessarily taken under consideration by our ordinance so we are learning and I think it is certainly verified to my satisfaction that you are okay. I just wanted to get on the record what was happening here. That was the purpose of my line of questioning with Mr. Miller, but I am curious about just a couple of real trivial issues having nothing to do with this matter. One is the port-a-john that is back in your parking lot. What is that for? David Ferguson: I am with Botsford General Hospital. We have just had the building re- roofed and we had the roofing company put a port-a-john back there so they wouldn't be tracking into our building. Mr. Engebretson: Good idea. That is not a permanent fixture then? Mr. Ferguson: No. Mr, Engebretson: I would just like to call to your attention that the dumpsters, one of the tops was open, and the gates were also open and I would simply ask you to talk to your maintenance people to see that they keep those lids down and the gates closed. Finally, relative to the dumpsters, is there any kind of medical waste that is disposed of in those dumpsters or is that all handled in a special way internally? Mr. Ferguson: That is all handled by a contractor who comes and picks it up and then disposes of it properly. Mr. Engebretson: I just wanted to make sure we were doing our job here. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #4-52-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-3-8-4 by Botsford General Hospital requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct an Oncology 14810 Center on property located at 28425 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated March 19, 1996 prepared by %.. Harley Ellington Design is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan, as well as Sheet SP-2 dated March 19, 1996 prepared by Harley Ellington Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet SP-5 dated March 19, 1996 prepared by Harley Ellington Design, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I overlooked one issue and I don't remember it being on the site plan, whether the landscaped areas are irrigated. Mr. Nagy: Yes they are. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to commend the petitioner for having done a very thorough and very professional job in making their presentation. The information they provided to us, made it very easy to deal with this "'_ case. Thank you very much. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Cornell Sign Company, on behalf of Nicholas Plaza Shopping Center, requesting approval for signage for the property located at 13820 Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Engebretson: They were dealing with the Zoning Board of Appeals tonight, and they understood that there was a possibility our meeting would finish before them and we would just simply put it on the next agenda. Mr. Nagy, is that still correct? Mr. Nagy: It is my understanding that is the agreement we have with them, and I noted they were late arriving as well. Mr. Engebretson: We understand we couldn't act on this until the Zoning Board does so we will table it. 14811 On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously %,,, approved, it was #4-53-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Sign Permit Application by Cornell Sign Company, on behalf of Nicholas Plaza Shopping Center, requesting approval for signage for the property located at 13820 Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, to date uncertain. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 722nd Regular Meeting held on April 2, 1996 was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION C , 1. Robert Alanskas, ecretary • / e ATTEST: N1 6/ v A Jack Engebrets.n, Chairman jg