HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-05-03 13402
MINUTES OF THE 683rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 3, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 683rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings 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. , with
approximately 6 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Brenda Lee Fandrei Raymond W. Tent Robert Alanskas
Members absent: William LaPine
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director,
and Scott Miller, Planner I , 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
'Nov tonight.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-2-9
by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to hold a carnival
from May 17 through May 22, 1994 in the parking lot of the George Burns
Theatre located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27.
Mr. Engebretson: This was a public hearing added to tonight's agenda as an
accommodation to the Jaycees who were seeking this waiver use to
operate their carnival , and late this afternoon they submitted a
letter to the Planning Department asking that the waiver use
request be withdrawn. They apparently have a conflict with their
vendor's schedule and they will be resubmitting this petition for a
future date. Unless there is anyone here wishing to speak for or
against that petition we will look for a motion to allow them to
withdraw the petition.
Mr. Morrow: They are not looking for a tabling, they are looking for a
withdrawing resolution?
Mr. Engebretson: The letter, Mr. Morrow, says they intend to solicit for another
show in August, that the site will be their original location of
Ladbroke DRC and they are asking in their original paragraph to
withdraw the petition.
13403
Mr. Morrow: So they are changing the site.
Mr. Engebretson: They are changing the site. They are changing the time and
actually we need to re-advertise and go through this process again.
,,,. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-84-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on May 3, 1994, and pursuant to a request by the
Livonia Jaycees dated May 2, 1994, the City Planning Commission does
hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 94-4-2-9 by Livonia Jaycees
requesting waiver use approval to hold a carnival from May 17 through
May 22, 1994 in the parking lot of the George Burns Theatre located on
the northeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington Roads in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 27.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting
is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Landscape Plan
submitted in connection with Petition 91-7-2-21 by Gary M. Darby
requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive repair facility
to be located on the north side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor
Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 .
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Please come down Mr. Darby and tell us
why you are making this request and whatever comments you have.
Gary Darby: We met with the Council and in accordance with them we came up with
a landscaping plan from what they approved already as far as the
changing of the site.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott were you going to put the board up and outline what those
changes are?
Mr. Miller: From the study meeting they have revised the landscape plan and
they have added four juniper trees along this edge here. (He
pointed this out on the plan) Those are the only changes from the
study meeting.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, if I recall correctly, the landscaping that is being
proposed includes the right-of-way that surrounds that property.
Mr. Miller: Right, he has indicated here that he will be putting trees in the
right-of-way and new lawn along with the sidewalks.
13404
Mr. Tent: Scott, can you explain the lawn situation? Will that be seeds or
is that going to be sod? I have a note here that they are talking
about seeding and if that doesn't work, they are talking about
sod.
Mr. Miller: I don't know which way the petitioner is going to go.
Mr. Darby: When we met last week that was what he said he wanted some kind of
a base so that was the basis we wanted to try. The first phase
would be the landscaping at the triangle of the proposed plan, the
bushes, etc. The second would be an attempt to grow new grass in
the area. It is going to be filled back in. We have two driveways
that we are closing off Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail . That
plan is not here. That is the one that was approved by the City
Council . The Ann Arbor Road/Ann Arbor Trail sides will be all
blocked in, and yes we are going to try to grow new grass plus try
to rejuvenate the grass that is already there.
Mr. Tent: But your timing for that is now? In other words, you would attempt
to plant that grass during the spring growing season.
Mr. Darby: As soon as possible. The only thing is I don't know how much of
the grass is going to get ruined by what we are going to do as far
as digging up the concrete, etc. I kind of have to do it at one
time, if you understand that. We can attempt to bring the grass
back but if they start driving trucks over it or they ruin it by
removing the concrete then I am back to square one.
Mr. Tent: I understand that. I don't want to penalize you in that respect.
Mr. Darby: That is what we would be doing. We would be doing the driveway and
fir. then planting the grass. For the time being we will be keeping the
grass up, keeping it cut, etc.
Mr. Tent: You mean you are making a commitment that if that doesn't work at
that time, the following year you would definitely sod the area.
Mr. Darby: Right.
Mr. Engebretson: Ray, do you have a copy of the letter that was attached to this
new site plan?
Mr. Tent: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: So we have Mr. Darby's commitment that basically he commits in
written form what you just said, which we appreciate. That is what
we wanted you to do.
Mr. Morrow: Basically that is what I wanted to do is clarify the time frames in
his proposal as we requested at the study session. Mr. Tent
handled that.
Mr. Darby: Just so you know on the note in October what was approved by the
Council pertaining to the other things being done as far as
driveway enclosures, etc. , that is the reason that was by October
and that is the reason it is on this one also.
13405
Mrs. Fandrei : To our staff, were there any special plans through the Council
regarding the dumpster?
Mr. Shane: No.
Mrs. Fandrei : No screening or enclosing or anything?
Mr. Shane: Just what was on the original plan. It does require a screened
dumpster.
Mrs. Fandrei : That is what I am asking and it is not screened.
Mr. Darby: Right now it is not.
Mr. Shane: Not yet. He hasn't completed all his requirements.
Mrs. Fandrei : That is what I am trying to pin down. What is required and the
dumpster is one of the items that is required that isn't completed
at this time?
Mr. Shane: Right.
Mrs. Fandrei : And the spot number 13 is that where it is supposed to be?
Mr. Darby: No the blank spot next to 12. Right next to the building.
Mrs. Fandrei : But it is in number 13 parking space right now?
Mr. Darby: Right now it is.
Mrs. Fandrei : The dumpster is supposed to be next to the building?
Mr. Darby: After I enclose it, yes.
Mrs. Fandrei : So that is going to be totally screened and it won't be visible?
Mr. Darby: It will be concrete block with a gate on it. I believe that is
what was proposed.
Mrs. Fandrei : When will that be completed?
Mr. Darby: By October of 1994.
Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, one thing we did not discuss last week, I don't
see any irrigation on the site plan.
Mr. Darby: It is already in.
Mr. Alanskas: It is already in?
Mr. Darby: Yes it is existing.
Mr. Engebretson: Including the driveway?
Mr. Darby: It is already existing. We can change that around, whatever is
needed there. It is all plastic underground sprinkler.
13406
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. LaPine was interested in that gas pump between the two bays.
Is that a functioning gas pump?
Mr. Darby: No, I have to get rid of it.
�.. Mrs. Fandrei : The way you said that is going sounded like it is if we wanted it
to go. Is that a requirement that it goes?
Mr. Darby: I will probably just take it home as a keepsake sort of thing. I
would get rid of it. That would not be a problem.
Mrs. Fandrei : That should be part of our requirements Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Engebretson: If you want it. Well if it is not part of the resolution, why
don't you get it out of there. If there is no further discussion a
motion would be in order.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-85-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 91-7-2-21 by Gary
M. Darby requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive repair
facility to be located on the north side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann
Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 for the
following reasons:
1) That the Landscape Plan dated 4-28-94, as revised, prepared by
Arbor Green Landscaping is hereby approved and shall be adhered to
and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy
N,,,, condition;
2) That the landscape improvements set forth in the approved landscape
plan shall be installed according to the schedule set forth in a
letter dated May 2, 1994 signed by Gary M. Darby.
3) That the existing gas pump shall be removed from the premises.
for the following reason:
1) That the landscape plan represents a significant improvement to the
subject property.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the 682nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on April 12,
1994.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#5-86-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 682nd Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on April 12, 1994 are
hereby approved.
13407
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Alanskas, McCann, Engebretson
NAYS: None
'41m. ABSTAIN: Fandrei
ABSENT: LaPine
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
94-4-8-8 by R. N. Home Health Care, Ltd. requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at
38935 Ann Arbor Road in Section 31 .
Mr. Miller: The petitioners are proposing to construct a 26,500 square foot
office building on the property that is located on the south side
of Ann Arbor Road between Hix and Eckles. This is the former
site of Christenson's Nursery. The Ford/UAW Child Care Center is
located on the western half of this property. The parking meets
the requirement of the ordinance. The landscaping on this site is
approximately 48% where the ordinance requires 15% so they are way
over the required landscaping. They are also proposing a berm to
the south of this property adjacent to the residential district in
lieu of the required protective wall . Basically that is about it.
I know the petitioner has colored renderings and he might be better
able to give a better presentation if it pleases the Commission to
let him go ahead right now.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott, if you are finished then we will ask the petitioner to
come forward and make his presentation.
Bruce Johnson: I am with Campbell/Manix Design Architects. After our last study
session we went back and did our homework and took care of quite a
few things that were discussed at that time. I would like to
start in the back near the residential property with the 15 feet
being deeded to the residents and then the five foot high berm.
We are going to match the existing berm that is west of the
property to get a continuity between both properties and to enhance
the whole area. From this line we will have sodded and irrigated
grass. From here over to the berm we will have hydro-seeded and
irrigated area. We have indicated that the trash area will be
relocated to our side of the property, away from the residential .
We have 20 foot light poles on all sides, which are somewhat
similar to the adjacent property so there is a uniformity when
somebody drives down the road. They are somewhat similar. We have
two barrier-free parking areas adjacent to each employee entrance
on each side. One barrier-free at the visitor's entry. This was
an enlarged area of what is similar to the berm to the west of the
property.
13408
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Johnson before you move away from the berm and while you are
on the subject of the berm, when Mr. LaPine and I were out there on
Sunday we walked that property at great length and we observed that
your client's property is significantly lower in its present
condition than the Ford property next door that you mentioned that
you were going to be compatible with. We were wondering whether it
r- was your intent to raise the level of that property back there to
be approximately the same height or is there going to be a falling
off of several feet?
Mr. Johnson: I am not a civil engineer but there will probably be a lot of fill
from foundations. I think that is the fill area that we will see
plus for the berm also. I imagine I see it as a level situation
back there.
Mr. Engebretson: Well I am not sure that it is real important if it is or isn't
but I am certainly curious about it because if you do, and by the
way that Ford berm exceeds five feet in some areas, that is clear.
I can't tell you exactly how high it is but it is more than five
feet and then when it approaches your client's property it tapers
off. I would imagine that you then would do a similar tapering and
then raise it up five or six feet.
Mr. Johnson: We obviously will keep all storm water on this property however we
have to taper it. All storm water will be kept on this property
for sure.
Mr. Engebretson: I really wasn't so concerned about that as I was about the
aesthetics from the rear of that property from a neighbor's point
of view. Are they going to be viewing a berm with trees on it that
comes along, and it is very orderly, it is very well done, and then
*ft. to drop off significantly?
Mr. Johnson: No.
Mr. Engebretson: If you were to look from one end to the other, would it look like
one continuous berm?
Mr. Johnson: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: In that same connection would you be extending that fence that
the Ford property has?
Mr. Johnson: I don't have a clear understanding of that. Could that be
explained to me? In the covenants I saw the berm, which was when
the developer rezoned this to OS, but I am not clear on that fence
and neither is my owner. Could that be addressed?
Mr. Engebretson: I am not sure I am either but having great faith in Mr. Nagy's
total recall ability I am sure he can go back however many years
are necessary and remind us about the fence.
Mr. Johnson: I noticed that fence back there but nobody was connected up to it.
It was just freestanding. I am not clear on that.
13409
Mr. Nagy: It is my understanding there was an agreement made between the
property owner, Mr. Scappaticci , to the homeowners, not only the
conveyance of the 15 feet of additional property to attach to their
individual lots but a continuation of the fence. I think it is an
obligation that Mr. Scappaticci has committed himself to with
respect to those abutting property owners.
Now Mr. Engebretson: So if there is an obligation, it is Mr. Scappaticci 's
obligation.
Mr. Nagy: He may have let Ford/UAW actually construct the fence but I think
it was the commitment that he obligated himself to fulfill .
Mr. Engebretson: As I say it is the most perfectly straight fence at that length
that I have ever seen in my life. I think it was the intention
that the neighbors would be ultimately removing their fences and
utilizing the 15 feet that was deeded over to them as part of that
agreement.
Mr. Johnson: I don't believe that is a problem with the owner to address the
issue and to match the existing fence.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the representative of the owner has a comment to make.
If you will please come down madam and make your comment here
rather than from afar I would appreciate it. Would you begin by
giving your name and address.
Vicki Welti from R. N. Home Health Care, Director of Planning. We are located in
Wayne Michigan. My question is who maintains the land, the 15 feet
beyond the fence?
Mr. Engebretson: I would assume madam the property owners who have received
N.. conveyance of that land would ultimately be responsible for
maintenance.
Ms. Welti : I wanted to make sure we weren't going to put up a fence and then
you tell us we would be responsible for the 15 feet on the other
side of the fence, which means we would have to get our lawnmower
up over the fence in order to mow the grass. If that 15 feet
belongs to those property owners, which is not in contention here,
then I want to make sure that they are responsible to mow it to
that point because I am concerned too about the back of my property
and wanting to make sure it looks nice. If I put all this money
into making sure my property is taken care of, I want to make sure
the homeowners with the 15 feet we are giving them are also taking
care of their part.
Mr. Engebretson: It was our understanding that conveyance has occurred, that it
belongs to them and if you went back there to mow it you would be
trespassing on someone else's property. They may let you do it.
Someone is taking very good care of the grass behind the Ford/UAW
project.
Ms. Welti : Right and I believe it is the Ford people at this point.
Mr. Engebretson: I suspect you may be right.
13410
Ms. Welti : And that is why I am wondering what our responsibility is for the
grass behind the fence. I don't know that that 15 feet has
actually been deeded over.
Mr. Engebretson: It was supposed to have been taken care of when the Ford project
went through here. It was our understanding that it was being
taken care of at that time and it was soon to be concluded. It may
�.. not be. Do you have any idea Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: I do not but I will certainly find out.
Ms. Welti : We have no problem putting that fence in as long as the homeowners
behind will be taking care of that property.
Mr. Engebretson: Let's go on that basis and if it isn't, we will have to work it
out.
Mr. Tent: To the architect, I noticed when you were before us at the study
session we had some discussion about the greenbelt and the trees at
the right hand side of your drawing. On your initial drawing you
submitted you had six trees there. Of course, we requested the
whole area be screened. Then I see your revised drawing and you
have just spread out the six trees. You have taken the six you had
originally and you made it do the whole thing.
Mr. Johnson: This is my new document. We have agreed verbally tonight and with
this sketch here that we would match that existing berm.
Mr. Tent: You would go all the way up to the existing property line?
Mr. Johnson: That is correct.
4410,, Mr. Morrow: Getting back to this fence and the 15 feet. I would like to,
through the Chair, ask the staff in addition to researching that 15
feet and deeding of the property, what the commitment was by Mr.
Scappaticci as it relates to that fence and if he has an obligation
there, I would certainly think he would, I am assuming he is still
the property owner, step up to his commitment and relieve the
purchaser from that burden. I would just like to add that to the
15 foot research.
Mr. Engebretson: Is Mr. Scappaticci still the property owner or have you purchased
this property?
Ms. Welti : We have purchased the property.
Mr. Morrow: It wouldn't hurt to check it out anyways. Have you paid him?
Ms. Welti : Mostly. We will take that up with him if that is the
understanding.
Mr. Morrow: The staff can research back to the original commitments and it
certainly is something you can bring up. Now that the money has
changed hands it might be a little tougher.
13411
Mr. Johnson: I might add that physically they won't be able to get a lawnmower
back there because it is going to be blocked off.
Mr. Morrow: I would certainly think the property owners, if it has been deeded
over, would be responsible for their property.
Now
Mr. Engebretson: That might explain why the fences haven't been removed and
reconfigured to allow the people to utilize the extra 15 feet
because it is very nice. It is grassed. It is nicely kept up.
They have fulfilled their commitments.
Mrs. Fandrei : Well then once your fence is erected, Ford isn't going to be able
to get back there either. Mr. Nagy, if the residents don't take
care of their new 15 feet, then it would be the City's
responsibility to take care of it and bill the residents if they
don't?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, although the City first would order the property owners to
maintain the 15 feet. The City will work with all the property
owners and encourage them to maintain the property, which I am sure
they will . I am trying to think back to the problem with regard to
that 15 feet of conveyance when we had the Ford/UAW and while I do
not have total recall , I do remember that Mr. Scappaticci is buying
the property on Land Contract and until he actually takes title to
the property, then he is in a position to convey the 15 feet and I
think that has been the hold in actually conveying the property
over to the residents to close on the Land Contract, which means
when he closes with Ford/UAW and when he closes with Home Health
Care then he gets his money and pays off his Land Contract and then
conveys the property to the abutting property owners. So I think
.. it is all going to be worked out here now that he has made this
final property sale. I think then we will be able to see some
progress out there.
Mrs. Fandrei : To answer Ms. Welti , if this doesn't get taken care of, then the
City will get involved and make sure it does so that is your
recourse.
Mr. Alanskas: To the petitioner, I see you have relocated the dumpster?
Mr. Johnson: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: Also the large grass area, that is going to be irrigated?
Mr. Johnson: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: The entire area?
Mr. Johnson: That is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Then you may proceed sir.
NNE.
13412
Mr. Johnson: (He presented the elevation plans and samples of the materials)
The landscape architect reinforced that circle drive with taller
shade trees and then decorated below them in ornamental trees so
there will be some color there whenever those bloom. We are really
excited about the project. We are hoping we can move on here and
get this thing in the ground.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, you indicated when we were previewing this that you
would allow the petitioner to tell a little bit about the
structure, what its purposes are, and I am sure some of the
audience that is looking in would like to know what use the
building would be put to. Whether it is going to be a hospital or
whatever.
Mr. Engebretson: You are exactly right Mr. Tent and if Mr. Johnson is finished
with his presentation then we will ask Ms. Welti to come down and
do that.
Ms. Welti : As I mentioned to you at your study session last week, the owners
of the building will be R. N. Home Health Care. It will be used as
our corporate facility for office purposes only. That is one of
the misconceptions, that we house people here that are sick in a
nursing home type style and that is not true. It will be used
completely to house our administrative departments which include
Finance Department, Billing Department, Planning Department, Human
Resources, and Personnel Department. We also have our Clinical
Administration Department, our Staff Development Department. We
will have two training rooms here where we will do all of our own
in-house orientation, re-orientation staff development training and
all of those types of things. R. N. is one of the largest,
privately-owned home health care agencies in Michigan. We have
five offices in Michigan, Grand Rapids, Saugatuck, Bloomfield
'41m„ Hills, Westland, and our corporate offices right now are located in
Wayne and we will be moving them, as soon as this is done, into
Livonia. We send nurses, aides, physical therapists, occupational
therapists, speech therapists and medical social workers into
people's homes. Ninety percent of our business is Medicare. We
take care of the elderly, disabled, and this type of thing mostly.
We deal with two types of care: acute care, those people that are
sick, get out of the hospital and need someone to come in and take
care of them, and also long-term care, those patients that are sick
for a long time and there is no prognosis of them getting better.
That type of thing. So we take care of primarily two types. Most
of our referrals, in fact almost of our referrals 100% come from
doctors. You wouldn't be calling R. N. and saying I am sick, come
take care of me. Our referrals come from doctors who refer
patients to us that have either a long-term problem or an
acute-care problem and these are the support facilities housed here
to take care of all those things as we send our people out into the
neighborhoods. We have about 300 employees. The company started
in 1987 with 3 employees and it is now 1994 and we have almost 300
employees. It is a growing field. It is one that is very cost
effective, medical-cost wise. Instead of being in the hospital for
a day, you can bring a nurse in and an aide at a substantially
13413
lower cost so it costs the system a lot less to use Home Health
Care and it has also been proven that people do better when they
are in their home and in familiar surroundings with people that
they know and things that are comfortable to them. That is what we
do and that is what we are going to be doing when we move into
Livonia.
No` Mr. Morrow: We certainly appreciate that input and based upon what we see here,
and I won't speak for all of the Planning Commission, but you are
certainly putting your best foot forward and we certainly
appreciate the type of development you are bringing to the City and
I think it will dovetail very well with the facility to your west.
Thank you.
Mrs. Fandrei : One more question to the architect. Mr. Johnson, the Ordinance
Enforcement Division indicated that the proposed sign was
oversized. We haven't addressed the sign at all today. What was
the plan?
Mr. Johnson: We have a photograph of the one that exists at our Westland
facility and we will be addressing that as a variance. We still
haven't designed it yet.
Mrs. Fandrei : So that is a come back later?
Mr. Johnson: Yes. They are looking at a different logo possibly. We couldn't
meet that ten square foot requirement.
Mr. Engebretson: Sir, we had asked the staff, as you know, last time to prepare
just a sketch, and they did more than just a sketch, as to the
footprint of your building as contrast to the footprint of the Ford
fir.. building next door and it appears that about 90% of your building
is in their front yard. As a professional architect do you find
that at all troubling that these buildings are gong to have such
varying setbacks? Is that going to present any problems in your
mind at all?
Mr. Johnson: They have a very long linear frontage and we would be a backdrop to
that. I see that as no problem. To get this peak design, we have
45 foot sections somewhat similar to a home so we are on a more
intimate scale but I see no problem. We have such great
landscaping here where they have parking so it is just a different
concept. It is a design philosophy.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not suggesting that it is a problem. I am just wondering
from your point of view is this a normal kind of event to have
buildings with such widely varied setbacks because it is my
recollection that when we can control these kinds of things we try
to avoid setbacks of this great difference.
Mr. Johnson: It is a personal thing for a design architect and if I had my
choice of a building in front with great landscaping, a visitor
parking, versus parking for staff, I would put the first in there.
That would enhance the property more than the sea of parking.
13414
Mr. Engebretson: You have a parking lot right outside some of your key offices I
would imagine.
Mr. Johnson: But I have interior courts to enhance those areas too though.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you see any difficulty with that?
Mr. Nagy: No I really don't. I think the buildings are so distinctive that
the separation between them, I think the position of the two
buildings will compliment each other. I don't have a problem with
it.
Mr. Engebretson: Well personally I think they are both spectacular buildings.
Mr. Johnson: I think the complimentary colors of each, the adjacent one has a
stark green roof and this one is the slate roof. I think color
wise when you see this thing at 45 m.p.h down the road, the blur of
colors is going to be complimentary to each other.
Mr. Engebretson: The existing building certainly gets your attention and your
building is going to do an even better job.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman, I am going to bring up one question here. You are
going to be asphalting the driveways and the parking lot? Can you
tell me how thick the asphalt will be?
Mr. Johnson: I wish I could.
Mr. Tent: This is a loaded question. I am asking this question because I see
a lot of this going on where these driveways and these parking lots
are not holding up. In other words, a year will go by and it will
be gone. I am wondering whether the developers are meeting their
`, specifications, whether they are making them thinner than they
should, and you as an architect if you have a specification that
you say they have to be this thick?
Mr. Johnson: Economics plays a role. Vehicle traffic versus truck traffic. You
are right they are not holding up. They have to be resurfaced
after three, two years.
Mr. Tent: Why? It's not because of specifications? We're not too light on
the specifications?
Mr. Johnson: No. If you get truck traffic riding on it that takes care of that
inner asphalt like you have on your home driveways.
Mr. Tent: Would you say because of the big trucks we have now that we should
probably have thicker asphalt?
Mr. Johnson: Definitely.
Mr. Tent: And there should be a specification that maybe all cities should
look at, all shopping centers, etc. to increase the depth of those.
Mr. Johnson: It would be a good idea but it is the front end cost you are
talking about. You start spending the developers money.
13415
Mr. Tent: But then you have to come back in two years and do it all over
again so I figured the next architect they come up with I am going
to bring up that question just to give you something to think about
because it does concern me.
Mr. Johnson: Thicker is better. It would be ideal . There is no doubt about it
but then you start putting an 18 wheeler on that thing, that takes
Nfty care of that.
Mr. Tent: In other words you are defeating the purpose of what you are trying
to do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Johnson, I am going to check my own memory out now. I recall
that each of your parking places were 10'x20' .
Mr. Johnson: Yes sir.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you or your client have any difficulty with double striping
those parking bays as contrast to just a single stripe?
Mr. Johnson: I don't think it would be a problem.
Mr. Engebretson: Well we would hope not. It certainly does lead to less wear and
tear on automobiles. I think it is the responsible thing to do. I
don't think it works a hardship on anyone. Maybe it costs a few
extra dollars for the striping but I think it creates a lot of
goodwill and I would like to ask you to do that.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei , seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-87-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
`'w City Council that Petition 94-4-8-8 by R. N. Home Health Care, Ltd.
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office
building on property located at 38935 Ann Arbor Road in Section 31, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet A-1 dated 5/5/94 by
Campbell/Manix Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet A-3 dated 4/15/94 by
Campbell/Manix Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3) That the Landscape Plan, defined as Sheet L-1 dated 5/5/94 by
Campbell/Manix Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
4) That an underground irrigation system shall be installed in all
landscaped areas, including the large grassy area behind the main
building prior to final inspection;
13416
5) That the landscaped greenbelt, as shown on the approved Landscape
Plan, shall be substituted for the protective wall required by
Section 18.45 of Zoning Ordinance #543, and furthermore, at no time
is the earth berm along the south property line to be removed and
replaced with a protective wall .
6) That the earth berm will rise to the same height as the UAW/Ford
berm and that the extension of the chain link fence will be
identical in every respect to the property to the west.
7) That all parking bays will be double striped.
8) That no signs are approved as part of this petition and any signs
proposed to be erected shall first be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Tent: I would just like to say that I voted for approval on this because
I think it is a real fine plan and I would like to compliment the
architect and the developer for doing a real excellent job and
putting in a little extra to make it attractive. I wish you the
best of luck with it.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to also commend the petitioner for having been
extremely cooperative in helping us iron out all these little
wrinkles that have come up but just to make sure that we can
remember what was agreed to I would like to add two additional
conditions regarding the earth berm and chain link fence and the
parking bays. .
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
`' Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-8-9
by Marygrove Awnings requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal for
an awning sign and storefront alteration for the building located at
19162 Farmington Road in Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Farmington Road just
north of Seven Mile Road. It is Dick's Upholstery Shop. They are
proposing to alter the storefront by installing a canopy along the
entire storefront. They are also proposing a sign which will be
located over the entrance and incorporated into the awning. They
are allowed 40 square feet. The sign works out to be 40 square
feet. It is also back-lit, which is permitted by the ordinance so
everything is conforming on the sign.
Mr. Engebretson: Scott when you refer to what is back-lit, it is confined to just
the sign area?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and add any comments you
wish to.
Kim Malaney: I am with Marygrove Awning Company and I am representing Dick's
Upholstery this evening. I really don't have too many more
comments to add other than we felt the necessity to have the awning
there because there is an existing awning on the building next to
13417
it so they are partially blocked by the existing awning, which we
did. That will bring their projection out even to that so they
would be equally seen from the street and to provide them with
their signage, which is within your ordinance, to distinguish where
their building is located and their entrance.
Mr. Engebretson: Is this then the beginning of a domino effect? You did the first
one and now the second one. Can we look forward to another request
sometime in the future months?
Ms. Malaney: I hope so.
Mrs. Fandrei : Mr. Nagy, is our new sign ordinance in effect now?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it is.
Mrs. Fandrei : So would it be redundant to limit their window signage to 20% or
would that be appropriate on this property?
Mr. Nagy: They will be restricted by our new sign ordinance to no more than
20% of their window area.
Mrs. Fandrei : With the incoming of this petition?
Mr. Nagy: Oh yes.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-88-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 94-4-8-9 by Marygrove Awnings requesting
`.. approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543
in connection with a proposal for an awning sign and storefront
alteration for the building located at 19162 Farmington Road in Section
3, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Elevation Plan, received by the Livonia Planning
Commission on March 19, 1994, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the sign area shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after
closing.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-8-10
by Modern Financial Services Corp. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct an office addition on the building located at
29905 Six Mile Road in Section 14.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Middlebelt and Oporto Avenue. The proposal is to add an addition
to the rear of the existing building. This addition will be used
13418
for a general office type use. I know the petitioner is a lawyer
so I believe his personal office will be located here. The
elevation plans shows that the new addition will be constructed
with materials that will match the existing building in detailing
and color. Parking meets the requirement. They are also adding
approximately 30 feet of pavement to the rear of the parking lot to
help the parking situation that is brought on by the addition, so
that meets the requirement of the parking. Landscaping, where the
ordinance requires 15%, this site has 45% so it meets the
requirement of the ordinance. (He presented the elevation plan)
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is right behind you.
Glen Hirshberg, 29905 Six Mile Road: I am the owner of that property and I am
seeking permission to build.
Mr. Engebretson: And you are basically expanding the business as Scott described.
Mr. Hirshberg: That is correct. It is going to be additional legal office.
Mr. Engebretson: And the additional parking spaces are going to come at the
expense of that green area at the back of the building which
appears to be a lawn area now?
Mr. Hirshberg: That is correct but there will remain that forest area behind it.
In looking at the other buildings nearby, it has more greenery than
the surrounding areas.
Mr. Engebretson: It would be hard to disagree with that.
Now
Mr. Tent: Mr. Hirshberg, on the addition you are proposing that is strictly
for your own staff? It is not to be leased to anyone else?
Mr. Hirshberg: That is correct.
Mrs. Fandrei : Would your parking lot equal the properties in depth on each side
of you or will you not be quite as deep as those two?
Mr. Hirshberg: The parking lots on either side of me extend all the way back to
the retaining walls and my parking lot will not go back that far.
There are trees and shrubbery that go from the back line up maybe
fifty or sixty feet.
Mrs. Fandrei : How far back will you extend beyond your present parking lot then?
Are you extending further beyond what you already have?
Mr. Hirshberg: Yes. We will extend beyond that. We will need that for the
additional parking but I don't know how far.
Mrs. Fandrei : Approximately what might be left?
Mr. Miller: About 205 feet.
v..
13419
Mrs. Fandrei : Mr. Nagy, a clarification of something in our notes. It says that
it was explained to the petitioner that all mechanical rooftop
equipment visible from the ground would require screening. I
thought we required screening a little bit further out than just
the ground.
Mr. Nagy: Anywhere on the ground surface whether at the base of the building
Niftyor the sidewalk on Six Mile Road or whatever, we intend to have
that all screened from view at the ground level .
Mrs. Fandrei : Then this is expected to have parapet?
Mr. Nagy: Or else a screen itself, an actual fabricated screen.
Mr. Hirshberg: That was brought up at the study session. I discussed it with the
architect shortly thereafter.
Mrs. Fandrei : That is what I want a clarification of. What is your plan?
Mr. Hirshberg: His impression was that it would not be visible from the ground and
if it was, he had no problem with the screen. Neither do I .
Mrs. Fandrei : It is visible from Six Mile. It isn't visible next to the
building but it is visible from Six Mile Road.
Mr. Hirshberg: I am talking about the addition. You are talking about the
existing.
Mrs. Fandrei : I am talking about all of it.
Mr. Hirshberg: Is the present air conditioning unit in violation?
Mrs. Fandrei : It isn't in violation. It is required at this point as far as I am
concerned. As far as the Commission, when we address a new
petition, anything to do with the property we can speak to and that
is where I am coming from right now and that is something that
since we have an opportunity to address is something that can be
taken care of at this point and it is visible from Six Mile very
easily so I am requesting that it be screened.
Mr. Hirshberg: I have no problem with going ahead with that screening. If it is
in violation, I have no problem.
Mrs. Fandrei : No it is not in violation. It is something that we are requesting
you to do to give better visibility of the building as our
community is driving by your building.
Mr. Hirshberg: Fine.
Mr. Engebretson: If you were starting from scratch today sir, you would be
required to do that.
Mr. Hirshberg: I understand that.
13420
Mr. Engebretson: The fact that you exist predating any of those requirements you
are not really in violation because you are grandfathered but as a
cooperative spirit we would look to you at times like this to see
if we can enhance the neighborhood a little bit for our mutual
benefit.
Mr. Hirshberg: I agree.
Now
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei , seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-89-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
94-4-8-10 by Modern Financial Services Corp. requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct an office addition on the building located
at 29905 Six Mile Road in Section 14 subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site and Landscaping Plan, defined as Sheet 1 dated
3/31/94 by John S. Goniea, Architect, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet 3 dated 3/31/94 by John
S. Goniea, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That an underground irrigation system shall be installed in all
landscaped areas prior to final inspection;
4) That all, new and existing, rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
screened in such a manner that they are not visible from the ground
level .
``"y Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application by Sterling Bank & Trust requesting approval for one ground
sign for the property located at 37100 Six Mile Road in Section 8.
Mr. Miller: This is the Laurel Commons Shopping Center. It is located on the
north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Fitzgerald. They
are proposing to remove the existing non-conforming pole sign and
replace it with a conforming monument sign. They are allowed 40
square feet at 8 feet high and this is a conforming sign so they
will be taking down the existing pole sign and in its place at the
exact location they will be erecting the monument sign.
Mr. Tent: Scott, there was some confusion during the study session as to
where the sign was going to be located. It has been established
now.
Mr. Miller: Yes the petitioner submitted a new site plan and he has indicated
it will be ten feet back, which is required, from the right-of-way
line but in the general location of the existing sign.
Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner has moved into position.
13421
Larry Deitch, Attorney for Sterling Bank & Trust: With me tonight is Anne Marie
Redoutey, Director of Marketing for the bank. We believe that this
sign will be a plus to the shopping center. We will be removing
the pole sign and placing the ground sign, which is in conformity
with the ordinance, and we are hoping for your approval . We think
it makes sense for everybody.
Mrs. Fandrei : My only concern is that the shrubs seem to be getting a bit tall
where you are going to be placing the sign. Do you think that will
be a problem that it might hide your sign?
Mr. Deitch: We don't want our sign to be hidden. I am assuming there will be
some pruning. I think that is part of the plan. Am I correct in
that Anne Marie?
Anne Marie Redoutey: We are prepared to replace the landscaping should it be
needed. With the changing of the existing sign we are planning
that there could very well be some damage to that landscaping and
we are prepared to replace it as it is designated on the drawing.
Mrs. Fandrei : You represent the shopping center?
Mrs. Redoutey: No I am representing Sterling Bank & Trust.
Mr. Morrow: Just one question, you have some plant material represented as a
part of your plan. Has that been specified or is that going to be
part of the plan.
Ms. Redoutey: It has not been specifically designated as to what type of
shrubbery would be placed. We would be pleased to provide the
specifics if that was required.
Mr. Morrow: I am not sure it is required. You might want to aesthetically but
I suppose that if you do decide it the staff could give you some
input. It was represented on the plan. I just wanted to tie it
down if it was part of it.
Mr. Engebretson: We might mention that since you are in a control zone you will be
moving on to the Council and it might be a good idea to have some
thoughts on that ready to present to them at that time. I don't
know that there is any necessity at this point unless I am reading
it incorrectly. It appears that you have a conforming sign and
we get rid of a pole sign and get a monument sign so I think we are
ready for a motion.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-90-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Sterling Bank & Trust
requesting approval for one ground sign for the property located at
37100 Six Mile Road in Section 8, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
13422
1) That the Sign Package by Apex Sign Group, Inc. , received by the
Planning Commission on April 13, 1994, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That the sign area shall not be illuminated beyond one hour after
the last tenant in the shopping center closes;
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 683rd Regular Meeting
& Public Hearings held on May 3, 1994 was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
i ii
4
& /
. . —'s C. McCann, Secretary
'.. 1 . ' ( ' 1 !
ATTEST: ( ( ti. i ` u, / ,/
Jack Engebre . son, hairman /
I
A