HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2001-11-20I
MINUTES OF THE 835° REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 835"' Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine Linda Dolan
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also
present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, 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 hasten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council.
Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7)
days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff
have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the
Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission
may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 97-08-08-21 Jaafar Investment Group
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 97-08-
08-21 by Jaafar Investment Group requesting approval to amend a
previously approved site plan in order to construct a trash dumpsler
enclosure forthe gas station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in
the N.E. 1/4 of Section 11.
18957
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-177-2001
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the request to amend a previously approved site
plan, Petition 97-08-08-21, submitted by Jaafar Investment Group, on
behalf of Sunoco Gas Station, in order to construct a trash dumpster
enclosure for the gas station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in
the Northeast 114 of Section 11, be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Miller:
This site is located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and
Middlebelt. In November of 1997, Site Plan approval was granted to
construct a gas station and convenience store on this site. As part of
the condition of approval, it stated "That there shall be no dumpster
located outside of the building, and all trash must be contained within
the building except on the day trash is scheduled for removal." Back
in April, 1999, the owner of the property came back before the
Planning Commission and City Council and asked to revise that
condition. It was denied at that time. Now the petitioner is back
before you asking again for an outside dumpster. The petitioner is
proposing to erect a trash dumpster at the northwest corner of the
building that would face Seven Mile Road. The area would be
10' x 9' in area and would be surrounded by a plastic decomtive
fence with plastic entrance gates.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any additional information, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we have one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated September 18, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of August 14, 2001, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The
Petitioner has illegally installed this dumpster enclosure in direct
violation of Planning and Council directives and a violation has been
issued and is being held in abeyance until Planning and Council
makes a final determination. (2) As installed, the dumpsteris
inaccessible as the front entry is blocked by three (3) parking spaces.
Without these three (3) parking spaces, the pet#loneris deficient
those spaces. (3) The landscaping needs maintenance along the
south and west areas. This Department has no furtherobjection to
this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
I:•
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. I am representing Jaafar
Investment Company. I'm sure you gentlemen and Mrs. Dolan have
reviewed this particular location, driven by it or maybe even stopped in
to see the location. I think you all recognize that this is a convenience
store with gas pumps out in front. The entire interior of the building is
loaded up with merchandise for retail similar to a 7-11 type of
operation. The storeroom is used for storage of the merchandise that's
needed on the retail basis, not only for the pump area, which is mainly
oil, but also for the interior of the store. Mr. Jaafar has been a
businessman in the City of Livonia since 1974. He is a long time
resident. He bought the building back in 1998 after the building was
approved for rehabilitation. He didn't own it before that time. There
were certain representations that were made prior to that time, not by
him but by a previous owner. We're sure that you all recognize that
there was a trash enclosure that was installed without a permit. We're
not telling stories out of school obviously, but he has been storing his
waste in the backroom, and as his business has picked up, the waste
became more and more onerous. In fact, he's generating five to six
garbage bags of waste a day. For the Iasi four years up until the time
he put in this waste enclosure, he had to put these bags of waste in his
car and take them over to a dumpsite. And that had to be every single
day for seven days a week. He's a 24-hour operation so obviously he
generates a lot of waste. The situation became almost intolerable and
I think that's why Mr. Jaafar was put into a situation where he felt he
had to do something. Unfortunately he didn't get the approval first.
We recognize that. I apologize for him. But he could not hardly move
in the storeroom to get his merchandise out. And in addition to that, it
was also creating smell because of the waste material. Some were oil
cans. Some were pop bottles that were consumed on the premises.
Customers drove up and deposited waste in his trash receptacles out
on the pump island. So as he stored these things in his storeroom, the
odor went throughout the building and really created a poor situation.
This is a business. I think it's a good business for the City of Livonia,
and we would ask your consideration to really do what's right and give
him the same opportunity to store his waste outside as every other
business of this type has in the City of Livonia. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions?
Mr. La Pine: When we approved the renovation of the original gas station, we
were underthe impression thatwhat was going to be sold inside that
store was candy, pop, coffee to go, things of that nature. At that
time the gentleman who had the business said that he wanted inside
storage because he wouldn't want an outside dumpster. What has
changed? You said something about oil. You don't change oil here.
18959
Where does the smell come from, the oil? Oil cans are sealed and
people buy them and take them away. I can understand that people
buy coffee and maybe throw them in the dumpster. But basically all
you have is boxes. People buy candy and things of that nature.
Mr. Tangora:
Well, oil is used on the pump islands when people come up and want
service ... gasoline ... and they do check their oil, and there is oil
available for them to sell.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that they can sel t, but do they change it there?
Mr. Tangora:
They don't change it but they do install it. They add to the crankcase
when theyre down. And then they throw their empty cans in the
trash receptacle that's on the pump island. That trash is brought into
the building. It has been brought in for the last four years
approximately. It creates a smell in addition to some of the other
merchandise that when it's open in the store area and stored in the
storeroom also has some kind of a smell.
Mr. LaPine:
I was there twice this week. The situation isn't any better if you don't
close the doors on the dumpster area. I was there two different times
during the day and they were open every time.
Mr. Tangora:
Well, that shouldn't happen. I agree with you.
Mr. LaPine:
Its not only this. Just about everybody in town has got a dumpster
enclosure. For some reason or another its too hard to lock the
enclosure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Piercecchr
Mr. Tangora, I'm sure you're aware, or perhaps you're not, that on
November 5, 1997, this site received Site Plan approval to allow the
construction of a gas station and convenience store. Are you aware
ofthat?
Mr. Tangos:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
As part of the approval, it was conditioned "that there shall be no
dumpster located outside of the building and all trash must be
contained within the building except on the daytssh is scheduled for
removal" On April 7, 1999, the petitioner was denied a requestto
amend the above condition by the City Council. It was felt that the
site did not have enough room to accommodate the enclosure. How
will this dumpster be emptied if you've got cars parked in front of it?
Mr. Tangos:
Well, if there are cars parked in front when the trash is scheduled for
removal, the cars would have to be moved. From what I understand,
ff:AiYrl
he has a scheduled trash removal either once or twice a week for the
amount of trash that he has. On those few limes when he has the
waste company come by, the cars would obviously have to be
moved. I recognize that the doors should be kept closed at all times.
When I was there a few months ago when I first became involved
with this, I went over to the location. Itjust didn't even hit me at that
time ... the doors were closed. I think we recognize that the
enclosure is a white plastic. It blends in with the building. really
didn't even seethe enclosure at that time until it was pointed out to
me whereilwas. Recognizing that all the things that you say are
true, I just think we have a bad siluabon with a good businessman of
the City of Livonia who has been forced to take his own trash out to a
dump site every single day. I just think that's wrong and there should
be some solution in the City of Livonia.
Mr. Piercecchi: I can relate to that but the thing is, it really requires about a 35'
aisleway so you can get a truck in there to empty it. The plastic
around that thing is very fragile. It should be masonry. If one car
bumps into it, its so long.
Mr. Tangom:
Well, that's true. I recognize it has to be maintained. And it is
relatively new and it still looks good. But if it's ever damaged, you
know, I think that Mr. Jaafar would have to maintain it and keep it in
good repair.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That site has direct access to that big dumpster south of that facility.
Coned? You can walk to that plaza.
Mr. Tangom:
But that's on somebody else's property.
Mr. Piercecchr
Is there any chance for him to locate in that area or purchase space
in that dumpster?
Mr. Tangom:
I can't answer that. I dortl knov. I dont know whether Mr. Jaafar
has ever asked. He's herein the audience. I can ask him. Mr.
Jaafar says he talked to him but he will not share any space in the
dumpster. The market has a dumpster but he won't let Mr. Jaafar put
anything in it.
Mr. Shane:
Where do your employees park? Do your employees park on site?
Mr. Tangom:
His employees park on site.
Mr. Shane:
Could they park in those three spaces that interrupt the dumpster?
Mr. Tangom:
They could park in there. I think the answer is yes.
18961
Mr. Shane: Do you know what lime of day the dumpster is picked up?
Mr. Tangos: Between 5:00 and 6:00 in the morning.
Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to add the one thing. Unfortunately, when the first
petitioner came before us, this Board and also the City Council tried
to tell him that the building was too large ... to make it smaller so
that you could put a dumpster in the back of the building. And he
says, "No. I have plenty of room for my trash. I can put it inside. I
want the larger building for sale of merchandise and I can dispose of
it the way l want to." And that's what happened.
Mr. Tangore:
I recognize that these representations were made to the City Council
and to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jaafar obviously was not the
owner at the time and did not make these representations. Now for
the past four years he has had to live with it. The situation is that he
has to take his own trash out five to six bags a day in his car to get
rid of it, and I just think that its wrong ... not for a city of this
magnitude.
Mr. Alanskas:
Did he go before the City to check to see what he had to do before
he put that dumpster in?
Mr. Tangore:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Tangora, I have a number of questions. One of the things that
you keep telling me is it's wrong for a City to do this to this poor
businessman. This businessman came before this Planning
Commission and the City Council. This poor businessman said, "No,
I knov the requirement is I put in a dumpster. Please dont make me
do that. I would be hurl if I didn't have the extra space." Now, can
you tell me who did the modifications to the building? Your dient or
the prior dient?
Mr. Tangos:
Who?
Mr. McCann:
Who did the modifications to your building? Didn't your client do the
modifications to the building?
Mr. Tangos:
Are you talking about the trash enclosure?
Mr. McCann:
I'm talking about the remodeling of the gas station.
Mr. Tangos:
No, that was another owner.
18962
Mr. McCann: That was another owner?
Mr. Tangom: He bought it after the Site Plan was approved.
Mr. McCann: Okay. So he knew what he was buying then. He was already in
there and there was no trash dumpster.
Mr. Tangom:
That's right.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. And he also went lothe Council in 1999 and he was denied.
Mr. Tangom:
Absolutely.
Mr. McCann:
And even though he was denied, he said, "Well, to heck with the City
of Livonia. I need one. I'll do what I want" He went out there and he
pulilup. He didn't meet the code. He did it with plastic fence. He
did it in front of a handicap parking space. So if the trash company
did have to come and empty the trash, a handicap person would
have logo back out to their car and move their car so that the trash
company could come i n and do it. Now he says they come at 5:00
and 6:00 in the morning. Most communifies have an ordinance that
they're not allowed to pick up trash before 7:00 in the morning. I
know Waste Management that comes out to Livonia and I know a
number of the other companies, Great Lakes, all have to start at 7:00
because they are fined by the communities they go into if they pick it
up before 7:00 in the morning. With regard to the parking, you would
lose at least three spots if you were to put in an enclosed dumpster
area. Where does he pose to put this parking? Would he consider
removing one of the pump islands?
Mr. Tangom:
As we indicated before, his workers park on site at the time that the
truck comes in the morning. Whether it's 5:00, 6:00 or 7:00, he has a
very limited am at that time. Theywouldhavelomovethecars
there in front of the dumpster.
Mr. McCann:
Well, you didn't answer the question. Would he be willing to remove
the pump island in orderto accommodate the additional parking he's
going to need to make up for the dumpster?
Mr. Tangom:
Well, I think that would have a drastic effect on his business. That
business is there to take care of customers. If you limit it down to
one pump island, I think that it causes a real inconvenience to the
customers as well as to the business.
18963
Mr. McCann:
Then it appears to me that the problem is he's gottoo much inside—
shelf space, and needs more storage area. Isn't that a possibility?
Mr. Tangora:
Well, I don't think he can increase the storage area.
Mr. McCann:
Cant he by reducing the sales area?
Mr. Tangora:
Well, he can but then you have it all in storage and that's where the
retail business is.
Mr. McCann:
It was never intended to have that much retail if there was suppose to
be room for the storage of the garbage.
Mr. Tangora:
Well, it did have, evidently based on the previous owner's analysis,
space for inside storage of trash. I think that this business down
through the years, the last four years, has increased so that he needs
the type of retail area that he has. If you've been in the facility, you'll
see that it's well stocked. All the shelves are stocked up with various
types of merchandise and the backroom has the replacement stock.
And there really isn't any place to put trash other than on the floor.
Mr. McCann:
The next question is, you keep talking about bags of garbage. Has
he put in a trash compactor?
Mr. Tangos:
No.
Mr. McCann:
One of the original owners said that if he needed to, he would put in
an industrial trash compactor like the office buildings use. They put
those in a small room and it supplies for the whole office building.
You could put a whole week's garbage through a small trash
compactor.
Mr. Tangos:
I recognize and through my experience I know other businesses that
I've represented down through the years and with this type of retail
business, trash compactors just dont work. I've never found one
person who's ever been safisfied. Usually they end up talting out the
trash compactor and putting in an outside storage area.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions?
Mr. LaPine:
How often is the dumpster picked up?
Mr. Tangos:
It's either once or twice a week depending on the capacity. He can
call and have it picked up twice a week if it's filled up.
Mr. LaPine:
You tell me it takes five or seven garbage bags a day.
IrLD,
Mr. Tangos: Five or six.
Mr. La Pine: If you go for a week or seven days, that's 42 bags. That dumpster
would never hold 42 bags.
Mr. Tangos: And that's why he has the option of calling the waste company to
come by and pick it up when it gets filled up.
Mr. Shane: Is this a 24-hour operation?
Mr. Tangom Yes.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or againstthis petition? Mr. Tangora, is there
any additional comments?
Mr. Tangom No.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-178-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the request to amend a previously approved site
plan, Petition 97-M-21, submitted by Jaafar Investment Group, on
behalf of Sunoco Gas Station, in order to construct a trash dumpster
enclosure for the gas station located at 29401 Seven Mile Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, be denied for following reasons:
1. That Condition #2 of City CoundI Resolution #924-97, that
specifies'That there shall be no dumpster located outside of the
building, and all trash must be contained within the building
except on the day trash is scheduled for removal," is hereby
upheld and shall be adhered to for the following reasons:
a) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 18.58
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b) That the location of the trash dumpster end mum would
have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring properties;
c) That this site does not have enough room to accommodate
a trash dumpster enclosure;
ffdi4"
d) That traffic flow and parking would be hindered throughout
the entire site;
e) That the owner of the property was well aware of the
consequences of not having an outside dumpster when
this station was built;
f) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns
deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and
its residents; and
2. That the existing dumpster enclosure shall be removed
immediately and the area shall be deaned up and
brought back to conformity, as shown on the approved
Site Plan of City Council Resolution #924-97.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. You have len days in which to appeal the decision in
writing to the City Council.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-12-0238 Hunters Grove- Entrance Marker
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
12-02-38 submitted by Hunters Grove Condominiums requesting
approval for an entrance marker for the property located at 15670
Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Miller: This condominium development is located on the eastside of
Newburgh between Five Mile and Ladywood. In August, 2001, the
petitioner received wavier use approval to construct the Hunters
Grove Condominiums on the subject site. As part of that approval it
was conditioned: That an entrance markerplan shall he
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within 60
days following approval of this petton by the City Council. The
petitioner is requesting approval for a conforming entrance marker for
the development. Signage permitted for this site is one marker not
to exceed 20 sq. R. in sign area and not to exceed 5 fl. in height.
Signage Proposed is one entrance marker20 sq. R. in sign area
and 5 R. in height. The submitted site plan shows that the proposed
sign would be located out towards Newburgh Road, directly in front of
the middle condominium unit "O" A note on the plan explains that
the sign would be located at an equal distance between the two
driveways of the development. The sign would be made out of a
if:4IY
large slab of ledge rock placed upright and embedded in a concrete
fooling. The graphic and lettering would be sand blasted in both
sides of the rock and painted black. Landscaping and additional
boulders would be placed near and around the identification sign.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated November 9, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of November 2, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. The
actual square footage of the sign should be noted on the plan and
must be 20 square feet orless to conform to the ordinance. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the pefifioner here this evening?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. I represent Craig
Corbell who is not available tonight because he has a family function
he has logo towith his two sons. Let me first say that this limestone
sign has not been installed. I think that you've seen the plans and I
know you've reviewed them. I think its a nice looking sign. Ifyou
have any questions, I'll try to answer them.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, it is a good looking sign. I see that the large slab is going to be
in concrete.
Mr. Tangom:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to the rock on the right side, is it going to help support this
sign? How is it going to support the sign? Are those rocks cemented
in there also?
Mr. Tangore:
Noldon'tthinkso. I think thatthey are just piled on top of each
other.
Mr. Alanskas:
They must be pretty big sized rocks then so they can't go anywhere.
Mr. Tangom:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
I don lsee anything in here that shows the sign is going to be lighted.
It's not going to be lighted?
18967
Mr. Tangom:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
It's notgoing to be lighted.
Mr. Tangom:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
Isn'tthat kind of strange if someone is looking forthis al night?
Mr. Tangom:
Well, they're all residents.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, but dsomeone is coming to visilyou, you know ...
Mr. Tangom:
Yeah...
Mr. La Pine:
That's okay. I'm justcurious.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Iflhere is nothing else a
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-179-2001
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the request for approval of the Entrance
Marker for Hunters Grove Condominiums, in connection with Pefilion
00-12-02-38, located at 15670 Newburgh Road on the east side of
Newburgh Road between Five Mile and Ladywood Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, be approved subject to the following
condi0ons:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Hunter Homes, Inc. dated
October 25, 2001, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the sign area of the Entrance Marker shall not exceed 20
sq. ft.; and
3. That any addi0onal signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ff:1 iY:l
ITEM#3 PETITION 2001-10-08-27 Kroger Company
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-08-27 by the Kroger Company requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with
a proposal to renovate the exterior building elevation of the
commercial building located at 30935 Five Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4
of Section 23.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Merriman and Henry Ruff. The pefifioner is requesting approval to
install a drive up window to the east elevation of the Kroger Store
located in the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center. The store's pharmacy
would be located directly behind the new window. According to the
Site Plan, the petitioner is proposing to create a 12 R. wide approach
lane off Spanich Court. As the Commission will recall, Spanish Court
not only provides access to the industrial property located behind the
shopping center but is also an aisle way of the centers parking lot.
Some of Kroger's parking is located on the other side of Spanich
Court, next to the residential neighborhood to the east. A 5 R. wide
island would separate and define the drive -up lane from Spanich
Court. Three (3) trees that would have to be removed to allow the
approach would be relocated along the east edge of the parking lot.
The cul-0ul of the proposed elevation shows that a standing seam
metal canopy would be installed over the new drive -up window. The
canopy would measure 22 ft. long and extend out 5 R. from the wall.
The plan does not show or note any additional signage for the drive -
thru. A color rending has not been submitted at this time.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. It first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October26, 2001, 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. It should be noted that the developerwill be
required to accurately locate all existing utilities near the proposed
construction area before beginning any Work. Water mains andgas
lines are in the immediate area of the proposed work and will need to
be located before any construction occurs. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to
contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 25, 2001, which reads
as follows: This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to install a drive-thru window to the exterior
of the commercial building on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The
letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter
is from the Division of Police, dated November 1, 2001, which reads
as follows: "We have reviewed the site plans for the proposed drive-
thru window forthe exteriorof the Krogerstom located at 30935 Five
Mile. We have no objections to the plan as proposed. We would
recommend adequate lighting be installed in the area of the drive-
thru to enhance patron security while using the drive-thm." The letter
is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 8, 2001,
which reads as follows: "Pursuantto yourrequest ofOctober 19,
2001, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The drawing does not reflect the turning radius
in and out of the drive-thru lane. This should be reflectedin the plan
and should not be less than fifteen (15) feet. (2) No provision is
noted to "stop" the drive-thru lane as it exits. In this instance itis not
exiting onto a parking lot but onto Spanich Court, which is also
ingressregress forthe business south ofKroger. The direction of
travel should also be detailed and marked. (3) No height of canopy
warning is noted on the ingress side. The Commission and/or
Council may desire this to be noted. (4) The plan should note that
any displaced trees shall be relocated in case more than three (3) are
disturbed. (5) No signage has been reviewed as none has been
proposed. This Department has no further objection to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Marsha Butkovich, representing Jeffrey A. Stull Architects, P.C., 32316 Grand River
Avenue, Suite 200, Farmington, Michigan 48336. 1 represent the
Kroger Company as well. What Kroger is planning on doing is
providing a convenience for their pharmacy customers. Its very
prevalent in the industry right now for pharmacies to have drive-thru
windows as a convenience for the community. Typical pharmacy
drive-thru traffic is about 30 cars a week so it's not a large number.
We've spoken to many pharmacists. There's never more than 2
cars; they can't recall any more than two cars being in a line. So
therefore it's not your typical drive-thru situation. Three trees will be
affected as Mr. Miller stated. We will relocate those to help provide a
better buffer here which is already pretty heavily landscaped. I
believe there are condominiums over here. The projection roof, an
awning if you will, that would come out of the building ... a metal
awning would project out five feet to protect the driver from the
18970
elements. As far as lighling goes, typicallywe have provided wall
packs. Here is a photo of the existing elevation. Therearewall
packs on therenow. What we typically do is also put wall pack lights
underneath this canopy to prated the driver as well. Can I answer
anyquestions?
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions?
Mr. Piercecchi:
What's this 30 cars a week? You mentioned 30 cars a week.
Ms. Butkovich:
Basically that's what the pharmacy drive-thru windowserves-30
customers a week on average.
Mr. Piercecchr
Oh, that's how many it would serve.
Ms. Butkovich:
Right.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. Do you realize that by having cars going south in and out of
that drive-thru, they are going to be competing with traffic. They have
to turn around and go back and go north again. That's one heck of a
hazard. Howaretheygoinglogeloulofil? Letsay, they come in.
How do they go out?
Ms. Butkovich:
They go right here. They turn in here and there will be a stop sign
provided here to gel back onto Spanich Court.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you saying they are going to come all the way down to where the
commercial is, and then make a left tum into that area?
Ms. Butkovich:
No, they would be traveling here. This is the entrance that would
come off Five Mile, travel south, and make a right tum into the cuing
area.
Mr. Piercecchi:
They're going to go past the thing then?
Ms. Butkovich:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
And then make a right tum and go north again? And they have to
face oncoming traffic?
Ms. Butkovich:
They will have to and typically in these situations, we've provided a
stop sign to help prevent any traffic ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
You dont think you're adding an undue hazard to have a drive-in
which is only going to serve 30 customers? I remember when they
18971
wanted to put the pharmacy in there. They wanted to get people into
the store. Now they want people out of the store.
Ms. Butkovich:
Most customers still do go inside. Basically the convenience is for a
mother who comes home from a doctor's appointment and doesn't
want to take her sick child in. Situations like that. That'swhyildoes
not generate a lot of traffic. And I don't believe there's been any
incidences where it has caused undue traffic to the surrounding area.
Mr. Piercecchr
Are you saying that this arrangement is at other Krogers? Is that
what you're telling me?
Ms. Butkovich:
Yes, there are a few Krogers that have this similar situation.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you know what percentage of sales Kroger does with its
pharmacy?
Ms. Butkovich:
I'm nolsure. Ken Reisig is here from the Kroger Company. I don't
know if he can answer that.
Mr. Reisig:
For each store?
Mr. Alanskas:
Let's say for this store?
Mr. Reisig:
I dont have the exact statistics.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, what is the mid range?
Mr. Reisig:
I would say five percent.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Don't you think if you only have an average of 30 cars that
pick up prescriptions, wouldn't they be more apt to buy something if
they went into the store to get a prescription and see what you have
there?
Ms. Butkovich:
Yes, they would.
Mr. Alanskas:
Then why would you want to put an outside pickup for only 30
people? Why don't you come up to the mike, sir, and give us your
name.
Ken Reisig:
I'm a facility engineer at Kroger here in Michigan. The idea is not so
much to increase sales, but
just to give the customer one more
convenience. Many of our competitors out there offer this and it's
just one more way to say that, as an image, Kroger is customer
friendly and we're here to make your shopping experience as easy as
possible.
18972
Mr.Alanskas: Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine: On that note, the primary purpose of Kroger is to sell groceries. Isn't
that their prime business? They only got into the pharmacy business
when all these drug stores began to pull out of shopping centers and
have freestanding locations with drive-thrus. Ifwe give itto Kroger,
Farmer Jacks is going to want it. If we give it to Farmer Jacks,
Target's going to want it. If we give it to Target, Coslco's going to
want. If we give it to Costco, God only knows where this is going to
end. And we're going to have every building in the City of Livonia or
across the country or the Stale of Michigan with drive thrus. Tome,
we've got enough drug stores in this town. God knows we've got
plenty of drug stores where they can go if they need a prescription. I
understand the situation where a mother has a sick child and she
doesn't want to go into the store, but it seems to me, on an
emergency basis, they could go to a regular drug store. I'm not in
favor of opening up all these shopping centers that have big food
stores in them to having drive thms unless you convince me that
you're going to increase that traffic from 30 to 50 to 100. Then
maybe we'd really have a traffic problem here.
Ms. Butkovich:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
So, I thinkwe're opening up a situation where once we Ietthe drive-
thm go in, everyone in the City of Livonia who has a pharmacy within
their building, be it Kroger or Costco or Farmer Jacks or Sears, all of
them will want a drive thm. And that bothers me quite frankly.
Mr. Shane:
I'm having trouble with the notion of a car moving south on Spanich
Court and being able to make a very sharp, quick turn north into this
drive thru center unless theyre able to make a wide swing into the
left hand tum lane on the right northbound lane of Spanich Court.
There isn't much radius there. You know what I'm saying?
Ms. Butkovich:
Right. This radius here?
Mr. Shane:
Yeah. When you come in south and then make a quick tum, I'm
having a lot of trouble visualizing how that can be done.
Ms. Butkovich:
That's the reason why this mouth was made wider- to accommodate
some of that swing.
Mr.Shane:
Well, it doesn't look wider on my drawing. I think it would be difficult
to do unless, as I say, you can make a swing into the northbound
lane. Physically, I don't know how you're going to do it. I suppose
18973
the easiest way would be to go to the parking lot next door and come
down and make a big swing, but I question that frankly.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? I guess I have a
concern. The depth between the side of the road is about 12 feet, is
that correct?
Ms. Butkovich:
Right. Right here?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Ms. Butkovich:
Yes, it's 12 feet wide.
Mr. McCann:
I don't know. If you're in the family van or Suburban, you're not going
to be able to make a u -tum in 12 feel.
Ms. Butkovich:
Is this where you're talking right here?
Mr. McCann:
You've got 10' ofthe road, so yodve actually go122'. There's noway
a van or a Suburban could ever make a u -tum, is there?
Ms. Butkovich:
I'm not sure of a van or Suburban. Typically, this widening ...
Mr. McCann:
Yeah, but even with the widening, you still only have a maximum of
22' for a car to make a complete directional change from going south
to going north. To be honest with you, I don't know if too many
vehides can do it with that radius.
Ms. Butkovich:
There are situations also that we have come in this way and provided
a pneumatic tube system. You would basically enter a pneumatic
lube just like a bank drive thm. That would be another situation ...
but then you have looping the other way.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. If nobody in the audience wishes to speak, a motion is in
order.
Mr. La Pine:
If this was approved, how are the people going to know where its at?
What kind of signage are you going to have here?
Ms. Butkovich:
I believe that Krogerwould like signage on the facade.
Mr. La Pine:
Bulthe signage is notparl ofyourproposal tonight, is it?
Ms. Butkovich:
No, not atthis time.
18974
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Second call for a motion.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#11-180-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-10-08-27 submitted
by the Kroger Company requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal
to renovate the exterior building elevation of the commercial building
located at 30935 Five Mile Road in the Northwest 114 of Section 23,
be denied for the following
1. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general
standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58 and
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. That the overall layout at the proposal would unduly tax and
conflict with the established and normal traffic flow of the area;
3. With Span ch Court not only providing an aisl may for the
parking lot but also used as a main drive for industrial traffic,
vehicles entering and exiting the drive -up lane could present a
hazard;
4. That approving this modification would set not only
undesirable precedent for the surrounding area but throughout
the entre City;
5. That the location of the drive -up window would have a
detrimental effect upon the neighboring properties; and
6. Thatthe petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns
deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its
residents.
Mr. McCann: Is there discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I'd just like to say that I think that Kroger has always been a good
image for our City. They have good product. They support the City.
Being that your total pharmacy sales are only 5% and 95% is other
items such as groceries, and you only have around 30 cars per week,
which is only one percent, I just think that for what you want, you're
stepping in the wrong direction. I just dont think you need it. I think
18975
you would be better off having it inside the building and not having
any problems. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: In addition to agreeing with Bob, I just think physically this is
unworkable for the reasons that we outlined during the discussion.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. You have len days in which to appeal this decision in
writing to the City Council.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2001 -09 -GB -07 George Garis
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
09 -GB -07 submitted by George Garis, requesting approval to
substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section
18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 9555-9559
Middlebell Road in the Northeast %of Section 35.
Mr. Miller:
This site is located on the weslside of Middlebelt between West
Chicago and Plymouth. The applicant, Mr. Garis, is requesting
approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is
required between an office zoned property and a residential zoned
property. The property to the south of the subject property is zoned
R-7, Multiple Family Residential. This property has a utility
company's substation located on it. Because the width of the
greenbelt that abuts the R-7 district is not 10 ft. along its entire
length, the petitioner does not have the option of a permanent
substitution for this property line. The applicant would either have to
erect a wall or seek a variance waiving the wall from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The rear or west property line abuts a RAB, One
Family Residential zoned neighborhood. The R -1B district is
residential in nature and there are houses that abut right up next to
the petitioners property. The greenbelt along this property line is 10
ft. in width. Screening consists of three (3) large evergreen trees and
the back of Mr. Gars'building. The only plant material on the
greenbelt directly behind the building is grass. A high wooden
privacy fence runs the entire length of the west property line.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
No, there is not.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
18976
George S. Gans, 9555 Middlebelt, Livonia, Michigan. This fence was there when I
bought the property. Actually, I didn't realize that there was even a
zoning variance that had been issued or anything of that nature when
I bought it. Subsequent to the purchase, this issue came up before
and I made application I guess as a temporary. I didn't realize that I
could ask for a permanent change. And going through the
procedures, the City had asked that we shore up the fence and make
sure that it was maintained. I think there was one of the neighbors
that said one of the posts was broken. We've maintained the fence
and fixed it. Its in good shape now as far as I know. It's served well.
Its pretty tall for it substantially hides the entire house behind. There
are some children that live there and I never even see them out there
playing or anything. I don't believe we've had any problems with it.
Like I said, I've spent money to maintain it. I think it's going to be
kind of a substantial cost to put a brick wall up that I'm not sure is
required to even be as high as what we have. I'm hopeful that, as
long as I make a solemn pledge to make sure this fence is in good
shape, which I would want to anyway to protect my own properly and
have it look good, you'll approve this permanent situation that's
already been existing for about seven or eight years anyway.
Mr. Piercecchr
Mark, has the adjacent properly owner made any indication ... I
assume they got a notice of this.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the adjacent property owner was notified.
Mr. Piercecchi:
There are no comments on it?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. Piercecchr
So obviously then, they do not object.
Mr. McCann:
The neighbors are here. Normally, we wait for you to speak. Would
there be any objections to having them come speak on this now?
Why don't you come up forward, sir. We're here to hear your
comments.
Martin Kubera,
I reside at 29441 Robert Drive, directly adjacent to the western
boundary of Mr. Gans' properly. Yes, this subject has come up,
actually two times before. He has been asked to maintain that fence.
The maintenance that has been done on the fence was supposed to
be inspected by the Ordinance Department. I'm not sure if they've
done that, but if they did do that, they would find that patchwork
construction done on that fence is inconsistent and not of the same
color and/or ornamentation of the original structure. Beyond that, the
other shrubbery and greenway participating trees, such as the pine
18977
trees, and I believe there's a couple other shrubs in that same line
along thatfence, to my knowledge, since living there since 1991,
have not been trammed or maintained. The shrubbery that was
installed along Robert Drive and along Middlebelt Road, in my
opinion, has been poorly maintained. In fact, most of those shrubs
have died. Even the weekly lawn maintenance on that property, in
my opinion, lacks. I am out there every weekend cutting my lawn just
as most of all my neighbors are and, in my opinion, having a
greenway partition between my property and Mr. Garis' poses a
problem to me because historically he has not maintained eitherthe
existing partition fence or his olhergreenery on that property in a
consistent and normal fashion.
Mr. McCann: Number one, we understand what it is with regard to maintenance
Would you preferthatthis maintenance be brought up or are you
asking that the shrubbery be removed and a brick fence put in?
Mr. Kubera:
Yes, considering the historical maintenance on the greenery around
that property, I would prefer that a permanent fence be put up.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Garis:
May I respond?
Mr. McCann:
Please, Mr. Garis.
Mr. Garis:
The first contact I have with this gentleman, he comes to me and he
says, "Oh, I'm sorry. My kids broke your fence playing ball out here.
It's broken back this way." No offer to help me fix it or anything.
Then he comes down here and he complains when I don't get it fixed
quick enough for him, I guess. And when I had maintenance workers
out there trying to do it, he gave them nothing but trouble. Didn't
want them to go on his property, was looking over their shoulders,
and giving them a lot of problems. If his intent here is to make this as
difficult as possible, he's done a good job. I've tried to be a good
neighbor. He asked me to fix il. I didn't say, "Hey, sir, how about
donating some money to help me fix the fence that your kids broke."
No, I didn't ask him. I just took care of it. Yet he sees ft to come
down here not once, but twice, to tell me how terrible things are. If
the fence is in bad shape again, which I don't believe it is, we had
people come. He had made a complaint after we had started to do
the fence that the poles weren't sunk deep enough. Dug them all
out, redid them, put them down, made sure that they were within the
prescribed limits. There have been inspectors out who have looked
at the thing since then. If there are boards that are not the same
color, it's because they weathered at different rates. When I had to
ff:1 i(:1
replace the boards that his kids broke off, they haven't weathered at
the same place. Now, I could restain the whole fence to make it the
same color, but it's going to be a substantial amount of money to put
a brick wall up there when nobody's complaining but him. I haven't
had any cooperation here. I'm trying to be a good neighbor. don't
think this is before the Council, but as far as the other greenery
problems, yeah, we removed the shrubs. We're replacing things. I'm
trying to do it a little ata time. I removed some shrubs along Robert
Drive and put in those new ones. The front of the property in terms
of the grass, as the City's well aware, there was substantial work
done on Middlebeltfor over a year and a half. And although the City
tried to come in and do some things to fix up, to put some greenery
right along the curb, the truth of the matter is, they parked all the
equipment over my property and trashed it. And it's taken a while for
the grass to come back and nobody's going to come in and re -sod
that. I juslspenf $6,000 to put sod on that same spot back in like
1994-95. And I just don't have thousands of dollars sifting around to
do these things. I'm trying to do them as quick as I can. We're
making changes. And the property was in a little bit run down
condition when I look it over back in 1994, 1 think it was, when the
purchase went through. I'm doing the best I can do, but I do think
that under the circumstances, its somewhat inequitable for the same
fellow who's causing me some of the repair work to come in here and
complain that it's not getting done right.
Mr. McCann:
I don't see anything from the Commissioners. Rather than this be
aired, I'd hope that maybe you two had gotten together before this, in
an effort to resolve the problem. Is this something that you
gentlemen would like to try and workout if we adjourn this to see if
you can come to a resolution that you can both agree to?
Mr. Garis:
I'll do anything rational.
Mr. McCann:
I understand that and I hope everybody would, but it's still a
difference of opinions. What we have is a waiver of use to exdude
the requirement that you put a wall there. The original requirement
for abutting residential property was that you put in a wall.
Mr. Garis:
I didn't realize thatwhen I purchased this.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, I understand that. You're asking us to waive that requirement
but I thinkthat one of the things the wall is there for is to divide the
office zoning and the residential property.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, when you repaired that fence, did you have a fence company do
for you or did you do it yourself?
18979
Mr. Garis: I didn't do it myself. I had someone come in and do it.
Mr. Alanskas: Was it a fence company?
Mr. Garis: I believe that's what they do. I dont recall who the individuals were
at this point.
Mr. Alanskas:
They were individuals?
Mr. Garis:
I don't think they have a corporation or something like that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay, now you said you spent $6,000 to put sod in?
Mr. Garis:
Yes, this was back in the mid -nineties, about 1995-96.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many yards did you put down?
Mr. Garis:
Well, itwasn'tjust sod. We put shrubs in the front of the building and
some other things like that. Unfortunately a couple of the shrubs
died. One was vandalized and things like that. So what we did, we
moved them and started to put rocks there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would you be willing to restain the entire fence and put in all new
landscaping where needed in the springtime?
Mr. Garis:
Yeah, we were planning on doing that kind of work anyways. So yes,
that would be fine.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Ifthe fence were restained and new plantings were put in, would you
be agreeable to that type of a solution?
Mr. Kubera:
Well, the repairs that Mr. Gans refers to, and granted I am not a
carpenter, although I do help my brother who is a licensed builder on
the side. The original posts were not re -footed. What happened, and
you folks can go and inspect it, in between the original posts they
placed new posts which are inconsistent in height and are made out
ofwolmanized 4'x4'wood. Yes, they were not footed properly. They
were put in by, I think, if we investigated, I'm sure by someone who is
not a licensed fence construction carpentry type person. Mr. Garis
likes to throw out a lot of fantasies here. Most of the bushes that he
originally put in, most all of them, have died. No rock or no red bark,
which originally was put in with that landscaping, has been put in
there. More recently, within the last few days, he has raked out the
Iif:4iir1
area pretty much completely including a rather large branch or two
and raked it onto the curbside. I assume he's thinking that the leaf
pickup will take care of that. I'm sure if the Citywere to send an
inspector out, it would find that most of his claims are either
erroneous or outright incorrect and that the condition of the fence is
really substandard. Now I am reasonable, and when we first
discussed this at an ordinance meeting some three years ago, I
came out in support of his signage because he is a businessman; he
has to have people recognize his business. I had no problem with
that. Subsequently, he put in his sign. He refurbished the pavement
on this parking lot and just this past week he even had, I believe,
vinyl or aluminum siding put on the building. He is maintaining his
building quite well and his business property quite well other than the
greenery. This is where I have a problem. The greenery and the
landscaping seem to take afar back seat to everything else. I would
think that he would find it more advantageous to put up a structure
that he does not have to put so much maintenance into. Let's face it,
greenery takes maintenance. It's subject to disease and/or damage
from weather and/or insects. Like I say, I'm a reasonable man. If he
can come up with a reasonable plan to keep and maintain a proper
barrier between my residence and his business, I would not have a
problem with it. No plan has been submitted to me. The nofice that I
received, I received on Friday of last week.
Mr. McCann: Well, one ofthe things is that Mr. Gans is required to bring it upto the
original site plan that was approved and that any shrubbery that dies,
you are obligated to replace.
Mr. Garis:
We're doing the best we can. We're trying to keep up with that, but
this property was not very well maintained before I bought it.
Mr. McCann:
Okay, but it's still the responsibility of the business owner to maintain
it. My problem is that if it were May, I'd say, we're going to adjourn
this meefing one month and I expect to see this miraculous change
as far as these conditions. But we are now almost approaching
December. We're not going to be able to see any change unfit next
May. I'll look to the guidance of the other commissioners on how
best to deal with this.
Mr. LaPine:
We haven't got our report from the Inspection Department. Did they
go out there?
Mr. Taormina:
No, we did not gel a report.
Mr. LaPine:
Why don't we get a report from the Inspection Department so they
can tell us what the condition of the fence is and what their
recommendation would be. In the meantime, the two parties can get
together and maybe talk this over reasonably and then we'll hear it in
a month from now or whatever.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, I think there's certain things that could be done between now
and then.
Mr. Garis:
I'll do whatever I can do.
Mr. Alanskas:
If this is tabled, I would like to have the petitioner come back before
us with a landscape site plan showing exactly what you're going to
do, exactly what you're going to do with the fence. Make sure that all
fence posts are put in the ground 42 inches with cement.
Mr. Garis:
That was one of the things...
Mr. Alanskas:
It sounds like that has not been done.
Mr. Garis:
We did. The new posts that were installed, we did make sure that
they were down in the ground right and cemented property.
Mr. Alanskas:
Were they cemented in?
Mr. Garis:
Yes, and we put in some extra posts. We did put some extra
material in between to kind of give ilsome more support because it
seemed to get knocked or whatever. We were trying to shore it up
and make sure it would stay in one spot. But you know itwasn'tmy
intention to make it look bad or anything like that. Obviously, we
have a good looking piece of properly.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's my recommendation for tabling it for a site and landscape
plan.
Mr. Gaits:
Can I ask a question? When you say asite plan for landscaping,
what does that actually mean?
Mr. Alanskas:
That means showing exactly what kind of shrubs you're going to buy,
the brand, where you're going to put them to spruce up your properly.
Mr. McCann:
You can go talk to the Planning Department.
Mr. Alanskas:
The type of trees you are going to put in.
Mr. Garis:
Landscape architecture?
Mr. McCann:
Not necessarily. Well, probably.
I
Mr. Garis: I don't have to have a licensed architect, do I?
Mr. Alanskas: No, as long as it's decent and comes back before us so we can
approve it.
Mr. McCann:
Why dont you talk to the staff during the week? They will gel you
squared as to what you need and give you examples of what it is. All
right? In the meantime, we've got a motion. Is there support? I'm
not going to schedule it.
Mr. LaPine:
I'd still like the Inspection Departmentto go out and take a look at it.
Mr. McCann:
Absolutely. Ibelieve that it's necessary that the Inspection
Department review it. You're going to have to come back with some
type of landscape plan and any modifications to the fence, and
hopefully by the time we get back here, we'll all be on the same
page.
Mr. Alanskas:
That would be much less than an entire brick wall.
Mr. Garis:
I'm not trying to be difficult. Obviously you guys have all the trump
cards anyway, but I do want to say that I'm trying.
Mr. Piercecchr
And deal with your neighbor.
Mr. Garis:
I thought we were on good terms.
Mr. Miller:
Make the neighbor aware thatthe wall might only be five feet in
height.
Mr. McCann:
The requirement is only for a five foot wall so you'd have a much
better view
of the wall of his building than you will with the existing
fence.
Mr. Kubera:
It's a very nice looking building. His greenery is another subject.
Mr. McCann:
With the landscape plan, we are going to need a table of events as to
when each thing will be done based on weather conditions. Thank
you.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-181-2001
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -10 -09 -GB -07
submitted by George Garis, requesting approval to substitute a
I
greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the
Zoning Ordinance for property located at 9555-9559 Middlebell Road
in the Northeast%of Section 35, be tabled.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This conduces the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our
agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our
agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior
meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight.
Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the
Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM#5 PETITION 2001-08-01-09 William Roskelly (Rosedale)
Mr. Piemecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
08-01-09 by William Roskelly requesting to rezone property known as
Rosedale Gardens Lots 1137 to 1146 and Lots 1167 to 1176 located
on the west side of Cranston Avenue between Orangelawn Avenue
and West Chicago Road in the Northeast%of Section 34 from PL
(Public Land) to R -1A (Single Family Residential, 60'x 120'
minimum).
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#11-182-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition 2001-
08-01-09, submitted by William Roskelly, requesting to rezone
property known as Rosedale Gardens Lots 1137 to 1146 and Lots
1167 to 1176 located on the west side of Cranston Avenue between
Orangelawn Avenue and West Chicago Road in the Northeast%of
Section 34 from PL to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-08-01-09 be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Roskelly, are there any
changes to your petition since the last meeting?
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcratt, Livonia, Michigan. My petition as I submitted it
was to return the zoning from Park Lands to R-1 which the entire
surrounding area in the entire square mile consists of R-1 zoning with
the exception of commercials on the mile roads. I think there is in
excess of 2,000 lots in this area that are either 40' or 50' wide and I
have purchased twenty 40' lots and wish to increase them to make
them a minimum size of 60'.
Mr. McCann:
The question to you, since we've already gone through a public
hearing on this and explored it fairly thoroughly, is there any change
in your petition before us? You have not modified it?
Mr. Roskelly:
No, Mr. Chairman. I'm soliciting for R-1. Anything else would be
spolzoning. Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, is there any new information that you need to make us
aware of?
Mr. Taormina:
We did receive one item of correspondence from the Law
Department. Rather than read that entire letter, I have submitted
copies to each of the Planning Commissioners.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, each of the Planning Commissioners did receive a copy of the
Legal Opinion from the City Attorney regarding the current zoning.
Audience member: Can we hearwhatthal is?
Mr. McCann:
It's a four page opinion from the City Attorney. It will be available at
the City Clerk's Office tomorrow for anybody who wishes to see it.
You'll have to contact, I believe, the City Clerk or the City Attorneys
Office in order to get a copy.
Audiencemember: Can'tyoulellus...
Mr. McCann:
I'm not going to open it up to the audience unless we have
unanimous consent from the Planning Commission. Is there
unanimous consent?
Mr. Alanskas:
No.
Mr. McCann:
There is not unanimous consent. Therefore, we cannot open it up to
the audience. However, again, for the gentlemen in the back who is
unidentified .... I'm sorry, the opinion was just provided to us late
this evening and it will be available. Contact the City tomorrow
regarding it. A motion is in order. Are there any questions from the
Commissioners to the staff?
I
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, it was
#11-183-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on October 2, 2001, on Petition 2001-
08-01-09, submitted by William Roskelly, requesting to rezone
property known as Lots 1137 to 1146 and Lots 1167 to 1176, and the
East Ybf vacated Hubbard Road adjacent to Lots 1167 and 1168
and the South 29.66 feet of Lot 1169, Rosedale Gardens No. 4
Subdivision, located on the west side of Cranston Avenue between
Orangelawn Avenue and West Chicago Road in the Northeast%of
Section 34 from PL to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-08-01-09, as
amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to R-2, for the
following reasons:
1. Thatthe proposed rezoning to R-2 would allow for development of
homes thatwould be more in keeping with standards of new
construction throughout the area;
2. Thatthe proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
hannonywith the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for development
ofthe subject property for single family residential purposes in a
compatible manner with other developed properties in the area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
established character of the area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning reflects the fact that the
subject properly has been sold by the Livonia Public Schools and
is no longer in public ownership;
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.Shane:
Apoint of order.
Mr.
McCann:
Yes, Mr. Shane.
Mr.
Shane:
We need to designate R-2 or R3? We need to make a
recommendation.
Mr.
Alanskas:
We can't do both.
Mr.
McCann:
Which do you prefer?
Mr. Piercecchr Well, R-2 would be easier to comply with, so make it R-2
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchr I have some comments, Mr. Chairman. I'm quite sure each of us
would preferlo have the open public land remain on the former site
previously owned by the Livonia school system. However, ownership
has changed and the site pnvatized. Therefore, it now rests with the
current owner whether any portion of this land will ever revert back to
public land via a gift or sale in the future. Our assignment this
evening is preparing an approving or denying resolution expressing
ourjudgment on the rezoning petition before us which will be sent to
the City Council. One can easily rationalize that since this site is
surrounded by residential property, rezoning the land as plotted and
recorded in 1926 back to residential status makes sense.
Commercial, office, manufacturing, industrial, etc., would definitely be
out of character with the area. The question is then reduced to which
among the residential classifications best serves the neighbors and
the City. Among these, single family dwellings gets the highest
marks. The question then becomes whether it's R-1, R-2 or R-3 with
lot frontages of 60', 70' or 80', respectively. Mr. Chairman, I'm of the
opinion that this property will ultimately be rezoned residential if not
by the City, then by the courts. I can see no grounds for denying this
petition in total. Perhaps we can modify it from R-1 to something
else, but I think that's our limitation. In closing, I'm very confident
that, as in the past, and we've done this many times during the Site
Plan approval process, agreeable solutions and concerns such as
compatibility, aesthetics and size can be resolved.
Mr. La Pine: This whole process of this land is really troubling tome. Thefrsl
thing that bothers me is the way the land was sold. In normal
conditions, at least with the way the City does business, I dont know
how the School Board does business, this land would have been put
out for bids. I don't know if the School Board got a good deal on
this property or not. Who knows? Nobody bid on the land except
one individual. Secondly, we hear a lot of rezonings asking for
property to be rezoned. But most cases, when people come in for a
rezoning, they lake it on a contingency basis. If I getthe rezoning,
I buy the property. Mr. Roskelly has been around the City a long
time. He knows how this situation works. He bought the property
with his eyes open. I guess he figured he was going to get his
rezoning so he had nothing to worry about. But in most cases,
people don't buy property if there's a possibility lheyre not going to
get the rezoning at the classification they want. Now saying all that,
and I have a job to do up here and sometimes you got to make
decisions based on what you really believe is in the best interests for
tr•�rr�
the area and the City, when you look at the area surrounding the
school and it's mostly all residential, it just seems tome that the only
right way to go is for a residential rezoning. Let's say for example
that we had denied it, the Council denied it and it went to court. Then
it's out of our hands, out of your hands, out of everybody's hands.
The court is going to make the decision how the land is going to be
developed. Maybe at some point, they would say, no we don't have
to rezone it, Mr. Roskelly tries to sell it back to the School Board, the
School Board takes it back. The School Board can go in there and
build anything they want on that property. They don't have to gel any
rezonings. They dont have to gel any building inspections or
anything else. Its out of the Citys hands. So I think that the best
solution to this property at this time is a rezoning to residential. I'd
prefer to have an R-3 but I'll go along with the R-2 because I think in
the long run that's what has to go in there. I think it's best for the
community and therefore I'm going to support the motion.
Mr. Alanskas:
I agree with Mr. LaPine except for the fact that you said the City
didn't put out a bid. The City has nothing to do with it.
Mr. LaPine:
I didn't say the City. I said the City normally puts it out for bids.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, the Board of Educafion sold the property.
Mr. LaPine:
The Board of Educafion put it out without any bids. I don't know if we
got a good deal. Who knows?
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
I do have some comments. To be honest with you, I spent a lot of
time taking notes. I'll try to summarize instead of reading everything
to the audience. I know it's a very difficult issue for the residents over
there. It was a very troubling meeting for the residents and a very
troubling meeting for myself. I'll tell you right now, I've had the
privilege of silting on this Board for 14 years. In those 14 years, I've
never reviewed a tape of this meeting. I've never watched myself on
the Planning Commission. Because people were so upset that night,
the first thing I did was call City Channel 8 and request that they
prepare a copy of the tape for myself so that I could review it. I just
wanted to see how I came across. I think one of my biggest
problems with that evening was ... I'm trying to phrase this in the
most honest way and fair way I can... was that Mr. McGee, who is a
leader of this organization; he is a former Council member and an
attorney; and he is well aware of the Constitufion. He's well aware of
the City Charter and he's well aware of the City ordinances. He did
not prepare the audience to what the real fads are. In this situation,
I
the land was privately held and given to the School Board. As Mr.
Roskelly said, it was land that if the School Board didn't need it, it
reverted back to the R-1 use. Well that, as Mr. Roskelly admitted,
had no binding effect. The School Board, according to Mr. Watson,
used the property up until about two years ago. They demolished the
building. They had been renting it to Wayne County. Sincethaltime,
they were maintaining the property until they decided what to do with
it. The School Board sold the property to private individuals, Mr. and
Mrs. Roskelly, who decided that once it became their property,
wanted to use it for private use, for residential use. The land had PL
zoning. Public Land can be any type of public body. It can be the
federal government, the United Stales; it can be Wayne County; it
can be the Slate of Michigan; it can be Livonia Public Schools or the
City of Livonia. In this case, it was owned by Livonia Public Schools.
The City of Livonia had no authority over it. This Planning
Commission and City Council has absolutely no say over the Livonia
Public Schools. That is a separate body like the Slate of Michigan
and like the United Slates government. The City of Livonia cannot
tell the United Stales what to do with the property it holds. The
Livonia Public Schools are, I believe, the second largest property
holder in the City of Livonia. Approximately 20% of the children that
go to Livonia Public Schools are Westland children and Westland
taxpayers pay that portion of the Livonia Public Schools, which
means that the Westland residents are also paying taxes for the
buildings and are partial owners of that property. Now being the
largest property holder or second largest property holder, whichever
they are, they have certain properties on the rolls that they never
intend to use again. And it costs them to maintain it so they decided
to sell it. That again is a Livonia Public Schools decision. Nothing to
do with the City and we have no authority over it. So what we now
had was a situation where we have privately held property by a
private citizen within the City of Livonia. It was zoned PL. Now one
of the questions earlier was about the legal opinion that we received
from Mr. Kavanagh, the City Attorney. It stales some of the things
that I attempted to talk about the evening of October 2 including what
a PL zoning district is and what are appropriate uses. Il can be used
for a multiple of things. And it does list the permitted uses in a PL
zoned land. There are no private uses under PL zoning permitted in
this section. So the only uses in PL zoning are public land use
zonings. It doesn't mean a private individual cant own public land
but it's for the purpose of leasing it to the city or to the county or to
the state government for municipal or civic purposes. Rather than
read them over again like I did last time, unless the worst case
scenario is to keep the Public Land and petition the court to build a
halfway house or a detention home for youth offenders. Those are
the type of uses he can lease the building to. But if he doesn't intend
I
to use it for that, if he wishes to use his privately zoned property, then
the Planning Commission has to look at what private individual use
can do it. Mr. Kavanagh's letter concludes that "This does not mean
that a private owner of PL zoned land should automatically be
granted his or her particular requested zoning classification; instead,
the zoning classification should be changed to a reasonable non-
public classifcationthat can be used by private person or
corporation, after the appropriate public hearings are held" This
condusion goes to on to cite that it would be a taking by the City of
Livonia to force him to maintain a PL zoning. Its far too restrictive in
the permitted uses in private ownership. Ilwould forcehim to have
some type of public building on it. I particularly look a statement that
evening, partly because of my legal background and training... I
think we're all familiar with the Constitution. We read it in high
school, and one of the quotes was, and I look at it because I keep a
copy of the Constitution in my desk, that "no state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without due process of law or deny to any
person within its jurisdiction under equal protection under the laws"
We have this private ownership and there is case law that goes
throughout our history saying that people have the right to use the
private ownership in a reasonable method. What happened in this
situation had nothing to do with the City of Livonia and how it got to
become private land. It was a fact that was brought before us. What
we were there to try and do is to determine what private ownership
would best meet the needs of the City and the residents around us.
Unfortunately, I don't think the message was made dear to the
audience before that evening that those were the boundaries within
which we had to work. I sincerely apologize if I offended anybody,
but as Planning Commissioners, we're swom to uphold the stale
laws, the Constitution of the State of Michigan, the Constitution of the
United Stales, and the Charter and ordinances of the City.
Therefore, we have to follow what our understanding of the law is
and what the City Attorney has dedared is the opinion of the City of
Livonia. I would ask now that the ...
Audience Member: Can we make a statement?
Mr. McCann: I'm sorry. As it was closed, we cannot open it up to the public. Mr.
Shane has the floor.
Mr. Shane: I just wanted to state that since it's clear that rezoning this property to
a private use is the thing to do, the question became, what size lots
or what kind of zoning should be picked. I believe that Mr. Pieroecchi
picked R-2 because, while the R-1 zoning is compatible with the
I
zoning of the surrounding area, the R-2 lot size is more compatible
with the existing lot sizes which are immediately adjacent. And I
concurred with that, so that's why the R-2 came about. Thank you.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS:
Dolan
ABSENT:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Ilwill go onto City Council with an approving resolution
recommending R-2 zoning. All persons in the audience will have the
opportunity to speak before the City Council and they will have the
final opportunity to vote on this.
Audience member: I can't believe we listened to all that and ...
Mr. McCann: Sir, we told you at the end of the last meeting that this was a voting
meeting. Secretary, please call the next item.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2001-09-0140 AIIie Investment Co.
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
09-01-10 by AIIie Investment Company requesting to rezone property
located on the east side of Fremont Avenue between Norfolk Avenue
and Bretton Road in the Northeast%of Section 2 from RUF-A to R-1.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved,
8 was
#11-184-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanrig having been held by
the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on Petition
2001-09-01-10, submitted by AIIie Investment Company, requesting
to rezone properly located on the east side of Fremont Avenue
between Norfolk Avenue and Bretton Road in the Northeast%of
Section 2 from RUF-A to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-09-01-10 be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
John AIIie, 45955 Pickford, Northville Township, Michigan 48167. Was this removed
from the table?
18991
Mr. McCann:
Yes, it was. We're glad to hear from you.
Mr. Allie:
Thank you. Since I appeared before the Planning Commission the
last time, we appeared before the Water and Sewer Board and they
approved, although it does have to go to Council, putting the sewer in
providing this body and the ... I'm Ioolang to rezone the property
basically, but there was no sense in rezoning it if I couldn't get the
sewer in, and that's why I'm bringing that up.
Mr. McCann:
So what was the outcome of the Water & Sewer Board meeting?
Mr. AIIie:
They approved it.
Mr. McCann:
They approved it?
Mr. AIIie:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Okay, so you would like the property rezoned. I think that's what we
were wailing to find out, whether or not there would be sewer.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. AIIie, you're talking about the Water and Sewer Board approval or
City Council?
Mr. AIIie:
The Water and Sewer Board approved it. I'm to appear before the
City Council next Monday.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay, solhe City Council still has the final judgment on this because
it's going to cost quite a bit of money to put it in, and then there's a
tap -in that the owners will have to accept.
Mr. AIIie:
P�actly.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. Butthat's nextweek.
Mr. AIIie:
Right.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Dolan, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, 8
was
#11-185-2001
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on Petition
2001-09-01-10, submitted by AIIie Investment Company, requesting
18992
to rezone property located on the east side of Fremont Avenue
between Norfolk Avenue and Bretton Road in the Northeast%of
Section 2 from RUF-A to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-09-01-10, as
amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to R-2, for the
following reasons:
1. Thatthe proposed rezoning to R-2 would allow fordevelopment
of a home on a lolthal would be more in keeping with standards
of new construction throughout the area;
2. Thalthe proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
hannonywith the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the
area;
3. Thalthe proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes
which are consistentwith other existing lolsizes in the general
area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
established character of the area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
development that will be consistent and in accordance with the
Future Land Use Plan recommendation of law density
residential land use for this area;
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2001-09-0247 Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Mr. Piercecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
09-02-17 by Enterprise Rent-A-Car requesting waiver use approval to
operate a rental car business at the intersection of Ann Arbor Road
and Ann Arbor Trail between Newburgh and Richland Avenue in the
Northeast%of Section 31.
18993
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. La Pine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-186-2001
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on Petition
2001-09-02-17 submitted by Enterprise Rent-A-Car requesting
waiver use approval to operate a rental car business at the
intersection of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail between
Newburgh and Richland Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 31,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition
2001-09-02-17 be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Jim Olexa, 29301 Grand River, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I workfor Enterprise
Rent-A-Car. We've made substantial changes since the last meeting
a month ago, and you have all of those changes in front of you. I'm
here to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, on your Site Plan, parking spaces number one to number seven,
for your customer parking, you dont designate a size for the parking
spaces. What are they?
Mr. Olexa:
Whatever would be required by the City. I don't know offhand.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, 10' x20', but you've got one more that says handicap. You
have only a 20'x 8', only eight feet wide. And my question is why
would you have a handicap space where they have to gel outwith a
walker or wheelchair or cane they don't have a 8' ...
Mr. Olexa:
That should be a van accessible space that's on there. There should
be ample space.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. The door to get into the offices on the north part of the
building. The small one.
Mr. Olexa:
Yes, if you're facing the building it would be on the far right side. The
existing doorway I believe as it is now, right of the center of the
building.
Mr. Alanskas:
So how far would a handicap person have to walk to get into the
office space?
Mr. Olexa:
Maybe 15'.
18994
Mr. McCann: Any other questions? I have a couple. This area outside this, is that
going to be grass? Do you see where I'm talking about?
Mr. Olexa:
Yes, that's going to be grass filler.
Mr. McCann:
Your original plans had nine spaces total. Is that correct?
Mr. Olexa:
The original plans had 13 total. We removed four that were in the
setback area of the original plan.
Mr. McCann:
I'm looking atwhat we're adding right now is a greenbelt area here,
here and here. The major amount of traffic is along here and I think it
would improve it if we could bring this space in here and add it.
You've got I believe I counted nine spaces along the back. You still
should have plenty of parking. My concern was just driving back and
forth. I think the biggest improvement that I could see making would
be right in there, in spot number one. Other than that, I think you've
got a good thing going. You'd be willing to agree to that?
Mr. Olexa:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you talking about space number one?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-187-2001
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on Petition
2001-09-02-17 submitted by Enterprise Rent-A-Car requesting
waiver use approval to operate a rental car business at the
intersection of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail between
Newburgh and Richland Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 31,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2001-09-02-17 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the maximum number of rental vehicles to be parked on
the site at any one time shall be limited to nine (9) and all rental
I
vehicles shall be stored in the parking area directly behind, or
west of, the subject building;
2. That rental vehicles available at this facility shall not induce
cargo vans, 15 passenger vans, box trucks or other vehicles of
similar or larger size;
3. That the parking spaces in front of the subject building shall be
used for customer parking only and not large vehides;
4. That the Site Plan/Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by
Gazall, Lewis & Associates Architects, Inc., with a revision date
of November 12, 2001, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet 2
prepared by Gazall, Lewis & Associates Architects, Inc., with a
revision date of November 12, 2001, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
6. That all bride used on the subject building shall be full -face four
(4") inch brick, no exception;
7. That all planted materials shown on the above -referenced Site
Plan/Landscape Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained
in a healthy condition;
8. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas;
9. That the issues outlined in the correspondence dated October
10, 2001 from the Inspection Department pertaining to
maintenance of landscaping, resealing and double striping of
parking areas and the need for additional parking blocks shall
be rectified to that department's satisfaction;
10. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient setback
of parking spaces from street rights-of-way and for deficient site
area;
11. That wall signage shall consist of one sign on the front elevation
not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in area;
Iir
12. That this approval shall incorporate the following comments
listed in the correspondence dated September 28, 2001 from
the Traffic Bureau:
- That one (1) properly signed handicapped parking space
shall be provided;
- That stop signs shall be posted at the exits;
13. 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
14. That space number one is to be eliminated and replaced with
landscaping similar in nature to the adjacent island;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
3. That the proposed use will provide a service not currently found
in this area of the City; and
4. That the proposal will provide a use for a property with severe
site limitations due to its odd shape and small size;
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. McCann: Space number one will be ...
Mr. Alanskas: Space number one will be rectified to the Planning Department's
satisfaction.
Mr. Taormina: Space number one is to be eliminated and replaced with landscaping
similar in nature to the adjacent island.
Mr.McCann: That'sfne. Is there any discussion?
18997
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution. I
just want to make one comment. When that came before me,I
thought, there is no way we're going to be able to work this one out,
but thank you for your diligence. You came up with a great
compromise which will work.
ITEM #8 Motion to hold a Public Hearing City Planning Commission
(Master Plan)
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold
a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolution #634-01 and Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, as amended, to amend Part I of the
Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to
incorporate changes in transportation system road definitions as
recommended by the Department of Public Works and City Engineer.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#11-188-2001 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Coundl
Resolution #634-01, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does
hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine
whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of
Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to incorporate changes in
transportation system road definitions as recommended by the
Department of Public Works and City Engineer.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that
thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to
the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ff:A1 it
ITEM#9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 833rd Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes of the 833rd Regular Meeting held on October 16, 2001.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved, it
was
#11-189-2001 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the 833`° Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on October 16, 2001, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Shane, Alanskas, LaPine, Dolan, Piercecchi and McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the mo8on is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 835th Regular
Meeting held on November 20, 2001, was adjourned at 9:13 p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary