HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2001-12-11if:AFFI
MINUTES OF THE 836" PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 11, 2001, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 836" Pudic Hearings and 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
William LaPine Linda Dolan
Members absent: Robert Alanskas
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Margie
Roney, Secretary, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in 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 anc/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 of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 200140-0141 RENO SOAVE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-01-11 submitted by Reno Soave requesting to rezone property
located on the northeast corner of Wayne Road and Pinetree Avenue
in the Northwest 114 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1.
19000
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated November 6, 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 or the legal description contained therein. lt should be
noted that the developer may be required to extend the existing
sanitary sewerto service the new lots. Also, the site may require
storm sewer detention per the Wayne County Storm Water
Ordinance." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer.
We have a letter from a resident in the area. 9 would like to express
my support for the proposed rezoning of the Wayne Road/Pinetree
Roadintersection. In Octoberof this year, l purchased anew
construction home on Laurel Road and was pleased with the
opportunity to move into the City of Livonia as well as this
neighborhood. When deciding whether to purchase a home in the
neighborhood, l noticed the mixture of newer and older homes on a
variety oflot sizes. Obviously, this mixture was more than
acceptable since 1 decided to purchase. Although 1 appreciate the
character of the neighborhood, 1 support the new construction and
proposed rezoning as it goes to improving the neighborhood as well
as my investment. In closing, l support the proposed rezoning in the
Wayne Road/Pinetree intersection and look forward to further
development not only in this area but the rest of the City of Livonia."
The letter is signed by James Maloof, 10218 Laurel Road. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Reno Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia, Michigan 48152.
Mr. McCann: Do you wanito tell us a little bit aboutwhatyou're planning on doing?
Mr. Soave: Basically, just an overview. As you can see, we're looking to
construct two single family homes under a site condo zoning. Right
now, its zoned RUF. We're seeking R-1 due to the fad that basically
most of this area is pretty much all nonconforming RUF to begin
with. None of the homes or lots really meet RUF requirements. Like
I said, we're seeking R-1. The new development of the Stark Road
Subdivision is zoned R-1. And right across the street from the
subject development, there are a couple homes I believe zoned R-1.
19001
And kind of like kittycorner to Wayne and Pinetree, there's also a few
homes zoned R-1.
Mr. McCann:
Can you tell us what type of homes you're going to put in there?
Mr. Soave:
It will be similar to the Stark Road development. Mostly brick with a
minimum ofthree bedrooms, two baths, attached garage, full
basement, probably between 1,700 and 2,200 square feel.
Mr. Piercecchr
Are you aware that, typically, approved site condo projects are
required to have brick on all four sides with the total amount of brick
being no less than 80% on one-story structures and between 55%
and 65% on two-story dwellings? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Soave:
I was roughly aware, yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchr
Do you have any problems with that?
Mr. Soave:
No, I don't. But one concern that I wanted to mention to the Planning
Commission is that the one we already started on Wayne Road has
already been sold. That was approved back in October by the
Zoning Board. Most of the house is going to be vinyl, except it will be
brick faced. The second one, I have no problem with brick.
Mr. Piercecchr
You could very easily meet the 80% brick on all four sides on a one-
story structure?
Mr. Soave:
That would be no problem at all.
Mr. Piercecchr
No problem with that at all? That's wonderful. Are you
contemplating any additional building or picking up any more lots?
Mr. Soave:
In this area?
Mr. Piercecchr
Yes, in that area. Or is this just a one-shot deal —this little comer?
Mr. Soave:
I dont have anything in mind, to tell you the truth. I'm just focusing
on this development.
Mr. Piercecchr
You weren't planning on requesting any lot splits or breaking up
some of the RUF and running a road here or there?
Mr. Soave:
No, sir. I don't see any room to do it, really.
Mr. Piercecchr
But you have no objection in meeting our brick requirement?
19002
Mr. Soave:
No, sir. Not at all.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm curious about how this Unit 2 lot became the way lt is. I assume
you have Lot 33al, which was originally 286' feet. So you must have
plotted that at 1 80' x 66'. Then you took the back portion, which is
106.50', and joined it with the lot, the back portion of 34bl. Is that
the way the lot came to be?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir. I splitthat back 90' feet off of each lot.
Mr. LaPine:
So the back portion of Unit was bought off the owner of 34151? Is
that the way it happened?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
One little portion you bought from Lot 33al, which is a general
common area. Why did you have to buy that? Why didn't we just
square that ofr? What's the problem there?
Mr. Soave:
You mean the lot that's already being built on? You mean back like
16'?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Soave:
To tell you the truth, a lot of people in the neighborhood have been
aslangmethat. I wentto talkto some ofthe neighbors. guessit's
just the way it was platted back then. I didn't purchase that. It was
part of 33bl.
Mr. LaPine:
It was part of the 33bl?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Why does it say "general common element?" What does that mean?
Mr. Soave:
Iguess just a common element for the site condo development. He
wanted us to landscape it, I guess.
Mr. La Pine:
Just one other question. When you built lot 33bl, you got an
approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Soave:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
And they gave you no instructions on how to build the house as far
as building materials, and things of that nature?
19003
Mr. Soave: As far as brick and sluff, they dont have any concern about that to
my knowledge, no. I just showed them a plan and they went by that.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Karen Bidwell,
9958 Wayne Road. I'm right across the street from this proposed
site. I do have four letters from my neighbors that are in disapproval.
Can I give them to someone?
Mr. McCann:
Give them to the secretary there.
Mrs. Bidwell:
Okay. I was against the initial split of the property on the northeast
comer of Wayne Road and Pinetree. However, the neighborhood
was assured by the builder that a single family dwelling was going to
be built there on the half acre, and it was going to remain RUF.
Sunday I saw Mr. Soave's site plans for that corner and that he plans
to build Pinetree Estate Condos, which would mean further splitting
of property on that comer and rezoning to R-1. We have received
nothing in the mail to dispute the property being rezoned R-1 in the
back that evidently he daims he bought. But we were not informed
or notified of any split on that piece of their land, which I don't
understand how he can do it if it belongs to these people. Today I
went to the Zoning Board and I saw the original petition site for the
first split on November 13, 2001. And it showed a single family home
built on the site. Now my understanding from the Zoning Board is
that Mr. Soave is trying to go through the bad<door to have this
property zoned by this board to eliminate him from going back to the
Zoning Board for a zoning approval. If you approve this, Mr. Soave
can confine to build his condos, and this will set a precedentfor the
City to continue to eliminate property zoned RUF. When will enough
building be enough? I moved here 17 years ago because of the
zoning and few neighbors. Please turn this petition down for
rezoning to R-1 to build condos in an RUF neighborhood. Thank
you.
Mrs. Dolan:
I have a question for you. You were explaining condos.
Mrs. Bidwell:
That is what he has on this thing that I saw Sunday. It says site
plans for Pinetree Estates Condos.
Mrs. Dolan:
You're talking about in the area that we're speaking of right now
where there is just going to be two homes?
19004
Mrs. Bidwell:
Well, he has it condos. How far is he going to take this? Is he going
to start buying up other people's property, and all we're going to have
is condos in that area. This is RUF. It has always been RUF.
Mrs. Dolan:
Okay. I think that maybe possibly I could straighten something out
for you that may be a misconception. I think when you hear the word
..condo" a lot of people think of mulfi, one or two detached units.
Mrs. Bidwell:
I realize it would be detached condos.
Mrs. Dolan:
Yes, but I think we're just talking, and correct me if I'm wrong, that
there's just going to be one condo. Its called a site condo which is
really a home. It's an easierway for a builder to build faster on this
particular lot.
Mrs. Bidwell:
Okay, but we still want to maintain the RUF and no R -1's. Along
Wayne Road, the depth of all the properly is 270' and greater.
Mrs. Dolan:
You're saying you dont want it to go...
Mrs. Bidwell:
I do not want it to go ... that house there. If we wants the house
he's already started to build, fine. Its on just short of a half acre.
Most of the houses in the area are on a half acre or greater, and we
want it to remain a half acre or greater. The houses that are there
that have R-1, they were built in 1940 and before. Those are
grandfathered in. People move into these areas and these older
homes because of the large lots. They don't want a subdivision and
house upon house. We were opposed to what you did where Stark
School was. The builders got their way. Instead of us getting a park,
we got a lot of houses. There's no park in that area, and now what
they want to do is start taking RUF and people's large back yards
and splitting them up and slicking as many homes as they can on
property. And I think its wrong and there should be a moratorium on
RUF in this City. Thank you.
William Partykula, 9916 Wayne Road. We live two lots south of the proposed site.
Mr. McCann:
You live on the south side of Pinetree then?
Mr. Partykula:
Yes, right nezt to the Bidwells, the lady that previously spoke. My
wife and I are also opposed to the considerable over -development of
the area and a change from what's consistent on Wayne Road. As
with the other neighbor, we bought lots that size to maintain lots that
size. We feel that changing the status of these lots on Wayne Road
would take away from the character. We've got a lot of volume traffic
on Wayne Road and our backyards mean a lotto us. It's a sanctuary
19005
from all that road traffic. We don't mind the increased business for
Livonia. It maybe hard to conceptualize this as a neighborhood, but
itis. Our neighbors are few and far between. We can't yell across
the street. We have to call each other. We do considerthis a
neighborhood. We hope that this proposal would be defeated and
that you would try to realize that we have a neighborhood, too, on
Wayne Road, and we would just like for that to be maintained. Thank
you.
William D. Cohan, 34760 Pinetree. I'm a lifelong resident of Livonia. I graduated in
1977from Livonia Churchill, and I've lived in the area my enfire life.
Also, the properties that are on Pinetree right now, the ones that are
zoned R-1, the brick home, their last name is Whitaker. Right now
theyre probably at home watching. They owned that comer lot that
was on the comer of Laurel and Pinetree. The first R-1. That was
their original home. They built their dream home as a couple and
they had to give up to get R-1, but they still live there. I believe Mrs.
Whitaker was a Livonia Public School retiree. So they still live there,
but to get their dream home, they had to gel R-1 zoning. Theyve
lived there probably forever that I know of. I've lived at this address
for 12 years, and my entire family lives in Livonia. I'm against it. I'm
kind of appalled in a way. One, I didn't have a problem when he
wanted to build the one home on Wayne Road because the lots con
east and west and its concurrent with everything else that runs down
Wayne Road, runs down Laurel on both sides of the road. Now, my
house and my neighbor's house, Mr. Johnstone, he also was against
this. He'll be up to speak to that end. We were grandfathered. My
house was built before World War 11 started. So it was grandfathered
in the clause. I'm against it. First of all, try to get out onto Pinetree at
5:00 in the aflemoon with the trefficflow. would like to see you try
and do it at 800 in the moming. Traffic whips through there. Its
zoned RUF. We don't have sidewalks. I brought my four year old
with me today. I'm kind of worried about his safety out there loo.
Too much traffic, and personally, again like I said, I'm appalled that
they're coming out with this site plan to build a home on Pinetree
when Lot 34 should con east and west. It shouldn't have a cut into it
and be Lot 34a or whatever. What's going to slop them from putting
in at least two more sites? I'm looking ala 180' width that still will be
lett ... what's slopping them from putting in two more 90' homes and
end up having at least five on that particular comer? And like my
neighbors have said, I can see the erosion of the RU zoning
through there. I didn't have a problem when they putthe one lot in
on Wayne Road because it's concurrent with the rest of the lots. The
width I can understand, the depth of the lot, the way the mminess of
the area would be maintained and nothing was changed. Even the
two homes on Laurel, the new ones they built, and I'd like to know
19006
who built those two homes to gel such a beautiful testimonial from
the one individual that gave it. I dont know who bult those homes,
but I have a striking suspicion that maybe Mr. Soave's involved in
them. But anyhow, getting back to the matter, I'm against it. And
getting to the site plan, everybody talks about that beautiful place
down there in the old Stark Elementary area. We came here to this
Planning Commission and we were assured that those lots were
going to remain 90' wide and be zoned R-3. All the neighbors were
here. We argued and lobbied for a playground. There is no
playground in this entire area. The nearest playgrounds ... you
have to go over to West Chicago in the Hubbard area or you've got to
go over to the Garfield Elementary School area. There are no parks
in that area. And when we argued about the Stark Elementary site,
that was one of the things we argued about. They gave itthe big sell
job with the school and the school board where they would be
allowed to build three homes— the building trades portion of the
school system. We had the reassurance of this body right here that
those lots would remain 90' width and there would be only about 13
lots. It ended up having 17 lots. The school board got their wish and
the developers got theirs. The only people that didn't get anything
were the folks that live in this area. And again, what I would like this
Planning Commission to do would be to study the traffic flow in that
area. I'm not kidding you. In the summertime, when theyre backed
all the way up from Wayne Road to Laurel waiting to gel out of that
area, and you will see that. You come through that area between
3:30 and 6:00 every evening, it looks like a zoo out there. And that's
not even talking about the traffic flow on Wayne Road. That's just a
little street that's 50' wide and it just runs between Stark and Wayne
Road. It's probably the main egress to get down to Wayne County
Parks, the Hines system. It's pretty bad through there.
Mr.
McCann:
Sir, which house is yours?
Mr.
Cohan:
I'm the second one east of the development.
Mr.
McCann:
What is the size of your lot?
Mr.
Cohan:
My lot is 53'x 107'. When the home was originally built, actually 13
feet of the street would have been earmarked to make up the
remainder of my lot.
Mr.
McCann:
What is the lot directly to the west ofyou?
Mr.
Cohan:
My next door neighbors lot is 53'x 107'.
Mr.
McCann:
And who lives in that home?
19007
Mr. Cohan: That would be Mr. Johnstone here in the audience.
Mr. McCann: Okay.
Mr. Cohan: One home was built before Word War II and one was buil cluing the
war, I think'41 and '44. They were grandfathered years and years
ago. And those came out of a lot that was east of mine, yet on the
comer of Laurel and Pinetree. However, they got it years ago. But
directly across the street are the two R-1 lots, and like I said, the one
Irving in the second house is Mr. Whitaker and his wife. Again, that
was there dream home. They actually owned that comer lot that was
R-1, and I think they built that home somewhere around '72, but prior
to that the comer home was theirs. That was their enfire lot. Tobuild
their dream home, they had to go with an R-1 zoning. They had to
concede that to get their dream home, and they never lett the
neighborhood. They didn't develop it for any person but themselves
and their family. But again, I'd just like to reiterate about the Stark
Development that everybody is so proud about. We're not. Again,
we had the reassurance of this body...
Mr. McCann:
I understand that but tonight we're trying to deal with what's best for
the community.
Mr. Cohan:
But again, I'm against it and so are the rest of my neighbors.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
John Hull, 10218 Wayne Road. I live directly to the north of the first property there
that was sold. And I've talked to Mr. Soave at length many times.
I'm a building tradesman. I'm Local 80. When I came here tonight I
expected to hear something about a single dwelling being built. Mr.
Soave has referenced too many limes to me. This is the first I've
heard of a condominium.
Mr. McCann:
Can I ....
Mr. Hull:
I understand that, sir.
Mr. McCann:
There was a change of law within the Stale. Ifyou already have
property that's been platted, you have to go through a whole legal
process in order to change it. But if you go with the name "condo," it
avoids that whole problem. In this case, from the road you would not
be able to tell that this home is any different from a single family
residence. It has to meet all the same code requirements; it has to
meet all the property setbacks requirements; it has to meet all the
rr:
requirements of any R-1 single family residential. The only difference
is that they have to come back in for approval
from us, so we gel to
control whether there is going to be brick
and whether the footprint is
too big. We get to look atthose things now by calling it a condo. But
it's just two single family homes that are under petition to be
developed.
Mr. Hull:
So we're talking about two single family homes?
Mr. McCann:
Period. There's nothing more he could do.
Mr. Hull:
Okay. And like I say, I've talked atlength with Mr. Soave. Itwas my
understanding thatthis is going to be one home. One home.
Mr. McCann:
On Wayne Road?
Mr. Hull :
Yes, sir. One there and one over on the other property.
Mr. McCann:
That's correct.
Mr. Hull:
Now, we're talking two separate homes? Two separate condos?
Mr. McCann:
No. We are talking one home facing Wayne Road and one home
facing Pinetree.
Mr. Hull:
Why does it have to be considered a condo then? Why can't it be
considered a house?
Mr. McCann:
It could. He would either have to get written permission from all the
neighbors and go through a process cr Wayne County Circuit Court
and serve all the people and get a petition. Its just a question of
ease of doing it.
Mr. Hull:
So a condominium is a way of skirting that issue?
Mr. McCann:
That's right. And we like it as the City Planning Commission because
they have to come back to us. The Planning Commission gets to
control the amount of brick, and we gel to control the way the home
is positioned and how it sits on the property. Il has to meet all the
other requirements for single family residences.
Mr. Hull:
If they stack many more homes in there, we're not going to have any
land left. I'm directly to the north of them. They're building a house
right next to me. I'm going to be able to lookout my garage window
into their bathroom, I'm assuming. I mean, that's where itis. If 1 want
to work in my woodshop, am I going to look into their kitchen window
19009
or am I going to look in their bathroom or their den? I don't have a
problem with that. That's the people that bought the home. My
house was built in 1937, and my lot is deep. As you can see, I'm at
32bl. Like I say, I've never heard anything about a condominium
until right tonight when I saw these people up here at the
microphone. Now, I'd like to ask Mr. Soave why he told me it was a
house.
Mr. McCann:
I'm not sure of your question. It is a house. It's the exact same thing
— an R-1 house or an R-1 condo; its still a house.
Mr. Hull:
Is it going to be owned by an individual or is it going to be owned by a
cooperative?
Mr. McCann:
It's going to be owned by an individual. There will be an agreement
that it's to be maintained thatwill be filed with the City, but itwill still
have all the same requirements and the ownerwill be responsible for
taking care of this property. The people who own this property will
have to maintain tjust as you and I would. And you would never
know, other than looking through legal documents, that it is a private
ownership home. If you look at most of the subs going into Livonia
today, all the subdivisions from R-1 to R-3 to RUF, any of them, a
good majority of them, are under the site condo.
Mr. Hull:
When I sell my house, can I sell it as a house or a condo— either
one?
Mr. McCann:
No, you're still ...
Mr. Hull:
Why not? Its the same thing. Or do l have to get it rezoned?
Mr. McCann:
No, it's not a question of zoning. It's a question of how the title work
is on your home.
Mr. Hull:
If this will advance my property and enhance the tax base of Livonia,
that's one thing. But if we're going to stand here and lel these
builders come in and run rough shod over you people and the Zoning
Board of Appeals, someone needs to take a look at it. Like I say, I've
talked to Mr. Soave and I'm very blunt with people, especially Mr.
Soave. He will attest to that. I don't like to be lied lo. If I tell you its
going to be blue, itwill be blue. Not blue and then tum itto red. Let's
get on the same page. I come herewith the intention of helping Mr.
Soave. But after I hear this, it's your position now to look at this ...
Mr. McCann:
We could do this as an R-1 single family ownership. He would have
to do a preliminary plat and send itto Lansing. Thal would take
19010
about another six months to a year. It would be exactly the same
only we wouldn't have control over the amount of brick.
Mr. Hull:
The gentleman that spoke about the traffic problem there. Someone
ought to go to the Police Department and check the records of how
many accidents we have turning left out onto Wayne Road from
Pinetree. I had a stake truck roll over there last summer. Roll
completely over. And Mr. and Mrs. whatever -their -name -is on the
comer of Pinetree and Wayne Road ... I mean that's a dangerous
intersection. No one seems to address it. I called Livonia. They said
you better get a hold of Wayne County; that's their road.
Mr. McCann:
In the City of Livonia, we do have a Traffic Commission. You can
request alight if you think that's necessary. You have to take and file
a pefition with them. They will review it and do testing.
Mr. Hull:
They have nojurisdiction over it because it's a Wayne County road.
Mr. McCann:
I'm sorry. You're correct. That is a county road. You have tolake it
to Wayne County.
Mr. Hull:
And Wayne County — they have a deaf ear to it. Its up to you
people. I can't tell you anymore, but I'm against this.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Thank you, sir.
James Johnstone, 34800 Pinetree. I live right nexllo the monster that's going up
there. I don't getthe deal aboutthe bricks. Whatthe hell the bricks
got to do with how close a house is to another house anyway? It
looks good but like that man said about windows and everything else,
what if you get hot rods in there and working on a car at night.. .
man you can't sleep or anything. Your privacy is gone. The woman
that owned that property before said it couldn't be done. But this guy
found a way of breaking that. That lot on Wayne Road is supposed
to be going all the way back. They cul it. I dont know how he got
through with that. So he finagled around. That leaves, like Mr.
Cohen said, two more. He could put two more houses up— that's
three.
Mr. McCann:
No. He can only get one more house. There's one house going in.
Mr. Johnstone:
Why isn't that next to his house on the comer and leave the land next
to mine okay. I'd like that. But its brick so its okay.
Mr. McCann:
I wasn't the one that designed it.
19011
Mr. Johnstone: I heard about bricks in Germany too, you know, when they
separated ...
Mr. McCann:
The reason we like brick is because we feel dwill last longer than
siding.
Mr. Johnstone:
Well, what happened to ours? Ours has lasted. What the hell. No
bricks involved there. So I'm against it.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you, sir.
Bill Bidwell, 9958 Wayne Road. I live directly across the street from this properly.
Basically, everyone in the neighborhood or anyone around that
property is opposed to this petition. We have one homeowner and
one builder who are trying to maximize their profit potential on this
piece of land. Everybody else in the neighborhood would have to
suffer for it. I hope
that the Planning Commission would agree with
me that the quality
of life for the people that have been living in that
neighborhood for many years is more important than the builder's
profit potential on one particular piece of property. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Soave, we
will lel you have any last comments that you have before we vole on
this.
Mr. Soave:
No comments, thank you.
Mr. Shane:
When Mr. Soave went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, did he go to
the Zoning Board on the basis of Lot 33bl and its entirety —66'x
286.5'?
Mr. Taormina:
That is my understanding.
Mr. Shane:
Al the time you went to the Zoning Board, did you own the other
parcel?
Mr. Soave:
The one that's being constructed now, sir?
Mr. Shane:
The one on Pinetree.
Mr. Soave:
Ilwas a contingent offer as of right now. Its been contingent since
the summertime.
Mr.Shane:
You did or didn't own it then?
Mr. Soave:
No, I didn't.
19012
Mr.Shane:
Was that part of your plan when you went to the Zoning Board?
Mr. Soave:
Excuse me, sir?
Mr.Shane:
Was thatlotpart of yourplanwhen you went to the Zoning Board?
Mr. Soave:
No, they were just concemed with the one that is being constructed
now.
Mr. Shane:
So at that time, you were only dealing with 3351. Is that correct?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, would it be more appropriate in this area thalwe
should say that it would have been more proper to come back as a
lot split on this Lot 33bl if, in fact, they've already gone to the ZBA to
review it? The lot would not be as deep. It would be a 90'x 107' lot
which is bigger than the two next to it, but that way the ZBA would
have reviewed both petitions that way.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, he's prevented from splitting that parcel by normal land division
requirements. The reason is that the State statute limits the number
of limes an original platted lot can be partitioned, which is four limes.
Lot 34, as it was originally platted, was 107' in width and extended all
the way from Wayne Road to Laurel Avenue. Presently there have
been four divisions of Lot 34. This would constitute a fifth division on
Lot 34. That is the reason why he first applied for the rezoning, and
secondly, he would have to follow this with a petition for a site
condominium. So the action this evening is not with respect to the
review of the site condominium but the rezoning petition. This would
be with the understanding that in order for him to develop the site the
way he has it shown on the plan you're looking at, he would have to
file a second petition for the site condominium. And ilwould just be
for the one additional home which is shown on your plan as Unit 2.
Unit 1 shown on the plan is the house that is presently under
construction on Wayne Road and that would be incorporated into the
site condominium that I believe he is calling Pinefree Estates. The
reason for that is that any site condominium or condominium that is
established under the Condominium Act has to contain at least two
units. It cannot contain
just a single unit. So that is why he would
incorporate the house that
he is building right now into this site condo
project.
19013
Mr. McCann:
Isee. Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, one question. If, in fad, Unit 1 is being built under a condo
classification, why didn't that come back to us for site plan approval?
Mr. Taormina:
Because that is not being developed right now under a site
condominium form of ownership. That is being developed as a
separate lot because that is part of Lot 33 as it was originally platted
in the subdivision. You'll note that its legal descripfion is 33bl that
extends 286' from Wayne Road east.
Mr. LaPine:
Assuming he gets his approval and Unit becomes a condo, then
both the units become condos. Is that correct? Then at that point,
don't we have site plan approval on it — what to build and how they
are going to be constructed?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct. Only through action by this body and the City Council
would he be entitled to the approval under the site condominium
provisions of our zoning ordinance to enable him to develop Unit 2.
Of course, Unit 1 is already under construction so your ability to
affect the construction on that parcel is somewhat limited as a result.
Mr. LaPine:
So in reality, if we do go ahead and approve this, and it's a condo, he
can do what he wants as far as the building materials on Unit 1, but
on Unit we would have some jurisdiction over it. Is that cored?
Mr. Taormina:
I would say that is accurate unless there were opportunities for
changes to the structure on Unit 1 that you could require or work out
with the petitioner at the time he submits his site condominium. You
may have some leverage there.
Mr. Shane:
Essentially, if his request is turned down, he can continue to build the
house on 33b and the other house just won't be there. Correct?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Shane:
It wouldn't affect the first house at all if he didn't gel it rezoned
because he's already constructing it.
Mr. Taormina:
Ilwould not affect it. Thal is cored. And that lot would remain with
dimensions of 66' in width by 286' in depth.
Mr. Shane:
So the only real question for the Commission is should we allow the
second house by rezoning the property and allowing the site condo.
19014
Mr. Piercecchi: I'd like to make a comment. I would think that if I lived in that
quadrant, I could look at it in a positive way too. If you get a house
on Pinetree, that would theoretically negate any entrance and lot
splits on those very deep lots and the creation of more houses in that
area. We con intothis periodicallywith very, very deep lots. Some
builder comes in and says I'll put a road down the middle and put
houses on each side. If you get a house there, I think it will preclude
that potential, not that it's going to happen but it's just the potential of
building north of Pinetree— major, major construction. I just thought
I'd pass that on.
Mr. McCann: Iflhere is nothing further, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#12-190-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-10-01-11, submitted by Reno Soave, requesting to rezone
property located on the northeast comer of Wayne Road and
Pinetree Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to R-
1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2001-10-01-11 be denied for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the
predominate RUF zoning in the area;
2. That the change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are
smaller than the prevailing lot sizes in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will change the character of
the area; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary for the
continued use of the subject property for residential purposes.
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 onto City Council for review.
19015
ITEM #2 PETITION 200140-0142 SAM BAKI
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-01-12 submitted by Sam Baki requesting to rezone property
located on the weslside of Middlebelt Road between Dover and
Grandon Avenue in the Southeast 114 of Section 35 from OS to RC.
Mr. Taormina presented a map shoving the property under petit on plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated November 6, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pumantto your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal
descriptions contained therein. It should be noted thatif the property
is rezoned, the developer will be required to meet storm water
detention according to the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance."
The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Baki, Baki Unique Builders, 36800 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. This
property at the present time is zoned OS. This property and the
property adjacent to it, which is south of this property, are zoned OS
but they were used as residential homes. As was mentioned earlier,
the zoning was changed by the City of Livonia in the 70's. We feel
that this property will be better or we can do better with this properly
if its zoned RC. Adjacent to that property on the north side is R-0
zoning,and this is the first property right next to it. The rest of the
property south ofthis is office zoning with homes on them. So
technically, most of these properties all around each other is mostly
residential. The west side is R-1; the north is R-0; the south is zoned
office but it's got homes on it. We feel that an RC zoning will be
compatible. R-6 zoning which is technically a duplex, and since we
have an RC zoning across the street adjacent to an office zoning,
and the size of this property is what makes it not too hard to do an
office. But an office is not going to be as feasible to do in that area. I
don't see it as a seller as an office for this property. So I fell if we get
the RC zoning, we can build something sooner instead ofwaiting for
somebody to come in and try to build an office on it We can put
something up that's feasible for the area, which is three unit
19016
duplexes. We're planning on putting two ranches on each end and
one colonial in the middle for that little piece of property.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mrs. Dolan:
The one question that I have, Mr. Baki, is regarding the type of
condos we were discussing. It has been broughtto our attention that
there aren't very many mncl+style condominiums for people to
purchase. A lot ofthem are two-story and have a lot of stairs. So
that's one point that we were wondering as to what type of style you
were going to build.
Mr. Baki:
I was planning on having three ranches, but technically when you
have three units, the middle units will end up with no windows on
both sides so you couldn't put in a ranch. That's why we shifted to
two ranches on each end and a colonial in the middle. The ranches
will be around 1,100 square feet, two bedrooms, a study, with a one
and a half car garage with a basement. The colonial will be three
bedrooms, two baths, like 1,350 square feet unit. The brick frontage
and windows size break around the whole house.
Mr. Piercecchr
Can you meet the setback requirements with that type of structure on
a lot that's only 110' deep?
Mr. Baki:
That's the reason we're going with a condo. Some of these condos
can be built on a 35' frontage and 30' backyard. That's why we're
going to end up almost like an R-1 zoning in setbacks. We're going
to ask for a waiver for that issue.
Mr. Piercecchi:
For a waiver of what?
Mr. Baki:
For the setbacks because the RC zoning is a 50' minimum. We're
going to ask for a 35which almost meets the R-1 zoning. 35'
frontage and 30' rear.
Mr. McCann:
With R-1 zoning, would you still be able to get the three units in?
Mr. Baki:
No, just two units. Two separate homes.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Dana Raven, 9101 Middlebell, Livonia, Michigan. I live immediately south bordering
this property. I didn't really know what was going in there.
Personally, I would not like to see three units of condos going in
there. Previously, when the property was for sale, I had inquired
19017
about purchasing the properly to expand my house. I was told per
the City that due to the zoning, I couldn't build on it and that it would
have to conform to the current zoning. To gel it rezoned, the whole
block would have to get rezoned. The property was purchased after
that. A gentleman started to refurbish that house, offered me the
vacant lots, and he con into the same opposition with the City. He
had a permit and then it got pulled. They told him that this had to
conform to the zoning. So how can wespot rezone this or are you
planning on rezoning the whole block?
Mr. McCann: Well, sir, the whole block isn't before us tonight. This pelifioner has
requested that this portion be rezoned. I'm not sure who you spoke
to, but you can rezone certain portions of properly.
Mr. Raven:
Well, that tends to vary depending on whom you talk to.
Mr. McCann:
Well, obviously, he's here and he's got a pefition before us that's
been accepted by the Planning Department and set for hearing. It
does happen all the time. You can rezone properly. You couldn't
build on it for residential with the OS zoning. That might have been
what they were telling you. Now, the real issue is we have a
developer here whose looking at, "Can I build OS or can I build
condos?" The traffic that's up and down Middlebell in that area is
tremendous. I grew upon Westfield notloo far from there, maybe a
block away, second house from the comer. I would think that
residential would be less intensive and more appropriate. But I know
there's some concern with the other Commissioners about people
getting in and out of these condominiums. The question before us
tonight is, what's the proper zoning? Should it stay in the residential
form as RC or should we tell him no, he's got to look toward some
type of office use if he's going to develop it.
Mr. Raven:
I lhoughtthe City had a minimum requirement of a 60' Iolfor a
dwelling.
Mr. McCann:
That would be R-1.
Mr. Raven:
So that wouldn't apply.
Mr. McCann:
No. This is an RC development. That's what we were just talking
about, how many units in R-1.
Mr. Raven:
I personally think three condos in there would be pretty tight, and I
would oppose this.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you, sir.
19018
Robert Rizzo, 9039 Middlebelt Road. I have no problem with the rezoning of that
property to RC as long as I'm assured that my property is going to
stay an OS district.
Mr. McCann:
There is no petition before us. We have no control over that until
somebody bangs a petition, that is.
Mr. Rizzo:
Okay. So as of right now, you can rezone itto RC and it's not going
to affect me at all?
Mr. McCann:
Not at all.
Mr. Rizzo:
So I'm in favor of it.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
Ben Matusz, 29197 Gmndon. I live across the street. This gentlemen mentioned
building on the rezoned RC across the street, but they're not. They
just bulldozed all the trees. Its been five years since somebody said
they were going to build something there and they still haven't. My
concern about the condos is the traffic. They have condos on one
side, condos on the other side. You know, cars go by 60 miles an
hour down there. That's really my concem.
Mr. McCann:
Would you prefer it to stay OS?
Mr. Matusz:
Yes, I think it should stay OS.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. I will close the public hearing. Mr. Baki, do you have any
last comments?
Mr. Baki:
No, thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
As l understand you to say, if you gel your rezoning and you build
these three condos, you're only going to have brick on the front?
Mr. Baki:
Brick on the front and like a knee Ievel around the outside of the rest
of the sides.
Mr. La Pine:
How about more brick?
Mr. Baki:
We can do that. We're just going to have to move the price up a little
bd. I'm trying to leave the price on the low side.
Mr. LaPine:
What are your proposed selling prices forthese condos?
19019
Mr. Baki:
It's going to be around the $140,000- $150,000 range.
Mr. Piercecchr
We're looking atthree units -two ranches and one colonial?
Mr. Baki:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You will need some waivers, of course.
Mr. Baki:
Definitely, yes. We would be coming back with the actual plans and
everything else at a later date for site plan approvals.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, ilwas
#12-191-2001
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-10-01-12 submitted by Sam Balli requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Middlebell Road between Dover and
Grandon Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35 from OS to RC,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2001-10-01-12 be denied for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is not supported by the
Future Land Use Plan which recommends office use in this
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will not promote a
comprehensive development plan for the land on the west side
of Middlebelt Road between Grendon Avenue and Dover
Avenue;
3. That the proposed zoning district will not provide for
development of the subject property in a manner consistent with
its size and location;
4. That the subject property will be difficult to develop under the
proposed RC zoning classification because of its shallow depth
necessitating the granting ofvariances orthe waiving ofvarious
yard requirements; and
5. That the proposed rezoning is not necessary for the
development of the subject property since the existing zoning
classification provides for the development of the property in an
appropriate manner.
19020
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: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I am going to vote against
the denying resolution. My concern is thatwe only have 100' of
depth on that parcel. What is more appropriate, a residential -type
zoning or an OS -type zoning? Ithink that you'll get more traffic, you'll
have more problems with vehicles entering and exiting Middlebelt
during prime time hours with an office -type use. I think itwill create
more problems for the neighborhood. There are homes to the rear of
it. There is residential to the north of it and there's residential to the
south of it. I think the RC would be a better ft than an OS office
building. Would the Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, LaPine, Pieroecchi
NAYS: Dolan, McCann
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 200140-02-21 JEFF SCHEMBRI
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-02-21 by Jeffrey C. Schembri on behalf of Blue Oval Repair
requesfing waiver use approval to operate an automotive repair
facility within an existing building located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Harrison Road and Garden Avenue in the
Northwest''/.of Section 36.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 29, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
19021
the proposal at this time. We would request that the developer be
required to dedicate the northerly 60.00 feet of the existing lot to
conform to the Master Thoroughfare Plan for the City of Livonia."
The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 5,
2001, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to utilize the existing building
as an automotive repair facility 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 13, 2001, which reads
as follows: "We have reviewed the plans regarding the proposed
automotive repair facility. Two handicap parking spaces, properly
signed, are required for this proposal. Extedorlighting is not
indicated on the plans. We recommend that attention be given to the
lighting to enhance crime prevention considerations for this property."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 15,
2001, which reads as follows: "PursuanttoyourrequestofOctober
25, 2001, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The parking lot needs some repair, repaving,
resealing and double striping. (2) The dumpsterenclosure lacks
gates. (3) All existing fencing is topped with barbed wire, which is
not allowed. (4) The parking as configured would require zoning
variances for deficient aisle width and backing over a sidewalk.
Therefore, only parallel parking should be installed along the
driveway to provide the required driveway width. The barrier -free
parking could then be installed in Space 1 and 2 nearest the front
entry. (5) The monument sign, as proposed, will need a variance
frem the Zoning Board of Appeals as a monument sign is not allowed
when the front yard setback is less than 20 feet (16 feet existing). (6)
The Commission and/or Council may wish to establish that this is not
a transmission repair shop as the parking would then be extremely
deficient. 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. I'd like to comment that
there has been a revised Site Plan submitted that has rectified some
of the problems that they had with respect to parking. They have
increased the aisle width for the two-way aisle so that it is now 22'.
Now it shows parallel parking along the west properly line and the
number of parking spaces is now down to 25 parking spaces total, 24
regular, one (1) handicap. It is in compliance with standards for
parking sizes and numbers required.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
19022
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. I representthe
petitioner, Blue Oval Repair. The people I represent intend to use
the facilityfor light repair, primarily concentrating on Lincoln, Mercury
and Ford automobiles. They intend to do absolutely no transmission
or any heavy repair. Absolutely no bump and paint work whatsoever.
The cars would be brought over by customers that would want these
Iightrepairs. When they are finished, the customer would be
contacted and they would come back and pick them up after the
services were done. There should not be a lot of overnight parking in
the rear of the facility. The location of the building, the revised Site
Plan that I have, shows four stations for repair and if need be, if they
had some cars they want to bring inside, they could put another four
cars in the aisle way if they wanted to keep them in overnight, which
they do intend to do. The revised Site Plan also shows additional
landscaping because I think that was one of the concerns that was
exhibited, so they put additional landscaping along the driveway up
near the front on the west side of the property. The type of work,
again as I said, is minor repairs. They would do non -warranty work
because the warranty work is normally done by the dealership but
any non -warranty work such as tune-ups and hose repair, cooling
system changes and things of that nature are not covered by the
manufacturer's warranty. This is the type of work they would be
Ioolting for. The warranty on the Ford Motor products, including the
Lincoln and Mercury, runs 36,000 miles or three years so any work
that would be beyond the warranty period in this category they would
be looking to do. I think that it's alight intensity type of work. It's in a
C-2 zone along Plymouth Road and I don't think there's anything that
would be detrimental to the neighborhood or to the neighbors to the
South. They talked to Mr. Dobby, who has the formalwear shop next
door. He has no objections to it. That is as far as the contacts that
have been made.
Mr.McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: Mr. Tangom, can you give me an idea of how often and how many
cars you might have stored overnight?
Mr. Tangom: That's guesswork on my part. Obviously, they are starting out from
zero bases as far as customers are concemed because they don't
have a business now. So they are obviously going to attempt to build
up through quality work. So if they're very successful, they're going
to gain business by advertising, word-of-mouth, and things of that
nature. And I hope they're going to be successful. Therearetwo
partners in this venture right now, but as they become more
successful, they will add other employees that can work in the
stations that are within the building and that will obviously turn out the
19023
workfaster. When I want a tune-up or a cooling system orlhings of
that nature, usually it's not work that is going to take more than a day
or a couple days at the most. I think that you will find, at least in my
estimation, that this type of service work is going to require a minimal
amount of parking.
Mr. Shane:
You wont be doing any heavy engine work there?
Mr. Tangom:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Tangom, he shows five stations. You said four, but one is for
short -lens. Are these going to be hydraulic lifts he's putting in there.
Do you know?
Mr. Tangom:
Yes, I believe so.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there going to be any oil changing here?
Mr. Tangom:
Could be, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Where is he going to store the oil? How often is he going to have the
oil removed? The other problem that worries me is the dumpster. I
dont know how wide the dumpster will be but I dont want to see any
old oil cans or old parts from the cars stored or thrown back into the
dumpster and on the floor because, if I may interject here, I went by
your station on Seven Mile and Middlebelt today and they still haven't
closed those doors on their dumpster area, and that worries me
because these can generate a lot of old parts. Those type of things
worry me because he's so close to a residential area.
Mr. Tangom:
As you know, there is a dumpster there right now and I think one of
the requirements is that doors be installed and be kept dosed. I think
the petitioner understands that right now. I'm not sure how he's
going to use or dispose of the used oil, but most of the operations of
that type is drums, oil cans, I believe. I'm really not sure because I
really haven't talked to him about that.
Mr. LaPine:
You don't know ifthose oil drums are going to be stored inside or
outside?
Mr. Tangom:
No. Everything would be inside. They would not store any materials
orparlsoulside. Everything would be stored inside.
Mr. McCann:
Including the oil?
Mr. Tangora:
Including the oil.
19024
Mr. La Pine: There is an existing fence right beyond the handicap space. Is that
going to be locked at night so there is no way that anybody can go
back behind the building?
Mr. Tangom:
Il could be. It would be no problem doing it.
Mr. LaPine:
It looks like it is now, but I juslwanllo make sure.
Mr. Tangom:
As far as safety and security, its a good idea and I think that certainly
if they dont have it in mind, I would recommend that they do it.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Tangora, you show three panting spots— 14, 15 and 16 abutting
the back wall with two greenbelt areas in the comer. What I was
looking for is if you look, I assume theyre 20' in depth, so if you look
10' out of there, that would leave you with a 10' greenbelt across the
entire rear wall which would provide for some type of evergreen tree
that will help noise abatement and will help protect the neighbors.
Mr. Tangom:
You're talking about parking spaces 14, 15 and 16?
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Tangom:
I don't see any problem with that because theyre required to
resurface and repair the parking lot, and I think that they can take
that out and put in a greenbelt without any problems whatsoever and
put in some landscaping.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, would that be feasible?
Mr. Taormina:
If I understand your suggestion, that would be to remove spaces 14,
15 and 16 and then add two back which would be perpendicular to
the main aisle rather than have them back up to the wall and that
would leave a 10' greenbelt. The other suggestion obviously would
be to just eliminate 14, 15 and 16 altogether and you could have a
20' greenbelt and still comply with the parking requirements.
Mr. Shane:
That would be my suggestion. I thought the same thing when he was
talking. Why notjust eliminate the three?
Mr. McCann:
He does have plenty of parking.
Mr. Taormina:
It's not a problem.
19025
Mr. McCann: I think 20' of greenbeltwould provide for some large evergreen -type
trees to help noise and improve the site for the rear neighbors. Are
there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Rick Allie, 28536 Clements Circle. I live directly behind this facility they want to put
in. Right now we have a company in there called Street Beal.
Excessive noise. They install audio stereos in vehicles. We're
constantly calling over there to tell them to turn the noise down. Its
ridiculous. If you look at the area behind that he's talking about, the
rear to where the property is can't be 45. The only way you can
enter or exit this facility they're putting in is through a front door off
Plymouth Road and a rear door that faces residential. The area is
notthere. The noise of the air tools and everything, light service ...
what is Blue Oval? The little bit I'm familiar with Blue Oval is that it's
a Ford warranty division. It's not a public repair facility that I know of.
Mr. McCann:
According to the pefilioner, its not warranty work. The sign on the
front ofthe building says "specializing in Ford and Lincoln parts"
What we're lallang about ... if you've got a problem with noise right
now ... is that they're willing to take out the rear 20' abutting this wall
directly behind your house and put up evergreens of some sort.. .
Mr. AIIie:
To reduce noise from air tools. Twenty years from now when they're
fully grown, they'll be fantastic.
Mr. McCann:
Well, that's one of the concerns we're trying to address. You're
obviously having a noise problem right now.
Mr. AIIie:
Right. I've been there 27 years. Henderson Glass was in there.
Apparently they work on cars. There was no noise at all. Street Beat
came in and there's excessive noise. I worked in auto repair
facilities. I know how noisy they can be. There is going to be air
ratchets, engines running. If you're going to do a tune up, you have
to run the engine. Waste oil ... how can you keep waste oil inside a
facility that small? It's got to go out the backdoor.
Mr. McCann:
I dont know. These oil change places all do internal storage. We
could make them do that.
Mr. AIIie:
I really think the City should look at the size and the amount of cars
that they could be working on.
19026
Mr. McCann: Obviously it wasn't working for you to have this stereo company in
there. It's got a commercial use. I'm not sure what's going to
happen.
Mr. Allie:
Well, whaldo we do ifthey go in there and itis noisy? Live with il?
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Just another suggestion. I'd like to preface this with a question for
the resident. I take it much of the noise problem may occur as a
result of keeping those overhead doors open at the rear of the
building? And if that can be eliminated and maybe relocated to the
side of the building, that might help address some of the noise
concerns as well.
Mr. McCann:
If 22' is sufficient.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, that would be sufficient aisle width and we could take a look at
how parking is arranged on that side. That would orient the openings
... I'm just looking atthe floor layout and if this is to scale and is
accurate, then this is something we'd have to consult with the
pefifioner over and whether or not there would still be enough room
to maneuver the vehi des in and out of the shop area by having a
side entry as opposed to a rear entry.
Mr. McCann:
That makes sense.
Mr. AIIie:
Are you going to eliminate some of his parking though? Between the
uniform company and his building, there's not a lot of room to back in
and out.
Mr. McCann:
It would give him 32' according to what we have here. So it would
give him 22' to turn into the garage.
Mr. LaPine:
Whalarethe hours ofthe operafion oflhe facililythalis in there now
that does the radios and sound?
Mr. AIIie:
I would have to say 9 a.m. until or 8 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Tangora, what will the hours of operation of your clients' facility
be? Do you know?
Mr. Tangom
I don't know for sure. I'd have to talk to my dients. I would suggest
that its probably 8 to 6 and probably half a day on Saturday. That's
typical. Al the back end too, another suggestion that I would have is
that there's an overhead door there now I believe and the petitioner
19027
could be required to keep that door closed unless he has
automobiles going in and out of there.
Mr. LaPine:
You heard what Mr. Taormina is recommending. Maybe we will have
the door moved over to the side.
Mr. Tangom
We'd have to look at that. But as an immediate solution, it's obvious
in the wintertime theyre going to be closed all the time, but even the
summertime, if he's not able to put in a side entrance, that he be
required to keep the overhead door closed.
Mr. McCann:
The problem as you know, Mr. Tangora, like you talk about your gas
station up at Seven Mile and Middlebelt, is you tell them they've got
to keep the enclosure closed, and they don't do it and the neighbors
are stuck with it. We can do one of two things. We can table it
tonight to see if the possibility of putting in an overhead entry would
be satisfactory with your client or possibly pass it on to Council with a
recommendation that the overhead door be moved to the west wall
and that we have a 20' greenbelt to the rear with some reasonably
sized plantings so he's not wailing 20 years for them to develop.
That's another thing we have control over- how big the base is and
how tall the plantings are.
Mr. La Pine:
There's one other point here that wories me. Ifyouclosethe
overhead door, and you have the overhead door on the east side,
and you're doing tune-ups on these cars, you have to run the
automobiles and you've got to get rid of the exhaust. How are you
going to get rid of the exhaust on those cars?
Mr. McCann:
They use a tube.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, but areyou going to run the tubes all over here, outthe door?
Are they going to go up through the ceiling? How is it going to be
done?
Mr. McCann:
Well, they'll have to do it some way. They have to do it in the
wintertime for all the cars anyways. They may have to go into the
front side of the building.
Mr. LaPine:
They'll have to go out the side or out the back. The only other thing
I'm worried about is who's driving the cars outside and running them
therefora while. Okay, thank you.
Mr. AIIie:
One of the problems that I see is that the building is lengthwise
instead of like everything else up and down Plymouth Road. As far
19028
as the frontage on Plymouth Road, that presents a problem for
residential. I think somebody should look at that very closely.
Mr. McCann:
Well, we talked to them. I mean the building is there. They're
entitled to a use. The question is whether or not this is a reasonable
use. If he gets turned down, you'll probably have the stereo shop
continue there.
Mr. AIIie:
I'll cenfinue to complain aboutthe noise there.
Mr. McCann:
I know. But we're trying to solve those problems, not create them.
Mr. AIIie:
You know, if you solve the stereo problem, you're going to put in
another problem. I really don't want to sit out in the backyard and
have a barbecue and smell exhaust fumes all day. You can't tell me
the way that building is designed, it's not going to happen. Like
again, there is 45' between their rear door, the rear of their building,
and the property line.
Mr. McCann:
I know. Bulthe problem is, the building was designed and pulthere
before you even moved in. Coned?
Mr. AIIie:
Yes, absolutely.
Mr. McCann:
It's an existing problem. We're trying to help in any waywe can.
Mr. Shane:
There's well over a 100' between the building and the back parking
lot. The suggestion I had to help Mr. Tangore with his client is to go
back to your 10'suggestion in the rear — the 10' greenbelt- and
eliminate two parking spaces up front where you could have more
area to swing into a side overhead door.
Mr. McCann:
I guess that's what we need to discuss. How to do that so that you
don't have an open door directly back to the residential. I think that's
a reasonable problem that needs to be solved, Mr. Tangore. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition?
AA Wolnowski, 28537 Clements Circle, right directly across the streetfrom Mr. AIIie.
I guess my biggest concern too is the place is starting to look like a
junkyard. I've worked on cars most of my life and I started off small
and piles ofjunk come up. I definitely wouldn't want it in the
neighborhood. This is one of my main cencems that they're going to
gel cars in therewith blown engines and stuff like this. Evenifyou
start off small, you're not going to make it. You're not going to make
it on lune -ups; you're not going to make it on oil changes. You're
19029
going to have to expand to major overhauls, transmissions, engines
and everything else. And when you start installing mufflers and
everything else, you've got a pile ofjunk out there, just like there is at
Speedy Muffler down at the comer. I don't want to see the
neighborhood go to heck. And like Mr. AIIie said, you'll get a lot of
noise from it. When you sit in my backyard, which is across the
street from him, and you can hear the music such as it is coming
from Sam's Jams or whatever it is, its very disturbing. And you call
up and you complain about it, and the people say fine. It's good for
about a couple hours and it starts back up. I feel the same thing is
going to happen here. You can call the owner of the place up and
say, "Hey, its awful noisy over there" and you're going to get cars out
there and they're going to race the engines. This is what you're
going to gel, because in order to test an engine after you repair it,
you've got to ran it. We're going to have to listen to that. Frankly, I'd
rather hear da-dum-da-dum-da-dum-da-dum.
Mr.McCann:
Any last comments, Mr. Tangora?
Mr. Tangom:
No.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchr
I'm very concerned aboutthe compatibility and harmony of this
business in particular with the residents. Frankly, in reading over the
proposed resolution prepared by our excellent staff, my concems are
veryjustfied. The conditions that are being placed on this facility
refer to potential noise, storage, disposal, waste, scrap and other
problems. Based on these conditions and concerns, I'm always
suspect, Mr. Chairman, to this type of business which, in effect, is
sandwiched on east and west by two conforming businesses and the
residences on the south. Suggestions have been made here to
eliminate many ofthese potential problems. So if I may, Mr.
Chairman, I'm going to offer a motion to table this so Mr. Tangom
can go back to his clients and discuss the greenbelt in the back and
moving the doors, etc., that has been covered here.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-192-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-10-02-21, submitted by Jeffrey C. Schembri, on behalf of Blue
Oval Repair, requesting waiver use approval to operate an
automotive repair facility within an existing building located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Hammon Road and Garden
19030
Avenue in the Northwest''/. of Section 36, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-10-02-21 be tabled until
the next Regular Meeting of January 15, 2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #4 PETITION 200140-02-22 MARK BAK
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-02-22 submitted by Mark Bak requesting waiver use approval to
operate a photographic studio on property located on the south side
of Eight Mile Road between Meadow View Lane and Hickory Lane in
the Northwest''/. of Section 6.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Taormina: This property contains several structures that are all part of a historic
district. In 1988, Petition 87-12-1-39 submitted by a previous owner
to rezone this site to PS (Professional Service) was denied. The
owner at that time was subsequently granted waiver use approval to
operate a law office on this property under the provisions of Section
5.031b. Then in 1990, there was a fire that damaged the structure. In
1992 the current title holder, Mr. Elmsley, was granted approval to
convert a portion of this structure for use as a vetennary office. Over
the Iasi year or so, the property has been utilized as General Office in
connection with a photographic business that Mr. Bak owns. What
he would like to do now is seek approvals through the City in order to
operate this as a photographic studio. However, the current RUF
zoning of the property does not entitle him to any type of approval for
use as a photographic studio. What we are suggesting is that the
Planning Commission either withdraw this petition or table it pending
a request by Mr. Bak to rezone the property.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Bak, 6367 Robinson Lane, Saline, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Have you had any contact with the Planning Department regarding
the issue as to whether or not ifs an appropriate waiver use within
the current zoning?
19031
Mr. Bak: Yes, I spoke with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Taormina, and I did file the
rezoning petition afterwards. I was a little confused on filing it at the
same time or if I was going to need it in addition to the waiver. I filed
the petition that we're here for today and then later found out that I
had to file for rezoning, which I did.
Mr. McCann:
But you have filed for rezoning of this properly?
Mr. Bak:
Yes, sir.
Mr. McCann:
I see there are some people in the audience that want to speak to
this, but we can take no Iegal action tonight because what he's
requesting is not legal. Granting a waiver use for a photographic
studio in an RU zone is not a proper waiver use. Therefore, our
hands are tied. We cannot do anything tonight. We have two
choices: either to dismiss your petition right now or to just table it
and then bring it back if you do intend to file a rezoning petition.
Have you talked to any of the neighbors regarding this?
Mr. Bak:
Just one neighbor to the west of me.
Mr. McCann:
I think what you need to do is talk to all the neighbors. This look
quite a bit time with the original zoning process for the law office. It
look quite a bit of time when they decided to do the kennel. There
were a lot of restrictions on it. No change of zoning was one of the
major concerns of the neighborhood. So you're going to have to do
some convincing before you get back here I believe. I'd suggestthat.
Mr. Taormina, has a rezoning petition been filed with your office?
Mr. Taormina:
We checked as late as this afternoon, and we did not see the
petition. So unless he fled it today, we probably won't get a copy of
until tomorrow.
Mr. Bak:
I filed it on Friday.
Mr. Taormina:
It hasn't made its way to the Planning Department.
Mr. McCann:
What would the staffs recommendation be atthis time?
Mr. Taormina:
Considering the fact that he has filed the requisite rezoning petition, I
would suggest that this matter be tabled to an indefinite date so that
the request can be properly brought before this body as well as
notification to the residents.
Mr. McCann:
A number of residents would have to be notified ofthe proposed
rezoning change within 500'. Is that correct?
19032
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: So that will give you an idea of who's going to attend the hearing and
you can get a feel for what's going on before then. It's not property
before us tonight so I guess we need a tabling mofion.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved,
was
#12-193-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Pefition
2001-10-02-22, submitted by Bak & Associates, Inc., requesting
waiver use approval to operate a photographic studio on property
located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Meadow View
Lane and Hickory Lane in the Northwest%of Section 6, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2001-10-02-22 be tabled indefinitely.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This is tabled to a date uncertain because we have to deal
with the zoning petition before we could even consider a waiver use.
Mr. Bak: And approximately how long would that take?
Mr. Taormina: If the petition that was filed on Friday is determined to be complete by
our Law Department, then the earliest possible date that it could
appear before the Planning Commission at a public hearing would be
January29.
Mr. McCann: If you live within 500', you will get notification through the tax records
to the owners.
ITEM #5 PETITION 200140-02-23 HUNTS ACE HARDWARE
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-02-23 submitted by Hunt's Ace Hardware requesting waiver use
approval for outdoor sales of home garden supplies on property
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Stamford and
Myron Avenues in the Northeast %of Section 9.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
19033
Mr. Taormina: This pefifion involves a request to have an outdoor sales area at the
rear of the building which was approved under a previous pefifion to
be expanded to include an additional 3,360 sq. ft. building addition.
The outdoor sales area, which would run the width of the building at
the rear, would be approximately 1,425 sq. R. in area. It would
measure 18' in width by 75' in length. It would have a fence around
both the west and portions of the south side of the enclosure. Along
the east side of the enclosure facing Myron Avenue, there would be
portions of the brick screen wall that would also wrap around part of
the south portion of the enclosure. The Zoning Ordinance limits the
length of time which these outdoor sales can be conducted within this
area. In this part cular case, the duration would be from April 1
through October 15. In addition to the outdoor sales area, the
petitioner is requesting a minor modification to the onginal approved
Site Plan which would result in a net increase in the total amount of
landscape on the subject property. What he would do is relocate a
portion of the landscape that is presently shown on the east side of
the aisle way to the west side of the aisle way. Thalshould be
refiected on the Site Plan that was submitted to each of the Planning
Commission members. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. It first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated November 6, 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 or the legal descriptions contained therein. 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 November 5, 2001, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request for outdoor display and sales of garden
supplies on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road
between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast % of
Section 9. 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 2, 2001, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the site plans forthe proposed outdoor
seasonal salesrstorage area. We have no objection to the plans as
proposed. We would recommend adequate lighting for this area and
that signs be posted indicating the loading area. We also
recommend pavement markings for the loading area to discourage
patrons from using the space for parking." The letter is signed by
19034
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from
the Inspection Department, dated November 15, 2001, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 29, 2001, the
above- eferenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This reviewis solely foroutdoor display and sales of
garden supplies. No otheritems are addressed. (2) This use is
temporary and only allowed between April 1 and October 15 of each
year. At other times no outdoorstorage or sales would be permitted.
(3) It is unclear as to the type and location of the required fence to
enclose this area. 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?
Kenneth Hunt, 19006 Stamford, Livonia, Michigan. I'm a 34 year resident and
business owner here. If I was a smart business owner, I would have
brought this proposal before you when I brought the original one.
Instead, the wording "outside storage" sent me to the Zoning Board
of Appeals. I had to wail and get on their agenda and then go
through that process. Then there was a person from the Law
Department saying that they weren't sure about the use of storage for
that particular thing. So then l got call a few days later from Mr.
Kavanagh and in his discussion with me about that area, he said that
the proper definition of it should be "outside garden sales" and not
"storage" So therefore, the process starts again to get here and
that's where I'm at.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions? Is there anybody in audience that wishes
to speak for or against this petition?
David Monroe, I represent Mr. Norm Estigoy, who lives at 18969 Myron. With regard
to the addition oflhe building that Mr. Hunt asked for before, there's
litigation regarding that matter. My client has a temporary restraining
order atthis time. There will be a hearing on December 18
preventing any additional construction on that addition oflhe building.
The reason for that is that my client lives within 300 feet of this
property and he was never provided the notice, so we filed a
Complaint and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. The
judge granted the Temporary Restraining Order so that may impact
how this is configured in the back and whether or not we take the
next step and contest whether that addition is appropriate. One thing
my client is most cencemed about, which the ordinance itself is
concerned about in Section 19.06, is the safety of the neighborhood
and the tmtfic in the neighborhood. Mr. Hunt has now created a drive
entrance, which was approved, which is approximately only within
19035
100 feet of Seven Mile Road, so any traffic turning onto Myron from
Seven Mile Road would have to slow down or slop, or anybody
entering into this entrance to get to this garden sales area to either
shop there or pickup items. In addition to that, my dient informed
me that currently Mr. Hunt parks an Ace Hardware semi -truck along
Myron Street on the side of that building. That would also interfere
with traffic going in and out of Myron from Seven Mile. Across the
road on Seven Mile, there's an entrance to Kmarl that creates
problems with people turning left onto Myron and left into Kmart; they
almost come head on. There's a real traffic problem that exists now.
This will just exacerbate that problem. The whole purpose for Mr.
Hunts request to put an outdoor sales yard there is to increase
business. He's adding onto his store to increase business. Now he's
asked this Commission to allow him to do more to increase his
business. Thafs going to create a traffic problem. As I stated, 19.06
speaks specifically of the Commission having to consider, amongst
other things, convenient routes for pedestrian traffic, particularly
children, the relationship of the proposed use to main traffic
thoroughfares, and to street and road intersections. Again, the
entrance to this outdoor sales facility is only within 100 feet of Seem
Mile.
Mr. McCann: I have a couple questions for the staff. Mr. Taormina, was there
originally a zoning change with this or did the commercial go all the
way back to include the home that was moved? I thought we
originally had a zoning change as part of this.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct. In order for Mr. Hunt to facilitate the building addition
that was approved by both the Planning Commission and the City
Council, it was first necessary for him to rezone a portion of the
property that he owned. I believe that was the north 32 feet of Lot
381, which was rezoned from Residential 3 to P (Parking), and that
would encompass the rear portion of this parking lot. The area where
the addition is shown on the building is all one property that was
originally zoned C-1.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Now, the rezoning petition would have required him to put a
sign out on the property. Correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I think what this gentleman is referring to in terms of the
procedural error that he daims was made for the public notification
was in connection with the Zoning Board of Appeals grant of the
variance that was necessary for Mr. Hunt to add onto a preexisting
nonconforming structure.
Mr. Hunt
Thafs correct.
19036
Mr. Taormina: It is not in connection with the rezoning petition.
Mr. McCann: He got notice of the Site Plan. Did we approve the modifications to
the Site Plan and then we went through and did the changes? They
were all going on at the same time.
Mr. Monroe:
My client was never provided with any notice other than when you
say the sign, but the sign only had to deal with the rezoning of the
parking area. It didn't have anything to do with the addition of the
building.
Mr. Taormina:
If I may answer your questions? The Site Plan that was reviewed by
this body and the City Council was one that did not require any
notification as is the case for matters involving zoning variances or
rezonings or waiver uses, which is the petition we are considering
this evening.
Mr. McCann:
So we have a ZBA waiver use, or it's been appealed to the Zoning
Board of Appeals and it was notice due on that. Do we know why
there was no notice given?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe that there is a discrepancy that is being reviewed as to
whether or not his client's property falls within the 300 foot notification
requirement. Although notices were sent to property owners within
300 feet of the property, there is some debate as to whether or not it
properly represented all of the land area that was being considered
as part ofthe petition. You have to remember that this is a property
that originally was part of the commercial development only, including
those lots fronting on Seven Mile Road and a portion of the vacated
alley. Mr. Hunt owns the property to the south, which was Lot 381 as
well as Lot 382, and he enjoined portions of that propertyto his
commercial site. think that's where the issue lies as to whether or
not the notification was made from the boundaries of the correct
property being considered. If you follow what I'm saying.
Mr. McCann:
Has there been a determination of that at this point?
Mr. Taormina:
No. As I understand it, the hearing regarding this issue is on
December 18.
Mr. McCann:
My concern is that we've dealt with this at length. He's been across
the street from this and to come in at this time and say, "Okay,
everything we've done, its been an error."
19037
Mr.Taormina: Well, the litigation is limited to the action that was taken by the
Zoning Board of Appeals in August.
Mr. McCann:
And that was for the addition to the building?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct. The zero setback along Myron Avenue.
Mr. Monroe:
He is correct. Ourlemporary restraining order and lifigation only
involves the act of the Zoning Board of Appeals granting the variance
for the addition to the building.
Mr. McCann:
So it has no effect on what we do here tonight?
Mr. Monroe:
It might because this addition now goes to the back oflhat addition.
Mr. McCann:
When he originally came to us, whether or not you win on your suit,
the original site plan included this open area for sales. We
understood that. Whether it was not properly marked as outdoor
sales or storage facility on the plans and how it went through is the
question before us tonight. But I think we were all aware at the time
that he was going to have some outdoor storage or sales in that area.
Mr. Monroe:
That's fine, but my dienlwas never provided notice with that
pursuant to the ordinance and the statute so he didn't have an
opportunity to see that and object at that lime.
Mr. McCann:
I understand. Actually, he wasn't entitled to notice for what we were
doing with the Site Plan process. What I'm saying is that if you win
your lawsuit, it doesn't matter. He'll have to comply with whatever is
determined. Whether he has to go back to the ZBA again after notice
to your client, and we go through the hearings to the ZBA and then
come back, or if we grant it now, at least he will be in compliance with
what he is requesting. It will not require another step from us. Ifyou
win, you win and he is estopped. If you don't win, then he's already
been through this process. He's already gone through this hearing.
There's no need for us to do anything more. He can go on to
Council. The real issue is between you and the court at this time
whether or not he will be able to expand the nonconforming building.
Mr. Monroe:
Even ifthe court disagrees with us, my client still objects lothe
outdoor sales based on the other comments I made about the traffic.
Mr. McCann:
Okay, that's very good.
Mr. La Pine:
How long has your dient lived in this area?
19038
Mr. Monroe: A litlle over a year.
Mr. LaPine: So it's possible thata notice was senloultothe original property
owner and the change hadn't taken place with the City. The original
property owner might have got the notice and then forwarded it to
your petitioner.
Mr. Monroe:
No, the notice we're talking about is for the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand this.
Mr. Monroe:
My client lived there at the time that notice went out.
Mr. LaPine:
But it's still possible that the records haven't been changed. That
happens occasionally.
Mr. Monroe:
We have a Ietterfrom the City Attorney giving us the matrix ofthe
property owners that this notice went to. His address is not on that
list.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, then I'm corrected. And the other thing is about the traffic in
that area. I live in that area for 23 years, and I've never had a
problem with any traffic in the area.
Mr. Monroe:
This is going to create a problem. That's our point. The more
customers that come to this store, the more traffic you're going to
have. I know it's limited from April to October for outdoor sales, but
you see Home Depot on a Sunday afternoon, it's crowded in the
garden center.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, you can say that with any business around the city. No matter
where you go in the city, there's traffic problems.
Mr. Monroe:
Right. And this is going to create more of a traffic problem.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Helene Paul,
18991 Myron Street, just down the street from the Hunts. As far as the
traffic goes, I have two 16 -year-old drivers in the house. Rather than
come out onto Seven Mile as it is now, they would rather go through
the subdivision and godown to Gill Road which has a light. There's
already congestion at that corner that they don't feel equipped to
handle, so I agree that this would just exacerbate the problem. As it
is right now in the back of Hunt's Hardware, there is a small loading
area and frequently now there are piles of pallets with garden
equipment or potting soil and such things. I dont know ifthey're
19039
Mr. McCann: Thank you. A motion is in order
supposed to be there, but it's messy looking. I can only see that this
would make it a bigger issue if they put in a sales area; theylI just
leave it in the parking lot.
Mr. McCann:
That's one of the issues we had when this came before us. We did
not want any outside storage of any type of equipment or sales, and
that's why we went with the brick wall across the back to have an
enclosure around anything that he needs to store outside. That's
why we're getting back to the original intent that we went through.
But thank you for your comments.
Mrs. Paul:
We also at that time had somewhat reached an agreement that he
was only going to take over part of that residential lot. When it went
before the City CoundI meeting, it was amended to the entire lot. I'm
a homemaker with kids and I can't go to every meeting. I come to a
lot of them— more than l care to. But it's an eyesore already in the
neighborhood, and I just hate to see it get any worse.
Mr. McCann:
I agree. Thank you. Any other comments? I'm going to close the
public hearing. I don't see anybody else wishing to speak. Do you
haw a last comment, Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Hunt
The gentleman talked about the entryway and exits from the back. I
have an entry way and exit to the back right now, and we are just
making it better. As far as more traffic on Myron Avenue, if you're not
going down Myron Avenue, why would you go in that direction?
They'll only go between my entryway and Seven Mile, so I dont think
its creating any problem there. They also brought up unloading the
Ace truck. If I have this parking lot situation, the Ace truck will be
unloaded in that parking lot. The problem is that I cant unload it in
my parking lot now because if I got customers around there, its a big
congestion. And every single weekend so far since Thanksgiving, if
you've ever gone by there, if we just get busy a little bit, somebody
will park in my exit and then everybody has to maneuver around to
gel back out to Seven Mile Road, which I think is a safety issue. I
think I'm helping to alleviate that safely issue by the parking lot itself.
As far as looking at the pallets, I agree with her. It's messy. But
when we put this wall and fenced in area around there, I'll hide all
that and make the area look neat.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. A motion is in order
19040
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-194-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-10-02-23 submitted by Hunts Ace Hardware requesting waiver
use approval for ouldoorsales ofgarden supplies, on property
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Stamford and
Myron Avenues in the Northeast%of Section 9, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2001-10-02-23 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 dated October 12, 2001,
as revised, prepared by Lindhout Associates Architects, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the outdoor display and sales shall be confined to the
fenced area designated for that purpose on the above
referenced site plan and that there shall be no other outdoor
display or sales anywhere else on the subject site;
3. That the merchandise to be displayed and sold in the
designated outdoor sales area shall be limited to nursery stock
and home garden supplies;
4. That the time period within which the outdoor display and sales
will take place shall be limited to between April 1 and October
15 of each year;
5. That all dumpsters for the site shall be contained within the
fenced area and placed at a readily accessible location near a
gate to facilitate refuse disposal; and
6. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
19041
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 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 #6 PETITION 2001 4 0-03-02 KENNETH HUNT
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-03-02 submitted by Kenneth Hunt requesting to vacate a utility
easement located on the south side of Seven Mile Road west of
Myron Avenue in the Seven Mile Super Highway Subdivision in the
Northeast%of Section 9.
Mr. Taormina: This petition is also in connection with the expansion of the Hunt's
Ace Hardware store located on the southwest comer of Seven Mile
and Myron Avenue. It involves the vacating of a public utility
easement that is in conflict with the location of the proposed addition.
The total site includes a portion of an alleyway that was vacated in
1962. Al that time, a full width 20' easement was reserved for public
utilities. This is the easement that the petitioner is requesting to
vacate. According to the City Engineer, there are no city -owned
utilities located within the subject easement area. There is, however,
Detroit Edison equipment located in the easement which Mr. Hunt is
in the process of relocating.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Hunt, do you have any additional comments?
Kenneth Hunt, 19006 Stamford, Livonia, Michigan. As he said, we can't put a
building up unless we move the Detroit Edison lines and itwill go to
the back of the property.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience thatwishes to speak for or against
this petition? The public hearing is closed. A motion is in order.
19042
On a motion by Mrs. Dolan, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#12-195-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-10-03-02 submitted by Kenneth Hunt requesting to vacate a
utility easement located on the south side of Seven Mile Road west
of Myron Avenue in the Seven Mile Super Highway Subdivision in the
Northeast%of Section 9, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-10-03-02 be
approved for the following reasons:
1. That the area covered by the subject easement can be more
advantageously utilized by the property owner if unencumbered
by the easement;
2. That the subject easement will no longer be needed because
the existing utility equipment that extends through the subject
easement area will be re-routed and installed further south, and
a new easement will be dedicated to accommodate the
relocated utilities; and
3. That no reporting City department or public utility has objected
to the proposed vacating.
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 200140-02-24 MID AMERICA SHOWS
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-02-24 by Mid America Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use approval
to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Mall Merchants
Association consisting of amusement rides, games and food
concessions to be held Thursday, March 28, 2002 through Sunday,
April 7, 2002 in the parking lot of Livonia Mall, on property located on
the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Purlingbrook Road in the Southeast 114 of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
19043
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter
from the Engineering Division, dated November 6, 2001, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering Division
has no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of
Police, dated November 2, 2001, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the proposed site plans forthe Livonia Mall carnival. Based
upon the information supplied regarding security, the location of truck
stooge, the hours of operation and off-site housing, we have no
objection to the plan as proposed. " The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Livonia
Fire & Rescue, dated November 5, 2001, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate a carnival from Thursday, March 28, 2001 through
Sunday, April 7, 2002, in the parking lot of the Livonia Mall. This
property is located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Mlddlebelt Road and Puringbrook in the S.E.1/4ofSection2. We
have no objections to this proposaL" The letter is signed by James
E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated November 7, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of October 30, 2001, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections 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?
James Wegerly, 3041 Serenity, Oakland, Michigan. I am accompanied this evening
is Mr. Karl Zarbo, the General Manager of the Livonia Mall, in case
you have any questions for him.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything different about this year than last year?
Mr. Wegedy: There is a different company name. Danny Huston and myself, who
were with Pugh Shows for over 20 years, bought out a major portion
ofthat organization and formed a new corporation. There may be a
new name but, in essence, there really isn't anything different
because even the management team that will appear at the site is in
fact the same. It's business as usual, you might say.
Mr.McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
19044
Mr. La Pine: Mr. Taormina, did we have any problems last year as far as you
know from the Police Department or any incidents or anything of that
nature?
Mr. Taormina:
We were not made aware of any problems nor did the
cor espondence from the Police Department indicate any.
Mr. Wegedy:
I don't know if you are aware of this or not. I actually hire the City of
Livonia Police Department to handle the security at this event every
year, so there's actual City of Livonia officers there during the
evening.
Mr. LaPine:
Verygood. Ilputsmeatease.
Mr. Wegedy:
Well, me loo.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-196-2001
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-10-02-24 by Mid America Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Mall
Merchants Association consisting of amusement rides, games and
food concessions from Thursday, March 28, 2002 through Sunday,
April 7, 2002, inclusive, on property located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Pudingbrook Road in
the S. E. 114 of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-10-02-24 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by
Mid America Shows, Inc., which are March 28, 2002 through
April 7, 2002, indusive;
2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the
area as illustrated on the Site Plan submitted with this request;
3. That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment
and apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be
located at least 60 feel distant from the Seven Mile Road right-
of-way line;
19045
4. That all trucks and other transportation equipment shall be
parked or stored within the northwesterly portion of the Livonia
Mall parking lot, but no closer than 100 feet from the west
property line abutfing the Ziegler Place site or 250 feet from the
south property line abutting Hunters Brook Condominiums;
5. That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks
during late hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a. m.,
including motors on any refrigeration trucks;
6. That there shall be no living quarters at the location of the
stored trucks;
7. That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a
letter dated October 14, 2001, from James K. Wegerly, Vice
President of Mid America Shows, Inc., which have been
approved by the Police Department; and
8. That access to fire hydrants be provided for the Fire
Department;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use;
3. That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will
not interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area
and will not impede access to the Livonia Mall; and
4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use;
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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19046
k9=1,741:11111111:2 =k IY Ile] � Willi 51[I_1ljI=1ON:
LIp_1
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
11-02-25 submitted by Kamel Khuja requesting waiver approval to
add 10 seats to a carryout restaurant (Pitabilities) located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Laurel and Wayne Roads in
the Northwest %of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There arefour items of correspondence. Itfirst item is from the
Engineering Division, dated November 15, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-referencedpetition. The Engineering Division
has no objections to the proposal or the legal description contained
therein at this time. 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 November 20, 2001, which reads as follows: This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to add ten (10) seats to an existing carryout restaurant 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 Inspection
Department, dated November 16, 2001, with a revision date of
November 20, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuantto your
request of November 15, 2001, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition is very
unclear on many issues. There is not sufficient detail to adequately
assess all requirements. (2) The two -way driveway, which will he
utilized for rear -parking, is only 16 feet wide and is deficient in width.
(3) The description says ten (10) seats, the plan shows eleven (11)
seats. (4) The vestibule as drawn does not meet the current Barrier
Free Code. (5) The plan does not appear to detail the required
restroom facilities. (6) An unenclosed dumpsterexists on-site. (7)
The landscape is poorly maintained and there is trash debris and old
equipment in the rearyard. (8) The building needs to be painted.
(9) The parking area needs maintenance, repair, resealing and
double striping. This Department has no further objection to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. The fourth letter is from the Division of Police, dated
November 26, 2001, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
19047
listed petition and make the following observations based upon the
information supplied. (a) The aisles around the parking spaces are
from 15 feet to approximately 18 feet wide. The aisles are required to
be 22 feet wide, (b) Parking spaces in the rear appear to be 10 feet
by 18 feet, required dimensions ofparking spaces are 10 feet by 20
feet, (c) There is currently no lighting. Properlighting should be
required forcrtme prevention considerations. It would be our
recommendation to reduce the number of parking spaces by four
spaces moving six spaces to the west side of the property and
putting two parallel spaces on the east side of the property. Parking
spaces could then be 20 feetlong as required and aisles would then
be 22 feet wide also as required. A sign should be posted indicating
parking is available in the rear." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. I should mention that this was
based on a preliminary site plan which has been revised. On the
revised site plan, it is now showing parking spaces in the rear parking
area which do meet the Zoning Ordinances requirements as far as
sizeandwidth. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Kamel Khuja, 34733 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan. I own the business.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us?
Mr. Khuja: Most of the conditions that the Inspection Department noted have
been corrected and I revised the plan.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, the public hearing is closed. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Dolan, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, 9
was
#12-197-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanng having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-11-02-25 submitted by Kamel Khuja requesting waiver approval
to add 10 seals to a carryout restaurant (Pitabilities) located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Laurel and Wayne Roads in
the Norhwest % of Section 33, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-11-02-25
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the seating capacity shall be limited to 12 customer seats;
19048
2. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated November 20, 2001, as revised, from the Inspection
Department shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
a. That the vestibule and restroom shall meet the current
Barrier Free Code;
b. That a dumpster enclosure shall be constructed on the site
and shall consist of three masonry walls and wood enclosure
gales which, when not in use, shall be dosed at all times;
c. That the landscaping shall receive the needed maintenance
and the trash, debris and old equipment in the rear parking
area shall be removed from the site;
d. Thatthe building shall be painted as needed;
e. Thatthe parking area shall be repaired, resealed and
double -striped as needed; and
3. That a sign stating that parking is available in the rear parking
area shall be posted as recommended in the correspondence
dated November 26, 2001 from the Traffic Bureau of the
Division of Police;
forlhe following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as setforth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 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.
19049
ITEM #9 PETITION 2001-09-06-09 SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
09-06-09 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #607-01
and C.R. #608-01, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or
not to amend Article XX, Section 20.02A and 20.04 to reduce density
computations that govern a single family cluster development and
establish guidelines to consider impacts of single family cluster
developments on future development of adjacent properties.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience thatwishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, the public hearing is closed. There is a
bill readyfor Governor Engler's signature regarding cluster housing
projects that may affect this particular ordinance so I would
recommend that we give a tabling motion until such time as we get
clarity from the State as to how that's going affect the City of Livonia.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved, it
was
#12-198-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on December 11, 2001, on Petition
2001-09-06-09, submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant
to Council Resolutions 607-01 and 608-01, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article
XX, Sections 20.02A and 20.04 to reduce density computations that
govern a single family cluster development and establish guidelines
to consider impacts of single family cluster on future development of
adjacent properties, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-09-06-09 be tabled.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: This concludes the Public Hearing section of our agenda. We will
now proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda.
19050
ITEM #10 PETITION 200141-08-28 D 8. D LAND HOLD
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
11-08-28 by D &D Land Hold requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on
property located at 19651 Middlebelt Road in the Southeast%of
Section 2.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the weslside of Middlebelt between Seven
Mile and Bretton. The request is to construct a commercial building
on a vacant piece of property. This property is presently located
between a Belle Tire Store and a Corey Home Furniture Outlet. The
building would be one story in height and 5,984 square feet in size.
They would be required to have 32 parking spaces for a building of
this size and that is what they show on the site plan so they conform
to the parking. They are required to have 15% of the site
landscaped; they show 16%. They are also requesting that the
greenbelt along the west property line be substituted for the
protective wall that's required between a commercial zoned property
and residential. The north elevation faces Corey Home Furniture. It
would have two entrances with brick and dryvit across the top over
the entrances. The east and west elevation would minor this design
in the brick. The south elevation, which is the elevation that faces
Belle Tire, would be a painted block to match the brick.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Division of Police, dated November 13, 2001, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans regarding the proposed commercial
building and submit the following recommendations: a) The width of
the sidewalk for a commercial building must be six feet wide. b)
Each handicap space must be individually signed per Livonia City
Ordinance. c) Due to the limited space in the parking lot north of the
parking spaces (north of the building), it would be our
recommendation that a fire lane be created along the north end of the
parking lot to restrict the parking of vehicles. This would allow for
safe ingress and egress of patrons, as well as access to the parking
lot by emergency vehicles. d) A stop sign should be installed for
vehicles exiting the parking lot at the sidewalk. Therearenoother
concerns regarding this proposal." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated November 16, 2001, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of November8, 2001, the above-
19051
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This petition will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
fore lack of the required protective wall at the rearproperty line. The
few scrub bushes and weeds at the rear do not constitute a greenbelt
and in fact need to be cleaned up. (2) The Commission may wish to
review the Petitioner's plan to keep a 36" poplarin the southwest
comer to remain. It is not a recommended species and due to its
size and proximity to the buildings and pavement should be removed.
(3) The existing asphalt paving at the front is in poor repair.
Repaving, repair and double striping would be required. (4) The
aisle next to the Barrier Free Parking space needs to be 8 feet wide,
not 5 feet. (5) There appears to be no reference to landscape
irrigation orsodin the lawn area. There also appears to be no
provision for storm drainage. (6) There is not enough detail forany
signage approvals but the Petitioner should be made aware that only
one (1) wall sign pertenant is allowed (total). (7) The plan detail
shows no curbs at the frontparking facing the sidewalk as required.
(8) The conceptual floorplan does not appear to work for two (2)
tenants. (9) This review was done as two (2) tenants conducting
retail sales. This Department has no further objection to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. The next letter is from the Livonia Fre & Rescue
Division, dated November 20, 2001, which reads as follows: This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct a commercial building on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) If subject building is to be
provided with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be
located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department
connection. (2) Access around buildings shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45 feet wall-to-wall and
a minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet." The letter is signed by
James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The Iasi item of correspondence
is from the Engineering Division, dated November 21, 2001, which
reads as follows: `Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering
Division has no objections to the proposal orthe legal description
contained therein. It should be noted that the plan will need to be
reviewed by Wayne County foringress and egress access points as
well as for compliance ewth the new Storm Water Management
Ordinanceregulations. 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. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the peftoner here this evening?
19052
Thomas Condon, Urban Engineering Company, 6748 Allen Road, Allen Park,
Michigan. We prepared the Site Plan lhatyou are looking at. We
tried to address all the administrative concerns expressed in the
letters that were just read. We revised the plan accordingly and I
believe you have the revised plan. We have moved the building
further back so it lines up with Corey Dinette and it provides a better
traffic pattern along the joint use entrances that you see on the plan.
We also moved the building slightly to the south to make sure that we
had the whole 22 feel for the fire lane that was expressed as
necessary for a proper development of this site. The petitioner is a
long-time Livonia business resident. He's been here for 20 years.
His present business is over on the northwest comer of Merman
and Seven Mile. He's running out of room. What he sells there is
swim and dancewear. This building that you see before you is what
he has pretty much designed to accommodate his modest expansion.
He would like to stay in Livonia. He has an option on the property.
The fruition of this plan is by no means guaranteed at this stage. He
is still negotiating with Belle Tire as far as the final details on the
purchase ofthe property, but he would like to stay in Livonia. The
way the building is being used now over on Seven Mile and Merman
would be the same type of use that he would have here. He has two
businesses i n there but they're really not separated by walls. It
allows passage between the two businesses. The businesses kind of
accommodate each other. The customers that come in go between
the businesses. He would like to preserve that same type of
operation because it's been successful and he would like to keep it
here in Livonia if he can. The site has some constraints but again we
tried to accommodate all of the administrative comments that we
heard. One thing that should be noted is they did provide for some
separation between Belle Tire's building and this new building for a
couple of reasons. The principle one is the end developers and the
owners would like to provide for the possibility of future tenants in
thatbuilding. Right now there are no plans for that but they would
like that flexibility in the future. If they have that, they would also like
the flexibility of having a couple rear entrances for emergency
purposes as well as for minor deliveries and things like that. They
wouldn't have to go through the front of the stores to do it. It just
makes sense for their business plans in the future. There are also
some encroachments along the existing wall emanating from the
Belle Tire business that have to be accommodated. There are some
big roof panels that hang over the property line about half a foot.
There's a gas meter and gas service that has to be accommodated.
They want to make sure they don't get into any argument with Belle
Tire. They would like to just keep the existing conditions the way
they are if they can. The architect designed the roof drainage so it
19053
can be accommodated on both sides of the building, principally to a
wall I'll call the rear, which would be the south face of the building.
We would like to keep that design. We don'twanllo have to
redesign the building if we can help it. We do comply with the
setback requirements ofyourordinance. We think that the building
will accommodate the future plans of these gentlemen as best as we
can know at this time. They would like that flexibility. The layout
does accommodate the traffic patterns to the north and south in the
front with various existing side lighting on the Corey Dinette wall; they
are coach -type lights and they are quite attractive. We'd like to keep
those there with having problems as far as encroachments are
concerned. We did address as many things as we could from the
administrative reviews and the letters. We don't have any problems
complying with the other things that were not addressed yet because
they are things that are more technical in nature such as storm
drainage. If we have to deal with Wayne County on the entrances,
we can certainly do that. We're required to do it anyway. I did speak
to John Hill of your Engineering Department several times about it,
but we also worked with Mr. Miller. He was very helpful in trying to
gel the plan closer to what he thought would be acceptable for your
review. I think that pretty well covers it. If there's any questions, I'll
try to answer them.
Mr. Piercecchi: When you talk about flexibility about tenants. How many tenants are
you talking about?
Mr. Condon: Right now, there will be no tenants. Mr. Dunworth is going to run the
business the same way he runs it up on 7 Mile and Merman. He
owns the business. There are actually two businesses. There's a
swimwear business and dancewear business and they accommodate
each other. They are in the same building; they have free passage
between the buildings on the interior. But they would like the
possibility in the future of perhaps having two orthree tenants in the
building — in otherwords, dividing the building up. There is sufficient
square footage in the building to do that according to the ordinance,
as much as I can understand it. And they would like thatflexibilily in
the future.
Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I asked that question, sir, is that based on the staffs
calculations on the parking, there should not be any more than four
tenants at any one time. That would be the maximum amount.
Mr. Condon: If four is the maximum, they would comply with that. We have no
inlenfion of doing anything that would not comply with the ordinance.
Mr. LaPine:
I noticed looking atone of the signage ... one of these says
DanceWorld. Is this a dance studio orjust retail sales?
Mr. Condon:
They sell dancewear.
Shannon Dunworth, 5303 Royal Vale, Dearborn, Michigan. Both stores are retail.
Mr. LaPine:
You just sell dance clothing in one store and swimwear in the other
store. Is that correct?
Mr. Dunworlh:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
When I saw it, I thought maybe it was a dance school. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or againstthis petition? Seeing no one, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Dolan, seconded by Mr. Piercecohi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-199-2001
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-11-08-28,
submitted by D & D Land Hold, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with
a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located on
the west side of Middlebelt Road between Seven Mile Road and
Bretton (19651 Middlebelt Road) in the Southeast%of Section 2, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan, marked Sheet 1 dated
November 30, 2001, as revised, prepared by Urban Engineering
Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans, marked Sheets 1 and
2, both with a revision date of December 4, 2001, prepared by
Alexander V. Bogaerts & Associates, are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
19055
5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four (4")
inch brick, no exception;
6. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the
building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's
design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and
the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
7. That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent
properties and shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
8. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated November 16, 2001:
That the existing parking lot shall be repaired and
resealed and the entire parking lot shall be double
striped;
That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
That curbs at the front parking facing the sidewalk shall
be installed;
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated November 20, 2001:
That if the building is to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50 ft.
and 100 ft. from the Fire Department connection;
That access around the building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with a turning radius up to 45 ft. wall -lo -
wall and a minimum vertical dearance of 13TH.;
10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and
any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council;
11. That the request to substitute the greenbelt along the west
property line for the required protective wall is hereby
19056
temporarily denied until such time that the abutting properly to
the west is developed, at which time the owner of the properly
shall have the option of either erecting the wall or coming back
before the Planning Commission and City Council for a
permanent wall waiver;
12. That a variance, temporarily waiving the wall along the west
properly line, shall be obtained from the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
13. That based on the parking calculation, this building shall not be
allowed more than four (4) tenants at any one given time; and
14. Thatthe specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthe time the
building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane:
I have a question for the staff. Do we have a fully developed
landscape plan?
Mr. Taormina:
The only landscape details that are provided that I can see is the Site
Plan itself. It does indicate the species, the type and location of plant
material. As I understand, there may be some issues with the
Inspection Department as far as sodding and irigaton, but that
would be it. It looks like it's incorporated into the Site Plan.
Mr. Shane:
The reason I ask that is because my Site Plan doesn't have that.
Mr. Taormina:
It does not?
Mr. Shane:
Why don't we bring it back?
Mr. Taormina:
If that's the case, we do have some detail with respect to landscaping
on the Site Plan itself, and it does call out all the plant materials.
Mr. Shane:
I must not have that sheet or something.
Mr. Taormina:
I think that's pretty well handled.
Mr. Shane:
If that's the case, it's no problem.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19057
ITEM#11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 83C Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes oflhe 830 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on
October 30, 2001.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved, it
was
#12-200-2001 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 834"' Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 30, 2001 are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES:
La Pine, Pieroecchi, Shane, Dolan, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Alanskas
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 836" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 11, 2001, was adjourned at 10:08
p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary