HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2012-04-03MINUTES OF THE 1,022 ND PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, Aril 3, 2012, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 1,022n Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Scott P. Bahr Ashley V. Krueger R. Lee Morrow
Lynda L. Scheel Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor
Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: None
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a pefifion is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these pefifions upon their fling.
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 2012 -02 -PL -01 RAMBLING ACRES
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2012 -02 -
PL -01 submitted by Frank & Rosalie Tislencs requesting
Preliminary Plat approval for Rambling Acres Subdivision to be
located on properties at 9653, 9655 and 9659 Farmington Road,
located on the southwest corner of Farmington Road and
Richland Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
April 3, 2012
26016
Mr. Taormina: This is a request for preliminary plat approval. The she
presently consists of portions of three lots that are under
common ownership. These lots part of the Supervisor's Livonia
Plat No. 2. Combined, the properties measure 2.79 acres in
acres. They include 305 feel of frontage along Farmington and
a depth of roughly 398 feet along Richland Avenue. The
properties are zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm, which requires a
minimum half acre lot. The lots were originally platted with
depths of about 627 feel, but the westerly 230 feel of each of
these lots was split off and recombined to form three lots that lie
immediately to the west of the subject property. The further
partitioning of Lots 119 thru 122 by means of lot splits and
combinations is not allowed pursuant to the provisions of the
Land Division Act. In 1999, the petitioner requested approval of
a Master Deed, Bylaws and Site Plan in connection with a
proposal to construct a site condominium development on the
subject property. Soon after fling the petition, it was withdrawn
at the request of the petitioner. In 2001, the same petitioner
requested approval to subdivide the subject property into a four
lot single family subdivision. This request did receive final plat
approval from the Planning Commission on December 13, 2005.
However, the subdivision was never formally recorded by the
Slate Plat Board, and all municipal approvals have since
become null and void. Basically, they are proposing to do
exactly what they did in 2001, and that's divide the property into
four lots. The proposed preliminary plat complies with all the
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance.
As I indicated, the proposed number of lots is four. Three of the
lots would front on Farmington Road, while the remaining lot
would front on Richland Avenue. The RUF zoning requires that
each lot be at least a half acre in size or 21,780 square feet and
have an average depth or width of not less than one quarter of
the average depth. All these lots are 100 feel in width. The
three fronting on Farmington Road carry a depth of 271 feel,
and Lot 1, which fronts on Richland Avenue, measures 100 feel
by 305 feel in depth. So they do conform to the RUF District
regulations. Lot 3 is the middle lot fronting on Farmington Road.
That contains an existing single family residence. The building
is in compliance with all the setback requirements of the RUF
District regulations. Lots 1, 2 and 4 would constitute new
building sites. As set forth in Section 9.07 and 9.09 of the
Subdivision Rules, sidewalks are not required, and there is no
requirement for an open space dedication within the subdivision
where all of the lots are platted at lead 100 feel in width and
15,000 square feet in area. The proposed preliminary plat
indicates that an additional 27 feel of right-of-way will be
dedicated for Farmington Road to provide the 60 fool west of
April 3, 2012
26017
the half center line as required by the Master Thoroughfare
Plan. Mr. Chairman, if you would like I could read out the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: If you would, please.
Mr. Taormina: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 12, 2012, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above-referenced preliminary plat.
As a part of this review, we went through the file and determined
that that information matches that previously approved. The
drawing and written legal description adequately describe the
overall area that is being platted. Via copy of this
comespondence, 1 am notifying the developer of the following: -
A single drainage plan that encompasses all four lots should be
submitted to the Engineering Division befons any lots are sold to
other individuals. This is important because as each lot is
developed, an approved base document will prevent
complications as the drainage pattern for each lot is identified in
the future. Then; is a 15-foot wide drainage easement at the
rear of lots 2, 3 and 4 that is not adequately shown on this
preliminary plat. This should be corrected before final plat
submittal Before final plat approval will be considered by the
Engineering Division, all work required in right-of-ways or
easements by City Council and City Ordinances will have to be
completed or sufficient bonds posted. This includes submission
and approval of the aforementioned overall drainage plan. Any
site changes which would impact public utilities, mad right-of-
way, easements, or changes in storm or sanitary sewer volumes
must be approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works.
Farmington Road is under the jurisdiction of Wayne County.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the approval of
this preliminary plat." The letter is signed by Kevin G. Roney,
P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 29, 2012, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the request for
Preliminary Plat approval for Rambling Acres Subdivision
located a the above referenced addresses. 1 have no objections
to this proposal." The letter is signed by Ead W. Fesler, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
February 23, 2012, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the
plans in connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the
proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated March 29, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
April 3, 2012
26018
letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of
Inspection. The next letter is from the Department of Parks and
Recreation, dated February 22, 2012, which reads as follows:
As the subject petition does not affect park site property, the
Parks and Recreation Department has no objections to the
petitioner's request." The letter is signed by Lyle W. Trudell,
Interim Superintendent. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a quick question. In the time since the original plat was
approved in 2001 and now, have any City ordinances changed
that would require different side yard setbacks or building
envelopes or anything that would change the petition from
2001?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Nothing has changed.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Seeing no further questions, is the petitioner here this evening?
Please give us your name and address for the record.
Greg L. Ash,
GLA Surveyors & Engineers, 8495 N. Territorial, Plymouth,
Michigan 48170 1 am the surveyor of record for the preliminary
plat.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the
presentation?
Mr. Ash:
The only thing I would like to add is that in the first process of
going through this, it was determined that our drainage pattern
could be established with each of our building sites as each one
was developed.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that in conflict with what we heard from the Engineering
Division?
Mr. Ash:
Yes, as it pertains to the Engineering requirement that we have
an overall drainage plan.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, would this be something that would have to be settled at
the time of building?
Mr. Taormina:
I think he will have to resolve that issue with the Engineering
Division. They might be looking al just a general drainage plan.
If there is no need for additional structures and they just want an
April 3, 2012
26019
idea of how the sites are going to graded, maybe that's
something that can be done relatively easy. I dont know. I'll let
him address that issue with the Engineering Division because
I'm not sure exactly what they're asking for as part of that
drainage plan.
Mr. Morrow:
But I don't view it as anything that would hold up the request for
the preliminary plat.
Mr. Taormina:
Notthe preliminary plat, no.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that is, sir?
Mr. Ash:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Taylor:
Does the person who lives in the home in the middle of this plat,
do they own all the lots?
Mr. Ash:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Taylor:
Have they sold them off yet or do you know?
Mr. Ash:
No, as far as I know, they have not.
Mr. Taylor:
They'rejusl going to put them up for sale then?
Mr. Ash:
That is correct.
Mr. Taylor:
And then individual builders would have to come in with a plan
of some sort.
Mr. Ash:
That's correct.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by
Taylor, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-26-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 3, 2012, on
Petition 2012 -02 -PL -01 submitted by Frank & Rosalie Tislerics
requesting Preliminary Plat approval for Rambling Acres
Subdivision to be located on properties at 9653, 9655 and 9659
April 3, 2012
26020
Farmington Road, located on the southwest corner of
Farmington Road and Richland Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 33, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Rambling Acres
Subdivision be approved subject to the following condition:
1. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated
March 12, 2012, from the Assistant City Engineer shall be
resolved to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division.
Subject to the preceding condition, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the preliminary plat is drawn in compliance with all
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations;
2. That the proposed preliminary plat represents a design
which is compatible to the surrounding residential
development; and
3. That no reporting City department has objected to approval
of the preliminary plat.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
sent to the proprietors and abutting property owners as listed in
the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the
notices have been sent to the Inspection Department, Fire
Department, Police Department, Engineering Division, Parks
and Recreation Department and the Superintendent of Livonia
Public Schools.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2012-02-02-04 RITE AID
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
02-02-04 submitted by Rile Aid of Michigan, Inc. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 10.03(8) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to utilize an SDD
liquor license (sale of packaged spirits over 21% alcohol) in
connection with a Rite Aid Pharmacy at 37355 Eight Mile Road,
April 3, 2012
26021
located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and
Newburgh Road in the Northwest 114 of Section 5.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to utilize an SDD or Specialty Designated
Distributor license which will allow for the sale of packaged
liquor products at the southeast corner of Eight Mile and
Newburgh Roads. This is an existing Rite Aid store. The
property is about 1.85 acres in areas, and it has 270 feet of
frontage along Eight Mile Road and a depth of 285 feel on
Newburgh Road. The site is zoned G7, Local Business. On
the site currently is a multi-tenant commercial building that is
about 24,500 square feel in area. Rile Aid occupies the easterly
11,000 square feel of the building. The other tenants are
Caddyshack Golf and ReMax Reality. The surrounding area
contains the Whispering Willows Golf Course immediately to the
south and east of the subject properly. All that land is zoned
PL, Public Land. To the west across Newburgh is the
Greenmead historical site, also zoned PL. Lying to the north
across Eight Mile Road is the City of Farmington Hills. SDD
liquor licenses are allowed as a waiver use under Section
10.03(8) of the Zoning Ordinance. Rile Aid currently has an
SDM liquor license, which allows for the sale of packaged beer
and wine for consumption off the premises. The license to be
transferred to this location is presently held in escrow at a
former Rite Aid, which was located at 37980 Ann Arbor Road.
This represents the second request to utilize an SDD license at
this location. In 1997, both the Planning Commission and
Council approved an SDM license, but rejected the request to
utilize an SDD License at the subject property. There are a
couple requirements, including separation requirements from
other licensed establishments. Section 10.03(8)(1) requires that
all SDD licensed establishments be at least 1,000 feel from any
other existing SDD licensed businesses. This request is in
compliance with that requirement. In fact, the closest SDD
licensed business is the Brass Mug Liquor store which is
located near the intersection of Seven Mile and Newburgh
Roads, approximately one mile away. Also, there is a
requirement under Section 10.03(g)(2) that requires a business
proposed to be licensed be at lead 400 feet from any church or
school building. The proposed use is in compliance. Lastly, the
ordinance requires that where the sale of all alcohol is less than
35 percent of the total gross receipts of all sales, then those
SDD products need to be displayed behind a counter with no
direct public access. It is our understanding that the petitioner
will comply with this requirement that all SDD licensed products
will be behind a counter as required by City code. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I'll answer any questions.
April 3, 2012
26022
Mr. Morrow:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 12, 2012, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced liquor waiver use
petition request. The written legal description provided
adequately identifies the overall parcel of land but is in need of
minor revision. More specifically, in the second line the bearing
of S 88' 17" 30"W should be changed to a NW bearing. The
address for this site is confirmed to be 37355 Eight Mile Road.
The petitioner is hereby notified (via copy of this
comespondence) that any site changes which would impact
public utilities, road right-of-way, easements, or changes in
storm or sanitary sewer volumes must be approved by the
Engineering Division of Public Works. Eight Mile Road is under
the jurisdiction of the State." The letter is signed by Kevin G.
Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Division of Police, dated February 28, 2012, which reads as
follows: "1 have reviewed the plans in connection with the
petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter
is from the Division of Police, dated March 12, 2012, which
reads as follows: "The Livonia Police Department has reviewed
the plans submitted by Rite Aid regarding their request of a new
SDD License, located at 37355 Eight Mile Road (Southeast
comer of Newburgh Road and Eight Mile). After reviewing the
plans with the Chief of Police, we have no objection to the
waiver being granted as long as the liquor is kept behind a
counter that is manned/accessible to employees only. They
must also comply with all State Laws, County and City
Ordinances, and any restrictions placed on them by Inspections
and Livonia Police Traffic Bureau recommendations." The letter
is signed by Donald E. Borieo, Sergeant, Special Services
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated March 12, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Taylor:
I appreciate the map that you've given us, Mark. It looks like
that we have 29 SDD licenses as active throughout Livonia.
The good news about this one is its going to be moving from
one spot to another. So we're not going to add one, the way I
John B. Carlin, Esq., Carlin Edwards Brown P.L.L.C., 2855 Coolidge Highway,
Suite 203, Troy, Michigan 48084. I'm appearing here on behalf
of Rite Aid. We are relocating a license that we already own. I
think the distribution is a lot better once we get this done. There
are no objections by anybody. Its in an area that needs the
service. We will comply with all the ordinance requirements
including the fact that the storage of it will be behind the counter
and sold by employees. We're fully aware of that and discussed
that with the police and indicated to them that we will comply.
Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any questions?
April 3, 2012
26023
read this, to the quota that we have. We're just going to move
it.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct. There are presently 29 active SDD licenses.
Those are identified by green dots on the map. There are five
licenses currently in escrow. Three of those have transfers
pending and, in fad, the map shows where they're being
transferred to. We have one on Ann Arbor Road going to the
Eight Mile/Newburgh location. That's the one we're reviewing
this evening. One was just approved last week going from Five
Mile and Newburgh Road to Grand River and Inkster. This is an
old Rite Aid and that's being transferred up to the Grand
River/Inkster area. Then we have another one near Grand
River and Inkster, also a former Rite Aid, which is being
transferred to a new party store being constructed on Plymouth
Road just west of Stark Road. Then there are two other SDD
licenses that are still in escrow. Altogether, that makes 34 SDD
licenses, which is our quota limit as established by the Michigan
Liquor Control Commission.
Mr. Taylor:
And the closest licensed to this is at Newburgh and Seven,
right?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. That is location of the Brass Mug.
Mr. Taylor:
Which is a mile away.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. And then next to that would be another mile further south
at Six Mile and Newburgh Roads, probably the Rite Aid at that
location.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
John B. Carlin, Esq., Carlin Edwards Brown P.L.L.C., 2855 Coolidge Highway,
Suite 203, Troy, Michigan 48084. I'm appearing here on behalf
of Rite Aid. We are relocating a license that we already own. I
think the distribution is a lot better once we get this done. There
are no objections by anybody. Its in an area that needs the
service. We will comply with all the ordinance requirements
including the fact that the storage of it will be behind the counter
and sold by employees. We're fully aware of that and discussed
that with the police and indicated to them that we will comply.
Mr. Morrow: Does the Commission have any questions?
April 3, 2012
26024
Mr. Wlshaw:
Mr. Carlin, in 1997 the Planning Commission and the City
Council both fell that this location would be appropriate for an
SDM license but not an SDD license. What has changed from
then to now to make you come back and request that again?
Mr. Carlin:
We don't want to lose the license either. We're trying to keep
the license in use with Rile Aid. Rile Aid, as you know, is
probably the largest store in circulation in Michigan. They've got
an outstanding record, and we'd just like to keep it used. We
like all of our locations here in Livonia and we can better serve
the community. And as indicated, it's only a mile away. I don't
think there's been any change in the community where this
would be a worse location for it. It just makes sense to keep it
in use. The statute allows that amount, and the 29 that you
have active is still way below your quota.
Mr. Wilshaw:
The location that you're transferring the license from is a closed
location. There's not an open store there.
Mr. Carlin:
This was an Apex Drug Store at one time. Apparently, Rile Aid
bought that along with some others, and then ultimately closed it
down. Licenses have been kept in escrow since.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Any other questions? Would you be able to comment on the
Rite Aid that you have at Six Mile and Newburgh? Would that
be a similar operation to the one you're proposing on Eight Mile
and Newburgh?
Mr. Carlin:
I think most Rile Aid's that I've been in are pretty much the
same. They're always kept up nicely. They're modem.
They've got a pretty good broad section of inventory available.
They're pharmacy is always excellent. I use it. I think they're
just a good citizen and a good business to have in a community.
Mr. Morrow:
Would you be able to give us an idea of what percentage your
liquor sales would be as opposed to the other parts of your
operation?
Mr. Carlin:
Its not that significant. It's more of a convenience to people.
You come in and get some beer and you want some spirits.
Well, you can't do that here. You either have to go to two stores
or go to a different store. So its just a better way for us to serve
the customer. And most of our customers, in this case, are
citizens and residents of Livonia. Its just an effort to better
serve them.
April 3, 2012
26025
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Carlin? Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion
On a motion by Scheel, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-27-2012 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 2012,
on Petition 2012-02-02-04 submitted by Rile Aid of Michigan,
Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
10.03(8) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to utilize an SDD liquor license (sale of packaged
spirts over 21% alcohol) in connection with a Rile Aid
Pharmacy at 37355 Eight Mile Road, located on the southeast
corner of Eight Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 5, which properly is zoned G7, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2012-02-02-04 be approved subject to the following
condi0on:
1. That public access to all SDD-licensed products shall be
restricted, as stipulated in Section 10.03(8)(4) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Subject to the preceding condi0ons, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use of an SDD liquor license at this
location 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;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area; and
4. That the granting of this petition will not increase the
number of SDD liquor licenses in the City of Livonia.
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.
April 3, 2012
26026
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2012-03-02-05 JULIAN'S AUTO SALES
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
03-02-05 submitted by Julian Shahinllad requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(8) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a used auto
dealership (Julian's Auto Sales) with outdoor display of vehicles
at 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road, located on the south side
of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a used car dealership on property
that is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue. The site consists of two
adjoining properties that are under common ownership.
Together, these properties measure just under one acre in area
with approximately 113 feet of frontage along Plymouth Road by
a depth of 382 feel. 30805 Plymouth Road is approximately
0.63 acres and has 72 feet of frontage along Plymouth Road,
whereas 30835 Plymouth Road is just over a third of an acre in
size with 41 feel of frontage along Plymouth Road. The larger
of the two properties, 30805, contains a 6,500 square foot
commercial building that is currently occupied by American
Steel Motorcycle. It's a dealership. The smaller property,
30835, currently has a 1,000 square fool commercial building
that is occupied by a cellular phone business. The sites
together contain parking for both buildings. The parking is
combined and shared. Julian's Auto Sales has plans to occupy
the larger of the two commercial buildings. The properties are
both zoned G2, General Business. Lying immediately to the
east of the subject property is the Livonia Mitsubishi auto
dealership. This was formerly Livonia Chrysler. That property
is zoned C-2, General Business. To the west is the Boneyard
Barbecue Restaurant which is also zoned C-2, General
Business. To the south are single family homes, zoned RUF.
To the north across Plymouth Road are a variety of commercial
land uses. New and used car lots and showrooms are allowed
as a waiver use under Section 11.03(8) of the Zoning
Ordinance. A couple special requirements that do apply with
this type of use are that no vehicles shall be parked within 20
feel of a public road right-of-way, the total number of vehicles
proposed to be displayed or stored shall be subject to by the
April 3, 2012
26027
Planning Commission and approved by Council, and the
outdoor storage of any disabled, damaged or unlicensed
vehicles is strictly prohibited. The interior of the proposed
dealership would be divided into a couple different uses. The
front portion, which is about 2,000 square feet, would be used
for retail sales and a showroom. The remaining back section,
which measures about 4,500 square feel, would serve as a
storage and service area. They are showing one work bay at
the rear part of this service area. Vehicles would be able to
access the service area by means of an overhead door that is
located on the east side of the building. Julian's Auto Sales
would like to display a total of 33 vehicles. In terms of what is
required for parking, for customer and employees Julian's is
required to have a total of six spaces. That would be three for
the showroom and sales area, as well as three additional
spaces for the service operation. Because this is a shared
parking arrangement between this building and the cellular
phone store, we have to account for the parking that's required
for that business. That requires seven spaces. The total
parking required for both projected uses, the dealership and the
cell phone affiliate, is 13 spaces. The site plan currently has a
total of 57 spaces available on the property. If 33 spaces are
used for display purposes, that leaves 24 for customers of both
buildings, which is 11 more than what the Zoning Ordinance
requires. They are showing an adequate amount of parking on
the site. If they provide the maximum 33 vehicles for display
purposes, there should be sufficient parking for customers and
employees of both businesses. Vehicles on display would be
arranged primarily along the east and west sides of the property
and in the middle of the parking lot. This plan is not the same
color coded plan that we provided to the Commission at the
study session, but if you recall, they were showing the majority
of the display spaces along the east side of the property. The
four spaces located in the central portion of the parking lot and
then nearly all of the parking running along the west side of the
property would be used for automobiles for sale. The rear
parking would be available for customers and employees, as
would some of the parking spaces up front for the adjacent
building. There would not be any additional lighting provided on
site. There are two existing light poles that would be used to
illuminate the parking lot. There are also some wall mounted
lights along all the four sides of the proposed dealership
building. The site plan shows a trash area behind the building
but does not show the type of materials used to screen the
dumpster. Landscaping on the site constitutes about 4 percent
of the total site area, so it is deficient. Typically, we like to see
15 percent of the site provided with landscaping, but
unfortunately, the current situation does not allow for that much
April 3, 2012
26028
landscaping. There is a requirement also that a prolective wall
be constructed where a commercial properly abuts single family
zoning. As you recall, I indicated there was residential
properties to the south or behind the building. The original plan
that was submitted does show compliance with this
requirement. They show a masonry screen wall that would be
built along that property line and, in fact, Tums up and runs for
an undetermined distance along the west properly line where
there are a couple more residences. Even though these
properties are zoned commercial, they are showing the
continuation of that wall around the west property line. I think
the petitioner has indicated at our study session and to the
Plymouth Road Development Authority that their desire would
actually be to construct some alternative means of fencing,
either a vinyl clad fence or a wooden type fence which would
require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The exterior
of the building would remain essentially as it presently exists.
The only proposed change would be the replacement of two
brick panels under the windows adjacent to the main entrance.
In terms of signage, they are allowed one wall sign not to
exceed 52 square feet based on a formula of one square fool of
sign area for each one linear fool of building frontage. In terms
of a monument sign, there is an existing ground sign located
here in the northeast corner of the properly. We expect that the
only change to that would be a replacement of the existing sign
panels and that it would not be enlarged or moved. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I'll read out the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Please
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 22, 2012, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above waiver use approval request.
The written legal descriptions for each of the two parcels have
been reviewed and are correct. The address for the easterly
parcel is confirmed to be 30805 Plymouth Road, and the
address for the westerly parcel is confirmed to be 30835
Plymouth Road. It appears that no utility site work involving
excavation in easements or the Plymouth Road right-of-way will
take place as a result of this proposed site use. The petitioner
is hereby notified (via copy of this correspondence) that any site
changes which would impact public utilities, road right-of-way,
easements, or changes in storm or sanitary sewer volumes
must be approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works.
Should this project proceed, it is important that the developer's
architect/engineer carefully assess and confirm the existing
drainage patterns on all surrounding properties to ensure that
April 3, 2012
26029
the addition of the masonry screen wall will not adversely impact
drainage on adjacent properties. We will be glad to meet with
the site plan designer on the drainage matter." The letter is
signed by Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
March 8, 2012, which reads as follows: 'This office has
reviewed the plans for this petition to operate a used auto
dealership with outdoor displays of vehicles located at the
above referenced addresses. 1 have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Earl W. Fester, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated March 7,
2012, which reads as follows: 9 have reviewed the plans in
connection with the petition. 1 have no objections to the
proposal." The letter is signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated March 29, 2012, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted: (1) Parking spaces are required to be a
minimum of 10' wide and 20' deep and double striped per City
Ordinance. (2) Barrier free parking spaces are required to be
property sized, marked and signed. (3) The exterior of the
building needs to be maintained and painted. (4) The screen
wall shown by the petitioner on the south and west side of the
property is required to be constructed of either reinforced
concrete with a false brick design, cement shadow block or a
brick wall. It must be between 5' and 7' in height. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. I
was handed this evening by the owner of the properly nine
notices, all of which have handwritten notes on them from
various parties indicating that they have no objections and
support the petition. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, did you say in general there would be neighbors in the
proximity of...
Mr. Taormina: I did not look at the letters carefully enough. Again, I just
received these. I was able to confirm that they are all letters in
support of the petition. One is signed by the owner of the
property. As to where the other people are from, I don't know.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Taylor: Mark, this is kind of a cumbersome piece of properly because of
it abutting up to homes, which actually are Zoned C-2. Do you
know whether the Boneyard actually owns those homes or that
property?
April 3, 2012
26030
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe that's the case. I believe those are under
separate ownership.
Mr. Taylor:
But the way it's set up, actually they're not required to put a wall
there, are they?
Mr. Taormina:
No. The ordinance requires a wall only where commercial
property abuts residential properly.
Mr. Taylor:
They have about half of a wooden fence up there now.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. Taylor:
I'm assuming that what you mentioned about a vinyl clad fence,
possibly they're going to put that up along the west property
line?
Mr. Taormina:
We don't have the details, but I would suspect that whatever is
installed along the south property line might then carry a little
further to the north along the west property line to tie into that
existing wooden fence. That would only make sense to
complete that screen where there are homes.
Mr. Taylor:
Some of this properly is pretty shabby with the grass and
everything that's there. It's in pretty rough shape. I'm assuming
they're going to clean all that up. A question about the parking.
When they put in used cars or pre-used cars, do they have to be
10 fool spaces?
Mr. Taormina:
No. Typically, in the past we have not mandated that the
display spaces be 10 feet wide. In fact, we have approved
many dealerships with varying sizes for their auto display
purposes. We don'ltypically require 10 foolspaces. Butwhere
there are spaces reserved for customers, we definitely want to
see those 10 feel wide.
Mr. Taylor:
But are there 33 spaces making them 10 fool spaces double
striped now? I have no problem with that.
Mr. Taormina:
The plan does not indicate the width of those parking spaces.
They could make them 9 feet or 10 feet either way. The striping
on those existing spaces is faded almost to the point where they
could make it whatever they want rather than just restripe it the
way it currently exists. If we specify 9 foot spaces for display,
they'll be fine. They have ample room. As I indicated earlier,
they have 57 parking spaces, and when you include the 33 plus
what they're required to have for customers and employees,
they have a surplus of 11 spaces. We could probably just keep
April 3, 2012
26031
to the 10 foot wide spaces and there wouldn't be any issues
with parking.
Mr. Taylor: Thankyou.
Mr. Bahr: Mark, has the Plymouth Road Development Authority weighed
in on this at all?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. In fad, the Executive Committee of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority met last week to review this petition. In
your prepared approving resolution, you'll note one of the
conditions references the recommendations that came out of
that committee meeting. I think there were three or four items.
Mr. Bahr: Thankyou.
Ms. Smiley: There are three houses behind the Boneyard that are G2, but
are people living in 11424, 11422 and 11420? Are those
occupied homes?
Mr. Taormina: If you look carefully at the aerial photograph, I think what you'll
see is one home. I think what you have there, even though you
can see there are three addresses to the south of the Boneyard,
the first address, 11424, is actually an extension of the parking
lot. So that property is zoned commercial and used for
commercial purposes. Then the next two lots may be under
common ownership, 11422 and 11420, and contain a single
family home, but I'll verify that.
Ms. Smiley:
But they're still zoned G2?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Those are zoned commercial.
Ms. Smiley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening? We'll need your name and
address for the record.
Ann Martinuzzi,
Legacy Venture Group, L.L.C., P.O. Box 157, Lakeland,
Michigan 48143. 1 represent Julian as his realtor. And just to
clarify some of the questions that may have come up, the
parking spaces are currently 10 by 20. Its single striped. In
support of Julian, we had been looking at a number of sites.
Obviously, with my wise eyes, I was showing him sites in
Canton and Plymouth that had great visibility, frontage. Julian
was very adamant that he wanted to be a business owner in
Livonia. That impressed me as I was bom here and I also own
a business here along with some investment property myself.
April 3, 2012
26032
As I got further into the process with him, it was very evident
that he's a 21n Century car guy. Most of his marketing is done
through the internet. He already does this business very
successfully. What he is looking to do is grow his business
further in a storefront situation. I think what that will do is not
only help the residents of Livonia in these trying times, but the
internet marketing will also bring people to Livonia from outside.
They'll come use the restaurants, go shopping, run their
errands. I think it's going to be a very good mix. We do accept
the recommendations that the Plymouth Road Development
Authority has made. They're very good recommendations. The
one thing that we do need to address though is the masonry
wall. Because this is an existing site, for us to put in a masonry
wall is very cost prohibitive. Upon doing our homework, the
preliminary quotes were well over $25,000, not even describing
the disruption that it would actually have on the neighboring
properties compared to a vinyl fence. So we've gone ahead,
gotten our quotes. I have the paperwork here for the vinyl fence
if anyone would like to view it. But that quote comes in under
$5,000.00 for Julian, and he will be absorbing these costs
himself as the tenant on all these improvements. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Did the Plymouth Road Development Authority have any
comment on the type of fence that you were proposing?
Ms. Martinuzzi:
Its been open for discussion up to this point when the letter was
just read tonight where the Ordinance was very specific. So
unless we gel approval for the vinyl, whether it's today or
through the City Council, we'll have to go to zoning, but that
may ... it's just cost prohibitive. I don't think the neighbors will
find it conducive to be trudging over their property and digging it
up to create a trench, cutting the parking lot. We're willing to
work through that.
Mr. Morrow:
But my question is, did the PRDA have the opportunity to
respond to the vinyl fence that you requested?
Ms. Martinuzzi:
No. Al that time we did not have that quote and that
information.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I wanted to know. Thank you very much. Does the
Commission have any questions?
Ms. Krueger:
Why wouldn't the owner absorb the cost of the fencing to have it
a masonryfence because any tenant he's going to have in there
is going to have the same problem when it comes to the wall?
Mr. Morrow: And you will be the one that's running the used car business?
April 3, 2012
26033
Ms. Marlinum
I think a lot of it comes down to economics, right now, but you
can ask the owner yourself. He's here tonight.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
There are several items on the plan that are lacking in some
detail. Obviously, your plan talks about a masonry wall in the
back and along the side, but it doesn't really give details as to
where it begins and ends. Now, of course, we're talking about a
vinyl fence. I'll wail and hear if some of the residents are here,
what their lake is on it because they're going to have to live with
it obviously. I'm very willing to hear their opinion on what they
would prefer, but whatever the case with this fence, I think if this
plan does go forward to Council, you need to make sure that the
plan has those things detailed a little better. Also, we talked in
our study meeting about the handicap space, which is currently
not near the building. Its back a little ways. I think the
requirement is that the handicap space is going to have to be
right up near the building. So you might want to make sure that
the plan details that, assuming it goes forward. The other thing I
wanted to mention was, we talked about in our study meeting, I
think it's good to have the discussion now, about the concept of
a limited waiver that would only be for this particular tenant to
use so that if for some reason Julian was not able to be
successful in this location, we wouldn't have other people come
in and just open up a used car lot without having to come in
front of the City Council and present themselves and what their
business case is. Is that okay for the petitioner to have that
limited waiver use?
Ms. Martinum
I don't think Julian will have a problem with that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. I just wanted to touch on those few things
right off the bat. Just to ask a couple questions. Some of these
are repeats from our study meeting, but since Julian is up here,
I wanted to ask, you mentioned that he already is in business
selling used cars. I just want to ask a little bit about how long
you've been in business and how many cars do you currently
have for sale?
Mr. Morrow:
Let's gel his name and address and then we'll proceed with the
questions.
Julian Shahinllari, Julian's Auto Sales, L.L.C., 47281 Bayview Court, Canton,
Michigan 48188.
Mr. Morrow: And you will be the one that's running the used car business?
April 3, 2012
26034
Mr. Shahinllari:
Yes, sir.
Mr. W Ishaw:
I just wanted to see a little bit about your background in used
car sales. What are you currently doing?
Mr. Shahinllan:
Currently, I'm dealing used cars from wholesale to retail. I
currently have about 20 cars, which five of them are up for sale
for retail, and there are 10 of them floating through the auction
as I run them through the auction for wholesale. There are a
few that are being worked on and sifting around.
Mr. W Ishaw:
So this is going to be quite a bit more cars at this location than
you currently have?
Mr. Shahinllan:
No, I dont think that there would be. As of now, I have cars that
I'm wholesaling, but I only have five cars that I'm retailing. If I
do open this place and I ask for 33 cars to display, I will have 33
cars available for retail, but I can have my float through the
auctions. Thal does not interfere with the space in this place.
Mr. W Ishaw:
Can you explain that wholesale concept a little bit to me?
Mr. Shahinllan:
Wholesale, run them through the auction. Lel other dealers
have a chance to buy them and public buyers. There's also
auctions that are for public buyers.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Good. Thanks for explaining that to me. That's all I have
for now.
Mr. Bahr:
Where is your current location? Where are you currently
operating?
Mr. Shahinllan:
I am a subcontractor right now. So the current location that he
has is located in Ypsilanti, Michigan.
Mr. Bahr:
So that's where all your cars are now?
Mr. Shahinllan:
Yes. The cars that I have for retail and cars that are silting
around, they sit at that location, and also I have the cars that
float through the auction. Cars don't just sell the first time you
run them through the auction. Sometimes they sit there for
three runs so that's what I mean by that.
Mr. Bahr:
You expressed it last week and she expressed it tonight, you
really want to be in Livonia, right?
Mr. Shahinllari:
I've lived in Livonia and Canton back and forth the last 11 years.
The last two years I've been living in Canton. We bought a
April 3, 2012
26035
house in Canton, but the previous 9 years before that, I lived in
Canton and I lived in Livonia. I like the way Livonia is run. I like
to gel up in the morning and go to work and be happy about it. I
don't like conducting business where I'm at right now, plus the
products that I have, the vehicles that I sell, don't sell in the City
of Ypsilanti. All my customers that I deal with right now, they're
either in Livonia, Farmington, the northeast area.
Mr. Bahr:
Do you have an idea of what your internet sales versus your
walk-in retail sales breakdown is? I know you said you're
primarily an internet business.
Mr. Shahinllart:
I would say 75 internet and 25 walk-in.
Mr. Bahr:
So this is essentially just an office space for you?
Mr. Shahinllari:
Not necessarily. I'm also expecting walk-ins and, of course,
display. I would like somebody to come through the internet
and come in my lot and see all the vehicles.
Mr. Bahr:
I know you had said you were intending to do light repairs on
site. What do you intend to do for the heavier repairs when
necessary?
Mr. Shahinllart:
I have a contract with Jurgen's Auto Repair. It's located on
Plymouth Road just east of Stark on the south side. He's doing
my heavy repairs as of now loo.
Mr. Bahr:
Okay. Thanks.
Ms. Krueger:
I have a couple questions for you, Julian. How long have you
been in this type of business?
Mr. Shahinllari:
Nine years.
Ms. Krueger:
What type of vehicles do you plan on selling at this location?
Mr. Shahinllari:
From $5,000 to $10,000 or higher pace range.
Ms. Krueger:
And what's the turnover rate for those vehicles? How long
would they be sitting on the lot before you get new stock in?
Mr. Shahinllart:
I intend to not have a vehicle on the lot for not longer than two
months.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. And what type of advertising do you plan on doing?
April 3, 2012
26036
Mr. Shahinllari:
On-line marketing from Craig's List, Cars.com, Auto Trader,
Ebay, Facebook, Twitter.
Ms. Krueger:
Do you plan on having anything in your lot like balloons or
things on lop of your building or anything like that?
Mr. Shahinllari:
No, I don't. That's what I have the internet for.
Ms. Krueger:
That's all. Thank you.
Ms. Scheel:
Can you tell me what you plan on your hours being?
Mr. Shahinllari:
I actually worked at a Ford dealership and their hours were 9:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Mondays, and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on
Thursdays, and then from Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., and Saturdays 10:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m.
Ms. Scheel:
So the latest you'd be open at night would be 9:00 p.m'?
Mr. Shahinllari:
Yes.
Ms. Scheel:
Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Al our study meeting you said you were going to put in a hoist.
What kind of repair work are you going to do there?
Mr. Shahinllan:
I would like to have a hoist for the reason of inspecting the
vehicles from under, and brakes, electrical, light engine
performance. By that I mean spark plugs, coils, stuff like that.
Mr. Taylor:
I couldn't see the door. Is there a door on the east side of that
building?
Mr. Shahinllad
Westside of the building.
Mr. Taylor:
Its on the west side of the building. And that's where you're
going to put the hoist?
Mr. Shahinllari:
Yes. Straight from the door, there's the area where I want to put
the hoist in.
Mr. Taylor:
When you say you buy cars at wholesale, do you drive the cars
to your place or do you have them hauled there?
Mr. Shahinllari :
Sometimes if I have three or four guys to help me out, I will drive
them in and sometimes the auctions actually have their own low
trucks. They deliver them to the place. I usually deliver them.
April 3, 2012
26037
Most vehicles need some kind of body work. I like to perfect
them cosmetically before I start working mechanically. So I
usually ship them to the body shops and then they'll just drive
them to me or I would pick them up myself.
Mr. Taylor:
What is your comment on the wall situation?
Mr. Shahinllari:
As we already have a wood fence on the west side ...
Mr. Taylor:
It looks like its been there for about 50 years, but other than
that.
Mr. Shahinllari:
I was hoping that we could work with a vinyl fence.
Mr. Taylor:
Along thalwall?
Mr. Shahinllari:
Along the back wall. If it's necessary, I would run it along the
west side loo since that wooden fence looks pretty old.
Mr. Taylor:
To do that you'd have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
obviously. That's either a greenbelt or some sort of a fence.
But also back there, it's grubby right now.
Mr. Shahinllad:
I'll clean that up. I will clean that up. I've seen it. 1 know exactly
what you're saying.
Mr. Taylor:
Normally what we ask petitioners to do, not only put in a decent
wall of sort but some shrubbery back there also. Something
that is green.
Mr. Shahinllari:
I agree. Yes, I'll clean it up. We'll gelthe grass replanted.
Mr. Taylor:
Are you planning on doing your own financing?
Mr. Shahinllari:
No. I will not do my own financing. To start from, I will do cash
only until I gel financing, but I will do buy here, pay here if that's
whalyou mean.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Ms. Smiley:
My question is about your security or lighting in that area,
particularly the back where you're going to have your inventory.
What kind of security or what kind of lighting were you planning?
Mr. Shahinllari:
We already have two light poles in the front on the east side
parking. We also have lights along on the building on the west
side. I think it could be pretty lit.
April 3, 2012
26038
Ms. Smiley:
I wasjustthinking aboutforthe neighbors sothat its nolloo lit.
Mr. Shahinllan:
Has there been any complaints so far? I mean those lights are
already there.
Ms. Marlinum:
If I can add, there are existing. There's eight wall mounted
lights on the building that currently exist along with the two light
posts.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. I was just concerned more for the back parking, but
okay. And you do have some kind of security for all your
vehicles. I mean, just being fenced in would be enough?
Mr. Shahinllan:
That's why I came to Livonia.
Ms. Smiley:
I'll tell the PD you said that. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Are you going to be leasing the building?
Mr. Shahinllan:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Have you had any discussion with the landlord? I nofice that
some of the walls could use some painting, particularly the one I
could see was the one along the west wall and the area Mr.
Taylor was talking about. It looks like a very old some kind of
greenbelt that's fallen into disrepair. This is the area that you
would be fixing up?
Mr. Shahinllan:
I'm sorry. What area are you referring to?
Mr. Morrow:
Where it appears to be an old greenbelt along the south
property line.
Mr. Shahinllan:
Okay. I will clean that up. I've seen it. I know exactly what
you're saying.
Mr. Morrow:
Have any of these discussions taken place with your landlord?
Mr. Shahinllan:
All of this is on me. I will paint the building because I honestly
don't want the building to look that way. I don't want anybody
coming into my lot and looking at that. I will paint the building.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. Shahinllan:
Actually, Ann, did we put that in the planning?
Ms. Marlinum:
It was in the two page proposal we had with the plan.
April 3, 2012
26039
Mr. Morrow:
I'll tell you what. Maybe there will be some others questions. If
you pass along that information you have on the vinyl fence so
the Commission can see it.
Ms. Marlinum
Sure.
Mr. W Ishaw:
Just one quick question before we go to the audience for Julian.
I just want to fully understand the service work that you're going
to be doing at the back of the properly. Some of the used car
places have come to us in the past have talked about offering a
service where people can bring their cars that they purchased
from you back for oil changes, almost like a courtesy service.
Are you going to be doing that work or is it just service on the
vehicle prior to display and sale?
Mr. Shahinllan:
Actually, that's why I mentioned Jurgen's Auto Repair. I am
going to be very lied up with them. He's going to be referring
me; I'm going to be referring him. So everything is going to go
to him. I do not intend to do any of that. Actually, the reason
why I want to be able to work on these vehicles is because I
want to control the repairs and I want to be able to know exactly
what needs to be done and what's being done instead of
sending it somewhere else where they make the judgment.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. So you're not offering free oil changes or warranty
services with these cars?
Mr. Shahinllan:
No, sir. If I do, it's going to be a coupon towards U.S. Repairs.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any other questions of the petitioner? Mark, I have
one question
for you. Would you feel comfortable forwarding
this site
plan to the City Council? There seems to be a lack of
specificity on it as it relates to the type of fencing that they're
proposing.
Mr. Taormina:
The short answer to your question is, no.
Mr. Morrow:
I know the Plymouth Road Development Authority menfioned
the landscaping. There's no landscaping indicated on there. I
just think that if this thing has a chance at all, I think we should
have a site plan that is a bit more specific as it relates to what
they're going to do. I wouldn't want to send it forward to Council
and work a hardship on you as it relates to some of the
specificity that I think we need.
April 3, 2012
26040
Mr. Taormina:
Through your questions this evening, I think the Planning
Commission has developed a good understanding of what is to
lake place, and you can certainly embody a lot of this in the
resolution. In fad, the prepared approving resolution does
include a number of these things, but I agree. I think to move
forward, and if that's the decision this evening, then it would be
in the petitioner's best interest to define this data based on
these recommendations and submit something to the City
Council that communicates all of these changes that we've
talked about this evening and something that is clear and
understanding, and something we can memorialize as part of
the final approval if it goes to that point.
Mr. Morrow:
If we approve it, the plan would go forward. If we do not
approve it, then you'd have the option of appealing to the City
Council, but I think you'd want to put your best foot forward as to
a little more specificity on what you're doing. How do you feel
about that?
Mr. Shahinllari:
If we need to correct something, is this what we're ...
Mr. Morrow:
Go ahead, Mr. Wilshaw.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just to clarify some of these details that we've talked about. If
we're talking about a wall, what's the length of the wall? What's
the material, color, things like that?
Mr. Shahinllari:
That depends on the City requirements, right?
Mr. Wlshaw:
If we're going to allow you to have a fence instead of a wall, at
least as far as your site plan goes, it needs to be indicated on
the plan that it's going to be a vinyl fence
Ms. Marlinum
Julian and I will work to gel that done, absolutely.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Okay.
Ms. Marlinum
We don't want to lake a chance that its going to get denied for
that reason.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Right. Very good.
Mr. Morrow:
Also, any of those comments about landscaping, we need a lot
more detail on that.
Ms. Marlinum:
Absolutely.
April 3, 2012
26041
Mr. Taylor:
If I may, Condition 1 says 'Thal the Site Plan received by the
Planning Commission on March 27, 2012, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered lo." I think it should read, the Site Plan
received by the Planning Commission on March 27, 2012, is
hereby referred to the Planning Director for approval. Would
that work for you?
Mr. Morrow:
How do you read that, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure. It sounds like you're pushing off the approval on
me.
Mr. Taylor:
We have nothing to look at, is what I'm getting at.
Mr. Taormina:
l understand.
Mr. Taylor:
I trust you, you being a planner. It's just a suggestion.
Mr. Taormina:
Maybe if it was worded, Mr. Taylor, that the plan as referenced
shall be revised and reviewed by the Planner Director prior to
being submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Taylor:
Again, that's why you get the big bucks.
Mr. Morrow:
What we're saying here is, in all fairness to you, the better the
plan the better your chances. Do you know what I mean? A lot
of the questions we've asked you tonight will be cleared up the
plan.
Mr. Shahinllan
We can take care of that.
Mr. Morrow:
We brought out the fact that you're going to paint the building,
that the rear yard will be cleaned up and be augmented by the
fence, if you get the approval to do it. Do you have a dumpster
on site or is that all internal?
Mr. Shahinllari:
There is a dumpster.
Mr. Morrow:
Does it have an enclosure?
Mr. Shahinllan:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess you could spell that out.
Mr. Wilshaw:
There is a comment in the plan that stockade gates will be
mounted to the dumpster bin, but I think we would have to have
that as an item on our approving resolution if it was to be
approved just to make sure that it's covered.
April 3, 2012
26042
Mr. Morrow:
What does it consist of now other than the new stockade gates?
Is that masonry?
Mr. Shahinllan:
Yes, a masonry wall.
Ms. Martinum
You mean stockade on the dumpster?
Mr. Morrow:
I wanted to know what the other three walls were. I was out
there but it escapes me what the walls were.
Ms. Martinum:
On the dumpster, they're standard block, painted.
Mr. Morrow:
Three sides and you propose a new stockade. Like say, four
sides are masonry and we'd like to add a new stockade gale.
Ms. Martinum
We can do all that.
Mr. Morrow:
You know what I'm saying?
Ms. Martinum
Sure.
Mr. Morrow:
Would you be comfortable with that, Mark, that it would be
reviewed prior to, assuming that we pass it? Then if we do not
pass it, it would be incumbent upon him to appeal it to the City
Council.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm fine with that if that's what you decide this evening is to have
a revised plan pass muster with the Planning Department before
R moves forward, then that's fine.
Mr. Morrow:
If there are no more questions, then I'll go to the audience at
this time. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak
for or against the granting of this petition? If you would please
come forward and give us your name and address for the
record.
George Monahan, 11400 Hubbell, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I live at the south
end of this lot. I'm the owner of the greenbelt that you're talking
about, how he's going to clean it up. I own that land. He
doesn't own that land. That's a difference there. And that
brown fence, that wooden one, that's three years old. That's not
50 years old. I would like to know if some of his repairs is
painting, like auto body work when they take used cars and they
buy them from small collisions and they do repair work by bump
and painting them.
April 3, 2012
26043
Mr. Morrow:
No. He had indicated that he works with someone off site to do
all the heavy repairs.
Mr. Monahan:
Does the law permit him to do that work? Is he going to legally
be allowed to do bump and painting in that place?
Mr. Morrow:
No.
Mr. Monahan:
All the other work, I'm fine with. He can do brake jobs, exhaust.
He can do any work he wants. Impacts, noise, I don't care. I
don't want paint fumes flying in my area.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Just to address your concern, one of the conditions of the
approving resolution if it is approved tonight, would be that only
minor repairs or maintenance work on vehicles can be
conducted and no collision repair. So that would cover your
concern.
Mr. Monahan:
I didn't hear no collision repair.
Mr. W Ishaw:
We'll make sure to include that if this gets approved so that you
don't have to worry about that.
Mr. Monahan:
And in 13 years, I've spent thousands of hours and thousands
of dollars repairing that greenbelt over and over and over. Every
spring, every fall, I plant new sluff. The snow from Plymouth
Road and from the parking lot gels plowed back there and salt
is in that snow. You're not going to gel landscaping to grow
back there. It's not going to stay alive. It dies over and over.
I've attempted different plants, different trees, different shrubs.
Right now I have grapes back there that are wild because
they're woody, viney, and they're allowed to handle the salt.
Mr. Morrow:
So you're saying your property line goes right up to the asphalt?
Mr. Monahan:
I'm supposed to have 100 fool wide by 256. If I measure from
the neighbor's fence to the end of that slab, which might not be
the end of their property, its only 99 feel. So I'm already
missing a fool somewhere. Maybe it's my neighbor's fence on
the other side. I don't know.
Mr. Morrow:
But you're talking about the south end of that properly?
Mr. Monahan:
Its mine.
Mr. Morrow:
So your properly goes right up to where ft's paved.
April 3, 2012
26044
Mr. Monahan: If you put it back on there, the one you had before, my properly
is 11400. Its the full back of the lot. All of that at the bottom is
mine.
Mr. Morrow: Then it appears that if the new fencing goes through, you'll have
to put that on the property line, and that fence or that wall would
preclude any snow from going into your property.
Mr. Monahan: I'm concerned about, the real estate woman said that I would be
concerned, or the neighbors would be concerned about
everything being dug up for a cinderblock wall. All the
neighbors want a cinderblock wall. They've all talked to me
about it. They want a cinderblock wall. They want it as tall as
possible so people can't come through the neighborhood
through that area and cul through the neighborhood, or they
used to, jump over my greenbelt, which is a berm. They used to
jump over that and jump into the Chrysler dealership and break
into the cars back there. Now, I've already called the cops twice
this week, or once Iasi week and once this week, from
somebody cutting over that berm and going through my yard.
So it's not like it doesn't happen. And the Boneyard has rats by
the garbage that come right down there around that berm.
Sometimes you can see them walking down the slab of cement.
I think a cinderblock wall would Iasi and prevent all kinds of
maybe security problems. I'm not sure if they can jump a vinyl
fence any easier than a cement fence though. But I think that
the snow would push the vinyl fence more or make the
maintenance of the vinyl fence harder to maintain than a
cinderblock wall.
Mr. Morrow: Well, l don't disagree with that
Mr. Monahan:
I'm not worried about lights. I'm not worried balloons. I'm not
worried about signs. I'm not worried about any of that. I think
that place would sell a lot of cars. People drive down Plymouth
Road to buy cars. I hope he gets that place and does a good
job and sells cars. I just dont want a wall or a fence that's going
to fall apart faster, which I think vinyl will. It's hard to maintain
that greenbelt. It is really hard to maintain that greenbelt. I've
tried for 13 years.
Mr. Morrow:
Let's see if the Commission has any questions.
Mr. Taylor:
The fence that is existing there now, sir, is that the property
line?
Mr. Monahan:
The fence that is there now is not my property. I'm at the very
end of the lot if you can look at the map.
April 3, 2012
26045
Mr.
Taylor:
That's what I meant, the end of the lot.
Mr.
Monahan:
There's no fence on that properly right now at all because the
people that bought that, they had a stockade up there and the
City of Livonia made them tear it down and made them put up
part of a greenbelt and I finished it.
Mr.
Taylor:
I went back there. Both of us did. I thought there was a fence
there.
Mr.
Morrow:
Well, there was but ...
Mr.
Monahan:
I've been there 13 years. There's no fence. I'm on the south
side.
Mr.
Taylor:
Are we talking about the west side of the lot?
Mr.
Taormina:
No, he's south.
Mr.
Monahan:
The south side.
Mr.
Taylor:
That's what I mean. There was a fence there.
Mr.
Monahan:
There's no fence there.
Mr.
Morrow:
Well, there's a fence on your property, right, some kind of a
chain link fence?
Mr.
Monahan:
On the properly line? No, there's no fence at all on the properly
line.
Mr.
Morrow:
There's something attached to a building back there.
Mr.
Monahan:
That is not their properly.
Mr.
Morrow:
We're trying to determine where the properly line is.
Mr.
Monahan:
A fence can't determine that because where ...
Mr.
Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify this. The properly line is right
where the concrete ends on the petitioner's properly. That is
basically the properly line.
Mr.
Taylor:
That's where the wall would go, Mark, right?
Mr.
Taormina:
The wall would go there. Yes. And when he refers to the
greenbelt, anything that is on the other side of the parking lot
April 3, 2012
26046
really becomes Mr. Monahan's property. There is no fence
along there. You have a dog run or something back there, don't
you, that's a little bit further to the south?
Mr. Monahan:
Not a dog run, no.
Mr. Taormina:
There are some things. It just isn't on the properly line. Again,
the properly line is the end of the concrete.
Mr. Monahan:
And when I measure from the end of the concrete to my
neighbor's fence, which would be inside my yard right there, @'s
like under 99 feel. So somewhere, which is probably my
neighbor's fence, is wrong. Somewhere I'm not 100 fool. I'm
not even that concerned about that. I'm not that concerned
about that. I'm concerned about how I want a cinderblock wall,
especially not a wooden wall because that wont Iasi. And I think
that the rats in that area are digging underneath that cement
slab all around. A vinyl fence isn't going to do anything with
that.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. We'll see if there's anyone else in the audience wishing
to speak for or against the granting of this petition.
Mr. Monahan:
And I also had a letter. I didn't know we could give. If I could
give that to Mark.
Mr. Morrow:
What does it say?
Mr. Monahan:
I want you to know I will approve of a car dealership there. I
think that's a good spot for one. We just have a small
disagreement on this wall between cement or vinyl. I don't care
about noise. I don't care about working on the car I dont care
about any of that. But I know a greenbelt will not do anything
there. I can grow all kinds of sluff, and I've been trying on that
thing for 13 years. I can't do it.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
His letter basically addresses the two issues that were mised
this evening. His concerns, one, that there not be collision
repair, and second, that there be a masonrywall.
Mr. Morrow:
So it is his letter.
Mr. Taylor:
Mark, that's going to be determined by the Zoning Board of
Appeals?
April 3, 2012
26047
Mr. Taormina: Well, I think they'll be looking for a recommendation. The site
plan really should reflect what the Planning Commission's
desire is in terms of the formal screening along the properly line.
Mr. Taylor: A poured concrete wall lasts a long time.
Mr. Taormina: The ordinance requires a screen wall. So I think its incumbent
upon the Planning Commission. The Council will make the
decision and then if the site plan is approved showing a vinyl
fence, then that would be subject ultimately to the approval of
the Zoning Board of Appeals because, yes, you're correct. The
ordinance requires a masonrywall in this instance.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to
speak for or against the granting of this petition? If you'll come
forward and give us your name and address please.
Bill Vaughn, 16317 Golfview, Livonia, Michigan. I've been there better than 30
years, almost 40, and I've loved every day in Livonia. I can't
speak loo much about the technicalifies that are going on there,
but I want to speak about the character of this young man. I've
known Julian quite a while now, and I just want to say some
things about him. First, you all know that there's some empty
buildings on Plymouth Road, right? It's starting to look pretty
shabby. As a resident, I dont want to see that happen to this
community, what's happened east of us. This young man is
very proud of what he does. He's very proud of his business.
He's very proud to be in this country. He came here at 18 years
old and could not speak a lick of English. He's an outstanding
worker, and I can't say enough about his character. He started
out in the fast food restaurants like most people do today. He
came to this country because he knew it was a land of
opportunity. He got a position in an automobile dealership
prepping cars. That's where you start, at the lowest rung. He
excelled at that job. He was the best one out of about six. He
then got a job where he got a certificate to go to a training
program with Ford Motor Company. He went through that for
about two years and he got his certified mechanics license. He
loves working on cars. He loves cars. The short time that he's
been here and what he's had, this dream of having his own
business. You couldn't have a better businessman than this
young man. He will take care of the property. It won't be like
some other used cars lots that you're seeing east. He will lake
care of it. He will improve it. I hope you will give him the
chance because he needs it, and he wants it, and he'll do a
good job for the City of Livonia. Thank you.
April 3, 2012
26048
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. I would like to gel your response to what the
neighbor brought as it relates to how, if you're given the waiver,
not to have a masonry wall but the vinyl wall. How would you
plan on protecting that from the shoveling of the snow and the
deterioration?
Mr. Shahinllari:
I'm going to have to figure some way of actually laking the snow
out of there, not pushing it against that fence and laking it out of
there, somewhere else. I don't know where in Livonia you can
unload sluff like that. I'm sure there are a lot of businesses that
can't, there's no way where to store it until it melts. I'm sure
there's somewhere where they can unload it.
Mr. Morrow:
You have a surplus of parking. I don't know if you would have
to take it off site. But I just wanted to bring up the fact that the
neighbor brings up a good point, that if its not protected in some
way, particularly in the wintertime, and the snow is pushed
against it, and we know sometimes, I don't know if you contract
for it, but some of these people are not real careful in where
they dump snow and that type of thing.
Mr. Shahinllart:
I will do my own snow removal and snow plowing because we
have to move the vehicles out of the way to plow the display
area. So I have to do that myself. Knowing that, I'm going to be
very careful. Even if I have a cinderblock wall, if I push snow
against it, I'm sure it won't last that long.
Mr. Morrow:
It would be amplified by having the vinyl fence there. It would
probably be down inside of a few years. So you'd have to come
up with some plan to protect d if you're given the waiver.
Mr. Shahinllari:
Right. I wouldn't push snow up against it. Thats one of the
things. That's where I would start. I would have to figure out
some other way to push the snow. Maybe I could agree with
the neighbor on the east side and we'd both push it on the
borderline, which would be out of the way.
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to get that for the record.
Mr. Bahr:
Commission Krueger had a good point earlier. I just wanted to
ask you, Julian, have you talked to the owner about him
covering that masonry fence because the masonry fence fits
with our ordinance. It seems to make a lot of sense in light of
the issues we've talked about. It seems like it would be in his
best interest to improve the property that way for any tenant.
Mr. Shahinllari:
I do have a pretty good idea that the owner ... I mean, he's not
doing that great with his business there where he is right now.
April 3, 2012
26049
So he's not willing to participate in anything. If this is going to
be a problem, I think we can work this out, figure some solution
to get this wall up. I dont want this to be a deal breaker.
Mr. Bahr: I understand. Ithink we can probably lel the process take care
of that, but I would like to point out, loo, that I do think, and I
share a lot of the concerns that have been talked about, I do
think that this particular lot makes a lot of sense for a used car
dealership being next to a existing car lot and being a business
today that's of a similar nature. Frankly, I've been impressed
with your business plan and your experience. If this were to go
forward, I definitely wish you the best.
Mr. Shahinllari: Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow: I just want to make absolutely sure that's there no one else in
the audience that wants to speak for or against the granting of
this petition.
Richard George, 4 Evergreen Properties, 31250 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan
48150. Good evening. I'm the owner of American Steel
Moloroyles, and the property at 30835 Plymouth Road. Some
things I would like to clarify. First of all, I'd like to thank George
for being a wonderful neighbor to me for 13 years. This guy
prevented people from stealing behind our store when the kids
go behind our store, but his concerns are good concerns. He
spoke about the Boneyard. To this day, I'll never understand
why Livonia allows that rat trap. I know this is not about them,
but they have a dumpster that's not enclosed. They have a
grease trap that's not enclosed.
Mr. Morrow: Sir, it's really not germane to what we're talking about here
tonight.
Mr. George: I understand. That being said, whatever wall Julian puts there,
is going to be a garbage dump because all of that garbage
blows against the back of that property. Almost on a daily basis
Ws being cleaned. As far as the snow, and we try to direct the
snowplowers to not push the snow up against the property line,
but we left the 25 feet from the property line forward so he does
not push it onto the berm. That doesn't happen all the time but
if anybody witnessed it, there would be a big mound of snow
back there trying not to push it up against the property line.
Julian shows a lot of interest in the property. I think he'd do very
well. As far as how come I'm not participating in the wall, do
you know, there's actually two pieces of property there. I'm
leasing Julian my dealership, which is a dealership already of
new and used cars. The property he's using directly next door,
April 3, 2012
26050
he's not pay any rent for. So, I feel that I am participating in the
wall by giving him rent free property. And I also will participate
with him in the building, which he knows that I mentioned to him.
But if you have any questions, I'd love to answer them as a
property owner.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions from the Commission? Mark, is there
ever any waiver given a certain amount of time to install the
masonry wall?
Mr. Taormina:
The Zoning Board of Appeals has done that in the past although
they like to avoid that these days. What we have done instead
is allowed for agreements between property owners that are for
a period of five years. So should Mr. Monahan agree, he could
enter into a formal type of agreement, and this is submitted to
the City. It would allow for that five year waiver of a wall or
some other substitute. So that is another option besides going
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. But to answer your question,
yes, it can be done for a few years if need be.
Ms. Krueger:
Mark, why isn't there a wall here now?
Mr. Taormina:
That goes back in time. I did not research the history of this
property. I suspect that when this was a market years ago, it
was developed at a time maybe when there wasn't a
requirement for a wall or maybe there was a waiver or variance
granted at some point in time, and then as the use of the
building changed, there was never any trigger that would require
that wall to be constructed. Now that we're dealing with a
waiver use, this body and the Council has the ability, as a
condition of the approval, to impose that wall requirement.
Typically, we take advantage of correcting those types of
nonconformity when we have the opportunity, or at least
properly addressing them.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. And then one other quick question. For the benefit of the
neighbor, aren't there certain plants that are more salt tolerant?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, there probably are.
Ms.Kmeger:
There have been suggestions in the past in other parking lot
landscape situations where there are certain types that are
more tolerant to salt.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the evergreens are what he's got to look for if you really
want a sufficient screen. He's already indicated that the grape
vines are probably doing well, and probably there are some
April 3, 2012
26051
other species like Cottonwoods that would just kind of grow on
their own if he didn't cut them down.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Then a question for the petitioner just quickly about the
vinyl fence. Now that we've had an opportunity
to review the
booklet that was passed around to us, if you were to put in a
vinyl fence, what would it look like because there were
numerous types of vinyl fences in there and what color would it
be?
Mr. Shahinllad:
I was hoping I could get the City approval, what would actually
look better. I would put something that looks better for the City
than something I think looks good, you know. So whatever fits,
that's what I would put on there. I would get advice from you
guys.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, just to set up a scenario here. If we were to approve the
vinyl fence and then it goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals
eventually, and they do not favor the vinyl fence. At that point,
they could say, we could give you x number of years to build a
masonry wall. Is that what I heard? So the granting of that
comes through the Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Taormina:
On something like that I'd have to confer with the Law
Department. I don't see where that would be impossible. We
could probably do that if they were so inclined. They could
probably put together some period of time in the future when
they would have to construct a wall.
Mr. Morrow:
I think we've spent enough time. It's going to be up to the
Commission now. So if there are no more questions of the
petitioner or his representative ....
Mr. Monahan:
Can I speak again?
Mr. Morrow:
I will give you one more opportunity.
Mr. Monahan
I would like to say that if we get a cinderblock wall, instead of
him having to cut the slab and make his property smaller, I'd be
willing to let him put it right on my edge of the property line to
help him save on expense so he doesn't have to cut the cement
that he already has and lose a couple feet of his lot. I'm trying
to work with him and compromise. And the rats are a problem
just because its part of the Boneyard. It's not their fault, but I
do think they're tunneling under the slab, and it's going to make
April 3, 2012
26052
it fall apart soon. I think a cinderblock wall is the best for that
whole situation.
Mr. Morrow:
I think then what he would be doing is, you would own the wall if
he puts it on your property.
Mr. Monahan:
Okay. I dont know the legal parts of that.
Mr. Morrow:
I don't think you would want to do that.
Mr. Monahan:
Well, I don't know what the survey would say. I don't know how
much of that property is ... three or four inches of my dirt might
be his property.
Mr. Morrow:
That's a technicality we cant get into tonight.
Mr. Monahan:
I pick up two or three bags of garbage there from Plymouth
Road blowing in, and nobody from Plymouth Road is going to
see whatever fence that is. They don't care if it's while vinyl or
blue vinyl or cement. Nobody is going to see it.
Mr. Morrow:
We understand that, but you've certainly been a good neighbor
as he indicated.
Mr. Monahan:
Well, I'm attempting to be a good neighbor to the new owners,
but you must understand. There's crime happening in there and
they're using that lot as a cut -through, and they've been doing
that for 13 years. You're not allowed to put up gales to stop it
because people are coming right off Plymouth Road and its
happening late at night. It's not their fault. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou.
Mr. Taylor:
Just to the gentleman that spoke, I was on the Zoning Board of
Appeals for eight years, and believe me, cement block walls do
not hold up. They're terrible the way they hold up and that's
when we decided to put in poured concrete walls. Those work
and they Iasi. The cap may come off, but other than that, they
hold up. And also, you'd have a cement barrier down
underneath where the rats couldn't get underneath too. Mark,
we have no place in here that says anything about a wall, other
than the plan.
Mr. Taormina:
You're talking about in the resolution?
Mr. Taylor:
Not that I can find.
2. That the recommendations of the Executive Committee of
the Plymouth Road Development Authority (PRDA) shall
be resolved to the satisfaction of the appropriate City
Departments, including: a) providing an oil and grease
separator in the parking lot catch basin if deemed
necessary; b) limiting the waiver approval to this Petitioner
only; and c) installing additional landscaping along
Plymouth Road and the island within the parking lot;
3. That the number of vehicles to be displayed outdoors shall
be limited to a total of thirty-three (33) vehicles, and that no
vehicle for sale shall be displayed closer than twenty feel
(20') from the front lot line;
4. That except for what may be authorized under the Zoning
Ordinance as part of a temporary sales event, any type of
exterior advertising related to the sale of the vehicles
designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, such
as promotional flags or streamers, shall be prohibited;
April 3, 2012
26053
Mr. Taormina:
I guess it just references the plan and the fad that a wall is
shown on the plan.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
I think that does it. I'm going to close the public hearing, and
ask for a motion.
On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Krueger, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-28-2012
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 2012,
on Petition 2012-03-02-05 submitted by Julian Shahinllari
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(8) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
operate a used auto dealership (Julian's Auto Sales) with
outdoor display of vehicles at 30805 and 30835 Plymouth Road,
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman
Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35,
which properly is zoned C-2, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-03-02-
05 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan received by the Planning Commission
on March 27, 2012, is hereby approved, subject to revision
and review by the Planning Department prior to being
submitted to the City Council;
2. That the recommendations of the Executive Committee of
the Plymouth Road Development Authority (PRDA) shall
be resolved to the satisfaction of the appropriate City
Departments, including: a) providing an oil and grease
separator in the parking lot catch basin if deemed
necessary; b) limiting the waiver approval to this Petitioner
only; and c) installing additional landscaping along
Plymouth Road and the island within the parking lot;
3. That the number of vehicles to be displayed outdoors shall
be limited to a total of thirty-three (33) vehicles, and that no
vehicle for sale shall be displayed closer than twenty feel
(20') from the front lot line;
4. That except for what may be authorized under the Zoning
Ordinance as part of a temporary sales event, any type of
exterior advertising related to the sale of the vehicles
designed to attract the attention of passing motorists, such
as promotional flags or streamers, shall be prohibited;
April 3, 2012
26054
5. That the display of any vehicles on car lifts is strictly
prohibited;
6. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts,
equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products,
junked, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles, or other similar
items in connection with this operation, and the overhead
doors, when not in use for vehicles entering or exiling the
service facility, shall be closed at all limes;
7. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including
the provision of barrier free parking to be relocated
adjacent to the building, with proper signage, marking and
configuration, and all regular customer spaces shall be 10'
x 20' in size as required;
8. That the Petitioner shall be allowed a conforming wall sign
and the ability to either replace the panels on the existing
ground sign or a new conforming ground sign, whichever
he elects. Any additional signage shall be separately
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of
Appeals;
9. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
10. That no overhead speakers will be used inside or outside
the building;
11. That the auto service facility shall consist of one (1) bay or
work station, and all service work shall be limited to
vehicles that are on display and being sold at this location;
the service operations shall not be open to the general
public;
12. That only minor repairs and maintenance work on vehicles
be conducted at this site, and that repair work shall not
include collision repair;
13. 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 of solid panel
steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel
fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all
times;
April 3, 2012
26055
14. That all light poles shall be a maximum of 20 feel high
including the base and all light fixtures shall be shielded to
minimize glare trespassing on adjacent properties and
roadway;
15. That per the note on the plan, a minimum five (3) foot high
masonry wall be built at or near the south properly line
adjacent to the residential district, and that a fence be
allowed along the remaining portion of the west properly
line where the site abuts the nonconforming residential;
16. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated
March 29, 2012, from the Assistant Director of Inspection
shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and/or Engineering Division; and
17. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the 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, the Planning Commission recommends the
approval of a Conditional Agreement limiting this waiver use to
this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use
approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by
the City Council.
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. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Ms. Scheel: On one of the pages, Commissioner Wilshaw mentioned this
earlier, that the plan didn't indicate the height or type of
April 3, 2012
26056
materials to be used for the walls or gates of the enclosure for
storage of refuse. Is that something that would be on the
amended site plan, or do we need to address this in the
conditions?
Mr. Taormina:
It depends on if you want anything beyond what our normal
requirements are for that enclosure.
Ms. Scheel:
Our normal requirements are fine with me, but I just needed to
know whether it needed to be addressed here?
Mr. Taormina:
We can include that language in the approving resolution if you
would like, that there be a masonry enclosure. In this particular
case since its not visible to the public, I think we could probably
go with standard gates along the back of this properly line.
Ms. Smiley:
We didn't exactly address this fence, but it does in the letter
from the Director of Inspection.
Mr. Morrow:
What does it say there for the Engineering Division?
Ms. Smiley:
From the Assistant Director of Inspection, it said that the "screen
wall shown by the petitioner on the south and west side of the
property is required to be constructed of either reinforced
concrete with a false brick design, cement shadow block or brick
wall. It must be five to seven feel in height"
Mr. Morrow:
Is that the direction of the maker of the motion?
Mr. Bahr:
Yes. I would point out loo that on the Site Plan as we have it, it
actually even indicates masonry walls at this point.
Mr. Taormina:
I think to make it absolutely clear to the petitioner and to
everyone, if you could specify what the intention is. If it's to
build the wall, then Tel's add that language right to one of the
conditions in the approving resolution. If you want to just lake it
from the Inspection Department, that's fine.
Mr. Bahr:
That's fine with me.
Mr. Morrow:
That's your intent.
Ms. Krueger:
That's fine with me loo.
Mr. Taormina:
One question I have is, does this mean that we want the
masonrywall to continue to the north along a portion of the west
property line? It seems to me that might be an opportunity
where an alternate type of fence would make sense. Since a
April 3, 2012
26057
masonry wall is not required necessarily along that 27 or 30 foot
area between the south property line and where the wood fence
begins, maybe that's an appropriate location to continue the
wood fence and have it tie into the masonry wall or go with an
alternate vinyl.
Mr. Morrow:
Are you saying the masonry wall would be strictly on the south
property line?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, that is correct. I lhinkwe wanllo clarifylhal.
Mr. Bahr:
Yes, I can support that.
Mr. Morrow:
Ms. Krueger?
Ms. Krueger:
That's acceptable to me.
Mr. Morrow:
Any further discussion?
Mr. W Ishaw:
I had a few bullet points. I just want to make sure we're covered
in our approving resolution. I think we covered the wall. It
would be nice to have something about the dumpsler and the
gales closed when not in use, sort of our standard verbiage that
we have for most of our resolutions. I would like to see some
sort of mention that the barrier free space be located close to
the entrance of the building on the revised plan so that doesn't
get lost as they're working through their new site plan. The
other thing is lighting. Ms. Smiley brought up the issue of
lighting. I think we typically have standard verbiage that lighting
doesn't stray into adjacent properties or residences in the area.
It probably would hurt to include that just as well just to make
sure that's covered. That's all I have.
Mr. Morrow:
How about the specificity on the landscaping as part of that
review by the Planning Department?
Mr. W Ishaw:
I think that would be wise as well. Just some suggestions to the
maker of the motion.
Mr. Bahr:
In general, I'm fine with that. I think the landscaping, wasn't it
our intent with the modifications to point number one to cover
that? I have no problem with including it.
Mr. Morrow:
We should call something out there to be in agreement with the
property owner or lessee.
Mr. Bahr:
I'm certainly fine with that.
April 3, 2012
26058
Mr. Morrow: We normally send a landscape plan along with it detailing d.
Mr. Wlshaw: I'd like to make one comment. I kind of gave Mr. Julian a hard
time at the study meeting because I do take these particular
uses, these used car dealers, seriously. They can vary and the
quality of the operation and the location. There's a lot of
nuances as we saw at this meeting tonight with these types of
operations, and I have to say that this petitioner has done a
fabulous job of showing interest and good spirit in trying to be a
good business in this location. I think he has done a fine job of
showing that location is a difficult one to be used for any other
type of retail operation, and that a used car dealership, as he
envisions it, is probably a proper use for this facility and would
be difficult to be used for any other typical type of retail. I think
he's got a good use for this location and I think he got a good
business plan, and I appreciate his working with the neighbors
and the City. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Prior to going to the City Council, please
meet with Mr. Taormina so that what goes forward has a little
more specificity than we have here. Good luck at the Zoning
Board if you chose to go.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2012-02-08-02 3T MEDICAL SYSTEMS
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
02-08-02 submitted by HF Architecture, on behalf of 3T Medical
Systems, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, in connection with a proposal to construct an addition
to the existing building at 31330 Schoolcraft Road, located on
the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Merriman Road and
Henry Ruff Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct an addition to an existing
commercial building that is on the north side of Schoolcraft just
east of Merriman. This property is about half an acre in size. It
has 70 feel of frontage along Schoolcraft and extends for a
depth of 300 feet. The zoning is C-1, Local Business. The
building currently contains three tenants: Kevin Adams &
Associates, P.L.L.C, Comprehensive Care Services, and 3T
Medical Systems, which is the petitioner in this case.
Surrounding the properly to the north are residential homes that
April 3, 2012
26059
are part of the Bai-Lynn Park Subdivision No.4. To the west are
a number of commercial uses including a gas station, party
store, pizzeria and chiropractic clinic, all with frontage along
Mernman Road. To the east is an allergy and asthma clinic,
also zoned C-1, Local Business. The building on the site is
about 4,800 square feet in area. The addition would be
constructed to the rear of the building and measure a total of
about 1,800 square feet, bringing the total building area to about
6,700 square feel. Currently there are seven parking spaces.
With the new plan, the addition would encompass all seven of
those parking spaces. There will be an area remaining between
the rear of the building and the masonry wall that exists along
the north property line. It's about 10 feel wide. It would be
maintained with grass. That would actually increase the amount
of landscaping on the property from its current amount of 7
percent to about 11 percent. The floor plan submitted with the
application shows what the additional space would include new
office cubicles as well as a non-sterile storage room, a sterile
storage room, and then as part of the reconfiguration of the
space that's occupied by 3T Medical, they would renovate the
existing office cubicles. They would add a new conference,
provide a barrier free unisex restroom, as well a mechanical IT
room. In terms of parking for this site, they are in full
compliance. The ordinance requires one space for every 200
square feel of gross floor area. That would require 27 parking
spaces, which is exactly what they have available on the site. In
terms of the building exterior, the addition would match the
architecture and building materials of the existing building,
which includes masonry block as well as some brick. They
would use glass block for some of the windows along the
building, which is consistent with what they currently have. A
couple features that were noted at the study meeting as part of
the site plan was the presence of a small overhead door, 9 feel
by 8 feet garage door, that would be located in the northwest
corner of the building. We have communicated with the
architect in this case. It is our understanding that he will
respond to your inquiry as to what type of arrangement exists
between this property owner and the adjacent property owner in
terms of a cross access agreement. There is also a drainage
structure very close to where this addition is being constructed.
We're not sure whether or not this will require the relocation of
any drainage structures on the site. Also, with respect to the
screening of any mechanical equipment on top of the building, it
is our understanding that it is not an issue in this particular case.
I'll let the architect or the petitioner respond to those questions
more specifically.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence?
April 3, 2012
26060
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 14, 2012, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced petition request for
plan approval. The legal description on the plan is correct. The
address for this site is confirmed to be 31330 Schoolcraft Road.
It is important to note that drainage problems have been
reported from the property immediately west of this facility. With
this improvement, a small (.04 acres) existing paved ama will be
converted to building. Therefore, storm water quantities will not
be impacted by this change. However, 1 am notifying the
architect that though minor care must be taken in planning to be
sure that no adverse impact to adjacent properties occurs as a
result of re -directing storm water Flows." The letter is signed by
Kevin G. Roney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 2,
2012, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed request
for Site Plan approval submitted by HE Architecture on behalf
of 3T Medical Systems located at the above referenced
address. 1 have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Ead W. Fester, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from
the Division of Police, dated March 2, 2012, which reads as
follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the
petition. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by John Gibbs, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 12, 2012,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) There is no mention of an irrigation system for the
landscaping on this site. The Council or Planning Commission
may wish to address this. (2) All parking spaces are required to
be a minimum of 10'x 20' and double striped. (3) All barrier free
parking spaces must be property sized, signed and striped. Two
spaces are required with one of the spaces being van
accessible. (4) The proposed addition, including restrooms,
shall meet all current barrier free codes. This will be addressed
at the time of ourplan review if this project moves forward. (5) A
zoning compliance certificate and Inspection approval is
required for the existing tenant space. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions before we go to the petitioner? Seeing
none, is the petitioner here this evening?
Mr. Howard: Sure.
April 3, 2012
26061
Brian Howard,
HF Architecture, 25600 Woodward, Suite 209, Royal Oak,
Michigan 48067. To answer a couple questions, one in
particular, as Mark said, this will not have any mechanical
screening on the roof. This is all being handled with internal
furnaces, condensing units, and all the duct work is inside. So
nothing is being mounted on the roof, hence no screening
required for that. Regarding the access, once I got a call from
Scott, I contacted the owner of the building, who is my client,
and asked him if there was an agreement with the neighbor who
owns the chiropractic clinic. He said he researched a little bit
within his company, and he's been there a long time. I can't tell
you how long he's been there but a substantial amount of time.
There is no agreement with the neighbor at this time. He has
tried to contact the neighbor a few different times. Whether the
neighbor has been out of town or whatever has happened, he is
trying to, and I just got an email from my client today who is
unfortunately out of town. But he said even as of today, he's
tried to get a hold of that particular neighbor to try to gel
something development, some sort of an agreement, that
access will remain intact to provide for the egress of that drive
so it's not just a dead end driveway. So we're working on it.
Unfortunately, I dont have any more information than that al this
particular time, but he's pretty confident. I asked my client as
well, I said, how is your relationship been with that neighbor
over the years? He says very good. So in his opinion he feels
that some agreement can be developed between the two of
them that shouldn't be issue, but I don't have anything tangible
in my hand right now to be able to tell you that it's a done deal.
Mr. Morrow:
How long would you say he's been using this property for
egress and ingress?
Mr. Howard:
Twenty plus years I would say.
Mr. Morrow:
My law is a Iitlle rusty, but sometimes unimpeded ... maybe we
should lel Mrs. Krueger answer this.
Ms. Krueger:
It doesn't exactly work like that.
Mr. Morrow:
This goes back many years.
Mr. Howard:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
After you've used a piece of property, go back and forth over a
certain amount of years, you automatically have established an
easement there.
Mr. Howard: Sure.
April 3, 2012
26062
Mr. Morrow: So, I just bring that up. I dont know if it would gel down to that.
Mr. Howard: His business partner in the building, Kevin Adams, is an
attorney, so I suppose that there's probably ....
Mr. Morrow: You may not want to come to that.
Mr. Howard: And I don't think it ever will. Quite honestly, Chet told me, he
said, you know, my relationship with him has been fine. As a
matter of fad, if you went out to the site and drove that
driveway, a portion of that has been repaved, and my client
actually helped pay for some of that repaving that occurred on
the chiropractor's lot. So in many ways, there isn't any
documentation that says that is an egress through, but I think
everybody involved probably knows that.
Mr. Morrow:
We'll make the assumption that between now and the City
Council, hopefully there will be something in writing.
Mr. Howard:
Yes. We'll try and do that. Scott Miller had menfioned to me
that it may be more of an issue with the City Council as we get
to that point. My client is aware of it. He's on it. He's trying
desperately to gel in touch with the guy.
Mr. Morrow:
We appreciate that. We know sometimes ifs tough to work to
everybody's schedule.
Mr. Howard:
Right.
Mr. Morrow:
Do you have any more comments? We may have some
questions of you.
Mr. Howard:
To answer the quick question regarding the roof drainage, this
whole building currently drains from east to west with a gutter
and downspout system that occurs along the west line of the
building. It then downspouts down and is picked up by the
drainage of the driveway and hence then goes to the catch
basis. That intent is going to be continued on the addition
portion. So there will be a continued gutter and downspout
system that will keep occurring as we move to the north on the
new addition portion.
Mr. Morrow:
It will go into the same catch basin.
Mr. Howard:
Same catch basin, right. It will be dumped onto the driveway
area and then developed to the catch basin. Just a quick note
regarding the back area that, as Mark mentioned, is all paved
Mr. Howard: Probably what the garbage truck will do, I don't drive a garbage
truck, but it will come off of Schoolcraft, go down around
because it's a straight shot along that 13 foot wide drive, go in,
pick up his bin, back up and then turn and head to the left out to
Merriman Road through that access drive. That's my guess on
how he'll operate it. I don't know how he does it now. He may
just come in off Merriman, go straight across, pick it up, and
back his way all the way out. I have no idea.
Mr. Taylor: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Wilshaw: What does this business do?
April 3, 2012
26063
now right up to the masonry wall. Obviously, we're developing
more landscaping as Mark mentioned so the percentage of
landscaping actually on this particular project is increasing in
terms of what percentage currently is there. I'd be more than
happy to answer any more questions.
Mr. Taylor:
Where is the dumpstergoing?
Mr. Howard:
The current dumpster that you see on the back property line,
which is kind of haphazardly placed on the parking, will be
developed, and its actually nottrash. Its recycling. Because of
this type of use of building, they gel a lot of cardboard boxes.
The reason the overhead door is there, they gel a lot of UPS,
FedEx type deliveries, and they generate a lot of cardboard. So
the dumpster that's actually there is not trash. Trash is handled
in the interior of the building. This is in particular a recycling
dumpster.
Mr. Taylor:
But where is it going?
Mr. Howard:
Its going to go in the back against the masonry wall. We're
going to build masonry walls and create an enclosure for it. So
it's actually absorbing one of the last parking spaces that occurs
on the northwest corner of the property against the masonry
wall.
Mr. Taylor:
Then you're going to have grass going to the east.
Mr. Howard:
That's correct.
Mr. Taylor:
The garbage truck is going to have to back in and pick it up, and
then drive back through the driveway?
Mr. Howard: Probably what the garbage truck will do, I don't drive a garbage
truck, but it will come off of Schoolcraft, go down around
because it's a straight shot along that 13 foot wide drive, go in,
pick up his bin, back up and then turn and head to the left out to
Merriman Road through that access drive. That's my guess on
how he'll operate it. I don't know how he does it now. He may
just come in off Merriman, go straight across, pick it up, and
back his way all the way out. I have no idea.
Mr. Taylor: Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Wilshaw: What does this business do?
April 3, 2012
26064
Mr. Howard: The 3T Medical System is a very ambiguous term in the sense
that he doesn't ... he's not a doctor. Well, technically yes, he
is a doctor, but he doesn't see patients. It's strictly a sales office
facility, a business office, and the two supply rooms that you see
there are supply rooms that he then takes and the sales people
then go off site and deliver to hospitals, doctors' offices, and
things like that. It's strictly a business office thaljust happens to
have medical in its terminology.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. So he's selling medical supplies, essentially?
Mr. Howard: Yes. Correct.
Mr.
Wilshaw:
Does he have delivery trucks then?
Mr.
Howard:
Like UPS and FedEx trucks.
Mr.
Wilshaw:
Are those delivery trucks parked in the garage overnight?
Mr.
Howard:
No. Nobody is there overnight. Literally, its a five minute drop
There's a side entrance door off the west wall. They literally
off, no different than the FedEx that shows up at your house.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Howard:
So literally, quite honestly, I don't even know how many
deliveries he gets. It's not a lot because I've been there
numerous times and I've never seen a UPS truck there. So
what they do is, they currently pull up right in that drive right at
their front door, and they go in the front door or the side door.
There's a side entrance door off the west wall. They literally
come in, drop their boxes there, however many there are, 10,
20. The reason he needs this addition so badly is his business
is expanding to the point where he literally has ... he has three
people in offices currently. He has literally no room to store
anything. I mean his business is just taken off incredibly. So
this is a way for him to, literally, he'll have this whole building
filled the day the project is done.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That's a great problem to have.
Mr. Howard:
He's very good at what he does.
Mr. Morrow:
That's lhegood news.
Mr. Wlshaw:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Anything else? I see no one in the audience, so I'm going to
ask for a motion.
April 3, 2012
26065
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, 9 was
#04-29-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-02-08-02
submitted by HF Architecture, on behalf of 3T Medical Systems,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the
existing building at 31330 Schoolcreff Road, located on the
north side of SchoolcraR Road between Merriman Road and
Henry Ruff Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked AS00 dated February 28, 2012,
prepared by HF Architecture, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as
a cross -access agreement, that gives notice and outlines
the terms of how the subject property would share parking
and access with abutting properly(s), be supplied to the
Inspection Department at the time a building permit is
applied for;
3. That the Elevations Plan marked A200 dated February 28,
2012, prepared by HF Architecture, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
4. That the issues as outlined in the correspondence dated
March 12, 2012, from the Assistant Director of Inspection
shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department;
5. That the three walls of the trash dumpsler 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 of solid panel
steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel
fiberglass and maintained and when not in use closed at all
times;
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
April 3, 2012
26066
7. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the dale of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2012 -03 -SN -02 LAUREL OFFICE PARK III
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
03 -SN -02 submitted by LOP III Holding Company, L.L.C.
requesting approval of additional wall signage, pursuant to
Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, for the five -story office building (Laurel Office Park III)
at 17197 Laurel Park Drive, located on the west side of Laurel
Park Drive between Six Mile Road and University Drive in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Taormina: This petition and the next petition are related and very similar.
They're being presented to you by essentially the same interest.
These office buildings include 17177 and 17197 Laurel Park
Drive. These are multiple story buildings that are along the 1-
275/96 Expressway. The request this evening involves
additional wall signage. This first one is for Laurel Office Park III
to identify one of the major tenants, Pet Supplies Plus, which
will be a occupying a significant amount of space within the
building. They will be adding the sign to the west elevation of
the building that's facing the 1-275 expressway. The sign would
measure about 99 square feel in total area. It is an addition to
what is already classified as a wall sign, and that's the oversized
address numbers that are two sides of the mechanical
penthouse which is located on top of the building. These
addresses constitute the wall signage because of the large size
of those numbers. The proposed sign is well within the scale of
the building at 99 square feet. It really is innocuous in terms of
signage on this structure. The next petition is very similar.
Although they don't have a tenant identified, they would like the
opportunity to be able to market the building to allow for a sign
should they sign a lease with a major tenant. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence?
April 3, 2012
26067
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated March 26, 2012, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. The petitioner has
proposed a third wall sign where only one wall sign is permitted.
A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required
to maintain the excess number of wall signs. A variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals was obtained for the existing two
wall signs. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of the Planning Director?
Ms. Krueger:
This is the third wall sign?
Mr. Taormina:
There are two addresses. There's one on this side of the
penthouse and then there's one the opposite side.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. I do have another question. Currently, there's a big
Friedman banner on the building on that side. How did that get
up there, and it is going to stay there?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't have the answer to that question. Whether it's permitted
or not is something that our Inspection Departmentwould know.
Ms. Krueger:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor:
Through the chair to Mark. Mark, doesn't the Zoning Ordinance
for signs specify that it says something rather than an address?
If lt doesn't, I think we ought to take a look at it.
Mr. Taormina:
I agree. The situation here is because of the size of those
numbers. We allow address numbers to be a certain size; I
think two feet in height. Because they are probably seven or
eight feet in height, they requested to have them constituted as
permissible signage. But the obvious result is that it limited their
ability to put additional signage on the building.
Mr. Taylor:
Was that part of the resolution that it goes on the side of the
building?
Mr. Taormina:
I think those addresses were permitted as signs when they
came to us originally.
Mr. Taylor:
Thankyou.
Mr. Finsilver: There are plans to take it down once the building is leased. I
think that's more of temporary sign; it's not a permanent sign. I
believe it's allowed only because the people that put it up there
wouldn't do it without doing that, and I know the other building
that we don't own also has, but it's not meant to be temporary at
all. I mean permanent at all. So, yes, it will come down as soon
as we lease up some more of the building, which, by the way, is
happening.
Ms. Krueger: It just seems really big. And same with the sign out front, the
leasing sign. Theyjusl seem enormous.
Mr. Finsilver: They are big, but when you're driving 70 miles an hour, it's the
275 side. You try to gel your name out there.
Ms.Krueger: Okay. Thank you.
April 3, 2012
26068
Mr. Taormina:
I'd like to point out, loo, that it was a previous owner of the
building. That's when those buildings were constructed.
Levine, the original owners, petitioned for those addresses. So
this petitioner was not responsible for putting those address
numbers on the building.
Mr. Morrow:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Stan Finsilver,
Friedman Management, 34975 W. Twelve Mile Road, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48331. I'm one of the principles of Laurel Park I
and Laurel Park III.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to the
presentation thus far?
Mr. Finsilver:
Basically, we had one of two choices - either take the addresses
down or come here. Obviously, the addresses are on all three
buildings, two of which we own. There s not much I can say.
They're not obtrusive. They're not obnoxious. They're just the
addresses. They are large obviously, but we prefer not to take
them down because they give them some definition. Pet
Supplies Plus has taken a good portion of the fourth floor and
will be moving in, hopefully, in a couple weeks, but don't quote
me. We are marketing the other building where we have some
additional square footage. We figured we come here once.
Mr. Morrow:
That's good. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Krueger:
I have a question about the Friedman banner that's on the
building currently. Are there plans to take that down once the
sign is approved?
Mr. Finsilver: There are plans to take it down once the building is leased. I
think that's more of temporary sign; it's not a permanent sign. I
believe it's allowed only because the people that put it up there
wouldn't do it without doing that, and I know the other building
that we don't own also has, but it's not meant to be temporary at
all. I mean permanent at all. So, yes, it will come down as soon
as we lease up some more of the building, which, by the way, is
happening.
Ms. Krueger: It just seems really big. And same with the sign out front, the
leasing sign. Theyjusl seem enormous.
Mr. Finsilver: They are big, but when you're driving 70 miles an hour, it's the
275 side. You try to gel your name out there.
Ms.Krueger: Okay. Thank you.
April 3, 2012
26069
Mr. Wilshaw:
Even though it doesn't have a lot to do with the signage, it kind
of goes along with what we're talking about with the leasing of
the building. How much of the building is going to be occupied
once Pel Supplies Plus moves in, and then where are you at as
far as leasing on that building?
Mr. Finsilver:
We actually have two tenants moving in. An 18,000 square foot
housing company and Pet Supplies. I'm going to guess we're
close to 78 to 80 percent.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Excellent.
Mr. Finsilver:
So actually it's been pretty successful. We've renovated the
lobbies. We're redoing the landscaping. You probably saw
some of the re -landscaping. The buildings were tired. We
brought them up to date; we renovated all the common areas.
Quite frankly, there's people out there looking. It's all good.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Its great to hear. I'm glad to see Pet Supplies Plus move into
Livonia, and I think this sign is a very small consolation to get
their name out there and acknowledge that they're in the
building. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Are you under any kind of time constraints as far as getting the
sign up and getting it approved?
Mr. Finsilver:
They'd like to have it up the day they move in, but we know
that's not a possibility.
Mr. Morrow:
Do they have to fabricate the sign?
Mr. Finsilver:
Yes. They may have one other sign that they could use, but
we're not sure it meets the size criteria. But yes, theoretically,
the day we gel permission if you will, the contractor will already
have an approved sign, will probably, based on what we hear
from the City Council and from you, I might go ahead and have
plans drawn by the sign company and submit for a permit, so
the day we're approved, they could go ahead and start building
the sign.
Mr. Morrow:
Mark, would it be possible to expedite things because he does
have a tenant that would probably like to see his sign up there.
Do you think if we waive the seven days it would do him any
good?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. That would probably save them two weeks.
April 3, 2012
26070
Mr. Morrow:
Would that work? Normally, we're sympathetic to your needs
and if it doesn't do any good, there's no use doing it. But if this
is approved, then we'll offer a resolution to waive the seven day
wailing period so you can expedite it to the City Council, and it
will work out where you're getting the sign that much quicker.
Mr. Finsilver:
That would be fabulous. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
That would allow them to go on the Council study meeting of
Monday, April 16.
Mr. Morrow:
You'll work it out with the Council?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
All right. I'll ask for a motion.
On a motion by Krueger, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-30-2012
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2012-03SN-02
submitted by LOP III Holding Company, L.L.C. requesting
approval of additional wall signage, pursuant to Section 18.47 of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, for the
five -story office building (Laurel Office Park III) at 17197 Laurel
Park Drive, located on the west side of Laurel Park Drive
between Six Mile Road and University Drive in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 7, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the additional sign shall be in accordance with the
Sign Plan, as received by the Planning Commission on
March 6, 2012; and,
2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
number of signs and sign area and any conditions related
thereto.
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Wlshaw:
I'll offer a resolution for a waiver of the seven days to try to
speed this up.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously approved, 0 was
April 3, 2012
26071
#04-31-2012 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective dale of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2012 -03 -SN -02 submitted by LOP III Holding
Company, L.L.C. requesting approval of additional wall signage,
pursuant to Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, for the five -story office building
(Laurel Office Park III) at 17197 Laurel Park Drive, located on
the west side of Laurel Park Drive between Six Mile Road and
University Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Morrow, 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 2012 -03 -SN -03 LAUREL OFFICE PARK I
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2012-
03 -SN -03 submitted by LOP I Holding Company, L.L.C.
requesting approval for additional wall signage, pursuant to
Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, for the four-story office building (Laurel Office Park 1)
at 17177 Laurel Park Drive, located on the west side of Laurel
Park Drive between Six Mile Road and University Drive in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Taormina: This is one of the sister buildings. They are proposing signage
identical to the previous petition. This would be located on the
south elevation. It would be the same size sign at 17177 Laurel
Park Drive.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: The correspondence from the Inspection Department is identical
to the previous petition, basically indicating that they will have to
seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The letter is
dated March 26, 2012, which reads as follows: Pursuant to your
request, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. The petitioner has proposed a third wall sign
where only one wall sign is permitted. A variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required to maintain the
excess number of wall signs. A variance from the Zoning Board
April 3, 2012
26072
of Appeals was obtained for the existing two wall signs. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Jerome Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions of Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taylor:
We do not know who this petitioner is going to be, right?
Stan Finsilver,
Friedman Management, 34975 W. Twelve Mile Road, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48331. We do not know who the sign is going
to be for. We want to be able to market the building with a sign.
Mr. Morrow:
Are there any questions? Do you require a certain amount of
square feel from a tenant in order to get that sign?
Mr. Finsilver:
Typically, yes, but if it's a national company ... maybe a smaller
tenant who is paying more rent because they want the sign. It's
all economics. But typically, if you have your name on the
building, you're a prominent tenant.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess that's where I was coming from. You will probably hold
that in reserve until the nighttime. Are there any other questions
of the petitioner? Seeing none, I'll ask for a motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-32-2012
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that next item on the agenda,
Petition 2012-03-SN-03 submitted by LOP I Holding Company,
L.L.C. requesting approval for additional wall signage, pursuant
to Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended, for the four-story office building (Laurel Office Park
1) at 17177 Laurel Park Drive, located on the west side of Laurel
Park Drive between Six Mile Road and University Drive in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the additional sign shall be in accordance with the
Sign Plan, as received by the Planning Commission on
March 6, 2012; and,
2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
number of signs and sign area and any conditions related
thereto.
April 3, 2012
26073
Mr. Morrow,
Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Ms. Smiley:
In addition, I would like to suggest that we waive the seven
days.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Scheel, and unanimously approved, it was
#04-33-2012
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2012 -03 -SN -03 submitted by LOP I Holding
Company, L.L.C. requesting approval for additional wall
signage, pursuant to Section 18.47 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, for the four-story office building
(Laurel Office Park I) at 17177 Laurel Park Drive, located on the
west side of Laurel Park Drive between Six Mile Road and
University Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Taylor:
My only question is, is there a necessity? We don't know what
the sign is going to say to move it along that quickly.
Mr. Finsilver:
I can't answer that unless you want to rent some space. We
don't have anybody in the wings at this point.
Mr. Taylor:
I don't know what the urgency is. That's what I'm getting at,
other than the fact that you could probably gel to the Council
and Zoning Board of Appeals at the same time. The Zoning
Board is going to ask the same question. What if it's some kind
of a sign that we're not crazy about?
Mr. Finsilver:
It still has to meet your criteria of what's allowable. It can't be
more than 100 square feel or 99 square feel.
Mr. Taylor:
I understand that, but with Pel Supplies, we know what it says.
We don't know what this other sign is going to say if it's
approved at 90 square feet or whatever. That's what I'm getting
at. Maybe the Board doesn't agree with me.
Mr. Finsilver:
I can't really answer that.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Taormina, were you going to say something?
April 3, 2012
26074
Mr. Taormina: It's really just a convenience to the petitioner to approve the
seven day waiver. I thought that's what you were indicating.
Since there is no urgency, it's really just a convenience to the
petitioner to bring those two items together before the Council.
Mr. Taylor: That's the only convenience I can see.
Ms. Scheel: That's how I was looking at R.
Mr. Morrow: Let's see how that goes. It will get it there, and it will be up to
the Council to decide if they want to move it along or hold it in
abeyance until a later time. How does that sound, Mr. Taylor?
Mr. Taylor: That will work.
Mr. Morrow: We have a motion and support before us. Is there any other
discussion? Seeing none, please call the roll.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. Good luck, and I hope to see more
tenants roll in there now. It sounds like you're making some
plans. It's desirable office space.
Mr. Finsilver: Thankyou.
ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,021" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Scheel, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,021" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on March 6, 2012.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Bahr, and adopted, it was
#04-34-2012 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,021" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 6,
2012, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES:
Taylor, Bahr, Krueger, Wilshaw, Scheel, Morrow
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Smiley
April 3, 2012
26075
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,022ol Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 3, 2012, was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Lynda L. Scheel, Secretary
ATTEST:
R. Lee Morrow, Chairman