HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-01-1519058
MINUTES OF THE 837° REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 15, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 837" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; and Bill Poppenger, Planner I, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation lolhe City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner hasten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council.
Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7)
days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff
have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the
Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission
may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2002-01-08-01 LIVONIA CHRYSLER JEEP
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
01-08-01 submitted by Livonia Chrysler Jeep requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the dealership
located at 30777 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35.
19059
Mr. McCann: We did receive a fax, dated January 11, 2002, from David McDonald,
General Manager, Livonia Chrysler Jeep, Inc. It states, "Due to
unforeseen circumstances, Livonia Chrysler Jeep will not be
represented atthe January 15, 2002, meeting. I am submitting this
letter as per our telephone conversation as of January 11, 2002. 1
will be contacting you soon to reschedule our petition request. Your
patience in this matter is greatly appreciated" My understanding is
that he is asking for this to be tabled and he will notify us when he
wants to be put back on the agenda. Is there a motion to do so?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#01-01-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-01-08-01, submitted by Livonia
Chrysler Jeep, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition to the dealership located at 30777 Plymouth
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, be tabled.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-01-08-02 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
01-08-02 submitted by Kentucky Fried Chicken requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 oflhe Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior building
elevations of the restaurant located at 13485 Farmington Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the southwest comer of Schoolcmtt and
Farmington Road. Kentucky Fried Chicken is requesting approval to
renovate the exterior oftheir existing restaurant located on the
subjectsite. Presently, there is a mansard roof around the top half
of the restaurant that would be removed and replaced with dryvil.
The panel brick that makes up the lower half of the building would
remain. Any repairs or holes would be replaced with new panel brick
where required. The existing cupola tower that defines the front of
the restaurant would be enlarged. New red and white striped
awnings would highlight each window of the restaurant. Signage is
summarized as follows: Signage Permitted for this site under
19060
Section 18.50H is one (1) wall sign not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign
area; one (1) ground sign not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign area and not
to exceed 6 ft. in height. Proposed Signage is three (3) wall signs
totaling 76 sq. ft in sign area: north elevation -colonel's face- 54 sq.
ft.; east elevation - "KFC" -11 sq. ft.; west elevation - "KFC" -11 sq.
ft.; neon tubing and illuminated awnings. Excess Signage is two (2)
wall signs, 46 sq. ft. in wall sign area, neon tubing and illuminated
awnings. Because of the excess signage proposed for this
restaurant, a variance would be required from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated January 7, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above-referencedpetition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire
& Rescue Division, dated January 3, 2002, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to renovate the exteriorof the restaurant on property located
at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal.
The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 9, 2002,
which reads as fol lows: We have reviewed the proposed plan to
renovate the exterior of the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant and
have no objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from
the Inspection Department, dated January 10, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of December26,2001,the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This petition as presented will require several variances from the
Zoning Board of Appeals listed as follows: (a) Excessivenumberof
wall signs —1 wall sign, 30 square feet, allowed on the north
elevation. Noothersignsallowed. (b) Proposed neon lighting is
prohibited. (c) Internally illuminated awnings are signage and are
excessive and therefore not allowed. (d) Internally illuminated
cupola is signage and is excessive and therefore not allowed. (2) A
site visit of January 9, 2002, showed two dumpsters located outside
of the dumpster enclosure. This Department has no further objection
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the pefifioner here this evening?
19061
Norman Masters, Norman Masters Management Company, 22114 Telegraph Road,
Southfield, Michigan 48034. We are the owner of the proposed
remodeled building. We hope that our new design will improve the
look we have today. This is a design that Kentucky Fried Chicken
nationally is going to promote throughout the country. With respect
to the lighting on the building, I submitted some pictures but I did
bring another seljusl to give you gentlemen an idea of what this
looks like. It shows the building without the awnings lit and without
the building having lights on it, so you get a comparison to see what
we're proposing and what it would be like without the lighting on the
building. We think it really enhances the building by just illuminati ng
it and, also, unfortunately for safety reasons, it provides a lot of
illumination around the building so that there's a safety feature to it. I
know that there's some concem about the spot lights on lop of the
roof that do deflect onto the other properties and this helps to take
care of some of those problems. As a franchisee, I'm asked to do
these things in order to make the building as attractive as possible
and also to get some lighting around the building. With respect to the
signage, we'll certainly work with the community and follow
compliances. We know we have to talk to the governing powers
regarding signs.
Mr. Piercecchr Is the wall sign with the colonel's face graphic on the north wall? Isn't
that on the west side of the street facing Telegraph?
Mr. Masters: The picture of the colonel would be facing north on the front of the
building. The building goes north and south.
Mr. Piercecchi: Pardon me. I went down and saw the one in Taylor and the one in
Dearborn and they were facing Telegraph Road. But I do have a
question. We have a sign ordinance. Section 18.50C(10) says that
you cannot have any neon exposed, and Section 18.50B(c) does not
permit awnings with illumination. Maybe there's a way to illuminate
those awnings without violating the ordinance. Maybe you have a
suggestion. There are some lights in some buildings that do shine
down. Maybe that would satisfy that problem. But those two are in
violation of our ordinance and you can't expect us to approve that.
Mr. Masters: Fine. I understand. The gentleman in Planning that we submitted
plans to made comment to that With respect to the new, I
understand what your provision says. The neon is really outlined at
the top of the building, and it doesn't spell out anything. It's strictly a
lighting feature. But in trying to get this thing approved, I certainly
could live without the neon on top of the building. With respect to the
lighting under the canopies, we really feel that this is a must for
identifying our building, especially when signage is limited, but it also
19062
just draws more attention to the building. With respect to how you
would light it, some comments were made about overhanging lights
and that type of thing, but based on the architectural design, which I
don't have any control over, the corporation would not approve me to
do that. So unless there was some other way that the lighting could
be done inside the canopy... I know that would be a very difficult
thing for us. I can tell you that I can live without the neon outlining
the building, but I would certainly hope that you would consider our
request to have the canopies lit.
Mr. Piercecchr Mark, is there away to put some light on that awning withoutviolating
the ordinance if that's their trademark?
Mr. Taormina:
The ordinance considers the backlighting of those awnings to be signs.
As you indicated earlier, he can illuminate the awnings with light that is
downcast, and we've done that at a number of locations throughout the
City instead of actually placing the lights underneath the canopy so that
it illuminates the entire canopy or adds a glow to it. We actually put
some kind of a fixture above the canopy so it's indirect lighting in a
sense and thatwould be permissible. Although as Mr. Masters has
indicated, that's not really the type of lighting effect that they're looking
for at this locafion, but it would be perinitted.
Mr. Piercecchr
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many Kentucky Fried Chickens do you have in the metropolitan
area?
Mr. Masters:
We have 24.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have records of how you stand, business -wise, for the 24? How
does the one on Schoolcratt stand up as far as volume of sales?
Mr. Masters:
It's a good volume store for us. The location is good for us.
Mr. Alanskas:
I go there quite often. Even with your existing facade, your business is
doing verywell. I think ifyou had no signs, just anew facade with the
colonel graphic, everybody knows who the colonel is ... just seeing his
picture alone with no lighting, you would know that its a Kentucky Fried
Chicken. As one person on the Commission, I think its a little overkill on
lighting and I don't think it's necessary. Thank you.
Mr.Shane:
Mr. Taormina, with respect to the encased neon which appears to run
around those bands at the top of the building, that is permitted by the
ordinance. Is it not?
19063
Mr. Taormina:
There are actually two elements to that new lightng on the facade of
the building. There is a lower band, which is fully encased and would
be permitted although considered part of the signage. Itwould have
to be calculated within the total sign area. In this case, itwould be
excessive. And secondly, there is an exposed neon tube that runs
right along the upper part of the fascia, which is strictly prohibited by
the ordinance because it would be an exposed outline tubing sign.
Mr. Masters indicated that he would eliminate that from the proposal.
I dont believe he is eliminating the other feature, which is the
encased new.
Mr. Shane:
The picture that you showed us wouldn't be exactly accurate
because the encased neon red and blue band around there would
remain assuming you got a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for excess signage. So you wouldn't be totally without light
up there is what I'm saying.
Mr. Masters:
You're correct and that's the reason why I told the gentlemen I could
live without the neon. This is a part of what they proposed when they
sent me a plan, so we incorporated it. But from my standpoint, we
could eliminate that part of the plan on this particular building.
Mr. Shane:
What would your comment be on indirect or down lighting on the
canopies?
Mr. Masters:
I understand what you're trying to do. The fad that we don't have
any names on it or it's not lit up in letters or anything, just canopies lit
outside a building ... I can understand that it would not look
attractive to start having canopies with names on them and they're lit
up at night and that type of thing. This particular canopy is strictly an
awning lit up without any letters on it or anything else, and that was
the purpose of the design. I guess I have a little different feeling on
what's a sign and what's not. I can understand the neon and I can
see that point. This particular point, I think it takes away from the
building. That's why I brought the picture in to show you with the
canopies shut dawn at night. The other thing that concerns me is
that at all of our locations, we have proper lighting. As much lighting
as we can around the building for security purposes.
Mr. Shane:
Our problem is that the Planning Commission couldn't permit that
canopy lighting even if it wanted to.
Mr. McCann:
One of the pictures you brought tonight without any lighting, doesn't
include any ground effect lighting or lighting from the lop. Many of
our buildings just put up little spotlights to shine against the wall, and
19064
they illuminate the building fixtures at night and actually make them
lookquitenice. Kickers did it that way. Theywantedalotofneon
and I think the effect they ended up with is better. So I don't know
that just turning off the lights is a true indication of what you'd end up
with. You do have other lighting around the colonel. Do any ofyour
other Iocafions use the ground effect lighting?
Mr. Masters:
I don tthink so. I think I did send some pictures to Mr. Miller showing
the spot lights that may be enclosed in the original pages but it shows
with the bright lights that it illuminates the whole lot. They kind of
have a very blaring effect. I know you're talking about the other way
up.
Mr. McCann:
You've got spotlights shining out at people. We have a problem with
that because it shines out at drivers and the neighbors, whereas
localized spots from the ground up to the building would just
illuminate your building as opposed to the area. To be honest with
you, the first picture I saw looked like one of the little chapels in Las
Vegas when I saw the lighting, and I don't know that it parliculady fits
with the location. You've got a great location. I've got kids at home
so I'm there quite regularly. I think it would detract from it.
Mr. Alanskas:
On this picture, you're showing outside seating in the summertime.
Are you going to have this in Livonia?
Mr. Masters:
No, that's strictly in Taylor where they don't have seating inside. This
unit does not have outside seating.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just wanted to danfy that.
Mr. Masters:
That's a good point.
Mr. La Pine:
Two questions. is the drum up at the lop here lit?
Mr. Masters:
That's currently illuminated, yes.
Mr. La Pine:
I checked outthe one in Taylor and Mr. Piercecchi checked the one
in Dearborn. I thought it was very tasteful, quite frankly. I don't have
a big problem with it, although as Mr. Pieroecchi said, we weren't
there at night. Al least I wasn't. Maybe he was. So I really don't
know how it looks at night. But I thought it was very tastefully done. I
like it better than I do this by far. Will these lights be lit up in red or
just those white stripes?
Mr. Masters:
I think it lights up the red as well as the white stripes.
19065
Mr. La Pine: Quite frankly, I think the idea of the lighting shining down gives a little
more security as far as the building is concerned. That's my personal
opinion. If we could eliminate the white exposed neon, I personally
have no big hang up on it.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or againstthis petition? Seeing no one, a motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved,
it was
#01-02-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-01-08-02,
submitted by Kentucky Fried Chicken requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with
a proposal to renovate the exterior building elevations of the
restaurant located at 13485 Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 28, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 1 dated
December 18, 2001, as revised, prepared by DeConti/Jemigan
and Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all light fixtures located on the building shall be angled, not
more than 20 degrees from the horizontal line of the ground,
and shielded to minimize stray light trespassing across property
lines and glaring into adjacent roadways;
3. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive
signage and any conditions related thereto, including the
following;
- Two (2) wall signs at 11 sq. ft. each with the graphic "KFC;"
- One (1) wall sign at 54 sq. ft. with the "colonel's face"
graphic;
- Encased lighting band;
- Illuminated cupola lower;
4. That no exposed neon tubing shall be permitted on the building
nor shall the awnings be internally illuminated; and
ILIRH:
5. 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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2002-01-08-03 NITZKIN DENTAL CLINIC
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Pefition 2002-
01-08-03 submitted by Jay Nitzlkn, D.D.S., on behalf of Nitzkin
Dental Clinic, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
renovate the exlenor building elevations of the commercial building
located a133428 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile between Farmington
and Surrey. Its located between the Bates Hamburger Restaurant
and Perkos Shoe Store. It was most recently utilized as a bank.
Presently the exterior of the building is covered in panel back. The
petitioner is proposing to remove this material and replace it with
d"t. The back surrounding the arched windows on the south
elevation (facing Five Mile) and west elevation (facing the parking lot)
would remain and be incorporated in the new look of the dental clinic.
The petitioner has explained that this tnm is full -face solid back. A 3
ft. high band of cultured stone would be installed along the bottom
portion of the south and west elevators and the front half of the east
elevation. The cultured stone would not only act as a sort of kick
plate but would also contrast nicely from the d"t. The back half of
the east elevation and all of the north elevation (facing the alley)
would not be covered in dryvit, but would be exposed masonry
blocks. These walls would be painted to match the dryvit. The
petitioner has explained that one reason they did not continue the
d"t on the east elevation is because the adjacent restaurant
screens most of the wall. Another reason is the parking situation at
Bates. Because a majority of the parking for the restaurant is right up
against the subject building, there have been some instances of
vehicles hitting the building and damaging the panel back. The
petitioner does not want to get in to a situation where the dryvit would
be at risk. It is his belief that if the block wall were to be damage, it
could be easily and promptly fixed. The petitioner is also proposing to
install some landscaping on the site. The submitted site plan shows
a 4 R. wide planter box along the west elevation ofthe building.
19067
Thirteen dwarf mugo pines, each in their own ceramic pot, would be
laid out and aligned in the box. Three new triangular landscape
areas would be installed in the parking lot out towards Five Mile
Road. These areas would be planted similar to the planter box in
that they would have a number of potted dwarf mugo pines. All
landscape areas would be defined by railroad ties and covered in
crushed limestone. The landscaping is summarized as follows:
required landscaping - not less then 15% of the total site; there is no
existing landscaping; proposed landscaping - 3% of the site. The site
plan shows a new trash dumpster enclosure behind the building next
to the alley. Along with this proposal, the petitioner is requesting
approval for a conforming wall sign. The sign would be located on
the south elevation, overthe main entrance. Signage is summarized
as follows: Signage Permitted for this site under Section 18.50H:
One (1) wall sign not to exceed 40 sq. ft. in sign area; Proposed
Signage: One (1) wall sign on the south elevation - "Livonia
Denlalcare"-39sq.tt. Because the subject building is deficient in
front yard setback, this site is not permitted a ground sign.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated January 8, 2002, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above-referencedpetition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire
& Rescue Division, dated January 3, 2002, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to renovate the exteriorof the commercial building located at
33428 Five Mile. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter
is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated January 8, 2002, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the proposed site plans and have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter
is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 9, 2002,
which reads asfollows:"PursuanttoyourrequestofDecember27,
2001, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The angle of the dumpster enclosure may
need to be adjusted to allow the required clear distance of 35 feet for
the service truck. (2) The direction of the ingress and egress aisles
should be reversed to allow loran unobstructed view of the sidewalk
when vehicles are exiting. As it is now, the building blocks the view
of the sidewalk. The parking spaces will then need adjustment and
will need to be done so that no one has to back across the sidewalk.
f4iRY:1
This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Gary Nitzkin, I represent
the petitioner, Jay Nibkin. He's my brother. Along with us
this evening
is Garnet R. Cousins, the architect. We'd be happy to
answer whatever questions you may have.
Mr. Alanskas:
The east side of the building facing Bates where we had that long
steel structure tube so they cant hit the building ... when you take
off the panel brick, behind that back is wood studding. How are you
going to repair that block on the wall? Are you just going to paint it?
Garnet Cousins:
Itwould need a lot ofwork. It would be totally removed and then
masonry filler applied and then like a primer mat that would gel rid of
most of the apparent porosity.
Mr. Alanskas:
Unfortunately, that side of the building is hit periodically by customers
from Bates. Is the steel barrier on your property? Is Bates
responsible for the barrier or are you?
Mr. Cousins:
It looks pretty close, but I think its on their property.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because right now, the barrier has a few areas where it's dented real
bad. I would like to see anew barrier or have it straightened out and
even put in a little higher so that cars could not hit the building. Is
that a possibility?
Mr. Cousins:
It might require some coordination with Bates.
Mr. Nitrlkn:
That steel banter, we believe, belongs to Bates. In fad, they recently
painted it and left some of the paint on our building.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's not that high. I think if the barrier had two going across the
building instead of one, it would protect your building from being hit.
Mr. Nitrlkn:
I concur. But again, I believe that the barrier is on Bates' property. I
would like to see another barrier there, but I dint think that's up to
us.
Mr. Alanskas:
Have you contacted them?
Mr. Nitrlkn:
We have.
19069
Mr.Alanskas: What did they say about the banner?
Mr. Nitkin: We received no response. I contacted them in writing and by
telephone.
Mr. Alanskas:
I like what you're doing to the building. I think it's a big plus, but I
know the way it stands now, we're still going to have problems with
them hitting your building unless that barrier is somehow changed
with a little higher barrier and more durable because its happened
various times.
Mr. Nitkin:
I'm optimistic that now that we've concluded the renovations on the
interior of the building, that we can put forth a greater effort to reach
the people at Bates and work out a resolution.
Mr. Alanskas:
You know its not Bates hitting the wall; it's their customers. They
come in from three different areas.
Mr. Nitkin:
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, remember we discussed about reversing the ingress and
egress of the building. Has that been agreed upon?
Mr. Taormina:
That was discussed between some of the staff members and various
departments. The current traffic circulation pattern was used by the
bank that was formerly on this site. The bank had a drive -up window
and required their customers to drive along the west side of the
building to use the drive up window and then exit out that easterly
driveway. The problem with reversing that circulation so that
customers could enter from the east driveway and exit out the west
driveway is that I don't think the approach is wide enough. In order to
make that work, I believe that there would have to be a change to the
parking pattern on the east half of the site. It would probably have to
be revised to some kind of parallel arrangement on one or both sides
of the drive aisle as opposed to having angle parking. And the
reason for that is I don't think you could just reverse the circulation
because that approach is simply not wide enough for vehicles coming
in and out.
Mr. LaPine:
Is it possible to have it widened?
Mr. Taormina:
It would be possible but I believe the parking arrangement would
have to be changed on that side of the building in order to make it
work. It would still comply with the total number of parking spaces
19070
that are required for this use which is about 12 or 14. They have
sufficient parking, per the ordinance.
Mr. LaPine:
The only problem I have with this is you have people coming out of
Bates walking along the sidewalk. The only othersoluton would be
to have the property owner put up a 'stop'sign because there's a lot
of people walking along there who go to Bales to gel hamburgers
and walk out and go west on Five Mile Road. If they were coming
out the other way, theyjusl have a tendency not to stop. We don't
think it's feasible.
Mr. Taormina:
I would say that it would probably serve as a better arrangement for
parking but it would require additional improvements because that's
one way traffic on the north side of Five Mile. The taper is wider on
the west side of the driveway and it's not widened on the east side.
In order for people to make that turn into that driveway, the approach
would have to be widened.
Mr. LaPine:
Normally when we have landscaping, we require underground
sprinklers. In this case, you're having these pots out in front. How is
this going to be irrigated?
Mr. Nitrltin:
There is a hose connection on the west side ofthe building.
Mr. LaPine:
So somebody is going to go out there and water these things once a
day or once a week?
Mr. Nitrkin:
Being an evergreen, they shouldn't need the same amount ofwaler
as say grass would. Somebody that would be in charge of the
maintenance of the building would periodically water the trees. I
don't know what the schedule would be.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
It's been suggested by the staff that because of the exposure of the
east wall to Five Mile Road that we ought to be considering the
extension of dryvil all along the east wall. Do you have a problem
with that? When you go down west on Five Mile Road, you can see
the entire east side of the building and I'm wondering why you
elected to stop where you did and didn't carry it all the way through?
Mr. Cousins:
Bates would hide all that effort but to a pedestrian, I know you can
see it.
Mr. Shane:
You can see it from a car as well.
19071
Mr. Cousins:
The thought was, was it worth it at the time. You were more or less
facing into a parking lot of the hamburger place, so it was a
cosVbenefil decision.
Mr.Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
The cultured stone you would be puffing on there ... how far will that
protrude from the wall?
Mr. Cousins:
You mean out from the existing block?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Cousins:
By the time you have the backing and the stone itself, probably three
or four inches.
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you continue that down the entire east side of the building?
Mr Cousins:
Yes, its entirely feasible.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you could vary the height so that it would match all the way down
to protect the building.
Mr. Cousins:
You mean even if it didn't have the dryvit above it, could you do it? Is
that what you're asking?
Mr. Alanskas:
No. On the wall on the east side of the building, could you continue
the cultured stone down the entire side of the building?
Mr. Cousins:
Without the dryvit above it on the east, you mean? You'd have a
larger ledge on the top of it.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm just seeing more protection for the building is what I'm thinlang of.
Mr. Nitzltin:
I think I hear what you're saying, but my question is, if we have a
steel barrier there from the Bales side to keep the customers from
hitting the building, all it will do is make this field stone the new
barrier forgetting smashed. Won't it?
Mr. Alanskas:
But isn't it easier to replace field stone than a brick wall?
Mr. Nitkin:
No, its much cheaper to putthat banner up we talked about than to
put up that field stone.
Mr. Alanskas:
Then maybe that's what we should do. Could you do that?
19072
Mr. Nitkin: Put up a banner on the Bates side? I'd be happylo but I don'tthink
people would be very happy about it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, we have to do something because you're going to have people
hitting that building again. Believe me.
Mr. Cousins:
Is this a situation where the City could help urge Bates to kind of help
along by allowing it to be done?
Mr. McCann:
I'm looking at the plans. The plans do show that you have about a
fool and a half. The building
is not on the properly line according to
this. There is actually some room. Mr. Taormina, according tothe
Engineering Division or the Traffic Division, they did not want people
backing out over the two sidewalks when theyre pulling their cars
out. Does that mean that the first spot in the southwest corner and
the one across from it would have to be removed?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. McCann:
So those two spots could be turned into some type of vegetation or
something to help with the greenbelt?
Mr. Taormina:
That option would be available, yes.
Mr. McCann:
How would the staff feel ... I have concems about just stones and
bushes right there. Obviously there's four feet of planting area
across the west side of the building plus these areas out front.
Couldn't we do some type of mix use with some other types of
vegetation in there as opposed to just stone?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, obviously the larger the bed becomes, the more options they
have available as far as the type of plant material. So if, for example,
we eliminate one or two of those parking spaces that are conflicting
with the sidewalk, we can then enlarge the bed and provide quite a
bit of opportunity for additional plantings.
Mr. McCann:
Sir, do you understand what we're saying? You can't back out over
the sidewalk as part of your plan to provide parking. Its
nonconforming. Therefore, those two spots have to be eliminated
and it does provide some area ... because you're deficient in your
greenbelt, your landscaping, by 12 percent.
Mr. Nitrkin:
I would like to address that. We have a serious parking issue there.
The parking lot has been restriped. Because it's been restriped, we
lost a number of spaces. Instead of having one line, we now have
two lines between cars.
19073
Mr. McCann: That does not change the number of spots because you sell require
10' x 20' spots.
Mr. Nitzlkn:
Mr. McCann, it does impact us. The reason why is because we now
have four handicap spaces instead of one. We also have a problem
with Bales' customers parking in our lot during lunch and dinner.
Right now, we have 19 spaces open for non -handicap, four spaces
for handicap. Of those 19 available spaces, our staff requires 12.
Our patients require a minimum of 9 to 10 spaces. With the Bates
people coming in, we've had situations already where patients have
come in saying they had no place to park. We have a serious
parking issue. If we give up these spaces for a greenbelt or to add to
the greenbelt, we are going to be seriously debilitated. We're adding
in our plan a greenbelt that didn't previously exist. The bank didn't
have any greenbelt.
Mr. McCann:
You're saying you need these parking spaces. I understand ifyou
have an issue with Bates, that you've got to work that problem out
with them. But you're saying you're not worried about safety issues.
If somebody gets run over, they gel run over. We need parlting.
That's exactly what you're saying. This is a safety issue that has
been presented to us that you dont back over sidewalks for safety
reasons.
Mr. Nitzlkn:
Mr. McCann, what I'm suggesting is perhaps ...
Mr. McCann:
People are coming out ofthe building from the other direction and
walking by two.
Mr. Nitzlkn:
I hear what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that safety is not an
issue. I'm just trying to balance your concern with parking with our
interest in parking. Lets look althe safety and perhaps there's
another way of working this out instead of taking away parking
spaces which already is a problem. I'm wondering if there's another
way to do this, Mr. McCann.
Mr. McCann:
I don't know. There's no way I could vote in favor of this plan as it is.
There are serious deficiencies all the way around and there's a safety
issue.
Mr. Nitzlkn:
There's deficiencies all the way around?
Mr. McCann:
Yes. I realize that it's a preexisting building. Its depending on the
amount of use. One of the things we have is that Five Mile has been
19074
widened. We dont want to intensify the use. We're trying to make
things safer along Five Mile and not worse.
Mr. Alanskas:
To try to alleviate your problem, have you teed talking to Perkos
because they have a big lot. Its not that far from your building. If
you had an overflow, you could possibly use some of his spaces
because that lot is not used that much.
Mr. Nitzkin:
No, we haven't.
Mr. Alanskas:
Have you thought about that because its not that far away for your
customers to walk. Of course, in the wintertime it is. Basically if you
have an overflow problem, possibly that could alleviate your problem.
Mr. Nitzlkn:
Possibly, butyou know we'd rather not have to look outside the
boundaries of our propertyfor a solution. I understand Mr. McCann's
concern with respect to safety, but I got to believe that if we put our
heads together, there has got to be another solution other than giving
up parking spaces.
Mr. Alanskas:
What is your customer base? How many customers do you have?
Mr. Nitzkin:
Our patient base ... we have ... how many patients do you say we
have at a time?
Jay Nitzkin:
I'm the dentist. The renovations that were done to the interior of the
building have offered five treatment rooms. Il is real common to have
five patients, one in each of the treatment rooms. So that's five cars.
Then we also have more people arriving for their visit coming up. So
we have maybe another four to five people waiting for their next visit.
Potentially, we could have up to 10 or 11 cars justfor patients. It
varies from time to time depending on how busy we are, but that is a
common scenario.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just to give you an idea ... I go to Five Mile near Schoolcmft. They
have seven dental stations and their parking lot I don't believe is as
big as yours. They dont have any problem, and they're busy all the
time.
Dr. Nitzkin:
I don't know how many staff they have.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know they have seven rooms because I've been in every one of
them.
Dr. Nitzkin:
I don't know if they're busy. If they have all the rooms filled.
19075
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
How many hygienists and dentists and office employees will you
have at any one time?
Dr. Nitzkin:
Well, we have seven full time. We have about four, sometimes five,
part-time staff. Soon any given day, there could be up to 10 to 12
people there. In the summertime we usually hire a high school
student or two to help out with filing, so it gets a little bit busier.
Mr. LaPine:
You have seven chairs?
Dr. Nitzkin:
We have five dental chairs.
Mr. LaPine:
So that means you have five dentists working there orjusltwo
dentists? How many dentists?
Dr. Nitzkin:
Just one dentist, myself. I've got two full-time hygienists, two part
time hygienists, and between us we fill up those rooms.
Mr. LaPine:
I'mjustcurious. Maybe this question isn't even important to the
case. You keep saying you've renovated the interior of the building?
Dr. Nitzkin:
Yes, it used to be a bank.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Whywould you go ahead and renovate the inside ofthe
building when you know you have problems out here that you may or
may not get approval on?
Mr. Nitzkin:
We didn't know thalwe were going to have any problems with
respect to parking. The building was an ideal building and the way
it's been renovated, it works out quite nicely.
Mr. La Pine:
Ilike what you're doing to the building. Everything is fine. Bulwedo
have some concems here and if we can work them out fine. But if
we cant and you get denial, then we have a problem here. You
spent a lot of money.
Mr. Nitzkin:
We're confident with the cooperation that we've seen from the
Livonia City Council that we can work something out.
Mr. LaPine:
Well,lelme askanotherquestion about what Mr. Alanskas brought
up about Perkos. It is a possibility that you can talk to those people
and use some of their parking just for your employees that are there
all day? They go in; they don't leave. Right?
19076
Mr. Nitzkin: That's true.
Mr. La Pine: So consequently, that will alleviate 5 or 6 or 7 parking places in your
parking lot. It would give us what we want, some more landscaping
and not have the problem with driving over the sidewalks. Is that a
possibility?
Dr. Nitzkin:
Yes, I think its a possibility but what happens if Perkos say, "No, I'm
sorry."
Mr. LaPine:
Well, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. At Ieastwe
know you're making an effort to alleviate the problem.
Dr. Nitzkin:
Okay.
Mr. Piercecchr
Have you tried an obvious thing like a sign, "No Bates parking'?
Mr. Nitzkin:
We just moved in about two weeks ago. We're trying to maintain a
good neighbor policy with our next door neighbor, Bates.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, that's a two-way street. He should be considerate of your
problems too.
Mr. Nitzkin:
We want an opportunity to talk with them to see if we can work
something outwith them. We know thatthey need some of our
parking spaces, and we simply don't have the parking spaces to give
them.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But you have tried a sign?
Mr. Nitzkin:
No, we have not put up a sign yet. We're afraid to put up any sign
until we gel approval of our site plan.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You could be submitting that as a sign by itself. There are a few
things up in the air here. We've got safety related to backing up over
sidewalks as Chairman McCann has brought up. Additional
landscaping has been brought up. And there is also the barier which
is related to Bates and how that east wall will be finished. Would you
have any objections if I made a motion to table this until we can work
out some ofthose details like eliminating two parking spots? There's
also something from the building people about the direction of the
ingress and egress which was discussed a little bit here. There
seems to be a few things up in the air here.
Mr. Nitzken:
We would prefer obviously if you didn't have to table this and we can
work this out this evening. Certainly that would be our first
19077
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
preference. If its a matter of a couple parking spaces and that's
what's holding up our site plan approval, certainlywe would concede
to the council's wishes.
Mr. Shane:
Along those same lines, ifyou were to reverse the traffic pattern as
has been suggested here, you'd probably end up
with almost the
same number of parking spaces and you'd eliminate
this problem of
backing up over the sidewalk. That's the reason why I think a tabling
motion is going to be in order here because there's too many things
to look at, too many issues to resolve. I'd like to look at those issues
because there is a traffic safety concern here as well as parking.
Personally, I weigh the traffic safety concern a little heavier than I do
the parking, so I'd like to consider that as well. So when the time
comes, I'd be happy to offer a tabling resolution.
Mr. McCann:
I think its appropriate. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes
to speak for or against this petition? A motion is in order.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question. If they can reverse the
parking and he has to make the driveway wider, does that have to go
through Wayne County? Is Five Mile a county road?
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, if they expand the drive ...
Mr. Taormina:
No, Idon't have the answer to your question whether or not simply
widening that approach would require a permit on the part of the
county or not. I'd have to look into that.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecohi, and unanimously approved,
it was
#01-03-2002
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-01-08-03 submitted by Jay Nitzkin,
D.D.S., on behalf of Nitzkin Dental Clinic, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior building
elevations of the commercial building located at 33428 Five Mile
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, be tabled until February 12,
2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
19078
ITEM #4 PETITION 200142 -SN -06 ZERBO'S HEALTH FOODS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
12SN-06 submitted by Zerbo's Health Foods request rig approval of
additional wall signs for the store located at 34164 Plymouth Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Miller: This store is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Stark and Farmington. Zerbo's Health Foods is requesting approval
for two (2) additional wall signs for their store that is located between
the Legacy Restaurant and Walter's Appliance Store. The existing
signage consists of one (1) wall sign on the south elevation that
reads "Zerbo's Health Foods" and is 91 sq. ft. Signage permitted
for this site is one (1) wall sign not to exceed 130 sq. ft. in sign area.
Additional proposed signage includes two (2) wall signs totaling 49
sq. ft. in sign area: east elevation of entrance lower- "Zerbo's Health
Foods" at 45 sq. ft.; and the west elevation of entrance tower -
"Zerbo's" al4 sq. ft. Excess signage includes the two (2) wall signs
and only 10 sq. ft. in wall sign area. Because the proposed signage
is in excess of what is permitted by the Sign Ordinance, a variance
would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated December 28, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of November 29, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This petitioner has not yet resolved an outstanding issue with the
required protective wall at their north property line, abutting
residential property. They were granted a temporary variance for the
protective wall that has now expired. Aletter from the Zoning Board
of Appeals is enclosed restating their options. Even if the protective
wall is waived, there are still outstanding issues regarding the grading
of the north property line and damage to the neighbor's fence. (2)
This petitioner will need variance(s) from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for any additional signage as the site already has one
allowed wall sign of 91 square feet and is not allowed a second wall
sign. The total allowed square footage would be 189. The signage
drawings indicate the petitioner is asking for two additional wall signs.
However, the exterior elevations provided from Douglas Johnson,
Architect, show many signs and logos and clocks, so it is unclear as
to exactly what the petitioneris asking for. We would recommend
that the plans be clarified as to exactly what they plan to do. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is
19079
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Rick Adams, 38541 Rhonswood, Northville, Michigan. I think Mr. Miller explained
what it is we are trying to accomplish. We're not asking for the dock
that was shown on the architectural rendering unless the City would
like a clock, and we'd be glad to put one up. Again, everything else
is pretty well explained. We did fix the fence on the northern properly
line. We do want to re -landscape that area and I would like to wait
unfit spring to complete that project because we have our parking lot
that sits probably 18" to 2' above the people behind us. The fence is
very close to the curb and when people park against the fence, they
hit the fence with their car so it breaks the 4x4's that hold it up. We
just replaced three of them to get the fence relatively straight and in
the spring we would like to dig that out and pretty much replace that
fence and make it what it should be. I think if anyone has looked at
the building they realize we want our area to look very nice. We
spent a lot of money and we've done pretty much everything we think
wecando. We do want a nice looking fence. Wedowanlsome
greenery across the back and we will work with our neighbor back
there to do what's needed.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Have you been back to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Did they give
you an extension of the waiver for the wall? What's the story on the
wall?
Mr. Adams:
We foxed the wall. That's about it. It's not a wall. It's a wood fence.
Mr. LaPine:
But a masonry wall is required. The letter we have here says that
you need to go back 45 days from September 7. Have you appeared
before the Zoning Board of Appeals since September 7?
Mr. Adams:
No, I haven't.
Mr. La Pine:
So we don't know if they waived the wall or what's happening at this
point.
Mr. Adams:
I haven't done anything. As a matter of fad I was ...
Mr. LaPine:
I was out there Saturday. You say you repaired that fence lately.
That fence goes up and down. It's not straight. It's wobblying in and
out.
r:r
Mr. Adams: Well, its not straight. We did replace three of the 4x4'sjusl to keep it
upuntilspring. Another thing that we can do to make it right is pretty
much take down the whole fence and redo it. There's a problem
with the landscape. The way it was designed was improper. It
wasn't designed right by our architect. And the driveway comes in or
the parking area and it drops about 18" to 2'. Right there, if you lake
that out of there, the built up dirt behind it, the parking area will drop.
So what we're going to try to do is put up some shoring in there and
put up a better fence to help hold that and just redo the entire fence.
Its needed. You have to go in and redo the whole thing. We've
done a little bit cosmetic to keep the fence up for the winter before we
can bring in a company to do the excavating this spring.
Mr. LaPine: The next question I have is, I don't have a problem with your sign on
the east side of the building coming from the east going west. No
problem. But coming from the west going east, I don't see any
reason to have that sign. I went out there Saturday and I parked my
car. I went down the street. I walked. The way the building is
constructed, that sign isn't going to be visible. You actually see the
wall sign on the south side of the building before you're ever going to
see that sign. So I don't think you really need that sign to be honest
with you.
Mr. Adams: I agree in part. I wouldn't mind even putting a red "Z" up there and
here's why. I've been out there taking a lot of pictures and walked it
and drove it and all that. I've got a lot of complaints from customers
driving right by the store. The only reason I'd like something up there
is because when you come up to Stark Road traveling east, you don't
really realize that that's the Zerbo building. A lot of people like to
make a lett there at the light and then take a right into the alley
behind Walter's and Zerbo's to come into the parking lot back there.
I'd like something there they can actually see as they get to that light.
Mr. LaPine: Sir, I happen to disagree with you. I came up Stark Road and I drove
in behind Walters. Walter's only has one sign. They've been there
forever. You don't see this sign. There's noway in the word you
can see that sign coming off behind the building.
Mr. Adams: Okay, I understand what you're saying.
Mr. LaPine: I just think that sign is one you really do not need. I'm not trying to
give you a bad time or anything. From what I could tell going east on
Plymouth, I actually saw the sign on the wall before I looked up and
saw the lower. Now, if the towerwas the same as on the east side,
then I would say yes because it's not exposed by this here roof.
19081
You've got a straight shot. If it was a straight shot, then I'd say, yes it
would probably make sense. The way it is now, I just don't think it
makes sense. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Any last comments, sir?
Mr. Adams: I somewhat agree thatthat isn't nearly as important a sign as the sign
that would be on the west side of the tower. That's all.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved,
it was
#01-04-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -12 -SN -06,
submitted by Zerbo's Health Foods, requesting approval of additional
wall signs for the store located at 34164 Plymouth Road in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Zerbo's Health Foods, as
received by the Planning Commission on November 30, 2001, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact
that the proposed signage, along with the existing wall sign,
shall not exceed the allowable sign area permitted by the Sign
Ordinance;
2. That this approval is only for one (1) additional wall signs on the
east elevation with the graphic "Zerbo's Health Foods;" the sign
on the west elevation with the graphic "Zerbo's" is not allowed;
3. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business doses;
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage
and any conditions related thereto.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchr Bill, do you think the motion should also include something in
reference to the wall?
19082
Mr. La Pine: I dont think that's something we really can address. Its up to the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Piercecchr Well, the gentleman says he can do it in the spring, but we have
nothing to hold him to that.
Mr. McCann: The Zoning Board of Appeals is waiting for a response. The ZBA is
currently dealing with this so I think we need to lel them finish what
they're doing.
Mr. Piercecchi: It's not required in our motion, then. Fine.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda.
We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda.
These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings;
therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience
participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission.
Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM #5 PETITION 200140-02-21 BLUE OVAL REPAIRS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
10-02-21 submitted by Blue Oval Repairs requesting waiver use
approval to operate an automotive repair facility within an existing
building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Harrison Road and Garden Avenue in the Northwest %of Section 36.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest comer of Seven Mile and
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#01-05-2002 RESOLVED, thatthe City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-10-02-21, submitted by Blue Oval
Repairs, requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive
repair facility within an existing building located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Harrison Road and Garden Avenue in the
Northwest %of Section 36, be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
19083
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is there any new correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is new information in the forth of a Revised Site Plan that each
of the Commissioners should have in their packets. In short, the
revision includes additional landscaping along the rear 20' of the
property as was indicated at the earlier meetings. In terns of
corespondence received, we did receive a letter from the Clements
Circle Civic Association, dated January 15, 2002, signed by Stan
Anderson, President. Each of the Commissioners should have a
copy of that letter in their packet. I would just note it by reference
unless you would like it read out loud.
Mr. McCann: I don't think that's necessary. We've all had an opportunity to review
the letter from Mr. Anderson, President of the Clements Circle Civic
Association. Is the petitioner here? Mr. Tangom, is there any new
information that has not been presented to us?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. No, I think the only
information that is new is the Revised Site Plan. We had a chance to
discuss this at the Study Session last Tuesday and pointed out that
the improvements mainly to the outside where there is hardly any
landscaping now, landscaping will be put in approximaley 15%. The
parking lolwould be completely refinished and double striped. So its
mainly some improvements not only to the location but also to the
businesses up and down and the image of Plymouth Road.
Mr. McCann: Are there anyquestions from the Commissioners for Mr. Tangom?
We see Mr. Anderson in the audience with some of the neighbors. Is
there someone who wishes to speak tonight or are you going to rely
on the letter you provided to us? All right. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, it was
#01-06-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-10-02-21, submitted by Blue Oval
Repairs, requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive
repair facility within an existing building located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Harrison Road and Garden Avenue in the
Northwest %of Section 36, be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as setforth in Section 19.06 ofthe
Zoning Ordinance #543;
i IWI,l
2. That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the need in the
area for the type of commercial service proposed to be
developed on the subject site; and
3. That the proposed use is incompatible to and would adversely
affect the residential uses in the area to the south.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: I look aphis issue in terms oftwo competing choices. One choice is
driven from the business viewpoint; the other from the residential
point of view. The business community is very uncomfortable with
empty storefront, and they take the posture that removing a said
vacancy is essential for the health of our City. We all agree that a
healthy business base is important but at limes overemphasis can be
placed on the business base to the detriment of abutfing
neighborhoods. As you know, our continuous mission is to assist
City Council in deriving at good choices via our in depth studies. This
classic struggle of competing points of view was played out recently
within the Plymouth Road Development Authority in regard to the
petition before us tonight. As you know, this great City Authority
consists of 13 members primarily from the business community but
they do have representatives in government, education and the
neighborhoods. During the Study, Mr. Chairman and fellow
Commissioners, the concerns of the members who represent the
neighborhood were found to outweigh the advantage of locating a
business at this particular site. As a result, Plymouth Road
Development Authority did not lend its blessing to this business and
neither should we. I may add that during our previous meeting, we
too were hesitant in submitting to Council an approving resolution
and we tabled it. We were suspect for many reasons, among them
the nature of the business in regards to noise, storage, odors and its
overall nuisance impact on its surroundings.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Piercecchi, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: Shane
ABSENT: None
f4irl;4+
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal the decision to the
City Council in writing.
ITEM#6 PETITION 2001 -05 -PL -01 ROSATI INDUSTRIAL SUB.
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
05 -PL -01 submitted by Enrico Rosati requesting landscape approval
in connection with Preliminary Plat approval for Rosati Industrial
Subdivision to be located on the west side of Stark Road between
SchoolcmR Road (1-96) and Plymouth Road in the South %nf
Section 28.
Mr. Miller: Back in August, 2001, Rosati Industrial Subdivision received
preliminary plat approval. As part of that approval, it was conditioned
that a Landscape Plan and Building and Use Restrictions be
submitted to the Planning Commission. In partial compliance with
that requirement, a Landscape Plan has been submitted showing the
southern portion of the entrance drive. There will be a 20' wide
greenbeltthat abuts the residential area. This greenbeltwill be
planted with a variety evergreen trees. It also shows a 6' high wall
along the southern portion ofthe Industrial Subdivision that would
abut the proposed residential subdivision to the south. As for
Building and Use Restrictions, that has not been submitted at this
time.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, is there any additional correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: No, there is none, Mr.Chairman.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
William Roskelly, 33177 SchoolcmR, Livonia, Michigan. I am representing Mr.
Rosati.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchr Mr. Roskelly, our notes from the staff say that on August 27, 2001,
you did receive preliminary plat approval. Are you acquainted with
that date?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchr As part of that approval, it was condifioned'that a Landscape Plan
and the Building and Use Restrictions be submitted to the Planning
Commission within 60 days of the approval of the preliminary plat by
the City Council, which shall provide for a masonry screen wall and
landscaping that will extend along the entire southerly portion of the
right-of-way of the proposed street where it abuts the single family
residenfial zoning as well as along the south property lines of Lots 1
through 7" We have never received that. .. showing a masonry
wall, which is part of the prelimina ry plat approval.
Mr. Roskelly:
Do you not have that in front of you now? I submitted the large
drawing which I believe ...
Mr. McCann:
The quesfion is, at our staff review, ildidn't appear thatthe masonry
wall was along that portion of the property.
Mr. Roskelly:
The masonry wall would only be along the portion that is contiguous
to the residential and the industrlal. As we come in from Stark Road
for the first 600 feet, we're abutted by single family homes. That is a
20' bene.
Mr. McCann:
What it says is, @will "extend along the entire southerly portion of the
right-of-way." Oh, single family... you're correct..."single family
residenfial zoning as well as along the south property lines of Lots 1
through 7"
Mr. Roskelly:
If I may, there has been some confusion because prior to Mr. Rosati
getting a deed to the piece oflhe land thatthe City sold him, itwas
understood and suggested, and I have here a letter from Mr. Fisher
indicating that in order to purchase this land, it would be necessary to
present a Landscape Plan showing a 20' berm that would go along
with the deed. And I have a copy of both the letter from the attorney
and a copy oflhal. That would be in conflict with what was asked at
the Iasi meefing by the Planning Commission. This is what the
Council sort of indicated tome and to Mr. Fisher, obviously. If I may
approach the bench, I'd like to give you a copy of this letter.
Mr. McCann:
I think the staff has already indicated that we've got the letter. The
conflict is what the preliminary plat approved as opposed to what Mr.
Fisher is stating in the letter. I think we have a conflict that's going to
have to be worked out.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Roskelly, from Stark Road going west, how much properly did
you buy?
Mr. Roskelly
It's shown on that small drawing. I believe its 290 feel.
19087
Mr. LaPine: I think what you've got there only applies to the 290 feet. Il doesn't
apply to all the rest.
Mr. Roskelly: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Because you've got a wall, you've got landscaping ... then there's a
small portion of the wall there. What we're suggesting is that you add
the additional wall from that point all the way along. Personally, I'd
like to see it all the way along because it makes no sense, Mr.
Roskelly, to put landscaping all along here when you're going to have
18 buildings in there. Figure five cars in each building is 90, plus
you're going to have 13 homes, which is another 2 cars per home,
26. That's a possibility of 116 cars going through there everyday.
Now, during the winter months, that's the only way you can get into
the subdivision and to the new industrial center. That landscape isn't
going to hold up. Its going to be killed by salt. The City is going to
go through and plow that street. All that snow is going to be knocked
onto the landscaping. It makes no sense. It makes better sense to
have a wall all the way along there. It protects the homeowners and
it protects you from continually replacing that landscaping. And I
dont understand why we can't have the wall all the way along just
like we have it behind the industrial buildings. What's the problem
with putfing up the wall?
Mr. Roskelly: To answer Mr. LaPine, I certainly would welcome the idea to replace
all of this landscaping with a 6 foot masonry wall. But I felt as though
I was mandated by Council at a study session, that in tum mandated
by perhaps a deed that is on record that mandates that we do this
first 200 and some feet with this 20' of landscaping. If not, we would
be very pleased, and I'm sure Mr. Rosati would prefer the wall. He is
a mason contractor. I sort of agree that the wall would be much
easier to maintain and certainly the right thing, as you point out, in
the winter and snow, etc., etc.
Mr. McCann: We have a conflict because the preliminary plat does not agree with
the letter from Mr. Fisher. Therefore, how do we act if we don't know
which one is controlling? We dont have the documents regarding
the sale of the property to know what's going to be enforceable.
Mr. Roskelly: I agree, Mr. Chairman. So what is your suggestion? That we
resubmit the masonry wall?
Mr. McCann: I'm going to look to the staff if they have a recommendation as to how
we're going to deal with this. I think the ideal situation would be to
have a gardener come everyday to take care of a nice 20' garden
thing and a wall just in case, but I don't know the perfect answer.
Mr. Taormina:
First of all, in terms of whether or not there is a conflict between what
the Council conditioned as part of the sale of that property and the
condifions that were imposed with respect to the preliminary plat, I
dont believe there really is a conflict. Both the Planning Commission
and the City Council approved the preliminary plat with condition that
there be both a wall and landscaping along the south property line.
The only difference is with respect to the easterly 275 feet, as Mr.
LaPine indicated, because along that south property line, the sale of
that property was conditioned upon the development ofthat roadway
including a berm as was shown on that exhibit. So really, when we
look at the balance of the property where it abuts the residential, this
body has at its discretion what it determines to be a reasonable
buffer between the two districts. I think it was discussed at length
during the review of the preliminary plat and was reflected in the
motion that was approved that the plan he was required to bring back
before you would include both the wall and landscaping. The plan
before us this evening does not shay a wall; it only shows
landscaping. Thus, we would request that this item be tabled so that
the wall could be shown on the plan. We might want to look at the
landscaping. I don't believe that it needs to be to the extent that he
has shown on the plan right now where only the berth would serve as
the screen between the two districts. It could be something less than
that. But we do feel that a wall is warranted in this location given the
proximity of the homes to the roadway that will be carrying a
considerable amount of truck traffic back to this industrial complex.
Mr. McCann:
On the other hand, there is consideration in that the Council may
have been concerned that the entrance area have a nice look to it.
You're going to be coming into a subdivision as well as an industrial
park, so you need some greenbelt, some type of shrubbery. A six
fool wall is not going to stop all the noise; it will help reduce it but
grown shrubbery would be much more effective. Your solution, Mr.
Roskelly?
Mr. Roskelly:
My solution would be as I'm showing on the drawing that I presented
which would be the first 600' approximately with the berm and the
shrubs and the plants, etc., and the balance a 6' masonry wall.
Mr. McCann:
Thalwill be irrigated and taken care of bywhom?
Mr. Roskellly:
It would be sprinkled and taken care of by either the association or
the industrial sub. I would say by the homeowners and, in this case,
I
John Pastor, 31140 Lyndon. I just came down from the ZBA to see what was going
on. So I'll just throw my two cents in. Again, being on the City
CoundI when we were going over this plan and in several meetings
that we had with these folks ... in my opinion only, of course, the
entrance was supposed to be heavily landscaped once we got in.
Then it was supposed to be, in my opinion, the wall as well as
landscaping. The reason why the landscaping and the wall were to
be targeted was to keep the noise level down and exhaust from the
heavy trucks and all that stuff and that was the reason for the wall.
the industrial subdivision, and perhaps later coupled with the single
family homes.
Mr. McCann:
Okay, so there would be something incorporated into the documents
to make sure it's taken care of?
Mr. Roskelly:
That's correct.
Mr. Piercecchr
How about the partial wall that's up there right now? Iljusl coversa
couple houses. I'm asking what you're going to do with that wall?
Mr. Roskelly:
I'm oflhe opinion thatthe wall should be removed. On the other
hand, Mr. Rosati said the wall is in pretty good condition. As Mr.
McCann just indicated, I believe that the entrance to what's going to
be an industrial subdivision and a residential subdivision ... I think
it's much more charming to look at a 20' berm with beautiful pine
trees, etc., opposed to a 6' masonry wall.
Mr. Piercecchr
What iflhis berm only covered a small portion ofthe entranceway
justto give itthat look and then the wall continued say 30'to40' from
Stark Road? I dont know if those are good numbers. I'm just
bringing something up here.
Mr. Roskelly:
I think in going back, we were in very close study with the Council
members. In fact, ifyou notice bylhe drawing, the right -0f -way is 66
feet. Generally the pavement is in the center of the right -0f -way. We
moved it so that we would have a 20' stretch to be able to build a
bene as well as all these plantings in the first 200 and some feet that
we purchased from the City, and we thought that we would extend
that onto the balance of the continguous single family homes that lie
next to it. If this board or any board suggest they want a masonry
wall, we'll replace it with a masonry wall. I personally believe that this
would be the most desirable from aesthetics, from maintenance, etc.
Mr. McCann:
I'm going to go to the audience because we have a neighbor before
us and maybe a Councilperson who can give us some insight as to
what's going on.
John Pastor, 31140 Lyndon. I just came down from the ZBA to see what was going
on. So I'll just throw my two cents in. Again, being on the City
CoundI when we were going over this plan and in several meetings
that we had with these folks ... in my opinion only, of course, the
entrance was supposed to be heavily landscaped once we got in.
Then it was supposed to be, in my opinion, the wall as well as
landscaping. The reason why the landscaping and the wall were to
be targeted was to keep the noise level down and exhaust from the
heavy trucks and all that stuff and that was the reason for the wall.
19090
The landscaping was also supposed to be there to hopefully
eventually grow over the wall and help protect above and get the top
ofthe trucks. We talked about both of them. We talked about one or
the other. Then we talked about just having theme. But I believe
what's best in this area, and I'm also a neighbor right across the
street from this property, is the wall, in my opinion, along with the
landscaping, but we also have to take into consideration the type of
landscaping that isn't going to get eaten away with the salttrucks and
the pollution from the bigger trucks. Those were the main concerns
that I had at the time. I was one of the members that didn't want to
approve it until we had all this done at that time, but the majority of
the Council voted and they said that they would revisit this, but I do
think it warrants both issues because of the closeness of the
neighbors and the noise levels of the big delivery trucks.
Mr. McCann: I did something out of order here. It's audience communication but it
was a former councilmember, so we're going to open it up to
everybody so everybody will get an opportunity to speak if there's no
objections.
Mr. Piercecchr
No objection. John, when you talk about a wall and landscaping,
you're talking about the landscaping that would be on the north side
of the wall? Is that what you're talking about?
Mr. Pastor:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
With a wall?
Mr. Pastor:
Right.
Mr. Piercecchr
Well, that's fine. That's even better.
Mr. Pastor:
That was my interpretation that I've always wanted. I think that
what's the neighbors ... of course they didn't want this to begin with .
.. let's start off with that. But this was the best solution that l felt as
one Councilmember was a good solution for everybody involved.
Mr. Piercecchr
A nice entranceway with a wall with landscaping on the industrial side
ofthewall. That's the best of both words.
Mr. Pastor:
Right. And then the idea was to get some of the plants, pine trees or
whatever, that could grow above the wall to eventually cover the tops
of the trucks and also help prevent the noise and shield that.
Tern Lemmon,
12101 Brewster. My property abuts this industrial and residential
property. We did have a petition. I dont know if you guys got it back
a few months ago. Gosh, it's been probably six months ago. We
19091
requested a 10 foot wall. There's an 8 foot wall now. We would
settle for 8 feet but that's why we went with 10 feel because he
wanted a 5 foot and we don't think that is big enough. Six fool isn't
even big enough for these semis that will be coming in.
Mr. McCann:
I think the ordinance only allows us to go to a seven foot wall, Mr.
Taormina?
Mrs. Lemmon:
It is seven? Okay, then there's a seven foot wall there now.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, and that's whalwe're limited to.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Well, at 7foot, every That counts.
Mr. McCann:
That's very reasonable.
Mrs. Lemmon:
If he can put in trees beyond the wall that would be great loo. That's
what I would like to see. I dont want to see these businesses and I
dont want to hear the trucks. What l understand is that in an M-1
zone it doesn't have to be shut down at certain hours so you can
have trucks come in 24 hours. Is that correct?
Mr. McCann:
That's not something we restrict.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Right. I'm not sure ifyou're going to be looking over what businesses
he puts in and if there will be any restrictions on them. No
restrictions. So whatever goes in, goes in. So as much protection as
we have being the residents there from these businesses, we would
greatly appreciate.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, I'm looking at the point Mr. Piercecchi broughtlo my
attention regarding the Landscape Plan and the Building and Use
Restrictions. I'm looking atthe comment I assume from the City
Council resolution. What could be included?
Mr. Taormina:
That was the resolution that was adopted by the Council but the
recommendation did come from this body that we review, at the
same time as the Landscape Plan, any Building and Use Restrictions
or private covenants that would be imposed upon the property after
it's subdivided. The thought there was that we would take a look at
some ofthe issues involving outdoor storage and how that would be
addressed. The question that the resident brought up is, are there
restrictions? Yes, there are restrictions. Those are contained within
our Zoning Ordinance and other codes and ordinances limiting the
uses that can be located in any of these buildings and issues
involving nuisances or outdoor storage and lighting. But additional
19092
controls can be imposed by the private developer in the form of
Building and Use Restrictions and that is something that we wanted
to take a look at at the same time as the Landscape Plan to see if
some of those issues could be ironed out. We can require those as
part of the review of the preliminary plat and, no, we have not
received them at this point.
Mr.McCann:
Thankyou.
Guy Chopp, 12017 Brewster. I was at that meeting loo. Like Mr. Pastor said, I was
hoping all this sluff would have been worked out before they started
this because we knew what was going to happen. The landscaping
they call for here, we won't enjoy this in our lifetime, by the time this
stuff grows up. So we really need the wall. And our wall is taller than
seven feet. In our subdivision on Standish those walls are taller.
Mr. McCann:
There are taller walls, but I think that's with the variance. Iftheywere
to be built now, if my understanding is cored, Mr. Taormina, we can
only recommend to the Council seven fool walls at this point.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and let me just darify that. The wall height is determined from
the highest grade, whether its on residenfial or the industrial side.
There are sections of wall behind the businesses on Belden Court,
which I think this gentleman is referring to, where the height of the
wall is probably in excess of six feet and more closely to seven feet,
maybe in some cases eight feet, although I don't know. I don't think
it's that high in too many areas. The reason for that is the grade
difference that exists between the properfies on the west side of that
wall, which are the industrial properties, and the residential side of
the wall, which is on the east side.
Mr. McCann:
So originally it was approved as a seven foolwall but because ofthe
grade differences, it varies.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, I think that wall was probably approved to be somewhere
between six to seven feet. It varies. The wall steps in several
locafions. It varies in height from five feel to probably about six and a
half feet on the industrial side.
Mr. Chopp:
On the subdivision side, atthe end of Wadsworth and Standish, they
are about eight to ten feet tall on our side.
Mr. McCann:
But that's because of the grade level, not because it was required to
be an eight to ten foot wall.
19093
Mr. Chopp: Again, the greenery, like I said, whatthey call for every 12 feel,
putting in an evergreen. That won't do us any good in our lifetime.
Arbovitaes.
Mr. McCann: Arbovitaes.
Deborah Wilson, 12036 Brewster. I'm also in favor of the wall and the greenery. I
have a question. Why would we want to tear down a portion of wall
that's already there that we had to fight to get put up in the
beginning?
Mr. McCann: That's not what we're portending to do. We're just taking a look at
the plan tonight to see. Theyre trying to work out what they believe
is nice and we're trying to look at it and see what we've got and
whereto go. And that's why we're doing what we're doing.
Ms. Wilson: We had to fight to get that wall up for the industry that is there now.
Why in the word would we even consider allowing someone to think
of tearing it down and just putting a greenbelt up there? We need the
wall up there all the way and that's what our residents are looking for.
If they want to put the green part in there, that's fine but we need that
wall to protect us from the noise and stuff that 's going to be in there.
Mr.McCann: Thankyou.
Gregory Chopp, 11901 Brewster. I'm in favor of putting in a wall. would like to see
a wall on top of a bene and get it up about 13 feet high. live about a
block away from where the new road is going through, and I've
noticed already a considerable amount of noise that I didn't hear
before. I'd just like to keep down all the noise with respect to the
people who live right next door to it.
Jacquelyn Burns, 34682 Beacon. I definitely want awall all the way back through
there. That would be great. And if they want to do the landscaping
on the north side of itforthe truck drivers to look at, that's fine. But
as a resident, I don't really care about the truck drivers. want to see
the trees on our side to block the noise and for our beautification.
Theyve already removed so many of our woods and are taking more
out. We need to keep that beautified in there. I definitely want the
landscaping on our side.
Mr.McCann: Thankyou.
Roberta Lewis, 11848 Brewster. I'm all forthe wall all the way to Stark Road. I
leave the house very early in the morning and there are a lot of
people walking. They get off a bus on Plymouth and walk down to
19094
the industrial area where they work and I would, if I were them and I
worked back in that new industrial area, cut through the
neighborhood. I really don't want to see that because I don't want to
come across someone walking along a dark road. They would startle
me I'm sure and I would startle them. Ijust don't want to see anyone
cutting through the neighborhoods at that time in the morning
especially.
Mr.McCann:
Thankyou.
Robin Bums, 34450 Capitol. They kind of covered everything that I'd like to say, but
this road and everything that's going on here is in my backyard. I live
right there. So its already depressing enough to see the trees and
the wildlife ... we had fox, we had everything, woodchucks, gophers.
We had everything. So that's already depressing enough. Obviously
we have logo through with this, but please, please give us a wall, not
only for the sound and pollution, but also for the safety of our
children. Anybody can come through there. We have little children in
our neighborhood. I have a teenage daughter. I mean, just for our
safelytoo. Thankyou.
Mr.McCann:
Thankyou.
Keith Lemmon, 12101 Brewster. M-1 and residential are on both sides of me there.
If they do put up this wall to the end of what would be my lot line,
then they're going to have residential going in there. There's going to
be a break in the wall rightthere. In the middle of my backyard, that
wall is going to stop. And all these industries and people will be able
to come in my backyard. This is what's proposed. Am I right?
Mr. McCann:
I'm sorry. Mr. Piercecchi asked me a question. The proposal is for a
partial wall and partial landscaping. We are reviewing the need to
get the wall all the way and then deal with what landscaping we
need.
Mr. Lemmon:
How far is this wall going to continue? From Stark Road to where the
residential street is going to go in, right?
Mr. McCann:
Right. Then from the north side of the residential street all the way
across the industrial side.
Mr. Lemmon:
So there will be a break in the wall there for the industrial street.
Mr. McCann:
Just for the road area to come through.
19095
Mr. Lemmon: No one could walk through there? Only cars could go through there,
right?
Mr. McCann:
Well, its meant for cars.
Mr. Lemmon:
That's why I'm saying. Its a break in the wall so the riffraff from the
industrial courts can come right in our backyards is the way I see it.
The wall is there to keep what— to keep the people out or to keep the
noise out? How is the break in the wall ... that's not going to let the
noise in or the people in either, right?
Mr. McCann:
It's the entrance to these people's subdivision.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Can't that be moved down farther, down to the end of where his
property is, instead of making that little loop the way he wants? I
mean he may have to change things a bit, but we're going to hear all
that noise coming in. They're going to break the wall right at the end
of our property to go into the residential. The residence is fine, but
we're going to have this break in the wall and all these businesses
back there. All these trucks going in possibly 24 hours a day.
Mr. McCann:
Here's the problem we have with what you're discussing. One, the
preliminary platwas approved quite some time ago. The design has
already been approved and they've relied on that design. Whalwe're
here today for is the landscape plan and the building restrictions and
the wall. That's all that's before us today.
Mr. Lemmon:
That's because you approved that before you approved the wall.
Mr. McCann:
We had a public hearing. We had the people here that all came
before and we tried to work out whatever we could to best protect it.
Mrs. Lemmon:
He said that the residential was not part of it at that moment. That it
was just for industrial and that's what was approved.
Mr. McCann:
The preliminary plat for the industrial, you're coned, was approved
Iasttime but the road leading off to the potential residential was also
approved. Is that coned, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe the preliminary plat for the industrial park only showed
where the opening would be. It really didn't show the continuation of
that road, so generally speaking, you're right. The plat did reflect
where the road would branch off to service the residential. But until
that preliminary plat for the residential is approved, he would be
required to screen all the way
across. We don't have the approval
set for that residential, so until
then the wall would have to continue
f4IQ I.
all the way across. But certainly once that's approved, he would
have to have that opening.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just confused where you're talking about. The new wall that is
going to go behind the industrial for the new subdivision, those
homes are not even there yet.
Mrs. Lemmon:
No, but there will be a break.
Mr. LaPine:
Thats not what I see on this plan.
Mr. McCann:
They are concerned about the break between here and here. The
wall ends here and then starts here and about how cars get through.
Mr. LaPine:
I see. The cars can't get through. They have to come down through
here and down through the subdivision. How would that affect you?
Mrs. Lemmon:
They don't show our house on that.
Mr. La Pine:
Iknov they dont. That's what I'm saying. You're down here
somewhere.
Mrs. Lemmon:
No,no. Were in that little lot that they don't shoe.
Mr. McCann:
I know where you're at. I'll show him. They are down here.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Our property abuts his property.
Mr. LaPine:
There's a wall that comes all the way down across their property and
it also goes down partially in the new sub, partially number one, the
way I look at it.
Mrs. Lemmon:
It looks bigger on that but believe me, our son's little playhouse is
probably 20' from that.
Mr. LaPine:
So you're saying you'd like to see the wall go all the way down before
it goes into that cul-de-sac?
Mrs. Lemmon:
Yes. If he has a road going down there, why can't he have an
opening down at the end of his industrial park? Thalway it would
block the noise from us.
Mr. McCann:
Because people would have to drive all the way through the industrial
park and then circle around and come back to the subdivision is what
you're saying.
19097
Mrs. Lemmon:
No. Actually what I'm saying is, as he has it, where the road cuts in .
.. isn'lthal homes on the lett side? That's residential.
Mr. McCann:
No. The Ieftside ofthe road is industrial. The north side ofthe road
has industrial on both sides of it. What you're saying is that they'd
have to go all the way around it and circle back to the subdivision.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Are those businesses there?
Mr. Taormina:
No, those are houses.
Mrs. Lemmon:
So instead of making that little cul-de-sac rightthere, they could
come in here. They could make the road go along the front of those
homes instead of putfing all this noise into our neighborhood. Ifthey
want to buy back there, then that's fine. We've lived here for over 11
years now.
Mr. McCann:
I understand. But when you bought the property, this was already
zoned industrial.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Right.
Mr. McCann:
You knew that that's what it was going to be developed as.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Yes, we were told it was light industrial. They would probably be
closing at 5:00. It would be like the little businesses that are there
now. The Iitlle bump shop. Well that little bump shop doses around
5 or 6 and everything is pretty quite
after that. Weekends are kind of
noisy during the day. But no, this
is not what we thought would
happen. We would not have bought there, but I'm saying if you could
just look at that. You're saying that the residenfial has not been
approved yet, then maybe changes can be made to accommodate all
of us.
Mr. McCann:
Again, that issue is not before us tonight. The issue before us tonight
is the ...
Mrs. Lemmon:
Okay. I just wanted to bring it up and lel you know how we feel about
it.
Mr. McCann:
Because we will be coming back for a preliminary plat on that or is it
coming back as a condo. Do you know?
Mr. Taormina:
That I do not know.
Mr. McCann: Either way, with a condo we would do a notificafion with abutting
neighbors?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
She would be an abutting neighbor.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Definitely.
Mr. Taormina:
We would have to look at what the notification requirements are but
certainly I think they'll be aware of this project.
Mr. McCann:
We're going to come back to that issue. That's not before us tonight.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Okay. Thank you.
Amanda Dellasavia, 34367 Capitol. I'm just on the other side of the plans. I am on
the south side of the street of Capitol, probably 800' to 1,000' from
Stark Road so this directly affects me. look out my firontwindow
and I used to see nice trees. I watched the bulldozers come in and
take all the trees away. The animals are gone. The noise is up. I
would like to see the wall put in plus trees on the south side of the
wall instead of the north side because it really doesn't affect the
beauty of the industrial park because it's cement and brick work.
Where on the residential side, it affects us because we were dealing
with trees prior and now we just have to stare ata wall. Hopefully
that's what's going to be happening. I'd like to reiterate, with the wall
that's already sitting there, can he match the grade of that? I mean, if
its a seven fool wall, can he match that all the way down?
Mr. McCann:
We are going to look at doing that, yes. That's an issue that we are
trying to work out at this time.
Ms. Dellasavia:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
It's one thing that has been brought up before and we did look at that.
It's really not the issue before us tonight. Bylrying to pullhe
landscaping on the residential side, you create two problems. One
ordinance says the wall has to be on the properly line. Correct, Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Easement line or property line.
Mr. McCann:
Easement line or property line. Second, is the issue of maintaining
the greenbelt area. The association or the developer that owns the
property would be responsible for it. If you put the wall on this side,
19099
they can't get over to maintain it. That's why the ordinance requires it
on the easement or the property line.
Ms. Dellasavia:
Now, if trees were to be the south side of the wall ...
Mr. McCann:
The onlyway we've ever done that is if the person is willing to deed it
over to the neighbors and that's been very rare that theyve been
willing to do that. And l think they need it. Part of the problem is they
need the easement width for their road. They have to maintain a 62'
road and they couldn't do that if they deeded off the property, so they
can't even do it in this instance.
Ms. Dellasavia:
Okay. Well, I am definitely for the wall and for greenery. Thank you.
Mr.McCann:
Thankyou.
Michael Olandese, 12169 Stark. My property is directly south of the entrance of this
place. I just want to say that I'm in favor of the wall but at the back of
my property, there's an easement for the paver lines going north and
south. They stop the other wall short of the property line. Will they
be able to put something in there that's probably 20 feet, so that
would be another break.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, can you answer that question? Its an engineering
question not a planning question.
Mr. Olandese:
What I really wanted to say is I'm in favor of the wall.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, we gotthat general impression.
Mr. Taormina:
I dont think that the overhead paver lines would necessarily prevent
the wall from continuing along that property line.
Mr. Olandese:
So they could go south with that?
Mr. Taormina:
Normally, that's the case. I'd have to take a look at that area or
maybe our Engineering Division would have to, but the ordinance
requires that it be a continuous wall all the way across.
Mr. Olandese:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Roskelly, any Iasi comments?
Mr. Roskelly:
I suggestthat we place a masonrywall on the properly line.
Mr. McCann:
That would make the neighbors happy.
19100
Mr. Roskelly:
I would also like to say that in lieu ofthis, the old landscape plan we
had in the 20 foot bene should be abolished and we could possibly
put some sort of plantings on the wall. But certainly we can't be
expected to put in a 20 foot berm that's not going to be of any use to
the people who want the wall.
Mr. McCann:
It's going to be of use to the entrance to the subdivision.
Mr. Roskelly:
But unfortunately, if you have a six or seven fool masonry wall, and
between there and the wall and that 20 feel you have this bene that's
going to be full of ice and snow, who is going to benefit by that bene?
But I think the wall with some wall vines or plantings, I'm not familiar
with that, I would like to come back with a plan showing the wall
along with some sort of plantings on the face of the wall.
Mr. McCann:
What are you going to do with the 20 feet?
Mr. Roskelly:
Leave it as open space.
Mr. McCann:
And put in shrubbery?
Mr. Roskelly:
We would certainly landscape it, yes.
Mr. McCann:
Not necessarily a bene but landscape it.
Mr. Roskelly:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
To a lesser extent than you show here?
Mr. Roskelly:
To a lesser extent than we're showing. We would sod it and put in
certain plantings but not the 20 fool berm, etc., that we have here. Now
the wall ... what is your pleasure? We prefer a six fool wall.
Mr. McCann:
The neighbors all want a seven fool wall. There's an existing seven
foot wall now. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
No. That wall that's back behind Lots 108 and 109 and part of 107, 1
don't believe is that tall. At least on the industrial side of this property
Mr. McCann:
That's something you can work on before we get back.
Mr. Roskelly:
I thought a sixfootwall was the required wall of an M-1 district.
Mr. Taormina:
Its five to seven feet.
19101
Mr. Roskelly: Five to seven feet.
Mr. McCann: Let's see if we can match what's there.
Mr. Roskelly: I suggest at this time I getwdh Mr. Taormina and we put our heads
together.
Mr. McCann:
What a wonderful idea.
Mr. Roskelly:
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Mr. LaPine:
One other question now. The issue about what restrictions we're
going to have here. Don't we need that?
Mr. McCann:
That's one of the other reasons we're going to table this because
that's one of the things we wanted to look at and we really haven't
addressed.
Mr. Roskelly:
Along those lines, I definitely recall that incident being broughtlo our
attention. At this time, we were remiss in not submitting it but I
suggest that your own M-1 district indicates the sound that's
permitted, no outside storage. What else is il? Again, I'll get with Mr.
Taormina to find out what shopping lists he wants in these
restrictions.
Mr. McCann:
You're reading my mind.
Mr. Roskelly:
Thankyou.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#01-07-2002
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that Petition 2001 -06 -PL -01, submitted by Enrico Rosati, requesting
landscape approval in connection with Preliminary Plat approval
for
Rosati Industrial Subdivision, to be located on the west side
of Stark
Road between SchoolcmR Road (1-96) and Plymouth Road in the
South Ybf Section 28, be tabled to February 12, 2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
19102
ITEM #7 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REZONE 8971 FLORAL
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to
hold a Public Heading bythe City Planning Commission proposing to
rezone property located on the west side of Floral Avenue (8971
Floral) between Joy Road and Cleveland Elementary School in the
Southeast corner of Section 36 from RUF to R-1.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#01-08-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, on its own motion,
and pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish
and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not
certain property located on the west side of Floral Avenue (8971
Floral) between Joy Road and Cleveland Elementary School in the
Southeast%of Section 36 should be rezoned from RUF to R-1;
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such heading be given as
provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance
ofthe City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be
a report and recommendation submitted tothe City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 83V Regular Meeting
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes of the 835"' Regular Meeting held on November 20, 2001.
On a motion by Mr. Lapine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#01-09-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 835" Regular Meeting held by the
Planning Commission on November20, 2001, as amended, are
hereby approved.
19103
A roll call vole was taken with the following result:
AYES:
Shane, LaPine, Alanskas, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 836TM Regular Meeting
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes of the 836"' Regular Meeting held on December 11, 2001.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#01-10-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 836" Regular Meefing held by the
Planning Commission on December 11, 2001 are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES:
Shane, LaPine, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 837th Regular
Meeting held on January 15, 2002, was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman