HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-02-2619184
MINUTES OF THE 840"' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 26, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 840" Public Hearings and Regular Meetng in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
William LaPine John Pastor
kviwn, :Sm.7'i7i:L]T]:C1FTi 1W
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner IIII; and Ms. Margie Roney, Secretary, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a requestfor preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner hasten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council.
Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7)
days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff
have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the
Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission
may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 200142-0144 ODYSSEY INVESTMENTS
(Brentwood Avenue)
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
12-01-14 submitted by William Skubik, on behalf of Odyssey
Investments, requesfing to rezone property located on the west side
of Brentwood Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue
in the Northwest%of Section 12 from OS to R-1.
19185
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated December 21, 2001, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal
description contained therein." The letter is signed by David Lear,
P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
William Skubik,
Odyssey Investments, 859 S. Main, Suite A, Plymouth, Michigan.
We plan to splitthis into three lots for residenfial building and put
three homes on these separate lots.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchr
What will be the price range for these homes?
Mr. Skubik:
Loolang allhe neighborhood and the new constmclion going on, the
price range would be somewhere between $160,000 and $190,000
and you're looking at maybe 1,400 to 1,600 square fool homes.
Mr. McCann:
Are these going to be brick homes?
Mr. Skubik:
That would be my understanding. I'm not actually a builder, but I
think that would ft into the area. Does that answer your question?
Mr. McCann:
Yes. You're not going to be doing the building then.
Mr. Skubik:
I'm not. That's not my forte.
Mr. McCann:
So you're just going to do the speculation and then sell the lots?
Mr. Skubik:
That's correct.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no
one, I am going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
ILSF;L1
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved,
was
#02-27-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on February 26, 2002, on Petition
2001-12-01-14 submitted by William Skubik, on behalf of Odyssey
Investments, requesting to rezone property located on the west side
of Brentwood Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clarita Avenue
in the Northwest%of Section 12 from OS to R-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2001-12-01-14 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with adjacent
residential uses along Brentwood Avenue to the south;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will allow for the
development of the subject property in a residential mode; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will remove unused non-
residential zoning in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Pastor:
If we could, I'd like to add a condition that the brick be 55% on a two-
story and 80% on a single story.
Mr. McCann:
We can't d o that with regard to zoning.
Mr. Pastor:
Okay. If we can't, then I will conclude ...
Mr. McCann:
I don't believe we can condition the zoning in that respect. Can we,
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
No, but maybe just for the record, if we would indicate what our policy
generally is with respect to the minimize percentage of brick for new
construction, that might help the prospective buyers of the property.
Mr. McCann:
We dont have anything in the ordinance at this point. Itsonlyunder
the Condominium Act that we are doing that, isn't it?
19187
Mr. Taormina: Our control for those types of site details are much greater when we
review condominiums projects. It's not likely that this will come to us
in the forth of site condominium. It will probably just be a
conventional land division and lot split. But typicallywe do look for a
minimum of 65% brick for the two-story homes and 80% brick for the
ranch homes.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, will the
secretary please call the roll?
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 200142-0145 ODYSSEY INVESTMENTS
(Seven Mile Road)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-
12-01-15 submitted by William Skubik, on behalf of Odyssey
Investments, requesting to rezone property located on the south side
of Seven Mile Road between Brentwood and Maplewood Avenues in
the Northwest %of Section 12 from OS to R-1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated December 21, 2001, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposal or the legal
description contained therein." The letter is signed by David Lear,
P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: This piece of property abuts that under Petition 2001-12-01-14
described in Item #1 above. Are there any questions from the
Commissioners? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speakfor or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm
going to dose the public hearing.
ILSF:fi
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, 8
was
#02-28-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on February 26, 2002, on Petition
2001-12-01-15 submitted by William Skubik, on behalf of Odyssey
Investments, requesting to rezone property located on the south side
of Seven Mile Road between Brentwood and Maplewood Avenues in
the Northwest % of Section 12 from OSto R-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2001-12-01-15 be approved forthe following reasons:
1. Thatthe proposed change ofzoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area;
2. Thatthe proposed change ofzoning is consistentwith adjacent
residential uses along Brentwood Avenue to the south;
3. Thatthe proposed change of zoning will allow for the
development ofthe subject property in a residential mode; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will remove unused non-
residential zoning in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pastor: It's always nice to be able to rezone Office to Residential, so I think
this is a step in the right direction. Thank you.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19189
ITEM #3 Petition 2002-01-01-01 REZONE 8971 FLORAL
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
01-01-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuantlo
Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, requesting 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.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Taormina: This petition proposes that City -owned property identified as 8971
Floral Avenue be rezoned from RUF to R-1. The parcel proposed to
be rezoned, Parcel 183a -184a, is located on the west side of Floral
approximately 500 feet north of Joy Road. Thiswasapreviousy
developed single family lot. The City obtained ownership ofthis
parcel some years ago and demolished the residence. The proposal
to rezone the property is a preparatory measure to seeking
competitive bids forthe sale of the property through a sealed
bid/auction process. Based upon the lot size that is involved here,
the RUF zoning classification is not appropriate because the parcel is
substantially smaller than the one-half acre minimum lot size
requirement of the RUF district regulations. Itis really in compliance
with the R-1 zoning which is already established on the lots along
Floral Avenue immediately south ofthe subject property. The R-1
zoning classification requires a minimum Iolsize of 60 feet in width
by 120 feet in depth and a minimum lot area of 7,200 square feel.
The subject property exceeds the size requirements of the R-1
district regulations. The purpose of the rezoning is to overcome the
noncompliance that the property has with respect to the RUF zoning
classification and to effect a zoning change thatwill place it under an
appropriate zoning classification that presently occurs on adjoining
property.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Nowak?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated February 1, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal
at this time. The legal description provided should be used in
connection with this petition." The letter is signed by David Lear,
P.E., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
19190
Mr. McCann: As this is being submitted by the City Planning Commission, I will go
directly to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petiton? For the audience that is
listening tonight, this acton is being taken so the zoning will be in
compliance with a R-1 district when the City sells the land. Is that 9
in a nutshell, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchr
I think that this is really a win-win situation forlhe City, and its an
excellent opportunity forsomebodylo build a nice home in this area.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
R was
#02-29-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on February 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-01-01-01, submitted bythe City Planning Commission,
pursuanllo Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, requesting to rezone properly
located on the west side of Floral Avenue (8971 Floral) between Joy
Road and Cleveland Elementary School in the Southeast%of
Section 36 from RUF to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-01-01-01 be
approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will overcome the
noncompliance that the subject property has under the current
zoning classification;
3. Thatthe proposed zoning classifcaton is consistenlwilh the
size of the subject property; and
4. Thatthe proposed change ofzoning represents an extension of
an existing zoning district occurring on adjacent property to the
south.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
19191
Mr. La Pine: Yes, Iwould just like to say I'm glad to support this proposal after
going down and checking out the neighborhood. This is a
neighborhood with smaller and larger homes, and I think this
rezoning fits in perfectly with it. It will be a nice opportunity for
someone to buy a home that will probably be in the $175,000 to
$200,000 bracket. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #4 Petition 2002-01-02-01 TM HORTON'S
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
01-02-01, submitted by Nowak & Fmus, L.L.C., requesting waiver
use approval to construct a Tim Horton's Restaurant on the north
side of Plymouth Road (33500 Plymouth) between Farmington and
Stark Roads in the Southeast%of Section 28.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Division of Police, dated January 14, 2002, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans in connection with the proposal to
construct a Tim Horton's Restaurant. We have no objections or
recommendations regarding this plan." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 1, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
the proposal orlegal description contained therein. It should be
noted that the developer will be required to meet the requirements of
the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance for the
proposed project." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The third letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
February 7, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request
of January 31, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The monument sign as
depicted is acceptable. The directional signage will require the Tim
Horton name to be removed. (2) This project would be allowed one
19192
wall sign on the front (south) elevation of 32 square feet. Any other
proposed wall signs or additional square footage amount would
require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The turning
radius on the drive-thru lane is not noted and should be on the plan.
(4) The parking spaces must be sized at 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep
or a variance will need to be obtained from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for deficient space width. 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?
Tim Germaine, representing Nowak & Freus, L.L.C., 1310 North Stephenson, Royal
Oak, Michigan. I have with me this evening Mr. Richard Sunkle from
Tim Horlon's. In a nutshell, we have a site that has an existing
Rallys facility on it which is going to be demolished and replaced with
a proposed Tim Horton's facility. It will have very similar use. We
are proposing some minor repairs to the existing pavement, some
replacement of landscaping, curb and gutters to bring it up to speed
for what we want to do right here. We have an elevation and a
photograph for the intended purpose.
Mr. McCann: Is that building a duplicate of what we're going to see?
Mr. Germaine: From the exterior, it's about 99% a match of what's going to be
proposed in Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: I'm pleased with your new plan. When the Planning Commission
studied this plan, there were several areas that collectively we
thought should be improved on. We're happy to see that the new
plan includes those, and I want to refer to those just to make sure
they are cast in cement. (1) The Photometrics Plan refers to 18'
poles mounted on concrete pedestals 2' above grade, for a total
mounting height of20'. Initially they were higher. (2) Parking spaces
other than handicapped are now shown as 10'x 20' as required with
a total of 30 spaces. This is the exact number needed for 50 seals
and 5 employees. He changed the size from 9' to 10'. (3) The
turning radius for the drive -up window aisle is shown as 15' as
required. Initially itwas 12'. (4) The building elevation drawings
show one wall sign, not exceeding 32 sq. ft., on the front elevation.
(5) The Tim Horton name was originally on the directional sign and
now it has been removed. (6) The elevation drawings now contain
information relative to the screening of rooftop -mounted mechanical
19193
units. (7) The height of the dumpster end mum walls has been
increased from 6' to 7'. (8) A note on the site plan states that parking
spaces are to be double striped. We're very pleased thatyou
accepted some of our study recommendations.
Mr. Pastor:
The access drive going off of Farmington is not curbed. Is ityour
intenfion to curb that or leave it as is?
Mr. Germaine:
Our intenfion is to leave it exactly the way it is.
Mr. Pastor:
One of the reasons why I bring that up is that, especially on the south
side of that entrance, the curb is only shown about an inch and a half
to two inches. So it's really not even a curb. I'm a little bit concerned
about that and the other side. The water is going into the building, so
I can just see snow plows pushing the snow up against the building.
I don't know if you guys would be willing to think about putting a curb
on both sides just to define that a little better so that people aren't
hopping the curb and the snow is being corralled the proper way. I
think I would want to do that just so that the building owner isn't
yelling at me for the water coming into his building because I can't
imagine it not going through already. Its just a suggestion. think it
would be beneficial to everybody here.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, according to the notes, there is 17-1/2% landscaping. When I
went out to check it, I don't know where the 17-1/2% comes in
because it doesn't look like there's much in there now. Shouldn'tthe
Plymouth Road Development Authority have some say so here?
Wouldn't they want to do some renovation along here like theyve
done all along Plymouth Road with their development?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, in fact the Plymouth Road Development Authority has this item
scheduled for review at its next meeting, which is this Thursday.
They originally scheduled it for Iasi Thursday but unfortunately that
meeting was cancelled. So they are going to be reviewing this and
submitting a separate recommendation to the Council relative to the
plans.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you. That answers my question. Now I'd like to ask a
question of the gentlemen from Tim Horton's.
Mr. McCann:
Name and address forthe record, please.
Richard Sunkle, 4150 Tuller Road, Dublin, Ohio.
Mr. LaPine:
I would assume that its going to be during the morning rush hour
when most of the people will be coming through the drive-in.
19194
Mr. SunHe: That's correct.
Mr. La Pine: Whatperoentage ofdnve-thru doyou have compared to people
coming in and sitting in the restaurant?
Mr. SunHe:
Typically its 40% drive-thru. tvanes from location to location but
that's probably a good average.
Mr. La Pine:
What is the average time somebodywodd be tied up atthe pickup
window?
Mr. Sunkle:
Normally, it's about a minute by the time they go from the menu
board to the pickup window. Our speed of service is normally about
a minute. During non -peak periods, it could be a little bit longer than
that because of staffing.
Mr. La Pine:
You have taken care of everything we had concems about. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the Public Hearing.
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#0230-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on February 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-01-02-01, submitted by Nowak & Fraus, L.L.C., requesting
waiver use approval to construct a Tim Horton's Restaurant on the
north side of Plymouth Road (33500 Plymouth) between Farmington
and Stark Roads in the Southeast%of Section 28, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend lolhe City Council that
Petition 2002-01-02-01 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked SP1 prepared by Nowak & Fraus,
with a revision dale of February 22, 2002, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet Ll prepared by Nowak
& Fraus, with a revision date of February 22, 2002, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
19195
3. That the landscaping shown on the above -referenced
Landscape Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained
in a healthy condition;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet A5 prepared by
Roy J. Yoder, Architect, Inc., with a revision date of February
22, 2002, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed
50;
7. That the back used in the construction of the building shall be
full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception;
B. That the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed in accordance
with the dumpster endosure detail shown on the Site Plan with
seven (T) foot high walls and gates which shall be maintained
and when not in use closed at all times;
9. That the turning radius of the drive-thru shall be at least fifteen
(15) feet as required;
10. That site lighting equipment shall be shielded and shall not
exceed twenty (20') feel in height above grade;
11. That all mechanical rooftop mounted equipment shall be totally
screened from view;
12. That all parking spaces provided in connection with this
restaurant shall be double stuped;
13. That one (1) wall sign, not exceeding 32 square feel in area, is
approved on the front (south) elevation as shown on the Exlenor
Elevation Plan;
14. That the representations of the directional signs, monument sign
and menu board sign as shown on the Signage Detail Plan
marked Sheet SP4 prepared by Nowak & Fraus, with a revision
dale of February 22, 2002, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to; and
19196
15. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be
submitted to the Inspection Department at the lime the building
permits are applied for;
forlhe following reasons:
1. Thallhe proposed use complies with all ofthe special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice 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. LaPine:
Is this restaurant your typical size? It looks a little smaller than the
normal sizes you have.
Mr. Sunkle:
Yes, it is slightly smaller so that it would fit the site better. Our typical
facility is about 2,800 square feet. This is about 2,200 square feet.
Mr. Pastor:
Do you plan on putting a cap on the wall used to screen the
dumpster?
Mr. Sunkle:
Absolutely.
Mr. Pastor:
I just wanted to make sure of that.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #5 petition 2002-01-02-02 RITTER'S FROZEN CUSTARD
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
01-02-02, submitted by Brent A. Goings, on behalf of Mend-Eight
Land, L.L.C., d/b/a Ritters Frozen Custard, requesting waiver use
approval to add a drive-thm window to Riflers Frozen Custard on the
south side of Eight Mile Road (31195 Eight Mile Road) between
Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest %of Section 2.
19197
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated February 1, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
the proposal orlegal description contained therein." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 11, 2002, which
reads as follows: "Livonia Fire and Rescue has no objections or
concerns in regards to this petition." The letter is signed by Alan W.
Brandemihl, Jr., Fire Chief. The third letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated February 7, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest of January 31, 2002, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The menu
board may be a maximum of 30 square feet. (2) The drive-thru lane
and the tum radius dimensions are not on the print. The drive-thru
lane must be a minimum 12 feet wide and any turning radius must
not be less than 15 feet. In addition, the parking aisle directly south
of the drive-thru lane must beat least 22 feet wide. These items
should be clarified. (3) Due to this proposed change, the pedestrian
route to the required accessible restroom has been changed.
Measures should be instituted, along with additional directional
signage, to ensure the continued required access to this restroom.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The fourth
letter is from the Division of Police, dated February 19, 2002, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposal to add a drive-thru
window to the existing ice cream pador. Itis ourrecommendation
that the handicap parking space be relocated to the west side of the
building so that handicapped patrons would not have to cross where
the drive-thru traffic will be traveling. We have no other
recommendations regarding this proposal." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Brent Goings, 5962 Mulligan Boulevard, Brighton, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything else you'd like to tell us at this time?
19198
Mr. Goings: Several things. First of all, you may want to make a correction on the
address that is listed on the petition. Its 31227. Secondly, I got
information from Mr. Nowak regarding the pre -hearing review. We
looked at those items. There are some errors on our part that we
missed as far as the 15 foot radius and the 12 fool width. We've
looked at those and modified them. We are also looking at the
marked up drawing that Mr. Nowak provided to us. We're making
some new drawings similarlo those. We've asked for a couple
different changes. We've also adjusted our signage down from 33 to
30 sq. R. So, at this point, I guess we're still in the process of getting
those drawings put together and would like to resubmit those.
Mr. McCann:
All right. So you need a couple more weeks.
Mr. Goings:
The next opportunity I can come back, I would like to.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience thatwishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing.
Are there are questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pastor:
I just want to make sure that when you do the plans, you have that
transformer in the back. I'm sure you're aware of it, but make sure
that it is protected with a bumper post or curb or whatever. It needs
to be well protected when you do the drive-thm lane.
Mr. Goings:
It does have some bumper posts on it, but I'll put those on the
drawing.
Mr. Pastor:
I think especially now since we're putting the dnve-thm lane on that
side, I think we need a little extra protection.
Mr. Shane:
What is your expectation in terns of how this is going improve your
business percentage -wise? Doyou have afeelingforthal?
Mr. Goings:
I really don't know. What I'm basically looking for is the rainy days.
Its opening on March 8. If we have one of these, hopefully we'll
have some business versus no business.
Mr. Shane:
So you're looking to use this mainly off-season?
Mr. Goings:
To extend it and for the rainy days that we're going to have
throughout the year.
19199
Mr. LaPine: I have a couple of questions. When I was out there with Mr
Pieroecchi, I thoughlyou told us the reason you were putting in the
drive thru was that you wanted to extend your season. Is that
correct?
Mr. Goings:
Correct.
Mr. La Pine:
Now, because you don'lhave adrive-thru at your other location, you
dont know how much business it's going to generate.
Mr. Goings:
No, I don't.
Mr. LaPine:
You don't know if R's only going to be open through the end of
September.
Mr. Goings:
Middle of November.
Mr. LaPine:
You close that late? Okay. That takes care of that. The other
question I have, the diagram that our Planning Department gave you
is shaving a decomtive fence. I've been to your place on a number
of occasions. You have a window right there. For people parking on
the east side of the building, how are they going to get through that
fence?
Mr. Goings:
I didn't put the fence in there. That's the way it was proposed by the
Planning Department. What I would look at also doing is taking the
exit radius to 15' and putting people back out into the parking lot
quicker.
Mr. LaPine:
As I mentioned to you the day we were out there, my concern is
coming out of the drive-thru window. You have to cut across here
and cul across any traffic backing out and then you have people
making left hand turns into the lot. I still have problems as far as the
safety issue, but I'll wait until l look at your additional plans. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pastor:
We could prevent the customers from parking right there by making
those employee
parking spaces. I think the extension of the right
tum lane
is a must because you have to have a certain amount of
space before you turn out. But I'll offer a tabling motion to March 12.
19200
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. La Pine, and unanimously approved, 0
was
#02-31-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on February 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-01-02-02, submitted by Brent A. Goings, on behalf of Meni-
Eighl Land, L.L.C., d/b/a Ritters Frozen Custard, requesting waiver
use approval to add a drive-lhru window to Rillers Frozen Custard
on the south side of Eight Mile Road (31195 Eight Mile Road)
between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest %af
Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 2002-01-02-02 be tabled to the next Regular Meeting of
March 12, 2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. We will see you on March 12. We will have a study
meeting the week before so you need to have your plans in as quick
as you can.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2002-01-02-03 LOU LaRICHE CHEVROLET
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
01-02-03, submitted by Ronald Chaudoin, on behalf of Lou LaRiche
Chevrolet, requesting waiver use approval to establish a new vehicle
storage yard at 12432 Eckles Road on the east side of Eckles
between Plymouth and Amrhein Roads in the Southwest''/.of
Section 30.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated February 1, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-referencedpetibon. The following legal
description should be usedin connection with this petition. It should
be noted that the developer will be required to provide a hard surface
of concrete or bituminous asphalt as required under City Zoning
Ordinance 453, Section 13.06. Also, the developerwill need to
provide a plan for storm water drainage and obtain a soil erosion
permltfortheconstructlonofthelot. The developer may also be
19201
required to meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management
Ordinance in connection with storm water runoff." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from
the Division of Police, dated January 14, 2002, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with the
proposal to construct a new vehicle storage yard. We are concerned
about the security of the proposed yard. Specifically, we believe that
there may not be enough lighting forthe yard and recommend that
light poles be installed in the middle of each row. We are also
concerned about the landscaping that is proposed for the front of this
property. Itis ourbeliefthat the proposed landscaping will prevent
officers patrolling this area from having a clear view of the yard in
order to better detect any possible criminal activity taking place within
the yard." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated February 11, 2002, which reads as follows: `Livonia Fire &
Rescue has no objections or concerns in regards to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alan W. Brandemihl, Jr., Fire Chief. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 7,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of January
31, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) As proposed, this petition will need a variance
from the Zoning Board ofAppeals for a non -hard surfaced lot (2)
Parking within 20 feet of the right-of-way will need to be removed.
(3) No mention of irrigation for the landscaping is made. This should
be clarified. (4) The fencing and gates will need to be moved back
off the required front yard of 60 feet or a variance from the Zoning
Board ofAppeals would be required to install the fence and gates as
proposed. (5) As this parking is not required, the deficient space and
aisle sizes are noted for the record only. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the pefitioner here this evening?
Ronald Chaudoin, 40875 Plymouth, Plymouth, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like totell us aboutthis proposal?
Mr. Chaudoin: It was our initial intent to make a purchase of this property. But
because this will be a leasehold, we were looking at a temporary
position when we proposed an aggregate -type surface, a crush stone
type surface. That's cost preventative. I hear a lot of things here ...
an inigation system. Until we own the property, I'm not sure we can
justify all that. So we're looking for something on a temporary basis,
19202
two or three years, until the UAW can make a decision on whether
they're going to vacate and sell or whether they're going to remain
long term.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Are you from Lou LaRiche Chevrolet?
Mr. Chaudoin:
Lou LaRiche Chevrolet — yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
I went out to your location on Plymouth Road. No doubt about it,
you're really stacked in there with cars. You have no parking, period.
There was a truck unloading that day and I dont know how the guy
got in and out and unloaded. I guess my problem is, number one,
have you looked at any locations in Plymouth instead of Livonia? For
instance, on the corner of Plymouth Road and Haggerty, where the
temporary buildings were for the court house that burned down in
Plymouth. That is a big lot. Couldn't you lease that property on a
temporary basis? If you cant do that, what about the old Burroughs
plant? They have adequate additional parking there. That lot is no
where filled like it used to be years ago. It seems to me you might be
able to lease space from them.
Mr. Chaudoin:
Unisys does not have space available.
Mr. LaPine:
Theydon't?
Mr. Chaudoin:
They do not have an open door to that. The property you referred,
where the court house used to be, I think the asking price is $13
million. We did approach them. And we like Livonia. Bylhe way, did
one of my salesmen approach you?
Mr. LaPine:
Pardon?
Mr. Chaudoin:
I'm sorry.
Mr. LaPine:
No, I didn't go in. I just drove through it and around it. I guess one of
the problems I have is that you're telling us it's going to be temporary.
And then in three years, you're out of there and somebody else goes
in. I don't know if we want something that's temporary. If property is
going to be sold, we like to see something that's going to be
permanent and that we're going to gel good tax dollars from. We
don't get a lot of tax dollars from a parking lot. For us to approve
something like this, from my perspective, I dont think is in the best
interests of the City. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
19203
Mr. Piercecchr What advantage does this facility have for the City of Livonia? We
want to upgrade and enhance our community. What enhancement
does this offer us herein Livonia?
Mr. Chaudoin:
I didn't put any information together or talk to anyone about this. If
you lake a look on Haggerty Road south of Ann Arbor Road, Hines
Park Lincoln Mercury has a storage facility. I think its a rather
attractive facility. Its not meant for display. It's not meant for a sale
operation. We put a green belt in the front thinking that's what would
be required, but also for the purpose of improving and enhand rig the
looks of the property. I think currently it doesn't look like very much
at all. If you take a look at it, it's just an open field. There's nothing
really there at all. Again, it would be our long term plan to purchase
the property and use the facility that is there long term.
Mr. Piercecchr
Well, if its your long term plan, why not make this a hard surface
right now?
Mr. Chaudoin:
They haven't agreed to sell me the property. It would be our intention
to go ahead and negotiate a transaction if you tell me we need a hard
surface and these are the modifications needed, it would be our
intention then to go negotiate with the UAW and see if we can put
this deal together.
Mr. Piercecchr
I dont exactly know the ordinance number. Al, what is the section
number that this falls under where a hard surface is required?
Mr. Nowak:
It is Section 11.03(8) which is the waiver use section of the C-2
District Regulations.
Mr. Piercecchr
We're justfdlowing the ordinance.
Mr. Chaudoin:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
I guess my concern loo is what the use is going to be for the long
term. To be honest with you, Bill Brown has been using the old
George Bums Theatre. Here, what we're taking is a piece of
properly that's not being used right now, but there is some
development going on in the area. We see some turnaround in that
particular area. There are nice restaurants right down the street.
Just north of it, there is some new development of the industrial area.
What is the proper long term use? Now, I've seen nice car storage
areas where you're displaying a product. You're going to put in nice
flowers and maintain it and do a good thing because people are
driving bylooking at your product. But I'm not getfing that feeling
from you right now. You're telling us that basically you just want to
19204
put a few bucks into it and throw cars over there and put up a six foot
chain link fence around it until you decide what to do with it. From a
planning standpoint, it just doesn't sound that attmctive to the City.
Mr. Chaudoin:
Okay, well, let me go ahead. We have no objections to what's been
talked about here. None whatsoever. We'd just
like to be able to buy
the piece of properly. So iflhal's the case, that's what we'll attempt
to do, and we wont proceed if we cant.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Let's assume in the long lens that you're able to purchase this
property. Are you going to be able to purchase all the way to where
the UAW Post 262 is? Would that be part of this whole deal or just
this one parcel?
Mr. Chaudoin:
The whole piece would be a part of the transaction as I understand it
at this point. The UAW has voiced their interest down the road when
they're done using the facility. The UAW is here; they can speak to
selling the facility when their use has ended for it. Right now it's
being used as a training facility for re-training employees that have
left the Delco facility there on Eckles Road that's been tom down.
Mr. LaPine:
If you were able to purchase the whole parcel, would this be shictly
for a storage yard or would you build on it? What would your long
term plans be?
Mr. Chaudoin:
It would be our intention to use the building for training and offices.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience thatwishes to speak for or against
this petition?
William Crews,
President, UAW Local 262, 12432 Eckles Road, Livonia. As to the
long term use, obviously for a number of years, north of there on
Eckles Road, the car storage was going on the GM property. We've
been employees of GM or Delphi for a long time. So that when they
came to us with that proposal, it sounded like the best long term way
to dispose of the property when it came time. We were speaking of
lease with option to buy because they intended to use the whole area
there and develop it more than it is. As far as the Plymouth Road
Development, I have letters from the neighbors. They're in
agreement -the Polish Legion and the American Veterans on one
side and the Sunoco management on the other side. It looks to me
like the project is worthwhile ... adds some value there. I was here
for the hearing on the Sunoco Station. That area is going to be
redeveloped. The plant where we were for so many years will be
19205
redeveloped, so the papers and Crain Business says, into a large
project. GM, the City and a developer is supposed to be involved in
that. Right now, that Sunoco station is supplying that area with
diesel. There s a lot of development on both sides of that road. In
fact, Mr. La Riche's cars get their gasoline there. So its convenient to
both businesses. It's a solution to us long tens for how we dispose of
the property. Of course, we're willing to negotiate what's required to
achievethal. We don't need that land just sifting there doing nothing.
It pays quite a bit oftaxes. We'd like to see it used in a mannerthat
we've been involved in for years. We were and still do consider
ourselves GM people. Any questions that I can answer?
Mr. McCann: How long do you plan on maintaining the building for your use? We
understand from the petitioner that his intent is to eventually
purchase it and takeover the whole area. At thattime, we would be
able to look at revising the site plan to upgrade it and to make some
changes. That's what we're looking at as the long tens plan.
Mr. Crews:
As was mentioned, we still have members that are in training there.
The economy being what it is, we have still around 70 that haven't
been placed. That, I guess, depends on the automotive outlook. If
there's an upswing, we could be gone sooner.
Mr. McCann:
A yew.. two years?
Mr. Crews:
Possibly a year, two years. When the turnaround comes. Usually
they go in cycles and quite a few people have been
placed in other
places since the plant closed. But right now we're kind
of stuck with
around 70 people, and the prospects at GM are kind of slow. That's
where the people would have go. Skilled tradesmen would have to
return to GM. So they are in training now for that eventuality. We
haven't got into the details of a lease with an option to buy, but we
didn't know where this was going to go yet either.
Mr. McCann:
I understand.
Mr. Shane:
Mark, is there a way that we could give his project a temporary
approval?
Mr. Taormina:
No, I don't believe that would fall under the purview of the Planning
Commission with consideration of this waiver use application. That
would probably be something better suited for the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Chaudoin, would you like some time? I think there is some
consensus, at least when we met at the Study Meeting, that you
19206
needed the permanent fixtures attached to this if we were going to
allow it. Do you need some time before we would vole on this? You
need like a dryvit surface, a sprinkler system, a detailed landscape
plan and we'd need to review it.
Mr. Chaudoin: I don (think I need any time. If that is what's required, that's what
we'll take a look at on the layout if I'm understanding you correctly.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. A motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#0232-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on February26, 2002, on Petition
2002-01-02-03, submitted by Ronald Chaudoin, on behalf of Lou
LaRiche Chevrolet, requesting waiver use approval to establish a
new vehicle storage yard at 12432 Eddes Road on the east side of
Eckles between Plymouth and Amrhein Roads in the Southwest%of
Section 30, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2002-01-02-03 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 special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the site plan submitted does not indicate compliance with
the requirement that the entire area used for storage/parking of
vehicles shall be hard surfaced with concrete or plant -mixed
bituminous material as prescribed in Sections 11.03(8) and
13.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
3. Thatthe proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area;
4. Thatthe proposed use will adversely affect the surrounding
uses by means such as dust, noise, odors, fumes and lights;
5. Thatthe outdoor storage/parking ofvehicles on the subject
property will be detrimental tothe continued maintenance ofthe
site in an orderly and safisfactory condition and would be a
deterrenllo the long term stability ofthis area; and
19207
6. That the proposed use does not represent an effort to
encourage more aesthetically pleasing uses along major
thoroughfares.
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. Pastor: One of the main reasons why I offered the denying resolution is this
is a nice piece of property that can actually be developed as a
building with a business on it. I don't know that I want to approve
parking lots for people who don't have uses on it. And that's one of
the reasons why we have a plan before us that's kind of "if, come,
maybe" I think we need something more concrete so to speak, and
that's one of the reasons why I offered the denying motion. Thank
you.
Mr. Piercecchi: I concur with everything that Commissioner Pastor has said and, I
repeat, I see no advantage of this facility to the citizens of Livonia
Mr. McCann: I went into this based on what we saw before us, that you were
putting together a temporary storage lot for your cars. And that's
what we're getfing ... a gravel lot with your cars where your runners
will come and pickup the cars and run out. I'm hearing tonight really
for the first tme that you're really more intending to develop the site
in an overall picture. That is notwhat's before us. Beforeus tonight
is just a storage lot for vehicles. Period. I thinkthatatsome point if
there was a plan before us that would include the buildings and the
outlay of plans that show the process for eventually taking over the
buildings and incorporating it all as part of Lou LaRiche, and
becoming a separate business at that location in a sense having
offices, employees, and people to oversee it, instead ofjust a fence
and a gravel lot, I'd be more inclined. But tonight with what we have
before us, I have to agree with Mr. Pastor.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the moton is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The petitoner has ten days to appeal the decision to the
City Council in writing. This concludes the Public Hearing section of
ouragenda.
19208
ITEM #7 PETITION 2002-02-08-08 COLONIAL MORTGAGE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
02-08-08 submitted by Colonial Mortgage Corporation requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to
the office building located at 33919 Plymouth Road in the Northeast
%of Section 33.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between
Farmington and Stark. The petitioner is requesting approval to
construct an addition to the commercial/office building located on the
subject site. This building is occupied by Colonial Mortgage
Corporation and the De -Bug Computer Sale & Service Shop. The
new addition would be one-story in height, 1,500 sq. R. in area and
constructed to the south or rear elevation of the existing building.
The existing building is presently 5,250 sq. R. in size. Ifthe request is
approved and the addition constructed, the enlarged building would
become a total of 6,750 sq. R. in area. The Floor Plan shows that
this building would be divided into different types of uses, half retail
and half office. With that configuration, they are required to have 32
parking spaces. The site plan shows 34 parking spaces so they
meet the parking requirement. Also, at the February 29, 2002, Study
Meeting, it was suggested by the Planning Commission that the
existing parking spaces along the west side of the building should be
moved across the aisleway and be aligned along the west lot line.
So the aisleway now is straight back to the rear of the parking lot. It
was also felt that additional landscaping was needed out along
Plymouth Road. Also as part of this proposal, they are expanding
their parking lot so that they can access the rear of the building.
Fifteen percent landscaping is required. This site has a large
wooded area to the rear. Counting that, the site is about 52%
landscaping. If you just lake the developed portion of the property,
then the landscaping equals about one percent. The addition to the
west elevation would match that of the existing building which is a
scored block. Then they would have a prefinished metal wall panel
along the top of it. The east elevation, which faces the auto parts
store, is painted block and the new addition would be painted block.
The south elevation would also be painted block and that would have
the wall panel along the top of it.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated February 15, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
19209
reviewed the above-referencedpetition. This department has no
objections to the legal description provided therein. lt should be
noted that the developer may be required to meet the Wayne County
Storm Water Management Ordinance in connection with storm water
runoff." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
February 19, 2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed
the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an
addition to the office building on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The
letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter
is from the Division of Police, dated February 19, 2002, which reads
as follows: We have reviewed the plans as submitted in regards to
the proposal to construct an addition to the office building at 33919
Plymouth Road. It is our recommendation that the proposed
handicap parking space be moved closer to the building near the
existing handicap space. Each handicap sign must be individually
signed per Livonia City Ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated February 20, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 13, 2002, the above-
referencod petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
No mention is made of the required protective wall where the
property abuts the R-1 District ora request for an approval of
permanently maintainedgreenbelt. (2) The packing calculation is
different than we would calculate it. This building has a retail tenant
of 1,728 square feet which would require 9 spaces. If the balance of
the building is office tenants, the 5,022 square feet would require 20
spaces fora total of 29. Office is calculated atone space per200
square feet usable while retail is one space per 150 square feet
usable. In addition, although the plans show 29 spaces, there are
only 28 spaces as there are only four spaces at the north end by the
sidewalk Therefore, this site needs one more parking space. (3)
The second accessible space needs to be moved to the northwest
comer ofthe building. (4) The proposed dumpsterscreening walls
need to be rebuilt to the Commission's satisfaction (with permit and
footings). (5) The area where the 30" tree is to remain does not have
sufficient detail as to the landscaping. There is no mention of
irrigation forthe landscaping either. (6) The protective parking blocks
must be installed at the north end of the parking lot by the sidewalk.
(7) This plan will not work, as drawn, for tenant egress. This may be
addressed atpermlt plan review. (8) The existing parking lot needs
maintenance, repair, resealing and double striping. (9) This site
currently appears to have a drainage problem as the rearhas
standing water. This Department has no further objections to this
19210
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?
John McParland,
33919 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Can you tell us anything additional about your revised plan?
Mr. McParland:
Absolutely. The plan that the Building Department originally saw has
since been revised. So what you're looking at l don't think they've
seen.
Mr. McCann:
We were provided with a copy of the plan that's up on the board
tonight. We've all reviewed it.
Mr. McParland:
Okay. I can tell you that we purchased this building about three
years ago, and we are an owner/occupant of the building. We are
part of Colonial Mortgage. Since we've owned it, we've spent some
$130,000 improving the interior and the exterior of this building. So
we're committed to maintaining a good building in the city. We're a
little sketchy on the future use. Al this point in time, our plan is
between our own personal use and our tenants use to occupy that
part of the building and just use it for future expansion.
Mr. Piercecchr
You've got a lolof landscaping if you counllhe woods in the back.
Mr. McParland:
Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Butthe effective landscaping you have, as was pointed out, is really
about one percent. You have adequate parking because you do
have that amain the rear of the building. Ifyou were to eliminate the
first parking spot right behind where the PRDA is supposed to give
you some landscaping in that comer, according to this drawing here,
you could pick that up and both comers of the property would be
fairly well landscaped. Do you have any objection to doing that?
Mr. McParland:
Well, it's actually been suggested that we dosomelhing lothat effect
and that's why we left it open like that. We intend to communicate
with the Plymouth Road Development Authority and work on doing
something in that comer of the lot.
Mr. Piercecchr
I'm talking about eliminating one parking spotthere. You would pick
up another 9'x 20' area and that would top off that northwest comer
and be similar to what you have on the northeast comer.
19211
Mr. McParland: Since we've been in that building, we did, without any requirement,
put that piece in there at quite an expense. But I guess what I'm
saying is that it is our intent to do something in that northwest corner
but we need to confer with the Plymouth Road Development
Authority to see what their thoughts are.
Mr. Piercecchr
Would you object to taking upthat one whole space and doing it in
that comer?
Mr. McParland:
Well, actually, there's a fairly large space there withouttaking up any
parking spaces to be honest.
Mr. Piercecchr
I'm just talking about where the PRDA is. Doyou have a copy of
their plans?
Mr. McParland:
I do and I'm fairly familiar with it. I've taken a lot of time and looked
at it.
Mr. Piercecchr
They've got a 7' section with a radius.
Mr. McParland:
I'm not sure that first section is a parking spot to tell you the truth.
Mr. Piercecchr
Well, that makes it easier yet.
Mr. McCann:
And you're not losing anything.
Mr. McParland:
That's what I'm saying. We're not opposed to that. I mean we have
more than enough panting. So I would just want some direction from
the Plymouth Road Development Authority to see what their thoughts
are. I mean I'm not in the landscaping business. We're certainly not
opposed
to enhancing the property. That was the point we were
trying to make when we made that notation there.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, did you have a comment on that?
Mr. Taormina:
Only that the PRDA has yet to develop their detail plans for the
landscaping in this particular area. That is scheduled for the next
phase of the program for this area.
Mr. McCann:
My concern is how these pians are laid out right now. It really
appears that the first area is a panting spot. As Mr. Pieroecchi has
stated, if that greenbelt area shown as only 7 feet were expanded so
that it curved around to take up that first spot, if that is determined to
be one spot... and I have concerns about whether you'd want a
spot that close to the driveway backing in and out over the sidewalk
which wouldn't meet the ordinance anyways.
19212
Mr. Taormina: I agree.
Mr. McCann: For safety issues, itwould create a 17 foot bufferzone on the
northeast comer. And that's our concem. The drawing doesn't shoe
it that way.
Mr. Taormina:
One suggestion would be, and he's already indicated that it's not
intended that it be used as a parking space, maybe to revise the plan
to show that the area would be reserved for landscaping consistent
with the recommendations of the PRDA or something to that effect.
Mr. Piercecchr
We can be a part of this too, can't we? It's not just the PRDA project
here.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct. But what we dont know at this stage is whether or not
that area is going to be looked at for any type of structural
improvements, such as a fence or wall. I dont have that answer for
you.
Mr. McCann:
And we dowanl consistency going up and down Plymouth Road.
Mr. Shane:
They're not going to object to expanding the landscape area?
Mr. Taormina:
Idon'tthinkso. Whatever opportunity there is hem,itwould probably
be looked at in conjunction with
the site immediately to the west of
this because there is an area that is lacking some landscaping on the
adjacent parcel. I think it contains some rock or stone or something
to that effect.
Mr. McParland:
Actually, that's partially on our lot. That landscaping does go back
probably 10' or 12' from the sidewalk, so the landscape area is
technically a little bit larger than it appears on the drawing. We're an
owner/occupant so we're not opposed to enhancing the aesthetic
quality of Plymouth Road or that location. I mean Plymouth Road
needs some aesthetic improvement.
Mr. Taormina:
We could take a look at landscaping on a temporary basis at least
with seed or sod or maybe even an annual planting.
Mr. McParland:
We could follow very doselylowhatwe have on the east side, which
is some bushes and evergreens. It's a nice presentation. Itwas
professionally done.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, I have two things. Mr. Taormina, when these things come along
on Plymouth Road where the PRDA is involved, isn't there some way
19213
that we can get some input from them before we look at the case? It
would be nice to know what they plan to do here before we even look
at the case. I know its a tough call but they may come along and
want to put a brick wall across there and that may interfere with the
parking. And we're approving something in reality that may not go in
because of the different plans they make. I think itwould be nice if
somehow they could give us some indication or some drawings on
what they plan to do there. It would be very helpful to us. It's just a
suggestion.
Mr. Taormina:
Let me respond to that. We do have the opportunity to discuss the
plans beforehand with the Director of the PRDA. What we don't have
is the luxury, all the time, to have the recommendation of the actual
Board. Part of the reason for that is that they meet once a month.
Unfortunately, we don't always have the ability to place items on their
agenda prior to our review of the plans.
Mr. La Pine:
I understand. Ijust think it would be helpful. One otherthing. Mr.
Pastor maybe asked it. They talk about the addition as being
constructed out of painted block. Is that a block that is prepainted or
is it plain block and then it's painted? Is there a difference?
Mr. Pastor:
If you're asking me, you could do it both ways. Or you can have a
prepainted block and then still paint it as well. I don't know what
they're doing. It's usually not a prepainted block; its prestained
block.
Mr. McParland:
Our intent is to use a regular block and paint it like the east side of
the building. That section of the building really isn't for anything but
service. Our main entrances are on Plymouth Road and the
buildings are designed in such a way that that's where we meet
customers.
Mr. La Pine:
The only reason I brought it up is because the way it says in the
notes "painted block." I thought maybe the block was prepainted. If
it would have said block painted, then I would have understood it.
Mr. McParland:
It's our intent to paint the east side of the building so we would paint
the whole thing and make it homogenous. I also want to point out
that we're doing some landscaping more towards the back of the lot.
You might note that. And then the other thing I wanted to comment
on is a block wall at the rear ofthe building. There's about 100'
behind this building on this lot and then there is about another 300' of
a vacant lot that we own behind this lot before you gel to any houses.
So that's why we didn't address putting up a wall or anything like that.
There are several hundred feel and a lot of trees in between.
19214
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience thatwishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved,
it was
#0233-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-02-08-08,
submitted by Colonial Mortgage Corporation requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the office
building located at 33919 Plymouth Road in the Northeast%of
Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site, Landscape and Elevation Plan marked Sheet 1
dated February 25, 2002, as revised, prepared by Thomas
Flaherty, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and
thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
4. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same scored block used in the
construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is
substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that
of the building; and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
5. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 ft. in height and shall
be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing
across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway;
6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated February 20, 2002:
- That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and
doubled striped;
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with
the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
19215
7. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, am
approved with this petition;
8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for; and
9. Thalthe 17' ofthe northwest corner be developed into
landscaping.
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 consenlfrom the Commission.
Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM#8 PETITION 2002-01-08-04 CURTIS CREEK CONDOS
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
01-08-04 submitted by Vincent and Frances DeSanto, on behalf of
Curtis Creek Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master
Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct site
condominiums on property located at 29967 Curtis Road in the
Southeast %of Section 11.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecohi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved,
it was
#0234-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-01-08-04, submitted by Vincent and
Frances DeSanto, on behalf of Curtis Creek Site Condominiums,
requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with
a proposal to construct site condominiums on property located at
29967 Curtis Road in the Southeast%of Section 11, be removed
from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
19216
Mr. Miller:
I just wanted to point out some of the changes proposed by the
petitioner since the last meeting. If you remember, the original site
condo development showed 12 lots. The new plan shows only 11
lots. By deleting one lot, the lots can be more perpendicular to the
roadway. He is also showing a more defined detention basin with
forebay. He's routed out the roadway a little bit so it is more
maneuverable. The building envelopes are away from the flood
plain. Those are the changes that have been made.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there any additional correspondence, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
No, there is not.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Vincent DeSanto,
29967 Curtis, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any additional informaton you have for us?
Mr. DeSanlo:
No, I think we've probably covered all the areas. But if we do have
any more technical questions, I have Mr. Mills here, the engineer who
aided in bringing all this to light.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Hearing none, it should be noted that a lot of changes were made by
the petitioner to make this plan work. I think you're coming upwith a
good product that will benefit the City. We thank you for your
cooperation. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#0235-2002
RESOLVED, thatthe City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-01-08-04,
submitted by Vincent and Frances DeSanlo, on behalf of Curtis
Creek Site Condominiums, requesting approval oflhe Master Deed,
bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct site
condominiums on property located at 29967 Curtis Road in the
Southeast%of Section 11, be approved with the following
conditions:
1. Thatthe Master Deed complies with the requirements of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.0416.40 of
the Livonia Code of Ordinances, and Article XX, Section 20.01-
19217
20.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, except for the fad the
following shall be incorporated:
- That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick or
stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of brick or
stone on each two-story unit shall not be less than 65% and
not less than 80% on one-story dwellings;
- That the minimum floor area for each one-story dwelling
shall not be less than 1,500 sq. ft. and not less than 1,800
sq. it. for each two-story dwelling;
2. That the petitioner shall include language in the Master Deed or
a separate recordable instrument wherein the condominium
association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any
maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water
detention/retention and outlet facilities, and giving the City of
Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owners property
prorata and place said charges on their real estate tax bills in
the event said charges are not paid by the condominium
association (or each lot owner) within thirty (30) days of billing
by the City of Livonia;
3. That the surround of each chimney, in their entirety, shall be
constructed out of brick;
4. That the brick used in the construction of each condominium
unit shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no exception;
5. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated February 11, 2002, as
revised, prepared by Jarrett-MillsSchron and Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That street lights shall be installed throughoutthe development;
7. That an Entrance Marker Application shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
8. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for;
9. That all required cash deposits, certified checks, irrevocable
bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which shall be
established by the City Engineer pursuant to Article XVIII of
Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the ordinance, shall be
19218
deposited with the City prior to the issuance of engineering
permits for this site condominium development; and
10. That the landscaping plan shall be submitted for review by the
Planning Commission and City Council and shall include
detailed landscaping for the detention basin.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pastor: I loo want to thank the petitioner for working with the Planning
Commission in coming up with all the changes. We appreciate it
when the petitioner comes before us and works with us. Thank you
once again.
Mr. Taormina: I have one suggested change to the proposed resolution: That the
landscaping plan be submitted for review by the Planning
Commission and City Council to include detailed landscaping for the
detention basin. I think that's something we've discussed in the past.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM#9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 83C Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes ofthe 838"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on
January 29, 2002.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#0236-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 838"' Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 29, 2002, are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Shane, Pastor, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 840" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on February 26, 2002, was adjourned at 9:03
p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
19219