HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-05-0719300
MINUTES OF THE 8441h PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 7, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 840 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Walsh
�crn:r�l:z�l�lnm�rr
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller,
Planner III; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Margie Roney, Secretary, were also
present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in tum, 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 has ten days in
which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by
the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of
adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of
these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both
approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use
depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-03-01-02 PRYSDALE
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pelifion 2002-03-
01-02, submitted by Harvey and Shirley Prysdale requesting to
rezone property at 29901 Bretton Road located on the south side of
Bretton Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the
Southeast %of Section 2 from RUFA to R-1.
19301
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 is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division
dated March 26, 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 at this
time. The following legal description should be used in connection
therewith. It should be noted that the existing parcel contains an
easement for Livonia Drain No. 16 and that any future development
of the parcels will not be able to place a structure in the easement
area. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested." 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?
Dan Ryan, 31627 Norfolk. I am representing Harvey and Shirley Prysdale. They are
here tonight. Harvey and Shirley live at and have owned 29901
Bretton since 1976. 1 actually met them a year ago through a
neighbor, Fred Wagner, who does my heating and cooling. So we've
actually been discussing this for about a year. We did sit down and
discuss their needs. Just to give you a little bit of background on
what they hope to do, they want to stay in the home and refire. They
are at the age now where they're getting to that point. We had two
issues to look at: first of all, for them to maintain such a large
property (it's 1.25 acres) and also to provide a first floor bedroom
with access to a bathroom. Mr. Prysdale needs both his hips
replaced. He was forced into an early refirement. Although he loves
to work in the yard, he finds it physically impossible to maintain that
much property. Also, they have two bedrooms upstairs in their
home. He has a difficult time climbing up and down the steps. So
down the road they are looking at adding a first floor master bedroom
with access to a bath. Shirley works 50 to 60 hours at Sears Livonia
Mall to maintain their household and has neither the time or the
energy left over at the weekend to maintain the property. Hiring a
landscaping company at $40 to $50 a week doesn't ft into their
budget right now. So looking at solving these two issues —
maintaining the property and providing a first floor bedroom — we've
been studying this property for about a year now. And we came up
with this proposal. We wanted to design a plan that would stay in
character with the neighborhood and conform with the existing lots in
the neighborhood. If we could look at Bretton on a plot plan, we're
proposing two lots, 89' x 224', that are 20,036 square feet. We have
19302
plotted a two-story cape cod style house that would look very nice on
this vacant lot facing Bretton. If you look at the house across the
street, it's a cape cod. The two houses to the east are colonials, and
then the street is basically mixed with ranches and colonials. And
we questioned, does this style home fit the character of the
neighbor? And we feel, yes it does, very much so. Does the lot size
conform to the neighborhood? We feel yes, perhaps even more so
to the rural farm zoning than eight out of the twelve in the current
plat. Now looking at your plot plan, Supervisors Plat q8, to the east,
eight of the twelve lots there do not conform to rural farm zoning.
Eight of those twelve lots are below the square footage of a rural
farts zoning, and they have very small frontage lots. They are only
65' wide. We are proposing two nice size frontage lots - 89' x220'.
We feel that our proposal is in character or conforms to the rural farts
zoning even more so than eight of the twelve lots in the
neighborhood. Actually, looking at the rural farts zoning, it may be
more of a technicality than a reality in the neighborhood. Secondly, if
we could look at the south side of the property facing Melvin and
Fairfax. Again, to stay in character with the neighborhood, we'd like
to propose a 1,400 to 1,600 square footage one-story ranch home
angled on the lot so that it lines up with the house to the south and
the house to the west. We're proposing an 81' x 178' lot,
approximately 14,300 square feet. Again, we quesfion, does a 1,400
to 1,600 square fool ranch angled to the street fit the character of the
neighborhood? We feel it very much does. Does an 81' x 178' lot
conform to the existing Rl neighborhood? Again, square footage
wise and frontage, it's way over. We feel that the proposal satisfies
the Prysdale's concerns. It affords them the opportunity to retire and
stay in their home in Livonia that they've been in for 25 years. It
gives them a nice size lot that they can maintain on their own. Also,
it gives them the ability to add a first floor bedroom and modify their
home to ft their changing needs. Looking A the neighborhood, the
neighborhood benefits by having two new families in homes that fit
the character of the neighborhood, and we feel it conforms to the
current surrounding lot sizes. Obviously that's why we're here and
hoping for your approval. If not your approval, your help in
determining what would be good for the property.
Mr. McCann: Are there any quesfions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I'm not following you on just one thing. On the house off of Melvin, if
I understood you right, you said that it would be at an angle, which
shows on my plan here. You said it was going to line up with the
houses to the east and west?
19303
Mr. Ryan:
On an angle to line up to really correct that curve as you drive down
Fairfax.
Mr. La Pine:
Did you make this plan up?
Mr. Ryan:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
That house looks like its in front of the exisflng house.
Mr. Ryan:
Well, it can be moved back. I really drew it on an angle to show ...
Mr. LaPine:
So its going to be moved back so it lines up with the exisling house?
Mr. Ryan:
Absolutely. We can do that. Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ryan:
I also have a petition here from the neighbors on Bretton, 26
signatures of their neighbors that are in favor. And two more letters
sent from neighbors that are in favor on Bretton also.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions? Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Donald Gunn,
30010 Fairfax. I own the house directly to the west of the proposed
house they want to put there. There are a number of things here. I
guess you guys have to go out and take a look at it as Mr. Nowak
has already. Every spring that place floods something terrible.
There used to be a creek that ran through there. They put
underground piping in. That really didn't take care of the problem.
They get some bad flooding there. I don't know if the builder has any
plans to raise the land up for the house so that the basement doesn't
get flooded, but whose basement will get flooded here when they
move the land around to gel rid of this lake that there's every spring?
Also, I don't see the 85' frontage on Melvin that he's talking about.
He's got 65' frontage, and I have a row of hedges down there. I'd
like to know where he's going to put his driveway. Is he going to tear
my hedges down, put his driveway in there going out to the road, or
how it's going to happen? I did put in a petition for the City to vacate
the land that's directly in front of my house so that he can't swing his
driveway right across my front yard out onto Fairfax. I think
everybody has to go out and lake a look at the place before they
okay this petition and go through to see exactly how its set up. I
don'tthink it can be done theoretically.
19304
Mr. LaPine: I was out there and that was the first question I had. It looks like it
Mr. Taormina: If you're speaking of the petition that was filed by Mr. Gunn, this is
something we have not researched yet. Assuming that portion of
Fairfax was dedicated at the time the subdivision was platted, or in
other words, if it was part of the original plat, then the vacated right-
of-way would go to the abutting property owners within that plat. I'm
not aware of that. No portion of the vacated right-of-way would go to
any land areas outside of the plat, namely the Prysdale's property. If
that was all dedicated with the platting of Bretton Garden's
was just a small opening there where a driveway could go in. But I'm
confused. On the west side, there is a fence that comes down there.
Mr. Gunn:
That is my fence.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. And then on the south side, there is a hedge that comes
along there. It looks like in between there is just enough room to put
a driveway through. That parcel that is where your fence is ... how
much of that property is not vacated?
Mr. Gunn:
We're not sure about that because what happened was, they were
going to put Melvin through years ago, directly through to Bretton.
And the City vacated 30' of frontage to me, 30' of frontage to the
people on Bretton, and then I guess 30' to Harvey. But they didn't do
it all the way to the street. They only did it up to where supposedly
the lot line was and there's a big section, 65' by I don't know how it
goes, it goes on an angle with the street, that comes to a point by my
driveway. That's all in front of my house. If that petition goes
through to vacate that land to me, there is no frontage for him to put
a house in there. He wont have nothing but that little bit right there
for that driveway. And I'd like to know why the City, when it did
vacate that land years ago, how come they didn't continue it all the
way to the street?
Mr. LaPine:
I do not know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shane:
A question for the staff. Is there any way we know at this point in
time if that right-of-way were vacated, which property would it attach
lo? Do you have any idea at this point?
Mr. Gunn:
My property. I've been taking care of it for nine years. I've been
cuffing d and ...
Mr. McCann:
Sir, he was asking the staff.
Mr. Gunn:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Taormina: If you're speaking of the petition that was filed by Mr. Gunn, this is
something we have not researched yet. Assuming that portion of
Fairfax was dedicated at the time the subdivision was platted, or in
other words, if it was part of the original plat, then the vacated right-
of-way would go to the abutting property owners within that plat. I'm
not aware of that. No portion of the vacated right-of-way would go to
any land areas outside of the plat, namely the Prysdale's property. If
that was all dedicated with the platting of Bretton Garden's
19305
Subdivision, then t would attach to those abutting lots within the
subdivison.
Mr.Shane:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, the plan that was provided to us by Mr. Prysdale ... it
appears his land has he 30' easement within it. Is that cored? It
shows on the northwest edge. He's got a 30' wide easement, which
is permanent. Does that easement track all the way down to
Fairfax? It appears as though on his map the easement cuts right
across the front of Mr. Gunn's property, and his driveway actually
crosses the easement. Is that cored?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, the driveway would have to cross the easement at some point,
I believe.
Mr. McCann:
Well, that's Mr. Prysdale. I agree with that. But what about Mr.
Gunn? I believe its Mr. Gunn who lives to the west.
Mr. Taormina:
The easement that you're referring to, which runs north to south
between Bretton and Melvin Avenues, lies entirely within the
Prysdale property that I can see. I'm not aware that there is an
easement that exists on any portion of the property owned by Mr.
Gunn.
Mr. McCann:
It doesn't appear, according to the drawing ... I mean it just comers
into Fairfax and it looks like it has to cross over the easement almost
onto what would be Mr. Gunn's property then?
Mr. Taormina:
No, because when the west half of Melvin was vacated and that
portion attached to Mr. Gunn's properly, although there may have
been an easement retained, his residence and his driveway are
completely outside of that right of way, so that all exists to the west
of that easement in that form of right of way.
Mr. McCann:
You're saying the eastern part of Mr. Gunn's property also contains
an easement.
Mr. Taormina:
I would say the easterly 30' of Mr. Gunn's property probably contains
some type of easement because normally when we vacate road
rights-of-way, the City does reserve an easement. I'm not sure if any
portion of the storm sewer runs through there. It's possible that a
portion of the permanent easement described for that storm sewer
exists within that area though. But in all likelihood, there is a private
easement for public utilities within a portion of his property.
19306
Mr. McCann:
According to the drawing that was provided to us, the drawing isn't
quite as clear as .... the drawing doesn't appear to be quite right. If
I look at your drawing on the color rendering that you provided the
Commissioners, the property actually controls about 65' of the comer
there ... Mr. Prydale's?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, tachnically the right-of-way for Fairfax Avenue, about 65 of that,
runs colerninus with the southwesterly portion of Mr. Prysdale's
property. That is cored.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Now I see how it's done. His drawing is not quite cored.
Mr. Taormina:
From the information that we have, that storm line runs almost on top
of the property line there. There is a 30' easement that exists east of
that property line. The description that I'm looking at here doesn't
show an easement. It was open at that time when that storm sewer
was built. Again, I can only assume that when we vacated Melvin,
we retained an easement on what is now Mr. Gunn's property.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou.
Mark Mills, 30011 Bretton, with a lot just west of the vacant lot. Our main concem is
the water problem also. It was around April 20"' on a Saturday, I
opened the garage door and it was like a pond, literally, out in front.
There were a couple ducks going by. The lot next to us was just like
a river going through there. It was just really wet. And we're just
concemed that even if you built a house there and built it up, that
water has to go somewhere, and we're concerned that we're really
going to get hit with a lot of water on our lot.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, that is a concern for a lot of the residents whenever any building
comes to place in Livonia nowadays. I think Mr. Taormina might be
able to answer this concern better than 1.
Mr. Taormina:
At the time building plans are submitted for developing any at these
lots, the Engineering Division would normally look at how storm
water is going to be handled. Whether or not any special
considerations would have to be given for these properties, I'm not
sure. It could be in the form of a basin or structural improvements
that would control the storm water.
Paula Mills, 30011 Bretton. We just bought our house six months ago. We were also
told that 30' from our fence east could never be built on because the
river is under the ground 25' down.
19307
Mr. McCann: I don't think anybody got the plans. Their plans don't call for any
building within that 30 easement. They show it as a permanent 30'
easement next to you.
Mrs. Mills:
Okay. I just thought that might make kind of a small area if you take
that 30' out of there to be building.
Mr. McCann:
I'm not sure whether the Engineering Division has looked at this, but
they claim they can build a 49' wide home and make 9 as deep as
they want because d is very deep property.
Mrs. Mills:
We're just really concerned about the water. I just learned the other
day that a neighbor video taped when that happened a couple weeks
ago, and I'm going to try to get that video tape if anyone wants to see
it. We're definitely going to try to do something about it.
Mr. McCann:
This is a change of zoning so that it will definitely go to the City
Council. You may take that information to the Council. We will make
a recommendation to the Council and they will make the final
determination.
Mrs. Mills:
I would just hate to see somebody not realizing the water fiat goes
over that and be tricked into buying that property and building a
house. That would just be terrible.
Mr. McCann:
That's one of the things the Council can do as part of their resolution
is make sure the provisions are met for that.
Mrs. Mills:
Okay. Thank you.
Donald Stanton,
19658 Melvin. I live just south of where we're talking about tonight. I
have a concern that Livonia in Section 4.10 states that no lot shall be
used for a dwelling unless it abuts for its full frontage upon a street.
On the south piece that we're talking about, where they want to build
this house at an angle, what street is that on? Its not on Fairfax. Its
not on Melvin. The City code says the full frontage must abut the
street. Its not on a street.
Mr. McCann:
Well, that's a good question. Mr. Taormina, can you interpret that for
us?
Mr. Taormina:
I think the pefifioner is relying on the fad that he would have 65' of
frontage upon a public right-of-way that exists at the east end of
Fairfax Avenue. That's where he's relying upon his ability to comply
with that provision of the ordinance.
19308
Mr. Stanton: If I'm understanding him correctly, Fairfax or Melvin would have to be
put through to abut a street. How can you abut two streets?
Mr. McCann:
Sir, I'm not going to allow you to gel in an argument with the staff.
Direct your questions to me and then through me, we can ask the
staff questions. You stated the opinion that if you have access to an
easement, that's what an easement is meant for. The easement is a
retained right to use that property to gain access or for different
purposes. If someone were to build a home back there, they could
put a driveway in. And that's what they're basing this on: that there
is an easement there for his vehicle or traffic and that's what it's
affronted to. Now that's an issue that if you don't believe that the
easement would count as filling that ordinance, you can seek out the
City Attorney tomorrow and see if he has a different interpretation for
you.
Mr. Stanton:
I guess really my question is, what street would the house face?
Mr. McCann:
A house can face any direction. Many times homes don't
automatically face the street the property fronts on. In certain
conditions like in this case, he's showing it fronting on Melvin. If you
look at it, its kind of like a circular arc. The road arcs like this and
the house would be as part of the aro.
Mr. Stanton:
My properly ends where Melvin ends. I'm the last house on Melvin.
So I dont know how another house could go on Melvin.
Mr. McCann:
It wouldn't. It would kitty comer into Melvin and Fairfax; that's how
he's shoving it.
Mr. Stanton:
Okay, but that's not what the City code says. See what I'm saying?
The City code stales that a dwelling shall abut a street 8r its full
frontage. So if its 85', that 85' has to be on a street. Coned?
Mr. McCann:
Are you talking about the front of the home?
Mr. Stanton:
No, I'm talking about the lot.
Mr. McCann:
The lot has an abutment to the easement, as the Planning Director
staled.
Mr. Stanton:
The book states "no lot shall be used in the City of Livonia for a
dwelling unless it abuts its full frontage upon a street."
Mr. McCann:
Well, we can only take what our Planning Director states, and if he
has informed us that it qualifies under the ordinance or it may qualify
19309
under the ordinance, at this point abutting the easement, then I have
to go by what he says. As I said, if you want to check with the City
Attorney tomorrow, you can check with the Livonia City Attorney. He
is on the fourth floor of the City Hall.
Mr. Stanton:
Okay. I also have a list of all the neighbors that couldn't come
tonight who are opposed to this.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Do you want to hand that to Ms. Roney. She can make that a
part of the official record that will go on to Council.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many were there opposed, sir?
Mr. Stanton:
I think there were 12 or 15 on the list. Those were the ones that
wanted to come but couldn't come because of commitments they
already had.
Mr. McCann:
Thirteen names. Thankyou, sir.
Regina Wagner, 29641 Bretton. I've lived on Bretton for about 27 years. There has
been many rainfalls and many times when there has been water and
there's been many, many years when there wasn't any water. All the
property in the whole area seems to be low. I think there is more of
a water problem with the sewer there for the street than there is for
the property itself. I think that should be noted when they are
considering the water problem. I would also like to say that I know
that there is no way the Prysdales would ever try to do this if they
didn't absolutely have to because they love this land.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you, ma'am. Sir, name and address please.
Wayne Prysdale,
19620 Lathers. I grew up in my parents house for 21 years. A lot of
the flooding they are talking about does happen, and I forget the
neighbors name, but in that backyard there is a sewer drain. And
90% of the time, it's because that's covered with leaves. As a kid, I
remember Mr. Johnson used to own that house. We used to get in
our waders and go down there and dig all that stuff out of there. It
would drain fine. There is also one across the street in the field that
they built on that gets dogged up, and that's what causes all this
flooding in the zone. As far as just normal rein causing it, I don't
believe that's the case. I hope my parents can get this approved and
they can refire how they would like and not have to possibly move
out of Livonia.
Mr. McCann:
Anybody else wishing to speak?
19310
Mr. Gunn: Yes, that frontage thing you were talking about. The lot on Bretton
that they want to sell or build on was an 85 lot, but only 65' fronts on
Fairfax. That 65' frontage, if you measure it out, goes to about the
middle of my driveway. So as Mr. Stanton was saying, it really
doesn't face the street. It's facing my house and my driveway. I'm a
landscaper as a part time job. And these leaves he's talking about . .
. my yard is meticulous. The leaves come from the field. This year
the fence that go across our back yard that faces the field, half way
up was full of sticks and full of leaves from the field rushing through
the fence to get to the sewer to drain out. I had to take a blower and
blow all that out. Everything that congregates on that sewer comes
from the woods, comes from the field, and it all tries to drain in my
backyard. When this water problem does take effect and they do
mise all this land up, I'm going to be the one with the lake in my
backyard.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Tim Burrows, 29904 Bretton. That would be my parent's home. They've lived there
for about 30 years. About the water issue, the creek that used to go
under the street . . . and the two houses west of the Prysdale
property . the creek used to con through those two houses.
Wherever they put the new drain pipes, I dont know, but about 300
yards across the street north of Bretton into the woods, the creek
goes into a giant storm drain, a giant grid, on an angle. I've been
back there to see that what happens is that the water, a man's
property back there, its really wooded over the creek there. Trees
and branches fill up there and clog that up. Water ovenides that and
takes its old course again. But it can't any more. It has a couple
sewers it can go into, the overflow, if that overflows. But those get
clogged up. The small sewers gel clogged up with leaves. Then it
goes over the street. If anything, the sewer drains just need to be
kept clean. I don't think it would be fair to the Prysdales. Once in a
couple years the water in the springtime goes through their field. It
can't take its old course any more where the houses were built.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann: Thank you.
Harvey Prysdale, 29901 Bretton. Concerning the water issue, there is water that
comes onto the property. There are twigs and debris that come on
the property and dog that drain. The debris is not directly from my
property. I'm not a landscaper but I maintain my property extremely
well and that debris that is clogging those drains is something that I
cant control coming from other areas of the neighborhood. As far as
the twigs and the debris that was along the fence line, it's a daily
19311
chore for me when that happens to clean it up. But I do clean it up,
and it doesn't remain there any length of lime. I have no access to
the drain because it's a fenced in area, so I do the best I can to keep
it open and keep it as clean as possible. Thank you.
Dennis Brukwinski, 30033 Fairfax. My concern is if there is any development in our
subdivision ... two subdivisions butt up against one another. The
one house will be facing into our subdivision. There should be some
restrictions involved as to the way it looks. Every house on Melvin
and on Fairfax all have he same color brick. And most of them are
all ranches except for one house that has a dormer. If there is any
development at all on that side that faces Fairfax and Melvin or
wherever, it should be kept to the same looks as the rest of the
neighborhood and subdivision. As far as my other neighbors with all
their concerns over that section of land and all, it depends what was
granted by the City in the past and how it's going to be handled fairly
among all of them. I mean, one neighbor doesn't really haw any
more rights than another, so how fairy it's going to be worked out will
be up to you guys. But my concern is mostly about the restrictions.
If there is any building on there, to put a house that doesn't match at
all wouldn't really do the rest of the neighborhood any good or our
subdivision of Bretton Gardens.
Mr. McCann: I agree but we don't have the right to condition zoning, but we can
sure make the recommendation to Council. Seeing no one further,
I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was
#0537-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-03-
01-02, submitted by Harvey and Shirley Prysdale requesting to
rezone property at 29901 Bretton Road located on the south side of
Bretton Road between Middlebelt Road and Melvin Avenue in the
Southeast % of Section 2 from RUF to R-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-03-01-02 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the
RUF zoning in the area to the north and east of the subject
property along Bretton Road;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will allow for much smaller
lot sizes than are required in the RUF district, which is the
prevailing zoning classification in the area, and thus would
substantially alter the character of the area;
19312
3. That the proposed change of zoning could result in the creation
of a lot at the intersection of Melvin Avenue and Fairfax Avenue
that would not conform to the neighborhood; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary to
develop the property with an additional home that would fully
conform with the ordinance and pattern of development 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. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh:
I'm really uncomfortable with the lot that would be on the Melvin and
Fairfax area. The concerns that people have expressed about the
water, I'm convinced that our Engineering Division working with the
developer could adjust those. But that being said, I just don't think
this back lot, the one that faces Fairfax and Melvin, makes sense. I
don't think it will look appropriate. I think we're trying to really
structure something here to help the people out. I'd like to help them
but I dont want to harm other neighbors by doing so. I could support
something that would result perhaps in two lots, but I cannot support
the current petition.
Mr. Alanskas:
In our City, it's really tough to have a piece of property this large -
178' by 304'. 1 would think that there are a lot of people that would
love to buy this piece of property and have only one single home on
d. I'm sure realtors would just love to get their hands on this to sell it
to an individual person. But where this curves, I think that would be
a dangerous situation. That's why I'm going to deny it. Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I note Condition # 4 stales that the proposed change
is not necessary to develop the properly with an additional home.
Actually, after I observed the properly, I came up with what I felt was
perhaps a best solution, which would be to increase the size of the
lot abutting Bretton with some of the area just south of these lots.
This would result in both lots conforming to the RUF zoning. That is
a possibility if this is denied. They could look at that, which would
mean that the homes on Bretton would conform to the RUF if they
added some of that lot. I want to offer that as something that the
petitioner could look at if this is denied.
19313
Mr. Shane: The question we being asked is whether or not this area should be
rezoned to an R-1 district, and on that question, I think it's
reasonable that we do. To answer the question on whether or not
the third lot can be developed as they show it, is a question to come
later. The fact is that if it's zoned R-1 and he wants to split it in three
lots, he has to plat the property or do a site condo in which case the
City would have control. It may be that he can't develop it in the
three lots. If he cant, then he's all set with the zoning he has now.
But I think he ought to have the flexibility to see what he can do with
the third lot, so I'll be voting no on the denying resolution.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, Shane
ABSENT: Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-03-01-03 JUNCAJ
Mr. Piemecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-03-
01-03, submitted by Djelosh Juncaj requesting to rezone property at
29023 Eight Mile Road located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Middlebelt Road and Brentwood Avenue in the Northeast %
of Section 1 from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated April 12, 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 at this
time. The following legal description should be used in connection
with this petition. It should be noted that the developer may be
required to meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management
Ordinance in connection with storm water runoff. We trust that this
mill provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed
by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
19314
Mr. McCann:
Is the pefifioner here this evening?
George Djelosh
Juncaj, 20793 Miranda Drive, Novi, Michigan. I am trying to develop
this piece of property.
Mr. McCann:
Can you tell us what you would like to do?
Mr. Juncaj:
Like the young gentleman said, just to put up a restaurant on the
comer. We will be managing the family dining there. The rest of it, a
copy center is willing to come in there and also a tenant, which is
Steve Hall, with a dollar store. We actually have 100% occupancy
there. We're hoping to develop it.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You realize that your plan shows 52 spaces for parking. Correct?
Mr. Juncaj:
Correct.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
And you realize that you have three retail packages which are
roughly 14' wide, and those three by themselves would require 28
spaces. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Juncaj:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That leaves you roughly about 24 spaces which would be 48 seats
maximum. If you consider employees, that would cul that down.
Now him many seats did you plan for this restaurant?
Mr. Juncaj:
Roughly 50 to 100 seats ... whatever the City will allow.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Sir, in order to allow that, you would probably have to do away with
your plans for the three 14' wide retail
sections. That would flee up
28 spaces. I dont think you could ever get 100 seats in there, but
that would you give somewhat higher numbers. You might even get
100. Can you con that math, Mark? If he took away the three 14'
wide retail sections, him many seats could he have in the
restaurant?
Mr. McCann:
The problem, sir, is that you're just not even dose on the parking. If
you had five employees for the restaurant, you'd be limiting yourself
to like 20 seats with the site plan thatyou are proposing.
Mr. Taormina:
It's difficult to say because it doesn't change the fad that he would
only have 52 parking spaces. If we work from that as our basis for
19315
determining the total number of seats that would be allowed in the
restaurant, we would first have to look at the number of employees
and allot a certain number of spaces to employees. Whatever is lett
over would determine the number of seats.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So it would 104 minus 5, which would be 99.
Mr. Taormina:
It could be as many as 75. But again I'd like to point out that there
are a couple other deficiencies with respect to the conceptual plan
that was presented this evening: namely, it does not show the 15%
minimum required amount of landscaping on this site; and secondly,
there will be a requirement for some type of storm water detenfion
basin. That could eat up more land area of the site unless he is able
to provide all ofthe required detention below grade.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I realize that, and thank you for your comments. But I just wanted to
point that out, I don't see how you could ever get the parking with
your plan. It's impossible.
Mr. Juncaj:
I realize the parking may be a little problem there, but I also realize
that there is a step center adjacent to it. We're talking to the owner
trying to find out if he would allow us maybe another 20 spaces or so
on his lot which attaches to that piece of property there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, you make it very difficult at least for me to make a decision on
this. Here you have additional factors involved such as sharing the
parking which would be west of you. And you haven't even really
told us exactly how many seats you want. All we can go by is what
you presented —three retail places and a restaurant.
Mr. Juncaj:
It's for you to make a decision on it. I'm going to go with whatever
the City permits me. I'm not going to go against the City for the plan
or the zoning. I did develop in the City of Detroit. We developed a
different scale. If it would be approved, I will go with the City
requirements. I also lived in the City of Livonia for a long time. I
actually miss it. The development that I'm going to put in there, I'm
going to try to go with the City officials. As far as the seating
capacity of the restaurant, 50 wouldn't be enough. Maybe 70 or 80
would be enough. But that's where we're at. You had a question on
the seating capacity. It's really whatever the building fits; however
the inside is designed, I guess. That's up tothe architect.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do you think you would be better served if you went back to the
drawing board and came up wth specific plans. If you had shared
parking, let that be known. If you have ways of handling the storm
water management ...
19316
Mr. Juncaj:
And going back to the storm water, I would probably have to consult
with an engineer. Going back to the sealing, my understanding from
the meeting tonight was that I would also answer some questions on
the zoning issues, not on seating. That was my understanding.
Actually I wasn't prepared for the question you just asked me about
the sealing capacity because I though we were just going from G7
to C-2 zoning. That was the way I understood the project.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, you're correct, but one of the conditions is to see whether the
property would support C-2. That's one of the issues we look at.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, maybe I missed something here. But the map that
shoes the rezoning from C-1 to C-2, that's a parcel about 110' wide
or something?
Mr. Taormina:
It's 160 feet.
Mr. Shane:
But the parcel that he's showing developed is 268', so if he's using
some existing panting lot ....
Mr. Taormina:
I'll have to look at the plan you're looking at right now. Yes, I believe
he is shoving 161 feel of frontage on Eight Mile, which is consistent
with the legal description.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you in the restaurant business now?
Mr. Juncaj:
Yes, we own a bunch of Popeye's Chicken and we own some
properties on Lahser and we own some in Redford. I've been
developing since I was a small little boy, I guess.
Mr. LaPine:
You're in development. Do you operate the restaurants?
Mr. Juncaj:
Yes, we do operate them.
Mr. LaPine:
What type of restaurant are you proposing?
Mr. Juncaj:
Family dining.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Steve Hall, 15316 Shadyside. I've been here for 30 years, former owner of Bell Creek
Amoco at Five and Inkster and Farmington Amoco at Grand River
and Powers Amoco. I've known Mr. Juncaj for ten years. He's a
very successful developer, and I'm with him on this project.
19317
Mr. McCann: Thank you. And you're going into the Dollar Store? Is that what he
said?
Mr. Hall: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Okay. A real change from the gas station.
Mr. Hall: Well, I retired from the gas station business in'89.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. I remember your station at Five and Inkster. Is there
anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? I will close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#0538-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-03-
01-03, submitted by Djelosh Juncaj requesting to rezone property at
29023 Eight Mile Road located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Middlebell Road and Brentwood Avenue in the Northeast'''/
of Section 1 from G7 to G2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-03-01-03 be
denied for the following reasons:
1. That this general area in the vicinity of the Eight Mile Road and
Middlebelt Road intersection contains sufficient C-2 zoned
lands to serve the needs of the area;
2. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a need
in this area for additional commeroial uses such as are
permitted by the C-2 district;
3. That the uses permitted in the existing C-1 zoning district as
well as the several waiver uses are sufficient to serve the area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage
future requests for similar zoning changes along the south side
of Eight Mile Road east of the subject property;
5. That the proposed zoning district would lend to attract uses
which are incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent
residential uses in the area; and
19318
6. That the subject site is located so as to provide commercial
services principally to the surrounding neighborhood in
accordancewith the intent ofthe C-1 zoning district.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: I think what you have to look at from our point of view is that we have
C-2 on the comer, then this property is C-1, and then it goes to OS to
AG. We look for steps. One of the cencems we have is down -
stepping the type of zoning and the intensity into residential. Theres
a natural progression here that works. The types of uses that you're
proposing, and it's not even a single use, its multiple uses, which I
think is part of the problem we're having with the idea of increasing
the zoning in this area.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2002-04-01-04 LEO SOAVE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04-
01-04, submitted by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street
and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast %of Section 14 from RUF to
OS.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is an item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated April 12, 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 at this
time. The following legal description should be used in connection
with this petition. It should be noted that the developer may be
required to meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management
Ordinance in connection with storm water runoff. We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed
by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. We also have a letter from
19319
an abutting property owner, dated April 3, 2002, which reads as
follows: "We being the homeowners of 29977 Six Mile Road would
like the rezoning of Bevacqua Building Co. Pietro Bevacqua's
property adjacent to ours, only if the old substandard house is torn
down." The signature on the letter is illegible. The adjacent property
is immediately to the west of the subject area. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. I represent the petitioner,
Leo Soave Building Company. Actually this is a joint petition. There
are two property owners. Mr. Soave owns one, and the smaller
property is owned by Pete Bevacqua. They are joint petitioners. If
the zoning is eventually granted, they would be developing this piece
of property jointly. It would be a joint venture or some type of limited
liability ... something of that nature. They would be involved with
one building. We fled a conceptual site plan showing one building.
It is on both pieces of property, and they would own it according to
respective investments that they have. This is the conceptual site
plan. We're here for rezoning, but I know that the Planning
Commission and the Council eventually want to know what we want
to put up. So we tried to shoe you the type of building that this site
could accommodate. In doing this, Mr. Soave originally had this one
piece of property. It was Site 1 in the condo association. It was
zoned RUF. He didn't think of rezoning that to an office use until the
property to the west became available to him. The two petitioners
commenced negotiations and decided that their two combined sites
would accommodate an office type of development. That's what we
have here tonight. I think that you can go along with the conceptual
site plan, but I just want to point out that the road here is Meadowlark
Road. It goes back into the site condos. The piece of property that
Mr. Soave owns consists of most of Site 1 in the site condo. The
back portion would not be used because he squared it off with Mr.
Bevacqua's piece of property to the west. Whatever area that is, 10
or 20 feel, would be added onto Site 2 of the condos, and that would
allow him to bring the T -road or cul-de-sac forward or north and give
him more depth to the two site condos in the rear of the condo
development. I might mention, loo, and I think you people were
involved when this became a site condo and was zoned to a RUF
type of zoning. But the property in back of the medical building to
the east was zoned OS. It went back all the way to the residential
zoning. When Mr. Soave rezoned that, he rezoned the OS to an
RUF. I just wanted to bring that out. If you have any questions, I'd
be happyto answerthem.
19320
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Marie McElroy, 30091 Munger. I am in one of the properties that would be south of
this. I have a question as to whether or not there are any tenants for
this proposed office space. Along Six Mile in that area now, there
are vacancy signs that are up 12 months of the year. I really don't
look forward to seeing yet another one. Also, the adjoining home
that has agreed to this is a home that is brand new. It's never been
occupied and is currently up for sale. I don't put a whole lot of weight
with the owner agreeing to this. Al the very least, I would like to see
an office on the other side of this proposed Meadowlark Lane so
then it is abutting all the existing office space and not the existing
residential. I don't know if that's possible. The whole site
condominium plan came in and I was unaware of it. I'm sure only
because there was no rezoning needed at that time. But again,
those are my concerns on this as to whether or not they actually
have tenants for this.
Mr. McCann: I can ask Mr. Tangora if he knows whether there are any proposed
tenants at this point.
Mr. Tangora:
There actually are no tenants known right now. Obviously the
rezoning petition takes about four or five months to go through. If it's
granted, the building plans would be developed and construction
would start. So we're talking at least a year or year and a half before
the building would be ready for occupants. After the rezoning,
obviously they can start to advertise with a broker for tenants or put a
sign on the property.
Mr. McCann:
Neither of the owners would be occupying it though?
Mr. Tangora:
No, its not owner occupied.
Mrs. McElroy:
Thank you.
Len Bores, 30606 Munger. The Willow Creek Association and myself were totally
against office buildings in that particular area. We're trying to keep
this area RIF. We're trying to keep it residential. We don't want
office buildings in that area, even though there is an office building
and I believe there is a Catholic credit union in that area. I wasn't in
the area and didn't live there at that time or I would have fought that
also. But we would like to keep that area as it is right now. We
really don't want to see another office building in there. We don't
believe its in harmony with the rest of the surroundings in the
neighborhood. The property behind it is RUF, and I don't think the
19321
people in the surrounding area want offices in that area for property
value reasons. And like the young lady said, if we get an office
building and it does not get occupied, how do we get rid of it? We
get stuck with another building in there that's going to be very difficult
to get rid. Leo Soave petitioned this property about a year ago. We
agreed to have four separate lots facing Six Mile and to leave it RUF,
and leave the existing building or whatever is there since we cannot
take those building down. We cant do anything about it. But to go
ahead and agree with another office building in that area in the
middle of a residential section in the middle of Six Mile with
residential people across the street, it does not fit in with our plans as
a neighborhood. Thank you.
James Gibson, 16978 Oporto. I am directly to the west of this proposed office
complex to the south side. I think you're well aware as Planning
Commissioners how long Leo has been trying to develop this land. I
think you're all well aware of the problem that started with the
previous owner and the doctor to the east of this new development
and his parking lot and the Planning Commission not making him put
in drainage on his office property. The property due east of that
office, still to this day does not have drainage; it runs to the
southeast onto that condo land. As the gentlemen a few minutes
ago spoke, he said the neighbors and all the associations agreed
with Mr. Soave three proposals ago to build homes. That went
before Council. There were meetings; there were submeelings;
there were hearings. And everyone was happy. Mr. Benneft, who is
now a councilman, spoke for Mr. Soave at the meeting. Councilman
Bennett explained to the tenants him he was going to gel rid of the
water by running a drainage line north and south through the old dog
kennel property. Al that time, it was agreed that we would allow him
to build that one home on Six Mile. After he was allowed to gel the
split, he built one home and one home only. He did not put in new
drainage. It's all on tape. Its all on public record what Mr. Soave
was going to do for us. Last year we went before the City Council.
Mr. Soave has now sold this property to a new builder, Mr. Hurley.
Mr. Hurley has the right to build and that's how we got this condo
situation there. Mr. Hurley was a new owner and City Council told
the residents, 'Well, we can't stop this new owner from building"
And I believe Mr. Walsh was at those meetings, so he has privy to
some of the conversations that have gone on. We would love to see
it developed, but when I went down and talked to Engineering, I
asked them, "Is there really a way to get rid of all of that water?" If
you were to walk in my backyard right now, I've got a five fool ml
where I tried to get some woodchips delivered in my yard. The truck
sank in my yard because there was that much water in that back
comer. Now as I looked at this petition that Leo brought forward,
19322
and I went down and picked up the engineering drawing, I'm looking
at the side yards. This is another issue with the condos. You can so
position things so a backyard becomes a side yard. And I looked at
this a little closer the other day, and I'm going to have a condo four
and a half feet off of my backyard. Didn't see it last December when
I went to the meeting and they said, "Oh, yeah, he's developing. Its
going to be a good deal. Let's wait for Wayne County and lets wail
for the draining board" I'm just appalled right now and disappointed
in Mr. Soave because I believe he's a very respectable builder. But
we dont want to extend the offices down Six Mile. The offices were
there and its a problem and we had residenfial. We had a real
estate man that wanted to build an office on Oporto and Six Mile and
Planning in their wisdom knocked that down. There was a shack of
a house, its still there. But we could develop all offices right up and
down Six Mile. I'm not opposed to development, but I'm opposed to
the water problem. I'm opposed to the fact that he's trying to wear
us down. We've had three or four associations because we're
concerned about the large parcels in Livonia being subdivided by
people as they gel older. Sure we want to not have to take care of
our large pieces of land. But this just isn't a good fl. I'm astounded
that he's able to come back over and over and ask you guys for a
new deal when we had a new deal of four homes, signed, sealed
and delivered. He even promised to dedicate some of the land in the
back where its really marshy to a public domain land. These are
things that are all in public records. Its just amazing. I'm against the
office being built. I'm not against the land being developed, but let's
try to get rid of the water. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else wishing to speak on this issue this evening?
I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Tangora, do you have a
last comment?
Mr. Tangora: No.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was
#0539-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-04-
01-04, submitted by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street
and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast %of Section 14 from RUF to
OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2002-04-01-04 be approved for the following
reasons:
19323
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area;
2. That the proposed mining district is consistent with the
developed character of the Six Mile Road frontage properties to
the east;
3. That the proposed change of mining represents a minor
extension of an adjacent existing OS zoning district;
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional
office services to serve the area; and
5. That the proposed change of mining will provide for a
transitional use to help buffer the adjoining residential
neighborhood from the nuisances emanating from the Six Mile
Road thoroughfare.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I guess I'm concerned about it because I
don't want to extend the OS mining. On the other hand, I feel that
this property can create a greenbelt between it and the neighbors
and to the encroachment of OS into the residential. And under the
new Wayne County standards, they will have to take care of all the
water. Will the Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, Shane, Walsh, McCann
NAYS:
La Pine, Piercecchi
ABSENT:
Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
19324
kit Vi 3l9=kIY Ole] `K111YZS IN D]•�A=1 A Ai C1 N iI � 119
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04-
01-05, submitted by Zef Martin Ivezaj requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill and Ellen
Roads in the Northwest%of Section 4 from RUF to R -C.
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 correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated April
12, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has found it difficult to work with Mr. Ivezaj
in the past with regard to him maintaining good soil erosion and
sedimentation control measures on his development and he has not
followed his approved plans in the past. Further, there appearsto be
no sanitary sewer or storm sewer available without considerable off-
site construction. Even with offsite construction for the sanitary
sewer, it is uncertain at this time as to whether there would be
sufficient capacity within the existing sews rs to handle 64 additional
residential units. Finally, the Engineering Division will require that
the water main system be looped to Eight Mile Road, which is
difficult and expensive to accomplish since there is a 54" water main
transmission line between the property and the City's service main.
The following legal description should be used in connection with this
petition. It should be noted that the developer would be required to
meet the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance in
connection m1h storm water runoff. We trust that this will provide
you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P.
Hill, Assistant City Engineer. We also have a letter, dated April 23,
2002, from the developer of the adjacent site condominium
properties to the west, which reads as follows: As owner of the
neighboring property subject to the above -referenced petition, 1
respectfully request to register my strong protest to the proposed
rezoning. Following are my reasons for this objection. 1 own and
developed the property known as Chestnut Grove located entirely
along the west side of the property subject to the petition. At the
time 1 acquired that property, it too was zoned in the RUF zoning
district and 1 petitioned for a change. In deciding upon what new
classification to seek, many factors had to be considered and no
doubt, your petitioner went through this same analysis. One factor,
however, that is not in common between the two developments is the
cost of the land. The land 1 purchased for Chestnut Grove was a
19325
recent purchase, whereas your petitioner has owned his land for a
considerably longer period of time. Cost of land is a huge
consideration determining housing density and the zoning district
appropriate to achieve that density. The zoning of Chestnut Grove
was changed to the R4 Single Family Residential classification,
which provides for ninety -foot wide single family residential lots.
Other zoning classifications were considered such as the R-3 Single
Family and also the R -C proposed by this applicant. After consulting
with my neighbors and city officials, it was decided that the R-0
District was the most appropriate zoning classification. Even though
the R4 District did not provide for the housing density 1 would have
preferred to protect my investment, 1 have accepted the change. 1
agreed with my neighbors that the R-0 zoning classification does
promote good planning, protects the property values and is in
harmony with the surrounding zoning of the neighboring area. It is
my considered opinion that to now allow the property adjoining
Chestnut Grove development as well as Deer Creek and Windridge
Subdivision, attached condominium housing units is totally
inconsistent and not compatible with the R4 and R-5 Single Family
Residential zoning prevailing on the adjoining neighboring properties.
It would be detrimental to my development and damaging to property
values in the area. I am asking that you please consider the
negative impact that attached condominium housing would have on
the neighboring single family homes in this area and that you deny
this zoning request. Thank you for your favorable consideration."
The letter is signed by Leo Soave, Soave Properties. That is the
extent of the correspondence. In addition, we received a protest
petition that strongly opposes the proposed rezoning. It was signed
by 117 persons and they give their addresses mostly on Gill Road,
Norfolk, Gary Lane, Modock and Ellen Drive.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Seeing the petitioner is not here
this evening, I will open the public hearing to the audience. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition?
Dennis Behrendsen, 20012 Wayne Road. I am the President of the Deer Creek
Homeowners Association. With me is Buzz Slefas, also an officer of
the Deer Creek Homeowners Association. I'd like to put the Deer
Creek Homeowners Association on record as opposing the RC
zoning. We would like to see that piece of properly zoned R-0 or R-
5. The reasons are the same as already been quoted in Mr. Soave's
letter with one addition. Harkening back to the decision on the
Ardmore properly, we need more homes that will support families
with children to support our Livonia Public Schools. Thank you.
19326
Steve Agazzi, 34750 Norfolk. I live with parents. I'm speaking on behalf of them and
also myself. A lot of the reasons I was going to mention have
already been mentioned. Number one, just a zoning clash. You look
at the plan around it ... to the west you have R4. On Norfolk
Street, which is where we live, is all RUF. And then unit 12, which is
to the due east, is RUF as well. So you'd be laking on any given
side on the east abutting six units, a total of 12 dwellings, to the one
neighbor. Then especially on Norfolk with our property you could
have two dwellings behind each one. It's just really not a good idea.
It doesn't go in harmony with what's there. We're a developer
ourselves in industrial. We know the analysis that goes into site
selection and the money that's involved with utilities and
underground site balancing. I can't speak on behalf of the
developer, but my opinion would be that he has no choice but to go
with this kind of development to recoup the costs associated with the
engineering. Your Engineering Division has mentioned that he has
some water issues, sanitary issues. It looks like he has to relocate a
water line and new easement, so he probably has no choice but to
do a development of this nature to recoup it. Chestnut Grove, which
is Mr. Soave, I really think its inevitable that the property is going to
get development. My parents built their house in '86. Its not going
to stay like this forever. It is going to gel developed eventually. But
a good model development would be an R4. Livonia is just not
meant to stick 62 dwellings on 9.3 acres. You know, Livonia is
meant for single family homes. If you look at what's around, it's self-
explanatory. It would just totally ruin the master plan when you look
at it and that would become an issue with the kinds of people going
in. The neighbors are concemed. Condominiums of this nature at
least, people come and go a lot quicker than what you're going to get
in an R4 and an R-5 environment. When you purchase a $300,000
or $400,000 home, it's a 30 -year investment. You're there to stay
unless something tragic happens. You're not leaving. You can walk
into one of these units for probably half that, and its a lot easier to go
and it's a lot easier to come. And I just think it will min the
environment for the neighborhood. I strongly oppose this and I
recommend that you oppose this proposal. Thank you.
Barb Sexton, 34858 Pembroke. I'm one of the people who are building in Chestnut
Grove. I'm also one of the people who helped get the names on the
petition. I strongly oppose it because if you look at all the
surrounding land, its all housing similar to what the other people
have said. Also, you want to sustain the property values in Livonia.
Putting in the condo units will not do that. And again as other people
have mentioned, if you go back to Ardmore and like that, you want to
develop single family housing units there. Making it R4 and R5
would be very similar with the areas around it, and I think would
19327
make the neighbors happy and make the property values stay where
theyre at.
Norman Alandt, 20375 Gary Lane. I moved there 14 years ago because I thought it
was a very desirable area to live in. I've been very happy there. But
with the new development, to try and change this to anything less
than an R4, I totally disagree. It just isn't reasonable. It doesn't fit
into the area at all. I definitely agree with what everyone had to say,
and I oppose this.
William Mays, 20664 Ellen. My property is on the west side of Ellen, second house
off Eight Mile. It backs up to Chestnut Grove. I'm not real happy
with R4. There are large beautiful homes, but I'll be sitting in my
back looking at somebody's kitchen. I'm certainly not happy w0h 62
condos going in. I've been a Livonia resident for 25 years. I spent
about a grand last year to have blueprints drawn up to put a sunroom
on the back of my house. When they started putting in Chestnut
Grove, I put it on hold to see if I was going to like having somebody
right in my backyard. I'm just waifing to see what happens back
there. If I dont like it, I'll move I guess.
Mr. McCann: Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I'll offer an approving resolu0on but it will be amended to request for
a change of zoning to R4.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was
#05-60-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-04-
01-05, submitted by Zef Martin Ivezaj requesting to rezone property
at located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill and
Ellen Roads in the Northwest %of Section 4 from RUF to RC, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-04-01-05, be approved, as amended, so as to
rezone this property to R4, for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes
which are consistent with the immediately adjacent lots in the
site condominium development to the west;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area;
19328
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
family residential development similar in density to what is
existing in the neighboring area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of lav density residential
land uses in this general area;
5. That the proposed change of zoning represents an extension of
an existing zoning district occurring on adjacent properly to the
west; and
6. That a previous zoning change that has occurred in the area to
the west has set a precedent for rezoning to the RA
classification.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
I support this wholeheartedly. When Mr. Soave came in with his
Chestnut Grove plan a number of years ago, I was for R5. I voted
against the R4 because I thought that the right zoning for that area
was R5. But seeing that it went R4, I believe now that its just a
continuation of what is there. Putting in those condos is just not
compatible for that area. Therefore I wholeheartedly endorse Mr.
Piercecchi's proposal.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, do we have any idea if the petitioner is willing to
accept RA? Does he have any interest in that?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not aware of any discussions between the staff and the petitioner
with respect to a change of classification to R4.
Mr. Walsh:
I am vehemently opposed to the R -C zoning. I think R-4 is
appropriate but I'm not going to vole for the amended resolution
because I just don't feel its properly before us. I would support a
denying resolution. I understand the thoughts between the
proponent and the supporter and what theyre trying to do here. I
want people to understand that I am vehememy opposed to the R -C
zoning, but I am not going to support the amended moton before us.
Mr. LaPine:
I think what Mr. Pieroecchi and I are saying ... we're passing it on to
the Council and our recommendation to Council is that we think t
19329
should be zoned R4. If the Council doesn't think that is the right
thing to do, they can deny it and they can re -file and start all over
again. We're just trying to save him some time because eventually,
in my opinion, itis going to be rezoned.
Mr. Shane: I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Walsh because the petitioner is not
here to react to this change and I would like to be able to discuss it
with him. Because he is not here, I am inclined to want to deny it
anyways. So I'm not going to support it, even though I do not
support the RC and I do support the R4 zoning. I don't think this is
the right way to do it.
Mr. McCann: I'm going to support it just for the fad that I want Council, the
neighbors and Mr. Ivejaz to understand that I believe that an R4
zoning is appropriate in the area. This is not approving the RC
zoning, but it is allowing the petition to proceed. My understanding
has always been that since we are a recommending body, we can
make a recommendation to Council of any less intense zoning than
the petitioner is requesting as we see appropriate, so I'm going to
agree with the maker of the motion.
Mr. Pieroecchi: We have done this procedure many times.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: Shane, Walsh
ABSENT: Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution to
R-0 zoning.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-04-01-06 McGEE, ET AL.
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04-
01-06, submitted by Timothy and Carol McGee, Mamie Tansley,
Jude and Rebecca Mansilla and James Tyler requesting to rezone
properties at 31790, 31800, 31780, 31710, 31785 and 31789 Norfolk
Avenue, located on the north and south sides of Norfolk Avenue
between Osmos and Parker Avenues in the Northeast %of Section 3
from R-3 to R-2.
19330
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 is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated April 15, 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 or the six
legal descriptions provided therein. We trust that this will provide
you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P.
Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is also a letter dated May 3,
2002, from Ewa and Rick Chavey that reads as follows: "1 would like
to voice my opposition to the request to rezone properties at 31790,
31800, 31780, 31710, 31785 and 31789 Norfolk Avenue from R,3 to
R-2. The petitioner has a lot within the above-mentioned properties
which he wishes to divide in order to build two homes on small lots.
Lots in our subdivision have been getting smaller over the years and
with it has come more traffic, loss of natural habitat; trees, and the
whole atmosphere of our neighborhood. The City of Livonia and its
Council keep trying to attract families with young children to our area
and 1 believe keeping larger lots where children have room to play is
an important factor. Also, rezoning properties from R,3, 80' by 120',
to the smaller R-2, 70'x 120; would set a precedent. The Planning
Commission and the City Council would not be able to refuse future
petitions for rezoning and subdividing lots and the whole character of
our subdivision would change. We pride ourselves in our
neighborhood in the fact that we have larger lots, many trees and
green spaces. We truly enjoy the rural atmosphere and we wish to
preserve it There are otherparts of Livonia where smallerlots are in
keeping with that area and we really do not want that to happen
here." The letter is signed by Ewa Chavey. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tim McGee, 31705 Norfolk.
Mr. McCann:
Can you tell us the reasons for your petition?
Mr. McGee:
Yes. Actually, Mr. Taormina did a very good representation of how
this request for rezoning developed. So, I'm going to keep my
presentation very short. I know that some of my neighbors that have
joined me in this petition would like to voice their opinions as to why
they did so and simply point out that throughout the process, my wife
and I have enjoyed support of the community in our efforts - not
19331
lukewarm support. It's been kind of overwhelming for us really to
see how much the neighbors have responded to our efforts to bring
this project into the neighborhood, which we feel is going to help the
neighborhood. I've had a letter of opposition read here tonight and I
happen to agree with many of the things Ms. Chavey said. The one
thing I would disagree with is that there is room for a little bit of
diversity here in the neighborhood. I've been listening very carefully
to the comments that folks have been making here to night in regard
to the other cases. The thing about Livonia that I really do love is if
you're a developer here and you try to do something that is less than
desirable for the City of Livonia, people are going to come out and
tell you about it. I don't believe we're going to see that opposition
here tonight. We will see support here tonight. The support has
been there for this project and will remain there throughout this
process. That I can guarantee. I'm going to limit the rest of my
presentation tonight to simply answering your questions atter giving
my neighbors an opportunity to tell you why theyve joined with me in
this effort.
James Tyler, 31710 Norfolk. I very much wish this petition to be approved. Since I
moved into area — I live two doors down from the property that we
wish to have developed — it's only gotten worse every year. I don't
see improvements coming. For this reason, I joined the petition with
my property along with my neighbors to go forward and propose our
property be rezoned from R-3 to R-2. It would create a natural
extension of the properties to the east, so it would be an R-2
extension onto Norfolk on the west side of Osmus. The lots that we
would like to see developed would have houses very complimentary
to the homes that are right in that area. I think when you move a
couple houses away from this area that we live in, you lend to forget
the house that's there and the property does not fit in with anything in
the neighborhood. So, my feeling is that this petition should be
approved. The homes that Tim McGee does intend to build are very
complimentary to that existing area. I believe it would enhance the
neighborhood and bring value to the rest of the neighborhood on
Norfolk and Osmus and just the general area. Thank you.
Mamie Tansley, 31789 Norfolk. I live directly across from the house in question. I've
been a resident for three years at this property. This home has
never been maintained. Its a disgrace in comparison to the other
homes. I feel what Tim McGee wants to do would improve the
neighborhoodgreatiy. Thank you.
Jude Mansilla, 31780 Norfolk. This is my wife, Becky. We live immediately to the
east of the property in question. We are the adjacent property
owners. We obviously support what Mr. McGee is doing and what
19332
we're all now doing. And we hope that you support the rezoning
from R3 to R2. If you look at the properties even further west, to
build two new homes on the property adjacent to mine as opposed to
one, would be more in keeping with how the flan goes all the way
out to the comer and then out east toward Merriman. As neighbors,
we would rather see two homes in keeping with the size of ours and
really the houses in that general area. If you've driven by, you'd see
that the houses in this section and moving east are generally similar
in size. I would rather see the two built rather than one very large
one immediately next to me. It would kind of stick out like a sore
thumb in that section for sure. And as Mamie staled, the property in
question, the one next to me, which is kind of the root of everything
we're doing here, is just something that we would definitely like to
see improved. Its been like that for too long. We've lived there
since 1996. We almost didn't move in because of that property and
the property across the way that eventually became Mr. McGee's
residence. We think what Mr. McGee is doing as a neighbor is what
he wants to do and what we as a resident of the neighborhood now
want to do. That's how we see it. I think it would look a lot better
than one big home in that space.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
There is a substandard home across the street. Are there any plans
on moving that? I know we can't condition rezoning, but I'd like to
know what the fate of that particular home will be if this rezoning is
approved.
Mr. McGee:
Truthfully, nothing would give me more pleasure than scraping it
from the face of the earth. That's exactly what we want to do ...to
emse that home and build two nice new homes to fit in with our
homes to provide a couple nice new homes for families in Livonia,
especially in the Clarenceville School Distnct because that's where
we are. That is exactly the intent. That is what we're trying to
accomplish.
Dale Fox, 31830 Norfolk. I'm all for razing that house and pulling two new homes in
there. I am two houses to the west of it. The property right on the
comer of Osmus, which I didn't know if that would set a precedent for
that guy to go ahead and get that rezoned R2 for spot rezoning. I
hope it doesn't. If so, I'm all for it 100%. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I'm going to dose the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
19333
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved,
it was
#05-61-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-04-
01-06, submitted by Timothy and Carol McGee, Mamie Tansley,
Jude and Rebecca Manilla and James Tyler requesting to rezone
properties at 31790, 31800, 31780, 31710, 31785 and 31789 Norfolk
Avenue, located on the north and south sides of Norfolk Avenue
between Osmos and Parker Avenues in the Northeast %of Section 3
from R-3 to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2002-04-01-06 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 each of the six (6) parcels that comprise the subject area
would fully conform to the lot size requirements of the proposed
R-2 district;
3. That the proposed change of zoning represents an extension of
an existing zoning district occurring on property directly across
Osmus Avenue to the east of the subject property; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning is complimentary to and
consistent with the development that has occurred along both
the north and south sides of Norfolk Avenue west of Osmus
Avenue.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: When I went out to the site to check this petition -- this is the third
time I've been out there — I went in that house. Mr. McGee was kind
enough to take me through it, and that house is a real cot trap. I
can't believe anybody ever lived in that house. I know there is a
concern with the Council that there are some other parcels to the
west of this that are owned by another builder who wants it rezoned.
But if you actually look at this particular area where Mr. McGee is
talking about rezoning, I think it makes good sense. I think its good
19334
zoning, and I think it's a continuation of the R-2 zoning. I think this is
the right way to go.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2002-03-02-06 WHITE CASTLE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-03-
02-06, submitted by Joseph Barts, on behalf of White Castle
Michigan, L.L.C., requesting waiver use approval to construct and
operate a Imiled service restaurant with drive-thru service located at
30105 Plymouth Road on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast %of Section
35.
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 March 21, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the
above -referenced petition. This department has no objections to the
proposal or the legal description provided therein. We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed
by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 4, 2002, which reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct and operate a fast food,
limited service restaurant with drive-through and carry out service 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 March 25, 2002, which reads as follows: 'We have
reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to construct a drive-
through and carryout restaurant. We have no objections to the plans
as submitted. Please remind the petitioner that the handicap parking
space must be individually signed as required by Livonia City
Ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
March 22, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request
19335
of March 18, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) This petition as proposed is short
approximately two (2) parking spaces needed for the drive-thru
parking and will require a zoning variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for the deficiency. (2) The accessible parking space is
inmmectiy sized. It must be an BJoot space with an BJoot access
aisle. (3) The clearance to service the dumpster is insufficient A
clear aisle of 35 feet in depth is needed in front of the dumpster. (4)
The dumpster enclosure detail should be clarified to the
Commission's satisfaction. (5) The three (3) excess signs on the
awnings are not permitted and would require a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals to be allowed. (6) The proposed neon
band is excess wall signage in both square footage and number of
approximately 13 square feet on four walls. It would not be allowed
without variance(s) from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. I would like
to note that the petitioner has revised his plan with respect to five of
these items so that it is now in compliance with the zoning ordinance.
The only other issue is the neon, which the petitioner would like to
have approval for and which would require a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Joseph Barts, representative for While Castle Michigan, L.L.C., 23985 Industrial Park
Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335. Mr. Taormina handled
everything that I would propose. I will just clarify what Mr. Nowak
also indicated. The review letter that was received on March 22 was
reacted to by While Castle and our engineering frim to comply with
five of the six items. The one remaining item is the neon; border
new is what we call it. As you can see, everything is mnfomiing on
this building. On this elevation drawing, as best as we're showing it
on this for visual purposes, it is a single neon tube, blue gas for blue
illumination. It is not an exposed new. It is in a recessed channel
and flusl-mounled with the brick and then there is a solid blue
overlay. The solid blue overlay is not typical for White Castle. This
6 our third attempt at getting this building replaced in the past
number of years on Plymouth Road. On our first endeavor with the
City, the neon became an issue. We were actually right next door at
the white building just in front of Kmart. And that's when we
discovered the neon issue. So our Engineering Department
researched that to try to comply rather than seek a variance. At the
time, we were told that if the neon lube could not be seen, meaning a
solid cover, then it would probably be allowed. The signage square
footage is a different curve, a different take on it from our
19336
perspective. We have modified our signage to comply with the
allowable square footage. The awnings that were referenced -- we
considered them directional. The awning says "enter." The other
one says "enter." There are two customer entry doors to the building
and the third awning says "drive thru." It simply sits over the drive-
thru window. If necessary the verbiage can be taken off and it would
simply be a striped awning. Consulfing with Mr. Taormina on our
reasons for trying to seek darification of those awnings, we took the
tact that it was a directional. Livonia interpretation says its not
directional unless it's in the parking lot. Its not a big enough issue
for us to argue nor seek a variance for. If it needs to be pure striped,
it will be and there will be no verbiage, no drive thru, no enter or the
words themselves. However, if the neon is calculated as signage,
we obviously need an approval. This conversation with Mr.
Taormina came up last Thursday on a few items that he had asked
me to be prepared to discuss tonight. One of them is the building
materials, which I have a brick board sample, and the screening,
which we are proposing around the entire top perimeter of the
parapet wall to comply with the ordinance. The other issue was the
neon. I was fully convinced that we would be going to the ZBA after
this hearing to seek an approval for neon. This all happened Iasi
Thursday. We did not have time to prepare a good neon
presentation to the Board. My best effort was yesterday morning at
5 p.m. going out to Ford and Inkster which is a store built
approximately a year ago with a very similar layout. The only
difference is that the while brick we are proposing is a white split
face block. Other than that, its an identical facility. Its actually a
neighbor of Livonia. Not the world's greatest pictures ... I don't
pretend to be a photographer. And when I look my disc in from my
fancy camera, the person told me, 'You've got about the worst digital
camera I've seen in all my years" So that explains the quality of
these pictures. I'd be happy to pass this around. We just printed
them out. When he enlarged them, they looked awful. Again, it
came down to the question of quality of my digital camera. But this
is what I provided just to show you what this new strip is. It is not
our position that this is signage of any sort. I do understand that,
according to Livonia ordinance, it is considered as signage.
Respectfully, we would submit for ZBA approval or a variance from
the ZBA to put the new on the building if necessary. I would like to
add that I understand if this Planning Commission approves the
concept of the neon, then that should be sufficient to either go
forward with the ZBA or to proceed and submit it with our building
plans at a later date. I can pass this around if anybody would like to
see it a little bit closer just to see the actual line of the neon. The
one difference I did notice is that this building has two elevations of
building signs. According to Livonia, we are allowed a three by
19337
twelve which we fit in a single cabinet on the front elevation. This
particular site has two elevations of signs, different square footage
allowance. So if anyone would like to see that, I can send that
around.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
In the metropolitan area, how many of this new type of building do
you have?
Mr. Barts:
The brick construction . the white brick, which is what we're
proposing here due to Livonia's requirement ... we only have one
other white brick facility. The majority of the buildings built before
1997 were all porcelain steel ... white porcelain panel, similar to
what is in Livonia right now. This particular store that we have at
Wonderland Mall is approximately 21 years old, and it was built at a
time when the construction was porcelain enamel. Currenfly we
have 42 operating stores. We have one under construction,
hopefully opening in a few weeks in Oak Park. Out of the 42, 37 of
them are still porcelain steel. We've gotten away from that as a
building material and tried to make them a Iitlle bilsoffer.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now by going from 64 seats to 25, is that telling us that most of your
business is drive thru?
Mr. Barts:
Yes, sir. We got into the drive thru remodeling game back in the
'80's. We were not able to remodel this particular store and submit a
drive-thru application to the City due to the Wonderland Mall
management group not allowing a drive-thru in that location. Our
lease was up a few years ago. We had fully intended to vacate the
property, but we really wanted to stay on Plymouth Road. Everyone
knows Plymouth Road is a very desirable area, and there's not a lot
of land available. The drive-thru business accounts for between 55%
and 60% of our business. This particular style store, the 1,780
square fool building, accommodates our drive-thru very successfully.
We do have people walking in and carrying out and driving off taking
their products home, but the drive-thru does account for over half of
our business at this point.
Mr. Alanskas:
In your existing store in Livonia now, when you walk in, you have
plexiglass. Its not a very safe feeling when you go in there. With
your new facility, you're not going to have that, are you - plexiglass
surrounded by glass from the counter to the seats?
Mr. Barts:
No. This is an open design. We've continued to do partitions in
some cases. We are a 24-hour operation. We've probably gotten a
19338
little too accustomed to partition glass in our dining room areas. As a
matter of fact, the store opening in Oak Park hopefully in two or three
weeks, will be open without partitions. We're trying to soften that
impact. This particular store, please understand, it's never been
remodeled. There's been no upgrades to the interior at all. I've
been in this market for 14 years, and it was always to put a drive-thru
on that facility until it was flat out denied by the properly owner. At
that point, management decided that there's no reason to propose
any additional improvements to that building, ride the lease out and
vacate the property, which was a 25 -year first tern, or come to new
terms and tear the building down.
Mr. Alanskas: What do you think this neon on the building is going to do for you?
Mr. Barts: Marketing had come up with neon in 1996 as part of our re-imaging
process. Again, this store did not receive any enhancements
because of the timeframe of the lease. However, all of our existing
stores in the company were all retrofitted with the new dining room
decor, a lot of wallpaper versus our stark white walls, and new, more
softer seating. We are proposing free-standing seating for this
location, meaning the tables and chairs are more movable. There's
a combination available that some boll down and some free-standing
just to make it easier if somebody comes and has four people or
somebody comes and has two or some have eight, they can move a
table together and just sit in that fashion. However, the intent of this
process is simply to make it more adaptable to the current customer
base that wants to see a little softer interior and to meet the
requirements that the company has set forth. Neon was one of
those issues that marketing studies and had come up with as an
attraction in a crowd, a particular demographic group. That seemed
to be something that the company wanted to explore. We did, in our
opinion, the best we could do with neon. We can go to many, many
sites and see neon on all the windows, and new on all the interiors,
and neon that's just garish all over the exterior and going in every
which direction. We feel the very subtle single band of neon is
strictly an eye attraction to the location. We have softened our
exteriors. With the building exterior, we have gooseneck lighting
which is a downcast light, very minimal. In this particular store, they
still have extended perimeter signage which has a multitude of lamps
to try and highlight the building and reflect the light. This is a much
softer malenal, softer by color rather than construction. It is a while
brick, which we would definitely like people to see with some accent.
The solider course blue places brick along the top is a very nice
touch in our opinion. This particular store will have, at the City's
direction, a screening around the mechanical equipment on the roof,
which is again something that's new. We're seeing it in some
19339
municipalities. This is a first of this type that we're proposing in
Livonia, but it would be the first one in the company that's actually
undertaking this. At the parapet wall, we're proposing an equipment
screening. Rather than just screening the equipment, we're going to
screen the entire visibility from all angles of the ground. This is a
sample that was provided to me today. Unfortunately, it came in with
the brick sample and it chipped a little bit. It is a blue composite
which I can pass around. Just for aesthetics purposes, you can see
that its a high quality material. To answer your question, the neon
and the blue look, the white material, the blue and white striped
awnings, the due gooseneck down lighting ... its all designed to
capture somebody's eye and to make it an appealing facility.
Mr. Alanskas:
As one commissioner, I have always been against any neon on any
building, but the way you've got this presented on this building, its
making me change my mind. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
How many stores in the Metropolitan Detroit area have the neon
now?
Mr. Barts:
There are currently 42 operating stores in this metropolitan area.
Besides this store, there are approximately four other ones that we
did not pursue for neon because those four stores are slated to be
tom down at this point in the next two years.
Mr. La Pine:
You've got one on Nine Mile and Telegraph. I've never been there at
night, but I've been there during the day. Is there neon on that one?
I've never noticed it during the day.
Mr. Barts:
Yes. There is neon on that store.
Mr. La Pine:
You've got one on Eight Mile Road just west of Grand River. Does
that have neon on it?
Mr. Barts:
That has neon on two elevations only.
Mr. La Pine:
How about the one on John R and Big Beaver?
Mr. Barts:
That one does not currently have neon because the building plans
are in Troy's hands right now to tear the store down. A new store is
proposed and approved
by the City already - the elevation drawings.
It's just in for building permits at this point.
Mr. La Pine:
Is the object of the blue new because of the while building ? It kind
of reflects off the white and makes people know, "Oh, that must be a
White Castle up the street"
19340
Mr. Barts:
That's our intent. If everybody looked at it as well as you did, wed
be very successful. We'd feel success in that endeavor. It is strictly
an accent. We just love the idea of the neon. It's a nice clean stripe.
As you said, in the dayfime it is not visible. It's designed to do what it
does. We burn it during the day because Engineering has always
said it cuts down on failure. Leave it on. Don't tum it off.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I agree that neon does attract. That's one of the reasons why I think
it's honky lonk. Its Las Vegas. I dont see why you're so uptight
about not using it. Its not going to change your business. It's just
going to take a bad look off of it. That's a nice looking building.
You're malting a honky lonk out of it with new lights. We've
opposed neon lights in this City for a long time, and there's a good
reason for it. You say that's it is going to be across the country and
all that, but that really doesn't influence me at all. I know from past
experiences ... restaurants coming to this City stating that, "This is
our plan. This is what they all look like" Just recently I was in one of
them in Chicago, and it didn't even have a sign.
Mr. Barts:
A While Castle?
Mr. Piercecchi:
I won't tell you the name of the company. But I oppose it for the
honky lonk Las Vegas look. I don't think you need it. I think it
detracts. You said you want to attract a certain clientele. Didn't you
say something like that?
Mr. Barts:
Demographics, yes, sir.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Whatclienteledo you wish to attract with that neon?
Mr. Barts:
Fast food clientele. The demographics for fast food and, believe me,
I'm not in marketing at all. I'm strictly in the construction end of this
endeavor.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You don't think that building without that neon light would bring any
business?
Mr. Barts: I agree with you on all of your comments with the exception of honky
tonk. I am partial to it because I was a big proponent of the neon
look myself. That doesn't mean fiat I'm correct. It just means that I
have seen these buildings. The initial objection was the neon tubing
being visible. That neon tubing is not visible with the solid blue
overlay. The only difference is, its a neon lube under it versus a
fluorescent light bulb. A fluorescent light bulb is going to give a lower
glow than neon will; however, with the blue oveday rather than the
19341
clear that we've got on all of our other locations, with that solid blue
overlay which is pretty similar to that color ... I've seen the prototype
of that ... that color of the roof screening ... that tube will not be
visible at all. It is not the typical new. Not to be argumentative, but
new to us when we first saw it was, its insane. We don't want that
stuff hanging over the buildings and having it fall and everything else.
And they did a good job with the proposal. As I said, it's recessed
into the structure.
Mr. Pieroecchi: It will not be seen at all then?
Mr. Barts: The tubing is notvisible at all
Mr. Piercecchi: It will just be light from it?
Mr. Barts:
Exactly. A nice glow. Not a garish glow that is going to stick out like
red neon on lop of a Hollywood video. It's a nice accent stip
buffered by the soldier courses in the white. I sincerely hope its
approved. If d is, I think the Commission will be pleased.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
When I saw your pictures there, it looked like just one big glow. Like
I said, it looked like Las Vegas, which I don't think
applies to Livonia.
But thank you very much for your explanation.
Mr. McCann:
Before I go to Mr. Shane, did the pictures you passed around have
the blue covering overthe neon?
Mr. Barts:
No, sir. That blue covering is strictly something that is proposed for
this facility. That is a clear overlay.
Mr. McCann:
That's a clear overlay on that?
Mr. Barts:
Correct.
Mr. Shane:
I don't want to beat the neon to death, but I just wanted to say, a
comment that you made earlier that the new is going to attract
customers. That's the reason why we treat it as a sign. That's why
we consider it a sign because it attracts customers. The fact that
you're encasing it certainly helps, but it still comes under our
ordinance as a sign, something that's against the ordinance. Are
there any samples of this encased neon on any of your buildings?
Mr. Barts: We can provide that. To have a sample made, we could do that.
Mr. Shane: I was just wondering if there was a building currently in operation
anywhere that had encased neon.
19342
Mr. Barts:
They are all encased. The only difference is the blue overlay versus
the dear. They are all similar in construction - recessed, flush, three
inch channel, single three-quarter inch tube, but then they have a
clear overlay, which is basically a cover to keep insects out and
whenwe're deaning the building, from breaking all the glass.
Mr. Shane:
Is this the first time you're going to put this in?
Mr. Barts:
This will be the first blue. Nov that blue, as I said, a few years ago
when we were looking down the street, that's when we came back to
Engineering and said we need to come up with something. We don't
want to seek a variance on neon. We'd like to have an alternate.
This is a few years ago, but believe me, there's been other avenues
they've gone after. Fiber optic lighting was tried in a number of
areas. It did not suit the purposes. And then they went to LED
lighting, which was extremely intense. We all loved it as far as doing
what the neon did with much less maintenance and cost; however, it
didn't pan out to what it was engineered to be. New York, as I
understand it, I've never seen the building, but was one of the
buildings that they were proposing that blue overlay on. There
again, that was a few years ago. That's when this spec came out,
and they said, "We'll just use this in Livonia if it's approved" Then
that was something that would gel away from seeing the lube.
Mr. La Pine:
Let's assume for minute that we had a band of blue glass all around
the building and behind it you had a fluorescent light and a light of
blue. What's the difference between that and the neon? I don't see
what the big hang-up is on this being encased because you could do
it another way and you could argue that it's not neon tubing.
Mr. Barts:
You're correct. As recently as probably about 12 hours ago, I was
having the same conversation with Engineering. I said, what are our
opfions based on the conversations of last week? What are our
opfions with the City on this neon? If it becomes a sticlang point,
what can we do different? I suggested the fluorescent lube. The
reason I suggested that is because I've seen it on gas stations. It's
the same effect and the comment was, it's not as much of a glow.
It's a light. We've all been around long enough to see fluorescent
lighting, down lighting, on restaurants, inducing White Castle. And
they just dont throw the same glow that everyone is looking for. It
doesn't mean that we would not entertain that. We're asking the
Commission to direct it in this fashion. If not, then we wIl have to
come up with other avenues to try to accomplish the same effect.
19343
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to dose the public hearing.
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
was
#05-62-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-03-
02-06, submitted by Joseph Barts, on behalf of While Caste
Midiigan, L.L.C., requesting waiver use approval to construct and
operate a limited service restaurant with drive-thru service located at
30105 Plymouth Road on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northeast'''/ of Section
35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2002-03-02-06 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of 3 of Job No. 6B967
prepared by Nowak & Fraus, dated April 17, 2002, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 3 of 3 of Job No. 6-
B967
B967 prepared by Nowak & Fraus, dated April 17, 2002, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
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 sodded and landscaped areas shall be irrigated with
underground sprinkler systems;
5. That the Building Elevations Plans marked Sheets 15042-A2
and 15042-A3 prepared by White Castle System, Inc., dated
July 11, 2001, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except that the strip of encased neon shown on each elevation
is not approved and shall be eliminated;
6. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed
25;
7. That all light fixtures as shown on the Site Plan detail shall be
shielded from adjacent properties and all light standards shall
not exceed 20 feet in height above grade;
19344
B. That all rooftop -mounted mechanical equipment shall be
concealed in accordance with the equipment screen detail on
the Structural Steel Plan and Details Plan marked Sheet 15042-
57 prepared by White Castle System, Inc., dated July 11, 2001;
9. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be
full -face four (4") inch brick, no exceptions;
10. That the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of brick with
wood gates in accordance with the Refuse Enclosure Plan
marked Sheet 15042SD5 prepared by While Castle System,
Inc., dated August 9, 2001;
11. That all off-street parking spaces provided in connection with
this restaurant shall be double -striped;
12. That the handicapped parking space shall be individually signed
as required;
13. That one wall sign on the front elevation as depicted on the
Wall Sign Plan marked File No. 025037 prepared by Total
Image Specialists, dated January 16, 2002, is hereby approved
with a sign area not to exceed 38 square feet;
14. That the Monument Sign Plan marked File No. 0202600
prepared by Total Image Specialists, dated March 13, 2002, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and
15. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be
submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building
permits are applied for;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 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.
19345
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
One question, Mr. Chairman. I'm all for this except Item 5 where we
talk about the encased neon. Does that mean that he still has the
option to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and have that waived?
Mr. McCann:
We're denying it.
Mr. LaPine:
We're denying it, but he still has the right to appeal that to the Zoning
Board of Appeals, does he not?
Mr. McCann:
We're approving it without it. He can go to the Council and still
request it, but they would have to approve it subject to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, when you gel your approvals, will that building be closed during
construction?
Mr. Barts:
The particular layout of this site allows us to maintain operation of
that facility. In order to vacate the business, we would try to keep it
operating during the 72 -day construction process, approximately
three months. We would then cease operations in the old building
approximately in the timeframe of the 12 to 13 week construction.
To answer your question, we would like to operate the old store for
two months out of the proposed three month construction period.
We would demolish the old building well before we applied for
occupancy. We would demolish, pave, finishing landscaping,
everything. We just dont have the luxury of building on top. The site
doesn't allow it. The current setbacks of this property, because we
are so far deep in the lot now, we are proposing to close the site well
ahead ofthis structure.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just wanted to know how you were going to do that.
Mr. Barts:
We would, of course, make sure it's safe forthe public.
Mr. Walsh:
The City is usually opposed to the new. What I suggest you might
do is when you get to Council, try and find this product in place that
you're describing so that they can go take a look at it. Don't bring it
in and shoe it to them. But if you can find a building that already has
19346
the color encased tube, and tell them where it's at, that might be
helpful.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2002-04-02-07 BELLE TIRE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04-
02-07, submitted by Christopher Enright requesting waiver use
approval to construct an addition onto an existing automotive repair
facility at 19601 Middlebelt Road located on the west side of
Middlebelt between Sl. Martins Avenue and Bretton Road in the
Southeast %of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly 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 April 12, 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 at
this time. The following legal description should be used in
connection with this petition. It should be noted that the developer
may be required to meet the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance in connection with storm water runoff. We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The
letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 15,
2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition onto
an existing automotive repair facility on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 24, 2002, which reads
as follow: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the existing automotive repair
facility at Middlebelt and St. Martins. There is concern regarding
adequate parking for customers and employees. The site plans
indicate five employees, which we believe to be incorrect. On April
23, 2002, at approximately 10.15 a.m., an officer from the Traffic
19347
Bureau checked the business and observed three employees
working behind the counter and five employees in the bay area
working. With additional services being considered, we would
expect that additional parking would be required." The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter
is from the Inspection Department, dated April 19, 2002, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 5, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
Confirmation should be received that all landscaped and lawn areas
will have permanent irrigation. (2) The accessible parking space
should be relocated near the front entry to minimize travel distance
and exposure to traffic. (3) Double striping required of parking
space. (4) This plan has changed the configuration of the plan
directly to the north that is in process now and rendered several of
their spaces unusable. This should be re -visited. (5) The screen
wall height at the south end should be lowered to three (3) feet for a
ten (10) foot length. (6) The dumpster enclosure is pictured as plain
block. The Commission may wish to clarify exactly the configuration
of the three walls to a decorative poured concrete with brick pattern
or shadow block or another approved method. (7) As proposed, this
plan does not meet the rear yard setback requirements of 20 feet (C-
2 Rear Yard Abutting a Residential District Side Yard). Therefore,
the plan must be reconfigured to be conforming or a variance will
need to be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence. I would like to note that the petitioner
did revise his plan. The plan now shows as a note on the landscape
plan that the landscaped areas will be irrigated, that they have
relocated the accessible handicap space to comply with City
ordinances, and they now show the protective wall as being lowered
by three feet for the south 10 feet of its length. The dumpster
endosure and protective wall are now shown as poured concrete
with a decorative brick pattern. Lastly, the building has been
reconfigured so that it is now at the required 20 foot setback from the
rear property line.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Christopher Enright, 155 S. Bates, Birmingham, Michigan. I'm the architect for the
project. Bell Tire purchased this building from the Tire Man chain
several years ago when they bought the chain out, which happens to
be where they got the Tireman logo that you see everywhere these
days. This is not conforming to a typical store that Belle builds these
days. We have build about two or three stores a year for each of the
last three or four years, and the standard size for the stores is to
19348
have ten bays. This store has seven bays. Of those ten bays, the
first two bays are typically just for removal and installation of tires.
The next four bays are a combination of when the tires have to be
installed and if there is a little bit of minor repair work to the brake
systems or the front end, and then the last two bays are the
alignment racks. This particular store does not have alignment racks
and that's mainly what we are putting in for this particular installation.
The last two bays will be those alignment racks. This represents the
rendered very first plan. This represents the building as it does not
conform to the rear yard setback. We since changed that as was
mentioned. Currently, what's going to occur on the site is going to
be sort of a tussle between landscaping and the amount of parking
spaces that we can get on this particular site. When we put down
five employees for the building, that was information we obtained
from the Allen Park headquarters. There may be five employees at
one given time; there may be eight. It varies from day to day
actually. Since the plan that we resubmitted lately and after
speaking with Mr. Nowak last week, we understand that there was
concern about parking. We came up with a couple different opfions
where we might be able to fit some more spaces in. We could get up
to four additional spaces on tie west side of the property. By doing
so, we would probably have to give up that area that's in the back
that you see on the westerly portion that we're using currently or
would like to use for intake for inventory. We'll have to remove that
portion of the building and that would provide the additional
landscape that would supplement the spaces that we would add
along the side of the property. That would get us close to 28 or 29
spaces, so therefore we would be up to eight or nine employees.
How the work typically goes with these buildings is that the
mechanics perform the alignments; mechanics perform the brake
installafions. So we're not anficipating any more employees because
of that because it's consistent with the type of work from bay to bay
in the mechanic side of the installafion of fires. The closest new
building to this building that has been constructed of the newer types
in town is in Canton on Ford Road. It's a ten-day operation, and we
have 22 spaces in that store as mandated by the City. That store
operates well down there without any major overflow. There are a
variety of opfions we have of adding some more spaces, and it's still
meeting the landscaping requirements.
Mr. Piercecchi: The landscaping on the northwest corner of that building has been
removed. Is that correct?
Mr.
Enright:
Yes.
This portion right here?
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Yes.
19349
Mr. Enright:
This was one of the options that we had.
Mr. Piercecchi:
So you have no problem in meeting the setback then? Originally it
was 17 feet. What is itnow?
Mr. Enright:
Right now its 20 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Soyou metthal part oflhe ordinance?
Mr. Enright:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
They did that on the other plan too with the bay. This plan is without
the bay, butwith the bay, he still metthe 20 fool requirement.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, what time does this store open in the morning?
Mr. Enright:
Eight o'clock.
Mr. Alanskas:
Eight ddock until whattme?
Mr. Enright:
Six P.M.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you open on Sundays?
Mr. Enright:
No, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
How about Saturdays?
Mr. Enright:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
What percentage of your business is fire business?
Mr. Enright:
Strictly tires? Tire sales?
Mr. Alanskas:
Tire sales, removal and replacement.
Mr. Enright:
It's hard to say percentage -wise. But anybody that comes into the
store buys a fire and tire installation. We certainly don't sell sindly
mechanical services. It's focused on the sale of the fire and the
installation of the tire.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is that store in the air conditioning business?
Mr. Enright:
Notto my knowledge.
19350
Mr. Alanskas: How many air impact guns are you running there with the seven
bays now?
Mr. Enright: I believe that each station is air operated.
Mr. Alanskas: What do you have, 10 horse air compressors there?
Mr. Enright: I can't speak to that. I dont know specifically.
Mr. Alanskas: My concern is with you moving back towards the neighbors, because
I've been in that building in the morning, attemoon, evening. I used
to be there once or twice a week because I used to sell products to
you people. In the summertime, those air impact wrenches are just
going like crazy because that's what your business is. By taking and
putting bays further west towards the residences, it's going to be
louder. You said you're new addition in the back is strictly racks for
alignments.
Mr. Enright:
Yes, front end alignments only.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you won't be putting on fires? You won't have any noise
problems in the back?
Mr. Enright:
Actually what happens is the tires are installed in the first eight bays,
and they are taken off those racks. Then they are brought into the
alignment racks for final alignment.
Mr. Alanskas:
In the wintertime, it's not a problem because your doors are closed.
In the summertime, you have two things. You have air impacts and
radios going, which go through the entire area. Each one wants to
hear a different station and they are blaring. Can you cut those so
they don't have that?
Mr. Enright:
Well, it's general store policy. That's up to the manager to do that.
The radios shouldn't be blaring so the people hear that. That's
against Belle's policy to do that. Its a manager problem.
Mr. McCann:
What are your busiest times?
Mr. Enright:
In the mornings or Saturdays. Typically Saturdays are busy days.
Mr. McCann:
Saturdays are your busy days?
Mr. Enright:
Yes, in the morning and then later towards the evening too.
19351
Mr. McCann: I'm just concemed because I went by this morning at 10:40. There
were 28 cars parked in the parking lot and your Belle Tire truck was
unloading in the back. I don't know how you can add three more
bays - one more tine installation bay and two more alignment bays.
There isn't a tire alignment system in this facility at this point?
Mr.
Enright:
I don't believe so, no.
Mr.
McCann:
They dont align vehicles?
Mr.
Enright:
They don't have the alignment racks.
Mr.
McCann:
Theydon't?
Mr.
Enright:
No.
Mr.
McCann:
I didn't look for that. The one in Canton is the exact same size as
this proposed building?
Mr.
Enright:
Actually from a square footage area, it's larger. Its around 10,200
square feet.
Mr. La Pine: If I understand you right, the two racks for front end alignments won't
necessarily increase volume there because a person buys tires and
has them installed, and they can get an alignment. But if someone
comes in and wants just an alignment, you wouldn't do that. Is that
correct?
Mr. Enright: We wouldn't refuse them, but that's not common. We're there to sell
Ems and that's part ofthe free service along with buying the tires.
Mr. Walsh: Just a couple points for clarification. I've gone to the facility and
used it to repair my car. It's a good business. They've done a nice
job with the property. But they do air conditioning repair because
I've just had mine repaired there. I'm just pointing this out for Mr.
Alanskas' purpose. On the alignment issue, I did have some tires
installed, and I had to go elsewhere for an alignment. So you're
correct in that. I just wanted to point that out for my colleagues.
Mr. McCann: Is that the car you bought from the Mayor?
Mr. Walsh: The Mayor delivered me a good car. It didn't need any repair. I just
wanted to point a couple of those clarifications out. It's a good
business. Its a good plan. I like what you've done to make the
additional parking spaces because it's a busy store. They are going
to need the extra parking spaces.
19352
Mr. Shane: Am I correct in assuming we don't have a site plan in front of us now
that meets the zoning ordinance because of the extra spaces?
Mr. McCann: Mr. Alanskas and I were talking that he's proposing a new plan up
here that nobody has seen yet. I think what we need to do is
complete the public hearing and then maybe a tabling motion might
be in order. 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.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#05-63-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-04-
02-07, submitted by Christopher Enright requesting waiver use
approval to construct an addition onto an existing automotive repair
facility at 19601 Middlebelt Road located on the west side of
Middlebelt between St. Martins Avenue and Bretton Road in the
Southeast % of Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-04-02-07 be tabled unfit the next
Regular Meeting of May 21, 2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. We will have a study meeting a week from today. All your
revised plans needs to be to the Planning Department by Friday
morning so they have a chance to review them for next week.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2002-04-02-08 WALGREENS
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04-
02-08, submitted by Rogvoy Architects requesting waiver use
approval to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy with drive-through
service facilities on property located on the northeast comer of
Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest%of Section 25.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under pefition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
19353
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated April 15, 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 at
this time. The following legal description should be used in
connection with this petition. It should be noted that the developer
may be required to meet the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance in connection with storm water runoff. We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The
letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 11,
2002, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a commercial
building on property located at the above -referenced address. We
have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations:
(1) If any of subject building is to be provided with automatic sprinkler
systems, hydrants shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet
from the Fire Department connections. (2) Access around buildings
shall be provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up to 45
feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13-1/2 feet"
The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 23, 2002, which reads
as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
proposal to construct a commercial building on property on the
northeast corner of Plymouth Road and Middlebeff Road. We have
no objections to the plans as submitted. Please remind the petitioner
that all handicap parking spaces must be individually signed as
required by Livonia City Ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated April 24, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of April 8, 2002, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The site is
deficient in parking spaces and will need variances from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The Walgreens site requires 73 spaces and
shows 71 spaces. The adjacent site requires 564 and shows 511.
Total shortage is 57 spaces. (2) A site visit showed wind blown trash
along the east wall. The lot was not double striped, and curbing
needed repair. The protective wall in the northeast corner needs
repair. Dumpsters are out in the open on the north end of the site
and a Fire Department connection along the east side is unmarked.
(3) The proposed drive-thru lane width must be enlarged to a
minimum of 12 feet. (4) Right-of-way landscaping is utilized in the
total landscaping calculation, which is not allowed and thereby
makes the landscaping deficient by 5.5% of the required 15%. (5)
The site will need a variance for the second wall sign as only one is
allowed with up to 130 square feet. As depicted, this building would
19354
front Middlebelt Road, and the sign would be on the Middlebelt
elevation. (This site has a monument sign proposed.) (6) The
Assessing Department has indicated a requirement for this parcel to
be split off and obtain a separate Bidwell number. 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. The petitioner has revised the Site Plan and is
here tonight to present the plan with the modifications pertaining to
these issues.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, 32500 Telegraph Road, Bingham Farms, Michigan.
I'm here tonight representing Walgreens and the developer who is
Retail Development out of Naples, Florida, and Phoenix Land
Development out of Farmington Hills, Michigan. We did submit
some plans today. Your staff, of course, has done a great job in
explaining our plan. We've made some changes to our plans since
we had our study session and since we've met with the Plymouth
Road Development Association. The changes were as follows.
From our planning study session, it was decided that his building
was a little too high. We adjusted it a little bit, and we took two feet
out of the height to lower its impact of the intersection. We've taken
the vinyl siding off the drive-thru, and we've put back synthetic
plaster to match the color of tie brick. We've recalculated our sign
areas to provide 65 square feet per side of the building, which I know
we're looking at a variance situation because of the amount of signs
on the building where only one is allowed. We did make
improvements to the plan based on the Plymouth Road Development
Authority's comments. We had a walk through the wall here. We've
eliminated that walk through. Let me refer to my notes here for a
minute. I think those were the major changes. Of course, we've
lowered the lighting level to 20 feet high so it will be consistent with
other developments in the area, and we've eliminated the flood
lighting that you would see at a typical Walgreens to light the
facades. We've eliminated that to downscale the lighting impact in
the evening. We have 12 foot aisles for the drive-thru. The drive-
thru aisles are located as far away from either entrance as we can
get them. In fact, as you notice on your agenda, there is an item to
withdraw the original proposal. Our original proposal was a larger
building. It was not what we call a Livonia prototype, which is a
neighborhood -type store that has the peaked roofs and the limestone
base. The original proposal was a glass tower. We thought that this
is better suited for the area especially with the great job the Plymouth
Road people did with the trade dress all along Plymouth Road. As
you know, this is an old Comerica Bank site. Its been vacant for
19355
quite a while. No tenant has wanted to take that space. Walgreens,
as you know, is a major player in the retail business and has found
Livonia, especially in this area, to be a very strong market for them.
We are hoping for a positive recommendation to City Council tonight.
Mr. Alanskas:
At our study meeting, we were having concerns about the rest of the
entire area. Did you have any contact with Mr. Samuels?
Mr. Dmne:
Mr. Samuels has been unavailable for the last week. He's been out
of the country. We're hoping that his return will be soon, and we can
convince him that through ourselves and others in the community,
we can do some of the things about the code enforcement officers
letter.
Mr. Alanskas:
So there's no way this evening that we have any idea of what
possibly we can gel from Mr. Samuels? Is that correct?
Mr. Dmne:
That is correct.
Mr. McCann:
We talked about this last week. According to the notes that I've
received and the letters that were read into the record, your
proposed site is about 11% landscaping. We've been working real
hard up and down Plymouth Road. There's a separate tax to pay for
landscaping on Plymouth Road because the problem was that these
buildings were built 50 years ago, and when they widened Plymouth
Road, the setbacks didn't leave room for the original landscaping.
So we have the Plymouth Road Development Authority that has
been helping businesses to redo it. That nice little effect that you're
shaving on the corner is being paid for by the Plymouth Road
Development Authority. It's not even a true architectural artifact from
Walgreens. They are still taking a mall that's been there for 25 years
or so, at least that I recall, and we're not updating it at all. I think
you're expanding your site tremendously but you're still only showing
11% landscaping. And my concern is, what are we doing with the
major portion of the site? When we have a site like this, I don't know
how we can take it and say, "Well, we're going to cul away from the
main portion of the site, lake away its parking, build into its parking
lot' and then just say, "Okay, we're not going to do any improvement.
We're not going to do any landscaping." I'm just really concerned
about the deficiency in landscaping on the portion that you're cutting
out, which I think you're trying to do something, but I don't see
anything even approaching 15%forthe remaining ofthe site.
Mr. Drane:
I'd like to answer that. I think that there was some confusion on our
original landscape plan. There was a note placed on the landscape
plan that a certain percentage of landscaping was included as right-
19356
of -way landscaping. The note should have read, "Landscaping
adjacent to the right-of-way." Therefore, what we've done (I don't
have the graphic here) within our boundary lines here between the
back property line and the front property lines of both Middlebelt and
Plymouth Road, the actual calculation of landscape area is 16.25%
within this area. And that includes the greenbelt that we added here,
and expanded islands along these long parking rows. So I
understand the confusion and I apologize for that. But our site as it
stands alone meets the requirement. As far as the upgrade of the
other shopping center, we had suggested, and I put a note on our
drawings through our study sessions, that we wanted to increase the
landscaping at the entry areas here. I've actually taken two
additional parking spaces away with the hopes that the shopping
center owner will help us out at least in these two areas, and we're
certainly going to try to get him to help us out in more areas to
increase the landscape area.
Mr. McCann:
As you say, you're buying a parcel of land from a shopping area.
What you're doing is reducing his landscaping even more, and we're
diminishing that properly. So I think that needs to be addressed.
Did you talk to the people at Walgreens also about the elevation
when we're talking 32 feel?
Mr. Dmne:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anyway they can get it down to 26 feet? We've got two-story
buildings going in that aren't 32 feet tall.
Mr. Dmne:
The things that we've done, and I'll mention this again, the main
element that faces the comer, which is this entry, and you can see it
in the elevation here and here. With the suggestion of the Planning
Commission, we did lower that element two feet, which took it down
to 30'9" instead of 32'9". Again, it was a preference instead of
having a mechanical roof screen around the perimeter of the
building. It was our desire to raise the parapets up higher to make a
consistent architectural screen around the rooftop equipment so that
it became a real nice consistent architectural element instead of
something that had layers of different materials on it.
Mr. McCann:
You don't want to take the main course of the building down which
was alwhal27' orwhafs the main body?
Mr. Dmne:
The main body ofthe building is 25'.
Mr. McCann:
That cant be lowered at all?
19357
Mr. Drane: What happens with the ceiling heights and the racking systems and
signage systems that we have within the store, its a very extensive
and elaborate mechanical system these stores have. Its necessary
to have the amount of space between the ceiling and the under side
of the joist, and then, of course, the structure above that and the
parapet above that to screen the rooftop units.
Mr. McCann: What makes that so much different than ... as I'm saying, the next
item on the agenda is a two-story building. You have to have the
mechanical in the building. You have to have all the other stuff in an
office building.
Mr. Drane: Office building ceilings are usually eight feet high, and be floor to
floor elevation ... I dont know how high that is, but sometimes it can
be as low as 11' or more. In line with today's standards floor -m -floor
heights would be 12'6". Those are pretty low heights from floor to
floor. With a lox ceiling height on the second floor, I can see that a
two-story office building can be lower. We've done two-story office
buildings at 30' with a flat top and mechanical equipment screens
beyond.
Mr. McCann: Are you saying that 25' is the lowest Walgreens they build
anywhere?
Mr. Drane:
That's the lowest that we can do here and still maintain the rooftop
screening with the parapet.
Mr. Shane:
I'm having the same trouble that Mr. McCann is. Not only are we
removing landscaping but we're removing parking spaces to the
point where the shopping center is seriously deficient. In exchange
for that, I'd like to see some upgrading on the shopping center as Mr.
McCann was pointing out. On the other hand, I think that the
Walgreens building would be a nice addifion. It would certainly
upgrade the comer of that area and certainly would bring a new
building into the area, but whether or not the shopping center is
going to follow along and profit by that, I don't know. The only way I
think they will is to upgrade the property. I think we need to have
some dialog with that property owner somehow.
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.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as a major structure is being removed and
replaced with another, I'm truly of the opinion that it would be prudent
to have a broad reevaluation of the entire plaza. In the process, a
detailed comprehensive plan would be developed which addresses
19358
the future rather than being restricted to the fate of only one
particular comer. In addition to deficient landscaping and other
concerns, this plan as it is would create, in my opinion, a parking
deficiency and has all the criteria to become a hazard and
detrimental to traffic flow in the area. Therefore, I believe more time
should be used which would enable us to recommend to Council the
best course of action regarding this petition which takes in the plaza
as a whole. I move, Mr. Chairman, to table to a date agreeable to
the pefifionerand ourstaff.
On a motion
by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#05-64-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heanng having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-04-
02-08, submitted by Rogvoy Architects requesting waiver use
approval to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy with drive-through
service facilities on property located on the northeast comer of
Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest I/ of Section 25,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition
2002-04-02-08 be tabled until the next Regular Meeting of May 21,
2002.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Samuels is the owner?
Mr. Drane:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Our next regular meeting is the 21s' of May. Would you have an
opportunity to meet with him and share information before that? Our
study is a week from today. Is he going to be back in town and
willing to sit down with somebody and go over what possibilities can
be done?
Mr. Drane:
As the architect of the project, I will give you my promise that I will do
whatever I can to meet with him. However, I don't know the
gentleman. Members from our development team do and they're
going to make their best efforts to make that happen.
Mr. McCann:
The concern is that he's out of town or he's out of the country. Were
you given any time when he would be back in the country?
Mr. Drane:
He may be gone for a long time. He doesn't run his office. We think
we can find somebody in his office who will work with us on these
issues.
19359
Mr. McCann: I hope so. Is the 21s' okay with the mover and then if you need more
time, you can contact the staff. Is that all right, Mr. Piercecchi?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Certainly.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2002-04-0841 BORIN OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-04-
08-11, submitted by Bonn Office Building requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property
located at 11700 Newburgh Road in the Southwest%of Section 29.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an office building
on the vacant piece of property that is located on the northeast
corner of Plymouth Road and Newburgh Road and just south of a
small utility substation. The proposed office building would be two -
stories in height and a total of 13,174 sq. R. in floor area. To provide
enough parking for a building of this size, a portion of the industrial
property to the east would be combined with the comer lot and
developed into a parking lot. Parking is summarized as follows:
required parking is 80% of the net floor space/200 = 53 spaces;
provided parking is 56 spaces. A note on the plan indicates that the
parking lot would be doubled striped. All parking spaces conform to
City requirements of 10 R. in width by 20 R. in length and the two-way
aisle widths measure 22 R. An enclosed trash dumpster area is
shown at the back of the site, near the northeast corner of the
property. A note on the plan states that the three walls of the
endosure would be constructed out of brick to match the building
and its access gates would be wooden. The light standard cutout
illustrates that the parking lot poles would be 20 ft. in height and
would be topped by arm -mounted premium cutoff fixtures. Access to
the site would be achieved by a two-way drive off Plymouth Road
and a similar drive off Newburgh Road. The building would be
positioned out towards the intersection with parking to the north and
east. The proposed development would be deficient in front and side
yard setbacks. The required setbacks are 75 R. for the front yard
and 75 R. for the side yard. The proposed setbacks are 25 R. for the
front yard and 30 R. for the side yard. The setbacks are deficient by
50 R. for the front yard and 45 R. for the side yard. During the
19360
approval process of the 1994 petition, the petitioner received a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (Case #6910-151)
granting relief of the same setback deficiencies. Based on an
opinion by the Law Department, since the footprint of the building is
basically the same as it was in 1994, the variance is still valid and
can be utilized with this new proposal. Therefore, with the variance
in place, the petitioner will not be required to go back to the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The Landscape Plan shows Hal the majority of
the landscaping would be up next to or in dose proximity to the
proposed building. The parking lot would have a few landscaped
islands and comer areas. Within the right -0f --way between the
sidewalk and both Newburgh and Plymouth Roads is a wide lawn
area. A note on the plan stales, "All landscape and lawn areas shall
be watered by an automatically operated sprinkler irrigation system."
Landscaping is summarized as follows: the required landscaping is
not less than 15% of the total site; the provided landscaping is 26%
of the site. The Elevation Plans show that both floors of the building,
on all four sides, would be constructed out of brick. The entrance of
the building, which is located at the northeast corner of the structure,
would be defined by glass in bronze color flaming panels. All visible
rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened by dark bronze
metal siding.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated May 2, 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 at
this time and see no problems with respect to traf n or points of
ingress and egress. The City of Livonia Engineering Division will
require the repair of seven flags of walk along Plymouth Road and
the placement of six-foot wide sidewalk on Newburgh Road, unless
City Council approves a waiver not to place walk along Newburgh
Road. Overhead utility lines run between the two parcels of land in a
norihaouth direction, just east of the proposed building. It should be
noted that the developer may be required to meet the Wayne County
Storm Water Management Ordinance in connection with storm water
runoff. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated April 26, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct an 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
19361
is from the Division of Police, dated May 6, 2002, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans regarding a proposal to
construct an office building on the property located at 11700
Newburgh Road. We have no objections to the plans as submitted.
Stop signs should be installed at each driveway for motorists exiting
the property. Handicap spaces must be individually signed per city
ordinance. For pedestrian safety, we recommend a sidewalk be
constructed along the length of the property on Newburgh Road."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 30,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 24,
2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This site was originally granted a variance
frem the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient front and side yard
setbacks of 50 feet and 45 feet, respectively, on October 24, 1989,
Case Number 8910-151. (2) The barrier free accessible parking
spaces are sized incorrectly. One van accessible space must be an
8 -foot wide space with an adjacent 8 -foot wide aisle. The additional
spaces must be 8 feet wide with adjacent aisles 5 feet wide. The
van accessible aisle may be shared with another space. Even with
the changes to the accessible parking and the possible loss of a
space, this site has the required parking. 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?
Jeffrey Borin, Bonn Investment Company, 11900 Globe Road, Suite 100, Livonia,
Michigan. This is our office and I'm a resident of West Bloomfield. I
brought some colored renderings that I'd like to show you of the site
plan and the elevations. I'm here with Ralph Bonn, my father, and
Irving Tobocman, the architect of the project. Let me start by
showing you the elevation on the north. As you can see, the building
will be entirely of brick. We brought a brick sample with us. I'll have
Mr. Tobocman explain the elevations. This is a colored rendering of
the site plan. We have quite a bit of landscaping in the setbacks
along Plymouth Road and along Newburgh Road. Since the
entrance to the building will be in this corner here, Mr. Tobocman
developed a plaza area. There's quite a bit of landscaping also on
the north side of the building to lead in and landscaping over here on
the east side of the building also to kind of frame that entryway. Irv,
would you like to come up and explain the rest of the elevations?
Irving Tobocman, Architect, 439 Greenwood, Birmingham, Michigan. The building as
Jeff mentioned to you is going to be all brick. This is an elevation of
19362
the south facade. The south facade is the most prominent facade
along Plymouth Road. The recessed windows are set back a
distance of four or five feet from the projection along here, which
gives us a nice shadow line and also gives us great protection
against the sun. That south and west sun is a very, very big enemy
for people who are working in a building of this nature. So we've
done a very deep recess in here, which we think will create great
interest as we drive by and also give us nice shadows and cut down
the massiveness of this facade by giving us a lot of different texture
to the building. We have another elevation here. This is the east
elevation, which is seen mainly from the major parking area of the
building. This is going to be the entry to a two-story high lobby.
There is a plaza in here. We're expecting to develop that with
perhaps a nice piece of sculpture. It will be the lead-in and the focus
of the parking that is going to be mainly in this area and a smaller
amount along here. So this was a natural entrance point to the
building. This is the west elevation, which is the elevation that is
going to be seen from Newburgh Road. Again, the window
treatment is consistent around the building with these deep
overhangs and a lot of good sized plantings in order to cast shadows
and play against the height of the building. I'm here to answer any
questions that you may have.
Mr. Alanskas: On your west elevation, how many feet are on the right hand side?
How wide is that? It looks kind of sparse because you have the
windows and it's all brick.
Mr. Tobocman: The south side is essentially all glass. To play down that expanse of
glass, which is on our south elevation, I needed a little bit of mass so
that the building didn't look weak and too glassy and too see-
through.
Mr. Alanskas: In your landscaping, you're showing trees the height of the building.
Is that 15 years down the road or now when you get done with the
landscaping?
Mr. Tobocman: Well, the landscaping was done by a landscape architect and the
plan, if I can read it ... well, unfortunately, he doesn't give us any
heights but he gives us calipers.
Mr. Alanskas: How wide is the caliper?
Mr. Tobocman: The calipers that I'm reading here are five to five and an half inches.
The Colorado Green Spruce trees are 18' to 20' high. The Select
Pears are four and an half inch calipers.
19363
Mr. Alanskas:
You answered my question. That's a good height. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
That's impressive because the last guy had two inch calipers.
Mr. Tobocman:
Now as a mandate, we asked our landscape architect, at the
insistence of the owners, to cut down the number of trees but give us
larger trees so that we didn't have to wail.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have tenants for the building now? Is it an insurance
building?
Mr. Tobocman:
No, not yet.
Mr. Alanskas:
Nothing at all?
Mr. Tobocman:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. Shane:
The staff had made a suggestion, and I concur with it, that it might be
a good idea along the Plymouth Road and Newburgh frontages,
maybe to introduce some undulating berms because the building will
be substantially closer to the roads than the ordinance requires. In
that landscape scheme you might introduce some berming to try and
break up that mass just a little bit more. I'm not talking about huge
berms or anything.
Mr. Tobocman:
Well, the only thing that I as an architect have always objected to is
that it seems a little produced rather than normal. It seems like
we've got some big animals planted under there.
Mr. Shane:
That's why you would design it with care so you don't have just a
mass of raised ground, but you undulate it a little bit and give it some
character.
Mr. Tobocman:
Obviously we're open to any suggestion that is going to enhance our
design. We'd be happy to talk with the staff, and if we all feel that
this is a proper way to go, then of course that is the way we would do
R. We're after he same thing that the City is after and that is to have
a wonderful building that is going to have a curb appeal and be
something that we can all be proud of.
Mr. Shane:
You're asking us to approve a building which is substantially closer
to the road flan the ordinance permits. I have no problem with that
because to do otherwise you're going to destroy your plan. I think
19364
it's a good plan. But to try and circumvent that a little bit, to introduce
a little bit more ...
Mr. Tobocman:
As I've said, we'd be happy to work with the Planning Commission
and your planner and come up with the best thing for the building.
Mr. LaPine:
At our study session, we discussed the possibility of a bank going in
here. Is that still a possibility?
Mr. Tobocman:
Yes, because there isn't anything that says we can't do R.
Mr. LaPine:
The reason it came up is because the way the building was
designed. It looks like at the east side of the building there could be
a bank drive-ttnu.
Mr. Tobocman:
Well, I don't know. Of course, this would be something that the bank
would have to come up with. I don't know where they would want
something like that. There's a possible area here; there's a possible
area here. It certainly wouldn't be possible here or here.
Mr. LaPine:
Lets assume you don't get a bank. Is this building constructed in
such a way that you could have many tenants ...two, three, four
tenants or could it be small offices or ...
Mr. Tobocman:
It's pretty loose. We've kept the interior pretty much column flee. I
think from the management standpoint, naturally they would like to
rent to as few people as possible, but I don't have an answer for you.
It depends on how the market goes, but we dont have any plans for
any particular areas. We would hopefully, if things went well for us,
rent out an entre floor. We're geared to do that.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I think your building is very, very attractive. Its unfortunate, though
that you had to squeeze it in on such a small piece of property — that
you can't really shoe its real potential. You know the setbacks that
have been mentioned are way out of line, but in your behalf, as you
know, the 1994 Zoning Board granted these variances. They're still
good because you haven't changed the footprint, but it's a beautiful
building.
Mr. Tobocman:
Thank you. l appreciate that.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Any last comments?
19365
Mr. Bonn: Just a couple comments. M've been building in Livonia for about
30 years now. There are several other buildings along Plymouth
Road that my father and I have developed over the years. Mr.
Tobocman designed those buildings. Michael Dul, the landscape
architect, has designed the landscaping for those. We are going to
do the best we can with the landscaping to try to make it compatible
with the other facilities we have along Plymouth Road. We try to put
a lot of good work into the landscaping. I hope you'll be happy with
it.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#05-65-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-04-08-11,
submitted by Bonn Office Building requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection
with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at
11700 Newburgh Road in the Southwest I/ of Section 29, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated April 15, 2002,
prepared by Irving Tobocman, Architect, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L1 dated April 15,
2002, as revised, prepared by Michael J. Dul & Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. 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;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet 4 and
Sheet 5 both dated April 15, 2002, prepared by Irving
Toboaman, Architect, are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four (4")
inch brick, no exception;
19366
7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the
building or, in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's
design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and
the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use
closed at all times;
8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 R. in height and shall
be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing
across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway;
9. That the petitioner shall correct to tie Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated April 30, 2002:
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with
the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering Division's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated May 2, 2002:
- That the existing sidewalk along Plymouth Road shall be
repaired or replaced;
- That a 6 R. wide sidewalk shall be installed along this
property's Newburgh Road right -of way;
11. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; and
12. 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, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #10 PETITION 99-12-0833 WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, withdrawal letter
from Steven Schafer, on behalf of Phoenix Land Development
Corporation, for Petition 99-12-08-33, submitted by Phoenix Land
Development company on behalf of Walgreens, requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on
property located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebell
Roads in the Southwest%of Section 25.
19367
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#05-66-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held
by the City Planning Commission on February 29, 2000, on Petition
99-12-08-33 and pursuant to a request dated April 8, 2002 from
Phoenix Land Development, the City Planning Commission does
hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 99-12-08-33 by Phoenix
Land Development requesting to construct a commercial building on
property located on the northeast comer of Plymouth Road and
Middlebelt Road in the Southwest%of Section 25.
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 May 7, 2002, was adjourned at 11:03 p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary