HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-01-1419951
MINUTES OF THE 857"' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 857" Public Heanngs 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
Carol Smiley
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Marge Roney, Secretary, were also
present.
Chairman McCann inforned the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat 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 filing. The staff has furnished the
Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission
may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 200241-0147 BRIAN PETERS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Pefition 2002-11-
01-17, submitted by Bran Peters requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Joy Road and
Ann Arbor Trail in the Southeast%of Section 31 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
19952
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated December 18, 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 legal description contained therein. It should be
noted that the developer would be required to meet the
requirements of the Wayne County Storm Water Management
Ordinance for the proposed project 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 Robert E.
and Karen A. Bennett, 37565 Northfield Avenue, dated January 8,
2003, which reads as follows: We received your letter regarding
the public hearing on the above-mentioned petition. We will not be
able to attend the meeting on January 14, 2003, and would like to
present our views on this matter. We are very concerned about the
location for the proposed subdivision going in on the land that
wants an R-1 rezoning. The proposed entrance to the sub (a dead-
end street) will not be easily accessible for deliveries, garbage
trucks, etc., or even for emergencies. The dead�end street ends up
right in the backyard of our neighbor at 37522 Northfield. The side
of the street as well as the end of the street will be very close to
their house and could cause some danger if there isnY sufficient
barricading. We think a closer look into the exact location of the
street in regards to the closeness of the property of #26
Stonehouse Estates is warranted. A much better plan would be to
have a cul-desac at the end of the street. Also some of our
concerns are what type of housing is going in? We would want
comparable housing so as not to affect our property value. Will
there be sidewalks? Is part of the property wetlands? 1 dont know
if all our concerns and views can be answered Tuesday night We
mill try to attend the future meetings of this. Thank you for your
time and attention to this matter." That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Rod Dunlap, Attorney at Law, 37000 Grand River Avenue, Suite 230, Farmington
Hills, Michigan 48335. I'm here on behalf of Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters
had a preplanned vacafion. He would have been present when this
was originally scheduled, but we wanted to go forward with this. I
spoke with Mr. Peters and I'm authorized to go ahead.
Mr. McCann: Is there something addifional you would like to tell us about this
project?
19953
Mr. Dunlap:
We tried to keep it short and sweet in the application. I will try to
keep it short and sweet. I understand you have a very busy
agenda here this evening. The plan that is requested is in
conformity with the Master Plan. The Master Plan calls for medium
density, which would be four to fourteen units per acre. We're
actually asking for a little more than three units per acre. There is
an adjacent residential use. The lots there would be R-1, 60' x 120'
lots. My dient's lots are proposed to be 60' x 133' plus, so it would
be very much in conformity with what's there. It would certainly
increase the value. It would also involve the tearing down of some
structures, which could use some tearing down, and it would
certainly improve the area dramatically. I would be happy to
address any other issues as best I can. I have spoken with Mr.
Peters to some extent about this. He has built some other property
in the City of Livonia on Clarita. He's already built some homes
there. He's working on a project out there. If you've seen those
homes, that would be about what he's planning in this particular
area - brick and vinyl type home construction - really consistent with
what's out there.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
What would the price of the homes be?
Mr. Dunlap:
The price of the homes - of course this may change - depends on
the market and everything, but I did ask Mr. Peters that question.
He indicated about $249,000 on up, thereabouts.
Mr. Alanskas:
Did you bring with you any renderings showing the units?
Mr. Dunlap:
Showing the actual units?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Dunlap:
No. I asked him about that. He said it would probably be similar to
what he has on Clarita. It would depend on the market at that time,
but that's basically what he's looking for. It would be brick and
vinyl.
Mr. Alanskas:
This would be brick and vinyl siding. What percent would be brick?
Mr. Dunlap:
It would probably be 50-50. Mr. Peters has spent a lot of time
dealing with a lot of the people in Livonia to make sure that what
he's doing is in conformity with what is being requested, and he
would do the same thing as far as any building permits that he
would pull in looking at what would be advisable.
Mr. Alanskas:
Usually we ask for and receive a color rendering of how the units
are going to look. Thank you.
19954
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, did we get any correspondence from the Fire Department?
With that Ttum, is that road going to be able to handle the turn-
around?
Mr. Taormina:
That correspondence would be considered at the time a site plan is
fled.
Mr. La Pine:
Right now we're just talking about the zoning.
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
If he gets this rezoning, do we know at this point if it's going to be a
site condo or a platted subdivision?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe that with the material that has been submitted to date, the
indication is that he would file a site plan for a site condominium
development as opposed to a subdivision plat.
Mr. Shane:
If this property was to be rezoned, why would you need a 50 foot
right-of-way as opposed to a 60 fool right-of-way, which is the
north?
Mr. Dunlap:
Part of the concem is going to be the size of the lots, Mr. Shane
and members of the Commission. We want to make sure that
there's enough room for a road, but this is not a major
thoroughfare. It would be a dead-end street into the subdivision. If
you were going to widen the road or widen the right-of-way, then of
course you'd be cutting into the lots of the homes.
Mr. Shane:
The lots are shown to be 133' deep and if you put in a 60' road, it
would drop them to 128'. It would seem to me that would be a
major reduction. Here we have an opportunity to have a full 60'
street, but that's something we'd deal with if that was rezoned
anyways.
Mr. Dunlap:
That would be something I'm sure Mr. Peters would probably be a
little more aware of. I know he has spoken with some of the people
in the City to see what it is they would recommend.
Mr. LaPine:
The new home that's built right there on the property, did your
owner/developer build that home?
Mr. Dunlap:
There are two homes on the property.
Mr. LaPine:
One is an older house. The other one is newer. The one that's
closest to the shopping center.
19955
Mr. Dunlap:
The one that's closest to the shopping center ... let me check the
address on that.
Mr. LaPine:
I assumed the older house was going to be torn d own.
Mr. Dunlap:
Yes, that would certainly be tom down. He's actually looking to tear
both of the homes down.
Mr. LaPine:
That brand new one?
Mr. Dunlap:
I think, in looking at the plan ...
Mr. LaPine:
I dont think so. It doesn't look like its that old.
Mr. Dunlap:
Both homes would be demolished under the current plan.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Fellow Commissioners, our objective tonight ... I know its always
nice to know what's going to go in there ... is to delemmine whether
R-1 zoning is proper in that area. If it is, all of these questions will
be answered when the site plan is submitted to us. We can then
check out the road widths and the brick and everything else. So if
we're through, I'll offer a motion.
Mr. McCann:
We must go to the audience, Dan. Are there any other questions?
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? In respect for the other people here tonight, we are
going to attempt to keep audience communication to two minutes if
we can.
Ronald Canfield, 37522 Northfield. Lot 26 of Stonehouse Estates. I have no
objection to him getting his property rezoned. The problem I have
is the way his proposal is drawn up. It is going to put this street
right in my backyard. I have a street in the front. I don't need a
street in the back also. The property that runs in back of this
properly here is a wetlands that the Livonia Public Schools own,
which we believe runs on part of his property. We'd like to have the
DNR do an assessment of that property. Furthermore, with the
schools being across the street from this property and the school
being right behind this property, its going to be a major traffic
hazard for people getting in and out of this subdivision the way he
has it drawn up here. It's very dose to the driveways on both of
these and it's a hazard. I think if he came up with a different plan
with some kind of a cul-de-sac .... I'm going to have a house next
door in my backyard, and I'm going to have his backyard in my front
yard, which is going to be a hazard for me. I mean not a hazard,
but its going to reduce my property value somewhat. I just think its
a bad proposal the way he has it drawn up here.
19956
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, what is the process when he goes to the Building
Department? Who is going to determine whether or not there are
wetlands to the rear portion of the property?
Mr. Taormina:
If there is a question of wetlands on the property, then that
investigation really should take place prior to site plans being
submitted to the City. Any type of environmental constraints,
whether its wetlands or floodplain, should be determined at that
time. From our cursory inspection, it doesn't appear that there are
any wetland areas on this property. But Mr. Canfield is speaking of
the area immediately adjacent to this that may contain a lower area
that is part of a drainage system on the school property. Whether
or not it is regulated under the Wetlands Protection Act is
something that would have to be investigated. And if so, whether it
actually extends ontothis property is another matter.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Again, as Mr. Piercecchi pointed out, this is a zoning
change. You would be notified if we came back and did a
condominium site plan on this project because you are an abutting
property owner. I do appreciate your concerns with the design.
You are the end house to the street?
Mr. Canfield:
Yes. Lot 26.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
Evelyn Suddendorf, 9116 Newburgh, right next to Churchill High School. I am
against the small lots. We have at our end of Livonia, on
Newburgh, condo, condo and apartments. And I sincerely hope
you think about what you're going to do. And this gentleman talking
about wetlands ...I know the builder in that subdivision right behind
had problems getting things. And the house you're talking about
has been remodeled. I was born there, so I know. He has put a lot
of money into remodeling right next to the shopping center, but I
sincerely hope with the schools there . traffic is unreal on
Newburgh Road right now. And I sincerely hope you give some
thought about what you're going to do.
Mr. McCann:
You were born at that house next to the shopping center?
Mrs. Suddendorf.
Yes. So I go way back.
Mr. McCann:
Iguess so.
Mrs. Suddendorf
I go back to the good days.
Mr. McCann:
At least 30 years ago, right?
Mrs. Suddendorf:
At least.
19957
Mr. Piercecchi: Did I hear this lady say she was concerned about condominiums
there?
Mr. McCann:
No.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
A lot of people don't quite understand that a site condo means the
same as a regular size lot. We still have
just as much input on
whether the amount of brick or the height of the
home, etc., etc. By
having a site condo law, it saves a lot of time for developers. But
frankly, it gives us more input into the system. So it's really an
asset to have site condos in your city rather than a platted
subdivision. But it will be the same house whether it is platted or
site condo.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, I'm going to dose the public hearing. Sir, any last
comments?
Mr. Dunlap:
The only other comment I would have is that I think a testament to
the quality of Mr. Peters' construction was made there. That is Mr.
Peters' home. I checked - the one that was thought to be a new
home. And that's the kind of construction he has put in there. He
wants to put in quality construction.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. A motion is in order.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I think R-1 is appropriate there.
It abuts up against R-1 property and so the lot sizes on that
property with Stonehouse Estates are 60' wide. These are also 60'
wide.
On a motion by
Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and approved, ilwas
#01-01-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition
2002-11-01-17 submitted by Brian Peters requesting to rezone
properly located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Joy
Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southeast %of Section 31 from
RUF to 1-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2002-11-01-17 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes
which are consistent with the lots in the immediately adjacent
subdivision lolhe west;
19958
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area;
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 medium density
residential land uses in the general area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning represents an extension
of an existing zoning district occurring on adjacent property to
the west.
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 think Mr. Piercecchi has stated it correctly. I think the rezoning is
consistent and is already bome out in our Future Land Use Plan.
But I do hope that the representative for the petitioner is taking to
heart some of the comments that you've heard from the Planning
Commission and from the neighbors so that we might see a
different plan. Obviously, it will be more thorough. But perhaps
take into account these comments when you're preparing the final
plan for our consideration during the site plan process.
Mr. McCann: Any other discussion? I'm going to make a comment that I'm in
agreement that it does abut l -i. It is along a commercial road next
to a commercial shopping center. I have some concems. We have
a considerable amount of RUF to the north of that still single family
development, and I don't want to set a pattern for increased
development along the northwest side of the UPS Career Center
there. So I'm going to vote against it. Will the Secretary please call
the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Piercecchi, Walsh, LaPine, Smiley, Shane
NAYES: Alanskas, McCann
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19959
ITEM #2 PETITION 20024 2-01 4 8 ALYMINA PROPERTIES
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
12-01-18, submiited by Michael Margherio, on behalf of Alymina
Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Schoolcratt Road between Berwick Avenue and Merriman
Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 22 from RU F to R-1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated December 18, 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 legal description contained therein. It should be
noted that the developer would be required to meet the
requirements of the Wayne County Storm Water Management
Ordinance for the proposed pmject. We trust that this will provide
you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P.
Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from Paul J.
DeNapdi, 31791 Scone, Livonia, Michigan, dated January 13,
2003, which reads as follows: "1 am writing to oppose the change of
zoning to the above petition due to the following: (1) Failure to
prove adequate setback to the existing residential lots. Side
setback is only 7 feet from fence line to the west and only 30 feet to
the north. This is even less of a setback space than from the
previous zoning request which was a 10 foot setback to the west.
(2) Failure to provide adequate tum around/accessibility space for
Fire/EMS vehicles in case of emergency. (3) Noncronforming
space utilization for this area (South Half of Section 22). High
Density housing is not used for this area as it is in the North Half of
22. 1 am requesting that this zoning be denied again until a
demonstrated suitable site plan is presented to the Planning
Commission and residents of the area. It is imperative this area be
utilized to provide suitable land usage for the owner of the property
without the reduction of homeownedtaxpayer property values.
Thank you for your consideration." That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Margherio, Alymina Properties, LLC, 4725 Cimarron Drive, Bloomfield,
Michigan 48302.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to tell us anything more about your proposal?
19960
Mr. Margherio:
As far as the setbacks and the things that aren't right, they would
obviously be corrected. I thought everything was how it should
have been. Apparently, it's not. Basically, right now it's an empty
house, an old house that sits there. It used to be a rental house.
Now it's just empty. I know the neighbors don't want anything done
to the property because the back half is still woodland, and its
where their backyards are. If it changes, then obviously the
makeup of their yards changes. But that being the case with
anything that happens there, I could just go and take the trees out.
I just really want to get something done to this property so its
useful. Right now it's not useful for anything.
Mr. McCann:
Have you tried to acquire the property to the east of it?
Mr. Margherio:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
From a planning standpoint, why would you want to change one
parcel from RUF to R-1 and then leave RUF and then have Office
Services?
Mr. Margherio:
We tried to change it to Office Services.
Mr. McCann:
I'm just saying we're going to have an RUF property right between
the properties.
Mr. Margherio:
Ideally, that house that's there and the amount that they wanted for
that house, would not make sense to purchase the house, get rid of
the house, and then do anything with that property. Its just too
expensive. And its a fairly nice house, and it sits far enough back
on the property that you can't do anything ... you know if it sat
closer to the road, you could use the back part of the property as
something else. But it sits almost to the end of the property.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Do you own the properly outright?
Mr. Margherio:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
How long have you owned it?
Mr. Margherio:
Fifteen years.
Mr. LaPine:
You said you have tried to purchase the land east of this?
Mr. Margherio:
Right.
Mr. La Pine:
Lately... the last five years?
19961
Mr. Margherio:
Last year. We had sold our property to the Twin Pines or whoever
.. the people who tried to get it changed to Office and they tried to
buy it from her in 1999. She didn't want to sell it then. I
approached her last year or sometime in the last year and a half.
She apparently wants to wait five or ten years until her husband
retires and then move up north or something. But that doesn't
really matter because the number that she was talking about
doesn't make sense for what she's got.
Mr. LaPine:
Looking at the map, it looks like there are four parcels. Does she
own all four parcels or is it one big parcel? Is this all office here?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Just this one lot. Ok. That's where I'm confused. I was misled
here.
Mr. Margherio:
Hers is three quarters of an acre.
Mr. LaPine:
Because as Mr. McCann stated, it makes no sense to leave that
one residential lot there.
Mr. Margherio:
Itwill still be residential.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that, but it would make more sense if we're going to
develop it, todevelop one big parcel.
Mr. Margherio:
Again, I would love nothing better than to be able to do that, but it's
cost prohibitive.
Mr. LaPine:
Cost prohibitive because of the price she's asking for the land?
Mr. Margherio:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
I thought you said she didn't want to sell? She will sell it at the
price.
Mr. Margherio:
She doesn't want to sell right now, period. But the number that she
was talking about when the other gentleman approached her, and
they were throwing numbers back and forth, and that was in 1999.
I'm assuming that the price hasn't gone down any.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
You say the house that's on there now is vacant?
Mr. Margherio:
Yes.
19962
Mr. Shane:
Is it usable?
Mr. Margherio:
Not at the moment, no. The sewer is bad; the plumbing is gone.
Mr.Shane:
No matter what you did, you would tear it down? Isthatcorrect?
Mr. Margherio:
Right.
Mr. Shane:
Have you thought about splitting the property in half under the
cumenlzoning?
Mr. Margherio:
Then you have just two small ... at some point, we're going to do
something. It makes more sense because if we get it to R-1, all the
properly to tie west and to the north is zoned R-1. So the bulk of
the property around it is R-1.
Mr.Shane:
Fxceplfor...
Mr. Margherio:
Except for this little sliver that's been the thorn in the side of this
whole thing, even the Iasi time. That was why the thing didn't go
through because they didn't want to leave this little sliver of
property with this house on it.
Mr. Shane:
But if you split this properly, then you would have three properties
the same and at least you could utilize it that way.
Mr. Margherio:
I dont own that other piece of properly.
Mr. Shane:
What I'm saying is, if you split it under the current zoning, then you
would have two houses on your lot, and a house on her lot. It
would make more sense. Al lead it would be three comparable
size lots together. Just food for thought. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Sir, we cannot condition zoning, but I'd like to make a comment on
some of the notes that were submitted to us by our able staff. It
indicates that you ultimately plan on developing this as a cluster
development.
Mr. Margherio:
Atthis point, I'd be open to doing anything.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Pardon?
Mr. Margherio:
Al this point, I would do anything that would work. I had gone in
and talked to Mr. Nowak. He had shown me a similar piece of
property dose by that was done this way. That was why we just
picked this as an avenue to pursue, to see if it would work. I guess
it doesn't work the way the architect drew R.
19963
Mr. Piercecchi:
Section 20.02A of our zoning ordinance lists the areas where you
have to comply with at least one of them in order to qualify for a
cluster home and, frankly, I don't see where you qualify for any of
them. I just wanted to pass that on. But we cannot condition
zoning. You would have to come in for a waiver on that anyway if
R-1 was given to you. Are you aware at that?
Mr. Margherio:
That would be fine. Like I said, I'm just looking for something. I
don't necessarily need to put cluster. We could just do regular
single family homes there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I think what was pointed out by my colleagues is it seems a little
ridiculous to leave that one lot alone. So why don't you try again?
Mr. Margherio:
I don't have the money to buy that, and it doesn't make sense to
buy it. Everybody can tell me the same thing, and I appreciate the
fad that it's going to be a sliver of land that's going to be there. But
whether we build four or five houses there or just one more house
there, its still going to be there. I'm not going to ever own bat
piece of property because it does not make any sense. If she
would sell it to me at a reasonable price, I'd gladly take it, knock
them both down and put an office building there. That would be
wonderful. That's not going to happen because she doesn't want to
move, and if she does want to move, she's going to make it
impossible for someone to buy that piece of property and do it that
way.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I understand.
Mr. Margherio:
Everybody is saying they understand that is the case, but ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, we have to look atthe best interest ofthe City.
Mr. Margherio:
Right, and I appreciate that. But if we gel five or six houses in
there, that's going to increase a lot more tax money than just
sticking one house there. Right? I mean isn't that in the best
interest of the City? And it's not going to create more traffic
because all they're going to do is come right out on the service
drive anyway.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I acknowledge that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Philip Michalski,
13930 Berwick. I am directly on the west side of the proposed
property change. I do understand the predicament that Mr.
Margherio is in, and I do understand that I just appreciate the fad
that the Commission has recognized that the plan that is proposed
19964
the way it is now, is a little bit flawed in the way it is set, with the
way the setbacks work on it. The way it's set up right now, it
wouldn't affect my property so much. The way the plan is now, I
would have an open lot or vacant lot behind me. But for my
neighbor's sake, I ask that you really consider this because to have
a building coming up within seven feet of their property really
scares me. Also, I do understand that this property could have
been zoned for commercial office space, and we fortunately didn't
do that. My main concern is my properly value. The elevation of
this particular plot of land is about four to five feet higher than all of
our lots on Berwick Street, and any new development there may
cause potential drainage problems. I would ask that if rezoning is
allowed for single family homes that the Engineering Department
very carefully study that. We do have good drainage right now.
We don't have any natural existing problems, but when man starts
working with nature, sometimes problems do occur. That is all I
really have to say. Ijust appreciate the fad that you're looking at
this long and hard. Thank you.
Craig Linder, 13918 Berwick. This is my wife, Cheryl. We live on Lot 40. We're
opposed to the cluster buildings right off because it doesn't conform
to the neighborhood the way its laid out. And as Phil said, he does
have buildings right up seven feet to our property line. And hes up
on a rise, so in our backyard they're looking right down on us.
Mr. McCann:
Okay, one thing I want to explain before we go any further.
Obviously there are numerous flaws with the plan that asks for
cluster housing and it wouldn't qualify. There's just a lot of things.
I'm almost upset that the plans are here tonight because they just
wouldn't work at this location the way he's got it laid out. It doesn't
meet City ordinance. But it is a petition to rezone from RIF to R-1.
Mr. Linder:
Wedon't have a problem with that.
Mr. McCann:
You don't have a problem?
Mr. Linder:
Single family homes with regular lot sizes and backyards ....
Mr. McCann:
If there were complying lots and complying abutting backyards,
basically, you wouldn't have a problem?
Mr. Linder:
Right. I wouldn't have a problem with that. The only thing is that I
dont see where he'd have enough room for the street and for EMS
vehicles or garbage trucks. They'd have to back their way out.
Mr. McCann:
Theoretically, he could put this street on the east end of the
properly. According to the notes, it is 190' deep. He'd have 60'
right -0f --way for a steel. He's got 320' which would be sufficient
room for five lots. And it would be normal R-1 lots.
19965
Mr. Linder:
But they would be single family homes?
Mr. McCann:
Single family homes exactly like what's in the subdivision next to it.
Probably all brick. Probably in the $250,000 price range like the
other ones we talked about.
Mr. Linder:
And like Phil said previously, we would be worried about the
drainage.
Mr. McCann:
The drainage requirements are actually much tougher now than
they used to be. We have new standards. I don't know whether
this would come under the Wayne County standards. That's
something that would have to be evaluated. But part of the
engineering is that they have to take care of all the natural water on
their property, which means that right now we find that a lot of the
fields and stuff are draining off into subdivisions. Where if a
subdivision comes in, they have to find a way of handling that water
and having a holding area possibly.
Mr. Linder:
Thanks.
Richard Deering, 31763 Scone, Lot 85. The properly in question adjoins mine.
Mine backs right up to R. It's a lovely piece of property. All
wooded. I'm opposed to it simply because when we purchased our
house 11 years ago, one of the reasons we purchased it was
because of the nice property that was there. The gentleman stated
that, using his words, he could do anything or would do anything. IF
he really wants to, he could sell the property so we could extend
our property. There's a lot of things he could do, but I oppose any
type of building on it. At the time I could have bought other homes
on that street, bigger homes, larger square foot homes. But I chose
ours simply because the property that was adjoined was wooded
like it is now, and just because it remained the way it sits. If this
house needs plumbing or work done, do the work, or build another
house on the property. Sony to say its not my problem. But that's
why I'm opposed to it. I would like it just to stay the way it is, and I
want to thank each and every one of you for allowing me to speak
on this issue. Thank you.
William Gontennan, 31670 SchoolcmR. I am the thom in the side. I am the sliver of
property. Now he may have talked to my wife at some time or
another, but he's never talked to me. I do have my name on that
mortgage loo. Back in 1999 when he came to do Office Services,
yes, I was approached. The first offer I had was for $100,000.
Everybody knows what property values are worth. I tossed him off
my porch. By the time he got to the bottom step, he was up to
$125,000. Then you guys denied him doing the Office Services
there, and he came back. I think he finally got up to $175,000 al
19966
that time in 1999, which sell, I mean I got a nice house there. I got
almost an acre of property. Especially if you want to develop
commercially, the property is worth something - especially because
I'm there, because I am that sliver of property. From what I
understand, the Master Plan or the site plan for Livonia is
continuing that office up to the Men -Lynn Farms Subdivision.
That's probably the way I think it ought to go. My neighbors may
not like Office Services there either, but eventually I think that is
what's going to happen there rather than just a few single family
homes or duplexes or whatever. But basically, we still haven't been
approached in at least a year and half about any kind of financial
arrangements here. So I think eventually, contrary to what my
neighbors behind may want, I think its probably going to be Office
Services there, and it probably should be to conform with the rest of
Schoolcreft there.
Mr. McCann: Thankyou
Brian Styles,
31775 Scone. We are Lot 86. We just bought our house back in
October. The main reason we bought that house, as opposed to
any of the other houses, was because of the wooded area in the
back. For that reason, among others, I mean without having a real
plan as a basis without any kind of real logical stepping stones,
after this first step of rezoning, it doesn't seem to me to be logical at
this step to pursue rezoning without knowing where he plans to go
with it. I guess it's an attempt without any basis, so I'd just like you
to consider that as well. Thank you for your time.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing. Sir, do
you have any last comments?
Mr. Margherio:
Again, I appreciate everybody's concerns, and I would not have
brought this plan had I known it was nonconforming. I thought it
was. I made specific instructions to the person who drew it up to
make it work. If we could just gel it changed to the single family
homes, I'd be thrilled with that. I don't need to haw it specifically
like this. It doesn't benefit me in any way. I could sell single family
lots a lot easier than I'm going to be able to sell this kind of stuff
anyway. As far as the woods, even if I just split it in half, which I
could easily do, and build one more house, the woods have to go.
That's a fact. You can't build back there without getting rid of the
woods. I apologize again for this plan. I didn't realize it was how it
was, but I still think that this land could be used as R1 and be
beneficial to City.
Mr. Alanskas:
Have you been in contact with the Planning Department with
regards to your proposal for this duster housing? Were you told at
that time that you did not qualify for cluster housing?
19967
Mr. Margherio: We had talked about it When we talked about @, I guess we both
thought it ...
Mr. Alanskas: Complied with our ordinance?
Mr. Margherio: Right. Well, I wouldn't have done it this way. It cost me a $1,000 to
have this done. I wouldn't have wasted my money, you know.
Mr. Alanskas: But what you're telling us is if it was still changed from RUF to R-1,
you would have no problem with putting in single family homes
there?
Mr. Margherio: That would be fine. That would be wonderful
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Mark, looking at that and just by reading the notes, 320' in depth
and 190' of frontage, is there sufficient room to do anything with
that? Maybe an easterly drive? It would have to be conforming.
Mr. Taormina: ToR-1?
Mr. McCann: ToR-1
Mr. Taormina: For R-1, it would have to be a single loaded street. You simply
cannot have homes on both sides of a new road extending onto the
property even with a 50' wide right-of-way.
Mr. McCann: But it seems like it would create eventually for the property on the
east... the gentleman seems to think he wants to sell and develop
on this someday. It would look like that would be the back end load
of the homes, wouldn't it?
Mr. Taormina: If in the future the parcel to the east were acquired and then made
part of this development, then yes, you could probably do a mirror
image of the development on the east side, as you could on the
west side, in order to develop a conforming R-1 project. It would be
very similar to the plan we just viewed in that I dont believe a full
cul-de-sac could be developed on this property, so it would
probably have to terminate in a T -turnaround.
Mr. McCann: You couldn'tget a full cul-de-sac?
Mr. Taormina: Not without having quite a bit of impact on the density of the parcel.
Mr. Shane: How wide is the property?
Mr. Taormina: Altogether, it would be about 300' if you included the parcel to the
east.
f@FIY7
Mr. Shane:
If this property were developed separately and you put a road along
the east side, and someday if somebody wanted to add the easterly
parcel to it, then the depth would be pretty short. Do you know
what I'm saying?
Mr. Taormina:
You would actually have to make some type of convertible area
along the east side so that it could be incorporated into the
development of the parcel to the east.
Mr.Shane:
That would have to have some forethought to it.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
It's probably not going to work that way. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas:
Being that we have so much R-1 around that area, I think the
proper thing to do would be to table this to see if the petitioner can
get with the homeowner and see if he can purchase that property. I
think to just deny this completely would be a disservice to the City
and to the petitioner because we tried OS there, and that was
denied. What else is left but possibly single family homes? So I
would ask fora tabling resolution to a dale to be determined.
Mr. McCann:
Is there support?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It never hurts to take another look at it, Mr. Chairman. will support
Mr. Alanskas.
On a motion
by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Pieroecchi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#01-02-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition
2002-12-01-18, submitted by Michael Margherio, on behalf of
Alymina Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on
the north side of SchoolcraR Road between Berwick Avenue and
Merriman Road in the Southeast %of Section 22 from RUF to 1-1,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition
2002-12-01-18 be tabled until the Regular Meeting of February 25,
2003.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann:
We have 90 days to gel this to Council from the time of filing, but
we're trying to help you out here. Do you have an objection to
continuing it oulfor aboul30 days from today?
19969
Mr. Margherio:
What are you going to want from me?
Mr. McCann:
We want you to take a look with the neighbor to see if you can
discuss possible arrangements and look at coming back with the
proposal to give us an idea whether or not single family residential
would work in this area as we discussed and what that impact
would have on the adjoining neighbors. We don't want to just
merely change the zoning unless we feel that the change will work
in the area.
Mr. Margherio:
Okay. So do you want me to gel a new plan?
Mr. McCann:
Yes. You'll work with the staff on that one.
Mr. Margherio:
All right.
Mr. La Pine:
If you gel with our planner, Mark Taormina, he can work with you
and give you some ideas as to what will work there. The ideal thing
is maybe you and your neighbor ... if you can't buy him out, maybe
you can be joint partners in a subdivision there. Who knows?
There are always possibilities if you're talking. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Our next regular meeting is February 25 but we will need the plan
at least two weeks before that so that we can review them at the
study meeting.
Mr. Gonterman:
One thing. This gentleman said that Office Services was denied for
that property. It was denied without my property. They didn't say
you couldn't never do Office Services there.
Mr. Alanskas:
I didn't say that.
Mr. Gonterman:
Okay. But Ijust wanted to be dear. R-1 is not the only option left.
Mr. Alanskas:
The previous petition was denied for OS.
Mr. Gonterman:
Right, because they didn't have my property. They didn't want to
have OS and then rural. OS can still go there.
Mr. Afanskas:
I didn't say that sir. We're not hereto debate you.
Mr. McCann:
Is February 25 agreeable with the maker of the motion and the rest
of the Commission? Fine.
19970
k1�i4Fi$=9� IY Ile] 7 W111YA5UDYbA� lel:]�N[o]:/ Y90i�77�
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
10-02-20, submitted by Robert Okerstrom requesting waiver use
approval to use a portion of the property for outdoor storage of
trucks, in connection with a truck rental business located at 13520
Merriman Road located on the east side of Merriman Road
between Industrial and Schodcraft Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 26.
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, December 18, 2002, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed
the above -referenced petition. The following approximate legal
description should be used in connection with this petition. The
Engineering Division has the following objections to the proposal at
this time: (1) Local Ordinance requires all parking areas to be hard
surfaced (concrete or asphalt). (2) All parking spaces should be a
minimum of 10 feet wide and double striping should be required for
the spaces. (3) Storm water calculations along with a storm line
utility plan should be submitted to the Engineering Division to
assure there is adequate storm water capacity to handle the
additional 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 December 4, 2002, which reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to use the westem portion of the property
for outdoor storage of trucks on the property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with
the following stipulations. (1) Establish and maintain a fire lane
from Merriman Road to the portion of the property in question. (2)
Provide fire hydrants so that all areas of the property in question
are within 300' of a hydrant. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1000
g.p.m. with a residual pressure of 20 p.s.i. (3) Provide clear area
sufficient for emergency equipment to tum around." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from
the Division of Police, dated December 12, 2002, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans requesting waiver use
approval to use a portion of the property for outdoor storage of
trucks. There is no indication on the site plan as to the type of
lighting being proposed for the parking area. His important that the
parking area is property illuminated to discourage criminal activity.
19971
We recommend that a 10' to 20' wide area along the east side of
the fence line be kept clear for crime prevention purposes." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 3,
2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
November 26, 2003, the above-refemnced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site has several
unresolved, uncompleted issues: (a) Barbed wire fence along north
property line has not been removed as per Resolution (#5 CR 513-
01). (b) Disabled vehicles, scrap and materials have not been
removed per Resolution (#6, CR 513-01). (c) Stored vehicles and
equipment have not been limited to recreational equipment as per
Resolution (#7 CR 513-01) and in fact other vehicles/equipment
outnumber recreational equipment approximately 2 to 1. (d) The
paving of the entire lot must be completed by August 13, 2003. (e)
There appears to be a waste transfer station in operation, which is
strictly prohibited in this zoning. (2) The plan submitted is not as
detailed as it should be. No mention is made of the open
dumpsters on site or the open trash pile (waste trensfet). (3)
Please see pictures provided for a more detailed view of this site
and the existing issues, yet unresolved by the Petitioner. (4) We
would recommend the Petitioner come into compliance and
complete their previous obligations. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert Okerstrom, 13520 Merriman Road.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you liked to tell us about the petition
before us this evening, or would you like to address the letter from
the Inspectors?
Mr. Okerstrom: As far as I know, the only problem they had was removing the
barbed wire, which was done on January 9. And the five tmcks that
were parked where they shouldn't have been parked, have been
lettered and will be off the premises. As far as this other stuff, I'm
not aware of.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Could you give me a little guidance in regards to the rental of these
trucks and trailers? If someone rents something, can they bring it
back at any hour of the evening to drop it off?
Mr. Okerstrom: We do long distance rentals. We have a drop off box and a holding
area where they can drop the vehicle off. Light duty trucks, by the
19972
way, or trailers. They can park in it in the holding area until the next
morning when we have to inspect them and then we release their
credit card if there's no damage.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is that holding area behind your fence or in front of the fence?
Mr. Okerstrom:
The holding area is behind the office building. Its a 40' x 50'
parking area.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the fence open all evening for people to drive in there?
Mr. Okerstrom:
Just portions of it. We have a lock gated area, which our
equipment and these trucks, once they've been inspected, are
taken to and nobody is allowed in there. We have camems,
lighting. It looks like Briggs Stadium when it's dark out.
Mr. Alanskas:
What I'm saying is, if somebody wants to drop it off and they can't
get in there, where would they put it?
Mr. Okerstrom:
They put it in a holding area. Its a 40' x 50' parking area. They put
their keys in the lock box. We check the truck out in the morning
and release their credit card that next morning if there isn't any
damage to the vehicle. We have our mechanic go over the
mechanicals of it. If there's no damage whatsoever, then we
release their credit card.
Mr. Alanskas:
What would you say your average of renting vehicles or bringing
them back from a long haul would be per day, roughly?
Mr. Okerstrom:
We never have a vehicle in the yard more than twodays, probably.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to the leasing or renting, do you do 10 a day, 15 a day,
20 a day?
Mr. Okerstrom:
I really don't know that answer.
Mr. Alanskas:
You dont know that?
Mr. Okerstrom:
I'm not involved in the day-to-day activities.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, haw much land back there do you have that you're going to
have redeveloped? Sooner or later you'll be coming to the
Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council.
Mr. Okerstrom:
Three acres.
Mr. Piercecchi:
How much?
19973
Mr. Okerstrom:
Three.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Three acres?
Mr. Okerstrom:
Three acres.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Three acres. Have you any immediate plans for this development?
Mr. Okerstrom:
Yes, probably next month. You'll probably be seeing me next
month.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Next month. That's what I was wondering. I had heard that you
had plans to do additional development there. Wouldn't it be
prudent to table this petition, and then have you prepare and submit
plans for the development of the remainder of the property? In the
process, you can address and reconcile the Inspection reports.
Wouldn't it be better if we did it that way? Do the whole package
instead of coming back again and again? You were just here, what,
Iastyear?
Mr. Okersttom:
It seems like I've been here most of the time.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes, but wouldn't it be more prudent to do it all in one?
Mr. Okerstrom:
No, one doesn't have anything to do with the other. What you're
talking about is if the economy picks up. We're talking about
millions of dollars here. We're not talking about nickels and dimes.
If the economy picks up, then I will develop the back three acres. I
will use Industrial Road as an entrance. I will fence it. And I'm
going to come back here and ask for RV parking because the
citizens of Livonia don't have any place to put their recreation
vehicles. That would enhance them. Probably open up about four
acres for just RV parking, and I will separate that from the
construction that we do totally.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Whether it's developed immediately or not, you could have the
plans submitted and get approved or denied and modified, and then
add an appropriate date when you're ready to do it, instead of
coming back and forth.
Mr. Okerstrom:
I don't mind.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It may be better for you to do it in one package too.
Mr. Okerstrom:
This is not a cakewalk here.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Pardon.
19974
Mr. Okerstrom:
This is not a cakewalk. I've got to come in here and plead my case.
It may go and it may not. You can't tell me that you're going to give
me permission to do that. Can you?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
We haven't seen a whole plan.
Mr. Okerstrom:
I understand that, but that costs money also.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
twould give us a reason to reconcile some of the problems.
Mr. Okerstrom:
What problems do we have here?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
In this report here.
Mr. Okerstrom:
That report is not up-to-date because we have nine storm sewers.
We have a 40' driveway. What else do you need? Fire protection?
We have a hydrant in front of the office. What more do you need?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
All I'm suggesting is let's do the whole area, rather than piecemeal.
You must have some idea what you want to have done.
Mr. Okerstrom:
I have a lot of ideas.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Get all the ducks in a row and go when you have the funds to do 9.
Mr. Okerstrom:
I would like somebody to come in with a check, and I'd be out of
here. That's what I'd like. You know? Sell the whole nine yards
but that's not going to happen either. I plan on developing. I don't
have a date. I'm going to put something together, and I'm going to
come here and see what you people think. If you don't like that
plan, then we'll go back to the drawing board. I'm not confusing the
two items together.
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you explain to us about the waste transfer station?
Mr. Okerstrom:
I don't know where that came from. We've been there since 1952.
We've been doing this ongoing. A waste transfer station? I don't
know what that's all about, but we're in the construction business.
We do a tremendous amount for the City alone. We have to do
something with the debris, so we bring it back to our yard. I made
concrete container areas to hold the stuff while we load it and ship
it out to have it recyded. Now that's helping the environment also.
We can't afford to take the stuff from the job sites to the landfills,
have them throw it in a hole, and charge us an extraordinary
amount. It's just not affordable. I don't know what you know about
the construction business, but there's not that much profit in the
bottom line.
19975
Mr.
McCann:
Do you lake waste from other contractors loo? Do you have a
contract where "Joe' roofer comes over and says, "Hey, Mr.
Okerstrom, can you dump this?"
Mr.
Okerstrom:
Not unless he works for us.
Mr.
McCann:
Only your contractors?
Mr.
Okersimm:
If he works for us and he has an agreement with us, if he uses his
vehicles, which some of them do, I don't like that because I like to
have nice clean stuff in my areas. We do that, yes.
Mr.
McCann:
Okay.
Mr.
LaPine:
Are you on the site everyday?
Mr.
Okerstrom:
The properties?
Mr.
LaPine:
Yes.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
I'm on the properties, yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
How often do you go back there? I mean I look a drive back there
and to me twas the junkiest place I've ever been in my life.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
Oh, really?
Mr.
LaPine:
Yeah. I mean I'm being honest with you. You're coming in here, I
think, with a chip on your shoulder that we're picking on you. We're
not picking on you.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
No chip.
Mr.
LaPine:
We asked you to do certain things back here in the Council
Resolutions and none of those things have been done. Are you
planning on going ahead and doing the hard paving?
Mr.
Okerstrom:
That was okayed when I was here the first time.
Mr.
LaPine:
Are you going to be doing it? Is it going to be done by August of
this year?
Mr.
Okerstrom:
Hard paving what? Five acres? I doubt it.
Mr.
LaPine:
It says paving the entire lot, must be completed by August 13,
2003.
Mr.
Okersimm:
Our lots are concrete. They're 24 inches thick. What are you
talking about?
19976
Mr. LaPine:
I dont know.
Mr. Okerstrom:
Well, then, what are you telling me?
Mr. LaPine:
You must have got a notice from the City.
Mr. Okerstrom:
I was okayed to have RV parking on 24 inches of hard based, one
inch to three inch. It was okayed.
Mr. McCann:
It was okayed for two years.
Mr. LaPine:
For two years.
Mr. Okerstrom:
If it's affordable. Five acres, at the prices they charge, its not
affordable.
Mr. La Pine:
So you're not going to do it?
Mr. Okerstrom:
I didn't say that. I said it's not affordable. When it becomes
affordable ...
Mr. LaPine:
Al that point, you would have to cease parking the vehicles there
because that was our intention that we let you have it for two years,
but by the end of two years, you had to do it. Secondly, it looks like
there are storage bins that you rent, that people can take out to the
site. They load their dumpster in there, and they bring them back,
and they're stacked on the right hand side as you go out. They
were loaded with all kinds ofjunk in there.
Mr. Okerstrom:
If we put a dump truck at every job, we'd have to have 100 dump
trucks. At $40,000 a piece, that's prefty sizeable. We use trailers
to put our debris in and come and dump them in our yard. We
store the trailers on ourjob site.
Mr. LaPine:
These trailers were loaded with debris.
Mr. Okerstrom:
They hadn't dumped yet.
Mr. La Pine:
They weren't on a body. There were just...
Mr. Okerstrom:
Just sitting there.
Mr. La Pine:
How long do they sit there?
Mr. Okerstrom:
No more than a day. We don't own the container company. We're
at their mercy. If they cant pick up the debris, I dont want it on the
ground. We'll hold it in a container until we have ample containers
to load it into and gel it out of there.
19977
Mr.
La Pine:
What do you have in the back there? Is that swimming pool...
Mr.
Okerstrom:
I've teetered in that business. Yes.
Mr.
La Pine:
Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.
McCann:
Mr. Taormina, you had a comment?
Mr.
Taormina:
No, I think the point was danced in terms of paving.
Mr.
Shane:
It seems to me, sir, that you have some issues to work out with the
Inspection Department. It seems that you're not in agreement with
all the issues that they've written down here. One thing I think you
should you is to visit them and see if you can come to an
understanding with them about some of these items that haven't
been done.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
The Inspection Department?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
Are you talking aboutthe Violation Department?
Mr.
Shane:
The letter that was read from the Inspection Department. It listed a
number of items which you alluded to ... the barbed wire. You
said you did.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
That's done.
Mr.
Shane:
It said something about the trucks that were there.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
Theyve been notified and theyre off the premises.
Mr.
Shane:
There's three or four or five other items which you haven't talked
about.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
Tell me. I dont know what they are.
Mr.
Shane:
Okay. You talked about the waste transfer.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
It's in our business. It's not a waste transfer station. It's part of our
business, ongoing for 45 years.
Mr.
Shane:
You need to talk to the Inspection Department so they understand
whatever it is.
Mr.
Okerstrom:
They knowwhalilis. I dont knowwhytheywrote that in there.
19978
Mr. Shane:
There's some stored vehicles. There's some disabled vehicles.
Mr. Okerstrom:
Those people are gone. They need to be out of there.
Mr. Shane:
So it appears that the paving of the lot and the transfer station ....
if you can work those two out. It sounds like you're ...
Mr. Okerstrom:
What do you want me to do? We've been doing this for 45 years.
What do you want me to do with this? Its not a transfer station; its
where we do our business.
Mr. Shane:
Well, then, I think you need to explain to the Inspection Department
what it is. If it's not a transfer station, fine. They think it is.
Mr. Okerstrom:
Why would I have to explain that to them after 45 years? I don't
understand this.
Mr. Shane:
I have a letter from them that advises me that there's one on the
site. If there isn't, fine. Unless they tell me that theyve worked that
out with you and they convince me that the item isn't an issue any
more ...
Mr. Okerstrom:
I didn't think t was.
Mr. Shane:
Maybe t isn't.
Mr. Okerstrom:
I didn't think t was.
Mr. Shane:
We send all these petitions to the various departments. They come
back with ...
Mr. Okerstrom:
That's the first I've heard ofthis.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. Well, that's fine, but my problem is, I don't want to act on
this unfit I know that all these issues have been taken care of. And
if they have, fine. The next time we meet, then we can act on it.
Mr. Okerstrom:
The only issue I might have a problem with is the black topping of
that large area, which is very expensive. The last four years have
been devastating, and it just doesn't seem practical for us to do
that.
Mr. Shane:
Well, there is a method by which you can possibly alter that council
resolution by asking them to make a change in that. I have a
feeling that's a pretty legitimate thing you're talking about. That five
acres is a lot of area to pave.
Mr. Okerstrom:
Yes.
19979
Mr. Shane:
There are other ways you can do it and still achieve the same thing,
possibly.
Mr. Okerstrom:
That's why I put the limestone in like I did.
Mr. Walsh:
Just for the petitioners benefit: When we came in here, I was
going to suggest a resolution that would approve this subject to the
conditions of the various letters that were written. But I have to
agree with Mr. Shane. What I'm hearing is that you have some
fundamental disagreements with the items that were staled in those
letters. Until those disagreements are settled with you and the
Inspection Department, we can't help you tonight. There's no one
here from the Inspection Department. They can clear that out. I
think what might be best for you is if we table this item and allow
you the opportunity to work with the Inspection Department. Then
we can have the information that we find necessary upon which to
vole. At that point, you might go to them and say, "I don't have a
transfer station. This is part of my business." Maybe that comes
right out of their letter.
Mr. Okerstrom:
Pardon me.
Mr. Walsh:
That might come right out of their letter - the transfer station
objection.
Mr. Okerstrom:
This is the first I've heard of this.
Mr. Walsh:
But we can't effectuate that change tonight. So I am going to offer
a tabling resolution.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Walsh, can we go to the audience and finish the public hear
section first, then I'll give you the opportunity to make a motion. But
I'd rather accomplish that so we can at least get the audience
communication if there is any out there tonight.
Mr. Walsh:
Of course.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing.
A motion is in order, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chair, for the reasons staled, I'm going to offer the tabling
resolution.
Mr. McCann:
Do you have a proposed date? The meeting schedule is in the
back. The next hearing is a Regular Meeting, I believe, on January
28. Mr. Taormina?
Ii44ii0
Mr. Taormina: I don't know if there's any sense of urgency here. There's no cease
and desist order presently. Is that correct?
Mr. Okerstrom: Pardon me?
Mr. Taormina: There's no cease and desist order? You can continue to operate
the U -Haul business. Seeing that Mr. Okerstrom will be applying in
the very near future to include an expansion of the RV storage lot,
then I think we should table this indefinitely. When he makes that
application, we can bring the two together. It would have to be filed
as a separate application because it falls under a separate section
of our zoning ordinance. It would have to go out for notification just
as this one did. But at least we can bring the two together.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Walsh, are you in agreement with that?
Mr. Walsh:
This permits him to continue his operations. That's fine.
On a motion by
Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, it was
#01-03-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition
2002-10-02-20, submitted by Robert Okerstrom requesting waiver
use approval to use a portion of the property for outdoor storage of
trucks, in connection with a truck rental business located at 13520
Merriman Road on the east side of Merriman Road between
Industrial and SchoolcmR Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition
2002-10-02-20 be tabled indefinitely.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
For clarification, Mr. Chairman, this is tabled for an indefinite time
until we get the balance of the property also submitted, as I
suggested sometime ago?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, Mr. Piercecchi, just as you suggested.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Does everybody understand that? Okay. What was this date
tabled lo?
Mr. McCann:
Uncertain.
A roll call vole on
the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walsh, Shane, Smiley, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYES: Alanskas, LaPine,
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
19981
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Mr. Okerstrom, if you can work with the Inspection
Department to clear up those issues that remain, we'll look forward
to seeing you.
Mr. Okerstrom: Let me ask you one question before I leave.
Mr. Taormina: One last thing to address some of the concems that might be
lingering in the Commissioners minds, and that is, if we don't hear
from the petitioner after a couple months, we will just place this
back on the agenda for action and notify Mr. Okerstrom of that.
Mr. McCann: Within 60 days I'd like it placed back on.
Mr. Okerstrom: One other question before I leave: If I do decide to develop this last
23/4 acres, are they going to require a black lop surface?
Mr. McCann: That's up to the Building Department and the City inspectors and
the Planning Department, not me. We'd have to take a look at it
and see what you're doing. All right?
Mr. Okerstrom: Absolutely. Thankyou.
ITEM #4 PETITION 200241-02-22 COSTCO GAS STATION
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
11-02-22, submitted by Costco Wholesale Corporation requesting
waiver use approval to construct a fueling facility on a portion of the
Costco Warehouse property located on the east side of Middlebelt
Road between Schoolcmft and Industrial Roads in the Northwest
114 of Section 25.
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 December 18, 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 legal description contained therein. 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 December 18,
19982
2002, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a fueling
facility on property located at the above -referenced address. We
have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations:
(1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a
maximum spacing of 300' between hydrants. Most remote hydrant
shall Flow 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2)
Access around structure shall be provided for emergency vehicles
with turning radius up to 45' wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical
clearance of 13-X'." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran,
Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
December 12, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed
the plans in regards to the proposal to construct a fueling facility on
the Costco warehouse property on Middlebelt Road. We have no
objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from
the Inspection Department, dated December 6, 2002, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November 13, 2002, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) The controller enclosure accessory building needs to be
relocated inside the required setback line of 75' from Middlebelt.
(2) There is a broken fire hydrant at the southeast corner of the
building. (3) There are several areas of the lot that need repair and
resealing which has not been completed. The largest area is in the
northwest corner, which should be accomplished when the building
is demolished and new paving put down with double striping. (4)
Although the parking non -conformity has been reduced with this
plan, it is deficient six accessible parking spaces. These must be
located on the west side of the building closest to the front entry.
The size must bean 8' space adjacent to a marked 5' aisle. Two
spaces may share one aisle. A total of three van accessible
spaces are required for this site (8' space with 8' aisle). All spaces
must be individually signed. (5) The pavement should be marked
with a blue access aisle from the accessible spaces on the north of
the building to the front entrance. (6) There are also two accessible
signs in the center of the lot that must be removed. (7) The plan
does not seem to present an accurate description of the main entry
to the southwest comer. This should be verified and re -submitted if
necessary. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Theodore Johnson, RJ Design Strategies, Ltd., 2311 W. 22n° Street, Suite 208, Oak
Brook, Illinois. I'm the authorized agent for Costco Wholesale.
Mr. McCann: Would you like to tell us more aboutlhe project?
19983
Mr. Johnson:
I believe Mark did an excellent job explaining our petition for the
Commission. With this site plan, I just want to walk you through
what we intend to do. The Costco facility is located here at the top
of the drawer. North would be to your Teff. SchoolcreR Road is
over on the left side. Middlebell is at the bottom of the exhibit.
There exists a restaurant on this portion of the site. Costco has a
contract to purchase that restaurant. What we intend to do is take
the restaurant down and park that area. What we would also like to
do on the southwest portion of tie site is put the fueling facility. As
Mark has mentioned, its gasoline only. Its a 12 -pump, three island
facility. Two grades of gasoline are available to our members. It's
a cashless transaction. In order to activate the pump, the Costco
member uses his Costco card and then pays by either Costco cash
or by American Express. We're not adding any additional curb cuts
to our site. We are using the existing access points that are
available to us. Our fueling facility is different than most gas
stations, if you will. We have a one-way operation. So the member
would enter from this portion of the site to the fueling facility. This
area to the east of the canopy is our stacking area. And then once
they fuel their cars with the product, then they exit into the parking
field. We find that approximately 70 percent of the members using
the fueling facility proceed to park in the lot and shop at the
warehouse. As far as the architecture of the buildings of the
proposal, we have two structures. One is the canopy that is holding
the gas pumps and, as Mark explained, we meet the height
requirements of your ordinance. The columns will be masonry. If
you're familiar with the warehouse at that location, there are various
architectural elements on the side of the building. We've taken the
masonry units, the bricks, from those architectural elements and
have incorporated them, not only in the canopy, but we do have
that small controller enclosure, and we have wrapped that with the
same masonry.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So you use block on the bottom and brick on the lop?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes. What we're proposing here is the larger, the six inch split face
masonry unit. That again is very similar. Its the exact unit that's
used on the warehouse. That's the light gray color. And then the
darker color on this exhibit is your utility brick, yourfour-inch brick.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The lights will be up into the canopy, and there will be light across
the lop?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes. I dont have that exhibit with me, but in your packet you'll see
that we provided a section and a photometric that indicated the
lights will be recessed in the canopy. The canopy will have a
ceiling, if you will. If you're viewing from the pumping island area,
you will not see the structural fists. So you do have that ceiling
that we talked about.
I
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm aware of that. The reason why I asked those questions is so
the people that are tuned into us know that they are getting a dass
operation.
Mr. Johnson:
The only other thing that Mark may have missed is our hours of
operation. We are not a 24-hour operation. During the week, its
6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. It is open slightly before the warehouse
opens and one hour after the warehouse closes. On weekends,
6:00 a.m. to 7:00 or 7:30 p.m. It depends on the market we are in.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Does Costco ever close down for an entire day?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes. They dose down for four or five holidays.
Mr. Piercecchi:
And the station will be closed on those days?
Mr. Johnson:
Yes, when the warehouse is closed, the station will be closed.
Mr. LaPine:
Because we just got these plans, can you give us a run down on
the landscape and the screening?
Mr. Johnson:
Okay. The landscaping, and on this drawing it would be within the
green areas, on the south end of the fueling facility, there exists
quite a few existing five, six and seven foot evergreens. We've
shown those on our drawings, and in some locations, we have
supplemented the landscaping in that area. To the west of the
canopy in this green area where the controller enclosure is, we
have put a mixture of evergreens, shrubs and trees to provide
seasonal interest, but also mainly to provide a screen of
approximately 36 to 42 inches from the grade so that any passing
traffic on Middlebell, a view from a vehide, that view would be
blocked by the screening so you wouldn't see any of the cars
pumping at the station or queuing at the station. We've also
provided the same type of screening to the north of the canopy
between this exit point and this area where the underground tanks
are. And then right adjacent to the Middlebelt rightotway, we've
supplemented that landscaping with evergreens and shrubs also.
Mr. LaPine:
We've discussed the possibility of additional landscaping on the
Schoolcraft/Middlebelt comer after the restaurant is demolished.
Mr. Johnson:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
The last time we discussed it, you and Mark were going to gel
together. Are we going to get some additional landscaping? In my
opinion, we need some additional landscaping.
IE�r•>
Mr. Johnson:
We will agree to put additional landscaping there. Because of the
timeframe between last Tuesday and tonight, Mark and I have not
had the opportunity to discuss this. I'm not sure if he had the
opportunity to go out and look at the site, but it's something that I
will work with staff on.
Mr. LaPine:
I think we need a Iitlle more there now that the restaurant is gone
and that's going to be an all-parking area. It will help screen the
parking lot. You gel a lot of traffic there turning right going onto the
expressway.
Mr. Johnson:
Yes. One of the items we're doing when we remove the building ...
I notice though that we have some landscape islands to end the
parking. Those islands will be landscaped.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, one other issue: we know we dont have a free-standing price
sign here. I
just don't want to get you into a position here. Out at
the one you
have in Auburn Hills, they did have a price sign, but it
was a small sandwich-type sign. It looks like they have the price of
the day up there and then at night they fold it up and take it into the
shanty. I have no objection to that because it tells the person
driving up what the price of gasoline is that day. I just dont want a
big free-standing sign here.
Mr. Johnson:
Al the fueling facilities that I've gotten approved and that I frequent
in Illinois, those signs are located within
the canopy, within the
warehouse itself. That's where the member.. .
Mr. LaPine:
All right. I just thought it was a good idea. Because somebody
driving up will want to know how much they're paying for the
gasoline. They really don't know until they get out of their car and
get to the pump. This way it was there. I thought it was very
convenient, but I'm not saying that you have to put it up there. I just
wanted to know if you want to have it there. We should know now
upfront. That's all I have, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just two things. What fuel brand do you purchase for Costco
customers? Is it Shell, Sunoco or is it various brands that you put
in there depending on what the market pricing is?
Mr. Johnson:
It basically depends on the area. We basically buy the same fuel
thatthe major oil companies dofrom the same fuel terminals.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Also, if someone pulls up and wants gas and they need oil in
their car, they cannot purchase a quart of oil when they are gassing
up?
Mr. Johnson:
That's correct.
I
Mr. Alanskas:
Or no windshield washer fluid?
Mr. Johnson:
No windshield washerfluid.
Mr. Alanskas:
StricHy a fueling station?
Mr. Johnson:
No water, no air. Just two grades of fuel.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Edward Weglarz, 34665 Grove. I'm a 30 year resident of tie City of Livonia. I am
here to speak against the approval of this petition. Livonia doesn't
need any more gasoline stations. There's 22 gasoline retailers
within a two mile drive of this site. Nineteen of them are operated
by small, independent businessmen, businessmen who serve the
public; sponsor kids' hockey, softball and volleyball; buy ads in the
school programs; promote car washes for various school groups;
and pump fuel at self -serve prices for our handicap citizens.
Costco mentioned in their promotional magazine, that for speed
and convenience, they do not offer windshield squeegees,
windshield towels, restrooms, air or fueling for the handicap. Traffic
at this site is congested. Adding a gasoline retailer to the traffic mix
will worsen the problem. There was a gasoline retailer across the
street, if you recall, in the southwest quadrant of that intersection. I
think when Handy Andy had the building supply store there, there
was a fueling facility. That has since gone defunct, probably
because there's so much traffic at that intersection, that it really
isn't very convenient to get off and try to get back in. If you approve
one operation like this, you're going to feel obliged to approve
Meijers and then Wal -Marl across the street, I'm sure, and have
not much of a leg to stand on to deny those folks. Motorists don't
buy more fuel because it's more readily available, nor because its
cheaper. They merely change where they re -fuel. More retailers
will drive the small independent businessman out of business.
Then Livonia will be left with vacant comers and a lesser tax base.
How many service stations converted to cell phone stores can one
community support? Livonia also doesn't need any more
underground storage tanks to potentially contaminate the soil. We
have enough. This is definitely a David and Goliath tussle. Its a
small local retailer versus the giant out-of-town corporation. I
submit that the negatives to this community far outweigh the
positives. And as a Planning Commission, I ask you to please plan
to support the local businessman. Please plan not to increase
traffic congestion at the comer. Please plan to keep small business
viable. I therefore request that you respectfully reject the Costco
petition. Thank you.
19987
Bill Schmidt, 29688 Maclntyre. I have my visual aids here. I have one question
about the overall plan for the Millennium Center. Currently there
are stores on the perimeter. Are you going to plan on filling in on
the out ots?
Mr. McCann:
Excuse me. You need to address your questions to the
Commission. Right now, this actually isn't part of the Millennium
Center. Its a separate parcel. But the oullots, the green spaces
that you saw on the plans, were designated as restaurants or as
outlots, as you say.
Mr. Schmidt:
So gaining access to the Millennium Center would be good for
those potential businesses? Is that correct?
Mr. McCann:
I'm not sure what you mean. Access from where?
Mr. Schmidt:
What I'm concerned with is the access to Middlebelt Road. On this
map that I have here, we have north at the top of the map. As we
plan on putting in a gas station here for Costco and one here for
Meijer's Thrifty Acres, what we'll have is further congestion on one
of the busiest thoroughfares in Livonia. Currently, the line of traffic
that tries to get onto Schoolcraft Road is horrendous. When you
combine a gas price war with long gas lines, what we have to gel
into the Millennium Center are two lanes of traffic. That's it. Once
Meijer fills up, these cars will back out onto Middlebelt Road. Mr.
LaPine, you disagree?
Mr. LaPine:
How are they going to back out? They have to go back out to the
main road.
Mr. Schmidt:
Well,no. It will backup the traffic further onto Middlebelt Road.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
Well, the slacking issue will be addressed later by the Meijer's
people, and they have addressed that by moving the thing back 40
feel, or at least they are proposing to do that.
Mr. LaPine:
He's talking about Costco.
Mr. McCann:
No, he's talking about Meijers aphis point.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, but I'm saying, we're on the Costco case. Let's just talk about
Costco.
Mr. McCann:
Well, I think the traffic pattern is his problem.
Mr. Schmidt:
We can't really consider Costco without considering both because
they'll be 60 feel apart from each other. And the gas price wars
IPFlil
and the gas lines that caused a lot of acfivity up in Auburn Hills, will
be visited right at the mouth of Middlebelt Road and the Millennium
shopping center. You have a left turn lane that is terribly congested
that tries to get into the Middlebelt complex. This right turn lane,
the folks back up, currently, just to be able to get onto the service
drive to gel out to the street. What we have is a bubbling cauldron
of sheet petal that will cause a lot of additional traffic delays that
will add to the current problem. I'd like to respectfully request the
Commission this evening to deny the request, the current request
as it stands for Meijer and for Costco, simply because the current
Iocafions, as they are proposed, will dramafically impar the egress
of the Millennium shopping center. If the design of the Millennium
shopping center is to have these oufiots filled up, what would a
potenfial retailer think when they come to see that lot? What they
have is a rat's nest of a gas price war every morning and every
evening. You think another retailer is going to want to pull into that
and say, 'Yeah, I want to drop down $7 million to build my
restaurant here'? That's not going to happen. So the end result by
causing a mess here will never develop the full potential of the
Millennium complex. Now there are other areas in the Millennium
complex that could facilitate both Meijer and our good friends from
Texas and avoid this Middlebelt Road entrance. This is the only
way to gel in here. And when this gets snarled up and its already
snared up now, and if anybody was out there ... was anybody out
there at Christmas?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, lovas.
Mr. LaPine:
I was.
Mr. Schmidt:
Was it hard to get in?
Mr. Alanskas:
No.
Mr. La Pine:
No, it wasn't.
Mr. Schmidt:
You were lucky.
Mr. Alanskas:
I go there three or four days a week. I have no problems.
Mr. Schmidt:
Good. Let's try and keep it that way.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one point. You talk about a price
war, and I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't
think we have that situation here because in Coslco's case, you
cannot purchase gas here unless you're a member of Costco.
Meijer's is a little different operation. Anybody can drive there and
buy gas. But Costco, as the gentleman staled to us, 70 percent of
the people who go to Costco to buy merchandise will buy their
gasoline there. The other 30 percent are people who may be from
out of town that have Costco cards. So if they get into a pace war,
no matter what the pace war is, the only people who can buy the
gas from Costco is the people with the Costco cards.
Mr. Schmidt:
And if I could pull it out of my pocket, I'd show you my Costco card
right here.
Mr. La Pine:
Right.
Mr. Schmidt:
I have used Costco. I have used the filling station out on Grabol
Road and Groesbeck, as well as the one in Auburn Hills. They are
nice facilities. The Meijer facility out in Auburn Hills is nice. Now
there's no way I can really say I can look into the future. No one
can really do that unless we look into the past. And the past is
evident. Its crystal clear. All we have to do is call the police
officers up in Auburn Hills and ask them about be long lines of
vehicles. Ask Meijer about the private security people that they had
lo...
Mr. McCann:
Sir, I've given you five minutes. We asked allhe beginning fortwo
minutes. If you'd like to wrap it up though ....
Mr. Schmidt:
There are some great opportunities in this Millennium Center. The
twin locations of Costco and Meijer ain't it. We can move them
deeper into the Millennium Center, thereby drawing more people in
and enhancing the full potential of that facility, not blocking it off for
further development and enhancing our tax base. Thanks.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, I'm going to dose the public hearing. The petitioner
has the opportunity to make a last comment.
Mr. Johnson:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I can only speak on behalf of
Costco with respect to some of the comments I heard regarding
traffic. As I mentioned during my presentation, 70 percent of the
people are already there using the warehouse. We've done traffic
studies for other communities. What we add to the morning peak is
34 vehicles, in addition to what is already there with our warehouse
shopping. That's one car every two minutes. That's in addition by
adding a fueling facility. In the evening, we add 45 vehicles to
what's already there shopping at a Costco. So I believe with the
setbacks that exist, an access road from Middlebelt to our access
point, and with our stacking area and our one-way fueling facility
operation, the site plan will function with the type of traffic that
Coslcorealizes. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. A motion is in order.
19990
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved,
it was
#01-04-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition
2002-11-02-22, submitted by Costco Wholesale Corporation
requesting waiver use approval to construct a fueling facility on a
portion of the Costco Warehouse properly located on the east side
of Middlebell Road between Schoolcraft and Industrial Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-11-02-22 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet DD4.1-07 prepared by
Mulvanny Architecture G2, dated January 8, 2003, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -01 prepared by
Ben Kutscheid, ASLA, dated January 9, 2003, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except that the ash trees
shall be substituted with a different species of full size canopy
tree and additional landscape treatment shall be provided in
the northwest comer of the subject Costco property as
recommended by the Planning Director;
3. That all plant materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
4. That all landscaped areas shall be fully irrigated;
5. That the Elevations Plan marked Sheet DD4.4-07 prepared by
Mulvanny Architecture G2, dated January 8, 2003, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the canopy columns and controller enclosure shall be
constructed with masonry units and brick (which shall be full
face 4 -inch brick) as depicted on the above -referenced
Elevations Plan;
7. That the underside of the canopy structure shall be enclosed
and the lights within the canopy deck shall be recessed;
8. That all pole -mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and shall
not exceed a maximum overall height of twenty (20) feet
above grade;
19991
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following site deficiencies as outlined in the
correspondence dated December 6, 2002;
- That the areas of deteriorated pavement on the overall site
shall be repaired and resealed and all parking shall be
double striped;
- That the broken fire hydrant at the southeast comer of the
building shall be repaired;
- That the size and number of handicapped parking spaces
provided shall comply with the Michigan Barrier Free
requirements;
- That the pavement shall be marked with a blue access
aisle from the accessible spaces on the north of the
building to the front entrance;
10. That this approval shall incorporate the following comments
listed in the correspondence dated December 18, 2002 from
the Fire and Rescue Division:
- Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with a
maximum spacing of 300 feel between hydrants. Most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI;
- Access around structure shall be provided for emergency
vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall-to-wall
and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -/feet.
11. That the four (4) "Costco Gasoline' wall signs attached to the
canopy fascia as portrayed on the above -referenced Gas
Station Elevations Plan are approved with a total combined
sign area not to exceed one -hundred (100) square feet;
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; and
13. There will be no free-standing price signs;
forlhe 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 oflhe Zoning Ordinance #543;
19992
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the maker of the motion to add
#13, that there will be no free-standing price signs. Do you have
any objection, Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane:
I have no objection.
Mr. La Pine:
Andtheotheroneis:#14,that we gel additional landscaping on
the Schodaatl/Middlebeltcorner...
Mr. Shane:
I made that part of condition #2.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, if I may. I'm supporting this resolution. I think
there's a big advantage here of Costco operating this gas station.
The gas station is basically for its customers, people who are
already there; it's just a continuation of the concept Costco has.
You're a member of the Costco organization when you have your
purchasing card; therefore they try to get things to you as cheap as
possible. Number two, I think we gel rid of a restaurant that
probably we've had back luck with. This will be the fourth time that
restaurant has changed hands, and nobody has really made it. We
get rid of the restaurant. We gel additional parking in the front of
the building that Costco needs because people always want to park
as close as they can to the entrance. Number three, this is not a
24-hour operation, which I think is an advantage. Theyre only
open from 6:00 in the morning to 9:00 at night. There's no cash
involved here, so there's less chance of any robberies there
because the moment they try to rob the place, there's nothing to
get. It's strictly cash and carry, you might say. Just credit cards.
And we're getting a little additional landscaping around the pumps;
we're getting additional landscaping on Middlebelt. And I think
overall it's a good thing for this location. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, you had a comment?
Mr. Taormina:
If the maker of the motion would also consider a change to
Condition #2 regarding the landscape plan that would substitute the
ash trees with a different species offull-size canopy tree.
19993
Mr. Shane: Absolutely.
Mr. Taormina: Thankyou.
Mr. McCann: I guess we all have to watch that.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I would like to comment on one thing. Your traffic routing within
your system, I find to be very, very safety oriented. That's one of
the reasons why I'm going losupportlhis proposal.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 200242-02-24 GALLAGHER GROUP
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
12-02-24, submitted by Gallagher Group requesting waiver use
approval to construct a car wash facility at 33850 Plymouth Road,
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington
and Stark Roads in the Southeast%of Section 28.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated December 18, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering Division
has no objections to the proposal at this time. The following
comected legal description should be used in connection with this
petition. 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 December 13, 2002, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct a car wash facility on property located at the
above-refemnced 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
December 12, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed
the proposed plans to construct a car wash facility. Both the
entrance and exit for the property should be property marked so
19994
drivers can easily determine the proper driveway to enter. The
handicap space must be property posted per Livonia City
Ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated December 27, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of December 9, 2002, the above -referenced petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted. The paving is
deteriorated and in disrepair. It needs to be replaced or property
capped so as to drain property. This Department has no objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. The Iasi letter is from Plymouth Road
Development Authority, dated December 20, 2002, which reads as
follows: At the 1415' Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on December 12,
2002, the following resolution was unanimously adopted. #2002-
27, Resolved, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does
hereby support the construction of a car wash facility at 33850
Plymouth Road as submitted by the Gallagher Group with the
condition that it complies with the plans as presented and that it
meets all requirements that may be imposed by the City Planning
Commission and/or City Council." The letter is signed by John J.
Nagy, Plymouth Road Development Authority Director. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the pefifioner here this evening?
Richard Gallagher,
29991 Munger.
Mr. McCann:
Is there additional information you'd like logive us?
Mr. Gallagher:
Is there a rendering here? This is a brownish blend of brick, with a
beige stripe around the building, dryvil, soffit, dryvit undemeath this,
and the red metal roof. I think we have met all the landscape
requirements that the City requires on this, or exceeded it. Our
landscaping is, I think, very adequate. I think everybody here has
seen this, haven't they?
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Gallagher, I have never seen a car wash with the beautification
that you have on that building. I commend you for that. What is the
cost of the car wash? Is it going to be strictly a drive-through?
Mr. Gallagher:
I'm sorty, I didn't hear you.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to your cash wash, is this the type you just drive
through? Do they do the inside of the automobiles or just strictly
the exterior?
19995
Mr. Gallagher:
Strictly drive through.
Mr. Alanskas:
With the stacking that you show us, there will never be a problem
on Plymouth Road. It's very well done. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Two questions. You're recycling your water, correct? So in the
back you have a fountain type of deal and the recyded water goes
back through. Is that the way it works?
Mr. Gallagher:
No. Not that I know of.
Mr. LaPine:
A lot of these car washes now, because of the cost of water, are
recyding the water. This type of operation does not do that?
Mauricio Mickam, 36845 Turtle Creek in Farmington. No, sir. That location will not
recyde water. The problem that we had with recycling water is that
unless it's done correctly, it tends to stain the brushes. It's cheaper
to use fresh water than it is to clean the brushes all the time.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you have any other locations?
Mr. Mickam:
Yes, sir. We have numerous locations through the northwest area
of Detroit. We have another one in Livonia on Middlebelt Road
right north of Five Mile, next to the Burger King.
Mr. LaPine:
Oh, is that yours there? The one you're putting a new roof on?
Mr. Mickam:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I was there today. Is this going to be a $2.00 operation like
that one?
Mr. Mickam:
Yes, sir. It's kind of like a glorified gas station wash. It's a little bd
longer, a little bit nicer, and we dont pump gas.
Mr. LaPine:
The secret of going to those $2.00 car washes is go on days when
theyre not busy. The line doesn't move as fast. My only problem
is right across the street we have a gas station, which is a do-it-
yourself type of operefion. I would think you would be very
successful there because for $2.00 they do a good job. Across the
street, I dont know how much you put in. Every time I ever went to
those places, I probably spent more than $2.00 using the power
washer. And we put them out of business. That's not my problem.
That's not your problem. It's competition. Thank you.
Mr. Mickam:
If I can speak, sir? No, I don't think it would. One of the locations
we bought in Westland has both a self-service car wash and a drive
through. My idea was to attempt to convert all the self-service
customers to the drive through because it would be cheaper and
19996
the self-service you don't dry it. The customer that goes to a self-
service car wash is an altogether different customer. Its a
customer I didn't understand until I had one. The customer that
goes to a self-service wash is a destination; they plan on going
there. My customer is an impulse customer. The customer that
goes to a self-service wash gets like certain enjoyment. They go
there all the time on the same day, and they seem to get a certain
enjoyment out of working with their vehicle. My customer just
drives by, see his car is dirty, and if it's not too busy, he'll pull in.
It's kind of like an impulse. Its a different customer. I offered
customers ... because it costs you more to do it at a self-service
wash. They spend like $2.50 instead of $2.00 and it doesn't get
dried. I even tried to give them free washes to try and convert
them, but they won't. So its a different customer. I reluctantly
found that out.
Mr. LaPine:
Is this the first car wash building of this type of design?
Mr. Mickam:
Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you own the one on 13 Mile Road and Greenfield?
Mr. Mickam.
Yes, we own the one at 13 and Greenfield.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Novi and Grand River?
Mr. Mickam:
Yes, we own the one on Novi and Grand River.
Mr. Alanskas:
I don't see any signage on that beautiful building. You're not going
to put a sign up there, are you?
Mr. Mickam:
What I want to do is put up a two-inch stone sign, which is a our
logo, a tombstone logo.
Mr. Alanskas:
A monument sign?
Mr. Mickam:
Yes, it's a monument. Brick wdh a tombstone in front.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. That will be a callback. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. A motion
is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#01-05-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition
19997
2002-12-02-24 submitted by the Gallagher Group requesfing waiver
use approval to construct a car wash facility at 33850 Plymouth
Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast''/.of Section 28, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-12-02-24 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet S7 prepared by Gallagher
Group Construction Co., Inc., dated September 7, 2002, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by
Gallagher Group Construction Co., Inc., dated September 12,
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 landscaped areas shall be fully inigated;
5. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-2, dated
January 10, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
6. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be
full face four -inch brick, no exception;
7. That the dumpster enclosure shall be constructed with six (6)
foot high masonry walls faced with brick to match the building
and with metal gates;
8. That all pole -mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and shall
not exceed a maximum overall height of twenty (20') feet
above grade;
9. That this approval shall incorporate the following comment
contained in the letter dated December 27, 2002, from the
Inspection Department;
- That the pavement on the subject site shall be replaced or
properly capped so as to drain property;
10. That the approval shall incorporate the following
recommendations of the Traffic Bureau as listed in the
correspondence dated December 12, 2002:
f@F�F7
Both the entrance and exit for the property shall be
properly marked so drivers can easily determine the proper
driveway to enter;
The handicapped space must be posted per City
Ordinance;
11. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition. All such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council;
12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the tme
the building permits are applied for; and
13. All outside light fixtures on the subject property shall fully
conform to the City's outdoor lighting policy;
forlhe 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.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: It has been suggested by the staff that we add a condition #13,
something to the effect that the project shall adhere to the City's
lighting policywith respectto parking lot lights.
Mr. La Pine: I thought we had something about lighting?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes, condition #8.
Mr. LaPine: 'That all pole -mounted light fxiures shall be shielded and shall not
exceed a maximum overall height of twenty (20) feet above grade"
Would that cover it?
19999
Mr. Shane: Well, I think he's referring more to the down lighting and that type of
thing.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: The outdoor lighting policy addresses a number of issues related to
lighting, not only the pole mounted fixtures, but also ground
mounted fixtures, spotlights or floodlights which are commonly used
in these types of operations. We do have in that policy a procedure
for reviewing the plans to make sure that they do conform. I just
wanted reference to that so that when we get the final design on
this, we make sure that we're in full compliance with those
guidelines.
Mr. McCann: That sounds fair. Is that okay, Mr. Alanskas?
Mr. Alanskas: Sure. You bet.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2002-12-02-25 OBEE'S SOUP -SALAD
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
12-02-25, submitted by Siva Navuluri, on behalf of Obee's Soup -
Salad -Subs, requesting waiver use approval to operate a carry -out
restaurant with a maximum of 12 customer seats at 20235
Middlebell, located on the west side of Middlebelt between Norfolk
Avenue and Bretton Road in the Northeast%of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated December 18, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. The following approximate
legal description for the restaurant only area should be used in
connection with this petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal at this time. 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 December 13, 2002, which
Yrrrr
reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to operate a carry-0ut restaurant with a
maximum of 12 customer seats 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 December 12, 2002,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans regarding the
proposal to operate a carry -out restaurant. We have no objections
to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated December 16, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of December 9, 2002, the above -
referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This site needs the accessible parking to be marked by permanent
signage per code. (2) The parking lot needs to be resealed and
double striped. (3) The rear access aisle needs to be marked with
one-way signage (one way to south). (4) This is a change in use
group from the previous tenant. Therefore, this site must meet the
current accessibility code, in all aspects, such as the front door,
bathroom, aisle widths and counter heights, etc. This will be further
addressed at this Department's plan review when permit application
is made. This Department has no further objections to this Petition.
1 trust this provides the requested information." The letter is signed
by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
We were provided correspondence from John Allie, who is the
landlord agreeing to Items 1, 2 and 3. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Nowak:
Yes. That refers to the items in the Inspection Department Report.
The fourth item is what the petitioner would take care of.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. So the landlord is agreeing to correct the problems with the
Inspection Department.
Mr. Nowak:
That is correct.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Siva Navuluri, 23682 Paddock Drive, Farmington Hills.
Mr. McCann:
Is there something you'd like totell us about Obee's Soup -Salad -
Subs?
Mr. Navulun:
This is the second restaurant in Michigan. Right now, the first one
is in Farmington Hills at 12 Mile and Farmington. The area
developer is here. This is a franchise store.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, what are your hours of opemtion going to be?
20001
Mr. Navulun: From 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas: Being that you're so close to a high school, how are you going to
curtail students loitering in there because they like to come in and
get a sandwich or a pop, and they'll sit down. And this happens at
some locations, not just in Livonia but also in other school districts,
where there is a sub shop or a sandwich shop near the school.
How doyou plan on curtailing that?
Mr. Navulun: Actually, it is for quick service, not to entertain all the kids inside the
restaurant.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you going to have a sign posted that there's no loitering
allowed inside the restaurant because, believe me, you're going to
have that problem.
Mr.
Navuluri:
Yeah, actually, I was aware of that, sir. But I am planning to hire
local kids, local people so that I get their support. I am planning to
sponsor one of the events or games at the schools.
Mr.
Alanskas:
In regard to keeping the outside area and inside area clean from
trash and so forth, what do you plan to do about that?
Mr.
Navulun
We have to take care of daily operations.
Mr.
Alanskas:
How many employees are you going to have during the daytime?
Mr.
Navuluri:
Maximum of four; minimum of two.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr.
LaPine:
I either didn't understand him, but you say you have another
operation in Farmington Hills. Is that correct?
Mr.
Navuluri:
Exactly, sir.
Mr.
LaPine:
And this gentlemen behind you, he's the manager of that store?
Mr.
Navuluri:
That's right, and he is the area developer for this franchise.
Mr.
LaPine:
He's the what?
Mr.
Navuluri:
Area developer.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay. So this will be the second store you're going to have?
Mr.
Navulun
Yes.
20002
Mr. LaPine:
I have the same concems as Mr. Alanskas. When you get these
type of operations, ice cream parlors, things like that, close to high
schools, you have a tendency of kids coming over there. They
congregate and before you know it, we've got some problems. Just
keep a good eye on it and nip the bud in the beginning, and you
probably won't have any problems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Smiley:
You say you always have a minimum of two people in there?
Mr. Navulurl:
Yes, ma'm.
Ms. Smiley:
Good.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing.
A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#01-06-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition
2002-12-02-25, submitted by Siva Navulurl, on behalf of Obee's
Soup -Salad -Subs, requesting waiver use approval to operate a
carry -out restaurant with a maximum of 12 customer seats at 20235
Middlebelt, located on the west side of Middlebelt between Norfolk
Avenue and Bretton Road in the Northeast % of Section 2, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-12-02-25 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the seating capacity shall be limited to 12 customer
seats;
2. That the following issues as ou0ined in the correspondence
dated December 16, 2002, from the Inspection Department
shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
- That the accessible parking on this site shall be marked by
permanent signage per code;
- That the parking lot shall be resealed and double striped;
- That the rear access aisle shall be marked with one-way
signage;
- That this site shall meet the current accessibility code, in all
aspects, since this is a change in use group from the
previous tenant; and
20003
3. That metal access gates shall be added to the existing trash
dumpster enclosure;
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
Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2002-12-02-26 MEIJER GAS STATION
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
12-02-26, submitted by Roger E. DeHoek, on behalf of Meijer, Inc.,
requesting waiver use approval to construct a gasoline station at
13000 Middlebell, located on the east side of Middlebell Road
between Schoolcraft Road and the C & O Railroad in the Northwest
%of Section 25.
Mr. Taormina presented a mapshowing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated December 18, 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 legal description contained therein. 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 December 18,
20004
2002, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a gasoline
station located on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following
stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with a maximum spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. Most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual pressure of 20
PSI. (2) Access around structure shall be provided for emergency
vehicles with turning radius up to 45 feet wall-to-wall and a
minimum vertical clearance of 13-36 feet" The letter is signed by
James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated December 18, 2002, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to
construct a gas station on the east side of Middlebelt Road near
Industrial Road. We have no objections to the proposal as
submitted. The following recommendations are forwarded for your
consideration: (1) Post NO PARKING — FIRE LANE along the
north side of the main signalized entrance to Millennium Park on
Middlebelt to the first driveway into the Meijerparking lot. (2) Install
stop signs at each exit from the gas station. (3) On the north exit of
the gas station install TURN RIGHT ONLY signs on both the east
and west side of the exit. (4) Signs indicating the canopy height
should be prominently displayed along the canopy. The handicap
parking space must be property signed per city ordinance." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated December 26,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
December 16, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This Petition will require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the two additional
pricing signs on the canopy as their monument sign already
contains pricing information. These signs exceed number allowed
(0) and size allowed (9 square feet each). (2) This Petition will also
need a Zoning Board of Appeals variance for total wall and window
signage. One hundred square feet maximum allowed. This
Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed
by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Brad Stmder, partner in charge of the Royal Oak office of Langworthy, Strader,
LeBlanc and Associates, 306 S. Washington, Royal Oak, Michigan.
Partners in our firm have represented Meijer on stores and gas
stations for around 20 years. We've often been in Mark's shoes
reviewing Meijer proposals. Primanly, we work for communities
reviewing development proposals, master plans and zoning
ordinances. So while it's a little odd, we do occasionally work for
Meijer off and on, assisting them in planning and zoning cases. We
20005
also do an occasional review of Meijer store proposals and gas
stations. We're very familiar with Meijer gas stations and the
project that's being proposed. I think the Commission is very
familiar with the site. For the benefit of the public and the audience,
Mark covered our request very well. Just to orient you, south is at
the top in this drawing. This is 1-96 and Schoolcraft. This is
Middlebell. This is the existing Meijer store here. This is the area
that was talked about with Costco. As Mark mentioned, there are a
number of outlots here. This is Ouflol A, which is 2.1 acres.
Adjacent to us is Outlol E, which has been reconfigured slightly
from the plan you showed before. We'll talk about that in a
moment. Outlots B and C and certainly Meijers is an important
part of the Millennium Park development. Meijer has a commitment
to quality and safe traffic operations and a safe operation as part of
its development. Meijer's selected this comer for the gas station for
a number of reasons. First of all, I know the Planning Commission
in the study session talked about maybe looking at Ouflot E.
However, gas stations don't have a high peak. There is traffic
throughout the day when the store is open or coinciding with the
peak hours of traffic flow on Middlebelt, so access and convenience
to the signal is a key. Our location in the southeast quadrant is the
best location in terms of traffic impact. I'm the co-author of the
State of Michigan's handbook on traffic impact studies, so I guess I
would debate the gentleman who is probably going to speak after
us about traffic here, but we find the traffic operation works very
well here. If you're going to locate a gas station, a gas station
should be located where there's a signalized intersection so you
can get safe traffic flow in and out of the site. We also do have a
median boulevard entrance here. Most of the traffic conflicts are
created with left turns, but the median really restricts left turns. So
we've got signalized control of left turns into the site, the right turns
into the site, and then exits out of the site will be through the site
itself or back on the other side of the median and out. So it's about
the best design. The City and all the developers have all done a
very good job looking over the traffic flow, and this is a good design
from a traffic flow standpoint. Another reason that this is a good
location for the gas station is that it is an entrance into the site, and
it helps feed the Meijer store and the other puflots. This can be a
very important part of synergy of making the whole center work.
Right now Meijers is talking to a bank for o E, Borders Books,
which I think is very desirable type of use for o D, and then a quality
sit-down restaurant like American Cafe, I guess Appleby's style
restaurant.
Mr. McCann: You keep mentioning Ouflot E. How many square feel is it?
Mr. Stmder: Ouflol E is now and the reconfiguration in your revised plan is 1.7
acres. I believe it was 2.4 acres in the original submittal.
20006
Mr. McCann: 1.7 acres. How much is the outlot that doesn't have a letter where
the gas station goes? How many acres is that?
Mr. Streder:
This is about 2.1 acres.
Mr. McCann:
So we're taking about 2 acres out of the parking lot and turning it
into a new outlot. So really we're creating an additional outlot of
about two acres.
Mr. Slrader:
Right. Its not parking. Its just an undeveloped area.
Mr. McCann:
But the original proposal was for D and E, and E was a separate
outlot. What you are doing is creating a new outlot.
Mr. Streder:
I think that's correct because there's enough room here. I think
Mark mentioned the amount of parking that's provided in the old
center is in surplus of what's needed even at peak times. Many of
you mentioned that you were there at Christmas time. I think the
City requires about 8 spaces per 1,000 square feel. I think the
modern parking standard is more in line with 4.5 to 5 or maybe
capping up at 6. So there's excess parking there. I don't think
parking is a problem. The intent right now is for four outlots slightly
smaller than the original configuration because that's all we need to
provide a bank site, gas station site, a Borders site and a
restaurant. They would be self-contained sites. These are large
enough sites to have the restaurant, the Borders ... contain the
parking ... . Although there's certainly a lot of opportunity for
shared parking because this part of the parking field is not utilized,
so itwould be available forthese outlots.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything else?
Mr. Streder:
Let me just continue. I know there was some question about gas
stations earlier tonight and the Mejier gas station. Meijer has 158
sites. Of those 158 sites, about 90% have a gas station. So that's
an important part of the whole Meijer operation. Meijers has been
in the gas station business for just about as long as in the grocery
business, and they even have seven gas stations that are separate
sites. They're not affiliated with the store, but they are separate
gas stations. This is an important part of the whole Meijer project to
have a gas station. I think Mark went over the details of the
proposal pretty well. I just want to hit a few highlights. As Mark
noted, there will be 10 fueling stations so rather than the typical
tandem fueling stations that can be confusing, we have basically
five pump islands. There will be 10 individual solo fueling stations.
So there's no tandem or slacked operations at the fueling stations.
The canopy will be 18 feel high and have brick columns as stated.
The building will be brick. I've got elevations here I can show you.
I think it shows up on this plan. We have ample green space. The
20007
ordinance requires 15 percent. We are around 30 percent of green
space, so we exceed pretty significantly the open space and
landscape requirements of the City in terms of area of landscape
and quantities of landscape materials. We also, as Mark noted,
meet all the City setback requirements and other dimensional
standards in the zoning ordinance. Again, traffic studies . . we
certainly can talk all night if you want. Meijers is always doing
traffic studies, and I've done traffic studies for Meijer. I've reviewed
traffic studies that others have done for Meijer on behalf of
communities. A high percentage of the traffic that goes to a Meijer
store is already going into the store. And almost all the traffic is
either going into the store or is already on Middlebelt Road, so
there's very few new trips added to the road system. But there are
turning limits added. But again, fortunately, we're at a signalized
intersection which helps really to reduce any impact on traffic flaw.
One of the things that the Planning Commission discussed at the
study session was the overall layout and arrangement of the store
itself. And so I wanted to just describe some of the changes that
we made to the site plan in response to your comments. Hopefully
you have all had a chance to look through these revised plans.
Again, if you have specific questions or concems throughout this
presentation or after the public meeting, we're really here to answer
your questions. This is a plan where we show the staggering.
What we did was move the convenience store/gas station south or
up this way. That's why this is now a 2.1 acre site. We've
reconfigured the circulation, and actually, your suggestion really
worked to our benefit because I think it was a legitimate concern
about the circulation through the site. You can see now fiat we've
added more of a circular loop system, which makes it a lot more
convenient. People coming in either the driveways can get into this
store, use the fuel pumps, and then go out back into the store. If
they're coming from the store, they can use bis access circulation
to get to the pumps and then exit out to Middlebelt. So now we
have a much more logical circulation plan, I think, responding to the
observations that you had, and it makes a lot of sense. We have
144 feet of stacking space, more ban ample. If you look at the
detail here, we have depth for five or six cars to be stacked up.
Another benefit of this whole circulation plan is with the individual
fueling stations. First of all, it's a security measure because the
attendants don't have to worry about trying to keep track of two
cars and more fuel, but it also makes it very easy for people to get
in and out. The circulation is very efficient. But I think it was a
good suggestion to move the store to the south to provide
increased stacking space, and that's what we've done. We also
have elevations that are in the Planning Commission's packet. I
think Mark went over the materials. Just for the audience and
television, these are rendered elevations to show again that it will
be brick material with accent treatments. There is going to be brick
on the canopy columns consistent with the building. There will also
be brick on the waste receptacle walls. I want to respond to some
of the questions that came up out of the study session. One of the
questions dealt with the canopy lighting. The Planning Commission
was concerned about the intensity, what type of lighting was going
to be at the canopy and is it the type, the typical fixture that hangs
down from the canopy and a very bright light. There is a detail in
our plan that shows the canopy light is recessed. It's recessed
back into the canopy so that it's a recessed light. I think it's much
more in keeping with the high quality character of the Millennium
Park development overall. So the Planning Commission asked
about stacking. Hopefully, we answered that. The Planning
Commission asked about lighting. The Planning Commission
asked about the percentage of retail sales for this convenience
store/gas station. The convenience component is part of the
overall Meijer's site. Its about seven percent. In looking at all
these other locations that we have, and I think you asked
specifically at 8 Mile and Haggerty, its about seven percent of the
total retail sales. This is 24-hour operation as proposed, the same
as the retail store. The retail center would be 24 hours. However,
we understand concerns about safety, so Meijer is offering to
change. There would be two attendants at the gas station, which
increases safety for most of the hours of operation. From midnight
to 6:00 a.m., there will be a lockdown so there's no ability to get into
the building. All service will be through a security window. There
will be only one attendant at that time, but no one can get into the
building. It's a lockdown situation, so that will be a change from
what was discussed before. So from midnight to 6:00 a.m. it will be
a lockdown operation, so that should improve the safety and
security. Another thing that I think was a concession of Meijer, and
I think its a good one, is to eliminate ... you saw the detail on the
plan. There was a phone booth proposed out in the parking lot,
and that can cause loitering and also be associated with some
problems. It's still showing on the plans, but Meijer is willing to
eliminate that phone as part of the project. The Planning
Commission also asked about signs, and the staff wrote it up in the
report. Meijer will meet the sign ordinance. If it's an important
issue to the Planning Commission, Meijer will remove the
monument sign that shows gas pricing. We thought we were
keeping consistent with the quality character of the center by
having that sign internal to the site, so it's not visible to the traffic up
and down Middlebelt, and provides people that are in the center
with an easy way to see what the gas price is. But if that is an
important consideration to the Planning Commission, Meijer is
willing to either modify that sign or even remove that sign. If you
have reasonable things to do, we can look at revising the plan to
respond to those conditions. There's one other question you had
on safety. I think its a good question on safety, especially with
recent events. And Livonia is always a question with a gas station
on safety. So we did poll the five gas stations in the area -
Southgate, Canton, Northville, Belleville and Westland. And then
for all of 2002 at those five gas station sites, there were only two
total incidents. Two incidents at five gas stators over a full year,
so it's a very secure situation, I think, because of the way Meijer
runs their operation, which is unlike a lot of gas stations. And I
guess I will note we do have bathrooms and squeegees at Meijer,
so we do it a little different than the Costco proposal. Again, I've
got Roger DeHoek here from Meijer and Fand Mikhael, the
engineer from SSOE. If you have specific questions on the site
design or operation, we'd be happy to try and answer your
questions or respond to public comments or tum it over to one of
my associates this evening.
Mr. McCann:
All night. Thank you. I think that was a pretty comprehensive. Are
there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
You mention you have 30% landscaping. Does that 30% include
Outiol E?
Mr. Slreder:
No, its deceptive on this drawing. It was just to show that we will
retain this whole area.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thirty percent is only on that piece of property?
Mr. Streder:
Right of the gas station site.
Mr. La Pine:
The second questions l have...
Mr. Stmder:
Its actually 29%.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. On the Costco operation, you have to have a credit card.
That's how you make the pumps go. You don't have to deal with
anybody in a convenience store or anything. Al this operation,
when somebody pumps gas, do they pay by cash or charge card?
Who activates the pumps? Someone inside the convenience
store?
Mr. Stmder:
Yes. You can use credit cards but you can also press a button to
pay with cash, so its not all 100% credit card, but it certainly is the
prevailing trend.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I notice your latest plan has three in and outs for this site. Correct?
Mr. Stmder:
Yes, they are all internal. There are no new exists onto Middlebett
Road.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I know, but you said two.
Mr. Stmder:
Yes.
20010
Mr. Piercecchi: And one of them was fairly close to the pumping station, about 40
feel, and I think you elongated that. But the real problem .. .
there's several problems that I can associate with that site.
Number one, if you didn't have that convenience store in there,
you'd really could do it, but right now you've got competitive lanes.
With all three of those in and outs, you have competition there.
Mr. Stader:
Well, if this was a typical situation, yes. But I think because it's part
of the Meijers center, this really works well for circulation. This
would primarily be for traffic that is entering and want to go to the
gas station/convenience store, just on the way either into the center
or theyre just stopping to get gas and convenience and be on their
way oul. There won't be a lot of exiting traffic here because you
have to make a right and go out. So this is essentially a one-way
inbound driveway, is the way to look at it. This will probably get
about 50% of the egress movements here. This isn't going to get a
tremendous amount of traffic. But if we have a bank here, this
allows us to have better interaction with the bank, and there will be
some vehides because as they load in going southbound into these
fueling stations, rather than now....
Mr. Piercecchi:
Can they load in one direction? Can they load into that in both
directions?
Mr. Strader:
They can load in both directions as its shown.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You don't have a heck of a lot of room there. You've only got about
30 feel.
Mr. Strader:
Oh, it's a huge amount of room, much bigger than a typical gas
station.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm talking about between the canopies and the convenience store.
Mr. Strader:
It's pretty much the standard distance from the edge of the canopy
to the edge of convenience store.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I scaled that out. I think it was 26 feet.
Mr. Strader:
It's probably about 30 feet. There is no parking though. The
parking is all at the edges, so this is all maneuvering area. There's
no parking directly in front of the store. The reason for that is,
again, security. We have visibility direct to the pumps without
parking interfering with the visibility.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It's been brought up about congestion by some of the people that
came up and opposed Costco. This will definitely add to
congestion because its open to the public. The Costco customers
20011
are members only. And you're open to the public. Now I don't
know about traffic studies. Frankly, I don't have much confidence
in them. I think you can build three 100 story buildings and they
would still say that it will have a minimum effect on the roads, and
you can't drive on them now. That "members only" feature of
Costco I found attractive. And for routing, they had a one-way
package, one-way drection. I found that very attractive. And their
store hours . which now you're saying that you can
accommodate any hour that we think is appropriate, from midnight
to 6:00 in the morning, which would be an 18 hour operefion.
Theyre talking about what, 15 hours, so there's not very much
difference there. I think the convenience store is a real problem in
that whole layout. I really do.
Mr. Streder:
Just a couple things to respond. I think you will find that the traffic
volumes at the Meijer gas station and Costco are not significantly
different. I can say that with a lot of confidence having reviewed
gas station proposals and traffic impact studies for 20 years. I don't
think there is a significant difference in traffic.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you saying lhalyou're nolgoinglodo much business?
Mr. Slrader:
No, I think both will do business. What percentage of the public are
Costco members? Ever growing numbers. I'm not sure that is a
very solid distinction between the Costco gas station and the Meijer
gas station. I think this is a great site for both of them. I think they
will both do very well. Theyll both feed off the center and off each
other and certainly for both of them a large percentage of the
patronage will be people that are already visiting either the Meijer
and/or Costco store.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Edward Weglarz, 34665 Grove. I'm not going to bore you with a repeat of my
comments, most of which apply to this particular request also.
There are some subtle changes, but basically the same factors that
I mentioned to you with regard to sponsoring kids' volleyball, etc.,
underground storage tanks, those factors all apply to this petitioner
as well as Costco. And since the genie is already out of the bottle
with the approval of Costco and the old analogy that it's difficult to
put toothpaste back into the tube, I just might want to point out a
couple things that Mr. La Pine and Mr. Pieroeechi mentioned — that
Meijers would be open 24 hours. Meijers would handle cash. And
they are not limited to members only; however, the motoring public
is very resourceful. With regard to Costco, all the people do is pass
the Costco card around to their friends and neighbors if the Costco
price is right. There's no checking of the card at the gas station like
there is at the entrance to the Costco store where they match up
20012
Bill Schmidt, 29688 Maclnlyre. Just for consideration, we already discussed the
impending bubbling cauldron of sheet metal that is going to happen
on Middlebelt Road there at the Millennium entrance. If we would
consider for just a second the possibility of maybe moving these
gas stations to other parts in the Millennium Center, that would do
two things. It would, one, move them away from the road and it
would encourage more traffic deeper into the center. By not putting
them near the Middlebelt and the Millennium Center driveway, here
and here as you see in green, but if they would move the Meijer
station to one of these other oW ots, A or what is it, deeper into the
lot, as exhibited in my very bad drawing here, and possibly moving
the Costco pumps closer to where they actually do some
automotive work, and that's at the north side of their building. The
fire store is on the north side. It's up here. It would be drawing
people in off of SchoolcreR, not clogging up the front, encouraging
more people deeper into the body of the facility. You guys would
still gel your gas station that you need, the Costco people would
still win, and the citizens that actually use Middlebelt Road to get
onto SchoolcraR to either go west on 96 or east on 96 or north on
Middlebelt Road, that whole bunch of business would have a
tendency not to dog up nearly as much. If we could consider that,
the citizens of Livonia would really benefit. Thank you.
your picture to make sure it's you. All you have to do is have the
card. There is nobody at the island.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, but you have to have a Costco credit card.
Mr. Weglarz:
No, you can use a Costco card and an American Express credit
card.
Mr. McCann:
I don't know if they have to match or not.
Mr. Weglarz:
So, I still might mention that the immediate gratification of low price
gasoline will wear thin when other retailers are put out of business.
Then all we are doing is trading problems and having these vacant
corners where the folks have transferred their buying habits. If you
do feel indined to approve this proposal, I strongly recommend that
you consider Meijers offer to eliminate or downsize or move their
price sign to accommodate the fact that it would reduce traffic
congestion at that corner. But I would still strongly recommend that
you tum down this proposal. Thank you.
Art Alyason, 22252 Worsler, Novi. I have a service station two miles north of this.
I'd just like to enforce Mr. Weglarz' comments about there are 22
stations within a two mile radius and what we don't need is another
gas station.
Bill Schmidt, 29688 Maclnlyre. Just for consideration, we already discussed the
impending bubbling cauldron of sheet metal that is going to happen
on Middlebelt Road there at the Millennium entrance. If we would
consider for just a second the possibility of maybe moving these
gas stations to other parts in the Millennium Center, that would do
two things. It would, one, move them away from the road and it
would encourage more traffic deeper into the center. By not putting
them near the Middlebelt and the Millennium Center driveway, here
and here as you see in green, but if they would move the Meijer
station to one of these other oW ots, A or what is it, deeper into the
lot, as exhibited in my very bad drawing here, and possibly moving
the Costco pumps closer to where they actually do some
automotive work, and that's at the north side of their building. The
fire store is on the north side. It's up here. It would be drawing
people in off of SchoolcreR, not clogging up the front, encouraging
more people deeper into the body of the facility. You guys would
still gel your gas station that you need, the Costco people would
still win, and the citizens that actually use Middlebelt Road to get
onto SchoolcraR to either go west on 96 or east on 96 or north on
Middlebelt Road, that whole bunch of business would have a
tendency not to dog up nearly as much. If we could consider that,
the citizens of Livonia would really benefit. Thank you.
20013
Sandra Johnson, 29688 Maclntyre. I used to work downtown Detroit, and I was
really pleased with the building of Millennium Center. I had to pass
it by everyday. I was one of those people in rush hour fighting my
way over to the right lane. The traffic is horribly congested there.
Now I go out at all hours of the day, and I try to avoid that area. I
dont want to be on Middlebelt Road. I don't like those crazy people
trying to tum left onto Millennium Drive or the way that traffic backs
up now coming off the freeway to make a left onto Middlebelt Road.
The whole area is just really bad. And I agree with Bill Schmidt in
his suggestion about the locations being inside. This entrance is
really beautiful. The pillars look really great, and then to flank that
with two gas stations. I just think that is a design disgrace. Another
point I'd like to make: Bill and I call this exit and entrance here, the
one to the south of Millennium Drive, right here, we call that the
suicide exit. I think there needs to be a traffic light right there. That
would slow down the traffic coming this way, and it would increase
safety for the citizens trying to exit onto Middlebelt Road. That is
just a horrid, horrid place. I've seen people almost getting into
accidents exiting from there. So as a consideration of these
proposals, I might want to have the traffic committee, or whoever it
is, look at the possibility of adding a traffic light down here at the
very least. That's all I have to say.
Mr. McCann: Thank you, ma'm. Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public
hearing. Mr. Strader, do you have any last comment? No? Okay.
A motion is in order. Mr. Alanskas?
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to this petition, I really think that it might have some merit
where they want to put it, but I think there could be a lot of work
done in regards to the exiting where they want to put the
convenience store. I think it could be moved further south. Not that
this plan would not work, but I think that there's a lot of work to be
done, so I'm going to make a tabling motion for a date uncertain.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, ilwas
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition
2002-12-02-26, submitted by Roger E. DeHoek, on behalf of Meijer,
Inc., requesting waiver use approval to construct a gasoline station
at 13000 Middlebelt, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between Schoolcraft Road and the C & O Railroad in the Northwest
% of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-12-02-26 be tabled indefinitely.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Walsh
NAYES: LaPine, Smiley, Shane, Pieroecchi, McCann
20014
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Is there an alternative motion?
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. La Pine, and approved, it was
#01-07-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, on Petition
2002-12-02-26, submitted by Roger E. DeHoek, on behalf of Meijer,
Inc., requesting waiver use approval to construct a gasoline station
at 13000 Middlebell, located on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between SchooicraR Road and the C & O Railroad in the Northwest
''/ of Section 25, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-12-02-26 be
denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06
of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed use, due to its location, size and character,
would be detrimental to and would adversely affect the
surrounding uses in the area;
3. That the proposed site layout and its relation to streets giving
access to it, particularly with respect to vehicular tuming
movements in relation to routes of traffic flow and location and
access of off-street panting, will be hazardous and
inconvenient to the neighboring properties and the neighboring
area in general;
4. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, are
intended to insure compatibility and appropriateness of uses;
and
5. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns
deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and
its residents.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
20015
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
La Pine, Smiley, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYES:
Alanskas, Shane, Walsh
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The petitioner has ten days to appeal the decision to the
City Council in writing. This concludes the Public Hearing section
of our agenda. We vill now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans
section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in
support or opposition to these items. Will the Secretary please
read the next item?
ITEM #S PETITION 2003 -01 -SN -01 FOUNTAIN PARK -WALGREENS
Mr. Rercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
01SN-01, submitted by Fountain Park Development, on behalf of
Walgreens Pharmacy, requesting approval for signage for the
commercial building to be located on the Northeast corner of
Plymouth and Farmington Roads in the Southwest%of Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the on the northeast comer of Plymouth
Road and Farmington Road in the Southwest''/.of Section 27. On
August 13, 2001, the commercial portion of Fountain Park received
Site Plan Approval. As part of that approval it was conditioned:
"That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved
with this petition; all such signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council." The petitioner is requesting approval for signage for the
Walgreens Store that will be constructed as a stand-alone building
out towards the intersection of Plymouth Road and Farmington
Road. In a letter that accompanied the plans, the petitioner
explains that this request is similar to what was previously
approved for the Walgreens Store on the southeast comer of Six
Mile Road and Farmington Road. At that store, they split the
allowable wall sign area between two wall signs. Signage is
summarized as follows: Signage Permitted for this site under
Section 18.50H is one wall sign not to exceed 138 sq. ft. in sign
area and one ground sign not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign area and
not to exceed 6 ft. in height. Signage proposed is three wall signs
totaling 127 sq. ft in sign area and one ground sign, 17 sq. ft. in
sign area and 5 ft. in height. Excess signage is two wall signs. The
proposed ground sign would be located on the south side of the
20016
driveway off Farmington Road. The graphics on this freestanding
sign would only identify Walgreens. Because they are asking for
two extra signs, they would need to be granted a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated December 27, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of December 17, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted:
This site will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
for excess wall signs. One is allowed (#2), three are excess (#1, #3
and #4). Sign #2 could be 138 square feet if built to be maximum
allowable. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Perkoski,
P.E., Director of Land Development, Fountain Park Building
Company, LLC, 32000 Northwestern Highway, Suite 220,
Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any additional information you would like to tell us about
this petition?
Mr. Perkoski:
No, I cant think of anything to add other than what was already
presented.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It seems to me that there is more than one Fountain Park. It seems
to me there is one on Grand River. Is that okay to have more than
one project with the same name?
Mr. Perkoski:
I'm not familiar with the one on Grand River.
Mr. McCann:
That's Fountain Walk, I've been informed.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Oh. Its Fountain Walk. Because I know I went by it, but its a 50
mph zone, so you have to forgive me.
Mr. McCann:
You weren't really a part of the original development of Fountain
Park.
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes, I am. I work for Steve Schafer.
20017
Mr. McCann:
All right. That's what I thought. It was brought as a concept.
Correct?
Mr. Perkoski:
Correct.
Mr. McCann:
And it was supposed to be this Fountain Park Village with housing
and shops and interconnecting walkways and parks so there could
be restaurants and cleaners and ice cream stores and everything
for the people to gather around. Isn't Walgreens an integral part of
that?
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes, it is.
Mr. McCann:
I guess my question goes to the monument sign on the road. I
really don't have a problem with the wall signs, but I have a
problem with the sign out there stating that it's Walgreens. It's not.
Its Fountain Park that you're coming into. Is the petitioner willing to
withdraw that sign today?
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes, I understood that was an issue at the work session. If we
could, we could like to continue with just the wall signs and then we
would like to come back, perhaps regroup and think about those
monument signs a little more carefully.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Pieroecohi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#01-08-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-01SN-01,
submitted by Fountain Park Development, on behalf of Walgreens
Pharmacy, requesting approval for signage for the commercial
building to be located on the Northeast corner of Plymouth and
Farmington Roads in the Southwest''/.of Section 27, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That only the wall signage of the Sign Package submitted by
Fountain Park Building Company, as received by the Planning
Commission on December 9, 2002, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business doses;
3. That any additional wall signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
20018
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess signage
and any conditions related thereto;
5. That the ground sign included in the Sign Package is not
approved at this time. That a Master Sign Plan establishing
ground signage for the entire Fountain Park development shall
be separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council. Included in the
application shall be the location and graphics of each
Business Center Sign, all Identification Signs and any
directional signage.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda.
We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda.
These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings;
therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience
participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission.
Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM #9 PETITION 200240-0143 SCHOO LC RAFT COMMONS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
10-01-13, submitted by SchoolcmR Commons, LLC, requesting to
rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest %of
Section 7 from PL and RSC to C-2, OS, PO and PO -11.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved,
it was
#01-09-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-10-01-13, submitted by Schoolcmft Commons, LLC,
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest'''/
of Section 7, from PL and R -5C to G2, OS, PO and PO -11, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-
10-01-13 be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
20019
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Chairman, a; stated before in our previous meeting, I will not
be participating in this petition due to conflict of interest.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am an employee at Schoolcrafl
College, and it is appropriate that I step away from the podium at
this time.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You will not vote on this?
Mr. Walsh:
I will not vole on it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Alanskas will not vote on it? Okay. Five members. We still
have a quorum.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, is there anything new that we need to be aware of?
Mr. Taormina:
There is new information in the form of a traffic impact analysis that
each of you should have a copy of. I will not go into any of the
details relative to the report seeing that the Traffic Engineer is here
and can summarize his own report. We also have an item of
correspondence dated January 10, 2003, from Schoolcraft College.
Each of you should also have a copy of that. If you would like, I
can read that into the record.
Mr. McCann:
I dont think its necessary. It will go on to City Council as part of
the official record. Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert Bednas,
Etkin Equities, 29100 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200, Southfield,
Michigan 48034. I'm representing the Walkon/Etkin partnership,
Schoolcreft Commons, LLC. I'm here to provide some additional
information and answer any questions you may have.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. La Pine:
Yes. Is there anybody here tonight that can answer some
questions forme from Schoolcreft College?
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Walsh.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Walsh, we got this letter from Mr. Jeffress, and I have a couple
things I want to get straight in my mind. We talked about
conservatively estimating that the project will generate $1,350,000
in taxes annually, which $275,000 will be accrued to the City of
Livonia each year. Now the $1,300,000 is tax dollars and does not
include the lease payments that the developer will give to
SchoolcraR College?
20020
John Walsh, Schoolcrafi College, 18600 Haggerty, Livonia, Michigan 48152-2696.
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: So they get whatever the lease payment is plus the regular taxes
we all pay to Schoolcrett College, so they would gel approximately
the $1,300,000 minus the $275,000 plus. Now, is the $1,300,000 .
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine, the developers will pay to SchoolcreR College an
annual lease that begins in the area of $800,000 and escalates
over the 75 year period. When the land is rezoned and then
developed using just the buildings themselves and not taking into
account personal property, and using the applicable formulas for
tax assessments, the development will generate in tax revenue
$1.3 million. Some of that goes to Livonia; some of that goes to the
county; some of that goes to all the other taxing entities that govern
real properly.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, now, but that $1.3 million generated in taxes is based on as
the buildings are constructed. I mean, the City of Livonia is not
going to gel $275,000 in taxes the first year, because only the first
building is up. The taxes goes up correspondingly as the property
is developed.
Mr. Walsh:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
So its a long-term situation. It could be five or len years depending
on how long it takes to develop.
Mr. Walsh:
Thais correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Lets assume for a minute that this goes through. The land goes
through the developer. In the future, as we all know, the cost of a
college education is going up dramatically. Consequently, two year
colleges, in my opinion, are going to be laking on more and more
students because ifs cheaper to send your child to a two year
college. Let them stay at home. The cost is not as high. Also, on
that same basis, I think somewhere in the future it may be possible
for a two year community college to frm into a four year community
college. My question to you is, if they lease all this land now to the
developer, and the scenarios I just said should happen, is there any
contingencies where Schoolcreft College has additional land
available to expand if they need to?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine, there are a number of issues in your question. The
short answer to that, the bottom line question is this: We do have
sufficient land to expand behind the campus toward 1-275, and
there are a variety of parcels within the campus. If you look at a
map of our campus, there is vacant property within buildings that
20021
would permit additional development in a reasonable and proper
manner. It wouldn't be buildings on top of buildings. There is
sufficient open area on our campus. We have growth throughout
our distad but if we experience dremafic growth, it would likely
come from Canton and Northville because their school districts are
growing. We can't predict too far in the future, but the next 10
years, that's where the growth areas are. We are servicing the
Canton area with our Garden City campus, and if we needed to, we
could also lease or buy or develop property in another city that we
serve, if necessary.
Mr. LaPine:
If that should happen, would all the taxpayers in the Schoolcraft
College district have to chip in their fair share forthat?
Mr. Walsh:
Well, yes. Well, we're supported by three primary sources.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay, and the development would occur ... we have no present
plans to develop any other campuses. It is cost prohibitive for us at
this point in time.
Mr. LaPine:
That answers my question. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chair, if I may, I just want to indicate Dr. Jeffress was here
earlier. He did have to leave. He was not feeling well. He stayed
as late as he could, and I apologize that he could not be here. It's
unusual for me to be in this position, but I hope that I'm keeping my
answers to the factual and not trying to violate any conflict of
interests.
Mr. McCann:
It's certainly interesting. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chair, if I still have the floor, I have a couple questions for Mark.
Mark, as you read the traffic study, which is a very comprehensive
traffic study. Its probably one of the better ones I've read, though I
don't really understand it. They come up with a lot of suggestions
that should happen. Are any of these things going to happen?
When they talk about constructing a northbound right tum lane,
installing traffic northboundfwestbound Teff tum phases,
constructing a westbound right tum lane. And the next question I
have, I was out to that site again today. That's about the fourth
time I've been out there. On Fox Drive, off of Six Mile Road, you
come off the expressway and you go west and you come into Fox
Drive. It's about 150 feel from where the light is, and they talk
about there should be a deceleration lane there. How long does
that lane have to be? I guess I'm worried about if they come off the
expressway, you got to gel over to the right quickly to gel over to
20022
Fox Drive. If they have to put that lane in there, is there significant
space to do that?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, I'll answer your second question first. Yes, there is right-of-
way available to provide for a deceleration lane, the length of which
would be dependent on a number of factors which the engineers
would determine. It could be 100 feet; it could be 200 feet. It's
difficult for me to say. But your first question relative to the
suggested improvements that are in the traffic analysis and whether
or not any of those are being considered, there are no immediate
plans that I am aware of for completion of any of the improvements
that are outlined in this report.
Mr. LaPine:
Because if you read this report, they come to the conclusion there
is going to be some problems there too, and these are some of the
suggestions they say that could eliminate these problems. If they
think these are good reasons to make these improvements, I would
think that some of the improvements should be incorporated in the
plan. Wouldn't you?
Mr. Taormina:
That is something that I think we will have to continue to discuss as
the review of this project moves forward. Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
To follow up on fiat, some of the suggestions are probably doable
without any question. The ones that require additional right-of-way,
are the ones that are really going to be suspect because it's going
to take Northville and Livonia to try and execute additional right-of-
way. So if that happens, it's going to be down the road. We're not
going to see that happen for a while because just the idea of buying
additional rightof-way....
Mr. LaPine:
I agree with you, H.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
H, wereyou talking about rightotwayon Haggerty or Six Mile?
Mr. Shane:
Well, both. There are some suggestions in here where right-of-way
would have to be acquired to do certain improvements.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I think there could be a problem on the east side of Haggerty down
around Six Mile. Isn't there a gas station and a building down
there?
Mr. Shane:
That's what I mean. I mean if it's required on all four comers, that's
really going to be a problem. If it's only required on one or two, I
don't know. There are some far-reaching things there that you'd
have to consider down the road. That's all I have right now.
20023
Mr. McCann:
Anybody else? I just have one thing. The other four
Commissioners may totally disagree with me, but after looking
through the traffic study, there's certain things in here we can
expect to happen, the recommendations. Other ones, I don't know
that can happen. Frequenting that intersection myself, I know from
4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. at night eastbound Six Mile is a problem,
approaching westbound Six Mile, approaching Haggerty is a
problem. I know that we have hotels, Buca de Bepo restaurant,
and other things off of Fox Drive right now. We will inhibit those
businesses if we allow the 433,000 square feel of office space to
empty into Fox Drive from the 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. period of time.
I think its going to be extremely helpful to have traffic come in north
off of Six Mile and that will help the flow, but exiting at the evening
hours I think is a problem. I think no matter what people say, there
will be a lineup there from 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon until 7:00 p.m.
at night, constanfly, without the ability to tum. It will create
accidents; it will limit the ability for the people using the hotels to get
out. I didn't feel that the traffic study addressed that. Are the
developers agreeable to limit Fox Drive north of the Marriott Hotel
to a one-way entrance only?
Mr. Bednas:
Let me just briefly comment on your review of the report. I think
one of the recommendations of the report was that there be a
southbound right tum lane created on Fox Drive to enable the
southbound to westbound movement. So we would certainly want
to be able to retain that option for the tenants of College Park or
Schoolcreft Commons.
Mr. McCann:
How would that help them? If they're going west on Six Mile, they
can exit off onto Haggerty with a light, turn left and then tum right
on the right tum lane that's already existing onto Six Mile.
Mr. Bednas:
No, I'm talking about purely westbound Six Mile traffic that is exiling
the College Park campus on Fox Drive, southbound to Six Mile.
They tum right and head west on Six Mile.
Mr. McCann:
How could you limit the office complex to right tum only, but say,
yeah, ifyou're coming from the hotels, you can tum left?
Mr. Bednas:
Well, the hotels we don't own; we don't have any control over them.
They have prior rights and understandings, and I'm not sure how
you could Iimittheir opfions atthis time.
Mr. McCann:
I think you'll wipe their business out. If people cant gel out of their
hotel at4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., people won'lstay there.
Mr. Bednas:
And I think they'll find other ways, as will the tenants of the office
park. The report did indicate that drivers are creative and ingenious
in finding better ways that suit their own particular needs to exit a
20024
property. I think we suggested that when we were here in
November, and I think the report substantiates that. I think people
will find other ways to exit the site.
Mr. McCann: Are you willing to have Fox Drive as aright tum only? You can only
go right out of Fox Drive? No lett tum available?
Mr. Bednas: I think we'd be open to that suggestion, but I'm not sure how you
deal with the residents on Fairfield and the Town Place suites that
are there.
Mr. McCann: And the restaurant?
Mr. Bednas: And the restaurant. The restaurant has its own driveway to Six
Mile.
Mr. McCann: So in other words, wouldn't the traffic study suggest if you've got
that many people exiting, there's going to be a line from Fox Drive,
from Six Mile all the way into the complex trying to tum left?
Mr. Bednas: The traffic study did not specifically address those movements from
the hotels and the Buca restaurant or the nursing home. But that
hospitality business really has more inbound traffic in the late
afternoon than it does outbound traffic. Its guests coming in. And
I'm sure we could take an analysis of that and come to some logical
conclusion as to what's appropriate. My only concem in not readily
accepting your suggestion is that I really don't know how we can
impose a restnctive movement on those people that already have
had itfor ten years in some instances.
Mr. McCann: I agree with you completely, absolutely 100 percent. That's why I
say, the only solution I can see is ... it works perfectly to come into
the office park. I'm in favor of the office park, but if traffic backs up
to and beyond Fox Drive from 4:00 in the afternoon on and if you
try to dump all that traffic in from that office complex, its just going
to make it a nightmare. People coming out of Quakertown right
now for years have complained that you can wail 15 - 20 minutes to
try and gel out of their subdivision.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I'd like to ask you a question here because I think you're onto
something. Is it possible to get a road east of Fox to go through
into the hotel areas? Maybe Mark can answer that. I don't have it
on the computer.
Mr. Bednas: That's all either buildings or...
Mr. Pieroecchi: Well, ft's just that little day care there, right?
20025
Mr. Bednas:
I'm not sure that you're really doing anything. I mean you're just
taking an existing situation or problem and moving it over further to
the east.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
There could be another road east, and I'm just thinking here. I
haven given any real thought to this. It would be restrictive
perhaps to the hotel.
Mr. Bednas:
This is Fox Drive ... Six Mile up to the Iasi driveway at the Marriott
Residence Inn, which is right here. This is the Town Place Suites.
This is the Fairfield. This is the nursing care center. There's Buca
de Bepo and then there's a day care facility and cemetery back
here.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Theyre going losqueeze a road into the hotel complex?
Mr.Bednas:
Pardon?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
My quesfion was, can a private little road be put in there?
Mr. Bednas:
I'm not sure how you would snake it through. You'd basically
obliterate some of the parking of the nursing care facility that is in
this location. You'd obliterate parking for Buca and the day care.
There's really no room there. As I said earlier, I'm not sure what
you gain by doing that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
What you gain is that the hotels could use it, and it wouldn't create
the problem that Jim has pointed out.
Mr. Bednas:
But the hotels are very dispersed traffic generators. Its not like an
office building where people work probably fixed hours and you
have a large burst of traffic leaving at one time. People are
dispersed throughout the day, in and out. The concerns are peak
hours. I dont believe that the existing hotel complex is a peak hour
problem.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou. Anybodyelse?
Mr. LaPine:
One question. We discussed this. We talk about the main
entrance into the SchoolcmR College property. That's where the
light is at. Is that correct?
Mr.Bednas:
That's right.
Mr. LaPine:
There are three other entrances into the college. There's N lot, B
lot, C lot. There are a number of entrances. So there's not only
one entrance into the SchoolcmR College properly. There's at least
three that I know of.
Mr. Bednas:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Which all can be used to get into the property. If anyone uses one
of those entrances, can they drive through the complex and gel
over to this new high rise area.
Mr. Bednas:
That's really not encouraged.
Mr. LaPine:
I know its not encouraged, but you said a few moments ago,
people are going to find ways to gel there. Now, for instance, they
tell me that I couldn't gel off at Seven Mile Road back over to this
area. Well, I did it today. I came in off of Seven Mile Road by the
Seven Mile Crossing offices. I didn't gel all the way over there, but
I got to where the commercial property is going to be by going
around, turning right, going around. I was able to do it. Now, I
wouldn't want to do it on an everyday basis, but if I wanted to get
there, and there was a backup of traffic, it can be done. But I don't
want to create those types of problems. I'm not opposed to this
proposal, but I do have a serious problem with what I think is a
traffic situation here. I want to make sure in my mind that we're
doing everything humanly possible to eliminate all avenues of a
traffic jam. Its not only for the people going into this center, this
two-mile area which has got over 4 million square feet of office
space. It affects the whole City of Livonia to some degree. And I
have to be sure in my mind, before I vote for this, that every avenue
is being taken to eliminate every possibility of traffic problems.
There's going to be some, no doubt about it. But let's keep them to
a minimum.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order. This is a pending item.
Mr. LaPine:
Just let me say one thing, Mr. Chairman. We need to know we're
going to implement any of these suggestions made from the study
from the traffic consultant. If some of these things are put into
effect, I think its going to eliminate some of the problem. But do I
know if anything in here is going to be put in effect?
Mr. McCann:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
I mean it's just a shot in the dark here. Are we just voting tonight
for the rezoning and hope that when we get the site plans and all
the other plans, we're going to have the City's problem resolved?
Mr. McCann:
I guess that is exactly what we have to do. Mr. Taormina, do you
have a comment?
Mr. Taormina:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Not to put you on the spot. Mr. Shane?
20027
Mr. Shane:
I was just going to say, if we go for this tonight, we're gang for
zoning. That's it.
Mr. La Pine:
Yes, I agree.
Mr. Shane:
So when they come back numerous other limes for site plan
approval and so forth, hopefully, in that process, we can start
getting some of these things done.
Mr. McCann:
It makes sense.
Mr. Shane:
Decelerations, and things that are adjacent to this property, we can
get done. Maybe there's some way we can effectuate these other
things that have nothing to do with the rezoning petition.
Mr. McCann:
Right. I think I was getting off the topic. Its zoning and I said that I
was for it, so is there a motion?
On a motion
by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Pieroecchi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#01-10-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on November 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-10-01-13, submitted by Schoolcmft Commons, LLC,
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest''/.
of Section 7, from PL and R5C to G2, OS, PO and PO -11, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-
10-01-13 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed changes of zoning are consistent with the
type of development that has occurred along the 1-96/1275
Freeway corridor;
2. That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
3. That the proposed changes of zoning are consistent with the
City's development policies for the Freeway corridor;
4. That the proposed changes of zoning are consistent with the
spirit of the Future Land Use Plan as it relates to the Freeway
corridor and vicinity; and
5. That the proposed changes of zoning provide opportunities to
significantly increase the tax base and the prospects for
additional employment opportunities in the community.
Yrr
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.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, La Pine, Shane, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Alanskas, Walsh
ABSENT:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to the City Council with an approving
resolution. Thank you. Let the record reflect that at 11:03, Messrs.
Alanskas and Walsh returned to the podium. I want to officially
welcome Carol Smiley to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: We are very pleased to have you aboard.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 857th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 14, 2003, was adjourned at 1104
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman