HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-06-1720501
MINUTES OF THE 867° PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 867" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William LaPine John Walsh
Carol Smiley
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Marge Roney, Secretary, were
also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in 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 anc/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2003-04-02-10 NEW CAR ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
04-02-10 submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of New Car
Altemative, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to expand the
vehicle display area in connection with an existing automobile
dealership located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest''/. of Section
33.
20502
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 May 19, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. There is no additional
right-of-way required in conjunction with this petition. The storm
sewer outlet shown in front of the adjacent petitioned property is
not to a City of Livonia storm sewer and would require a permit
from the Michigan Department of Transportation. As alternates,
the proprietor could use the existing City sewer in Laurel
Avenue or could cross Plymouth Road to a City 72" sewer. The
project should also be reviewed with Wayne County under their
storm water management ordinance. Proof of the easement
shown across the donut shop property should be provided to the
City Law Department for review." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 1, 2003, which reads
as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to expand the vehicle display area in
connection with an existing automobile dealership on property
located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulation: The
depicted lanes shall remain clear to provide access to
emergency apparatus." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated May 22, 2003, which reads as follows: 'We have
reviewed the plans in connection with the request to expand the
vehicle display area of this business. We have no objections to
these plans as submitted. We do recommend that a sign(s) be
posted advising the truck drivers which driveway to enter so that
they do not tum onto Laurel Street to offload vehicles." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May
29, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
April 28, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This Petitioner should be
advised that banners may be displayed twice a year only with
permit, not just when they desire. (2) The other comments
made February 20, 2003, copy enclosed, stand. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The
20503
referenced letter from the Inspection Department, dated
February 20, 2003, contains the following comments: `The
petition has been reviewed as though the entire site is Zoned C-
2. (2) The irrigation comment at the bottom of sheet 1 needs to
reference 'All Landscaped areas' not just 'all grass area.' (3)
The new bathrooms must be fully barrier free and will be
addressed by this Department at time of plan review." That
letter is also signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bryan L. Amann,
with the law firm of Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton
and Amann, LLP, 355 N. Canton Center Road, Canton,
Michigan 48187. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, Alan
Tanski, general proprietor of New Car Altematve. We heard
the letters and recommendations. We have absolutely no
problem with any conditions or concems expressed in those
letters. Otherwise, we're here and prepared to answer any
questions you might have regarding the proposal.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Our rotes say that you're going to have dumpster gates, but it
didn't say what type of gates you're going to have. Will they be
metal or wooden gates?
Mr. Amann:
Do you have a preference?
Mr. Alanskas:
The metal gates dont gel broken as easily.
Mr. Amann:
It shall be metal, then.
Mr. Alanskas:
Usually with wooden gales, they break and you have to paint
them. Question two, through the Chair: Mark, on the signs we
want to put up for these drivers, how big are they going to be on
Plymouth Road in regards to height?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm sorry. Which signs are you referring lo?
Mr. Alanskas:
The ones for the drivers to come into this area to drop off the
cars.
Mr. Amann:
There's a code that applies to directional -type signage. We'll
have to comply with the state code on that.
20504
Mr. Alanskas: You mean nothing special other than what we permit?
Mr. Taormina: The Traffic Bureau has made certain recommendations without
providing specifics. As part of the consideration for changing
the zoning of this property, the City Council has referred the
issue of how to handle the off-loading of vehicles on Laurel
Avenue to the Traffic Commission for a report and
recommendation. So if there is any signage to be provided, it
would likely be through a traffic control order.
Mr. Alanskas: We would not be involved with that at all?
Mr. Taormina: On the detail part of @, no. We would leave that up to the Traffic
Commission since they have the jurisdiction over any signage
that is placed within the public rights-0iway.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. I do have a question for Mr. Tanski. Have you
started loading trucks in your new section of the building instead
of on Laurel Avenue.
Alan Tanski, New Car Alternative, 34715 Plymouth Road. Have I started? No.
Mr. Alanskas:
When are you going to start?
Mr. Amann:
We're not unloading on Laurel Avenue at this point.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where are you unloading now?
Mr. Tanski:
The cars are being unloaded at Newburgh Road and Plymouth
Road in the old Nissan dealership that is for sale. The
Volkswagen dealership just bought and fenced it. He's letting
me unload there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Then you're driving them down?
Mr. Tanski:
Yes.
Mr. Amann:
That was done in an attempt to try to immediately address those
concems. I think if anybody is honestly looking at that, they will
think the last four weeks has been a dramatic improvement in
that. So until this is all done, we didn't want to do anything until
all the other uses were approved.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason why I ask is because I go by there everyday and I
notice that your building on the east side is still loaded with cars.
20505
The trucks cannot gel in there to unload so that's why I was
wondering how you are doing that.
Mr. Tanski:
When the cars are gone, I'm sure we can unload there.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you're going to continue to unload down the street on
Newburgh until you gel the building done?
Mr. Tanski:
That's correct. If a truck comes that doesn't know about the
plan, he'll be told. But we've been really trying hard not to
unload on the street.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Amann:
And that's really what this use approval is about to allow us to
move those over.
Mr. LaPine:
Just a couple questions. To park the cars back in this new area,
are you coming off that easement off of Plymouth Road?
Mr. Amann:
We're primarily going to have access off of our lot. By the
judgment that was entered by the Wayne County Circuit Court
on that, the easement off of Plymouth Road could be used for
any and all purposes for ingress and egress, but we really
anticipate it to be an incidental use for customers and those
types of things. We intend to really use the access from the
eastern portion ofthe lot.
Mr. LaPine:
I notice in your plan, it says "gates,' but I don't know if that
means you are going to have gates to open and close.
Mr. Amann:
Any new car lot always tries to provide some access but
security at the same time. It's a great challenge.
Mr. LaPine:
On the north side of this properly, where the donut shop is, it
doesn't look like you have much shrubbery. Are you going to
have more than what's shown on this plan?
Mr. Amann:
By the donut shop?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Amann:
Right now, in fact, there is asphalt pavement which has been
brought over onto the parcel from the donut shop which is
overlapping. So we have to look at that. There will be a
greenbelt area with shrubbery.
20506
Mr. LaPine:
And I assume where all that grassy area is, dwill be paved. Is
that right?
Mr. Amann:
Where it's not grass, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shane:
I notice that along the south property line, there is a single row
of arborvitaes. I think we talked about a double row.
Mr. McCann:
Staggered.
Mr. Shane:
Yes, a staggered row.
Mr. Amann:
Yes, there is an updated plan that was filed that shows a
staggered row and large arborvitaes. You don't have that?
There's some disconnect. We have a plan which shows the
staggered arborvitaes. Obviously we have to work with the
physical constraints ofthe area.
Mr. McCann:
Originally, on the plan staggered arborvitaes were shown but
when the Iasi plan came to us, its not shown.
Mr. Amann:
That must have been a mistake then. It was the approval of this
body and the recommendation also of the City Council that it
was supposed to be a staggered row, and it will be that. Its
staggered and offset to try to maximum blockage.
Mr.Shane:
Okay.
Mr. LaPine:
Just a couple other questions. Is that Burger King a 24-hour
operation?
Mr. Amann:
Well, he's, thank god, home that time of night, so we're not sure.
Mr. LaPine:
Second question, because it's dark back there, are you going to
have any lights back there for security reasons?
Mr. Amann:
Absolutely, but all lighting will comply with ordinance
requirements as to photometric outputs.
Mr. LaPine:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
20507
Matt Harrison, 34450 Pinetree. My concern is when I'm coming home and going
down Laurel with the semis taking off the cars, but he
addressed that issue. The other thing is when they test drive
the cars, they go down Pinetree and they use mach one speed.
The reason why I know this, I followed the car back to the
dealership. That's another problem we have is the speeding
down through Pinetree. Those are the issues I have.
Mr. McCann: All right. Thank you.
Bred Arnold, 11205 Laurel. I live to the south of the property. I would just want
everything that is proposed be brought up to code in the building
process. He is going from 120 feet from his building down to
72, which is going to make noise bounce more. I ask that they
put in the wall up to code. In some areas, it's between 54" to
like 32". We've measured the whole wall. It's very different in
heights. You could put blocks on top. You could maintain it and
then it will have a straight symmetrical level on it. I would ask
that the lighting doesn't shine into the residential and that on the
new proposed area, that it is shielded and pointed in because I
don't want to gel my whole yard lit up - just that things be
brought up to code. When I remodeled my house, I made sure
everything is up to code, garbage disposal and all that other
sluff. Thankyoufortme.
Mr. McCann: Thank you, sir.
Nancy Arnold, 11205 Laurel. I live on the south side of the business. I just want
to make sure that the arborvitaes that they did say they were
going to put in are going to be put in, that they be on the plans
before you approve it. Also that the wall is connected to the
Burger King wall, so that we don't have people coming through
there. And that's it. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I don't see any one else. I'm going to close the public hearing.
A final response from the pefifioner ...
Mr. Amann: Certainly, I think the Planning Commission is well aware of the
wall issue and the inability to add to it, that's why the arborvitaes
were recommended and suggested by this body a while ago.
The lighting will absolutely not be an issue for them. It will
comply with ordinance with the proper shielding. The wall we
will be able to bring right down too, so there's very little opening,
but we aren't able to connect per se because that's another
person's properly. But there should be no possibility of ingress
20508
of egress for anybody through there. So I think we will satisfy
that concern as well.
Mr. McCann:
You missed one thing. Customers and mechanics testing cars.
Mr. Amann:
In fad, when there's a salesperson in the car, we literally take
them out to the left and go, but we do have people who go out
to Wayne Road and sometimes comes back in Pinetree and
come back up there. When they're not with a salesperson, we
try our best to direct that but ultimately these people are going
to chose a lot of different routes. We discourage it. We cb
everything we can short of throwing up a barricade down there.
Everything that can physically be done is being done.
Mr. McCann:
But we're expanding the dealership, which has a bigger impact
on the area. Is there anything you can put on the keychain that
you hand the person saying, "Do not drive on this road?"
Mr. Amann:
We can certainly do that. And we physically tell them to their
face, "Make sure you go left out of here and do not go into
there" But ultimately when they take a test drive, these are
public roads and they go wherever the heck they think they may
be driving.
Mr. McCann:
I understand that.
Mr. Amann:
We'll add something to that effect as well as the keychain.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you give your customers a test drive, do you let them go
bylhemselves?
Mr. Amann:
Sometimes we have established customers or people leave us
a credit card or a license and certain things like that. It's not the
common practice, but it does happen on occasion.
Mr. Alanskas:
Usually a salesperson will go with that person laking a test
drive, and at that time, they can say, "Look, you can't go down
this way."
Mr. Amann:
Some of Mr. Tanski's greatest problems is that he's such a
trusting guy.
Mr. McCann:
Does that meant the salesmen are going and spending the night
with this new GM policy.?
Mr. Amann:
I'm not going to comment on that.
20509
Mr. Piercecchi:
This wall business, the difference in height. Is that because of
the terrain behind it?
Mr. Amann:
Right.
Mr. Piercecchi:
He said some of the walls are three feet high and some five feet
high?
Mr. Amann:
You may recall, we spent a lot of time on this the last time we
were here on this issue, and I think Commission McCann
actually went and visited the site. I think his measurements are
possibly not quite accurate. But from one side of the wall to the
other, you could argue that there is some discrepancy. I kidded
last time, the wall should be known as a historic structure. We
can't physically add to the top of it without causing such a
structural weakness that we risk having the wall fall down.
That's why we decided to add the staggered row of arborvitaes
because it also helps buffer sound as opposed to the wall
causing reverberation of sound. I don't want to take a lot more
of your time, but we really beat that horse the last time we were
here.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I recall that, but I just wanted to get it repeated and into the
record.
Mr. Amann:
Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Regarding the test driving of the cars, do you make the people
sign anything when they take your cars out for a spin?
Mr. Amann:
We typically will get a credit card or drivers license from them.
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchr
Do you put asgn in the car, "Do not go down Laurel?"
Mr. Amann:
Actually, Mr. Tanski thought it was a great suggestion from the
Chairman. We're going to do something with the keychain or a
sign in the car so they have it right there. I wish we could have
some buzzer that goes off, but when they come back, it's a hard
thing to control. We will try to provide information at the time in
the car so they see it.
Mr. Piercecchr
Well, when they get the keys to car, cant they get a little note
saying ...
20610
Mr. Amann: Right. We will do that
Mr. Piercecchr
That may resolve it. I can understand people being concerned
about that. When you're checking out a car, sometimes you like
to see how fast it goes.
Mr. Amann:
Sure enough. But hopefully they're on 196 or FA -14 when they
do it, but that's right.
Mr. McCann:
Anything else? A motion is in order. Sir, the public hearing was
closed, but if there is no objection, I'll let you have one last
comment if you can make it brief. Is there any objection from
the Commissioners?
Mr. Arnold:
My question is, how much of the wall is open from where Alan
Tanski is slopping b where the Burger King wall is? It says in
the ordinance, if its developed, it has to have a commercial
wall. So who's going to put the rest of the wall up?
Mr. Amann:
Mr. Chair, we are providing the wall. What I'm saying is that we
can't physically conned it to the Burger King wall because it's
their property.
Mr. Arnold:
Here's my property. Right here ...
Mr. McCann:
Sir, you have to address the Commission. He can't address
you. You can't address him. You have to address the
Commission.
Mr. Arnold: Okay.
Mr. McCann: Lel me take a look at the plans for just one second. Is there a
separation between Mr. Tanski's property and the wall on the
Burger King property, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I don't believe so. It's my understanding that he wall that exists
along the south property line of the Burger King site extends
east all the way to their property line. What Mr. Amann is
refening to is when they construct the wall on the Tanski
property, it will physically abut, or be just about as dose as you
can get to connecting or attaching to that wall without
necessarily any kind of attachment, but it certainly can come
within an inch or so ofthat wall.
Mr. Arnold: And then what we do is leave an opening for people to come in
to my house.
20511
Mr. McCann:
Excuse me, sir. He said that the walls will abut within an inch.
Mr. Arnold:
Well, an inch is fine, but if there's an opening ... what I'm
seeing here looking at this ...
Mr. McCann:
No.
Mr. Piercecchr
You weren't listening.
Mr. Arnold:
... is there's a whole strip here ...
Mr. McCann:
No. We're just saying according to the plans, according to the
Commissioners, we're going to ... lel us look at it. They are
saying right now they will abut. There will be no opening for
them to walk back there. If there's a problem, we're going to
look at it, but we will make it a part of our resolution that it will
abut the Burger King wall.
Mr. Arnold:
Okay. Ihear that. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is that workable, everybody? Okay. A motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#06-01-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 17, 2003, on
Petition 2003-04-02-10 submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of
New Car Alternative, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to
expand the vehicle display area in connection with an existing
automobile dealership located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the
Northwest % of Section 33, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-04-02-
10 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site/Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 of 3, dated
March 13, 2003, as revised, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to, except as modified in connection with
conditions 2 and 3 below;
2. That a continuous staggered row of arborvitaes, spaced no
less than three feet on center, shall be planted along the
south property line adjacent to the screen wall;
20512
3. That additional plant materials, which shall be approved by
the Planning Director, shall be installed in the landscaped
areas adjacent to the north and west boundaries of the
subject property;
4. That all plant materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department, and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That all landscaped areas shall be fully inigated;
6. That all pole -mounted light fixtures shall be shielded and
shall not exceed a maximum overall height of sixteen (16)
feet above grade;
7. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia and/or the State of Michigan;
8. That this approval shall incorporate the recommendation of
the Traffic Bureau in the correspondence dated May 22,
2003 that signage, which shall be approved by the
Inspection Department, shall be posted advising the truck
drivers which driveway to enter so that they do not tum
onto Laurel Avenue to offload vehides;
9. That no other additional signage is approved with this
request;
10. That this approval shall incorporate the following stipulation
contained in the letter dated May 1, 2003 from the Fire and
Rescue Division;
- Thatthe depicted drive aisles shall remain dearto
provide access to emergency apparatus;
11. That the dumpster endosure shall be constructed with six
(6) foot high masonry walls of split face block to match the
building and with metal or wood gates which shall be
maintained and when not in use closed at all times;
12. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for;
20513
13. That all conditions imposed under Council Resolution
#182-03, which previously granted waiver use approval to
expand the subject car dealership facility, shall remain in
effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the
conditions of this approval; and
14. That the new screen wall shall abut the adjoining wall.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
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 carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-05-0241 IZZY'S SUB SHOP
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-05-02-11 submitted by Dennis Murphy, on behalf of G & M
Funding, requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited
service restaurant (Izzys Sub Shop) on property located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road and
Levan Road in the Southwest''/.of Section 17.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
20514
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated May 27, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 22, 2003, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a limited
service restaurant on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal" The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated May 29, 2003, which reads as
follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with a
request to operate a limited service restaurant located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh and Levan.
Our only recommendation is that consideration be given to
establishing a handicap parking space on the east end of the
parking lot with ramp access." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated May 30, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 21, 2003, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The curb southeast of this site's front entrance needs repair.
(2) Sections of the parking lot need repair, resealing and the
entire lot needs double striping. (3) Unenclosed dumpsters are
in place at the rear. What provision has been made for this
Petitioner's trash? (4) As this is a change in use group from the
previous tenant, the entire space, including the front entry door,
must meet the current barrier free accessibility code. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dennis Murphy,
17391 Bell Creek Lane, Livonia. Our petition is pretty simple
and less controversial than the last one. We're looking to open
up the sub shop. I've got a letter here, and each of you can
have a copy of it, from Kimco Really. The landlords have
addressed all the issues, Mr. Nowak, that you just talked about.
It doesn't look like it's a problem. As far as the re -striping of the
lot, they did that last year and it looks like they continue to do
that and review that. That's the only thing that we looked at that
may already be in force, but we can take another look at that.
20616
They have no problem dealing with that issue. Again, I'll give
you each a copy of this. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
On your letter behind your menu, it says 'Yo be owned and
operated by Livonia residents"
Mr. Murphy:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there going to be more than one owner for this business?
Mr. Murphy:
I am going to own the business. Its going to be owned by
myself and my company, G&M Funding, which my other brother
manages with me, Patrick Murphy. And the on-site manger will
be my brother, Michael Murphy.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. What are your hours going to be?
Mr. Murphy:
We're looking to do a morning menu, so we're going to be open
probably about 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. We're looking to go to about
6:00 P.M.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. It says that you want to get involved with the LHA?
Mr. Murphy:
Yeah, and here's the thing: that's why it's kind of much more
light hearted than the last thing. We want this to be something.
We own businesses in Livonia. We live in Livonia and have kids
that play sports in Livonia. We want this to be a place where
there's big screen TVs on the wall you can go to after a soccer
practice, a hockey practice. You can review game tapes. We're
going to have paraphernalia for all the teams up on the walls.
We want it to be a place where probably most of your kids, after
they play their game with their friends, they go back to Izzy's;
they check out the game. We'd like to have the LHA player of
the month, that type of thing. We have to set ourselves apart
from the chain restaurants. We're an individually owned and
operated company. We want to compete with them, so we have
to go in a different direction. We want kind of that home spun
type of thing. We know nationals are coming up for hockey, I
think next year. We want to be a part of that. We want to be a
part of the Taste of Livonia. Like I said, we've lived and worked
in Livonia. We want something that our kids and your kids can
all go to. So we're trying to get, not an affiliation with the LHA,
but we've talked to them a little bit and we want to do some
things to kind of encourage people to come on in afterwards,
20518
Mr. Taormina: I would have to check with the Building Department. I don't
know that number.
Mr. Nowak: I just want to comment that the C-1 zoning of the shopping
center would only allow a maximum of 30 seats.
Mr. Alanskas: I know the seats, but if you have 30 people sitting, and 80
people want to go inside the building because they want to
watch the TV screen or a game, I'm concerned that you may
have a bunch of people outside. That could be a problem.
That's why I asked about the fire code.
Mr. Murphy: Again, yes, certainly. We've looked into it when we came down
and spoke with Mr. Nowak a little bit. We are looking at about
30 seats. We have some designs. We're going to try and break
have a sub, have some ice cream. We're kind of polishing up
thatmenudghtnov. But where people can feel comfortable.
Mr. Alanskas:
You are not going to have a place where you're gang to have a
bunch of young kids hanging around outside, are you?
Mr. Murphy:
Hope not. The idea is coaches, moms when they drop their kids
off on the rink, come on over. For the little kids, we're going to
have a kid -friendly menu. That type of thing. We want it to be a
family -type place as opposed to a hangout.
Mr. Alanskas:
But you only have 30 seats.
Mr. Murphy:
Understood.
Mr. Alanskas:
If you're involved with the LHA, you're talking a lot of people.
Mr. Murphy:
Well, obviously, that's a good problem to have and you can
certainly expand later on. But we're going to start at a place
where, again, we want to introduce people to this. We want to
have this location for a while. If it gets to a point where we need
to expand, we can have addifional locations.
Mr. Alanskas:
Excuse me, through the Chair: Mark, with the fire regulations,
how many people can they put in that building at one time
legally?
Mr. Taormina:
You're talking about the occupancy load?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina: I would have to check with the Building Department. I don't
know that number.
Mr. Nowak: I just want to comment that the C-1 zoning of the shopping
center would only allow a maximum of 30 seats.
Mr. Alanskas: I know the seats, but if you have 30 people sitting, and 80
people want to go inside the building because they want to
watch the TV screen or a game, I'm concerned that you may
have a bunch of people outside. That could be a problem.
That's why I asked about the fire code.
Mr. Murphy: Again, yes, certainly. We've looked into it when we came down
and spoke with Mr. Nowak a little bit. We are looking at about
30 seats. We have some designs. We're going to try and break
20517
it up a little bit, so we have an area where you can watch the
TV. Then you'll have another area where people can sit. Again,
if we have people clamoring to get in the doors, we'll certainly
expand. We'll get another location, an additional location.
Mr. Alanskas: Because my only thought is usually when you have young
people and TV screens in your business, you're going to have
people who want to linger and stay there and watch a game or
something. And that could be a problem.
Mr. Murphy: Well, again, its not necessarily going to be that we've got the
Red Wings on every night. It's going to be the type of thing
where you review tapes. You look at what your team just did
instead of going back to the locker room and reviewing the tape
there. You come over to lay's and review it while you're eating.
It's like taking the kids out for ice cream after a baseball game.
You're taking them over to Izzy's. You'll sit down; you'll review
the tapes there.
Mr. Alanskas: Usually when you go to a Tubby's or Subway, you go in there
and have a sandwich. You gel done eating and you leave.
Mr. Murphy: And remember, we're not going to have hockey games going on
24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's going to be a standard,
again like the big chains, like a Tubby's or a Subway. We'll gel
them in; we'll get them out. We'll have our morning rush. We'll
have our lunch rush. Again, when we gel to the point where we
do have some games going on and some practices going on,
they can come in and review them. We'll have a little section
set again for review of those tapes.
Mr. McCann: They're going to be supervised, right?
Mr. Murphy: Yes.
Mr. McCann: I know where you were going with that, Bob, but I think the issue
is more supervision.
Mr. Alanskas: I'm just thinking about a game and number of people. That's
what I'm concerned with.
Mr. La Pine: I'm just curious about your timeline. You say you're going to
open at 8:00 in the morning? I didn't know sub shops sold
breakfast.
20518
Mr. Murphy:
That is the idea. If you've noticed in that strip mall, we've got a
cleaners, we got a nail salon, that type of thing. In the morning
as people are running in, we do want to have a light breakfast
menu.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. I was just curious about that. The other thing I was
curious about, you dose at 600. We've heard an number of
these sub shops in the last couple weeks, and normally they're
open until 8:00 p.m. because they get the people coming home
from work say from 5 to 7 picking up subs and going home and
having dinner. I'm curious that you're going to close at 6:00
p.m. It seems to me it would be more like 8:00 p.m. probably
because you're going to miss the dinnertrade there.
Mr. Murphy:
Well, again, the idea is we're modeling after a sub shop in Ann
Arbor. Their big thing was their lunch rush. That's really our
main thing. We don't want the kids hanging out until 10:00 at
night. As it gets dark, all kinds of bad things can happen at that
point. Certainly in the initial stages that should be sufficient.
Again, if the scenario comes to fruition of people lined up
outside the door, we'll certainly move it to 8:00 at that point, but
again, those are good problems to have.
Mr. La Pine:
Let me just say that I'm happy for you. I think it's nice to see a
young man opening a business that's got a business plan here
that's kind of different than the chains. And I'm with you. Its
about time the little guy gets a break in the word and opens up
a business here. All I can say is my son played in the LHA. In
those days, we took them to Chuck E. Cheeses and they were
like wild Indians.
Mr. Murphy:
Well, we wont have a stuffed I=y walking around, so it will be a
little bit more subdued.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You seem to be very confident about bringing in all these
groups and all that. Have you made arrangements with the
Livonia Recreation or schools?
Mr. Murphy:
No. There are no arrangements out there. We have kids. We
know how it works. My wife comes homes and say, "I brought
the gids over to XYZ today. The play area was great, but I'm
not real thrilled with McDonald's nuggets. I want something that
isn't going to ruin my diet" I want something where my
youngest can go and eat, where my oldest can enjoy it. And I
think that's the type of thing, like I said, when the hockey moms,
quote unquote, or the soccer moms drop the kids oft, they want
20519
to go somewhere loo. We'll have that type of menu. If you
bring the little one with you, we have that type of menu. That's
the idea. If you want to bring the whole family there, great.
Again, its really not going to be a place where everybody
comes in and lingers and has a four -course meal. But we want
it to be kind of a tradition. They come in; they order their subs;
they go to the rink or they come in afterwards like I said. We set
aside an area, they review the tapes, thattype oflhing.
Mr. Piercecchr
I'm delighted with your enthusiasm.
Mr. Murphy:
Well, thank you, sir.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm sure you'll succeed. I'm sure of t.
Mr. Shane:
I echo what Mr. La Pine said. Furthermore, if you spend very
much time at that shopping center, you know they can use
some additional activity. Its not a shopping center that a lot of
people go to, so I would think something like this would be a
shot in the a" for them, and I wish you luck.
Mr. Murphy:
Thank you very much. It sounds like we have our first
customers right here.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
againstthis petition? I don'tsee anyone. A motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#06-02-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on June 17, 2003, on
Petition 2003-05-02-11 submitted by Dennis Murphy, on behalf
of G & M Funding, requesting waiver use approval to operate a
limited service restaurant (I=ys Sub Shop) on property located
on the north side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh Road
and Levan Road in the Southwest %of Section 17, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2003-05-02-11 be approved subject to the following
condifions:
1. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no
more than 30 seats;
20520
2. That the following issues as oullined in the correspondence
dated May 30, 2003 from the Inspection Department shall
be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
- That the curb along the sidewalk at the front of the
shopping center building southeast of the proposed
restaurant's front entrance shall be repaired;
- That portions of the parking lot shall be repaired and
resealed as needed and the entire lot shall be double
striped;
- That this entire space shall meet the current banner flee
accessibility code, including the front entry door, since
this is a change in use group.
3. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject
restaurant and shall be emptied regularly as needed; and
4. That at least one handicapped parking space with ramp
access shall be established on the east end of the front
parking lot, as recommended in the correspondence dated
May 29, 2003 from the Traffic Bureau of the Division of
Police.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved 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, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. This concludes the Public Heading section
20521
of our agenda. We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans
section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in
support of or opposition to these items. Will the Secretary
please read the next item?
ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-05-0842 CELL WOODS
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-05-08-12 submitted by Leo Soave, on behalf of Cavell
Woods Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master
Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
site condominium development on property located at 14595
Cavell Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 24.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Cavell Avenue between
Five Mile and Western Golf Avenue. The petitioner is
requesting approval to develop a 15 unit site condominium
development on property that was recently rezoned (Petition
2002-10-01-14) from RUF, Rural Urban Farm to R-2. According
to the submitted documentation, the proposed development
would be called "Cavell Woods Site Condominiums." The
homesites would front on a 50 fool wide public street that would
run easttwest off Cavell Avenue and then turn and continue in a
north/south direction. A modified 'T" turn -around at the end of
the street would allow traffic to loop. The ordinance specifies
that the lot area of an R-2 property shall be equal to 8,400 sq. ft.
or have a lot width of 70 ft. and a lot depth of 120 ft. All the
proposed condominium lots would conform to all requirements
of an 1-2 zoning district. Al the end of the development's street
on the east side would be a small 12,975 sq. ft. or 0.26 acre
park/open space lot. Five feet wide greenbelts, along the
extreme edge of the west and south property lines, are labeled
..undisturbed." The bylaws clarify that, "The undisturbed 5 ft.
wide greenbelt is to remain and shall not be removed. All trees
and shrubs existing within the 5 ft. wide greenbelt art= to be
protected and permanently maintained for the benefit and
enjoyment for all condominium owners." A 26 ft. wide greenbelt
is shown along the north side of the development's street, from
Cavell Avenue all the way to condominium lot 15. A copy of the
Master Deed and bylaws for this new development have been
submitted for review by the City. The bylaws specify that the
minimum size standards for a one-story ranch would be 1,750
sq. ft. and 2,300 sq. ft. for a multi -story dwelling. All single-
family dwellings would have a two -car attached garage, and
20522
with written approval from the Association, could have a three -
car attached garage. Exterior building materials would consist
of brick, brick veneer, stone and/or wood. The first floor of each
unit would be brick on all four sides, with the total amount of
brick on each dwelling being not less than 80% on one-story
dwellings and 55% on two-story dwellings. All the brick used in
construction would be full face, four inch brick. Any chimneys
would be constructed out of brick. On June 12, 2003, the
petitioner submitted a Landscape Plan for this site condominium
development. The new plan shows the proposed plant
materials for the greenbelt easement along the north side of the
development's street, from Cavell Avenue all the way to
condominium lot 15. It also indicates what would be planted
within the park/open space lot. A note on the plan explains that
the street trees, selected and planted by City of Livonia, would
be installed within the right-of-way of the road. Notes also
explain that "All existing evergreens, trees, shrubs and other
vegetation located within the 5 ft. undisturbed greenbelts are to
remain and protected." A cutout showing a typical section of
the undisturbed greenbelts illustrate that evergreen trees and
shrubs would infill and enhance the existing plant materials to
create an effective buffer.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 2, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. Sidewalks are required in
conjunction with this site condominium and should be shown on
the plan view and the typical cross section. The detention area
should be labeled in the Park/Open Space area, and this
development is subject to the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 4, 2003, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct site
condominiums on property located at the above referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal with the
following stipulation: Adequate hydrants shall be provided and
located with a maximum spacing of 500 feet between hydrants.
Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran,
Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police,
20523
dated June 16, 2003, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans submitted with the proposal to construct site
condominiums on property located at 14595 Cavell Avenue.
We have the following recommendations for your consideration:
(1) A 'stop' sign should be installed at the corner of Cavell and
the new street. (2) A 'no outlet' sign should also be installed for
the proposed street and posted near Cavell. (3) For pedestrian
safety, we recommend the installation of sidewalks along both
sides of the proposed street. (4) Parking should be prohibited at
the end of the street so that large emergency vehicles can tum
around without difficulty. (5) We recommend street lights be
installed to promote pedestrian safety and for crime prevention."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June
6, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
May 23, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia. What we propose is 15 homes.
These are one and two-story brick houses. As far as range, it's
going to 80% brick and on two-story 65%. This is going to be
concrete road, and we do plan on sidewalks. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, I'm just curious. All the lots are 75' by 120' except
number 15, which is 59.8' by 100'. Am I reading that right?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm sorry, which lot?
Mr. LaPine:
Lot 15.
Mr. Taormina:
What is the dimension that you mentioned?
Mr. LaPine:
59.8' by 100'.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the width of the lot isn't exactly measured along that
portion of the front line. The width of the lot is actually 80'. If
you'll look at the rear property line, that would give you a better
indication of what that dimension is straight across. There is a
radius right there at the corner ...
20524
Mr. La Pine:
This is a comer lot. I thought d had to set back 25 feel from the
side yard. Here ilsays 17.
Mr. Taormina:
Are you looking at the Landscape Plan?
Mr. Alanskas:
He's looking atthe Landscape Plan.
Mr. Taormina:
I'd have to check with the ordinance to find out what the side
street yard setback is, but it does allow a certain reduction on
one side on comer lots. I wouldn't rely on the Landscape Plan
for those dimension requirements. The side yard abutting the
street in the R-2 can be as little as 17 feel.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay.
Mr. Piercecchr
Good evening, Mr. Soave. Just a couple things. You just
mentioned in your dialog fiat there's going to be 65% and 80%
brick.
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Piercecchr
But your deed says 55% and 80%. Would you change that in
yourdeed?
Mr. Soave:
Sure.
Mr. Piercecchr
Why the reduction in the areas? When you originally sent in the
deed here, you had 1,750 square feet and now you're at 1,550.
Originally, you were 2,300 square feet for the two-story and now
you're at 2,000. Why did you change?
Mr. Soave:
We reviewed the plans with the buyers in Phases 1 and 2 of
Kenwood Meadows. Those customers wanted smaller homes,
and we try to accommodate that. But if you have a problem with
that...
Mr. Piercecchr I just wondered why. There's no problem. Those dimensions
are perfectly legitimate. I was just curious because the original
was one thing, and when I read through it this time around, I
noticed the change.
Mr. Soave: Just a marketing change. That's all it was.
Mr. Piercecchr But you will change to 55% to 65%?
Mr. Soave: Yes, sir.
20525
Mr. Piercecchr Okay.
Mr. Shane: Sir, do you own the Id to the north at this project?
Mr. Soave: Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Shane: Is there a reason why you didn't include that in the petition?
Mr. Soave: We're going to try and keep it for later development. One of the
reasons we changed it, this was over a five acre piece. If we
were to submit it to Wayne County, we would have to go with
the storm water management, which would require a 60,000
square foot detention area. So, it would be too much of a
detention pond. That's one reason I got a lot split at the
Assessors Office now for the one fronting on Cavell, and we
took two lots off to keep it under five acres.
Mr. Shane: Do you own any additional property to the north of that?
Mr. Soave: No. That's all we have.
Mr. Shane: The other question I had is regarding the five foot preserved
greenbelt.
Mr. Soave: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shane: That's a little thin, wouldn't you say? Would you have a problem
expanding that width a bit?
Mr. Soave: Well, as you know, we have to contain our water. We've got to
have a gradual swale. When we start making them bigger,
we're encroaching on the neighbors' backyards. That's why we
try to accommodate the neighbors with the five foot greenbelt.
They wanted len, but I insisted that we couldn't do len because
of the Swale. We have to contain our water. And that's the only
way we can do it.
Mr. Shane: I was just concerned about maintaining the greenbelt with a
width of only five feet with large evergreens and that type of
thing. It just doesn't seem reasonable. I understand your idea
about the Swale, but I didn't know if maybe you could add a few
feet to that and get a little bit more width on it and still
accommodate the Swale.
20526
Mr. Soave:
We checked with the engineering company and they said it
wasn't feasible. This is all we can do.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McCann:
I have a question and I guess it will come up to the
Commissioners with how to go with it. It says "undisturbed
greenbelt." To me, that means let the weeds grow and let the
brush grow. I think I would be more comfortable with the
designated five fool greenbelt with some specific plantings
without ripping out the natural vegetation that is there. I guess
I'll go to Mr. Taormina. Looking at that area, there are certain
areas where that five feet is natural state and there is some
plantings. There are other areas just driving through the sub
that look like it was kind of open and there is nothing there right
now, but the neighbors have kind of cut the lawn back over that
five feet. So how do we deal with that?
Mr. Taormina:
I think really the question is, how does the developer deal with
this in terms of his understanding with the abutting property
owners? This is apparently an arrangement that was made
between them. I cbn t know if the intent is, as you've said, to
leave everything undisturbed or whether the area should be
maintained with only larger, more mature vegetation that is
going to serve as the buffer between these two developments. I
think for practical reasons, we're going to see some of the
underbrush thinned out by the residents over time. If it's not the
first year, it might be the second or third years. So really, it
would appear, especially when we look at the detail provided on
the Landscape Plan, that the intent is to keep this landscape
with a little bit more mature vegetation. He has provided the
detail showing how some of the areas that might not be
completely closed off with vegetation presently will be
supplemented with additional vegetation. He has provided an
improved plant list, all the species of which are completely
acceptable. It provides both evergreen trees and deciduous
trees as well as a variety of shrubs. But I guess I'm not sure
how to answer your question other than to defer to the petitioner
and possibly the association representatives which were
involved in this agreement.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Soave, if you don't have anything further, I'll go to the
neighbors. Sir, name and address please.
At Wozniak,
14702 Santa Anita. Mr. Soave certainly has touched on this
situation with the undisturbed greenbelt. That is an agreement,
20527
of course, that the homeowners that are all adjacent to the
project have basically agreed to. We've had a lot of discussion,
a lot of conversation over the months, and have come up with
the plan that you see in front of you here. The undisturbed
greenbelt certainly has a lot of trees and shrubs. Some sections
have nothing. As Mr. Taormina has said, the plan is that
landscaping will be provided for those areas that do not have
anything there. Certainly some of the areas that do contain
some of the shrubs and things can be moved and other items
placed in there to make a more pleasing and possibly a better
screen for the new project as well as the existing homeowners.
The idea is during the construction phase that we, who live
adjacent to those particular areas, will basically continue to
maintain that greenbelt, weed it if you should so desire, do
whatever we need to do because, obviously, its an advantage
to us as well as to Mr. Soave and his project and to the new
people that are going to move in there. So I think we looked at
a lot of different angles and looked at a lot of different situations.
Hopefully, we've come up to a situation here that we both can
live with, and we're comfortable with it, and Mr. Soave is
comfortable with it as well.
Mr. McCann: I'm hearing from you two different things. To us, up here, we
think of a nature preserve in the form of an undisturbed
greenbelt. That means if dead trees fall in the nature preserve,
that's part of the nature preserve; you let them fall and rot and
go on. And I think you've got people who are going to be
spending several hundred thousand dollars for new homes and
they are not going to want or both neighbors would want this.
That's kind of why I'm asking you this. A totally undisturbed
greenbelt is where you just let everything grow wild; you don't
trim bushes; you don't do anything. The only thing you can do
is add water as opposed to maybe an improved greenbelt that
has to be maintained as a greenbelt, but I mean if somebody
wants to plant some flowers along their edge of it or if they want
to pull the weeds or trim bushes so that they're not...
Mr. Wozniak: I probably didn't do a good job of explaining because its a very
broad issue that we dealt with over the months. When we say
undisturbed, basically during the construction phase, Mr. Soave
has guaranteed that the five foot areas will be undisturbed with
any sort of digging or other sort of thing.
Mr. McCann: Oh, l see.
20528
Mr. Wozniak:
Once utilities are in, once the storm lines are in, once all the
diggings and things have settled in, then we plan to go back into
that section and basically landscape that area wherever its
required to maintain that greenbelt. So maybe that clarifies it.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. So we do want it as an improved greenbelt area, is what
you're saying?
Mr. Wozniak:
Yes. That's correct.
Mr. McCann:
But during the construction, it's going to be undisturbed.
Mr. Wozniak:
That's correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
On the site plan, he's puffing in Spimea and burning bushes in
that five foot greenbelt and that will really spruce it up real nice.
Mr. McCann:
Mark, if we leave it as an undisturbed greenbelt, that's for part of
the site that goes on to Council, and then nobody can go in and
do anything. Mark's shalang his head. I assume that I'm either
right or wrong, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, we're both familiar with
other areas of the City where this has created problems after
the project is developed and other homeowners move in. Then
the question becomes, how is that area maintained? Is it to be
left undisturbed? Which trees are to remain? Which trees can
be removed or replaced? I think for that reason some of these
items needs to be addressed in the Building and Use
Restrictions or the Master Deed and bylaws so that there is no
confusion later on when a homeowner in the Western Golf
Estates is accusing another homeowner in this development of
removing or making some changes to that greenbelt area. It
should be referred to in that Master Deed precisely how it's to
be maintained so we can avoid these types of problems later
on.
Mr. McCann:
Can staff recommend the language pursuant to this or the City?
Mr. Taormina:
I think we could review it. I think it's something the Association
is going to have to enforce over time. I believe that the
developer and Western Golf Estates need to agree to certain
language.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. So what I'll do is have the attorney for Mr. Soave prepare
the proposed language to go into the subdivision documents.
20529
We can approve it with this language to go in and the
subdivision association can review it as well. Mr. Shane, you
want to add something?
Mr. Shane:
Yes. My thoughts are gang towards you two guys and
something the gentleman said confused me just a little bit. He
said when the development is there, when the people have
moved in, when the construction equipment is gone, we will add
plant material. Who is going to add the plant material?
Mr. Wozniak:
Mr. Soave said that he will add the plant material. We have
been in contact with Mr. John Nagy, who is under his employ.
He's the one that developed the landscape plan that you see
here. As you said, we have an agreement here basically
indicating who will maintain these things when the condominium
association is finally put together, and that's what we were
discussing. I agree it should probably be in the bylaws and the
deeds regarding that because that's what we had discussed.
And if Mr. Soave wants to add anything to what I'm saying or if
I've misspoken, please get up and say something.
Mr. McCann:
No. I think we're all getting on the right page now. Is there
something you want to add, Mr. Soave?
Mr. Soave:
No. If we need the language changed, we can do it between
now and when it goes to Council.
Mr. McCann:
Well, that's what I'm suggesting.
Mr. Soave:
I have no problem.
Mr. McCann:
And we just want to make sure that we're on the same page
because the way it is right now, I dont think anybody would be
happy with the "undisturbed greenbelt."
Mr. La Pine:
Can I just ask the gentleman one question? When you say that
they're going to f11 in with landscaping where you think it's
needed, who is going to make that decision where its needed
and where its not needed? And my second question, maybe
Mark can answer this: if a homeowner moves in to say unit 12,
11 or 10, and he doesn't like landscaping behind there, it's his
properly, can he change it and maybe plow it right up to the
property line and just have grass planted there? Maybe he just
wants to plant flowers. Is that covered under the bylaws of the
Association? First, you can answer the question about who's
20530
going to make the decision where it's needed and where it's not
needed.
Mr. Wozniak:
I have two neighbors that are also sitting behind me. Basically,
the three of us are representing the adjacent homeowners.
Along with Mr. Soave and Mr. Nagy, it was between basically
the five of us who determined what would be the best
landscaping in those areas that need to be in -filled, and that
answers that question.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, how about the question I have about a homeowner moves
in and he doesn't like what they planted there. Can he clear it
out and put in what he wants there? Because I've seen it
happen in other areas.
Mr. Wozniak:
I could jump in there if you'd like but...
Mr. Taormina:
Let me preface my comments. It sounds as if Mr. Wozniak and
Mr. Soave have some type of an agreement, but what's
important here is that the purchasers of the units in this site
condominium development need to understand what the terms
and condifions are upfront. So at the time of their offer to
purchase these lots, they need to be advised, possibly through
the Building and Use Restrictions, Master Deed and bylaws,
exactly what those terms and conditions are relative to the
maintenance of the greenbelt. If something dies, what are they
obligated to do in terms of replacement? Is there an approved
list of plant species that are required? Do they need to get
approval through some kind of an organization within their
association? Do they have to seek some kind of an
authorization by the abutting homeowners association? The
way I see it, this is going to be private arrangement between
these parties, and the City shouldn't go in there and have to
enforce all these conditions.
Mr. LaPine:
Can this agreement be between the Association and the
members who own these houses? I don't see where Western
Golf Estates gets involved in it because they are a separate sub
next to this condo. Unless there is an agreement signed by
both condo association and those people, I don't think its
binding on the people in the condo to what the people in
Western Golf Estates wants. That's what I'm saying.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and that's a good point. It probably would be difficult to
involve them in the decision-making process. It sounds as if
there is going to be an agreement at that point in time where he
20531
goes and sells those lots, but thereafter, it's going to be an
obligation on the part of the Cavell Site Condominium
Association.
Mr. Wozniak:
Well, that's the impression we're under as well and that's what
we've discussed. That once the condominium association is up
and running, that they are going to be maintaining that five foot
greenbelt.
Mr. La Pine:
Yeah, but Mr. McCann's an attorney, maybe he answer this:
Once the association takes over possession of the property,
they can change the bylaws and do what they want if they have
the voles of the people. Can they not?
Mr. McCann:
Not if it's part of the deed covenants. Obviously, this isn't my
particular area of law, but I think that the covenants can create a
binding effect that theyre looking for. Again, that's something
that the City Attorney can review if the documents carry out
whatthe intent is. Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and there probably would be a way legally where those
documents could be modified. I think what's important is that
the City, (trough its approval process, stipulate or approve with
this the Master Deed and bylaws which include this language so
that any further modifications to that language would have to
come back to the City for approval. Although we might not be
responsible for all the enforcement relative to the landscaping
here, certainly we would be party to the review of any changes
to those documents, which is a requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. McCann:
I think we've got a good idea where to go. Is there anything
else?
Mr. Wozniak:
Nothing else.
Mr. McCann:
Is there someone else who would like to speak?
Jim Ricotta, 14657 Cavell Street. I'll be the property just north of the new east -
west road that is being proposed. Currently, we're zoned RUF.
There is mention of sidewalks being installed around the new
development, and I'm asking that you consider not having
sidewalks on my southern border, the new road's northern
border, just because basically its my side lot. There are no
homes there. The front has no sidewalks. Its still zoned RUF.
20532
Mr. Soave: Correct.
Mr. McCann: Wouldn't the sidewalk go on your portion of that property?
Mr. Soave: But my agreement with Mr. Ricotta is, whatever residual
properly is left, I'm going to deed it to him.
Mr. McCann: I understand, but after the sidewalk then, you have to have the
right -0f --way for the road. The sidewalk is within the right-of-
way, cored?
Mr. Soave: Yes, sir.
Mr. McCann: So you wouldn't be able to deed him that portion anyway.
Mr. Soave: All through this negoliation process, he's been against
sidewalks. So I guess I'll have to say it's between you or the
City and him.
I'm asking that you eliminate the thought of putting sidewalks on
that northern border of the new road.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, would you like to comment?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I think we can answer this gentleman's concems simply
with a change in the plan because as I understand it, the road is
now terminating probably about 50 feet south of Mr. Ricotta's
property, then that shouldn't be a problem. Maybe Mr. Soave
can verify that with the change in the plans, any ddewalks that
are constructed as part of this first phase should be about 50
feel south of his property line? A queston to Mr. Soave, if I
may, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Soave:
Well, this gentleman's property is on the north side of the street
going in. The end of the road is like maybe 200 feet north of
there.
Mr. McCann:
If I may on the plan, he's this spot right here, correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Oh, yes. Okay. I apologize.
Mr. McCann:
He doesn't want the sidewalk going down his property line here
is what I'm understanding. Isn't that road totally within Mr.
Soave's properly?
Mr. Soave: Correct.
Mr. McCann: Wouldn't the sidewalk go on your portion of that property?
Mr. Soave: But my agreement with Mr. Ricotta is, whatever residual
properly is left, I'm going to deed it to him.
Mr. McCann: I understand, but after the sidewalk then, you have to have the
right -0f --way for the road. The sidewalk is within the right-of-
way, cored?
Mr. Soave: Yes, sir.
Mr. McCann: So you wouldn't be able to deed him that portion anyway.
Mr. Soave: All through this negoliation process, he's been against
sidewalks. So I guess I'll have to say it's between you or the
City and him.
20533
Mr. McCann:
Well, the queston is then, Mr. Taormina, we have sidewalks I
think coming all the way around here. Do we need to excuse
this portion along the northern part?
Mr. Taormina:
The ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of a public
street. Now that I know where this gentleman lives in
relationship to the development, it would appear that there's
about a 27 foot wide greenbelt between the south edge of his
property and the right-of-way line. So about five feet of that
would be utilized for a sidewalk. There should be about a 27
foot separation between his property line and the edge of the
sidewalk, and it appears to be very heavily landscaped. If you
look on the plan and if you look directly across from Lots 1, 2
and 3 on the opposite side of the street, you'll see where it's
identified as a greenbelt. A number of trees and shrubs are
being planted along that limit of the site condominium, which is
the common lot line between Mr. Soave's development and Mr.
Ricotta's property. A sidewalk is required closer to the street in
that area unless the Council agrees to waive that. You'll need
to look on the landscape plan. There are two plans, the site
plan and the landscape plan.
Mr. Shane:
I have a question about what Mr. Soave said. You said you
were going to deed over to him any residual property? Where
would that property be in the plan?
Mr. Soave:
That 27 feet of property that goes from east to west. My
agreement with Mr. Ricotta is that I would deed that property
over to him.
Mr. Shane:
That's the property that has the greenbelt on it?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Shane:
He's going to end up with that piece of property, and the
sidewalk would be right in front of him.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Chairman, I don't see what the problem is here. You've got
all that greenbelt and shrubbery in front here. You're not even
going to see that sidewalk. Why are you opposed to the
sidewalk?
Mr. Ricotta:
Just because in the past I've always had problems with kids in
the backyard, kids in the side. With a sidewalk there and
addifional traffic, I'm just trying to minimize problems. I mean
they'd go back and pick my garden, throw things. Just to
20534
minimize traffic on that side, keep everybody on one side of the
road. We currently have no sidewalks in front of us. There
won't be any houses along that stretch. To me, there's no need
for sidewalks on that side. There will be a sidewalk on the
southern border and on the most western edge there. The
sidewalk in font of those homes will cross at their north -south
line on the southern side of the new road. So I'm just
requesting that you eliminate sidewalks on that side. I mean,
what is the benefit of a sidewalk on that side?
Mr. LaPine:
Well, if there should be any children that want to ride their bikes,
they can go all the way down to the end and tum around and go
back. It gives them a little longer place to ride, you know.
Mr. Ricotta:
That might be, but my thought process is that I don't want the
sidewalks because I don't want the kids there because of the
access to my backyard and the problems I've had in the past.
Mr. Piercecchr
Sir, don't you think you may have a solution here looking for a
problem? There are only 15 houses.
Mr. Ricotta:
Thats true.
Mr. Piercecchr
And you're going to own the greenbelt, right?
Mr. Ricotta:
That might be. My request was not to have a sidewalk.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against
this petition?
Morris Davis, 27620 Western Golf Court. This project is in my backyard. The
first I heard of anything was when I received this notice last
week. I haven't agreed to anything. My Association didn't want
to talk to me or didn't want to put me in on this, but I have a few
problems with this. This Cavell is a school bus route. You're
going to put an extra 15 houses in there. That's an extra 30
cars. My kids get on the bus at the corner of Oakley Avenue
and Cavell. That's a bus stop. That's a side street. You're
going to put an extra 30 cars on that street everyday?
Mr. McCann:
Well, sir, let me back upjust a Iitlle bitforyou.
Mr. Davis:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
I'm notsure. Did you move into this home recently?
20535
Mr. Davis:
Oh, no. I was about the second or third person in the
subdivision.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Well, last year there was a petition brought before the
Planning Commission for rezoning. At the time, bat rezoning
went on to City Council. After public hearings here and public
hearings there, the Council voted to rezone the property.
Mr. Davis:
For single family homes, not a condominium, it was my
understanding.
Mr. McCann:
R-2. Okay. These are all going to be single family homes, just
like the homes in your neighborhood as far as they're going to
have separate property ownership. We call it condominium now
because of a quirk in the law. Under the Subdivision Plat Act, it
used to be that you could come in and plat a subdivision, and
you would go through the City and go forward. If there was a
prior plat, like many of our areas in the City, then what you have
to do is either get written consent from all abutting neighbors or
file a lawsuit in Wayne County. So everybody started selling
their homes as condominium projects even though they are
individual homes. You go to all these subdivisions in Livonia
now, 90% of them are all condominium subdivisions. It doesn't
change a lot in what you're purchasing, it just creates an
organization within the subdivision, and it gives us more control
within the City. But the first part of your question is, the Council
already approved R-2. These are all R-2 conforming homes just
like any other R-2 subdivision. So what we're doing here tonight
is to determine whether the layout of the subdivision is
appropriate and whether it complies with R-2 subdivision
requirements. So, really a year ago was the time to argue
whether or not it's appropriate to change the zoning. That's
been done by the Council and approved. I don't mean to cut
you oft, but its not an issue we could even deal with tonight.
Mr. Davis:
Fine.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there anything else? Mr. Soave, any last
comments? Oh, we do have one more person that would like to
speak.
Bill Gucciardo,
27674 Western Golf Court. I'm with part of the committee with At
Wozniak over here. Just to make things a little clearer about
what the agreement was between Leo Soave and our Western
Golf Association and the 18 houses it involves, we came up with
17 different little articles that he agreed to. If you'd like to have
20536
this in your records over there, this would clarify everything as to
who is going to maintain what and what our intentions were.
Mr. McCann:
That would be very beneficial. If you will give that to Ms. Roney,
it will become an official part of the record tonight and it will be
part of the information we send to the City Council. The staff
can work with Mr. Soave to accommodate the Association as
best possible.
Mr. Gucciardo:
I think Mr. Soave has one that we all agreed on. He's agreed
on it. They are all signed, but this one here happens just to be a
copy. It's not signed by him, but I think he knows of it and he
has the one that is signed. We all signed it.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I'd like to go back and talk about the sidewalk issue. First
of all, as I look at this plan, it would appear as if the limits of the
site condominium project do not coincide with the limit of the
public street right -0f -way along that north side. In fact, it would
leave me to believe, after looking at this landscape plan, that the
first 27 feel north of the right-of-way is actually part of this
project site. But what I'm hearing is that its not and Mr. Ricotta
will retain lifie to that land. If that's the case, before this plan
gets submitted to the City Council for consideration, it should be
modified to reflect that. Even though there is an agreement for
landscaping in that area, we need to see where the project limits
are here because this would suggest that the 27 feet is actually
part of the site plan. Secondly, his request to waive the
sidewalk requirement on that portion is something that the City
Council would have to take up. He would have to petition the
City Council to waive the requirement for that portion of the
sidewalk within the project.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Soave, is there anything else?
Mr. Soave:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#06-03-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-05-08-12
submitted by Leo Soave, on behalf of Cavell Woods Site
20537
Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws
and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium
development on property located at 14595 Cavell Avenue in the
Northeast''/.of Section 24, be approved subject to the following
condifions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws comply with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fact the following shall be
incorporated:
That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be
brick or stone, on all four sides, and the total amount of
brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less
than 65% and not less than 80% on one-story
dwellings;
2. That the brick used in the construction of each
condominium unit shall be full -face four (4") inch brick, no
exception;
That the petitioner shall induce language in the Master
Deed or a separate recordable instrument wherein the
condominium association shall reimburse the City of
Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred for the
storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities, and
giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on each
lot owners property prorata and place said charges on
their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are not
paid by the condominium association (or each lot owner)
within thirty (30) days of billing by the City of Livonia;
4. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated September 23,
2002, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
That the petitioner shall correct to the Engineering
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated June 2, 2003:
That sidewalks shall be required in conjunction with this
site condominium development;
20538
That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm
water management permits from Wayne County, the
City of Livonia, and/orthe State of Michigan;
6. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated June 11,
2003, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
7. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the lop leader;
8. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
9. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for the
greenbelt easement along the north side of the
development's street, from Cavell Avenue all the way to
condominium Lot 15, and all planted materials shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy
condition;
10. That an Entrance Marker Application shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission and City Council for their review
and approval;
11. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for; and,
12. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit andmr surely bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development.
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. When the Secretary is ready, please call
the next item. I am passing the gavel to Mr. LaPine for a few
minutes.
20539
ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-05-0843 ORCHARD, HILTZ & McCLIMENT
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-05-08-13, submitted by Orchard, HiIl7 & McCliment
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior of the building located at 34000 Plymouth Road in the
Southeast %of Section 28.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth between
Farmington and Stark. Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, an
engineering firm, is requesting approval to modify the exterior of
this building so that they can occupy and run their consulting
business out of it. This site is located between the Legacy of
Livonia Restaurant and a Hertz Rent -a -Car facility. Right next
to this property on the west side is a vacant lot that at one time
was a gas station. The primary modification to the building
would consist of the relocation of the main entrance. Presently
the main entrance is located on the south elevation facing
Plymouth Road. The petitioner is planning on repositioning the
entrance to the west elevation, which would face a line of
parking spaces and a driveway fiat accesses the rear parking
lot. The 13 spaces available along the west side of the building
would be designated customer parking. Employees would be
encouraged to park behind the building and use the rear
entrance. The west entrance would be defined by a structural
peaked roof canopy supported by columns. Where the existing
entrance is to be removed, the building would be remodeled to
look like the rest of the building. The existing windows of the
building would receive an overhaul. New glass would be
installed and some windows would be lengthened to allow
additional natural light into the interior. The existing mansard
roof would be replaced with a new mansard roof that would
continue around the entire south, east and west elevations and
slightly wrap around the rear elevation. As part of this
renovation, new landscape material would be added to the site.
A 15 fool landscape easement along Plymouth Road would be
established by Plymouth Road Development Authority (PRDA).
A note on the Site Plan reads: As part of the PRDA
Streetscape Project, it is anticipated that the frontage of 34000
Plymouth Road will have approximately 15 feet of
improvements, north of the city sidewalk. The improvements
will include brick piers and ornamental fence. Perennials will be
installed in front of the fence and shrubs in back of the fence.
Total width of improvements would be 15 feet. We would
20540
request the business owner, that in the interim, the lawn in the
area north of the sidewalk be kept in neat appearance and low
maintenance cost for the owner, until the PRDA work is
completed in 2004." Even though the plan shows plant
materials and brick piers along Plymouth Road, the PRDA
would be responsible for installing their streetscape theme
within the created 15 fool easement. According to John Nagy,
PRDA Director, this section of Plymouth Road would be
completed by the year 2004. The existing vegetation along the
north property line would be removed and new plant material
would be installed. There is already existing protective wall
along this rear property line. New landscaping and a concrete
patio would be installed up near the base of the building. A
proposed 19 bay carport structure would be erected behind the
building along the east property line near the northeast corner of
the site. A small 400 sq. R. storage shed would be built next to
the north end of the carport. This shed would house surveying
and other equipment that is used in the daily operation of this
type of business.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 2, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. We do not believe that this
development, because of its minor exterior changes, is subject
to the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, but
we suggest that the owner contact Wayne County to verify this
fact" The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated June 4, 2003, which reads as follows: This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to renovate the exterior of the building on property
located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated June 16, 2003, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the proposed plan to renovate the exterior of the office
building at 34000 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
recommendations regarding this plan." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated June 9, 2003, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 27, 2003,
the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following
20541
is noted. (1) %veral Flags of sidewalk just west of the entry
drive need to be replaced. A permit from the Engineering
Division will be required. (2) The parking area needs to be
double striped. (3) A dumpster is placed out in the west lot and
that will have to be removed. (4) The west and north sides of
the parking area need maintenance and cleaning. (5) The
stooge enclosure and carport must have 20 foot setbacks as
this abuts a residentially zoned district. (6) This site requires
either a protective wall or an approved greenbelt along the rear
lot line and both the east and west lot lines in approximately the
rear or northerly one half. (7) All required Barrier Free parking
shall be located at the proposed main entrance, as close as
possible. 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 corespondence.
Mr. La Pine: Mr. Gronevell, are you representing the petitioner here this
evening?
Russell A. Gronevell, President, Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc., 34935
SchoolaaR Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Yes, I am.
Mr. La Pine: Would you like to tell us what you're trying to do here?
Mr. Gronevelt We've been business residents of the City since 1970 at a
SchoolaaR and Wayne Road location. We've expanded our
business to the point where we now operate in five different
locations. The purpose of acquiring this building was to
consolidate our operations into a larger facility which will
accommodate more people in one location making it a more
efficiency place to work and communicate. I think that's going
to serve our needs quite nicely because of the location of our
employees.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
If not, I just have one question, Mark. How will we handle the
situation about the carports and the garage back there that
supposedly abuts residential, but really its not residential when
you go back there?
Mr. Taormina: I believe the Inspection Department is going to have to make
that call. The resolution that will be read shortly refers this
matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals if, in fad, it's determined
that the setback is required to be 20 feet in that area. I
understand your concem because the property to the east is, in
20542
fact, split zoned even though it's owned by the commercial
business with frontage on Plymouth Road.
Mr. La Pine: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? If not, a motion is in order. Mr.
Piercecchi?
Mr. Piercecchi: This is a win-win situation. I think its going to be a beautiful
site. In fad, it is right now.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and adopted, it was
#06-04-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-05-08-13
submitted by Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
building located at 34000 Plymouth Road in the Southeast''/.of
Section 28, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated May 23, 2003,
prepared by Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated May 23,
2003, prepared by Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans both dated May
23, 2003, as revised, prepared by C -L Architects &
Engineers, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
20543
7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face
four (4") inch brick, or in the case a precast concrete
system is used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be at a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
12. That the petitioner shall cored to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated June 9,2003:
- That the sidewalk just west at the entry drive shall be
replaced;
- That the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and
doubled striped;
- That the dumpster out in the west lot shall be removed;
- That the west and north sides of the parking area shall
be repaired and cleaned;
- That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Barrier Free Code;
13. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
20544
setback for the carport and storage shed and any
conditions related thereto;
14. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
15. That the greenbelt along the west property line where it
abuts residential is hereby accepted and shall be
substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45
of the Zoning Ordinance;
16. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's
effectiveness as a protective banner, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval or immediately construct the protective wall
pursuant to Section 18.45;
17. That where the east property line abuts residenfial, the
petitioner shall have the option of either erecting a
protective wall immediately, going to the Zoning Board of
Appeals for a temporary wall variance or seeking the
consent of the abutting property owner(s); and,
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any discussions? Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh: I just want to thank the company for locating here. We
appreciate your interest in Livonia. You're taking a piece of
property that has been in dedine, and it looks like you're going
to put a great deal of money into it and really make it a shining
example ofourfulure. So I appreciate you doing that.
Mr. Gronevell: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. I think we all agree with you on that.
(Note: Mr. McCann returned to the podium at 9:05 p.m.)
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
20545
AYES:
Piercecchi, Walsh, Smiley, Shane, LaPine, McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSTAIN:
Alanskas
ABSENT:
None
Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. I will pass the gavel back to Mr. McCann.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-05-0844 CENTENNIAL PROF. CENTER
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-05-08-14 submitted by Tonia Aloe, on behalf of Centennial
Professional Center, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct office buildings on property located at
14881 Farmington Road in the Northeast %of Section 21.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Farmington between
Lyndon and Five Mile. The petitioner is requesting approval to
construct a two office building development on property located
between the Lutheran Heritage Village and the Livonia Board of
Education site. This property was recently rezoned (Petition
2002-10-01-15) from R2, One Family Residential to OS. Both
office buildings would be situated so that their front elevations
would face south. They would setback 15 feet from the rear or
north property line. Other than some rays of arborvitaes and a
few trees, the only type of buffer between this property and the
abutting residential to the north would be a short section of a
retaining wall. The segment of wall would shield tie parking lot
located between the two office buildings. No information as to
the height of the wall is given. The reason why the greenbelt
along the north property line cannot be substituted for the
required protective wall that is required between office property
and residential is because it is not 10 feet wide its entire length.
A 10 foot wide greenbelt is shown between this property and the
neighboring residential Lutheran Village to the west. This
greenbelt meets the criteria and can be substituted for the
protective wall. The petitioner has explained that they are in
negotiations with the owners of the Lutheran Village in order to
gain access off Luther Lane, the elderly living developments
private driveway. The Site Plan shows two driveways, one off
20546
Luther Lane and one off Farmington Road. Proposed Building
"A" would be located out front, close to Farmington Road. It
would be one-story in height and 7,656 sq. R. in size. Building
"B" would be situated behind Building "A," towards the back of
the site. This building would also be one-story in height but
slightly larger then "A" at 10,032 sq. R. in area. Because this is
an office complex, parking for both buildings would be combined
and shared. The cutout illustrating the typical light pole shoes
that the standards would be 15 feet. Parking is based on both
buildings. They are required to have 71 parking spaces; they
show 106 parking spaces so they meet the parking requirement.
They are required to have 15% landscaping on this site; they
show 19% so they exceed the landscape requirement. The
architecture for both buildings would be very similar in look.
Both would be constructed out of brick on all four sides and
have a residential looking, peaked shingled roof. Decorative
peaked roof features would define the entrances. Mirror images
of these peak features would be replicated on the rear
elevations.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated June 10, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. This development is subject to the
Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance, and the
designer has acknowledged this fact by showing detention
facilities on the plans. The drive approach to Farmington Road
will require a permit from Wayne County. The proprietor will be
required to submit copies of bre easement for the off site storm
outlet, permission from the Livonia School District to tap their
storm system and the easement for the use of Luther Lane for
access and the water main extension." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 4, 2003, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct office
buildings 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) An approved turnaround for fire
apparatus shall be provided where an access mad is a dead
20547
end and is in excess of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall
have a minimum centeriine radius of 50 feet The grade,
surface, and location of the fire lane shall be approved by the
authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated June 16, 2003, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to construct
office buildings on property located at 14881 Farmington Road
and submit the following observations and recommendations for
your review. (1) 106 parking spaces are proposed. Four
handicap spaces are proposed and five spaces are required.
(2) The proposed handicap parking sign is located 5 feet from
grade to bottom of sign. The sign must be no less than 6 feet 8
inches from grade to bottom of sign. The size of the sign meets
requirements. (3) Install stop signs at the exit to Farmington
Road and Luther Lane. Aright tum only' sign should also be
installed for vehicles exiting onto Farmington Road." The letter
is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated June 11,
2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May
30, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) This parcel will need to be split and
have separate tax Identification numbers acceptable to the
Assessor's Office. (2) The required protective wall and/or
greenbelt at the required areas (entire north and west) should
be clarified as to type, size and locations to the satisfaction of
the Commission and Council. This Department has no further
objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Carl V.Creighlon from the law firm of Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton &
Amann, LLC, 33300 Five Mile Road, Suite 210, Livonia,
Michigan 48154. I'm appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I
apologize for not having attended the study session. I almost
hate to go last, and I really hate to g) last and throw a little
curve ball. We've had a great deal of difficulty obtaining
cooperation from any of the neighbors, or even interest from any
of the neighbors. Our efforts to contact Mr. Mathewson with
regard to the north property line have been rebuffed. At this
time, due to the length of the procedure and in an effort to
attempt to avoid a trip to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the
petitioner would like to propose that the greenbelt along the
north border be eliminated and replaced with the ordinance
20548
required protective wall meeting all the requirements of the
ordinance. Landscaping would remain the same with the
exception of the elimination of the arborvitaes or at least a
spreading of those arborvitaes since they would no longer be
providing a screen. Mr. Mathewson does not want to converse
with us. He hasn't attended the last couple of meetings. He's
not here tonight. I don't really think that ifs any longer a
concem of his what happens along that northern border. I
believe that we have addressed the other concerns that were
raised at the study session. We did not receive a copy of the
traffic report from Sergeant McKee, but with regards to
designating an additional handicap spot and supplying the
required signing in accordance with those requirements, we
have no problem whatsoever. We do continue to pursue the
easements with the Lutheran Home but we're having a very
difficult time getting them to respond or any of their
representatives to even speak with us. But we will continue to
pursue that in order to comply with the requirements of the
ordinance and the site plan.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? There is a
question Mr. Pieroecchi is asking me. Mr. Taormina, has the
Council acted on the resolution to change the zoning to OS at
this point?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I believe they have had second reading and roll call, so the
rezoning is completed at this point.
Mr. McCann:
So the property to the north of this parcel is zoned OS?
Mr. Taormina:
No, that is not correct.
Mr. McCann:
That was excluded from the zoning petition?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. The zoning was changed only for these two parcels. It
was the Future Land Use Plan that was modified. There is a
pending change in Land Use classification from Medium Density
Residential to Office as it affects all of the property extending
north to the cemetery, but it did not change the zoning of that
property.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane:
Personally, I like the greenbelt. Is there a reason why you can't
put the greenbelt there even though you don't have cooperation
from your neighbor?
20549
Mr. Creighton: At this juncture, the petitioner would like avoid a trip through the
Zoning Board of Appeals process. The project has been
substantially delayed by the lengthy rezoning petition, pre -
rezoning meetings that we had, and we would like to get
construction started. We are fearful that with the coming
summer and reduced sessions of the Zoning Board of Appeals
and the Council's busy schedule, that we may not get dirt turned
this year if we have to add those additional delays to the project.
And in terms of the landscaping, as I say, the only difference will
be that the arborvitaes will be spread and will no longer be used
as a screen. The trees will still be there. Again, recall that this
parcel to the north is owned by Mr. Phipps who has absolutely
no objection to our proposal in any shape or form, and Mr.
Mathewson only has less than the front half of the parcel and he
seems to have abandoned any objections as well.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, while they are looking at the plans, I want to just
go over the issue of the permanent greenbelt. When we review
these site plans and make site plan changes to approve a
permanent greenbelt, why would there be a need to go to the
ZBA if there is a permanent greenbelt waived? We used to get
a temporary waiver of the wall for a greenbelt, then every two
years they'd come back. Then they came to the Planning
Commission and we'd amend the site plan to include a
permanent greenbelt in lieu of a wall. Would it then need to go
to the ZBA?
Mr. Taormina: No, it would not have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals if it
met all of the requirements for a greenbelt. The greenbelt has
to be at least ten feet wide. It is atthe Commission's discretion
in terms of approving the quantity and spacing of the plant
material that serves as a buffer between the residential and the
non-residential district. There are some standards that are
provided in the ordinance, but you can modify those standards
depending on each condition. So to answer your question, no, if
approved here, it would not have to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Shane: The reason why I was leery about the wall is because the
property to the north is Office in the Master Plan, is it not?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. Shane: And someday it probably will be office. I'd hate to see a wall
between the two.
20550
Mr. McCann:
The question comes back to the parking lot greenbelt area. Do
we have a full 10 feet of landscaping in there? I didn't think we
did along the parking lot areas.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm going to have to refer to the architect, Mr. Chairman. The
question is, is there 10 feet of green space between the north
property line in all instances.
Mr. McCann:
What's the answer?
Mr. Creighton:
No.
Frank DiMalfia,
DiMaflia Associates, 4241 Maple, Dearborn, Michigan. We could
eliminate four parking spaces and create a 10 fool greenbelt
and then he'd meet all the requirements.
Mr. McCann:
I think you've got excessive parking here, as I recall.
Mr. Taormina:
There is adequate parking certainly based on general office
requirements. I think he indicated at the study meeting that they
anticipate some medical space, so that would only serve to
reduce the amount of medical office that would be available at
this site, but they certainly have surplus parking for general
office purposes.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Shane had suggested that he prefer ed the greenbelt as
opposed to a wall, especially in consideration of the Future Land
Use Plan. This would give us a full 10 feet all the way across.
Is it the petitioner's indication that they would prefer to do that -
create a full 10 foot greenbelt in lieu of a wall?
Mr. Creighton:
If, in fact, we can create a conforming greenbelt, which we do
have at the rear, along the side, and still maintain adequate
parking so that we have no other variances. Yes, that's
something that we would entertain.
Mr. McCann:
We're looking for your preference. Your client is not here
tonight, but...
Mr. Creighton:
No, my dient is here. Mr. Sergison is here as well.
Mr. McCann:
Okay.
Mr. Creighton:
If a continuation of the plantings that are shown on the back are
adequate down that side, then we would have no problem.
20661
Mr. McCann: How long would the wall be if we put the wall in there?
Mr. Creighton: If you put the wall in, the property length is 608 feel, I believe,
according to Frank's calculations. So it would be 608 feet long,
six fool high.
Mr. McCann:
I'm curious as to how ruch that would cost, especially all brick
matching the buildings. Okay. Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh:
I just want to make sure that if we move forward with an
approving resolution, which I would prefer to do tonight, I want
to make sure that we are of an understanding.
Mr. McCann:
We can bring the landscape plan back or we can match what
they have across the west property line.
Mr. Walsh:
To give you a conforming 10 foot .. . what's your pleasure,
pelifioner?
Mr. Creighton:
Obviously, I would prefer an approving resolution with matching
landscape across the back with the modification of the parking
areas so that we can move forward. I personally don't like
arborvitaes, so I'm all for eliminating the arborvitaes. I'd much
rather see pine trees.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, Mr. Taormina, any
comments?
Mr. Taormina:
No.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chair, I'm going to offer the approving resolution. I'll try to
draft a little bit on the fly as we go through this.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Just read it like it is.
Mr. Walsh:
Well, I can't, Dan. That's what I'm struggling with is. Basically,
we're approving a change to their site plan. Is that right, Mr.
Taormina? What they presented? If we offer an approving
resolution that accommodates a 10 foot greenbelt with
plantings
from the west to ran all along the north side, are we going
to try
and do that tonight?
20552
Mr. McCann:
Yes, what I think we can do is adopt these plans with the
exception that four parking spaces will be eliminated to provide
for a 10 fool green space. So we'll add a condition.
Mr. Shane:
And he can make the changes before he goes to Council.
Mr. McCann:
So we adopt this with those changes.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. In Condition 2, 1 will be leaving off the section in
reference to the arborvitae trees, the underlined section. Is that
correct, Mark? We have some new language in here regarding
the doubling of the arborvitaes.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, what we want to say is "hereby approved and shall be
adhered to except as modified below." We'll add that language
to both conditions #1 and #2 and then later in the resolution you
can make the change to the Site Plan and Landscape Plan to
have a 10 foot wide greenbelt along the north property line with
sufficient plantings and then we will specify what those plantings
shall be.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Very good. Then do I want to delete the condition that
refers to erecting a prolective wall, Mark.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay.
On a motion
by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#06-05-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-05-08-14
submitted by Tonia Alm, on behalf of Centennial Professional
Center, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct office buildings on properly located at 14881
Farmington Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 21, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-2 dated May 27, 2003,
prepared by Vitins Engineering, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except as modified below;
20553
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated May 27,
2003, prepared by DiMattia Associates, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, except as modified below;
3. Subject to the Planning Director's approval, additional plant
materials shall be planted in the front yard;
4. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
7. That the 10 fool wide greenbelt along the west property
line, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the
prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
8. That approximately four parking spaces may be eliminated
so as to provide a continuous ten foot greenbelt along the
north property line and to continue the landscaping that is
shown on the plan along the west property line.
9. That any change of circumstances in the area containing
the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's
effectiveness as a protective barrier, the owner of the
property shall be required to submit such changes to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval or immediately construct the protective wall
pursuant to Section 18.45;
10. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked SheetA-
4and A-6 both dated May 27, 2003, prepared by DiMattia
Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
11. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face
four (4) inch brick or in the case a precast concrete system
is used it shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
20554
12. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
13. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
14. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
15. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
16. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefifion,
and any addifional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
17. That no LED Iightband or neon shall be permitted on this
site, including but not limited to, the building or around the
windows; and
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolufion shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
allhe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolufion adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolufion. 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, here will only
be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require
unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary
please read the next item?
20555
ITEM #6 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Signage
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to
hold a public hearing pursuant to C.R. #236-03 to determine
whether or not to amend Section 23.05 of Arfide XXIII of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to
modify signage requirements for public notification of properties
proposed to be rezoned.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#06-06-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #236-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a)
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section
23.05 of Arficle XXIII of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543,
as amended, in order to modify signage requirements for public
notification of properties proposed to be rezoned.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM#7 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING WAIVER USE
REQUIREMENTS
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to
hold a public hearing pursuant to C.R. #235-03 to determine
whether or not to amend Section 19.06(f) of Artide IXX of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to give
City Council more flexibility with respect to waiver use
requirements.
20556
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved,
it was
#06-07-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #235-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a)
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public
hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section
19.06(f) of Article IXX of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543,
as amended, in order to give City Council more flexibility with
respect to waiver use requirements.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM#8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 86C Regular Meeting
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes ofthe 860 Regular Meeting held on May 6, 2003.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Pierohecchi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#06-08-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 864" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on May 6, 2003, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, Pieroecchi, Smiley, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSTAIN:
McCann, Shane, La Pine
ABSENT:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
20557
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 867" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 17, 2003, was adjourned at 9:40
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
mgr