HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-04-1922235
MINUTES OF THE 900 REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 19, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 904" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas R. Lee Morrow Dan Piercecchi
H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh
Members absent: William La Pine
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2005-03-08-05 EDCO ENERGY
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-03-
08-05, submitted by EDCO Energy requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition and
renovate the exterior of the service station located at 34901 Ann
Arbor Trail in the Southwest%of Section 33.
22236
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate and expand an
existing gasoline station located on the southwest comer of
Wayne Road and Ann Arbor Trail. The proposed additions
would extend on the north, east and west sides of the existing
building in order to expand the use of the structure as a
convenience store. The building cannot be expanded to the
south because the site's underground tank system is located in
this area. The existing gas station building sits near the middle
of the site and measures approximately 884 square feel in size.
The new addition would increase the area of the building to an
overall dimension of 2,296 square feet. The proposed building
would have deficient setbacks from both Wayne Road and Ann
Arbor Trail, and they are deficient in parking by nine spaces. A
variance would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals
for each of these deficiencies. A new dumpster enclosure and
pad are shown at the southwest comer of the site. Two
additional gas pumps would be installed next to the existing
pumps situated on the south side of the building. The existing
island canopy would be extended in order to accommodate and
overhang the new pumps. They are providing the required
landscaping of 15% of the total site. Along with the addition to
the station, the entire exterior of the building would be
remodeled. The building elevation plan shows that the exterior
of the building would be refaced with a combination of split face
block, back and dryvil. All four sides of the building would have
a 3 feet wainscot of split face block. The middle section of the
building would be back. Along the top portion of the station
would be a dryvit band, topped with a decorative crooning. No
color rendering has been submitted at this time.
Mr. Walsh: I know that we have several items of correspondence that need
to be read into the record.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 16, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. Additional right -of my
is not required at this time. Since additional landscaping is
reducing the degree of hard surfaced area, detention may not
be required by Wayne County, however, we recommend that
the designer verify this. The fifth line of the legal description
should read "thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 10 seconds
West 686.01 feet along the centedine of Wayne." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March
14, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
22237
site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an
addition and renovate the exterior of the gas station located on
property at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated March 28, 2005, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by the
gas station located at 34901 Ann Arbor Toil. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April
4, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
March 11, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The historical front yard
for this site is Ann Arbor Trail (34901). (2) This site when built
received a zoning giant, 8585-73, br the deficient north yard
setback. One of the requirements of this giant was that free air
be available at all times. Currently, they are not in compliance
with that requirement. (3) This site will require variances from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient front yard setback
(Ann Arbor Trail) 60 feet required, approximately 51 feet
provided, and deficient side yard setback, abutting a major road
(Wayne Road), 75 feet required, 50 feet provided. (4) This site
will also need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for
deficient number of parking spaces. Eleven spaces are
required and four spaces are provided, deficient seven spaces.
(5) In this plan, it is unclear as to how customers get to the
required restroom. Should this project move forward this issue
will be further addressed at our plan review. (6) The right-of-
way landscaping and irrigation is poor or nonexistent. (7) The
mechanical equipment is not screened and safety guards may
need to be installed on the roof. (8) The existing paving needs
repair and resealing. (9) At the time of the site visit, empty
cartonsItontainers were being stored outside the building on the
south side. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Mr. Pieroecchi: What is the typical size of these convenience stores? This
particular one here, according to my mathematics, is over 1,400
square feet. Is that correct?
Mr. Alcodoy: The existing site is 800 and some ...
22238
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Thats what you have now.
Mr. Alcodmy:
Thats what we have today.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
And you're going to end up with 2296?
Mr. Alcodray:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So that's 1,412 for the convenience store?
Mr. Alcodmy:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Do we have any statistics on what's typical here? I'd like to see
this gentleman succeed, but he may be overtaxing this piece of
property and it may not be necessary. Atter all, this is a gas
station. It's not a grocery store.
Mr. Alcodmy:
True, but the...
Mr. Walsh:
This is a question directed to the staff. Mr. Taormina, do we
have anything?
Mr. Taormina:
We have not compiled any statistics with respect to the size of
these operations. I will tell you just from my general knowledge
on the topic and the fact that we have seen a number of similar
cases over the past four years, that they vary quite a bit. It
depends on a number of factors, including the size of the
property or the land area available. Typically, the larger the site,
the larger the building. They will increase proportionately with
the size of the property and take advantage of that opportunity.
That's the reason why, for example, you'll see a store at Inkster
and Schoolcraft, which we recently approved, and I believe with
the restaurant added to that building, it was over 5,000 square
feel. We have other gas station convenience stores that are
less than that. That's probably the largest. For example, some
of the smaller operations were previously used for as service
stations with work bays that were converted, enclosed and used
for convenience operations. Those range anywhere from 1,000
to 2,000 square feet. I would say that 1,000 to 2,000 is an
average range, obviously several being larger while many are
even smaller.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Ignoring the size of the property that he has to work, this size is
not really out of order then?
22239
Mr. Taormina:
I don't think it is out of order necessarily from the new
construclion that we've seen recently. What makes this site
unique is the placement of the building on the property, and the
fact that there are existing constraints that make it difficult to
relocate the building. The most significant of which is the
location of the underground storage tanks. The petitioner will
explain the economies involved that predude him from
removing those tanks and relocating the building on the
property.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
There's no other way that he can get service from those tanks
and move the site around a little bit?
Mr. Taormina:
I'll let him answer that question. I know that he's explored that
option.
Mr. Walsh:
Before we go to that question to the petitioner, sir, is there
anything in general that you would like to add? For our record,
we need your name and address.
Tarek Alcodray,
EDCO Energy, 34901 Ann Arbor Trail, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
First and foremost, we are going to be giving out flee air to all
the customers. I'd like that on the record.
Mike Kobeissi,
President, Kobeissi Associates Inc., 24522 Michigan Avenue,
Dearborn, Michigan 48124. I'm the project architect. We do a
lot of gas stations. That's basically our specialty. I do agree
with the planner. The average size of a store is around 1,400 -
1,500 all the way to 2,500. That's considered like a minimum
area to make the business. Once you go over 2,500, you're
really over -building. In his case, the building is kind of long and
narrow. So a lot of space has been lost. It has two entryways
because we have pumps from each side. So there is a lot of
open space in the building, and that made the building go
bigger. Plus there is a good sized storage room in the back,
which is required. So the reason we went up that high is
because of those constraints - being long, having two
entryways. If you look at the floor plan we submitted, pretty
much two-thirds of the building in the back, its mostly coder
space where you put a lot of storage and a storage room.
Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
If there's no objections, Mr. Pieroecchi, if you'd like to continue
with your questions.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'm safisfed.
22240
Mr. Alanskas:
On that site, are you selling used cars there?
Mr. Almdrey:
No, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
When I was there today, you had a car parked on the east side
of the driveway with a for sale sign. It was there for quite a
while today.
Unidentified audience member: I'm sorry about that. That's my personal car.
Mr. Almdmy:
I'm not a used car salesman. No, I do not sell cars.
Mr. Alanskas:
I was just wondering if you also sold cars there because of what
I saw there today.
Mr. Almdrey:
No, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
Also, the lights on the canopy. They are not recessed. Are the
new lights going to be recessed in the canopy instead of
protruding down from the canopy for a light?
Mr. Almdmy:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
They will be recessed?
Mr. Almdmy:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
One of our dilemmas we face on this site is obviously the
panting. I think there was a conflict on how you counted the
parking versus how we count. So I guess that leads to my
question, how much of your business goes inside, is using the
pump island, and how much of the business is using parking
other than the pump island?
Mr. Almdmy:
Typically what we see is, anywhere between 80% and 85% of
your customer base that frequents the convenience store, is
coming from your pumps. So when theyre actually at the pump
filling gas, if they choose to cone into the store, that's about 85
percent of the people who actually come inside the building. So
in reality, the pumps are acting as parking spaces from that
perspective. That's the reality of the thing. The other 15
percent will use a credit card at the pump and f11 their tank and
drive away. They will never come inside the store.
22241
Mr. Morrow:
So the way you have it drawn up here, you dont personally feel
you have a parking problem on your site?
Mr. Alcodray:
No, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Regardless of what our ordinance says.
Mr. Alcodray:
My past experience is, from a parking standpoint, we're well
covered as far as parking goes.
Mr. Morrow:
So I guess what I'm saying, the Planning Commission is
responsible for the ordinances. There's nothing we can do
about that. Any shortfall of parking would have to be taken care
of at the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Alcodray:
I understand.
Mr. Morrow:
As well as your setbacks.
Mr. Kobeissi:
Since I designed the site, and really, from the beginning, I told
my client that we view this project as its going to be a
partnership between us and the City to make it happen because
of the constraints. So we started thinking, what can we do here
to show you guys that we did our best. The first thing, there's a
lot of open space in front of the site where we could have
designated maybe two or three more parking spaces, but we
didn't want to do that because we knew where our customers
are going to park. The other thing, when we designed the
building, we put the cashier in the front. We kept the whole front
open. If you look at the elevation, we have glass all the way
around. And that's to minimize the effect of the setback issue
that we're going to handle. We insisted on meeting the
landscape requirement because we bel that the landscape is
what we can give to the City to beautify that comer. Also, at this
point, the right -0f way is skewed. There is more right -of my on
our site. So from the sideway to the street, there is almost 30
feet of grass area, which we agreed with the planners, that
we're going to re -sod, plant more trees and make it look like its
from the curb all the way to our curb, it's all one big landscape
open area. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Just to follow up there, I'm going to make the assumption, I
know that gas station has been there a long time, and I think it
probably predates any type of convenience store gas stations
had at that time. So I guess what you're trying to do is what gas
22242
stations are doing now for their customer base, as well as the
site will be greatly upgraded as I perceive it.
Mr. Alcodray: The reality is over I'd say about the last 10 years, I mean back
when the station was built, gasoline was the primary purpose for
the site. I mean the convenience store wasn't really part of the
equation, but the economics today involved with the business,
on gasoline alone, it doesn't become a viable business, which is
why you're seeing the trend of all these stations now expanding
on their buildings, adding restaurants. In today's business
equation, that's the way it pans out.
Mr. Kobeissi: In that store, you have to sell $2,000 a day in order to break
even these days with a gas station from a financial point of view.
Now, we have a big cooler. These days, really what the gas
station sells is what comes out of the coolers, and you know,
like chips, chocolates. If you have less cooler space and the
customer comes one time and doesn't find what he's looking for,
they're not going to come another time. So a lot of thought
went into it, and I'm just trying to project some of our thinking.
Thankyou.
Mr. Shane:
Two questions. Mark, I assume that the right-of-way on Ann
Arbor Trail and Wayne Road is consistent with the Master
Thoroughfare Plan?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. The report from the Engineering Department indicated that
no additional right -0f -way is required at this time, and both have
120 feet total.
Mr. Shane:
To the petitioner, I think I know the answer to this, but I've got to
ask it anyway. Al the study meeting, you may recall that I
suggested moving the west 10 feet of the building because I
thought you'd gel a better traffic pattern and maybe even a few
parking spaces. Did you consider that?
Mr. Kobeissi:
We have to stay 10 feel away from the tanks with the building.
In addition, and I know where you're coming from, I'm just the
site designer. In a gas station, its like a restaurant. Your
pumps, you have peak hours where people come to the pumps.
They come in the morning and in the afternoon coming back
from work. Now, what we felt if we have less pumps, we're
going to create a problem on the site. If we have enough
pumps for everybody, we can circulate people faster, get them
in and out, and everybody will be happy. No cars would back
22243
up and that was the reason why we kept the building where it is
and added the two pumps on the other side.
Mr. Shane: I was suggesting extending the building westerly 10 feel. North
is to Ann Arbor Trail, correct?
Mr. Kobeissi: Right.
Mr. Shane: West is your short side yard.
Mr. Kobeissi: Right
Mr. Shane: And you have a 10 fool addition shown on your building. I was
justwondering if that 10 fool addition is all that important.
Mr. Kobeissi: If you look at our floor plan, 10 feet in this building, see in the
back, we have the storage, toilets. You can see any footage
that we take out is going to impact the building big time. The
width of this building is what dictated us going.
Mr. Shane: l understand.
Mr. Kobeissi: Thanks.
Mr. Shane: I'm just looking for a better traffic pattern over there, maybe
even a parking place or two, but I'm not going to beat a dead
horse here. It seems to me anyway that you might be able to
rearrange things a little bit and maybe reduce the need for the
Zoning Board of Appeals by a little bit by lopping that 10 feel off,
but if you can't, you can't.
Mr. Kobeissi: We have 30 feel 6 inches. Even with the 10 fool addition, we
will have 30 feel 6 inches in the back of the building. Normally,
a drive for two cars is 24 feel wide.
Mr. Shane: I understand, but
it would
be a
little bit more
room to try
to
maneuver around
there.
You
know, if it's
important,
its
important.
Mr. Alcodrey: One of the primary concems we have, you'll note that we've got
containers and whatnot today on the outside of the building.
With the layout that we've got right now, it accounts for inner
storage, disposable containers, etc. I mean all that's been
accounted for down to the square inch in that building.
22244
Mr. Shane:
So you're going to assure me that there wont be any outdoor
storage?
Mr. Alcodray:
You'll never see a container outside again.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. This goes in the public record and we read it.
Mr. Alcodrey:
On the record, you'll never see a container out there again.
Mr. Shane:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have a couple questions in regard to your landscape
maintenance plan. You're going to have quite a bit of grass.
How often are you going to cut that grass?
Mr. Alcodray:
Today, we've got underground irrigation systems. We will hire a
local landscaping outfit to maintain the property.
Mr. Alanskas:
Will that be weekly, once a week cut the grass?
Mr. Alcodray:
At a minimum once a week.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because on your number six, it says your grass shall be cul and
will not be any higher than five inches. Well, five inches of
grass is pretty dam high.
Mr. Kobeissi:
That's my fault. I can change that, but normally, like other cites
Mr. Alanskas:
Because if grass grows, it will grow maybe two or three inches
in a week. When I saw you're going to let it go to five inches,
that's like a whealfield.
Mr. Kobeissi:
Right. I'm sorry. That's my fault.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you're going to change that to three inches on the plan?
Mr. Kobeissi:
We can do that.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? There is no one in the audience coming
forward. Anything else you'd like to add before we proceed to a
vole?
22245
Mr. Alcodray: I'd just like to say, like Mr. Kobeissi had staled, when we
approached the project, we approached it from a standpoint,
number one, we want to become an asset to the community.
We want to improve the property. What could we do to do that?
We chose building materials in my opinion that are lop notch.
The building is not going to be a typical convenience store
construction. Its going to be very appealing to the eye. It will
have that downtown look. So really from that standpoint, we
gave it our all to make sure it becomes a very good looking
comer in the end.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Al this point, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Piercecchi, and adopted, it was
#04-44-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-03-08-05,
submitted by EDCO Energy requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition and
renovate the exterior of the service station located at 34901 Ann
Arbor Trail in the Southwest % of Section 33, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP -101 dated April 18,
2005, as revised, prepared by Kobeissi Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet SP -102 dated
April 18, 2005, as revised, prepared by Kobeissi
Associates, 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, inducing the right-of-ways,
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 Plan marked Sheet A-
101 prepared by Kobeissi Associates, as received by the
22246
Planning Commission on April 19, 2005, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
7. That the back used in the construction shall be full -face
four(4)inch brick;
8. 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;
9. That the support columns of the gas pump island canopy
shall be covered with the same brick used in the
construction ofthe building;
10. That the lights of the pump island canopy shall be
recessed in such a way that the intensity of the illumination
is decreased;
11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
12. 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:
13. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the items outlined in the
correspondence dated April 4, 2005, including obtaining
the required variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals
for deficient setback and parking;
14. No outside storage, placement or display of merchandise
shall be permitted at any time on this site; however the
foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the
pump islands only, of oil based products as permitted in
Section 11.04(a) of the Zoning Ordinance;
15. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the pump island
canopy, building or around the windows; and
22247
16. 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: As a point of information, should this
be
conditioned on
the
petitioner receiving a variance from
the
Zoning Board
of
Appeals?
Mr. Taormina: That is implied in Condition 13. However, one of the things that
will have to be discussed with the Legal Department, that
unfortunately we did not do prior to this evening's meeting, is to
determine whether or not the Council, under the authority of
Section 19, can modify the setbacks requirements. So it may
be the case where it doesn't even have to go to the ZBA; it
would only have to be approved by the Council.
Mr.Shane: Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: Any further discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I appreciate what you're trying to do with the property. How
long have you had this gas station?
Mr. Alcodrey: We purchased the site in June of 2004, last year.
Mr. Alanskas: Because visiting your site today, the landscaping there is
nonexistent. What I'm trying to say is, it looks like you have not
been taking care of that property at all.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Alanskas, we are at a pojnt where discussion has ceased. I
permitted that question because I thought it would be just a
point of order.
Mr. Alanskas: I just still think that the size of the building is still loo large. I
know we asked you to consider cutting it down by 10 feel, and I
guess your answer says that you dont want to do that, not that
you can't do it, but you dont want to do it. Therefore, for that
reason, I will not be supporting this petition. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Any further discussion? Seeing none, would the Secretary
please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
22248
AYES:
Morrow, Pieroecchi, Shane, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES:
Alanskas
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
La Pine
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
iYI=1Ai E:3'�9>YIYY[�l: DALbYrkErkES NYU 69>Y �71�'1[K�] I�Z�b".
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
03-08-06,
00503-08-06, submitted by GLA Surveyors & Engineers, on behalf
of Sunset View Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the
site plan required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a condominium
development on property located at 30250 Morlock Street in the
Northwest''/.of Section 2.
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to develop a site condominium
project on property located on the west side of Sunset Avenue
between Eight Mile Road and Fargo Avenue. According to the
submitted documentation, the proposed development would be
known as "Sunset View Site Condominiums." This property is in
the process of being rezoned (Petition 2003-04-01-12) from
RUFA, Rural Urban Farm, to R3, One Family Residential. The
Planning Commission, after holding a public hearing on May 20,
2003, recommended approving the requested rezoning.
Following a public hearing, the City Council gave First Reading
on the requested rezoning at its April 5, 2004, Regular Meeting.
Second Reading and a Roll Call Vole are scheduled at the time
the site plan is presented to the Council for action. Review of
this petition is based on the assumption that the property will be
rezoned to R3. Sunset View would be made up of 11 lots or
units. All 11 homes would have frontage on an existing 55 -foot
wide street called Sunset Avenue. Sunset Avenue is a
continuation of Sunset Boulevard and after a slight jog to the
east from the boulevard, runs approximately 700 feet to the
north where it ends in a cul-de-sac. Across Sunset Avenue, on
its east side, is a residential development known as Sunset
Subdivision. This subdivision was developed in 1997 and
consists of 10 lots. Storm water detention for the proposed site
condominium development would be handled underground. It is
undear from the plan if sidewalks would be installed within the
fight -0f --way of the proposed street. Landscaping is not shown.
An R-3 zoning district requires each lot to have a minimum land
22249
area of 9,600 square feet, a minimum lot width of 80 feet, and a
minimum lot depth of 120 feet. All the proposed condominium
lots of Sunset View meet or exceed these lot size requirements,
with the exception of Lot 1. Because of its unique shape, Lot 1
is deficient in width at the setback line. The dimensions of a
building envelope in a residential district must meet the
minimum lot width requirement at its required setbacks. In an
R-3 district the minimum front yard setback for a house is 35
feel and at that point the lot must be at least 80 feel wide. The
width of Lot 1 is only 60 feet as measured at the front setback
line. Therefore, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
would be required before a house could be constructed on Lot
1.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 17, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. Additional right-of-way
is not required at this time except as shown for Units 1 and 2
and the overall legal description is comect. Detention will be
required in accordance with Wayne County's Storm Water
Management Ordinance resulting in either an open basin or
oversized storm sewers. Sidewalks should be installed on the
west side of the right -0f -way in front of the proposed units."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated March 16, 2005, which reads as follows: 'This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
develop site condominiums on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulations: (1) Fire hydrants on Sunset shall
be looped. (2) The west side of Sunset shall be posted 'Fire
Lane — No Parking'. (3) Fire lanes shall be marked with
freestanding signs or marked curbs, sidewalks, or other traffic
surfaces that have the words 'Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in
contrasting colors at a size and spacing approved by the
authority having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated March 28, 2005, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by
Sunset View Site Condominiums located at 30250 Sunset
Avenue. We have no objections or recommendations to the
plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated April 1, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 15, 2005, the
22250
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) Unit one of this plan does not meet the lot width and
street frontage requirements for this district. The petitioner will
need to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals to
maintain Unit One as depicted. (2) This site does not provide
the required common open space of 720 square feet per unit.
This Department has no further objections to the petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Lee P. Rausch,
GLA Surveyors & Engineers, 6134 Golfiedson Road, Plymouth,
Michigan 48170.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation?
Mr. Rausch:
We did talk with the City Fire Inspector. We came up with a
schematic design of looping the water main as he requested.
Also, we found a fire hydrant they weren't aware they had, so
there is a plus there. I have a call into the City Engineer
because he's requiring that we have slormwater detention.
From May 4 of last year, we had a letter from John Hill,
Assistant City Engineer, stating that if it was a site
condominium, we would not be required to have slonnwaler
detention. So I left a message for Mr. Schron to discuss this
and see if we're right on that since we have conflicting direction
on that. The City Inspection Department - we are aware of Lot
1, the setback issue. We will be willing to go to the ZBA for that,
and the common space, we can show that at the rear of the
units, just a continuous common space along the rear of the
units. So we don't feel that's an issue at all. And also, on the
sidewalk along the west side ofthe street, we will definitely add.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, per se, I have no problem with your project, but I am
concemed about your western boundary. That is the territory
which had the 16 fool public utility easement.
Mr. Rausch:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm concerned about cars parking there. There are two car
ports located in that area that are part of the adjacent apartment
complex. The cars are going to be shooting lights eastward
towards the home in your development, which is going to be a
22251
problem. And there s also a noise factor. There s a lot of
asphalt back there. It could be very noisy. In your plans, you
don't show anything for that. You just show the dimensions,
132 deep and you do recognize the easement. I can support
this package here, but I would like to refer this to the Chairman
after everybody has their discussion in to see if we can hold
back the approval based on landscaping for that western
boundary that abuts the R-7 property. I will make that
suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and see if its in order.
Mr. Walsh:
Lets address it now and then we'll go on with additional
questions just so we know, Mr. Piercecchi. Mark, we would not
be able to hold that back for landscaping would we, because it's
part of the ...
Mr. Taormina:
The Planning Commission has dealt with similar issues in the
past. I think there is precedent that landscaping plans have
come back for further review where it involved landscaping
along easements within the private unit areas. If it's the desire
of the Commission to look at that further, I think that would be
appropriate.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. We will accept your answer, and we'll know that its
possible as we go through the evening, Mr. Pieroecchi.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, could you repeat again what you intend to do Wth regards
to the open space of 720 square feet?
Mr. Rausch:
In conjunction with what we were just talking about, if I can
address quickly the previous comment. Part of the reason we
kept that easement and the storm line off the west property line
is because there is some growth back there, some trees and
brush. There s also an overhead line there. So we wanted to
keep a separation there and provide the buffer as you
requested. If we put the utility lines right on the property line,
then we would lose a lot of that buffer. So we are aware of that.
Then the common area would be similar. It would follow along
the backside of the property so you could walk in that area.
Mr. Alanskas:
So what you are saying is per unit, you cannot have the 720
square foot open space?
Mr. Rausch:
Per unit on each site, we have the 720.
22252
Mr. Alanskas:
You do? Because our notes say that you dont have it.
Mr. Rausch:
Well, we don't have it defined or depicted on the plans. We
have it. Its there, but we don't have it delineated as a common
open space.
Mr. Alanskas:
You can change it and put that on the plans?
Mr. Rausch:
Right. Exactly.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Elliot Schubiner.
I'm the owner of the property. I wanted to mention, I thought the
question was well taken. We are going to have a six foot high
fence all the way along the westerly portion of the property.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Schubiner, could you move closer to the microphone?
Mr. Schubiner:
Sure. We are going to require from the purchaser that he build
a six foot high plastic fence, white, all the way across separating
the rear of the houses that are going to be built on Sunset from
the apartments that we have on the west side of this property.
We think it's quite important. We think from an aesthetic
standpoint it's going to certainly make a nice contribution and
also separate the two properties. We don't have that much
traffic back on the rear westerly portion of this property - the
portion that is abutting the houses that are going to be built
there. It's very, very nominal. I don't think that really is anything
for the Council to be worried about or the Planning Commission.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just one question about that fence. Is here any maintenance
required on a plastic white fence?
Mr. Schubiner:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
There's none?
Mr. Schubiner:
Not that I know of, no sir.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If I understand you, sir, right now you have a six foot cydone
fence, if I remember correctly.
Mr. Schubiner:
No, sir. We dont have anything there
Mr. Pieroecchi:
There's no fence at all there?
22253
Mr. Schubiner:
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. I guess I saw something that wasn't there. I thought you
had fencing behind those carports.
Mr. Schubiner:
Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The point is here that a six fool fence is fine if it's like stockade,
if its solid, so lights wont penetrate it. You're not going to have
space in between it, are you?
Mr. Schubiner:
No, sir. It's going to be a solid fence.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is this plasfic fencing we're talking about here?
Mr. Schubiner:
That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. You also mentioned that there's very little noise coming
those RTs. I cant agree or disagree on that because I did not
encounter any traffic. I was there on a Sunday aftemoon.
Mr. Schubiner:
Yes. There's very little traffic back there. There's only about,
you're talking about maybe . I can figure it out in just a
moment. There might be 40 to 50 cars going that way on both
sides of Morlock Street separating the apartments, but that's
about it. There's not that much there at all. A lot of the people
park on the street to make it more convenient for them to get
into their apartments. We're allowed to park on one side of
Morlock. So I don't really anticipate anything that's going to be
detrimental to the people who purchase those homes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
When I was there, sir, I envisioned something. I thought ideally
a berm, a fence, a berm and then some evergreens. That
would take care of all the sound and separate it and add
security and things of that nature. Is that possible?
Mr. Schubiner:
I'm reminded of the fact that Livonia is the fifth safest city in the
United States based on FBI reports, so I'm not too concerned
about safety. We've never really had a problem there. But I
must tell you that I think that the fence that is going to be built
there, the enfire length of the rear of these homes, is certainly
going to be more than adequate, and I think the individual
purchaser should be allowed to determine what kind of
landscaping he wants to abut this fence. We're hopeful that the
people who are going to pay $250,000 - $300,000 for a house
22254
are going to be certainly responsible and do something that is
going to be aesthetically attractive.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You're talking about on the other side of the fence.
Mr. Schubiner:
I'm talking about on the Sunset side. In other words, the fence
is going to be backing up to the rear of the property on Sunset.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Right. All along the western boundary for 11 lots.
Mr. Schubiner:
North to south, that's correct.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes, I understood that. I thought you were talking about some
additional landscaping here.
Mr. Schubiner:
No, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
I might add that I did read your Master Deed. It took a Iitlle
while but in Section 16, it says that you do allow in -ground
swimming pools, not above the ground. How about hot tubs?
Mr. Schubiner:
How about what, sir?
Mr. Alanskas:
Hol tubs. Do you approve of hot tubs being in the subdivision?
Mr. Schubiner:
I dont think that's called for in ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Its not in here. I just wondered if someone wanted to have one,
could they put a hot tub in?
Mr. Schubiner:
I think they'd have to fight the subdivision.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
A question to the petitioner and that is, if it is determined by
Wayne County that stormwater detention is required, how would
you propose to accommodate that?
Mr. Rausch:
If it is required, we'll do it with underground oversized pipes in
rear yards. We have a rear yard storm drain system proposed
already. We have 12 inch sewers there, so we might up them to
18 or 21 inch to provide that storage. So it would be
underground in the rear yards.
Mr. Taormina:
And secondly, you propose a modification to the nghtof-way
where it abuts Units 1 and 2, primarily Unit 2. What's the basis
22255
for that modification, and does that also affect the pavement or
is that strictly a change involving the public right-of-way line?
Mr. Rausch:
We were originally looking at adding the pavement there, some
additional pavement to provide better access to Unit 1 and 2
and to take the sidewalk around that to continue the circular cut -
de -sac there, but ifs to provide the access necessary for Unit 1
and 2. Since that cul-de-sac is all set in the existing subdivision,
we dont have the access that the lots on the east side of the
street would have.
Mr. Taormina:
Then just one more follow-up question. Have you discussed
with the Engineering Department how the pavement would be
modified in that area?
Mr. Rausch:
We submitted plans to them along with this submittal showing
that modification, so Mr. Schron had the opportunityto review it.
Mr. Taormina:
He's aware then of the change to the street curve at that
location?
Mr. Rausch:
I know we submitted the plans with it. I assumed he looked into
it. As I mentioned, I tried to calling him and have not been able
to get in touch with him.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
No one had risen when I called for public commentary, so at this
point, unless there are any additional questions from the
Planning Commissioners, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, itwas
#04-45-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-03-08-06
submitted by GLA Surveyors & Engineers, on behalf of Sunset
View Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a condominium
development on property located at 30250 Morlock Street in the
Northwest %of Section 2, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Tifle
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
22256
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
No. 543;
2. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set
forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail
and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements;
That the petitioner shall induce language in the Master
Deed and bylaws 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 owner's property pro rata and place said charges
on their real estate lax bills in tie event said charges are
not paid by the condominium association (or each lot
owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of
Livonia;
4. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C-2 dated March 14,
2005, prepared by GLA Surveyors & Engineers, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That sidewalks be installed on the west side of the right-of-
way in front of the proposed units as recommended by the
Engineering Department in their correspondence dated
March 17, 2005;
6. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for;
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 the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
March 16, 2005;
9. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surety bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
22257
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; and
10. That a six fool high vinyl clad obscuring fence shall be
erected along the west property line of the development.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Inasmuch as the gentleman here that's responsible for this
project staled that they would
put a six foot solid fence along the
western boundary, I don't think
this thing would have to be
returned, but I would suggest that we add condition #10, that a
six fool solid fence be installed along the western boundary of
the property.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, I'm going to give you very limited scope here. We're past
discussion.
Mr. Schubiner:
I will take one second, if I may. When you say a solid fence,
you're talking about ... I think perhaps it's a misconception of
what I'm saying. When I say solid, you will not be able to see
through it, but its built in usually six inch panels and it's all
plastic and it's covered in plastic. You cant see through it. You
won't be able to see through it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you talking about cyclone?
Mr. Schubiner:
No. This is an all plastic fence.
Mr. Taormina:
Its PVC.
Mr. Schubiner:
PVC. Its like a PVC only it's covered in white paint and it's very
solid and you wont see through it. The posts are all plastic. It's
a new product. Not brand new, its relatively new over the last
five, six years.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What is different from what I was proposing in Condition 10?
Mr. Schubiner:
When you say solid ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
Oh. The term solid.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina?
22258
Mr. Taormina:
If we could just use the term obscuring, a six foot high vinyl dad
obscuring fence.
Mr. Schubiner:
Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Is that acceptable, Mr. Pieroecchi?
Mr. Taormina:
We've used that similar language in the past.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Were on the same page. It'sjustthal l turned mine loo quick.
Mr. Walsh:
We have a suggestion for an amendment. Is that acceptable to
the maker and supporter?
Mr. Shane:
No objection.
Mr. Morrow:
That's fine.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any additional discussion?
Mr. Alanskas:
Could I ask Mr. Taormina a question?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, are you satisfied with the retention - what he wants to do
if necessary with the water retention?
Mr. Taormina:
That's something that will be the subject of review by our
Engineering Department, so I'm satisfied.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2005 -03 -SD -01 HOWARD QIIJ
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005 -03 -
SD -01, submitted by Howard Diu, requesting approval for the
installation of a satellite dish antenna for residential property
located at20545 Chestnut Circe in the Naihwest %of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This properly is located on the east side of Chestnut Circle
between Eight Mile Road and Pembroke Avenue. The applicant
22259
is requesting approval to retain a satellite dish antenna that was
erected without the required approval by the Planning
Commission. Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies
that any satellite dish antenna over 24 inches in diameter is
prohibited in residential zoning districts unless a site plan is
approved by the Planning Commission. Once the Inspection
Department discovered the dish, they informed the property
owner about the cored steps in obtaining a permit. The
submitted site plan shows that the dish is located right next to
the southeast comer of Mr. Qiu's property. Sections of
Chestnut Grove Site Condominiums are still being developed.
The houses around Mr. Qiu's property seem to be completed
but some do not appear to be occupied as of yet. The diameter
of the dish is 32 inches, and it is mounted on a ground base.
According to the applicant, the overall height of the antenna is
approximately 42 inches. At this time, the dish is just sitting out
in the open. Mr. Qiu is required to submit a plan to the
Homeowners Board showing how the dish would be screened.
It was explained to Mr. Qiu that the City would also require the
dish to be screened from public view. Mr. Qiu has no problem
screening the dish, but because he is unsure what type of
materials to use (plants, fencing, or combination), he is awaiting
the Commissioners input before he installs any type of
screening. Mr. Qiu also wants it to be known that he tried to
have the dish installed next to his house but could not get a
clear enough signal. Mr. Qiu is totally against having the dish
mounted on his roof because he has had bad experiences with
leaking at his previous house.
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated March 31, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of March 28, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This satellite dish is larger than the allowed 24 inches and is
not located in a position that can be approved by this
Department. (2) Should the Commission approve Mr. QuFs site
plan, a permit will need to be obtained from this Department.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner in the audience?
Howard Qui, 20545 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152.
22260
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you for being here. I'm sorry we were uncertain on how
to pronounce your last name.
Mr. Qui:
"Chew."
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to what has been
presented thus far?
Mr. Qui:
Yes, if I may. Basically, this satellite is for my kids' educafion
purpose. To receive the satellite, it has to be facing the source.
Even though I have tried many times to move the satellite to the
side of my house ... I paid an installer to move to the side of
my house. First of all, I cannot move it in front of my house. In
the picture that the gentleman just showed to you, its very easy
to face the source, but since my neighbor just next to me ... the
only place that I can receive the signal is in the comer. I didn't
know who was complaining, but after the City's call on the
complaint, I try to move down in the winter, very cold time, I tried
to move it outside my house. I tried to get a signal, but I was
not successful. The installer coming, paid him and he installed
it next to the side of my house. It still not successful because
you have to be in that degree to receive the signal. I also
proposed to put some evergreen on the side to screen it. I want
to put some evergreen over there - five evergreens, three foot
tall. In the meantime, you just saw the pictures. There is stone
over there. Those stones will be gone, will be removed. It will
be screened and the stone will be removed. My plan was to
take the board out, to replace a steel pipe for the support
instead of the board right now, but it has to be approved first
because I don't want to do all that if the site is not approved.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
Mr. Qui, does it have to be that big of a dish?
Mr. Qui:
Yes. In order to receive the signal from the satellite, it had to be
that big of a dish. Its the purpose to educate my son and my
daughter for the different language. is a different forwarding
set right. Its not for the US commands set right.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Sir, inyourhome, is yourchimney onethathaswood around d?
Mr. Qui:
I'm Sony?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is your chimney all brick or does it have wood around it?
22261
Mr.
Qui:
Mybedding?
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Your chimney foryourfreplace and furnace.
Mr.
Qui:
Yeah, there's a board on them.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
It's wood, isn't it?
Mr.
Qui:
Yes, I think it is wood.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Where you have it right now, it's really a terrible spot. You don't
have hardy any room between the two houses now on your
neighbor's in the rear, and you've got it sitting right next to a
playpen there? Have you looked into the possibility of mounting
that dish onto that wooden chimney?
Mr.
Qui:
My chimney is not above the house. Mine is just half. On the
other side of the house.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Its on the north side?
Mr.
Qui:
On the north side.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Not on the south side.
Mr.
Qui:
No, the chimney is on the north side. On the south side, there is
no chimney over there. There's no wood over there. In fad, I
tried my best on the south side to mount on the wall without
wood, just on the brick, and I didn't get a signal, like I said
earlier.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Woukln'lthalwork?
Mr.
Qui:
No.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
Why not?
Mr.
Qui:
Because my neighbor's house is juslthat close.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
So you really have about 15- 20 feet between houses there?
Mr.
Qui:
Yeah.
Mr.
Piercecchi:
You have 21 feel abutting the street, that's 10 feet, two of them
got to be 22, so it is about 20 feet between the houses there. I
22262
think other commissioners here have some ideas on other ways
to get this signal. I'll yield the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow:
I came here tonight expecting to have approval of your
subdivision. I see there's a letter on file where they rescinded
their approval.
Mr. Qui:
Al the fime I requested approval, the subdivision had already
approved. Later on they learned that at this meeting with the
city, they called for withdrawal approval waiting for the City to
make the final decision.
Mr. Morrow:
Have you had the opportunity to meet with your neighbors? It
seems to me that most object to your dish.
Mr. Qui:
I meet all four neighbors, my next house and there's one house
across with me. On the side of me, has no homeowners there
yet, but I talked to the builder, and I talked right next to me, the
house is no problem, and talked to the other side of house,
there's no occupant yet. The builder didn't have a problem. I
talked to my neighbor right next to my house, a gentleman
called Soave. I think at the time I didn't know who make the
complaint, so he said he didn't care.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess what I'm saying is, generally, I have no problem with
these as long as your neighbors go along with d. And I just
wondered if you had an opportunity to meet with your Board of
Directors or the President of the Association or your neighbor to
explain the type of screening that would go on. You're talking
about modifying it with a pole versus ... I suspect before I could
approve
this, you would have to have another meeting with your
neighbor.
Mr. Qui: I have a meeting with all those four neighbors but I learned later,
like I said, Mr. Soave is not . . he is not the person of the
homeowner. I didn't know that. I didn't know who is the owner.
I talked to one person in the household, and that's all I did. I
talked to the Association many times.
Mr. Morrow: Did you talk to them about your screening plan?
Mr. Qui: Yeah.
Mr. Morrow: It shows on the picture, it's just sitting out in the your backyard.
22263
Mr.
Qui:
That's what I'm just pointing out. Before approval, I don't what
to do anything if this thing is not going to be there, and, in fad, t
was in the cold venter when I tried to move this out. I tried my
best.
Mr.
Morrow:
That leads to my next question. Who is the contractor that put
that in?
Mr.
Qui:
For the satellite?
Mr.
Morrow:
Yes. Who installed it for you?
Mr.
Qui:
I put t in.
Mr.
Morrow:
Oh. You installed it?
Mr.
Qui:
Yeah.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. I was under the impression that you hired somebody to
do it.
Mr.
Qui:
No. I hired somebody to move it to the side of my house, and
he put it over there but I didn't get a signal. I had to move t
back.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr.
Qui:
No. I didn't hire anyone.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Sir, if you screen that dish on the ground with bushes, won't that
block your signal?
Mr.
Qui:
Okay. I have to look at the picture again. I'm glad they look so
many pdures. That helps me out. If your looking at the top
pictures, those two big trees over there?
Mr.
Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr.
Qui:
This is source. Those trees are source.
Mr.
Alanskas:
That's looking east.
Mr.
Qui:
No. Those two trees are source.
Mr.
Alanskas:
On the bottom. Okay.
22264
Mr. Qui:
In between the two trees, there's a hole. There's a hole. You
cannot see from this corner, but there's a hole in between trees.
This satellite just goes through the hole in between those two
trees on the south side. What I'm proposing to put in for
bushes, is on this side, on the east side.
Mr. Alanskas:
Along here?
Mr. Qui:
No. On this line over there. You see those two cable boxes
over there?
Mr. Alanskas:
Cables boxes. Yes.
Mr. Qui:
It lines up with those two cable boxes, so the other side of my
house, the neighbor won't see those trees.
Mr. Alanskas:
You see, why I ask is because about seven or eight years ago,
we used to get a lot of requests for these large dishes, and they
always had to face southwest 14 degrees to get a good signal.
Mr. Qui:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
But most of them were on the roof of the house where they had
the height where they got a good signal. You want to put yours
on the ground. Why cant you put yours on the roof?
Mr. Qui:
Okay. Again, if you're looking at my house, first of all, the
installer refused to go over there. This was not tall enough. My
house is loo tall.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's not over 35 feel, is it?
Mr. Qui:
I dont know how tall this one is, but it's very tal.
Mr. Alanskas:
Normally a two-story house is no more than 35 feet.
Mr. Qui:
He refused to put it...
Mr. Alanskas:
My thought is, if you had it off the ground and elevated, you
would get a much better signal, number one, and it would be
easier to screen.
Mr. Qui:
The issue here is, if I install it higher ... if I hire someone to
install this dish over there on the tall roof, then I need some
other adjustment when the wind is blowing up because the
signal ... those kind of satellite and receiving, sometime you
22265
need to adjust the comer. Then I have to go up on the roof to
adjust.
Mr.
Alanskas:
As I understand from my notes, it said you didn't want to put
on the roof because it would leak.
Mr.
Qui:
There is some possibility there. There's no side you can put
on. Everything is like this way if you look at the top.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Because as I understand, they have these new 24 inch dishes
that you could put in the attic of your home and still receive the
signal.
Mr.
Qui:
No.
Mr.
Alamkas:
That's not true?
Mr.
Qui:
That's not true.
Mr.
Alanskas:
That's not true. Okay. Thank you.
Mr.
Shane:
Most of my questions are answered. How many shrubs were
you planning on putting in?
Mr.
Qui:
Five.
Mr.
Shane:
How close together?
Mr.
Qui:
Three foot tall.
Mr.
Shane:
No, how close together?
Mr.
Qui:
Close I guess because I have to leave some room for those
trees to grow, so there would be a little bit of gap over there.
Mr.
Shane:
Where are you going to put them? Where the arrows are
pointing on that side?
Mr.
Qui:
Yeah, on this side. Because on this side of the yard, they have
a tree over there. So I'm going to put it on this side.
Mr.
Shane:
Which side?
Mr.
Walsh:
The east side.
Mr.Shane:
Towards your house?
22266
Mr. Qui:
No, no. The other side.
Mr. Walsh:
The east side.
Mr. Shane:
Your neighbor's side? How the dish installed? Is it on a
concrete slab or what?
Mr. Qui:
Right now, t is installed on a board, and the board is on the
ground. If you're looking al that one right now, its just on a
board. But if you let me put in this provision and I will put in a
steel pipe to like about three fool deep.
Mr. Shane:
The reason I'm asking is, if I read that drawing right, ifs in an
utility easement. Is it not? A utility easement?
Mr. Qui:
Before I knock it down, I call Ms. Dig to have them take a look.
Before I do that, I have to call Ms Dig and say take a look to see
if you have anything over there.
Mr. Shane:
Well, that's what I was going to suggest that you check first to
make sure you can put.. .
Mr. Qui:
Ms. Dig has been at my house a couple times already for when
we groomed the landscape. So I know this area doesn't have
that, but I want to double check. Every time I do this, I want to
double check. And there is a lot of cable boxes over this comer
already, so I would double check. There's a cable box and
there's a draw right by the comer.
Mr. Morrow:
I would suggest that ... I know we've been trying to figure out
what the landscape plan is, and I think about the only way we're
going to be able to figure that out is if he puts together the
location he wants along with his landscape plan, and then runs
it by his Association. Then perhaps we can make a move on
this thing, but I would like to have him give us something to act
on as opposed to a lot of verbiage, and see whether or not he
can meet with these people and get approval based on a plan
that he's put together and then bring it back.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Anytime, fellow commissioners, that you have something like
this silting on the ground, I think there is a safety problem with it.
Now, I'm not saying that there's electrical problems or things of
that nature?
Mr. Qui:
No.
22267
Mr. Pieroecchi: But there are cables and it is there. There's hardly any room.
I'm amazed that they put houses so large on that size of lot. I
really am. I mean he just makes it. I think that wisdom was
coming forth from Commissioner Morrow that, let's look at
landscaping. Let's see if the Association approves of it, and
especially his neighbor who, according to this letter which
wasn't read, is opposed to it. It says here ... may I read this?
It wasn't read.
Mr. Walsh: We read into the record correspondence from the City.
Mr. Pieroecchi: This is correspondence from Virginia Monaghan, Secretary of
the Chestnut Grove Homeowners Association. In that letter, it
says here, At the Board of Directors meeting on April 12, 2005,
the neighbor directly behind you indicated that he had not been
approached and was not in agreement with its location." That's
paramount, too, I think prior to getting approval. As the closest
neighbor to it, he's the one that's got to live with it loo. So I
think Commissioner Morrow has the right idea and probably the
best course of action here would be to table it for further
information.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one question. The classes or whatever you're trying
to get for your children, do they also have this on the computer,
on the intemet, where you can get these classes?
Mr. Qui:
No. Those are the language classes provided on the satellite.
Mr. Alanskas:
What are you trying to receive from the antenna? What are you
receiving?
Mr. Qui:
I'm receiving ...
Mr. Alanskas:
School classes or what is it?
Mr. Qui:
Not just school classes. Its like a program in the satellite.
Mr. Alanskas:
Program on what, sir?
Mr. Qui:
TV's has those language with a chat room in the Chinese
language. You can have those teachers in the Chinese
language and you have stories told in the language. I've never
seen those in the intemet.
22268
Mr. Alanskas: I know because about two years ago we had a Chinese church
on Five Mile and a lot of the people that are members there,
their children receive classes on the computer instead of going
with a big antenna.
Mr. Qui: She went to the West Middle School to do a school passes
every week Friday.
Mr. Alanskas: I mean it's something that you might possibly look into. Thank
you.
Mr. Qui: Oh yeah. That's just a supplement. Can I respond to Lt. Dan
Pieroecchi's question?
Mr. Walsh: Lets get Mr. Shane's comments in and then we'll give you an
opportunity to speak.
Mr. Shane: I was just going to expand on Mr. Morrow's and Mr. Piercecohi's
comments. I think what we need is an actual letter four your
neighbors agreeing or not agreeing to the location. I think I'd
feel better if I saw it in writing. A lot of times we hear it's no
problem, but it turns out there is a problem. So if we have it in
writing, then I think we'll be more comfortable with that.
Mr. Qui: Okay.
Mr. Shane: Do you have difficulty with that?
Mr. Qui: No, I guess like I said earlier, I talked to only one of the person
that he might neighbor cross my street. I talked to the other,
each household, I only talk to one person. I didn't talk to every
one of the members in the household.
Mr. Shane: Yes, because as Mr. Pieroecchi said ...
Mr. Qui: And I don't have letter from each household. Okay, and I
realize just about ... because the City asked me to move this
one and asking the plan. I don't know. The City dont provide
me the name, so I never know who was complaining until
recently and I realize now he is the homeowner for cross my
street, across my house. I guess this letter is going to be hard
for me to obtain. be honestwith you.
Mr. Walsh: To sum it up, because I share the concems that have been
articulated, what I'd be looking for individually, as just one of the
22269
seven that would vole on this, is that the people that are dosest
to this dish, this would be the person behind you, the person
kitty comer to you and your next door neighbor. If you have
their support, I'm much more comfortable with this, and I'm
echoing what you've already heard. Its imperative for us to
make an informed decision to know specifically with some type
of drawing what landscaping you intend to do. I believe your
offer is sincere to do that, but we would be much more
comfortable to have that in the record so that those who will
follow us, those in the Inspection Department, will know
precisely what it is that you're seeking.
Mr. Qui: I can provide landscape plan and I can provide a reinstallation
of that satellite dish. I can provide that.
Mr. Walsh: We have had some suggestion for a tabling resolution. We can
do that if you like. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes
to speak for or against this petition?
Gino Pilfiglio, 20665 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I'm the
homeowner that lives directly behind Mr. Qui's home there
where the satellite dish is placed in the corner. Unit 9. That
satellite dish is, as you can see in the picture, sitting on a piece
of plywood with rocks holding it down. Every morning when I
come out of my garage, I have to see that satellite dish. Every
time I drive up to my driveway, I see that satellite dish. It's a
$600,000 house that I live in. The subdivision has several
hundred thousand dollars homes in there. To have a dish sitting
on the grass like that, that doesn't seem appropriate to me for
the City of Livonia. Ive seen satellite dishes as big as that
mounted on homes with no problem getting reception. Smaller
and larger. Also, I have a five-year-old daughter who could go
up to that backyard there and play with that wire that's hanging
out there on the satellite dish, which leads directly to the home
of Mr. Qui. So even if he mounts that on a steel rod, that wire is
going to show, and I don't want to nsk my daughter playing with
that wire when he could mount that on his home. Now, I don't
see why he can't mount that on his home when all the other
ones are. Everyone in the subdivision that has a satellite dish
mounts it on their home. They have no problem with reception,
and I'm sure his home could support a 36" inch dish. Now, I
was never informed or never asked about that satellite dish and
where its placed right now. Never has he contacted me,
attempted to contact me, or even addressed the issue with me
anytime during the summer when that dish was there all
summer. I was out there every single day working on my
22270
landscaping, working on my home, before I moved in completely
and never did he ever say can I leave this dish here. Will it
bother you there? My father-in-law, who he states is Mr. Soave,
which he is incorrect. My father-in-law's name is Mr. DeLibro.
He Is at my home quite often and he's a carpenter. He's around
the subdivision. He has completed the homes in the subdivision
all summer long, and he has requested Mr. Qui to move the dish
as well. He never approved the dish there on my behalf and
never would I give him the authority to approve that on my
behalf. That's my home. That's the dish I have to see
everyday, and I'm against the dish being placed in that location
either on the board or on a steel rod. Now if he wants to move it
to the other side of the lot on the opposite side where I won't
see it every morning, be my guest. But where it is right now,
I've got to see it every single day. Living in a subdivision with
the homes high in value like that, I dont think that's the place for
it where its sitting. I think the appropriate spot would be
mounted on his home. Nov, I've seen people mount Direct
TV's, dishes, what's the other one, the Dish Network, on their
homes. These installers come out. They install it. No
problems. This gentlemen here has a problem installing a dish
on his home. Why? How could that be a problem? Everyone
else does it. So I don't see why it can't be mounted. And
regarding the channels he receives from China, the Dish
Network has that. Direct TV has that. People receive
international channels all the time, and there is no reason for it
to be placed in that location. He will get reception for those
channels on his home as well. So I am against it and I will not
sign a letter or generate a letter to give him the authority to
leave it there, screened by foliage or whatever he wants to put
around there. I don't think that's the appropriate spot for a dish,
especially in that subdivision.
Mr. Walsh: Well, sir, thank you for coming. You certainly have darifed that
and that is helpful to us. Thank you. Sir, the petitioner has the
opportunity to have the last word. Is there anything you'd like to
add this evening?
Mr. Qui: Like I said, my plan is to have the evergreen over atthis side so
you wont see it at all.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you, sir. At this point, a motion would be in order.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Originally, I thought a tabling motion would be in order, but
inasmuch as this gentleman came forward, and he is really the
prime mover here, he really should give his permission. So
22271
inasmuch as he would never sign off on it, I think that the proper
action is the one I'm going to take, Mr. Chairman. I move to
deny.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#04-46-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to deny Petition 2005-03SD-01, submitted by
Howard Qiu, requesting approval for the installation of a satellite
dish antenna for residential property located at 20545 Chestnut
Circe in the Northwest%of Section 4, for the following reasons:
1. That due to its size and location, this dish antenna would
be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the
neighborhood by presenting a visual blight that could
jeopardize the property values in the area as set forth in
the comprehensive plan of the Zoning Ordinance; and
2. That the dish antenna is disturbing to and not in harmony
with the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas:
I just might add that we always in the past with these dishes
made sure for one thing that we always had a letter in writing
from every surrounding neighbor for approval. That's the first
thing we look for. And we don't have, and that's why I'm
supporting this denial. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm going to support the denying resolution but I would hope the
petitioner would use the information he received here tonight
and go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a plan
that, using the input from his neighbor, and the input from this
Commission and try to come up with something in a plan that
we could approve and that the neighbors will approve. Thank
you.
Mr. Walsh:
I'm going to support the motion as well. I think additional
options are available. I certainly would have supported the
tabling resolution. Mr. Pittiglio, being here has answered the
one big question I had, so thank you for being here this evening.
Sir, I think if you follow you Mr. Morrow's suggestions. it will be
helpful as you move forward.
22272
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the mofion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
kd=1A43 =:J =k IY 1[e77 L'AD1alf, k1DY-7[flIS9X0121Eel: Y 69
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2005-
04-08-07 submitted by Kenneth Sheets, on behalf of House of
Lights, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct an addition and renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located at 15870 Middlebell Road in the
Southwest%of Section 13.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between
Broadmoor Avenue and Sunnydale Avenue. The adjacent
property to the south contains a building formerly occupied by
Emmett's Restaurant. The adjoining land to the north is the site
of the Newlon Furniture store. The land to the east is
residentially zoned and contains single-family homes. To the
west, across Middlebell Road, is OS zoned land. The property
measures 115.0 feet in width by 375.6 feet in depth for a total
area of 0.99 acre. The existing one-story building contains
approximately 17,353 square feet of gross floor area. Mr.
Sheets operates a retail store that specializes primarily in home
lighting fixtures and other home decor items. His desire, if he
purchases this property, is to construct a two-story addifion onto
the front of the building. Combined, the floor area of the first
and second floors of the proposed addition would be
approximately 2,300 square feet. Architecturally, the front of the
building would undergo a significant alteration. The existing
mansard roof would be replaced with facade elements
characteristic of a Greek revival design. Central to the design is
the main building entrance, which features four columns
supporting a raised pediment. The design would also feature a
decorative comice, raised windows at each end of the building
facade, as well as canopies above the two lower windows on
either side of the main entrance. The petitioner meets the
parking requirements of 26 spaces.
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 18, 2005, 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 owner should take steps to
protect the existing sanitary lead that appears to run under the
22273
proposed addition." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated April 14, 2005, which reads as follows:
'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to construct an addition and renovate the exterior
of the commercial building on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
with the following stipulation: Due to the narrow access to the
rear of the building, the south side of the building shall be
posted 'no parking' with double -sided signs." The letter is
signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated April 18, 2005, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 13, 2005,
the above-refen=nced petition has been mviewed. The following
is noted. (1) Please see our letter of November 5, 2004, in
regard to this site (Petition 2004 -10 -GB -06). A copy is attached.
(2) Without detailed plans, we cannot make definitive comments
on the second story addition and its purpose. Barrier free
accessibility issues may arise when this Department conducts a
plan review at the time of permit application. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the pefitioner here this evening?
Kenneth Sheets, House of Lights, 49560 Van Dyke, Shelby, Michigan 48317.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Sheets:
I think that pretty well covers most of it. According to the
calculations that are necessary by the City, we have provided
the 26 spaces which is what the calculation, what the City
requires. The addition of the front and the elevations that had to
be implemented, partially relate to two things - the first being
aesthetical that the two story facade has a tendency to be
perhaps a little more impressive than a single story. But more
importantly, being that our products are decorative and we sell
designer lighting, chandeliers, foyer type fixtures, we need
elevations, and we feel that the elevation heights of the windows
would be appropriate and helpful in the retail part of R.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the pefitioner?
22274
Mr. Alanskas:
Going north on Middlebelt, driving past your facility, how far
around the side are you going to wrap the facade improvements
around the building?
Mr. Sheets:
It will maintain the existing side lateral elevations that will be
level with what is existing. What will be there would be a tall
window so that it can be observed from Middlebelt traffic.
Mr. Alanskas:
Coming from the south. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Taormina:
The existing building is constructed primarily of block. The
entire south elevation has a wood veneer paneling. I'm
assuming that would be removed. Is that correct?
Mr. Sheets:
Yes. It's rather dated.
Mr. Taormina:
So all the wood will come down. I'm guessing then that all the
thin brick veneer will also be removed. Will all the concrete
block be painted? And if so, what color?
Mr. Sheets:
It would be matching basically the front, which would probably
be a while color with perhaps a taupe gray, a very faint
contrasting color.
Mr. Taormina:
Secondly, have you discussed with the owner of the property
anything regarding the construction of the screen wall along the
back?
Mr. Sheets:
I did receive a letter that showed that the City of Livonia did
allow that openness primarily due, according to the letter, that
the property directly behind this property is a highly treed area.
Apparently that is why the City in the past has allowed that to
stay that way. It doesn't infringe on residential homes.
Mr. Taormina:
So would it be your intent then to go back to the Zoning Board
of Appeals and request a continuation of thatvariance?
Mr. Sheets:
If it serves a purpose, we would work with the City, of course, to
take care of that situation. But if it doesn't affect any property
owner or anyone, the trees in themselves are aesthetically fine.
But again, if the City felt that should be there, we would
accommodate that situation.
Mr. Taormina:
Thank you.
22275
Mr. Alanskas:
Did you purchase this property or are you leasing this property
from someone else?
Mr. Sheets:
No. We made the commitment on that, and that, of course, is
one of the things. We're here to stay, and hopefully with the
aesthetics of the design, it will enhance and maybe ...
Mr. Alanskas:
At this time, is it leased? Are you leasing the properly now at
this time?
Mr. Sheets:
No. We're just going in. And because, again, we're dealing
with decorative
products if you will, we need something that's
going to do the job.
Mr. Alanskas:
I was just wondering because by adding a second floor, if it was
a leased thing, and then you decided five or six years down the
road, you'd have a two story building and not knowing what's
going in there, but I'm glad that you are buying the property.
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Just to clarify this wall to the rear. Is the waiver of the wall that
was granted, would it apply to him for a certain duration or
would he be required to go back to the ZBA and re -institute that
waiver?
Mr. Taormina:
The way I understand the approving conditions of Appeal Case
No. 8011-128, he would be required to go back to the Zoning
Board of Appeals with a request once the property is transferred
in his name. Condition No. 1 states 'that the variance shall
continue as long as the property is owned by this Petitioner."
"This petitioner' is referring to Sheldon Fuller of 4540 Walnut
Lake Road, who I believe is the current titleholder of this
property.
Mr. Morrow:
So I guess what that means is once you get title of the building,
the Zoning Board has seen fit to waive the wall in the past but
you vdl need a waiver in your name. And when you meet with
the property owner, he can explain to you how we achieve that.
Mr. Sheets:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additions questions or comments? As we have
no additional members in the audience to come forward, a
motion would be order.
22276
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, with all the dialogue that we received from Mr.
Sheets, I'm happy to give an approving resolution. I think it
would be a great thing for Middlebelt Road to start having these
type of businesses on Middlebelt.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-47-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-04-08-07
submitted by Kenneth Sheets, on behalf of House of Lights,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition and renovate the exterior of the commercial building
located at 15870 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest % of Section
13, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan as received by the Planning
Commission on April 12, 2005, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2. That no landscaping is approved at this time, and that a
Landscape Plan shall be submitted within sixty (60) days of
this approval for the review and approval of the Planning
Commission and City Council:
3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans as received by
the Planning Commission on April 12, 2005, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, provided that the
material used on the exterior of the lower portion of the
front of the building, including the base of the columns, be
masonry;
4. That any brick used in the construction shall be full -face
far (4) inch brick;
5. 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;
6. 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;
22277
7. That all parking lot 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;
8. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
9. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
10. That the pefitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
April 14, 2005;
11. That all wood siding and thin brick located on the south
and north elevations of the building shall be removed, and
the remaining block walls on the north, south and east
elevations shall be patched and repainted white or a color
compatible to the new addition; and
12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: The Planning Commission could consider one additional
condition and that is, that all exterior wood siding and thin brick
be removed and that any exposed block be patched, painted,
repaired and painted a color to match the building.
Mr. Alanskas: I have no problem with that at all.
Mr.Shane: Iagree.
Mr. Walsh: We have acceptance by the maker and the supporter. The
resolution would stand so amended. Is there any discussion on
the resolution on the floor? Mr. Sheets, just a couple quick
comments. Thank you for coming forward. We appreciate your
investment in the City. This was an extraordinary process for
us.
22278
Mr. Sheets: We're extremely excited as well. Meeting with a lot of the
people with City, it's a very positive experience. I do have one
other thing to ask for. I did talked to Joe Taylor, who is, I
believe, the President of the Council.
Mr. Walsh: Correct. The seven day waiver?
Mr. Sheets: The seven day waiver, correct. He said to let you know that I
did talk to him and that he had no problem with that and to
mention that.
Mr. Walsh: We have been so advised. Just to conclude my comments, it's
been an extraordinary process for us. We moved along rather
quickly but that's because it's an extraordinary opportunity for
you and for the City. In a very short period of time, sir, I hink
you have demonstrated more commitment to answering our
questions than many of the petitioners we've had kicking around
for months. So thank you, and we look forward to working with
you.
Mr. Sheets: Thankyou
Mr. Walsh: The seven day waiver is accepted.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-48-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the
seven-day period concerning the effective date of Planning
Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 200504-08-
07 submitted by Kenneth Sheets, on behalf of House of Lights,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition and renovate the exterior of the commercial building
located at 15870 Middlebell Road in the Southwest %of Section
13.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
22279
ITEM #5 PETITION 2004-02-08-03 SWS OIL
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
02-08-03 submitted by SWS Oil, Inc., which previously received
approval by the City Council on April 5, 2004 (CR 148-04),
requesting a one-year extension of all plans in connection with a
proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas station located at
27430 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast%of Section 1.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, I think we have just a single item of
correspondence.
Mr. Taormina: Yes. We have letter dated April 1, 2005, from Richard
Gallagher, Gallagher Construction Company, who is
representing the proprietor, Mr. Wail Saab. He is requesting a
one-year extension of the site plan that was previously
approved by the City Council. The reason for delay in
construction has something to do with the soil remediation at the
site, and for that reason, he is requesting an extension of the
approved site plan.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to the soil conditions, who will finally tell Mr.
Gallagher that the problems have been corrected so he can
continue with construction?
Mr. Taormina: I was informed that the owners of the Clark Gas Station are
responsible for the remediation. Once dearance has been
obtained by the approving authority, whidi I believe is the
Midiigan Department of Environmental Quality, then Mr. Saab
can begin construction. I don't believe he actually owns the
property at this time. He is still waiting for closure with respect
to the environmental issues.
Mr. Alanskas: So a one-year extension should lake care of that problem?
Mr. Taormina: That has yet to be seen. I dont know. It will depend on how
quicHythey can remediate the contamination at that site.
Mr. Walsh: If there are no more questions, a motion would be in order.
22280
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-49-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-02-08-03,
submitted by the SWS Oil, Inc., requesting a one-year extension
of the site plan, which previously received approval by the Oty
Council on April 5, 2004 (Council Resolution #148-04), in
connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas
station building located at 27430 Seven Mile Road in the
Southeast %of Section 1, be approved.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #6 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING RETAIL USES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a notion to hold
a public hearing pursuant to pursuant to Council Resolution
#137-05, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 11.03(p) of Article
XVIII of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to give the
Planning Commission and City Council additional authority to
regulate new retail uses in excess of 30,000 square feel.
(Petition 2005-03-06-01)
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, 9
was
#0430-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #137-05, 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
11.03(p) of Article XVIII of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to give the Planning Commission and City Council
additional authority to regulate new retail uses in excess of
30,000 square feet.
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.
22281
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Piercecchi, Shane, Alanskas, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
LaPine
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 903RD Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 903'd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on April 5, 2005.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0431-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 903'd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on April 5,
2005, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Smiley, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: LaPine
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 900 Regular
Meeting held on April 19, 2005, was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman