HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-08-09MINUTES OF THE 9W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 9, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 911" Public Hearings and 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 William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra
Walter, Clerk -Typist II; and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor, 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 anc/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the dale of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2005-07-01-06 TACO BELL
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-07-
01-06 submitted by Peter Lyders, on behalf of Old West
Properties, LLC (a franchisee of Taco Bell Corp.), requesting to
rezone a portion of the property at 19036 Filmore, located on
the east side of Filmore Avenue between Seven Mile Road and
Clarita Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to C-2
office building on property located at 34010 Plymouth Road in
the Southeast %of Section 28.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated July 15, 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 and the legal description
is correct. No additional right-of-way is required." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from Roger M. Cole, 19018 Filmore, dated July 28,
2005, which reads as follows: `The residential property owners
in the area of the Taco Bell located on Farmington Road, object
to the petition to rezone and to install a drive-thru facility. The
residential property owners have signed a petition against the
proposed rezoning/expansion; that the signed petition will be
filed with the City's Planning Commission prior to the scheduled
hearing date of August 9, 2005. Review of the record shows
that Taco Bell is not the first business entity to request that the
City of Livonia grant a petition to expand by the installation of a
drive-thm in an area which borders a residential neighborhood.
In 2004 the City of Livonia received a similar petition from
Michigan Heritage Bank, 18770 Farmington Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. Michigan Heritage Bank requested the City's
approval to expand the services of their facility by installing a
drive-thm at the Farmington Road Branch. That petition was
addressed in Council Resolution CR #485-04. The City of
Livonia did not approve the bank's Petition. At that time, the
City Planners looked at the impact of expanding a commercial
facility versus the impact such an expansion would have on the
neighboring community. Analysis determined that the effect
would be negative on the community and the Petition was
therefore denied. We, the residents near the Taco Bell, are
entitled to no less consideration than was given the
homeownersrresidents near Michigan Heritage Bank in Livonia.
Moreover, a bank has limited hours of operation. By contrast, a
restaurant with an outside drive-thm has loud speakers, loud
cars, and often loud customers from early morning until closing
at 2.00 am. Obviously granting Taco Bell's Petition would have
a far greater negative impact on local residents than would the
expansion of a bank. In summary, the homeowners who live
near Taco Bell object to the Petition filed by Old West Properties
to expand Taco Bell and respectfully request the City Planning'
Commission to deny the Petition for the following reasons: (a)
There would be excessive noise, especially early mornings and
late at night given that the drive-thru would have outdoor
speakers and is open until 2.00 am. (b) Trash dumpsters would
be 50 feet from residential property with resultant foul odors and
rodents. Moreover, this will create blight and unsightly
conditions in close proximity to the home. (c) Would force
residents to keep windows closed and curtains drawn. (d)
Would eliminate the privacy provided by the present buffer
zone, it would also adversely affect the use and enjoyment of
the back yard property by the residents. (e) Would cause
residential property values to decrease substantially without any
compensation for the loss. (e) Litter on private property, street,
and in the buffer zone. (0 Increase in traffic in a residential
area. (g) Concern as to vandalism to neighboring residences.
(h) Concern that customers and others will hang out in the
bufferzone. (i) Fear for the safety of our children with so many
strangersin the neighborhood. () Fear and danger of rodents
and miscellaneous animals, especially with dumpsters closer to
homes. (k) Increase in traffic with resultant accidents4njurtes.
At the present time, the residents are already dealing with
problems from the existing taco bell facility on Farmington Road.
Many noisy nights resulting in lack of sleep, we do not need
more noise. Picking up trash4itter on street and also on private
property. Based upon the above, it is clear that the petition to
rezone a portion of the property at 19036 Filmore, Livonia
(Petition 2005-07-01-06) should be denied." In connection with
that letter, a petition was submitted to the Planning Commission
on August 8, 2005, which reads as follows: "This petition is to
be signed if you are against changing property address 19036
Filmore, Livonia, Michigan 48152. We do not want Taco Bell to
put in a drive thin at the present time or future." The petition
contains 66 signatures. The next letter is from the present
owners of the property, dated July 15, 2005, which reads as
follows: `This letter shall serve as legal notification that the
following people are authorized to act as agents and sign legal
documentation pertaining to the Rezoning, Site Plan review, and
general permitting of improvements proposed for my property
commonly known as 19036 Filmore Avenue." The people who
are designated to represent the owners are Mr. Peter Lyders
and Mr. Eric D. Rauch. The letter is signed by Bryan and Amy
Casebere, 19036 Filmore, Livonia, Michigan 48152. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
4
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, I have one question. For my information and perhaps
some members of the audience, my question is, is a drive thru a
permitted use in the C-2 zoning?
Mr. Walsh:
Mark, are you able to answer that?
Mr. Taormina:
It is a waiver use.
Mr. Morrow:
So should this petition prevail and gel approved, they would still
have to come back requesting a waiver use to operate the drive-
thru.
Mr. Walsh:
That would be correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, at the study session I questioned about the setback from
Farmington Road of the restaurant that's there now. Its
supposed to be 60 feet. They got a variance from the ZBA. Its
my contention that, and I've checked this out with somebody,
that if they tear that building down, the variance they received
from the ZBA no longer exists. Did you check that out?
Mr. Taormina:
We were unable to confirm that, but that's something that we
can provide at a future date.
Mr. LaPine:
I'd like you to find out because I've been told that once the
building has been demolished, the variance no longer exists.
Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Eric D. Rauch,
Desine Inc., 2183 Pless Drive, Brighton, Michigan 48114. Also
here tonight is Rick Eccles, Property Manager for Taco Bell, for
the owner Peter Lyders, with Old West Properties.
Mr. Walsh:
Thankyou.
Mr. Rauch:
The existing site at 19055 Farmington Road is on the west side
of Farmington just south of Seven Mile Road. It's about .4 acres
in size and is currently zoned C-2, as mentioned by Mark a little
bit eadier. The C-2 zoning does allow for the full-service
restaurant use, and currently what we have on site is a dine -in
and carryout only site. The existing building on the site is what
the corporation calls a mission -style building. They are Taco
Bells built in the '80's. They're characteristic with the arch
windows in front and the clay roofs that you might see. A few
years back the corporation issued an ultimatum to their
franchise holders, and that was that they must update all their
Taco Bell facilities that have the mission -style restaurant to the
up-to-date building prototype and site design standards, or
when their site comes up for renewal, they must abandon that
site because it no longer meets their objectives and imaging and
things of that nature. This site will, in the near future, come up
for renewal, and if its not updated will have to be abandoned.
The G2, like I mentioned, does allow for carryout and the drive-
thm and the dine -in, and the drive-thru characteristic is a
requirement now for Taco Bell. So any type of reconstruction
we do to meet corporate standards, we would have to have the
drive-thru. The current site has what I refer to as an Oklahoma -
shaped piece of property. It's got some odd geometry and it
makes it very difficult to have or wrap around a drive-thru
stacking ane in the rear here. To accommodate that, what Mr.
Lyders has done is put a purchase offer on this property at
19036 Filmore. The intentions are to demolish the existing
house that is there and to use half of that property, just a portion
of it, for some of those site features, like the drive-thru ane and
some parking here. Now, it's always in a situation like this of
the utmost importance to consider the adjacent properties. We
met with the neighbors, look in some concems, met with
members of Council, Planning Commission and staff. What
we've come up with is to build a six fool high screening wall,
with a brick -like appearance, all the way around whatever is
abutfing the residential properties. Now this prevents any type
of lights from traversing out to the adjacent properties,
particularly site lighting and most importantly car headlight
lamps. As you might imagine, it would be annoying to have
those tum on and off if you're in the bedroom. So a six -fool high
screen wall would completely eliminate those types of
annoyances. Additionally, along the screening wall, there is
proposed a mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees, and
these do a few things. First off, they help soften the mass that's
created inevitably by a wall of that size. The heights of the trees
would be 10 foot at planting, grow upwards of 20 - 25 feet within
five to seven years, provides additional screening of a larger
height, and trees have a characteristic of having some noise
dampening to them, which again would help out tie residents.
The additional half of the properly would then be used and just
Teff as open space essentially. Taco Bell now has landscapers
that come in once a week to do the mowing, irrigation and
things of that nature, and all that would be present on this open
space. Everything would be maintained, irrigated and mowed
on a regular basis just as the store would. As it sits now, the
existing house that would then be demolished is approximately
28 feet away from the property line of the Taco Bell. In his
proposal, the nearest house from the proposed Taco Bell
property line would be 75 feet, and that house abuts a C-2
commercial district onto Farmington Road. That would be that
house right here. So they're already impacted by a commercial
district directly behind them, and we would still be 75 feel with
our commercial district from that house. The biggest reason for
the rezoning request of only half of the property is we only need
half the property. But also because it insures the residents that
no commercial development could ever occur on the other side
of these screening features I talked about, the wall and the
landscaping and trees and the vegetation. And additionally
what it creates is a 50 -foot wide residential lot with setbacks,
side yard, front yard and rear yard setbacks. Its impossible to
build a house on a residential lot that size, so it would be
maintained as that open space and that buffer would always be
there through the years. At this time, I will go back to the Board
for questions and comments.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Shane:
How many seats in this new restaurant are you contemplating?
Mr. Rauch:
This restaurant can have upwards of 50 seats, but the number
of seats are going to have to be adjusted because of the parking
issue, so anticipate approximately 42 seats.
Mr. Shane:
So you're willing to drop the number of seats so that we can at
least comply with the ordinance insofar as parking is
concerned?
Mr. Rauch:
Oh, absolutely. We would have to.
Mr. Shane:
There's another deficiency on the site with respect to the area
between the building and the south property line because of the
pass -by lane. Can you move the building a little bit north to
accommodate some additional footage down there? You have
the room, I believe, do you not?
Mr. Rauch:
One of the things we're attempting to do by having this building
here was to have a majority of the carryout -type service, and
people coming in real fast to the Taco Ball, to park along the
north side of the building farther away from the residents.
Moving it, we've met minimum standards here, the 24 -foot aisle
widths for this area, and here we could use absolutely this
parking space.
Mr. Shane:
I wasn't talking about very much. I think you have a seven foot
walkway on the north side, do you not?
Mr. Rauch:
Yes, we do. We do have these lowers though, to meet barier-
free requirements, five foot wide and those will stick out two
feet.
Mr. Shane:
That's all I have at the moment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'm very pleased that Mr. Shane covered two areas that I was
going to bring up, which was the lanes and the parking. By the
way, the way you have that drawing, you have the so-called
seven spots that you're getting from the wine store going
perpendicular to that alley. They're parallel. Those parking lot
spaces...
Mr. Rauch:
Are going like this. Correct?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yeah. Theyre going that way.
Mr. Rauch:
Yeah. The spaces aren't shown on the adjacent property.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Theyd be useless unless they were on that plan, but I don't
want to get involved in the numbers. Plus, when you say you've
got parking; you could do 42. You know you need 32. As far as
I'm concerned, you have 14 plus 5, which is along the southern
line there, but theyre only 9 footers. They have to be 10
footers, which again cuts into your lane. Parking in Livonia is
10'x20'.
Mr. Rauch:
I took a look at your ordinance and I believe ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
Pardon?
Mr. Rauch:
I looked at your ordinance. I believe it was nine, but regardless,
we do have landscape areas and if ...
Mr. Piercecchi:
Those are 10.
Mr. Rauch:
Yeah, we can absolutely make them.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But the ones down there on the bottom ...
Mr. Rauch:
Oh, for the parallel parking?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yeah.
Mr. Rauch:
We still have room to make 10 foot if that was the question.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I don't see how you can gel any more than 32 people frankly in
there, but I want to approach this in a little different light here.
The light I want to look at this, Mr. Chainnan, is how does it fit in
with our waiver requirements? How does 19.06 apply to this
package? Well, 19.06 deals with location, size, character,
harmony with surrounding neighborhood. You have a problem
there. Section 19.06(b) is the location use regarding traffic.
Vehicles should not be hazardous to the neighborhood and
child -vehicle contact. Section 19.06(c) will not impair the value
of the neighboring properties. You could affect that. Section
19.06(d) is standards of density. That doesn't apply. The
periods of operation will cause a nuisance. Now, currently what
are your operating hours?
Mr. Rauch:
To 2 a.m. right?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I can't hear you.
Richard Eccles,
7915 Kensington Court, Brighton, Michigan 48116. Midnight on
weekdays, Friday and Saturday until 2:00.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Right now?
Mr. Eccles:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. And if you had the drive thm, would that change? It says
here, should have the right amount of parking. I think that
enough areas of the waiver requirements that this particular site
may fall short of, being able to comply with them. Obviously
when you put in a drive lhru, you're going to get a lot more
business, right? And the way this thing is laid out, unfortunately,
the people who are going to bear the brunt of this traffic are the
people who live on Filmore. That's where it's going to unload. I
have a lot of trouble with that, and so does our requirement,
which says location of use as regarding traffic should not be
hazardous to the neighborhood, and here we're dumping all
these extra cars there. I'll come back, if I can, later.
Mr. Walsh:
Eric, would you like to make any comments before we continue
on?
Mr. Rauch: Yes, I'd like to touch on a few of those comments. First off,
you're talking about parking, parking calculations. Packing
calculations in a G2 district here is the number of seats that you
have in the restaurant. I believe you require one parking space
for every two seats. That absolutely mn be adjusted to make
sure that we are in conformance with the parking requirements,
and we wouldn't ever try to seek a variance on that. In regards
to traffic, you bring up a very good point here. Filmore Avenue,
currently the exisfing site has an ingress and an egress onto
Filmore Avenue. One of the things that we got out of the
meeting with the neighbors a couple months ago was that at
one time, there used to be a sign there that said "right hand tum
only." So that would direct all egress out onto Seven Mile and
not cut through to Filmore. They purchased the property within
the last five years and of course we didn't know that. In the
proposed plan, what we've done is we've taken out the ingress
so people trying to cut from Seven Mile to gel into the Tam Bell
or even people coming from the south up north, can no longer
gel into the Taco Bell facility off of Filmore. Of course, they
would soon learn that all ingress comes off of Farmington Road.
We will still have an egress here and one of the problems with
the egress now is that it's supposed to have signage for right
tum only. Unfortunately, through time, sometimes signage gets
knocks down and people stop obeying that. What you can do
with the single egress is make a geometric shape with the
egress to make sure that people take a right and are heading up
north to Seven Mile Road and then not south through the
residences. So we actually anticipate that this should decrease
traffic with no egress and with the geometric shape of the
egress forcing people up north onto Elmore Avenue. Another
point you brought up was about property values. The pefitioner
is a very experienced person in property management. They've
never seen or experienced any type of decrease in property
values, and I personally deal with a lot of real estate agents.
Simply put, the Taco Bell is already there. It's been there since
1982 so that's 23 years. I imagine a lot of the residents have
moved in since that time. The property values are established.
They are what they are, and I wouldn't anticipate that their
property values would go down.
Mr. Piercecchi: I dont think its going to raise the property taxes
Mr. Rauch: No.
Mr. LaPine:
I have a number of questions for you. Number one, how much
of the business that you do there now is carryout?
Mr. Rauch:
Maybe 25 percent.
Mr. LaPine:
Don't we have somebody here that's a manager of store that
has these types of figures? Do you have any figures that show
once you go to a drive-thru, him much the business increases
fordrwe-thru?
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, could you step up to the microphone please. It's difficult for
people in the back of the room and on TV to hear you.
Mr. Eccles:
We anticipate the business to increase by a third.
Mr. LaPine:
Athird.
Mr. Eccles:
One-third. And with the drive-thru, as Eric has pointed out, that
traffic will all be going outto Farmington Road.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, that's my next question. I happen to live in that area,
okay? On Farmington Road, there's two driveways. There's
one that goes into the Taco Bell. Then you go a short distance
more, and one goes into the Wine Castle. Okay? Now, if you
gel into the turning lane to go west onto Seven Mile Road,
you're stuck because if there's a car waiting to gel into Taco Bell
and you're behind him, and there's one in front of him waiting to
get into the Wine Castle, sometimes you'll miss one or two lights
before you can make your turn because of the backup. I
opposed this when it went in years ago because of that factor -
the driveways. But anyways, the point I'm making here, how
are you expecting people to come out of here out onto
Farmington Road and they want to go north when you've got
cars backed up trying to make a left hand tum trying to get into
Taco Bell and trying to get inlothe Wine Castle?
Mr. Eccles:
Our driveway at this time is primarily an out driveway here
because most people do come in the Wine Castle entrance.
Now you drive around our existing building and park on either
side of the drive lane here.
Mr. LaPine:
I disagree with you 100 percent. I live down there. I make a left
hand tum I don't know how many times a day. Even if theyre
all coming out from the drive-thru out to Seven Mile Road, how
are they going to make a left hand tum to go north with traffic?
Even if there's one or two cars stopped trying to get into the
Wine Caste property, then the people behind them can't gel
through to make their left hand turns.
Mr. Eccles:
I dont have an answer for you because I don't do traffic studies.
Maybe Eric can ...
Mr. LaPine:
It's a problem. Well, let me go on to my next question. Did I
understand you to say ...
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. LaPine ...
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Eric, did you want to address that?
Mr. Rauch:
Yes, I'd like to address it a Iitlle bit. This properly only has a
couple locations suitable to come onto it. This particular
entrance here, I'm sorry, egress only, is the most suitable
Iocafion for an egress onto Farmington because its as far south
as possible from Seven Mile Road. So simply put, because of
the property, there's only one best place for an egress - the best
possible place, and that is on the south side of here. The
proposed traffic movements would start on the north end and all
vehicles would have to exit out onto Farmington. Nov as he
mentioned, this left hand tum lane can get pretty stacked and be
difficult for people to either enter into the left hand tum lane or
come back out. There is potential because there is this right
tum only egress onto Filmore that come out and enter into the
left hand turn lane there and back up onto Farmington.
Mr. LaPine:
How are they going to get out there? If your drive-thru is on the
south side, do they have to go around the building and back out
again?
Mr. Rauch:
Yeah. Absolutely. They go through here and back out again.
The one-way traffic movements make that a lot easier because
you don't get any of these head-on situations so you get this
counterdockwise movement.
Mr. LaPine:
The next quesfion I have is, did I understand you to say that
you're going to put up the wall across - this properly is going to
be left over?
Mr. Rauch:
The wall would confinue all the way down to this property.
Mr. LaPine:
And Taco Bell will maintain that property?
12
Mr. Rauch:
Oh, absolutely.
Mr. LaPine:
How are they going to know what's happening over there? You
can't see it. You're fenced in by a wall. Is somebody going to
go out there and police it? How are you going to take care of
that property?
Mr. Rauch:
As far as ....
Mr. LaPine:
Maintaining it, seeing the grass is cut, the shrubs are cul and
things of that nature?
Mr. Rauch:
Once a week lawn care is taken care of.
Mr. LaPine:
That's all l have for right now.
Mr. Morrow:
I read somewhere in the notes that you rely on some shared
parking with your neighbor to the north. When you said you
could handle the parking with this plan, did that include those
spaces?
Mr. Rauch:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Now, I'm assuming that when you would come back with the
site plan you would be able to provide a signed document
stating that Wine Castle has given you permission for whatever
reason to use x number of parking spots.
Mr. Rauch:
Yes, we already have the document. In fad, it's filed down at . .
Mr. Morrow:
You currently have something in your possession that states
that?
Mr. Rauch:
We currently have seven parking spaces, and they pay $350.00
a month for them.
Mr. Morrow:
Pardon?
Mr. Rauch:
They give them a check once a month for them and have been
since 1982.
Mr. Morrow:
They have?
Mr. Rauch:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay, because that would be a requirement. We're getting a
little deep into the site plan here tonight because we do have a
zoning issue, but I guess what I'm hearing that should the
zoning prevail, that's the site plan you would come back to us
with, no modifications, exactly what you have there?
Mr. Rauch:
It would be pretty close, yes, absolutely. wouldn't...
Mr. Eccles:
Unless we have recommendations.
Mr. Rauch:
Yeah.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, we're not going to get Filo that tonight. I'm just saying if
you're flexible or whether that's etched in stone as far as the
size of the building, the number of seats and sluff like that.
Mr. Rauch:
Number of seats, no, but the size of the building ... this is the
smallest of the Taco Bell prototypes, so we are a little bit
obviously limited.
Mr. Morrow:
So you're locked in as far as the footprint?
Mr. Rauch:
The footprint is locked in, but number of seats inside can be
negotiable.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
When Taco Bell first came before the City, I was not on this
Commission but Mr. La Pine, being 100 years old, was and I
have to agree with him. Even the original building has a very
difficult pattern for traffic, and now by wanfing to put in a drive-
thru, I really think you are putting a lot of burden on the
neighbors, even though you're trying to put screening in, walls
in. If your drive-thm is up toward Seven Mile, away from the
neighbors, I mean it wouldn't be so bad, but what you want to
do, I think, is going to make things much, much worse for the
neighbors. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
I have another problem here. You know, once we rezone this
property to what you want, right across the street from you, from
the house you're buying, there's another house up for sale.
Now as soon as they see this property rezoned, if the person
owns that home, and they say, hey, my property would be worth
more money if I could get this thing rezoned, and he comes in
for a rezoning and asks us to rezone his property, lien we're
getting into a situation where if we allow that guy to do it, now
we start moving up the residential street with a rezoning of all
the property. And that bothers me because I know for a fact
that the house across the street, which abuts the small shopping
center where the Christian Publication store is, they need some
additional parking. That parking lot is a little cramped and they
probably would like to have some additional parking. And lhafs
another thing that wonies me. Once we allow it here, we're
opening up a can of worms that we have to say to the next guy,
hey, you should gel the same deal.
Mr. Rauch:
Yeah, and we actually thought about that. One of the things
that we did in our rezoning request is, there's this 10 fool strip
here fiat would still be zoned 1-3. So we're actually asking for
the rezoning of less than half of the property. Its this northern
half of that residential property, minus this 10 fool strip. Now
that does a couple things. It gets to what you just touched on in
that, actually across Filmore Street would still be, for 10 feet, R-
3 still. So there wouldn't be a continuation across the street or
3
potentially, but also provides another buffer for the residents
across the street. Currently, the Taco Bell runs nghl up pretty
much against the sidewalk without very sufficient screening at
all. We're actually banging that in 10 feel, again banging that 6
foot high screening wall across the back along Filmore and
again putting that mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees in.
So they're actually getting a substantial, quite a bit more
screening, particularly the neighbors across the street, than they
do now. They don't have that buffeting wall. They don't have
the coniferous and deciduous trees, and they don't have the 10
fool. So by banging that in, we're actually creating what I
believe is a better situation particularly with the neighbors
across the street, and it addresses what you're talking about
with the rezoning.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Perhaps you said it and I just didn't catch it, but you said that
Taco has some limits on the number of seats. You just said
that, right?
Mr. Walsh:
They said building size.
Mr. Rouch:
Building size. What we have proposed here is the smallest
building allowed by Taco Bell, but number of seating is
negotiable and would have to be, parficulady for the parking
space requirements.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay.
Ms. Smiley:
Who owns the property that Taco Bell is current on?
Mr. Rauch:
That theyre currently on?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. Rauch:
The petitioner.
Ms. Smiley:
Is the petitionerthe franchisee?
Mr. Rauch:
Yes.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Then can you help me with the abandonment? If they
can't rebuild and put in a drive-thru to meet the standards of the
franchise, what does abandonment mean?
Mr. Rauch:
They move out of the building and what you have is a vacant
piece of property and a vacant building that is obviously an old
Taco Bell, and its very difficult to sell as you might imagine,
very difficult to reoccupy.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petifion? Please come to either podium and state
your name and address. Direct your questions to the Board and
please limit your comments to three minutes so that we can
make sure everybody is heard this evening.
Marie Armstrong, 18995 Filmore. I'm here today to voice my opposition to the
expansion and rezoning of Taco Bell with the drive-thru. I do
not feel the request for the expansion should be granted. I live
in a quiet neighborhood, which I thoroughly enjoy. The
proposed expansion will be less than 150 feel from my properly
so I will hear people ordering tacos with extra sour cream at
2:00 in the morning. It will be a nuisance. The driveway comes
on to Filmore. In the last two weeks, I personally have almost
been hit five times by people pulling out of that driveway so fast
and there is a five fool hedge that if there was a child on the
sidewalk, they would be dead. So that needs to be addressed
too. The bank, as we already went through, they were denied,
and that's to 5:00 p.m. This is to 2:00 in the morning. Taco Bell
has late hours, either 2:00 a.m. or later. I will be able to hear
people ordering at wee hours in the morning. The house they
want to tear down is one of the nicer houses in the
neighborhood. There are several bars across kittycomer, and
we will hear probably noisy patrons coming from those
establishments. There will be increased loitering, crime and
litter. I do pick up papers on my front yard all the time from
Tam Bell, and I do not want this to happen. So if you would
please consider this. Most of the neighbors in the neighborhood
do nolwantthis. So I thank you foryour consideration.
Mike Davis, 19043 Filmore. I own the property that you guys are actually
spealang quite a bit about, directly across the street that's for
sale. To say that its not going to affect my property value is
somewhat unrealistic seeing as I had a purchase set up on the
house. They came for a final walk-through on the home
Sunday, two days after the sign went up on the front yard, and
backed out of the deal. So for you guys to say that it's not going
to affect my property value is insane. If you look at the picture,
there is going to be a cumpster directly out my front door. It
might be hidden by a wall, but its still a dumpster. There's a
dumpster there now off to the side. I can see it. There's a six
fool wall. The dumpster must be seven feet because I still see
the dumpster. Instead of it being off actually not directly in front
of my property, it would be straight in front of my front door. So
I have an issue with that. She was talking about cars speeding
up. One of my vehicles was hit. No one stopped and reported
R. They look off. Reported it with the police. My wife's vehicle
had a rock thrown through the back window. Reported it with
the police. Nothing happened. I mean there's nothing they can
do. I understand that. The tires on my truck were slashed. I've
owned tie home three and half years and all this has happened
within that time flame. So there are some issues involved in
that. The garbage is certainly an issue. Being directly across
the street, I'm constantly picking it up. Those are my concerns
and theyre pretty valid concems in my opinion. So I hope they
listen to those. Thank you.
Karen Greenwald, 19007 Filmore. I'm adjacent from the property in question.
I've been a homeowner there since December of 1997. I'm
here to state my objection to Pefiton 2005-07-01-06, and I
would like to thank the City Council for listening to my protest on
this matter. From the day I moved in, December of 1997 to July
30, 2000, the home at 19036 Filmore was a blight to the
neighborhood. The homeowner eventually left the house vacant
with no provisos of maintaining a lawn, leaving the burden of
keeping the weeds and grass down by the neighbors. Allowing
the property to be rezoned to Taco Bell and Tam Bell to expand
will severely impact the property value in a negative way on all
of the properties and homes in that area. I spoke to the builder.
That home was rehabilitated. It was in a very severe state, very
dilapidated. What happened was, Rite Aid wanted to put
property on that comer, so they wanted to buy that house. Well,
anyway, Rite Aid abandoned that and then they sold this home,
the same home in question, to a builder and his name is Mr.
David Dower of Dower Company. He's like I said a builder. Mr.
Dower purchased the home with the express purpose of
rehabilitating it. He actually took everything down to the walls,
and now it is a beautiful home. Basically what he has done has
brought beautification to the neighborhood and he has
eliminated blight. Mr. Dower sold the home on July 17, 2001, to
a Mr. Bryan D. Casebere, who has resided there ever since.
Due to the beauUfcation, you know there was a time when I
could understand that when the home was in severe blight and
not cared for and if Taco Bell had approached the City
Commission and the zoning commission and the residents, I
can see that we would probably have made that decision to
probably go for it. But right now, due to ... this is a beautiful
home, and it adds value to our neighborhood. The other thing
I'd like to talk about that was brought up in the site plan, and this
is from the builder, he said that he always was piclang up lots of
trash in the back of that house that adjoins Taco Bell. There's a
six foot fence there now. He said that he felt that in order to
eliminate the blight, diminate that problem, that the wall should
be at least eight fool. Anyway, I vote no and I object to this
petition, and I believe it should be denied. Thank you.
Gloria Kildani, 19031 Filmore. I'm here on behalf of my husband also, Sam
Kildani. We live at 19031 Filmore, which is across the street
from the house in question. I, myself, have two children, ages
10 and 8. They are at the age where they ride their bikes up
and down; they have more freedom to roam the area. There's a
handful of children in our next street. I send my kids over to
Wine Castle to do errands. With the excessive traffic coming
onto Filmore Street, there's more possibility ... cars comes out
... more possibility of the kids getting hit. Also, with that buffer
zone that Heyre talking about, there's teenagers now that walk
up and down the street. It's more of a possibility of a hangout
from them during the summertime. Also with the vandalism in
the area, the trash and everything else that was mentioned
prior. Thank you.
Roger M. Cote, 19018 Filmore. As a resident of the area for about 14 years,
Livonia is my hometown and a good place to live. I work hard to
live in a place like Livonia paying city taxes, stale taxes, federal
taxes. I think I should be able to live in a place, in a good
environment, a place where people in the neighborhood can
enjoy their property. A neighborhood where property values
increase, not decrease, in value. A place where residents can
sleep at night and not hear noise late night, early morning. A
safe environment for children in the neighborhood. Concerned
about traffic increase in the neighborhood. Concerned about
vandalism in the neighborhood with the increase of traffic. If
there is a buffer zone in the neighborhood, it will be a place for
anybody to hang out at any time of the day. Not a good thing.
As a resident of Livonia, I do not like the idea of Taco Bell
coming into the residential area and changing the
neighborhood. I'm not for Taco Bell to expand. Thank you very
much.
Edward J. Zelmanski, Esq, Alexander, Zelmanski & Lee, PLLC, Plymouth,
Michigan. I'm an attorney at law. I am working with Mr. Cote.
He consulted me about this proposal and asked if I would attend
the meeting tonight to lend whatever legal insights I might have
to this proposal, and I thank the Commission for its diligence in
reviewing this proposal and reviewing the numerous
shortcomings that I think we've all observed. The fad of the
matter is that this is a bad ft for that lot. There isn't enough
space to even meet the standards for Taco Bell's smallest
prototype. They have a deficiency in parking spaces, and you
start paring down fewer seats. My review of the site plan that
had been provided to Mr. Cote, it appears to be somewhat
different from what's being presented to the Commission
tonight, but the driveways on Farmington Road do not meet the
requirements of the Livonia standards for spacing of those
driveways. They need to be 40 feet apart. The way it's shown
on the drawing, they scale out at 38 feet apart. It's another
indication that the site is too small. I think that its elementary
zoning law that when it comes to an existing nonconforming
use, with regard to the setback off of Farmington Road, when
that nonconforming use ceases, its your duty to terminate the
nonconforming use and not continue it by allowing some sort of
change that will put them right back 15 feel off Farmington
Road. Everybody is talking about congestion and that certainly
is a factor that lends to congestion, to obstruction of sight lines,
all kinds of problems that will take place with people trying to
make a Teff turn out of there onto Farmington, turning into there
off of Farmington, and Seven Mile is very close loo. Its a very
busy intersection. It's just a bad fl. The parking spaces are
scaled out at 9 feel, not the 10 feel required by Livonia. Again, I
have to kind of chuckle because I know on these hot days, I use
a shoehom to get my shoes on, particularly in the evening. The
shoehorn works. I have size 11-1/2 feet, but if I try to put a size
8 shoe on, it just ain't going to work, and I think that's what this
is. Taco Bell is trying to put their size 11-1/2 feet into a size 8
shoe. What happens, it spills into the residential neighborhood.
And really that's the thrust of what they're coming here for
today. I recognize that this is not site plan review, but I think in
balancing the interests of the neighboring property owners and
saying should we recommend a zoning change for this property,
its pretty clear that they're trying to force a change in the
residenfial neighborhood to put in something that doesn't fit
anyway. I think the principle thing is you can talk about building
an 8 fool wall, you can talk about building a 10 fool wall, you
can evertually build it so high that no one would see Taco Bell
from the neighborhood, but that doesn't solve the traffic
problems. Really, I think one of the biggest problems for the
residents as far as Mr. Cote goes, who is in the lot to the south,
is the noise problem. They want to put in a drive-thm. Taco
Bell, every time I tum my TV set on, we're open late. That's the
pitch they're throwing. I don't think that the churches in Livonia
are closing their doors at midnight and shoving worshippers out
to go to Taco Bell. This is probably the late night party crowd,
the bar crowd leaving, and they're slopping at Taco Bell for a
Tale night snack, but I think it's going to be a louder, more festive
crowd. You're going to have that drive-in box really thrust into
the neighborhood with squawking from it. You're going to have
car engines. You're going to have the boom boxes in the car
going. It's a bad fl. There is no harmony with a squawk box in
a residential neighborhood. Its just not the right site for his
kind of approach. The dumpsler, the pad is within 50 feet of Mr.
Cote's properly. And conveniently enough, I think we recognize
that the prevailing winds in our community comes from the
northwest. They have the dumpsler pad sited to the northwest
of Mr. Cole's residence. So the winds would bring the benefits
of nothing vegetation and taco grease to Mr. Cote's property. If
that doesn't have an adverse negative effect on this property
value, then I guess send that guy to my house and I'll try to sell
my house to him loo. The simple fact of the matter is, it's a bad
idea. It won't work without a real negative impact on this
residential community. I ask you as a Commission to recognize
that when you're making this recommendation whether or not to
change, that your focus should be on the Filmore side, the
residential neighborhood. I drove through the neighborhood
today. You have a quiet, tree -lined street with small brick ranch
homes, big yards. I saw a mother walking a baby carriage and
kids on bikes. Its a residence. And I think you have a duty as
zo
representatives of this city to protect those residents. I dont live
in Livonia, but I could tell anybody that Livonia has an excellent,
well earned reputation as a good place to live. And I think ifyou
were to allow this invasion of that residential neighborhood by
Taco Bell that I would have to say that you've damaged that
reputation materially, but worse than that is what you're doing to
the residents who live on Filmore Street. I thank you for your
attention.
Kimberly Zamora, 18533 Filmore. I'm closer to Pickford actually, to the AAA
building. Really I'm far away from I guess the effects of the
looks of the building and some things like that. But there's three
points Ijust want to reinforce tonight, and they've been brought
up numerous times. The traffic, the hangout factor I'll call it, and
then also the rezoning of possibly other property, and the traffic
in there. You know I shoot out to Seven Mile Road all the time,
and I can't tell you the number of limes people are coming from
Seven Mile making a left into Taco Bell and not even paying
attention to oncoming traffic. You know, where I have to stop to
let them go into Taco Bell. And I know that you mentioned
about possibly doing an exit that would veer them off to Seven
Mile, but honestly, I think the same thing is going to happen. I
think that people are going to shoot out of there and not even
look at the traffic that's coming down the street, also to exit out
of Seven Mile. So I was thinking, if you're going to do that, if
this is going to go through, I'd almost like to see the exit blocked
off completely to Filmore Street so that you don't have any
entrance or any exit onto that residential street. And then in
addition to that, I think that the additional parking spaces is
going to be, I'll call it a hangout for the teenagers after the
football games and all kinds of stuff. They're going to go in.
There are not that many seats in the restaurant. They're going
to grab Taco Bell and hang around and sit out in their cars. So
not only do you have the squawking of the order box, but I think
you're also going to have a great potential for kids just hanging
out in their cars and eating their meal and just kind of hanging
out. Then in addition to that, too, I think, Mr. LaPine brought it
up, because I was thinking to myself, boy, if I owned that house
across the street, I would think, especially in the situation that
theyre in. They're hurling right now, having it up for sale. But if
this were to go through, I would be saying, you know, I want to
do to the same thing on my side of the street that they did on
this other side of the street and get that additional parking and
sell my house. That's what Mr. LaPine brought up I think about
rezoning that house across the street. And then I was thinking
21
to myself, you know, so where do you stop that from coming in.
I think that's about it. I just wanted to reinforce those points.
John Bogden, 18774 Stamford. My question is, on your peak hours, Friday and
Saturday night, the activity, you have two bars across the street
on the northeast side. If people are coming out of that bar and
then making a left heading south onto Farmington and decide to
go right into Taco Bell, they're doing a big aro, and you won't be
able to see a signal. And the peak hours, let's say with the
party store are from 10:00 to 11:00. If you got people coming
westbound and then going south right into Taco Bell on the left,
and you've got people coming out of the party store, I don't even
know if there's a "no tum on red" when you're heading east on
Seven Mile approaching Farmington. You're going to have a
big ... okay, so I just talked to the Chief of Police of Livonia.
I'm sure he's going to set up squad cars at the station across
the street just watching the mayhem going on. You're going to
have a huge traffic problem there on your peak hours of Friday
and Saturday. Probably another congestion problem between
the hours of 6:00 and 10:00. So you're going to have lot of
accidents. I mean if you just sit back and think. I mean if
everything were to go right, fine, but there's always people who
are inpatient. I know another way to gel out of here. I'll go back
onto Filmore if they don't make that blocked off. A lot of people
don't go to that Taco Bell because there's no drive-thru and
people are inpatient. It's a push button society. If somebody
could come in and go through, you're going to have a lot of
traffic. Those bars, most of their menus are like six bucks and
up. So Taco Bell has cheaper prices. They're going to come
over there, and when they do it's going to be a lot of congestion.
And another thing, loo, the properties where the stores are on
Seven Mile, which are west of Taco Bell, there are alleyways
going all the way through those streets. You'll have a juvenile
problem there loo because you've got a party store, you've got
a Taco Bell and you've got the alleyways, which is going to be
trash and juvenile problems, stuff like that. Thank you.
Dale Stanley, 19017 Farmington. DelMar Properties consists of a newly
renovated transmission salon and also DelMar and Associates.
We have lived in that neighborhood for approximately ... our
business has been there for about 20 some odd years now. We
have been members of the Chamber of Commerce for 25 years.
We're very proud of this community. I have no qualms about
these gentlemen, their desire to expand their business, but I
think it's a bad time and a bad place for it. We have a rather
large parking space, approximately 22 cars could come in this
22
parking place. We are almost a neighborhood turnaround right
at the present lime off Farmington Road. But I have gotten a
little bit put out by picking up trash continually, these little boxes
that Taco Bell packages their goods in. That's not bad. The
beer bottles are a little bit of an annoyance. But I'm finding more
and more as the patrons of Tam Bell leave their space, they
come into our space late at night and decide to party. Now I
won't go on. My wife said you cant use the tern concerning
some of the sluff that goes on the driveway, but that's it. And as
I mentioned earlier, I appreciate what these gentlemen are
talking about conceming the residential area and the nature of
the area itself. Again, I mention the fad that we're very proud of
this community. I think this thing on Taco Bell is not a very good
idea. I can't envision it being improved by opening Tam Bell
until 2:00 in the morning if we're having this difficulty at 10:00 at
night. Thank you very much for your attention.
Ms. Armstrong:
I have one more issue. The house that is up for rezoning, when
they did finally refurbish that whole house, it took them probably
a year and a half to two years to sell that house because of the
location where it's at now, and that was in a good real estate
market, not like the one we're experiencing right now. So if you
did expand the Taco Bell, we would all greatly feel the effects of
that expansion and the value would affect our homes too.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition before I close the public hearing? Seeing
no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing.
The petitioner will have the opportunity to answer any of these
issues and then we'll move on to a motion.
Mr. Rouch:
Yes, I appreciate the public for their comments today. They're
absolutely legitimate concerns. I did hear a lot of comments
that seem to be civil concerns, concerns about people hanging
out there, concems about tires being slashed, about some
trash, things of that nature. We have an existing Tam Bell site
here. We've been here for 23 years. On the doors of every
single Tam Bell is a phone number. Any problems, any
concems, 800 number, give them a call.
Audience member: Sir, your office has been called.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, the public hearing is closed. This is the petitioner's
opportunity to speak, and then we'll move on to a motion.
Thank you.
23
Mr. Rouch:
I just want to make the point that we were never made aware of
any major concerns until we met with the residents, and we
were made aware of these concerns. As soon as that
happened, the very next morning, Mr. Ecdes here called your
Mayor. In fad, we called your people over at the civil services
to try to help these things out. When you have a restaurant, you
know there's only certain things you can do, and we try to do as
much as we can and we're absolutely very concerned about it.
An improvement to the site like this currently the way the Tam
Bell facility is set up, is you actually have a large expanse of
pavement back there, a large parking area, kind of an obvious
hangout for people, and that's apparently what happens from
time to time, particularly at night. The neighbors made that
clear. In a situation now in this proposed development where
you have a traffic plan that's in a counterclockwise direction,
angle parking, it would be more difficult for people to
congregate. Additionally, as I touched on earlier, traffic is their
concem. Its currently their concern and legitimately. By
removing that ingress and having a geometric shape to the
egress forcing vehides to the right, I've heard concerns that
from fime to time someone is going to make a left. That
happens. I use u-tums from time to time too. That just
unfortunately happens out there in the community, but this is the
best we can do. A geometrically designed right hand tum
hopefully will take away a majority of those situations. We're
doing what we can to try and help out here. We've listened to
their concerns, and we've been encouraged, and we've
contacted members of your staff there at the City of Livonia
about those concerns.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. I will open the floor to the commissioners.
Quesfions, comments or a motion?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Chairman, 1, as one commissioner, am not picking on Tam
Bell. Earlier this year we approved a building on Merriman off of
Plymouth Road where they tore down the building and put up a
brand new building, and they had lots of room. It was a good fit.
But this area, this situation, is not a good fit. For that reason, I
would like to give a denying resolubon.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, 8
was
#08-83-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-07-01-06
submitted by Peter Lyders, on behalf of Old West Properties,
24
LLC (a franchisee of Taco Bell Corp.), requesting to rezone a
portion of the property at 19036 Filmore, located on the east
side of Filmore Avenue between Seven Mile Road and Clarita
Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 9 from R3 to G2, be
denied for the following reasons:
1. That this general area in the vicinity of the Farmington
Road and Seven Mile Road intersection contains sufficient
C-2 zoned lands to serve the needs oflhe area;
2. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a
need in this area for additional commercial uses such as
are permitted by the C-2 district;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will extend non-
residential zoning too far into a residential area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to the
residential uses in the area to the south and west;
5. That the development of the subject property for
commercial use in conjunction with adjacent properties will
result in an increase in traffic and the location of the
properties relative to access from public streets,
particularly with respect to vehicular turning movements in
relation to routes of traffic flow and access to off-street
parking, will be hazardous and inconvenient and will be
detrimental to the surrounding area;
6. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with
the Future Land Use Plan designation of Low Density
Residential land use for the subject area; and
7. That the site plan does not meet the waiver use standards
and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pieroecchi: I'd like to add something, Mr. Chairman. Bob, if you would
include, along with your fine denying resolution, that it's been
demonstrated that the site plan does not meet the waiver
requirements of 19.06.
Mr. Walsh: That would be fine.
25
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh: The motion would then stand as amended. Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow: I just want to make a comment because I'm going to support the
resolution, but I want to give an insight to it. I'm troubled by the
fad that we have a businessman who has been mandated that
he has to give up the use of his existing business and tear it
down and put in a use that is more intense. And the reason I
brought up earlier the fact that the zoning we're looking at
tonight would have to be augmented by a subsequent waiver
and the reason we have that as a waiver use in that zoning is
because it intensifies it. We heard here tonight that it would
increase the business done at this location by roughly a third.
We've heard tonight that the neighbors have coped with them
through the 23 years that they've been there. They are asking
us to intensify that particular coping, and we've heard a lot
reasons. Nothing against Taco Bell. I reinforce what Mr.
Alanskas said. We approved the Taco Bell down on Merriman
Road. They did a fantastic job, but that's at a different location
that would support that particular expansion. Thank you.
Mr. Shane: I share many of Mr. Morrow's comments. I really wouldn't want
to see this gentleman have to abandon the business. On the
other hand, in order to stay in business, he has to expand
beyond the capacity of the existing site, and that's what bothers
me. He has to expand into the neighborhood; it's going to
create more traffic. And even at that, the site plan still isn't
going to meet the zoning ordinance requirements. Although I
have sympathy for the gentleman that owns the franchise, I
don't want to create more problems in the area than there
already is, so I'm going to support the denying resolution.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other comments? I'd like to say I am in
agreement. I truly believe you have done everything you can. I
listened quite carefully to your plans this evening. I also listened
to the people in the audience as well as the material that we
received separately. I wish it were otherwise, but this is so
intrusive I really am compelled to side with the neighbors on the
motion. I'm hopeful that we can find some way to work with
your business in the future but do believe this is going to
adversely impact the neighbors. I just wanted to let you know
where I was on that. Are there any additional comments?
26
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying
recommendation.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2005-06-0241 AFFORDABLE CAR SALES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
06-02-11,
00506-02-11, submitted by Affordable Certified Car Sales, Inc.,
requesting waiver use approval to conduct a limited used car
sales facility in conjunction with an existing automobile repair
facility at 15140 Middlebelt, on property located on the east side
of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Elsie Avenue in
the Northwest%of Section 24.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 7, 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, and the legal description is correct.
No additional right-of-way is required." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 21, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to conduct a limited used
car sales facility in conjunction with an existing auto repair
facility on property located 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 July 11, 2005, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by
Affordable Certified Car Sales, Inc. located at 15140 Middlebelt
Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans
as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Stuck, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated June 24, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 16, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The plan submitted has not been updated to accurately
reflect existing conditions. (2) There is an unenclosed dumpster
in the grass area near the alley in the southeast comer of the
site. (3) The parking spaces need to be double striped and the
2]
barrier free accessible parking needs to be property sized,
marked and signed (8 foot space with an 8 foot access aisle).
(4) Much of the landscaping detail is non-existent orremoved or
dead and in poor repair. Is the landscaping irrigated? (5) There
is nothing detailed for the display of vehicles for sale. As 12
spaces are required for the repair business, that would leave
only one space for a 'for sale' vehicle which due to the 20 foot
setback requirement could be located only in one of the five
spaces on the east side of the lot. (6) This site has two zoning
grants attached to it. one for signage (8610-185) and one for
the addition to a noncronforming building (8209-112). (6a) It
does not appear that condition #2 of Zoning Grant 8610-185 has
been met, as a dumpster is still on site unenclosed and not
located as directed in the grant. (6b) The monument sign is not
located in the plan. Zoning Grant 8610-185 stated that in
addition to landscaping at the base of the sign, there was to be
'no parking in the immediate area of the sign.' The Commission
and/or Council may wish to determine if these two spaces by
the sign are allowed. (7) No signage was reviewed at this time.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
The next letter is from Joseph Neuvirth, dated August 3, 2005,
which reads as follows: 7 have one question - does 'limited
used car sales' mean a maximum of six orless cars ora higher
number? I would hate to see it as a used carlot with a potential
to look like some on Grand River or Livemois and a blight to the
area." The letter is signed by Joseph Neuvirth, who is the
owner of property at 15076 - 15088 Middlebelt Road, which is
located to the south of the subject property. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, Mr.
Creighton.
Carl V. Creighton, Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton & Amann, LLP,
33300 Five Mile Road, Suite 210, Livonia, MI 48154. Appearing
on behalf of Mr. Giniel, the owner of Affordable Certified Car
Sales, LLC and Budget Brakes and Service, Inc. Mr. Giniel is
here tonight for any technical questions. Also in he audience is
the owner of the property, Ms. Sylvanell Davidson. Mr. Giniel
has just celebrated his 26" anniversary at this site, operafing
Budget Brakes and Services. We were here in 1982, Mr. Giniel
and I, along with the consent of Ms. Davidson, to ecpand this
operation from the former small gas station -sized business that
it was at that lime. So here we are winding back asking for
another favor 23 years later. As Mr. Taormina has indicated, we
28
would not be here but for the technical change in the statute that
requires that a used car lot licensee have a permanent address
and that the permanent address have a letter signed by the
municipality in which it's located, but it's in full compliance with
the zoning ordinances of the municipality. Mr. Giniel has been
operating this business from this location, the Budget Brakes
and Services, for 26 years, the limited use car sales from the
last two and half years, from there. The reason that he did not
seek a waiver use was that it was not necessary. He was not
actually operafing a business, and he will continue not to
actually operate a business. This business is done over the
internet, by telephone. It's limited and as I've stated, it's a way
of diversification of his business and to augment the impact that
the availability of cheap police cars and reduced new car prices
and increased sales is having on the auto repair facility
businesses in general. He competes. He competes well. He
has a loyal customer base of 26 years, but he needs to
supplement his income when he can. On an occasional deal,
he does a very limited number of auto sales. Traditionally, it is
for a customer that needs a replacement vehicle because they
have a family vehicle that is beyond repair or the repairs are not
warranted by the age and value of the car. He will find them a
good used car to replace the car that they have that they don't
wish to repair. So, of course, this is a waiver use, and I know
the Commission's sensitivity to waiver use. We would be more
than happy to incorporate any of these conditions of limitation.
No display of for sale vehicles, which he has never done. He
has been a good corporate citizen. We have had no complaints
from neighbors. We've had no problems with the Inspection
Department over the corse of the years. He's a good
businessman who runs a good business, that keeps a good,
clean, respectable location on Middlebelt Road. He's looking for
this limited waiver use so that he can supplement and augment
his income to keep his business there. It's not a great deal of
his business. His primary purpose is the repair of automobiles,
but it does help to supplement the income. It does not justify
the expenditure of huge amounts of money to accommodate
this use. It's never his intent to have this be a used car lot. He
buys and sells one a time, essentially. If I can help anybody
with any questions, please ask.
Ms. Smiley: I understand that the business owner rents the property?
Mr. Creighton: And has for the last 26 years.
29
Ms. Smiley:
How does he feel about the recommendations that were made
by Alex Bishop?
Mr. Creighton:
We have no problem. Interestingly enough, if you'll look back at
the history, to be perfectly, honest, until I spoke with Mr. Nowak,
I forgot that I had handled this back in 1982. I'm getting old.
The primary one that might be of some concern is the dumpster.
Back in 1982, there was concern about there being a dumpster
on the site whatsoever. So the agreement was that the
dumpster would be moved into the new expanded facility, and it
was until the Fire Marshal came by one day and said get that
out of here. It's a fire hazard because it has combustible
materials and you have flames in connection with the repair of
mufflers and whatnot. It had to be removed. Mr. Giniel
recognizes that obviously we're going to have to restripe the
parking lot in conformance with the ordinance. The ordinance is
much different today than it was in 1982, but we will conform
with the striping. If the Commission sees fit to say they want a
stockade, we have some logistical problems, which I've
discussed with Mr. Nowak. The only logical place is to put it at
the back of the lot, but its going to be visible from Farmington
Road. The other problem we have is that the alley is one way
southbound, so it's pretty hard for a Waste Management truck to
negofiale the wrong way on a one way alley to achieve this, but
we are willing to work with the recommendations of the Planning
Commission or the Inspection Department. I'm suspecting that
about the only thing we could do would be to juxtapose this on
an angle or have the opening to the alley so that the dumpster
could be moved out. But even then, it would have to be moved
out sideways, I guess, for the Waste Management truck to be
able to pick it up. You know, it's a problem with the site, but
we're more than happy to work with anybody. Again, for the last
23 years, it's been there. It's been well maintained. There has
been no outside storage of loose trash. We've not had a single
citation or single complaint in 23 years. We don't intend on
having one for the next 23 years.
Ms. Smiley:
Mark, is that workable with the dumpster?
Mr. Taormina:
Which part?
Ms. Smiley:
Can we come up with something that meets our standards but is
also workable for this gentleman's operation?
Mr. Taormina:
Technically, he was required over 20 years ago to have this
dumpster moved to the southeast corner of the building and
30
have it properly screened. Any change to the location of the
dumpster really would have to be done under the review and
authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals. It was suggested
back then that it be placed right at the corner of the building. I'm
not aware that there's one-way restricted access in the alley that
would make access to that dumpsler difficult. It would have to
be placed at an angle though to access it. I think something can
be worked out. Al a minimum, that dumpsler needs to be
screened properly because the ordinance does require it to be
shielded from public view.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay, and I'm hearing you say that you're going to do that.
Mr. Creighton:
Yes, again though, it is a one way alley, south only, and it is
tight, and we do have residential neighbors on the opposite side
of the alley. I'm not even sure that the alley is a full, I guess it is
a full 20 feet wide, but there's not a whole lot of room for a
Waste Management truck to made an angle, even if we
juxtapose it facing northeast so that they could pull in. I'm not
sure that they could get in and out of the spot without knocking
the neighbor's fence down, but we'll do whatever we can.
Maybe we'll have to bring it in further onto our property into the
landscaped area and make it deeper than normal so that there's
adequate room for them to pull in and back oul. We're
obviously very flexible in doing whatever needs to be done to
take care of it. Actually, it really hasn't been a problem, but I
understand the Commission and the Council have opinions
otherwise.
Ms. Smiley:
One more question. Briefly what you said was that he's already
operating this and he's been doing it well, and that because of a
technicality in paperwork ...
Mr. Creighton:
A change in the licensing statute now requires that there be a
letter from the municipality in which the licensee is located
verifying that they are in compliance with the municipal
ordinances as to zoning.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Good evening. I just had a couple of things in reference to the
landscaping. Around that monument sign are railroad ties o
whatever they call it, landscaping ties. Some of those are
deteriorafing very badly. I think that would help spruce up that
island. Now I realize also that the north edge of that property
line where the landscaping currently is in sort of a long box, that
31
belongs to Bill and Rod. Okay. I'd like you to see if the
petitioner can take over that responsibility.
Mr. Creighton:
It belongs to us, and it's voluntarily maintained by Bill and Rod's.
The land is actually owned by us. The problem was ...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you sure because I asked the manager in there. I said what
about that north end, and he said, that doesn't belong to us, that
belongs to Bill and Rod. So one of us is talking to the wrong
people.
Mr. Creighton:
You asked the manager of...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That operation.
Mr. Creighton:
Budget Brakes and Exhaust.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I don't know what his name was.
Mr. Creighton:
Mr. Giniel is the owner.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But he said Bill and Rod owned it, and he said ...
Mr. Creighton:
Well, they take ownership in terns of maintaining it, but the
original site plan called for burning bushes. They lasted about
three days before someone drove over them.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, you have to water them.
Mr. Creighton:
No. Before people drove over them, kids rode their bikes
through them and knocked them down, and there's a change in
elevation. In any event ...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
No filibuster, okay?
Mr. Creighton:
Well, you asked for an answer to a question, sir. I tried to
answer it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But if you could have the owner of ... the petitioner look into
that because that would be a big improvement too. And there's
a possibility that you could put a car over there, some parking.
That it.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'd just like to bring up to snuff what Dan said in regard to your
landscaping. Our notes say it's nonexistent or removed or dead
and in poor repair. I would like to see the site brought up-hD-
date with some good landscaping because it needs it badly.
Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess I'm a little confused here. Back in '82, according to the
notes we got from Mr. Bishop, there apparently was a plan
submitted which I assume was approved that said there has to
be a dumpster. There was a location on that plan where that
dumpster was supposed to be and it was supposed to be
enclosed. Then you tell me that the City told you to put the
dumpster inside the facility. Is that what you're telling me?
Mr. Creighton:
No. If you'll read the ordinances, the actual resolutions which I
attached to your petition, the relocation of dumpster will be on
the southeast corner of the building so as to allow access from
the alley and shall be property screened on two sides, the west
and the south, the third side shall be the north building wall.
However, if the petitioner should determine that internal storage
is more practical, then that would negate any reason for external
pad and enclosure. And that's what happened until the Fire
Marshal came along at a later point in time and said, no, thou
shalt not keep it in inside. So it was moved back outside and
that also in the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution, they
address the issue, and indicated that ... Well, that was the ZBA
which was not the waiver use. So theylold us to bring ilinside.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, the point here, Mr. Creighton, is once the Fire Marshal told
you to move the dumpster from inside the building to outside the
building because it was a fire hazard, at that point don't you
revert back to what was required by the original zoning request
to put the dumpster where it was supposed to be and enclose
it?
Mr. Creighton:
I would suspect that would be, in fad, the case. Unfortunately,
it was never brought to my attention, and there was never a
citation issued and ildidn'lhappen.
Mr. LaPine:
But the petitioner must have known that at one time he had to
put that dumpster somewhere else if he's been there for 26
years.
Mr. Creighton:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
So, I mean, that's no excuse. He should have went ahead at
that point and built the enclosure and put the dumpster where it
belongs because where it is right now, as far as I'm concerned,
it's a terrible eyesore. It sits out almost close to the street.
33
Mr. Creighton: Unfortunately, it is accessible by the people fiat come to pick it
up.
Mr. La Pine: Well, there's a lot of things that make it easier for the person to
pick up the container, but that isn't what's required under the
city ordinance. You know that. My second question is, I'm still
confused at how this operates. So he has no cars at this
location, and somebody comes in there and says I want you to
gel me a car. How do they look at the car? Are the cars
brought there? Are they sent somewhere to look at the cars?
How does this whole transaction take place?
Mr. Creighton: It varies from transaction to transaction. Sometimes they will
agree in advance what kind of car they would like him to locate,
and he goes and locates it for them. Sometimes he will go to
auctions and buy it for them and bring it back to the facility. If
you've been to the facility and you've seen inside, there is an
inside parking area. There are no cars left outside over night,
even in connection with the service of cars. They are brought in
each and every night so that there is no parking outside. There
is no display of cars. They are there during the daytime if
people drop them off before they can be brought into the bay,
but at the close of business, they're brought inside. He has six
full bays serviced by lifts and enough room to park six or more
cars inside. So we don't have outside storage at any time.
During the day, cars that are dropped off are kept out there.
Cars that are ready for pickup are taken out there, but typically
all cars are picked up by the end of day or brought inside.
Mr. La Pine:
I was out there Saturday and he was dosed. I looked in the
overhead doors. He has four lifts and there was a car in each
one of the lifts. There was two on the north side, two on the
south side. I didn't see any other space in there where you
could put any more cars.
Mr. Creighton:
Along the alleyway, there is space for two more cars.
Mr. La Pine:
You mean outside ofthe building?
Mr. Creighton:
No, inside the building. You gain access through the alley.
There's an overhead door in the alley and there's a space in
what would be the southeast comer of the building.
Mr. La Pine:
Well, my eyesight must be getting bad. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
34
Mr. Shane: So there will never be a used car on the site that hasn't already
been sold? Is that correct?
Mr. Creighton:
No. There will be cars that may not have been sold, but they
will be inside being detailed or prepared or whatever.
Mr. Shane:
All right. So how many cars are we talking about would you say
at any one time?
Mr. Creighton:
At any one time? What's the maximum cars that you have?
The combination of the repair and the ... I'm not trying to avoid
your question. I'm trying to decide. Just limiting it to the for sale
cars or cars to be sold?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Creighton:
Two at the max.
Mr. Morrow:
I did go out and look at it. I will say that there were no cars on
site. Looking in the window, there was one car in there with a
dealer plate, which I assume was one of the cars that was going
to be sold to one of his dient.
Mr. Creighton:
They have to have the dealer plate to be brought from an
auction place or from another location.
Mr. Morrow:
And it was inside, so that was one of the cars that was for sale
or would be sold?
Mr. Creighton:
Correct. It would for sale being prepared for delivery or repaired
orwhatever.
Mr. Morrow:
Nothing was outside.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Mary Ellen Rowley, 15169 Cavour. I live directly behind and towards Five Mile
Road. I just have a question. I just want to make sure I'm
understanding this. There are not going to be any cars Teff on
Elsie from Middlebell Road? It's a good place and there isn't
stuff left over the weekend. And I agree, real quick, the
comment about the dumpster. The dumpster I don't think is
really a problem. It's no different than the dumpster right across
the street on the other side of Elsie Road. It has been there and
I've lived there 14 years, and I've never seen like garbage or
anything. Waste Management actually does come and pulls all
the way back in that alley. I live more towards the end of the
alley. So I don't know if that's going to be another issue or
what, but really it's not. I've never honestly in 14 years never
have I seen garbage piling out of that, rolling down the road or
anything. And again, it's no different than the other parking lot
with the shoe area. But my question is, I just want to be
assured that there are not cars left on the weekend running
around Elsie, parked in the alley, which there never has been.
And I know what theyre talking about the other two extra
spaces, and they really run a good business, I would say.
Again, my concem is the ticker tape, if you will. I really didn't
know what they were running out of there. I just want to be
assured that there is not more traffic, which would affect me
down Cavour Street. It sounds like it's not if they're already
doing this again, and then the other thing would be what would
be left over on the weekend?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Giniel? Mr. Creighton? Do you want to address that?
Mr. Creighton:
We will not be using Cavour. We will not be using Elsie. We do
not now; we will not in the future.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Ms. Rowley, then he's confirmed that they
will not use those roads for storage.
Ms. Rowley:
Not like cars all over the place.
Mr. Walsh:
I understand. We've made that part of the record and we've
noted it.
Ms. Rowley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
We do know he's been doing that business for two and half
years, and if she hasn't noticed any cars around there, probably
no need to expect it to change based on what we've heard here
tonight.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Mor ow. We do have confirmation on record by
Mr. Creighton. Are there any other people in the audience
wishing to speak for or against this item? Seeing none, I'm
going to close the public hearing. Does the petitioner have any
additional closing comments?
Mr. Creighton:
No comments.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I think 26 years at this site is a very good reason to make an
approving resolution for this gentleman. Of course, there are
always conditions, and they are as follows.
On a motion by Pieroecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, 8
was
#08-84-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-06-02-11,
submitted by Affordable Certified Car Sales, Inc., requesting
waiver use approval to conduct a limited used car sales facility
in conjunction with an existing automobile repair facility at 15140
Middlebelt, on property located on the east side of Middlebell
Road between Five Mile Road and Elsie Avenue in the
Northwest % of Section 24, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That there shall be no outdoor parking or storage of
vehicles offered for sale and all such vehicles shall be
displayed and/or stored inside the building only;
2. That the petitioner shall work with the Planning Director in
regard to the restoration of landscaping on the site;
3. That all parking spaces shall be double striped and the
barrier free accessible parking shall be properly sized,
marked and signed;
4. That any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council; and
5. That all the conditions imposed by the Zoning Board of
Appeals under Zoning Grants 8610-185 and 8209-112,
including provisions that there shall be no parking in the
vicinity of the ground sign and that the dumpsler be
enclosed, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are
not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 oflhe Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
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 2005-07-0242 FLEET AUTO -TRUCK
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced tie next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
07-02-12,
00507-02-12, submitted by KIEV, Inc., on behalf of Fleet Auto -Truck
Repair, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate an
automobile and truck repair facility at 11844 Hubbard, located
on the east side of Hubbard Avenue between Plymouth Road
and Capitol Avenue in the Soulh'6 of Section 27.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 15, 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 and the legal description is correct.
No additional right-of-way is required." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 18, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate an auto repair
facility on property located 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 July 28, 2005, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by
Fleet Auto -Truck Repair located at 11844 Hubbard. We have
no objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted."
The letter is signed by David W. Sludt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated July
38
22, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
July 14, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) This site is operational without a
zoning compliance permit or the required permits for the
completed alterations to the building. Permits obtained after the
fact art= subject to double permit fees. (2) There is much debris,
trash and apparent junk or abandoned vehicles and/or
equipment that all needs to be cleaned up. (3) The south drive
area needs repair and the entire lot needs maintenance,
resealing and proper parking striping to include needed barrier
free accessible parking spaces. (4) The landscape and
maintenance is in poor repair. There are several large holes in
the front lawn area. There are weeds along the property lines.
The landscape should be brought back to standards with proper
irrigation either installed or tested to work properly. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The
next letter is from Bill Brown Ford, Inc., dated August 4, 2005,
which reads as follows: We offer the following remarks
regarding this petition. Bill Brown Ford has been a law abiding
business in Livonia since 1952 and has never started a new
facility without first obtaining the appropriate permits and
approvals in advance. We would not expect any less for any
other business operating in Livonia. We understand that Fleet
Auto -Track Repair is operating without the proper permits and
approvals from the city. There are plenty of vacant facilities
along Plymouth Road, already approved for vehicle repairs,
which would work as well as this one. This facility should be
required to maintain the same high standards of appearance
and business conduct that we are held to. This facility should
provide adequate driveway depth and parking so that vehicle
traffic would not back up onto the access street on entering the
property. This facility should not be allowed to store abandoned
or salvage vehicles on the premises. The facility should not be
allowed b store, for any length of time, vehicles towed there as
the result of accidents. We appreciate your consideration of our
concerns." The letter is signed by J. R. Gunnigle, General
Manager, Bill Brown Ford, Inc. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Kevin R. Grine, KIEV, Inc., 20230 Beck Road, Northville, Michigan 48167.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far?
Mr. Crute:
Not really. I think the front yard that you guys were talking
about being a mess ... I had a tenant in there that has gone
sour on me over the last four or five years, and the building has
been neglected. The tenant is responsible for that. So its
probably a good thing that we're bringing in somebody new. As
a matter of fad, if you looked at the place recently, you would
notice that the whole backyard is, I would say about 75 percent
clean now. That's due to the new tenant and all their efforts
because the past tenant is in receivership with bank, and the
bank has a lock on their funds. So we have a little bit of
difficulty right there right now. Their property has been moved
into the south half of that building, so its totally occupied with
stuff right at this point. And part of the parking lot that we didn't
clean up is stuff that we weren't allowed to throw away. We
paid for the cleanup. As far as the front yard, obviously it hasn't
been maintained because the tenant hasn't had the money to
adequately maintain. The driveway, the parking lot, I am
responsible for, but its very difficult to dean up or do anything
really even about it when there's just junk all over the backyard.
That's where we stand right now. And as far as parked cars
from Bill Brown Ford, junk cars, Bill Brown Ford stores cars in
that lot, so I don't know what he's talking about as far as junk
cars. He has a prior arrangement with my past tenant to plow
the parking lot for them if he could store some of his cars in that
parking lot. As far as traffic jams on Hubbard Road, his car
carriers are out in front of my building just about every day, you
know, unloading cars. So again, I can't understand why he
would have a problem with it except for competition or
something. Any questions, feel flee to ask me.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, does Fleet -Auto tow in cars that have had accidents to store
there?
Mr. Crute:
They dont do collision work. I dont want to say that it couldn't
be a possibility if there's mechanical work that needs to be done
to a vehicle thalwas smashed, but theyre not a collision shop.
Mr. Alanskas:
How long would these vehicles stay there in the back?
Mr. Crute:
They probably wouldn't stay in the back. They'd probably be in
the shop to be worked on and they'd be sent to a collision shop.
Mr. Afanskas:
Now, I've been in business for 30 years, and when you want to
repair a vehicle, you have to order parts for it that you don't
have. It could lake three or four days before you gel the parts
ao
before you can fix the vehicle. It could be there for at least a
week. Is that true or not true?
Mr. Crute:
They haven't had that problem yet.
Mr. Alanskas:
They haven't. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Where were you located previously?
Mr. Crule:
Theywere located on Plymouth Road east of Middlebelt.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I mean Fleet.
Mr. Crute:
Fleelwas.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Oh, they were on Plymouth Road?
Mr. Crule:
Plymouth Road east of Middlebell. They had a small facility
there that they really couldn't operate out of.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Soyou were in Livonia allhaltime?
Mr. Crule:
They were in Livonia. That's correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Whatdo you mean saying'they?"
Mr. Crute:
I'm Kevin Cmte. I own the building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Oh. You're the building owner.
Mr. Crute:
I'm the owner of the building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Because I was wondering where they were located. Generally,
every place of that nature requires a variance in order to locate.
This operation, I understand, according to my notes here,
they've been operating without an occupancy permit and a
zoning compliance permit.
Mr. Crute:
We really didn't realize it until the day they moved in. I would
never have given it a second thought. Here's Bill Brown right
next door to me. We have Comcast having vehides being
repaired all throughout that whole area. Roush has facilities
throughout the area that they have vehides in. It never even
crossed our mind. However, we did come here and we talked to
.. I called up Steve Banko, and we tried to figure out. They
had to go through the process, and yeah, they had to go ahead
41
and give us a citation, if you will. But you have a company that
has moved out of the other place because of the size and
restrictions there. They needed a place to go and it was kind of
like too late. But that's the reason why we ren into ...
Mr. LaPine: We like everybodylofollow the rules.
Mr. Crule: I understand that. Unfortunately, we have a situation where
every third building is empty in our industrial and manufacturing
zone. To me, it makes good sense to have a repair facility off of
Plymouth Road.
Mr. La Pine: Now, you're the owner of the property.
Mr. Crute: That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
The building on the north side has been occupied with the repair
place. That looks like it's in pretty good shape. They put a
large overhead door in there and a back door in the building. It
looks like its in good shape. My problem is what is on the south
side of the building. You say you cant do anything there?
Mr. Crute:
Oh no, no. I dont want to say that. Hopefully that will be all
automotive repair in that whole building.
Mr. LaPine:
When are we going to gel all the cleanup out there? There's so
much garbage dumped there.
Mr. Crute:
If you go there right now, you'll retract that. I don't know. Have
you been there?
Mr. LaPine:
I was just there this weekend.
Mr. Crule:
This weekend?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Crute:
Probably half of that backside on the south side has got junk in
it. Just half of it.
Mr. LaPine:
There's a heck of a lot of junk. Idon't know what's inside the
building.
Mr. Crule:
You should have seen it a month and a half ago. You would
have like got sick.
42
Mr. La Pine:
You know, at this point...
Mr. Crute:
It's dean compared to how it was.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't want to do anything until I know that the place is cleaned
up, quite frankly. Lel me ask you another question. Now the
parking lot coming in off of Hubbard is in terrible shape. There's
some holes in there; you could lose your whole front end of your
car. The whole parking lot should be repaved, asphalt or
something should be done to it.
Mr. Crute:
That's an old parking lot, just that south drive.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't want to argue with you about that. I mean I wouldn't
have my driveway in my house look like that. So I dont think a
businessman should run a business and have a parking lot that
looks as bad as that looks. That's my honest opinion. The
other thing is, there's oil all over. I guess it's oil. Did they have
barrels of oil, because there's a lot of dl in the ground around
there.
Mr. Crule:
The business that was in there was storage products
manufacturing. They built racks for storage in warehouses. So
that's what they did. I'm sure they used oils for punching some
of their pieces for the product that they built. However, I dont
think they had lots of cutting oils that would have leaked in the
parking lot that I know of.
Mr. LaPine:
If you look back there on the south side, you'll see all kinds of oil
that's seeped into the ground. There's no doubt about it.
Mr. Crule:
Just so you understand, the company that was in there
occupied the whole building, the north side loo, not just the
south side. And there was more junk on the north side than
there is on the south side right now, so I guess im confused
why you pick on the south side.
Mr. LaPine:
Because the south side is where all the debris and wax and all
kinds of stuff is stored there.
Mr. Crule:
But if you would have seen it a month and a half ago, you would
have seen more stuff on the north side.
Mr. LaPine:
If it was a month and a half ago or two weeks ago or yesterday,
it's got to be cleaned up. It's a mess.
43
Mr. Crute:
I know. That's what I'm trying to tell you. We're deaning it up,
but the bank won't let me just go in there with a dumpster and
steal all their stuff. I can't steal their stuff. It's an eviction
problem if you understand that. I can't just go in there and evict
somebody without the court proceeding and all that sluff.
Mr. LaPine:
If you plan to dean up the north side, how did you clean that
up? Its sfill owned by the same individual.
Mr. Crule:
Because it was their junk and they didn't care about that. But
they have some stuff that apparently has some value to them,
value to the bank, that they wont lel us gel rid of.
Mr. LaPine:
There's a couple junk cars parked back there.
Mr. Crule:
That's theirs, too. Believe me, if I could go ahead and wave the
magic wand over there, I would have it taken care of yesterday,
but I cant do that.
Mr. Morrow:
I think the bottom line here is ... it looks like you've done a
good job where the current repair shop is housed. You deaned
it all up. I share the same concems as Mr. LaPine that at some
point in time, we're using this opportunity to give you a waiver to
gel the building back up to speed. You mentioned the bank has
you tied up. Do you have any idea when you will be released so
hopefully they will clean it up, or somebody will dean it up, but
ultimately you will be responsible.
Mr. Crute: It's slowly being cleaned up right now. I mean I can move all
their junk inside. However, we were hoping that they would get
rid of it. I mean they had a scrap man over there, I think it was
Monday, yesterday.
Mr. Morrow: Did the bank give you any idea?
Mr. Crute: The bank doesn't even want to talk to me because every time I
talk to them, I want money. I mean this has been a thing that's
been going on for the last thee years. And I get a little bit of
money and, you know, there's no sense in me kicking them out
and having an empty building that I have to pay the utilities on.
At least I have somebody paying for my ufilities. So, anyways,
obviously I have a new tenant, a good tenant, so things are
happening. Again, they moved in the first of June, and I have
pictures that I can show you prior to that, that you would have to
say that you see a traumatic change. It doesn't look like the
same parking lot.
U
Mr. Morrow: As one commissioner, I have no problem with the Fleet -Auto
Repair that you have in here. If they can take over the whole
building, that's fine. I think a manufacturing district is a nice
place to have that type of operation. From what I see you've
done so far, it's in good shape. It looks like they are good
tenants. My concern is getting the site cleaned up, getting the
road repaired and striped and the landscaping brought back up
to shape, which is I'm sure something you want too.
Mr. Crute:
Its exactly what I want. You can drive by all my other buildings.
This is an eyesore. I mean I have no choice but to admit that.
And its not going to stay that way, but there's not a whole lot of
control I had over it over the last three or four years.
Mr. Morrow:
Anyway, I'm like Mr. LaPine. I would like to see him granted the
waiver and get that behind us, but whether its at this level or the
City Council, tying you up so you don't get a Certificate of
Occupancy or the final waiver until everything is cleaned up as it
relates to cleaning and landscaping and this type of thing. So,
like I say, I have no problem with the waiver, but using that as
kind of way to gel your site cleaned up.
Mr. Crute:
Just so you know, the plans are this fall to finish cleaning up the
landscaping. You saw a bunch of holes in the front. The guys
from Fleet pulled the trees out. They're like Spruce trees that
were never maintained, and they weren't trimmed and they just
grew up ugly. So they pulled them out. Unfortunately, it's been
very hot and I discouraged them from doing anything until the
fall. The irrigation system in the front yard, I don't even know
what happened to it. They probably left water in it in the
wintertime and it doesn't work. So we have to figure that out.
You know, there's not a whole lot you can do, especially this
summer without water. I wasn't going to stand out there with a
watering hose everyday. So we didn't do that. It will be taken
care of and I guarantee you that we will take care of the
landscaping this fall.
Mr. Morrow:
It sounds like you have a third party involved here. I'm sure
Fleet wants to have that building put it's best fool forward.
Mr. Crule:
Oh yeah. They want it to look nice too. They're a thorn in my
side on the other way. They want the backyard cleaned up.
That's why they've cleaned it up. You haven't seen Kevin out
there cleaning it up. You saw Fleet out there cleaning it up.
45
They cleaned up that whole north bay. They wanted to gel in
there. I like them guys. You guys should loo.
Mr. Alanskas:
How long does Fleet have a lease with you?
Mr. Crute:
Aslongastheywantone. Fiveyears.
Mr. Alanskas:
You have a five-year lease, okay. I'm in the landscaping
business, and when you say you'll redo this in the fall, that
means you're going to do it next year. You've got August,
September, October to do this, repair the landscaping and put in
the inigation. There's no reason why you can't gel that before
the fall.
Mr. Crule:
Right.
Mr. Alanskas:
No reason why.
Mr. Crule:
I know.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, you said you were going to do it later in the fall.
Mr. Crute:
I said I would wail unfit the fall.
Mr. Alanskas:
Why do you have to wail to do it in the fall?
Mr. Crule:
Because I dont have time. I'm on summer vacation right at the
moment, and its loo hot. I would rather do it in September or
October.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Chairman, Ithink we should table this before we give you
the waiver until all this is brought up to snuff. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are you offering a tabling resolution?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, I am.
Mr. Walsh:
There is a tabling resolution on the floor. Is theresupport?
Mr. LaPine:
I'll support it.
On a motion by
Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, it was
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-07-02-12, submitted by KEV,
Inc., on behalf of Fleet Auto -Truck Repair, Inc., requesting
46
waiver use approval to operate an automobile and truck repair
facility at 11844 Hubbard, located on the east side of Hubbard
Avenue between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the
South '% of Section 27, be tabled to allow more time to address
issues relating to site maintenance items.
Mr. Walsh: Roberts Rules of Order prohibits discussion of the motion once
it's entered, so would the secretary please call the roll?
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Morrow, there's no discussion on the motion.
Mr. Morrow: It's a point of order, nothing to do with ...
Mr. Walsh: Okay.
Mr. Morrow: If we're having a public hearing, have we completed the pudic
hearing before we hear the motion?
Mr. Walsh: We would bring this back out in a public hearing at a date to be
determined. Thankyou forthe point of order.
Mr. Walsh: Would the secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Piercecchi
NAYES: Shane, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh:
The motion is denied. Discussion will then continue on this
item. Are there any additional questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
have one. Have you got any plans for painting the building?
Mr. Crute:
We did but not right now. I'll be real honest with you. This has
cost me about $300,000 over the last year and a half so funds
are not all there. Hopefully, in the spring we'll be able to do
some other improvements there. But I know, I read the thing,
that you guys want the parking lot taken care of and the
landscaping take care of, and I said I'll take care of that by the
fall. So that was the plan.
4]
Mr. LaPine: Well, you know, if I may say, the thing that amazes me, that
back of the property didn't gel in that shape two weeks ago, or
in a year or three years. You own the property. Do you ever go
out and look at your property? If that property was getting in
bad shape, why didn't you jump all over your tenant at that
time?
Mr. Crute: I've been asking my tenant for money for every day for the last
two years. What am I going to do, kick him out? You tell me
what tools I have to take care of that parking lot except to do it
myself. I know. I'm embarrassed to say it's my building too, but
that's just a fact of the beast right now, and that whole area. I
mean I think there's a lot of other buildings out over in that same
area that have the same problem.
Mr. Walsh: Any additional questions for the petitioner? Seeing none at this
point, we will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the public
hearing. Unless you have anything else ...
Mr. Crute: I thought I said too much.
Mr. Walsh: Sir, we're seeking public participation.
Mr. Crule: He's from Fleet.
Mr. Walsh: We are a moment from closing. Do you want to take the final
comments?
Ronald G. Luber, 12032 Rockland, Redford, Michigan. We have a lot of good
things. We do a lot of good work for a lot people, helping a lot
of people who can't necessarily afford a lot of services. We
make sure we take care of them in all different ways. Kind of
see it as a charity thing. While we're charging the public, a lot of
people come in that just can't afford it, and we always try to take
care of them as best we can. We would appreciate if there's
some way where we could get that grant, okay, and have some
type of conditions where it is agreed. I know Kevin does plan do
to it He's talked to us about it, but it will allow us to go further
with our plans to be able to put signs out front and things like
that. We avoided doing anything. When we moved in there, we
didn't think it was a problem because Bill Brown's right next
door. We were on Plymouth Road, you know, for quite a while.
Kevin told us don't put a sign out there. We have a number of
people saying, where are you guys because they just kind of
48
drive past, kind of lost in that complex back there. And we'd
kind of like to put a sign up front there, especially sometimes
when it gets dark at 5:00 at night with people picking up their
cars. We'd like to put a lit sign out there. But we've been
avoiding doing anything like that until we got final approval. If
there's any way where we could get an approval and conditions
set aside where that is taken care of, you know. Fleet would
sign off on it, along with Kevin, because we all want it done and
we want it done right. It will be done. We've talked about it. I
understand the gentleman's concem about getting it done when
he said next year, but we had talked about doing it in
September because a lot of it our staff can do, and ulfimalely it
would be passed on to us through our rent. So just like we
spent a number of weekends deaning up the back to save
money, so it wasn't passed on to us, we've expressed to Kevin
that we could do a lot of the work also, like hauling in the dirt
and spreading it out and getting a nice look and being one of his
tenants because it means a lot to us. You know, we do a lot of
repair work. We've been doing repair work for AAA for almost
three years. We do Comcast. We do Roush. We have a lot of
managers come in that manage these fleets, and we want to
wow them and impress them as we get new ones. So getting
that taken care of is important to us, but also the cost of doing it
is also important to us. So we expressed to Kevin, because our
guys bum themselves up deaning up that parking lot with three
huge 40 foot dumpsters coming out of there. We said if we can
hold off until September, we can do a lot of this so we're not out
there sweating to death, at least all my guys. So that's how we
came to the conclusion if we can just hold off until September
when the temperatures drop a little bit, we'll get the grass taken
care and get the holes taken care of and finish the parking lot
because actually we'll probably will be the ones out there
spreading the stuff, you know, and probably lining the parking
lot. That's probably going to be Fleet sluff, all len of us doing it
on the weekend. So that's why we looked at doing it, and I
talked to Kevin about doing it in September when it was cooler
and we could gel it done. We would be willing to sign and save
it for the Council. Say by October 1 everything will be done, and
that is our intention to gel it done. We just didn't want to pay to
have it done, and we wanted to do a lot of it ourselves and could
do it if it was a little cooler weather, but its pretty scorching out
there some of the days. So if there is some way we can get our
sign out there, get the approval, we would sign a statement
saying that we will be done by October 1.
49
Mr. Walsh: We certainly will take that into consideration. There are a
couple resolutions, approving and denying, prepared for us and
approving does have conditions in it. The sign, of course, is a
separate item. We appreciate you coming up this evening. If
there is no one wishing to speak on this item, I will close the
public hearing and at this point look to the Commissioners for
any additional comments or a motion.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was
#08-85-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-07-02-12,
submitted by KIEV, Inc., on behalf of Fleet Auto -Truck Repair,
Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate an automobile
and truck repair facility at 11844 Hubbard, located on the east
side of Hubbard Avenue between Plymouth Road and Capitol
Avenue in the South '% of Section 27, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan submitted by KIEV, Inc., received by the
Planning Commission on July 5, 2005, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That all vehicle repair and maintenance operations shall be
performed inside the building;
3. That outdoor parking of vehicles shall not induce
dismantled, damaged, abandoned, junked and/or
unlicensed vehicles;
4. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts,
equipment, scrap material, debris, waste petroleum
products or other similar items generated by the subject
use;
5. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated July 22, 2005, from the Inspection Department shall
be resolved to that Department's satisfaction:
That all debris, trash and apparent junk or abandoned
vehides and/or equipment shall be removed from the
site;
That the south drive area shall be repaired and the
entire parlting lot shall receive needed maintenance,
resealing and proper parking striping to induce needed
barrier free accessible parking spaces;
That the landscape areas shall receive needed
maintenance, including proper irrigation either installed
or tested to work properly, and all landscaping shall
thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy
condition; and
6. That the plan referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
occupancy and zoning compliance permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
special and general waiver use standards and
requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject property has the capacity to accommodate
the proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any comments?
Mr. LaPine: I just have a couple questions. On the condition that says there
shall be no dismantled, damaged, abandoned, junked anrllor
unlicensed vehicles and there shall be no scrap material, debris,
waste petroleum products or other similar items generated by
the subject use ... we are granting this and we're saying you
have to do these things. When is he going to do them and can
he continue to operate until these things are taken care of?
Mr. Walsh: He had indicated by October 1. Is that correct?
Mr. Luber: Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine: Does that mean everything, all the junk and everything that's out
there? If he has a problem with the bank, and the bank says he
can't do it, then what happens?
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Grine had indicated they would move it inside.
Mr. Shane: I would be happy to make that part of the motion.
Mr. LaPine: No, that's all right.
Mr. Shane: October 1 is fine with me.
Mr. Morrow: It just says that the plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection department at the time the
occupancy and zoning compliance permits are applied for. But
if he thinks he can get it done by October 1, 1 just don't want him
to commit to something that sounds to me like it's a pretty big
job, all things considered. to commit to that, but it's fine with me
ifthat's what he wants to do.
Mr. LaPine: The only reason I'm objecting to it, to getting some kind of time
limit, I'm willing to give him even more time. I want to make
sure that it's going to be cleaned up. A lot of times we approve
these things aid I have nothing against Fleet. I think Fleet has
done an excellent job on their half of the building. Its just that
the rest of it's got to be deaned up. We just cant lel it sit there
and a year from now we go back and nothing is done. That's
what I am objecting to.
Mr. Alanskas: I have the same problem. I just hale to grant a waiver use on a
if come that they will do all these things at a later date. I'd
rather see it done first before we give the waiver, otherwise
there's a chance that it may not be done. I mean, I'm sure the
man thinks his word is good, but I cant go on someone's word
until I see it's done. Thank you.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Moraw, Piercecchi, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES: Alanskas, LaPine
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
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 #4 PETITION 2005-06-02-73 FRANKLIN BANK
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petifion 2005-
07-02-13,
00507-02-13, submitted by K4 Architecture, LLC, on behalf of
Franklin Bank, requesting waiver use approval to construct a full
service banking center with drive -up window facilites at 17900
Haggerty, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 114 of
Secfion 7.
Mr. Walsh: I need to step down on this item because I work for SchoolcreR
College. So with that, I will tum the gavel over to Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petifion plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 15, 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 and the legal description is correct.
No additional right-of-way is required." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 18, 2005,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a fullservice
banking center with drive -up window facilities on property
located 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 July 28, 2005, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal by Franklin
Bank located at 18600 Haggerty. 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 July 22, 2005,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 14,
2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) Parking shall be double striped. (2) The
barrier free parking shall be moved closer to the front entry. On
sheet SP -03 it would be moved up to spaces 6 and 7 with the
ramp relocated also. (3) As an advisory, this building requires
at least two (2) non -restricted exits and exit access. On A-1 it
does not appear to be provided. 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. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Marcos Makohon, K4 Architecture, LLC, 26899 Northwestern Highway, Suite
208, Southfield, Michigan 48034. 1 also have in the audience
Bob Schrader from Bank Facilitators. We are extremely happy
to be in front of you to present this rather unique and premier
project on behalf of Franklin Bank. I think Mr. Taormina and Mr.
Nowak have amply described where we're at. We delicately
nestled the banking center, respecting everything that has been
already provided for us on College Park, the full access across
the north. This is an access drive that accesses some of the
back of the restaurant. This is a discharge that then goes
further south onto the office buildings. This is a natural drainage
creek that basically limited our development. Again, we really
took advantage of the parking so we would have the customers
be comfortably parked in the front and then segregate the drive-
thm and then discharge the drive-thru through a secondary
drive so you would not interfere with incoming traffic. This was
an easy site to go ahead and determine. The comments that
were made, the fact that those two parking spaces should be
closer. It does create a little bit with the ramp and so forth. We
will facilitate that. That's not that much of an engineering
stretch. The floor plan actually indicates a stair at this point and
a stair in the front, having a fully sprinkled building that qualifies
its two exits out of the second floor, with the understanding that
the first floor would be a full banking center. The second floor is
the business portion of the bank with loan origination, wealth
management, and so forth. We actually are presenting a cover
board. However, outside of that, we're presenting the
perspective of what the bank will look like. We truly are very
excited on presenting this. It is a new prototype for Franklin
Bank. We're here to present it to the City of Livonia as the first
one in southeast Michigan. As it was requested from me during
the study session, we brought a board. I'm not going to put it up
on the easel because it is quite heavy. We did bang bricks. It is
a combination of contrasting masonry as indicated, the
simulated stone that resembles limestone, window frames,
windows themselves, the coping and the roof of the drive-thm
canopy.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you very much. Are there questions from the
commissioners?
54
Mr. Morrow: Just for my own information, you mentioned the simulated
stone. Where on the board is the simulated stone, and exactly
what is a simulated stone? I see it on the plan, but I was
wondering if you had it on the board.
Ms. Smiley: Its on the floor.
Mr. Makohon: That is this material right here
Mr. Morrow: Whydo you call it simulated?
Mr. Makohon:
Because it is a remanufactured stone. A stone inherently has
fissures and weak points. This one actually simulates
limestone; however, its a controlled surface so that it will
weather equally to brick.
Mr. Morrow:
So in other words, ft's manufactured as opposed to stone as we
commonly think of R.
Mr. Makohon:
Correct. Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Number one, lel me tell you. I'm really excited about this. This
is different. Its something that we haven't seen before for a
bank. Really, banks are square. But anyways, the glass is
going to be green tinted glass?
Mr. Makohon:
Yes, it is. One with a color combination; the other one is one of
the highest efficiency glass we have found.
Mr. LaPine:
Now one other question. What is the height of the highest point,
which is rightthere?
Mr. Makohon:
Al this point?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Makohon:
I didn't memorize the dmwings, I'm sorry.
Mr. Taormina:
It's 32 feet to this line right here, so you could probably add
another 6 or 8 feet.
Mr. Makohon:
Sixfeet,yes. Thirty eight feet to the peak, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Its a full service bank, and your drive-thm will be opened during
normal hours. Will you have an ATM?
55
Mr. Makohon:
ATM and night deposit on the inside lane. Right now, the new
business profiles require that the ATMs are actually serviced
inside the bank and not as a separate island.
Ms. Smiley:
I also want to tell you it's a very interesting structure. Your
picture is much better than the drawing. It looked a little star
wars to me, but that is very pretty and very attractive. What I
was wondering, you said that we're the first one in southeast
Michigan, Franklin Bank?
Mr. Makohon:
Yes, for this prototype.
Ms. Smiley:
Do you have one somewhere in the United Stales?
Mr. Makohon:
No. This is it.
Ms. Smiley:
This is it?
Mr. Alanskas:
Big time. Livonia big time.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Makohon:
I'm sorry, Franklin Bank - their headquarters is in Southfield. So
we are rolling out their program in southeast Michigan. With
any luck at all, we've been now retained to do it elsewhere.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many employees will you be bringing to this bank on the
twofloors?
Mr. Makohon:
The typical banking center has approximately 12 employees
between tellers and offices. Sorry, I'm just counting through my
head. There's probably about 14 to 15 employees upstairs.
Mr. Alanskas:
Verygood. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? There's nobody there. I'll close the public
hearing, and a motion is in order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#08-86-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-07-02-13,
submitted by K4 Architecture, LLC, on behalf of Franklin Bank,
requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service
56
banking center with drive -up window facilities at 17900
Haggerty, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 114 of
Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SDP -1 prepared by K4
Architecture, LLC, dated July 6, 2005, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet SP -03 prepared
by Atwell -Hicks, dated July 6, 2005, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That an automatic underground irrigation system shall be
provided for all landscape areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-2
prepared by K4 Architecture, LLC, dated July 6, 2005, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the masonry components of the building shall be brick
and simulated stone as specified on the above -referenced
Building Elevations Plan;
7. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall
be full -face 4 inch brick, no exceptions;
8. That the enclosure for the secured trash container shall be
of masonry construction matching the simulated stone
utilized for the building and shall have gates which, when
not in use, shall be closed at all times;
9. That the lighting equipment shall be shielded to minimize
glare trespassing on adjacent properties and roadway, and
such equipment shall not exceed 20 feet in height;
10. That all parking spaces provided in connection with this
use shall be double striped;
11. That the total of all signage, both ground and wall signs,
shall not exceed 40 square feet, subject to the granting of a
variance for excess signage by the Zoning Board of
Appeals and any conditions pertaining thereto;
12. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
13. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including but, not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
14. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated July 28, 2005 from the Inspection Department shall
be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
- The barrier free parking shall be moved closer to the
front entry; on Sheet SP -03, it would be moved up to
spaces 6 and 7 with the ramp relocated also;
- Al least two (2) non-restrictive exits and exit access
shall be provided for this building; and
15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
allhe time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
58
Mr. Morrow:
One thing to note. We may have a first here tonight. We
granted you more square footage for your sign than you've
asked for.
A not call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, LaPine, Shane, Pieroecchi, Morrow,
Alanskas
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Walsh
ABSENT: None
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. I have one question for you. When you
get your approval from the Council and you break ground, when
would you expect to have the bank completed?
Mr. Makohon:
We're looking at probably the first part of 2006.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine
Welhankyou. Its a beautifully designed bank.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's a good looking building.
Mr. LaPine:
It's really going to set off that whole area.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Walsh is back at 10:15.
Mr. Walsh:
This concludes the public hearing items. We will now proceed
with the Pending Item section of our agenda. Will the Secretary
please read the next item?
ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 909th Public Hearings
and Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 909" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on July 12, 2005.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
59
#08-87-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 909" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 12,
2005, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, LaPine, Alanskas, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 910`" Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 910"' Regular Meeting held on July 26, 2005.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-87-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 910" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on July 26, 2005, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 911'" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 9, 2005, was adjourned at 10:15
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman