HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-10-1122661
MINUTES OF THE 910 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 9W Pudic 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: William La Pine R. Lee Morrow Dan Pieroecchi
H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh
Members absent: Robert Alanskas
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; 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 pudic hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2005-07-01-07 ABDUL-BAKI
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-07-
01-07, submitted by Rami Rafik Abdul-Baki requesting to rezone
the property at 32330 Seven Mile Road, located on the north
side of Seven Mile Road between Mayfield Avenue and Osmus
Avenue in the Southwest 114 of Section 3 from RUFB to R-3.
22662
Mr. Taormina presented a map shaving the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated August 11, 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 lime, however, the legal description is
incorrect. The legal description extends to the centedine of
Seven Mile Road, therefore 60 feet of right of way should be
dedicated to Wayne County if this has not already been done.
The connect legal description is provided. Storm water detention
will be required in accordance with Wayne County's storm water
management ordinance and any street or drive approaches will
require a permit from Wayne County." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff before we go to the
petitioner? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner, Mr. Baki.
Sam Baki, 23201 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan. On behalf of Rami Baki. As
was mentioned, this properly is zoned RUF and we're proposing
to rezone it to R-3 to match the property across the street with a
cluster option due to the wetland area in the back and the trees
and the park setting. So we're trying to keep it that way. We're
thinking about five total, four new homes, and one old home will
stay. We don't know yet about the cluster issue yet. We
haven't designed it. It depends on the size of the homes that
are going to go in there. They have not been designed yet.
That will be the future for the site plan. Due to the width of this
property, the road access will be on the west side because there
is an adjacent property on the west side that is not for sale at
this time. But we will design it to accommodate it if it ever goes
for sale, whatever could be accommodated for that. So the
homes will be backing into the park. This will preserve the back,
which is the easlside oflhe property, which is the park setting.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Baki, what is the possibility of the adjacent properly to the
west also being considered for rezoning to the R-3
classification? It would really provide for a much more
comprehensive plan.
22663
Mr. Baki:
I understand. You're right. Like I said, we did approach the
owner to the west. He is not interested in selling at this time or
doing anything with hs property, so we just left it that way. I
guess thalquesfion could be asked for the property owner.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is it your opinion that if this property that's under petition right
now were approved, that at a later date if the other property
does come in line, that would be another cluster?
Mr. Baki:
Definitely. Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is there any problem with developing those two as separate
entities?
Mr. Baki:
No.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Would you just leave that current road then?
Mr. Baki:
The current road is going to be a private road for the first
cluster, and if the adjacent property owner decided to do
something, it could be at any time added to it. If the
development is completely done, then the condo association
has to be approached to use that road. Its doable. I'm not
saying it's not doable because it's been done in the past in
different developments.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, what are these two parcels designated as on the Future
Land Use Plan?
Mr. Taormina:
Low density residential.
Mr. La Pine:
Here we have a nursing home and a Courtyard Manor and then
two parcels and then the Jaycee Park. Maybe we should hold
out here for an R-9 development. That way we have
consistency of the zoning in that area. It doesn't make sense to
me at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow:
I know we're just talking about zoning at this time, but I had
heard the Planning Director indicate that a total of four homes
could be developed on that site if you should gel the inning. I
believe I heard you say you'd put on five, possibly ...
Mr. Baki:
Four new ones and the old one will stay.
22664
Mr. Morrow: So you would retain the old home that is there. That would be
your plan?
Mr. Baki:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Plus the four.
Mr. Baki:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
It sounds like five to me versus four.
Mr. Baki:
Well, we haven't played it out yet 100% for the design. We're
going through the process first of getting the rezoning. Then we
will come back. If we cant do five, we'll do four. We'll do three
new ones and the old one.
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to make sure I understood.
Mr. Baki:
Like I said, I have not laid it out. A total of five might not even
be doable because the cul-de-sac will be at the end. Until l lay
out the actual model and the specifcafions of the homes, we
won't know how many we can put in there, but we might just put
three -three new ones and the old one.
Mr. Morrow:
Like I said, I didn't reallywant to gel thatdeep into it bemuse
want to commit myself one way or the other.
Mr. Baki:
I agree.
Mr. Morrow:
But I just wanted to make sure that I was following it correctly.
Mr. Baki:
We'll follow whatever the ordinance says.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
How vigorously dM you pursue the property next door because
we're always reluctant to develop these properties all by
themselves.
Mr. Baki:
We tried several times. I mean, every property owner has the
right to say no, and I did try more than twice. Definitely more
than twice we talked to the owner. He is not interested at this
time. We said fine.
Mr.Shane:
All right. Thankyou.
22665
Ms. Smiley:
Is the purchase of this property pending on the zoning?
Mr. Baki:
It's already been bought since about a year ago.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'd like to refer to you, Mr. Chairman. According to my data
here, this land with 1.46 acres of land would be available for this
R-3 and when you figure that it's three units per acre, that
doesn't quite make five, especially if he's going to leave a house
here, that one's, and he's talking about putting an additional
four. I mean its close, but how much leeway would normally be
allowed here?
Mr. Walsh:
We're only talking about zoning this evening, but he did indicate
in response to Mr. Morrow's question that when we do lay it out,
if its four, its four. He has not ...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I recognize that its just zoning, but inasmuch as the subject was
brought up, I thought I'd make that current.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Once again, is there anybody
in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one coming forward, then the public hearing is closed
and unless Mr. Baki has anything else to add or there are any
additional questions, a motion is in order.
On a motion by
La Pine, seconded by Mornow, and adopted, it was
#10-06-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 11, 2005, on
Petition 2005-07-01-07, submitted by Rami Rafik Abdul-Baki,
requesting to rezone the property at 32330 Seven Mile Road,
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Mayfield
Avenue and Osmus Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3
from RUFB to 1-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-07-01-07 be
denied for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed zoning district will not provide for
development of the subject property in a manner consistent
with its size and location;
2. That the proposed zoning district is inconsistent with
adjoining zoning in the area;
22666
3. That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for the
development of the subject property in a manner that will
be compatible with other properties in the surrounding
area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for only
piecemeal development in the area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a
comprehensive solution to future development of the
subject property, as well as adjacent land to the west.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the folloMng:
AYES: LaPine, Morrow, Piercecchi, Smiley
NAYES: Shane, Walsh
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2005-08-01-08 AGREE LIMITED
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
08-01-08,
00508-01-08, submitted by Agree Limited Partnership requesting to
rezone the property at 17001 Newburgh Road, located on the
west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and
Mallory Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 from OS to C-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated August 23, 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 or the legal description at this time. No
additional right-of-way is required. Provided is a legal
description that should be used for the rezoning. Storm water
detention will be required in accordance with Wayne County's
22667
storm water management ordinance, and any drive approaches
will require a permit from Wayne County." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Seeing none, is the petitioner here this evening?
Bryan L. Amann, Brashear, Tangom, Gallagher, Creighton & Amann, LLP, 355
N. Canton Center, Canton, Michigan 48187. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of Agree
Realty. Just briefly, the analysis was thorough and complete. I
just wanted to highlight a couple factors. We had actually been
in various conversations with elected officials and leaders
throughout the community about a prospective site plan for this
site and whether to approach it through contract zoning or
combination agreement because it also would wrap around the
comer which is owned by the City, and part of that proposal was
involving trying to develop that in some type of amenity as to
whether it was a park to be maintained by this site without cost
or any impact to the city at all. We think that the rezoning
request is consistent with what's occuning in the area,
particulady also in light of the Tartaglia rezoning which has been
recommended for approval and is before the City Council at this
point time. We think its consistent with the patterns of growth
we've seen around there and makes great sense in light of what
else is going on. So with that, I'd be glad to answer questions
or concerns you might have regarding the petition itself.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Good evening. Sir, why do you feel there is a need for
additional C-2 zoning in this particular area? Can you
demonstrate why it would be a good thing for the City?
Mr. Amann: Sure.
Mr. Pieroecchi: What is that area lacking?
Mr. Amann: I think it's no secret what we have talked about is actually trying
a combination proposal between a Walgreen's drugstore and a
bank. Recognizing the vadous history the city has had,
potential drugstore sites, this site as being an epicenter really of
many commercial activities, obviously being kitty corner from
the Laurel Park Mall. It is clearly an area to which that type of
activity is already drawn as opposed to other areas which
you've look at those proposals and had some concem. The
fact is, I ran into this in a lot of communities. People ask how
22668
many more drugstores or banks can we support. The fact is the
baby boomer generation is continuing to still see on the front
side of a growing population and demand. Market studies
depict that the demand is still growing, particularly for a user like
Walgreen's. They are as present in Florida and southern
climates as they are here. So we find in particular a lot of Big 3
retirees and other retirees who find great appreciation in the fact
that they can have the same prescription service in one area up
north as they do down south without having to drive for miles.
We think that the market studies that we've done here
demonstrate a tremendous need in an area where people are
already drawn to commercial activity that would be a great area
of convenience for the residents of the City of Livonia,
particularly this region as you go a mile north or a mile south.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I don't question that some people have these desires for these
different things, but there is a Walgreen's a mile away and it's
24 hours.
Mr. Amann: And we're showing that the market shows there is still
tremendous demand based on what's occurring there and the
other stores in the area for additional services to be provided,
particularly as the population grows, we're finding that people -
the closer to home the better and try to help support the service
of not having to drive farther. You can go in various directions
and find various facilities whether it's Walgreen's, CVS or
others, but clearly the market studies show there is a great
demand for this for Walgreen's as well as within the industry
itself.
Mr. Pieroecchi: There may be some need. I don't question that, but again, a
mile away is another one. So we have a lot of drugstores and
two or three banks in the immediate area. If this was zoned for
that, maybe it would make more sense because when we try to
zone, we try to make it logical. These things are studied and we
like to pinpoint this particular type of zoning here and
complementary zoning around it. But you're asking us to
rezone and really to me, as a commissioner of one, sir, you
haven't really demonstrated a good need.
Mr. Amann: Now that we have the depiction back up on the board, maybe it
would be more helpful. This parcel is essentially the last piece
of a puzzle at an intersection which is designed by its capacity
and layout for this type of activity. As you see, the three other
comers of this intersection are commercial activity, and the one
that is shown in G7 up to the right is soon to be heading, based
22669
on the First Reading at the Council, to G2. To be consistent
with the rest of the intersection, the other three comers of the
intersection, for facilities and intersections that are designed for
this activity, for an activity for purposes of people are already
drawn there. So it would be literally to be consistent with the
surrounding three corners, and from a zoning perspective, it
would make use in terms of the consistency of the intersection.
From the market study, I've already spoken to that. But I think
from a zoning angle, its equally consistent, particularly with
what you see occurring, jumping a little bit to the west of this site
as well along Six Mile and then entirely along the north side
along Six Mile and then going to the east. This really becomes
an island of sorts amongst commercially zoned property in an
area that dearly the community has invested tremendous
resources to make sure that the traffic flows properly, both north
and south and east and west, for these kinds of services.
Mr. Morrow: I think you indicated a drugstore and bank.
Mr. Amann: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: I guess my curlosity is that, and I'll ask the Chairman and the
Planning Director to correct me, but are they not permitted uses
in a C-1 as opposed to a C-2?
Mr. Amann: We are currently in an OS zoning.
Mr. Morrow: No. But I mean, you're asking for a C-2, but the uses you plan, I
believe, are permitted in a C-1. So I guess the curlosity is, you
want to go to a C-2 as opposed to what you can get with a C-1.
Mr. Amann: We would certainly be glad to go to whatever zoning
classification would allow. So that wouldn't be a particular
problem. In reviewing all the other implicafions, we thought that
it was probably he best, prudent to go to O2 based on .. .
we've had months of meetings with the staff and the Mayor and
other folks, and it was thought O2 would be the designation to
go to. If its the opinion and the finding of the Planning
Commission that C-1 would serve that need ...
Mr. Morrow: Lel me find out if I'm on safe ground here. I don't have my
ordinance book with me. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Walsh: I did not bring my book either.
22670
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the C-1, which is a local business zoning classification,
does allow, as a principle use permitted in the distad, both
banks as well as drugstores. The OS classification would allow
only the bank but as a waiver use, not as a principle use.
Mr. Morrow:
So C-1 satisfies your need.
Mr. Amann:
It certainly would be better than an OS, but if we had to go
through the special use of the bank, we could do that.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou.
Mr. Shane:
My question or comment was answered, but I just would like to
reiterate that the bank can be accommodated in the current OS
distad. Therefore, maybe we don' t need to rezone the whole
thing if we rezone it at all. If we knew how much land that the
drugstore will take, we might be able to, at least in my mind,
construct azoning planlhalwould be a little less intrusive.
Mr. Amann:
We certainly wouldn't be opposed to actually approaching this
via a more precise approach of the development or a contracted
zoning approach which could precisely identify that area. We're
trying to make efficient use of parking resources because of the
difference of times and things like that. So to the extent that we
have that covered and wouldn't have someone saying, well,
there's parking over here for this use and we have a collision of
potential uses and those kinds of conversations. We're not
opposed to that kind of approach which more precisely carves it
out and gives you a greater piece of mind as to the precision of
use in a given area of the parcel.
Mr. La Pine: My gut feeling is, I'd like to see it say OS, but based on what Mr.
Morrow said about the O1, my question is, if you're going to
build a bank and a Walgreen's, Walgreen's are a pretty good
sized stores. How big is the bank going to be? Can this
accommodate both of these things? Will the bank have a drive-
thnf? Will the Walgreen's have a drive-thru? In my opinion, I
dont think the property is conducive to both of those businesses
on that same parcel. One I could buy, but the two I don't know if
I can buy.
Mr. Amann: Right. That's a great, great point because it really leads to
where the industry is heading. You're going to see this in more
and more locations, an actual combined use because there are
certain economies of scale that occur, particularly between
banks and drugstores. They're finding in fad they design co-
22671
existing cine-thru facilities to be adjacent to each other, and
there's actually a layout of a prospective plan that we looked at.
You have the cine-thru facilities adjacent to each other as
opposed to being separate and distinct with setback and traffic
issues. You can combine them in very close proximity and
make great use of the site. Generally, the Walgreen stores are
anywhere from 11,000 to 13,000 square feet. Banks nowadays
are looking to be around maybe 3,000, 3,100, 3,200 square
feet, just depending on the particular purposes they see at that
particular branch. But with the combinafion of efficiencies on
this site, between the drive-thrus, it really makes much better
use of the site and, from an architectural perspective, it creates
generally, I think, from most people's peroeptons, a better
building mass to create the appearance as opposed to having
two small buildings disjointed by all these other functions. It
gives a better appearance of an overall building.
Mr. La Pine:
Let me ask you this. I
just don't understand about the dnve-
thru. If Walgreen's is at this
end of the bank and the bank is at
that end, and the drive-thru is at that end, and people are
coming here to pick up their medicine, that's what theyre
usually primarily for, how does the medicine gel from here down
to that end for them to take it?
Mr. Amann:
Actually, and I dont have a pointer, but actually, the openings
that you see towards the lett, middle of that photo ... there we
are. Mr. Taormina is etficienfly pointing it out for me. In fad,
the dine-thru facility of the store would be behind there.
Mr. La Pine:
So that area is the drive-thru for the Walgreen's and the one on
the north, I'll say, is the one that's going to be for the bank. Is
that right?
Mr. Amann:
Yeah, and what we're finding is, that because of this design and
layout, that the traffic flow works in concert as opposed to
typically when you try to put two uses like this separate but on
one site, they have typically traffic conflicts, whereas this site
seems to flow and works a lot better. It's a much more efficient
use of space.
Mr. LaPine:
If this was approved and built, would the store face Newburgh?
Mr. Amann:
Actually, the appearance onto Newburgh and Six Mile would be
fairly identical. Those elevations are a little off. They're not
labeled property. Yeah, north is east, east is north and
whatever. But from Six Mile and from Newburgh, you would be
22672
hard pressed, other than it being reversed, from telling the
difference other than the extension of the wall for the dnve-thru
area and the service for that.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, assuming we approve this, is there going to be enough
parking there to take care ofthese two buildings?
Mr. Taormina:
They should be able to park on this site. The early indications in
preliminary planning shoes that there is sufficient land area to
park both uses.
Mr. LaPine:
Do I understand that you said that you'll take the comer, if the
City lets you, and develop it into a park or something?
Mr. Amann:
We've had extensive conversations with the City. Obviously, we
would do work on the corner. It would remain in the ownership
of the City with an easement for us to maintain it in perpetuity to
the design that the City saw ft in that, and the City is looking to
obviously always raise the bar as to its amenities on comers
and open spaces and things like that. So we would hope to, in
the site plan process, leave it entirely to the City as to how that
would appear, but we would expect to maintain it, take care of it,
so it would be no burden at all on the taxpayers of the City of
Livonia.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, would a retention pond have to be at this location?
Mr. Taormina:
This would be strictly an underground storm water detention
system.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. LaPine touched on it. I want a little better idea of the city -
owned parcel on the comer. I commend you for trying to
develop that site.
Mr. Amann:
We recognize this is a significant intersection for the city. You
draw a lot of people from outside of Livonia to this intersection.
In conversation with the Mayor and various Councilpersons, it
was indicated they would really like to see something that kinds
of sets a tone for the City's image. They weren't sure. At one
point there was conversation about some kind of a veterans
thing or some kind of park or whatever. We're not looking to
prejudge that. That would really be the decision of the City as to
how to really address that, but we think it would be a nice
addition, in perpetuity maintained by the owner of this property
for whatever is down there, but we would also pay for the
22673
construction of it as well. It wouldn't be an imposition on the
City at all for either the construction or the maintenance.
Mr. Morrow:
The other comment I want to make was relative to, you know, if
your request for commercial seems very reasonable to me. We
know have a derelict site. We have an opportunity to develop it
and you're the business people. You know if you're going to
have customers or not. I know Mr. Shane had mentioned
perhaps leaving the OS, but as the Chairman just said, it's a
waiver use for an office. If you could live with the G7, as one
commissioner, I have no objection to that.
Mr. Amann:
And certainly as I said, whether you want to take the C-1
approach or whether you want to take a contract zoning
approach, whatever gives you the greatest peace of mind as to
the specificity of the uses within the site, we're glad to do it.
Mr. Morrow:
I'd just as soon stay away from the contract zoning myself.
Mr. Amann:
Okay. I'm a fan of it but that's all right.
Mr. Morrow :
I'm just one commissioner.
Mr. La Pine:
Just one other comment. I would not have voted for C-2
because it is a more intensive zoning. Some things we might
not want in there as a C-2 that we wouldn't have to worry with
the G1. And the other things, I'll give you a little hint. I'm a big
one on fountains. If you put a nice fountain up ...
Mr. Amann:
That was actually part of the conversation. We have a depiction
of a fountain in there.
Mr. LaPine:
You're on the right track.
Mr. Amann:
Okay.
Mr. Piercecchi:
This is strictly a rezoning petition here. I can see some
problems with the two different drive-thrus and how theyre
going to stack and things of that nature, but that can all be
resolved when the site plan comes in.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition?
Leonard Schoenborn, 37644 Mallory. I live in the Laurel Park subdivision just
south of that. We have a couple concerns. If we add more
22674
business to that area there, the traffic is going to be a concern.
Right now there's only the entrance off of Newburgh, and with
the increase of traffic which I would foresee happening, you're
going to have traffic coming out onto Newburgh that's going to
want to make a left and go north on Newburgh Road. You
presently have all kinds of traffic coming out of the shopping
across there on the east side. You're going to have all kinds of
traffic trying to merge and go north from both. I see that being a
traffic issue. If it would be possible to consider having an
entrance off of Six Mile, that would possibly be something that
you should look at entertaining. I also am not too sure that
there's a real need for additional drugstores in the area. I can
go to six different drugstores from my house less than two miles
away. So is it in the best interests of the City of Livonia to
development another drugstore? I mean that's something we
can't really answer. I don't really see the need for it. If we can
possibly expand the office facilities that are just directly west of
that parcel would be something that I think would be worth
looking into.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Seeing no one else coming
forward, I'm going to close the public hearing at this point. Mr.
Amann, did you have anything else before we proceed?
Mr. Amann: Just briefly, in response to his comment. Its an excellent insight
into the potential traffic issues. It is our intent and hope to try
and have an entrance off of Six and Newburgh, and the overall
hope is that traffic, which now travels through other parts of the
City creafing traffic in other areas, will not have to do that. It will
be closer to home. So we think overall in the general
consideration will alleviate some of the existing traffic issues.
That's it. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Sir, I closed the public hearing but please, if you want to come
up, you're welcome to.
Mr. Schoenborn: If I could regarding the entrance off of Six Mile. The reason we
came back here this time, and I don't know if it's appropriate to
bring this up, but when the Red Robin restaurant was put in,
one of our stipulations was, and we were given a verbal
agreement that there would be an entrance. They would do
everything possible to get an entrance off of Six Mile into that
restaurant. And that's been open for almost two years now and
we keep getting put off. Yeah, we're trying, we're trying, and
nothing is being done. And the additional traffic that has come
through out sub since Red Robin has opened up is enormous.
22675
It has created a problem at the Laurel Park entrance off of Six
Mile. The traffic there is .. you've got them coming from all
directions. And all I'm saying is, its one thing to say, yeah, we'll
try to get it, but when we develop it, nothing is done. So can it
be stipulated that if we do that, it must have an entrance off of
Six Mile?
Mr. Walsh:
We're not able to stipulate that because we don't have the
authority to peril it. The petitioner is certainly here listening as
we are. Assuming this passes for rezoning purposes, when we
go the site plan, what we would be asking the petitioner is to be
as far along as possible as they can be. That would be a county
decision. Is that right, Mark? Six Mile is a county road?
Mr. Taormina :
That would be a decision ultimately that rests with Wayne
County, but I can tell you that in our early discussions with the
petitioner regarding the development of this site, it is much to
their advantage to have curb access or driveway access to Six
Mile Road. So I think they're going to do everything they can to
see that is fulfilled. It makes sense for the redevelopment of the
site to have that access.
Mr. Walsh:
So we will have this discussion in our record. They have
certainly heard it. I'm making an assumption that this passes
tonight. We'll see a site plan and we'll ask them to be as far
along as they can be in that process as possible. So that I'm
certain you and your neighbors will want to return at that point
when we have some more information.
Mr. Schoenbom:
Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
A motion is in order.
Mr. Morrow :
Based on what we've heard, we can amend the petition from a
C-2 to the C-1 because of less intense use. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina :
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow :
So I would like to note that it will be from OS to G7 and based
on that, I'd like to make an approving resolution.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
#10-07-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 11, 2005, on
Petition 2005-08-01-08, submitted by Agree Limited Partnership
22676
requesting to rezone the property at 17001 Newburgh Road,
located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile
Road and Mallory Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 from
OS to G2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2005-08-01-08, as amended, be
approved so as to rezone this property to C-1, for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning to O7 is consistent
with the existing zoning on other properties in the vicinity of
the Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road intersection;
2. That the proposed change of zoning to C-1 will not be
detrimental to the surrounding land uses in the area; and
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
additional commercial services in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. 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 2005-08-01-09 LEO SOAVE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
08-01-09,
00508-01-09, submitted by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc.
requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
Newburgh Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from PL and RUF to R-1 and PL to
RUF.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence for the record?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence from the Engineering
Division. The first item is, dated August 23, 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. However, we wish to
22677
make the petitioner aware of the fact that the storm sewer
facilities in Newburgh Road, in accordance with an agreement
between the Cities of Livonia and Westland, are very restricted
in their use. A greater degree of detention or a sewer extension
maybe required in conjunction with this development. No right-
of-way is required. Storm water detention will be required in
accordance with Wayne County's storm water management
ordinance. Provided are legal descriptions for the proposed
rezoning for areas from RUF to R-1, PL to R-1 and RUF to R-1.
It was also noted that the legal description of the overall
resulting parcel had several bearings that were incorrectly
rotated 900." The second letter providing additional information
is dated September 12, 2005, which reads as follows: 'The
following legal description for parcel B2 is correct and can be
used for the rezoning from PL to RUF." Both letters are signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
William Roskelly, Basney and Smith, 33177 Schoolcmft, Livonia, Michigan
48150. Represenfing Leo Soave, who is present. I would like
to first point out that Mr. Soave originally purchased whafs
called the Crosswind Court site, the most northerly site. He's
had that in his possession for quite some time. In dealing with
the Livonia Public Schools for the last 15 to 18 years, I worked
very close with them to find sites for their career center,
technical center, to build homes. I think I was involved in the
last maybe 15 or 20 homes, which would have been 15 or 20
years. At this specific point in the coming year, this semester,
they have the last site that they now own. So in the process of
Mr. Soave owning the contiguous land to the north, we solicited
the school and requested that perhaps they'd be interested in
the sale of the parcel thafs known as Livonia Public Schools,
just directly west of the new frontage on Newburgh Road. It
was agreed at this time that in the event we would gel the
rezoning, that the Livonia Public Schools would gel a minimum
of five complete lots with water, sewer, etc., etc., and they would
proceed to build homes. They, in fad, always build ranch
homes, and they would then have at least five sites, and
perhaps a couple more if we work out something else in the
future. We would manage to speak to the gentleman who fronts
on Newburgh Road, the smaller parcel, and he's agreed, as Mr.
Taormina very nicely explained all these little parcels and so on,
so that we, in tum, would have a complete road as the drawing
shows going directly into the property and then there would be a
22678
cul-de-sac. I think this specific one. As you can see, we then go
to the north because at that point there are still two or three
other parcels that perhaps would be developed in the future. I
do understand that a certain individual has certain rights for that
and have solicited Mr. Soave to purchase them at this time to
continue this immediate development. I submit to you that
rather than getting involved in trying to negotiate this system
that was put together by third party purchase agreements for
these other three parcels, I submit that at this time, I would like
the approval of this specific site as R7, and by virtue of the
approach that I have to the north, the public road, it certainly
wouldn't in any way stymie future development of the land to the
north. Mr. Soave in the past year had many (mes attempted to
purchase the lands that have now been signed over to a third
person. I would implore you that I think this site, helping the
school with their sites, along with having at lead 30 more
citizens in this city, and we would hope to gel R-1 simply
because prices of homes are so high now. We have to come in
with something thafs available for the average citizen who could
come and live in Livonia and perhaps bring two or three more
children to the school. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Roskelly, that parcel where Lot 1 is, is that the parcel that
you're buying the 25 feel from? First let me ask you, what do
you need the 25 feel for?
Mr. Roskelly: What happened is, as you can see, if we would not have
received that 25 feet, we would have had b jog the land, and
the parcels that we now have as Lots 28, 29, 30 and 31, would
not have had the depth. They would have been squashed down
to about 100 feet. Therefore, it was not a nice site and we
would have had to tum one to have it on Newburgh Road. By
virtue of giving the gentlemen an additional 60 feel in lieu of the
25 feel, along with other considerations, we've now been able to
have the road come down straight. Otherwise, it would be
coming in this direction, and then we'd have to jog over, and we
would have had about three or four lots that would have been
only about 100 feel deep.
Mr. LaPine: Is there only one entrance and one exit out of this sub?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. La Pine: Where doesthe fire trucktumaround?
22679
Mr. Roskelly:
He has that.... if you want to call it a cul-de-sac or an eyebrow
right around Lots 11, 12 and 13. That's a 60 fool ...
Mr. LaPine:
Does the fire truck have to back out?
Mr. Roskelly:
No. That's an adequate radius to turn. Its a 60 fool radius.
Mr. LaPine:
Say Lot 31 is on fire and they drive up to 31 and then after the
fire is out, how does he gel out of there? Back out?
Mr. Roskelly:
He can either back up or he can come all the way through here
and turnaround in that cul-de-sac.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. All right.
Mr. Roskelly:
It has a 60 fool radius and adequate for your most recent
equipment.
Ms. Smiley:
You're in agreement so the Livonia Public Schools will build five
ofthose 31 homes?
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes. If I may, the advantage to that is that normally speaking
through the years, the instructor has to take his vehicle, drive
over to the site with all the tools, etc., and then they have the
problem of maybe 20-30 cars coming in and parlang in and
about that construction site. With this mind, bey think this is
wonderful. In fact, theyre hoping that perhaps Mr. Soave will
sell them a couple more so that rather than five years, maybe
have seven years or eight years because now the students can
walk over. The instructor can walk over and he does not have
to gel his tools put together, bring the truck over. It will be there.
Ms. Smiley:
So they're going to build one house a year?
Mr. Roskelly:
One house a year is what they've been doing for the last 15
years.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You are, I'm sure, aware that another petitioner is proposing to
rezone the lots just north of Mr. Soave's parcel to R-1?
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Which is going to result in about 60 new home sites for our city
in this particular area. May I encourage your developments,
yours and the new petitioner, which I dont know if you're a part
ofthat.
22680
Mr. Roskelly: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think Walkon is going to be the pefifioner of that.
Mr. Roskelly: I dont believe so. I think it's another party.
Mr. Piercecchi: May I encourage you, sir, that you do your development in
harmony. I encourage coordination for your package and the
one north, especially with respect to open space requirements.
You're going to have 60 units there, and I think you should
reflect in your site plans open space requirements. Thank you.
Mr. Roskelly: Through the Chair if I may answer that. I think in this specific
case, in view of the fad when you look at the land that the
school has to the south, there is a very humongous amount of
open space. In fad, Mr. Soave has agreed, if this goes through,
that he will do some grading and clean up that old ball field in
that area, and that would be an open space that will always
exist. So I personally believe that in tandem with the schools . .
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Taormina, can you pont to that area on the map?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I think the area that Mr. Roskelly is referring to when he
says the old ball field is this area here. You can actually see the
diamond right here. The yellow Ine represents the boundary of
the site that he is interested in developing. The balance of the
school properly is this parcel here, directly to the south.
Mr. Roskelly:
That is vacant.
Mr. Taormina:
And then this is the actual school building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is that where you're talking about making open space?
Mr. Roskelly:
I'm suggesting that I believe I can have complete density in the
form of 31 or 32 lots simply because directly to the south is land
owned by the school that will remain open space.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you talking about Lot 9280?
Mr. Roskelly:
Site 9280?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, he is.
22681
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thats where you're going to stub into that area for the five sites
for the school to build, right?
Mr. Roskelly :
No.
Mr. Piercecchi:
No?
Mr. Roskelly:
I'm going north to stub, which is the other petitioner. We're
accommodating the other petitioner.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That's how you're abutting with Walkon?
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes, whoever that is. Mr. Schafer.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The school land is 9280 and that is right there.
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes, right there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thalwill always be open space?
Mr. Roskelly:
The only thing that possibly could happen ...
Mr. LaPine:
The school could sell it.
Mr. Roskelly:
No, I don't think they will. I think what could possibly happen,
they will keep that as open space. Perhaps Mr. Soave may
solicit them to put underground storm water in that area, which
would still affect a complete open space for the rest of time. But
that's something we have to negotiate with the school. We've
talked about it, but we're not to that point yet.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Can I be assured? I feel very strong about having open space,
especially when you have 60 houses kind of in a small area. In
about 15 acres, we have 60 houses.
Mr. Roskelly:
I think I will address to the point that we have 30 lots or 31, and
we are configuous to the parcel that we are purchasing from the
school, who has the open space that I'm sure would commit that
as to remain open space. So I think this specific project is
willing to give you or have certain open spaces to equal what
you're asking for. Perhaps the developer to the north could also
reciprocate with open space, but I feel what we're trying to do
here would be more than adequate with the school to the south,
along with the church to the south and east. It's a lot of open
space there too.
22682
Mr. Piercecchi:
Would it be loo much, sir, to ask when you submit your site
plans to kind of show that even if It's in a separate little package,
what you would call good potential open space for the residents
of your 31 lots. I was hoping to get Schafer's stuff into the open
space bracket.
Mr. Roskelly:
There was a certain communication that was received by Mr.
Soave indicating that the purchase agreement was received by
this individual but he, in tum, was more than happy to solicit and
have Mr. Soave buy the land at certainly a higher price. In my
opinion, I don't believe we should be hamstrung for what we're
doing at this time because I think the real key here is that the
Livonia Schools will benefit a heck of a lot more by virtue of
what we're trying to do as well as the City of Livonia, by
confinuing to have that open space. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Roskelly, do you happen to know if the petitioner to the
north owns any other land beside the two adjacent parcels?
Mr. Roskelly:
I can't formally indicate to you that he owns anything, but in my
understanding, he has, I believe, a purchase agreement on the
Sickel site, which is three sites, 0.75, 1.75, 1.76, and another
parcel that fronts on Newburgh Road in the name of David and
Paula While for 3.02 acres. Now it's my opinion, I've seen no
documentation, but I understand that's what Mr. Schafer has
options on.
Mr. Shane:
The reason I asked that was, it doesn't appear that the two sites
to the north would have the proper width to have an ideal
subdivision.
Mr. Roskelly:
I think they would. I think they're both about 160 feel, which
would give you 320, a road for 60 would give you 120 feel.
Mr. Shane:
I was referring to the immediate parcels to the north. It looked
like they're about the same width as your parcel but maybe a
little less.
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes, they are. One parcel wouldn't do. They would need the
next two, which in fact they have, but they don't have that long
one fronting on Newburgh.
Mr.Shane:
Right.
Mr. Roskelly:
That's cored. Yes.
22683
Mr. Shane: That's why I asked the question because I was a little wonied
about having just a narrow piece lett over there.
Mr. Roskelly: Well, I think then, you remember just to the north of that is a
piece that's owned by the City of Livonia, south of the multiple.
Perhaps at some given time that might be available to lie into
this great master plan, but I really implore you, would you
please look at what we've submitted, along with the open
spaces that we're offering. And I think it should not be in
tandem. We are allowing a future row to that area, and I hope
we don eget tied into a master plan forthe entire section.
Mr. Shane:
I was only asking those questions to make sure there was a
plan that would work.
Mr. Roskelly:
I think it would work with two sets of plans or even if it was ... if
they didn't gel that site directly to the north of us that faces on
Newburgh Road, you would have lots on one side and then you
could be in and have similar to what we're trying to do.
Mr.Shane:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
I agree with Mr. Roskelly. I don't see any reason trying to be
them up because it sounds like the properly is going to be going
relatively shortly anyway. I'd like to see it developed by one
developer as opposed to two, but you folks will have to work
that out as it relates to the open space. I think we got a little bit
more than we bargained for. You're kind of ahead of us on the
open space requirement, particularly with Mr. Soave saying he
might do a little grading in there to upgrade it, and it would be a
nice play area for the residents. In site checking that area, I
think we've got some of the nicest R1 development. Is that
Stonehouse that's there?
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes, we did that subdivision for, in fad, Mr. Schafer when he
was with Phoenix Land.
Mr. Morrow:
Bulthose are very nice homes, very well done, and we certainly
hope you folks continue in that vein.
Mr. Roskelly:
I'm sure with Mr. Soave building, it would be something the city
could be proud of.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou.
22684
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing,
none, is there anybody in the audience fiat wishes to speak for
or against this petition?
Mark J. Suddendorf, 9129 Newburgh Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. 1 guess
there's two sides of this coin. One is, and I probably speak for
most of the residents, and we do hale to lose most of the open
space there and the woodlands. On the other side of the coin,
the woods is dying pretty rapidly. There's many kids of all ages
wandering through there with trees falling left and right. Its
quite a hazard. And the matter of the school property, many
times in the past years, we've had or I've come across adults
parking in cars back there having various types of sex going on,
which, you know, obviously a school is not having 100% control
of their property, which you know, I dont want to sell them short,
but this type of activity isn't good. And we've also had high
school students, which we tried to control in the church
woodlands there. You know, we've had alcohol and drug
problems in there and sex with the high school kids. We're
trying to curb that, but I believe the development would also
curb that type of activity in there where people can actually see
into the woods there and probably drive the kids out even more,
but definitely something has to be done with the woods. It is
dying quite quickly. f the project does get approved, there are
some concems of my own. One would be the sidewalk. This is
going to be a public road I understand. On my north property,
I'm the southern property owner there, 9129. I'm told there
would be a sidewalk there along my north property line. I don't
really believe that would be necessary. I'm not going to tell you
you can't do it. I'm just saying that for one, if there's high school
kids going to school, they're going to go through my back
property, through the church and over to school. If there's
grade school kids that are going to go, lheyre going to pick up
the bus down at the corner or maybe even another location
within the subdivision. I'm really just trying to get away from
putting a sidewalk in there. I have no problem with moving the
grass, and my snow blower will even go through the grass if I
have the energy, but I just don't think there's a need for a
sidewalk.
Mr. Wash: Sir, just so you understand, tonight we wont be voting on that.
Tonight would only be zoning. If it does pass, then we would
ask the petitioner to come back with a specific site plan. And
that's just so you understand. That's when we would cover that
type of an issue.
22685
Mr. Suddendort.
Okay. That's fine.
Mr. Walsh:
Was there anything else that you wanted to share with us?
Mr. Sudddendort.
I guess the only other things I'm concems about ... some of the
lots will be empty for a while during development. I would hope
that they would throw in some cheap rye grass to keep the dust
down during the development phase of the subdivision because
it would all obviously blow into my house. That's one other
concern. One other concem, we are losing a lot of trees. I'd
hope the developer would insist that the people purchasing the
property would develop it and put in some hardy trees back into
the subdivision that would make a difference. And that's all I
have.
Mr. Walsh:
And those kinds of things, again, the trees, we would see in the
site plan so we'd have a chance to comment on that.
Mr. Suddendort.
Okay. Thank you
Tom Kasmier,
9228 Stonehouse. My property is adjacent to the proposed
housing development. I purchased my property because of the
natural environment and the athletic field surrounded by the
beauty of the woods. Therefore, I'm against the proposed
development. In addition, I believe that Livonia should be
creating more athletic fields, not more homes. These fields are
used for soccer in the fall and the spring, as well as a baseball
diamond. They try to use it, although it's not kept up very well.
But this area is all being used by our youth. I think we need our
children to get out of the house, away from the televisions and
video games. The mental and physical benefits of outside
athletics are very important to our youth. The camaraderie of
working together as a team and communicating with each other
is very important in the development of a caning and productive
citizen. So I think we should not go through with this and keep
the field opens and even maintain them a little bit better. Thank
you.
Joan Strong, 9219 Newburgh, the property just north of the proposed
development. I have no intentions of selling my property. They
are coming in and surrounding me on three sides to try and get
me out. I dont Inow where all this traffic is going to go. Right
now I can't gel in and out of my driveway because of traffic,
Churchill High School, the legion hall, the car show. People
wont lel me out of the end of my driveway. I will sit at the end
of my driveway for five minutes. I can't make a left into my
22686
driveway from the left tum lane. I can't make a right or a left
trying to get out of my own driveway, and you're going to put in
31 more houses on one side of me and how many more are you
going to put on the acreage you're going to get? I have no
intention of selling out. I worked my entire life on that property,
for 12 years. I have a beautiful house that I put every dime I
had and every musde I had into it and now I'm slowly getting
forced out. My diildren are grown. I can finally sit back and
relax and enjoy my property. The woods behind me is a nice
peaceful setting, and now I'm getting forced out. The traffic is
just unbearable. And I have to look at all the backyards up
against mine? I spend hours and hours in my garden, keeping
my lawn up, and now I'm going to have to look at that? If
they're not going to keep their lawns up, what am I going to
have to look al? Where does the beauty of all this private
property go? We need the school. I hear the band practice
every day, Churchill High School. They practice at the Teaming
center, the career center. They play football, soccer, everything
back there. Where are these kids going to go? They're going to
come into my backyard. I've already had them in my backyard.
I have a nice beautiful open space. I just dont see the need for
... I can see a few houses. The woods are deteriorating. They
are falling down. They're old. But why so many houses? Why
do you have to stack them in there so tight? Where is the traffic
going go? I was up at quarter to seven this morning, and the
traffic was backed up. It's still dark outside, but the traffic is
backed up on Newburgh Road, and you're going to put in all
those houses. More people going to work, more people going
to school. There are accidents every day because of all the
confusion. The road just can't handle the traffic it has now. I
just wanted to say that. I'm very opposed to it. What little bit of
open land we do have left in the city. I just see no need to
develop everything. Larger lots would be better, less traffic.
Include the sub by all means but don't just close it in with as
many houses you could possible ft in a small area. I dont see
why thal'snecessary. Thank you.
Barbara Bieke, 9296 Stonehouse. I've had 11'Ayears of a wonderful view of a
wooded lot behind my house, and I knew that this day would
come and I'd be very unhappy. I'm glad that the students might
have a few more houses that they can build lots on. However, I
lived through the four years of their building one house, year
after year after year, across the street from me. I don't know if
Mr. Roskelly knows which lots may be assigned to the students,
but I would be interested in knowing that before this is done
because I will have another four or five years of one after the
22687
David Newman, 9172 Stonehouse. When I first moved into the subdivision there,
which was back in 1994, all the lots backing onto that open
space were charged a premium because of the availability of
the open space and the natural area. This proposed
development is using up a lot of that area. My children enjoy
playing in there. They often go for walks with their grandfather in
the woods to the north, which are some nice old trees. is not
falling apart as some people may be saying, I dont think. Its an
old woods. That's the nature of an old woods. There is city
owned land, I believe, to the north of the other proposed
development, and it would seem to make a lot more sense to
use some of that as part of a combined development, leaving a
much larger open space, especially given that you're proposing
on the order of 60 to 70 hew houses here, and they also then
allow all the, you know, potentially at the entrance not even go
on to %wburgh for either of those developments because you
would have a much larger area to come in and the City could
then own a portion of the trees. We actually would have some
other after the other behind me of construction. I would request,
if possible, to have those lots on the main parts of the street that
aren't backing up to anybody, if that's at all possible, and I
would hope that maybe this could be tabled for tonight until the
property to the north of us is settled as to what's going to be
done with it so all of this can be done at one time, rather than
doing it on a piecemeal fashion. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Perhaps you could put the map up and Mr. Roskelly could
answer that question. The school sites as proposed?
Mr. Roskelly:
If we could have that map. It originally was indicated that they
would have Lots 1 through 5 or certainly none of the ... it would
not have anything to do with Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. That's the
area that would be continuous to the backyard of these people.
It would not be any of those lots. It would be on the land that is
contiguous to the school site, somewhere in that area. I would
say between Lots 1 and 9 or Lots 1 and 8. We originally
thought of 1 to 5 because of the school property or the church
properly. Perhaps the school is only contiguous to Lots 4, 5, 6,
7, 8 and maybe that's where they'll be. But they would not be
on the extreme area that would be back against hers.
Ms. Bieke:
I'd also like to say that it was a nice thought that the students
would be able to just walk over there. I have to tell you that they
couldn't walk over to Stonehouse from the school when they
were there. They brought their cars everyday. Thank you.
David Newman, 9172 Stonehouse. When I first moved into the subdivision there,
which was back in 1994, all the lots backing onto that open
space were charged a premium because of the availability of
the open space and the natural area. This proposed
development is using up a lot of that area. My children enjoy
playing in there. They often go for walks with their grandfather in
the woods to the north, which are some nice old trees. is not
falling apart as some people may be saying, I dont think. Its an
old woods. That's the nature of an old woods. There is city
owned land, I believe, to the north of the other proposed
development, and it would seem to make a lot more sense to
use some of that as part of a combined development, leaving a
much larger open space, especially given that you're proposing
on the order of 60 to 70 hew houses here, and they also then
allow all the, you know, potentially at the entrance not even go
on to %wburgh for either of those developments because you
would have a much larger area to come in and the City could
then own a portion of the trees. We actually would have some
ryrxlt
nice old growth trees along the outside edge of the open space
which would provide a much nicer, natural area for the
community. I'm also somewhat concerned with the length,
number of years, which ongoing development is proposed for
that. I know on our street, we ended up having no parking signs
during school days had to be put on there because it was
dangerous to the children because of all the cars from the
career center parking there. So it would seem that this would
become a concem then also in this area here, particularly if
there's seven to eight years of development. I also wonder,
based upon the justification of being near the career center, it
would seem that a lot of the open space in our area would be
threatened over the long term because there's only so much
open space lett, and it will always be, well, this is closest to the
career center. Theyve already built a lot of houses in that area
so there isn't that much open space that will be lett and just
seems it will continue that way. Also, for a number of years the
local school has been threatened for closure, and I wonder how
that will come into effect with this proposed development. It
really seems there needs to be a much more comprehensive
plan, not only for the two developments, but also in conjunction
with the demographics committee for the Livonia School Board
as to where these children will actually be going to school. I
think that's all I have to say for now.
Ed Sweda, 9184 Stonehouse. My properly isn't directly adjacent to the
development so I don't have a strict ulterior motive for being
here. There are two issues on this. I've heard a couple
commissioners speak about open space and how valuable it is,
but yet you're considering taking exactly that issue away,
reducing the open space that we have there. The property as
Tom had mentioned is used for sports activity. Unless they
change it, you're putting the homes right in the outfield of the
baseball field, so I don't want to put much weight into that offer
that was made by the developer. In that area, I've seen a lot of
the kids play. I cant speak to what Mark had brought up about
the activities going on in the woods, but I've seen a lot of kids
and the families enjoy that area, as well as many of the other
residents, not just immediately adjacent to that property, but
from the whole neighborhood. I'm surprised more of them aren't
out here to mention that. One of the other items, we mentioned
the benefits to the school here. I agree with the lady about the
kids driving there. There's no way the kids are going to walk a
quarter of a mile for that class. That convenience is far, far
oversold. Additional, the teacher is still going to have to drive
his tmdc there with the tools. The benefits to the school, I
22689
believe, are short lived because of a budget cnsis now. You're
giving them a little taste of candy. Here they can sell this
property now. They get these five lots for the next five years to
build these homes on. They have this other property. I don't
believe the schools will commit to keeping that as open land. I
don't think you can ask them. They won't do that. So the
benefits for the school are far, far oversold. They're still able to
obtain scatter lots, develop the property, have the kids dnve
there, develop their skills. You dont need it so nearby. Thank
you.
Dennis Rommick: I'm a member of the Church of the Holy Spirt which is in the
south properly adjoining the property we're talking about. I
realize that you're looking at right now just zoning, not the site
plan, but one of the concems that we have is parking. We want
to make sure that if this is approved and the site plan goes
forward, that the kids understand they shouldn't be out in the
woods that we have, parking their cars or congregating in the
woods like that. The other concern that I have is, at one time,
we used to have a pond on our property where ducks, mallards,
a lot of the wild animals went to to feed off of for water. CVS
came in and built a stip mall complex and somehow the
underground spnng that fed that pond, got shut off. When they
come in and start developing this property, how is that going to
affect the woodlands? All the animals are going to only have
one place to go to now, and that's going to be our property. I
just want to make sure that we're not stnpped of any more
natural resources than what's tolerable. I'm not here to say
we're for or against, but we certainly would like more members
in our church and it has potential there, but these are things we
would like to have kept out in the open and developers keep in
mind.
Melanie West, 9240 Stonehouse. I've also been there over 11 years and have
really enjoyed the open spaces. When you were talking about
having open spaces, those are spaces that have been there for
a very long time. You're not giving back to any of us. You're
taking away. My other concern is, I know this is just the zoning,
but the six of us that actually touch base, because I'm going to
have a home right behind me, we all have gates to go out to that
field. Our children walk to Churchill High School. We play
football out there. We play baseball. We con our dogs. I would
like some concession if this does go through, maybe that there
would be some sort of an easement so that we could still get to
the south end of that public land, whatever is going to be lett,
because when we were told 11 years ago, that public land was
22690
always going to be there, and now we know that's it not. We're
just hoping thatwe can still have access to what is remaining.
Peter McCarthy, 9349 Eastwind, over in the Whispering Winds condominium
complex. Just a concem at this stage. We had moved into the
condo complex really enjoying the whole wooded environment
of it all and had been told at that time that that particular section
never would be touched, seemingly owned the City, and would
be left to develop. It seems that section by section, parcel by
parcel, we're seeing things change. I don't know how far the
development might go in that area, but just a concern that we
liked the whole concept of the wooded area and the peace and
our propertyjust backs up to our backyard. Even though its not
our property, it's the City of Livonia's property, but we still have
that environment of the open wooded area. And I dont know
what the future concems might be as to the properly being
sucked up and all disappearing. To leave it open and wooded
seems to be kind of like a nice environment to live in. We've
enjoyed that for the past three years and just a comment that
we'd like not to see everything sucked up around us.
Mr. Sudddendort. The only other thing I was going to mentioned was looking at
the Future Land Use Plan for Livonia, does call for the wooded
area to the north of the Sickels to potentially become 1-1 but it
also calls for the open area that's being proposed for rezoning
here to remain Public Lands. So I would really strongly urge
that you get the two developers to work together and maybe try
to be more consistent with the Future Land Use Plan that's
published by Livonia.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Roskelly, do you have anything else?
Mr. Roskelly: You've labored more than adequately. Thank you for your time.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
#10-08-2005 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on October 11, 2005, on
Petition 2005-08-01-09 submitted by Leo Soave Building
Company, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the
west side of Newburgh Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor
Trail in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from PL and RUF to R-1
and PL to RUF, City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-08-01-09 be
approved for the following reasons:
22691
1. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with the lots in the immediately
adjacent subdivision to the west;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in
the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single
family residential development similar in density to what is
existing in the neighboring area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is not inconsistent
with the land use recommendations of the Future Land Use
Plan; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning district occurring on
adjacent subject property to the west.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. This condudes the public hearing portion of this
meeting. We will now proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan
section of our agenda. Members of the audience may speak in
support or opposition to these items. Will the Secretary please
read the next item?
ITEM #4 PETITION 2005-08-0846 LIVONIA MANOR
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
08-08-16
00508-08-16 submitted by Soave Building Company, on behalf of
Livonia Manor Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of
the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
a condominium development on properties located at 31540,
31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast %of
Section 3.
Mr. Miller: This petition involves a request to develop the 'Livonia Manor
Site Condominiums' project on property located on the north
22692
side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road and
Auburndale Avenue. This property is in the process of being
rezoned (Pet. 05-06-01-04) from RUFB (Rural Urban Farm) to
R-1 (One Family Residential). The Planning Commission, after
holding a public hearing on July 12, 2005, recommended
approving the requested rezoning. Following a public hearing,
the City Council gave First Reading on the requested rezoning
at its September 14, 2005, Regular Meeting. Second Reading
and a Roll Call Vote are scheduled at the time the site plan is
presented to the Council for action. Review of this petition is
based on the assumption that the property will be rezoned to R-
1. Livonia Manor would be made up of 26 units that would front
on a proposed new street. The street's right -0f --way would be
50 feel in width rather than the standard 60 feel. The new street
would extend approximately 650 feet north from Seven Mile
Road and would then tum towards the west and terminate at the
west boundary of the subject project. An R-1 zoning district
requires each lot to have a minimum land area of 7,200 square
feel, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, and a minimum lot depth of
120 feet. All the proposed condominium lots of Livonia Manor
meet or exceed these lot size requirements. The site plan
shows a 30 -fool wide greenbelt along the development's Seven
Mile Road frontage. A 40 -fool wide easement along the entire
easterly boundary of the development would be created in order
to handle stone water detention.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated September 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. The legal description
for the development is incomplete. Sixty feet of right-of-way is
required for the north one-half of Seven Mile Road as shown on
the plan. The plan indicates an area for storm water detention
facilities, which will be required in accordance with Wayne
County's storm water management ordinance. The street
approach to Seven Mile Road will require a permit from Wayne
County." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated September 9, 2005, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to construct a site condominium development on
properties located at the above -referenced addresses. We
have no objections to this proposal with the following
22693
stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and
located with spacing consistent with residential areas. Most
remote hydrant shall Flow a minimum of 1,000 GPM with a
residual pressure of 20 PSI. (2) The division requests that the
entrance drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane - No
Parking.' (3) An approved turnaround for fire apparatus shall be
provided where an access mad is a dead end and is in excess
of 150 feet in length. The turnaround shall have a minimum
centerline radius of 55 feet. The authority having jurisdiction
shall approve the grade, surface and location of the fire lane.
(4) T or Y turnaround arrangements shall be permitted. (5) Fire
lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the
words 'Fire Lane - No Parking' painted in contrasting colors at a
size and spacing approved by the authority have jurisdiction."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 30,
2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in
connection with a proposal by Livonia Manor Site
Condominiums located at 31540, 31560 and 31640 Seven Mile
Road. We have no objections or recommendations to the plans
as submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Stuct, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated September 15, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of August 25, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) There is no open recreational area dedicated to this
development, 18,720 square feet would be required. (2) The
subdivision sign must go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
location and exceeding 5 feet in height. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner, Mr. Soave.
Leo Soave, 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Thank you very
much. I'd just like to add that all these lots are over 10,000
square feet which, as you know, in normal Rl zoning, lots are
7,200 square feet. The property is going to be serviced by all
utilities, which is sanitary, water and storm sewer. These
options are going to be two story, 55% brick; on a single story,
80% brick. The houses will sell for about $275,000 or so. The
property is going to be serviced by a county road, and as far as
rezoning, we connect with the adjoining property owners to the
north that all the lots and houses on the east and west street are
22694
going to be ranch style homes. I'll answer your questions.
Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Soave, according to the Inspection Department, there's
supposed to be 18,720 square feet of recreational area. Can
you tell me where that's located on the plan?
Mr. Soave: We'd like the Planning Commission and the Council to waive
the open space requirement. These are big lots. Some of
these lots are 80' by 180', 175'. We'd like to ask the Planning
Commission to waive the open space requirement.
Mr.
LaPine:
Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.
Morrow:
I have in my notes that on the two story, not less than, did you
say 55% or 65%?
Mr.
Soave:
I'm sorry, sir. I don't understand the question.
Mr.
Morrow:
The brick on the two-story, what was the percentage on that?
My notes say 65%.
Mr.
Soave:
That's my mistake. Itwould be 65% brick.
Mr.
Morrow:
I wantto make sure that it's all righlwilh you.
Mr.
Soave:
That's agreed, sir. Sixty-five percent it is.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. I thought you said 55%.
Mr.
Soave:
Thank you. That's my mistake.
Mr. Piercecchi: That was a good comment by Commissioner Morrow because,
Mr. Soave, on page 8, you list it as 55%. We'll change it to
65%. 1 just wanted to lel you know that.
Mr. Soave: All right. Thankyou, sir.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions. All right, seeing none, is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
item? Seeing no one come forward, is there anything else, Mr.
Soave?
Mr. Soave: That's it, sir. Thank you very much.
22695
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and approved, it was
#10-09-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-08-08-16,
submitted by Soave Building Company, on behalf of Livonia
Manor Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master
Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
condominium development on properties located at 31540,
31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast %of
Section 3, be approved subject to the waiving of the open space
requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the
following conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances, and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, except for the fact the following shall be
incorporated:
- That the first floor of each condominium unit shall be
brick or stone, on all four (4) sides, and the total amount
of brick or stone on each two-story unit shall not be less
than 650/6 and not less than 80% on one-story
dwellings;
- That the brick used in construction would be full face,
four (4")inch brick;
- Thai all exterior chimneys shall be brick;
2. That streetlights shall be installed throughout the
development to the satisfaction of the Engineering
Department;
3. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set
forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail
and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements;
4. That the petitioner shall induce language in the Master
Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument
22696
wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the
City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred
for the storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities,
and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on
each lot owner's property proreta and place said charges
on their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are
not paid by the condominium association (or each lot
owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of
Livonia;
5. That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. 1 dated August 1,
2005, prepared by Engineering Services, Inc., is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That a fully detailed Landscape Plan for the 30 fool wide
greenbelt easement along Seven Mile Road shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for
their review and approval;
7. That an Entrance Marker shown on the site plan is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fad that
the height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feel;
8. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
9. That the petitioner shall cored to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
September 9, 2005:
10. That the Site Plan referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and
11. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit anc/or surely bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Arlide XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development.
22697
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Pieroecchi, Shane, Morrow, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES: La Pine
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Soave: Could I get a seven day waiver because my one opportunity is
being diminished. I have to get the road in this winter if the
Council approves this.
Mr. Walsh: I did have a discussion with Mr. Soave prior to our hearing on
September 20, and at my request, he agreed to be heard today.
I told him that we would bring this matter to a vote.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and approved, it was
#10-100-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Artide VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the
seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning
Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 200508-08-
16, submitted by Soave Building Company, on behalf of Livonia
Manor Site Condominiums, requesting approval of the Master
Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
condominium development on properties located at 31540,
31560 and 31640 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast %of
Section 3.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Smiley, Shane, Pieroecchi, Walsh
NAYES: LaPine
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Alanskas
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
22698
ITEM #5 PETITION 2005-05-0840 STEVE'S FAMILY DINING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
05-08-10,
00505-08-10, submitted by Steve's Family Dining requesting
approval of a landscape plan as required by Council Resolution
318-05 for the property located at 15800 Middlebell Road in the
Southwest%of Section 13.
Mr. Miller: On June 20, 2005, Steve's Family Restaurant received site plan
approval to construct additions and renovate the exterior of the
restaurant located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road
and Broadmoor Avenue. As part of the approval, it was
conditioned that a "Landscape Plan shall be submitted within
sixty (60) days of this approval for the review and approval of
the Planning Commission and City Council" The plan shows
that the main focus of the site's ornamental landscaping would
be planted up near and around the foundation of the building. A
ten (10') fool wide planting bed would showcase the front of the
restaurant. This area would be planted with a few small trees
and low-lying shrubs. A row of bushes would be arranged along
the entire south (Broadmoor Avenue) side of the building. A
landscape island would be established around the ground sign
that is located in front of the restaurant. In order not to obstruct
the graphics of the identification sign, the ground cover around
the base would consist of an assortment of low-lying plants.
The rest of the landscaping for the site would generally be in the
form of a few existing trees and grass.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated September 16, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 7, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
There is nothing mentioned at the rear of the property nor along
the north property line in regards to landscaping. There are
weeds and wild growth. It is unclear if all the landscaped areas
are irrigated. These items should be addressed to the
Commission's and/or Council's satisfaction. This Department
has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow: Do we have a percentage worked outfor this plan?
22699
Mr. Miller:
It's over 15 percent.
Mr. Morrow:
So it meets or exceeds the ordinance?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Danny Nedanovski, 18245 Manor Lane. I'm representing Steve's Family Dining.
The weeds and all that has been removed. All the sod has
been removed. We do have irrigation plans; irrigation will be put
in prior to the sod being installed. The landscape has been
started. I have pictures if you'd like me to bring them over if you
guys wantto see them as far as the design. It's been started.
Mr. Walsh:
If you want to start with Mr. Piercecchi, he will pass them along
to the rest of us.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, while we're looking at the pictures, you are
representing the restaurant. What is your capacity with them?
Mr. Nedanovski:
Part owner.
Mr. Morrow:
Pardon?
Mr. Nedanovski:
Owner.
Mr. Morrow:
You're part owner?
Mr. Nedanovski:
Right.
Mr. Morrow:
Or you are the owner?
Mr. Nedanovski:
Part owner.
Mr. Morrow
Okay. How is business so far? We're all rooting for you.
Mr. Nedanovski:
We haven't opened yet.
Mr. Morrow:
Oh, you haven't opened.
22700
Mr. Nedanovski:
No.
Mr. Morrow:
Oh. Okay. Because I know you've been there quite some time.
I figured by now you'd be opened.
Mr. Nedanovski:
A lot of remodeling, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, would you like to announce a grand opening date?
Mr. Nedanovski:
We're hoping sometime at the end of November, beginning
December.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Well, we wish you well when you do open.
Mr. Nedanovski:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
What is the square footage of that sign?
Mr. Nedanovski:
Of the sign?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes.
Mr. Nedanovski:
I'm not sure. I think it's five foot. I'm not positive. That's just a
temporary sign right now. We haven't put up a sign yet.
That's
just a banner for coming soon.
Mr. Miller:
We approved a 30 square fool ground sign.
Mr. Nedanovski:
I wasn't positive on it. That's just a temporary banner for right
now.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? A motion would be in order then.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, 0
was
#10-101-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of a
landscape
plan, submitted by Steve's Family Dining, in
connection
with Petition 2005-0508-10, which previously
received site plan approval by the City Council on June 20,
2005 (Council Resolution #318-05), to construct additions and
renovate the exterior of the restaurant located at 15800
Middlebelt Road, on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road
22701
and Broadmoor Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, be
approved subjectlolhe following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan dated May 16, 2005, prepared by
Cedar Legends Landscaping, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
6. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#318-05 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are
not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley:
You've done a nice job with the outside. What I've seen so far
is very nice.
Mr. Nedanovski:
Thankyou.
Ms. Smiley:
I like your brick pavers and you've done a lot of work there. It's
obvious.
Mr. Nedanovski:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh:
Any other discussion? I'd like to echo that. I do look forward to
your grand opening someday.
Mr. Nedanovski:
We'll lel you know when we're ready.
22702
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#6 PETITION2005-07-0843 BYBLOS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2905-
07-08-13.
70507-08-13. submitted by Byblos General Contracting Company
requesting approval of a landscape plan as required by Council
Resolution 439-05 for the property located at 29355 Six Mile
Road in the Northwest %of Section 13.
Mr. Miller: On August 31, 2005, Byblos General Contracting Company
received site plan approval to construct a multi -tenant
commercial building on property located on the southeast corner
of Six Mile Road and Middlebelt Road. As part of the approval it
was conditioned 'that a fully detailed landscape plan shall be
submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council within 60 days following approval of this petition by the
City Council." The proposed plan is very similar to the
landscape plan that was submitted with the original petition.
The landscaping for this site is still generally confined to the
outer edges of the property. Ten (10') foot wide greenbelts
would be developed along the east, west and south property
lines. An eight (8') foot wide greenbelt would be established
along the Six Mile Road frontage. The only difference is a
landscape bumpout, measuring 13 feet wide by 26 feet in
depth, extending along the west side of the drive off Six Mile
Road and the planting of additional plant materials, similar to
what is proposed along the Middlebelt Road right-of-way, has
been integrated along the Six Mile Road frontage. The
landscaping provided covers 16% of the site which meets the
required landscaping of not less than 15% of the total site.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated September 16, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 7, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The figures on the left side of sheet beneath shrub planting
detail should be ignored and/or removed. (2) The drive between
the building and dumpster still does not meet the required 22
feet. (3) Then; does not appear to be a ramp by the east
handicapped parking. (4) It is not clear if then; is the required 5
22703
feet wide/deep walk at each main door entry. (5) This site will
be limited to 1,711 square feet of assembly use due to the
parking being 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. Chairman, I think those were comments
that were specific to the site plan that was reviewed
approximately a month ago. It has little bearing on the issue at
hand this evening, which is review of the landscape plan.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is the petitioner here this evening? I don't think so.
In any event, we can proceed. Are there any comments or
questions? I know the petitioner has done all that we had
asked. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-102-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of a
landscape plan submitted by Byblos General Contracting
Company, in connection with Petition 2005-07-08-13, which
previously received site plan approval by the City Council on
August 31, 2005 (Council Resolution #439-05), to construct a
mulfi-tenant commercial building on property located at 29355
Six Mile Road, on the southeast comer of Six Mile and
Middlebell Roads in the Northwest % of Section 13, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan dated October 2, 2005, as
revised, prepared by Byblos General Contracting
Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and,
22704
6. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#439-05 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are
not in conflict with the foregoing conditions.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. I do want to say that the petitioner proved to be very
cooperative.
Mr. Piercecchi: He certain was. He's a jewel to work with.
Mr. Walsh: Absolutely.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2005 -09 -SN -08 COLDWATER CREEK
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2705-
09Sh408 by Intercity Neon, on behalf of Coldwater Creek,
requesting approval br signage for one of the units of the Laurel
Park Place Mall located at 37700 Six Mile Road in the
Southeast%of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: The applicant is requesting approval for an exterior wall sign for
one of the units of the Laurel Park Place Mall. Laurel Park
Place is located on the north side of Six Mile Road between
Newburgh Road and Laurel Park Drive. The proposed sign
would be positioned over Coldwater Creek's distinct entrance
located on the east elevation of the regional shopping center,
facing Newburgh Road. The sign would be 57 square feel in
size. Gooseneck lamps located over the lettering would
illuminate the sign. Because the proposed wall sign is in excess
of what is permitted by the sign ordinance, the applicant would
be required to be granted a variance by the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated September 22, 2005, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 16, 2005, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
This Petition must also go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
this signage. As this is a regional shopping center, their
signage would not be allowed and requires a grant from the
22705
Zoning Board of Appeals. 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. Morrow:
Was there ever any discussion on how long those lights would
be on?
Mr. Miller:
No. I think we might have it in our conditions. If we do, we
usually put one hour after closing.
Mr. Morrow:
I know that Talbot's has a sign. I don't know if that's Id or not. I
think we should condition it someway.
Mr. LaPine:
Just one question. Maybe Mark can answer this. When I went
out there and checked this, I didn't notice any other signs on the
building that have gooseneck lighting. They are either back lit
or internally It. Idont particularly like that gooseneck hanging
down. Do you know for sure if there's anything like that?
Mr. Taormina:
Within the City?
Mr. LaPine:
No. Within the Laurel Park shopping center.
Mr. Taormina:
I can't think of any off the top of my head. I think we had some
lighting for the canopies at the California Pizza Kitchen if I
remember correctly.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm talking about stncdy ...
Mr. Taormina:
No. I'm just referring to the lighting on the canopies. The
signage over there is internally illuminated, so this might
be the
only application at the mall for that purpose.
Mr. LaPine:
I think it takes away from the mall. Now, are we still working on
this temporary sign? Is this still a temporary sign that he wants
to put up by a certain date?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe the sign that has been installed is, although it's only
been approved
on a temporary basis pending the outcome of
this review,
it is, for all intents and purposes, a permanent sign
that would remain if approved.
Mr. LaPine:
Did we approve the temporary sign or is this the first time we're
seeing this?
22708
Mr. Taormina: This is the first time you're seeing it. It was approved on a
temporary basis by the City.
Mr. La Pine:
Quite frankly, if we were just approving it tonight on a temporary
basis, I would object to the gooseneck coming down,
overhanging. This takes away, in my opinion, from the center.
We have nothing like that in the center that I could see when I
was out there. I might be wrong. Maybe I missed something.
That's all I have to say.
Mr. Morrow;
Can I see the sign one more time?
Mr. LaPine:
You've got a light that shines down over the sign.
Mr. Morrow:
Are all the little dots above it, are those the lights?
Mr. Miller:
Yes. These are going to be the goosenecks.
Mr. Morrow:
I just wanted to see it again because I hadn't picked up on that
before.
Mr. Shane:
Is the petitioner here?
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner in the audience?
Walter Schaefer, Intercity Neon, 23920 Amber, Warren, M 148089.
Mr. Shane:
I just wondered if you had considered another way of lighting
thesesigns? I dont know if you heard this discussion or not.
Mr. Schaefer:
Basically, it's either illuminated or not illuminated. They chose
to go with the non -illuminated letters and then light them from
above. This was in their original design.
Mr. Shane:
If I'm not mistaken, the majority, if not all, of the exterior signs
are not lit at all or are internally illuminated. I agree with the
comments I heard that maybe we ought to stick with that if
possible. Is that a problem?
Mr. Schaefer:
Right now, when they put the opening in, they installed the
lighting figuring that there wouldn't be any problem. But if
something comes up and you don't approve that and they have
to change it, theyll change it.
Mr. Morrow:
So the lighting is already there?
22707
Mr. Schaefer:
Yes, it is.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that some kind of a corporate -type of identity of the sign?
Mr. Schaefer:
I'm not sure. They just ship it into us, the signage, and we
install it. I have a picture showing it with the lighting with the
sign installed if you care to look at it. The sign is basically
permanent, but it was put up on a temporary basis. If this is not
approved, it will be removed.
Mr. Shane:
I guess I was asking you whether or not the electric work that
has been done there, can that be modified without a lot of
trouble?
Mr. Schaefer:
The electric work has been done.
Mr. Shane:
Could that be modified without .. I mean could you ....
Mr. Schaefer:
Well, it wouldn't be an easy job, no.
Mr. Taormina:
The letters themselves were not fabricated to allow for the
internal illumination. Those would all have to be replaced.
Mr. Schaefer:
Correct, yes. The letters themselves are made out of one inch
thick plastic and cut out and sanded and painted and
everything. They are not intended to be illuminated, other than
externally illuminated.
Mr. Shane:
So you would have to replace the whole thing.
Mr. Schaefer:
The whole thing would have to be completely redone. Yes.
Mr. Morrow :
I guess what we're seeing .. . you had temporary approval.
You must have built it to the temporary approval specifications.
Mr. Schaefer:
Correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Schaefer:
I think with the lighting like that, we're starting to see more and
more of this coming in. There's a lot of it done in Birmingham.
They don't like the face lit signs. They like to see the
goosenecks. So it's just an architectural feature really.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thankyou.
22708
Mr. Walsh: Any other questions or comments?
Mr. Pieroecchi: This looks fine to me.
Mr. Walsh: Seeing none, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Mor ow, seconded by Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-103-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-09SN-08 by
Intercity Neon, on behalf of Coldwater Creek, requesting
approval for signage for one of the units of the Laurel Park
Place Mall located at 37700 Six Mile Road in the Southeast %of
Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Intercity Neon, as
received by the Planning Commission on September 15,
2005, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this unit including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
3. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
4. That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business doses;
5. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section
of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item
section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at
length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Will the Secretary please read the next
item?
22709
ITEM #8 PETITION 2005-07-0844 JAMES TOWNE CONDOS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
07-08-14,
00507-08-14, submitted by Southeastern Michigan Management
Company, on behalf of James Towne Condominiums,
requesting approval of the Master Deed, bylaws and site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a condominium
development on properties located at 27480 and 27486 Five
Mile Road in the Southeast W Section 13.
Mr. Miller: This item was tabled at the August 23, 2005, Regular Meeting.
The Planning Commission wanted a chance to review plans that
included carports. This condominium development consists of
16 stacked units. It is a two-story building with eight units on
each floor. The new site plan shows covered carports located
directly behind or on the north side of the building. These
carports would be divided into two groupings of four parlang
spaces each, separated by a 10' fool wide walkway. The
roofline of the structures would be just over 7' feel in height.
Carports would be only offered for the rear condominiums. The
eight south or front condominium units would not be provided
any type of vehide shelters.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: No. All of the correspondence was read at the previous
hearing on this matter.
Mr. Walsh: Before we proceed further, I'll need a motion to remove this
from the table.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#10-104-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-07-08-14 submitted by
Southeastern Michigan Management Company, on behalf of
James Towne Condominiums, requesting approval of the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
a condominium development on properties located at 27480
and 27486 Five Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 13, be
removed from the table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
22710
John Mahn, Southeastern Michigan Management Company, 42705 Grand River,
Novi, Michigan 48375. Excuse me. I'm a little under the
weather. I'm here on behalf of Southeastern Michigan
Management and representing Albert and Alice Iafrate.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: In looking through your Master Deed for the condos, I haven't
been able to locale the amount of brick that is going to be
utilized on this facility, and I notice that the motion that the staff
prepared just states that the first floor of the building shall be of
brick or stone. Are you going to have the first floor completely in
brick?
Mr.
Mahn:
Yes.
Mr.
LaPine:
This has been a long, drawn
out
thing as you
well know.
Mr. Mahn: Amen.
Mr. LaPine: I'm just curious about one thing. I was hoping when you came
in that we would have had a carport for each of the 16 units. I
understand that you have eight. But my question to you is this,
if you find, once you start leasing or selling these units, and
individuals want carports, is there a way you can build additional
ones if people want them?
Mr. Mahn: Is there a way?
Mr. LaPine: I mean, can you do that if the demand is there for additional
ones?
Mr. Mahn: We always try to accommodate our customers, but then again,
we're sort of, I believe, married to this site plan as it sits.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Well, you can always come back and get a...
Mr. Mahn: We could do that.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: If there are no other questions, a motion is in order.
22711
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#10-105-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-07-08-14 submitted by
Southeastern Michigan Management Company, on behalf of
James Towne Condominiums, requesting approval of the
Master Deed, bylaws and site plan required by Section 18.62 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct
a condominium development on properties located at 27480
and 27486 Five Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 13, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Master Deed and bylaws complies with the
requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title
16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the Livonia Code of Ordinance,
and Article XX, Section 20.01-20.06 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, except for the fact the following shall be
incorporated:
- That the first floor of the building shall be brick or stone,
on all four (4) sides, and the total amount of brick or
stone on the second story shall not be less than 65%;
- That all exterior chimneys shall be brick;
- That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face
four(4)inch brick;
2. In the event of a conflict between the provisions set forth in
the Master Deed and bylaws and the requirements set
forth in the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as
amended, the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall prevail
and petitioner shall comply with the Zoning Ordinance
requirements;
That the petitioner shall induce language in the Master
Deed and bylaws or a separate recordable instrument
wherein the condominium association shall reimburse the
City of Livonia for any maintenance or repair costs incurred
for the storm water detention/retention and outlet facilities,
and giving the City of Livonia the right to impose liens on
each lot owners properly proreta and place said charges
on their real estate tax bills in the event said charges are
not paid by the condominium association (or each lot
owner) within thirty (30) days of billing for the City of
Livonia;
22712
4. That all required cash deposits, certified checks,
irrevocable bank letters of credit and/or surely bonds which
shall be established by the City Engineer pursuant to
Article XVIII of Ordinance No. 543, Section 18.66 of the
ordinance, shall be deposited with the City prior to the
issuance of engineering permits for this site condominium
development;
5. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated August 25, 2005,
as revised, prepared by Arpee/Donnan, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
6. That the Landscape Plan marked LP -1 dated August 30,
2005, as revised, prepared by Nagy & Associates, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7. That the Elevation Plans, dated June 27, 2005, prepared
by R. G. Myers and Associates, Inc., Architect, are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
8. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
9. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
10. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the items outlined in the correspondence dated
August 9, 2005:
13. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
building setback and any conditions related thereto; and
22713
14. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: If we could include a condition which references the approval of
the elevation plans as submitted by R. G. Myers and
Associates, Inc., Architect, and that would be plans dated June
27, 2005.
Mr. Walsh: Is that acceptable to the maker and supporter?
Ms. Smiley: That's totally acceptable.
Mr. LaPine: It's acceptable to me.
Mr. Walsh: Then the motion stands as amended. Would the Secretary
please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, LaPine, Pieroecchi, Morrow, Walsh
NAYES:
Shane
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Alanskas
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Mahn:
I have one question. The verbiage for the City billing the co-
owners or the condominium owners, that verbiage, could the
Law Department supply that boiler plate to us?
Mr. Walsh:
Is that possible? Yes. Mr. Taormina says that possible. I
believe, Mark, if you wouldn't mind speaking with the Law
Department or at least putting Mr. Mahn in touch with them.
Mr. Taormina:
That's no problem.
Mr. Walsh:
That would be great. We can do that.
Mr. Mahn:
Thankyou.
22714
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 914" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 11, 2005, was adjourned at 945
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman