HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-04-0423163
MINUTES OF THE 923rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 4, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 923d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall,
33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William La Pine R. Lee Morrow
H. G. Shane Carol A. Smiley John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge
Watson, Program Supervisor; were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their 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 oflhe proceedings tonight.
Mr. Walsh: For those of you who follow the Planning Commission, you'll
notice that Mr. Pieroecchfs name was not read. You might
have seen in the newspaper that he has brought to conclusion
his 12 years of service on the Planning Commission. On behalf
of my colleagues, I want to take this opportunity to publicly
thank Dan for all of his service. We've prepared a letter that we
will be sending to him and I'm going to read into the record this
evening. And it reads: "Dear Dan, It is with great honor that we
salute your service as a member of the Livonia Planning
Commission. Your service since July 11, 1994, through March
24, 2006, was marked by dedication to the City and its
residents. We appreciated your careful analysis, knowing that
you spent much time visiting locations throughout the City as
231M
you collected facts and the opinions of those impacted by the
proposed change. We thank you for your years of public
service and friendship." The letter is signed by the entire
Planning Commission and our staff. Dan, if you're watching,
congratulations to you and I hope you will enjoy your evening.
ITEM#1 PETITION 2006-02-01-01 DILIP DEY
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first dem on the agenda, Petition 2006-02-
01-01, submitted by Dilip Del, R.P.T. requesting to rezone the
property at 29945 and 29929 Six Mile Road, located on the
south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Avenue and
Middlebell Road in the Northeast % of Section 14, from RUFA to
OS and P.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated February 27, 2006, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have the following
comments. The legal descriptions are not correct. We have
revised them below. The drive approach to Six Mile Road will
require a permit from Wayne County and the detention basin will
require approval in accordance with their Storm Water
Management Ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger. Ifs just about across the street from that 1-3.
When this program came up, we were looking for pieces of
property around the city to develop and come up with an office
similar to what we got. It might have been a little fatter, but we
looked at a lot of sites. We couldn't seem to find anything that
might work.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Gallagher, can you bring the mike a little closer to your
mouth please?
Mr. Gallagher: Okay. Anyways, we found this site and I look a look at this site
and we talked it all over and it wasn't making d in anything else.
23165
We didn't really need 31/2acres, but in doing what we're doing
here, we need to get rid of a lot of storm and standing water
behind our property, and we can tum this delemon area into a
pond to support all that water from the people behind us. It will
be a nice feature for us, and in the same token, @ will give us a
nice looking building, a nice looking parking lot. We're away
from most of the homes in the back. The fencing that goes back
behind our building can be masonry. It can be whatever the
neighbors want to put back there. That pond would probably
have to be fenced unless it's real sleep. We don't expect it to
be real steep, but it will drain the water from adjoining properties
into that pond before it goes out into Bell Creek.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. La Pine:
I have a number of questions. Are there going to be any
plantings or a berm or anything between your property line and
the doctors office that is a129927?
Mr. Gallagher:
Is there any bene?
Mr. La Pine:
Anything that's going to separate them.
Mr. Gallagher:
There's a little berm up front.
Mr. La Pine:
I'm nollalking up front. I'm talking along the sides.
Mr. Gallagher:
Oh. No, we haven't planned on any berms there. We've got to
lake all that brush and stuff out of there. It's pretty junky back
there. We'll plant some plantings in there.
Mr. La Pine:
Because I talked to the doctor. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Chairman, if I may, he claims he did not get a notice of this
case. He got a notice for the one to the east, the single lot, but
not this one. But anyways, and by the way, for the record, they
indicated that they were opposed to this proposal.
But
anyways, going on, on the east side, you show parking.
Mr. Gallagher:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
They're marked 18 feet. They're supposed to be 20 fool
spaces. Ten by 20 foot, that's parking.
Mr. Gallagher:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
On here, you've got 18 feel.
Mr. Gallagher:
It can be 18 up against a curb.
23166
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, but you only have 10 feel between your property line and .
.. so you're saying you're going to overhang the curb. Is that
right?
Mr. Gallagher:
If necessary, but that can still be adjusted.
Mr. LaPine:
Where did you pick up the space because you've got a 20 foot
drive.
Mr. Gallagher:
That 24 fool wide driveway, right.
Mr. LaPine:
Right. And you have 15 feel on the other side. Whats the
width ofthe building?
Mr. Gallagher:
The building is 52 feel wide.
Mr. LaPine:
The other question I have is, and you brought it up and the
dentist brought it up about this pond back here. Is that going to
be fenced in?
Mr. Gallagher:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
It will be fenced in?
Mr. Gallagher:
It has to be fenced in.
Mr. LaPine:
You indicated that one of the things you like about this, you're
going to be able to drain all the water from the surrounding
properly behind you. Is that what you're telling me?
Mr. Gallagher:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Now, isn't it true that all the proposals we have for residential
basically would have had to do the same thing? If they were to
build homes there, they would have had to make sure all the
water drains into a stone water pond. Is that correct?
Mr. Gallagher:
They should. They have to do something with R.
Mr. LaPine:
So when residential goes to OS, the same thing would have to
happen? They'd have to take care of the water.
Mr. Gallagher:
Well, @ won't be anything as nice as that.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, we don't know that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Bad, on you here on behalf of the petitioner?
23167
Sam Baki, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan. Yes, just on some of the
technical answers Mr. LaPine is asking. I have answers for the
questions he's asking. Lel me introduce myself, Sam Baki.
Mr. Morrow: I just dont want to gel loo carded away with the site plan. This
is azoning issue.
Mr. Walsh: Right.
Mr. Morrow: I don't want to get too deep.
Mr. Baki: No, I wasn't going to. Just a small technical answer, quick. I'm
assisting the petitioner on this, especially as a developer in the
city and as a civil engineer. I do a lot of my designs and the
drainage issues. I did walk the property over the weekend. I
did knock on . . . talk to some homeowners, some of the
neighbors. The property to the west and to south and part of
the property on this has a lot of standing water. The drainage,
even with a catch basin on the southwest corner, is not getting
anywhere because you need to supply more catch basins
behind almost every other house, or even almost every house,
to make sure the drainage goes. The design. There's plenty of
question if it's residential has to be resolved true, but the
problem with the residential, if five homes go in there, the road
is going to take more, so the detention has to be bigger. So this
size of the detention they're showing right now, its way
oversized for this site. This detention size that they're showing
on the plan to accommodate the neighbors more than just the
building itself. If you put residential with a road, you're losing
more area and then houses in the back, you can't put a big
detention in the back to accommodate the neighbors. So we'll
have issues with water even if you do it residential. That's why
nobody did it because it's hard to do with the limited size and
width you have and the neighboring property elevation wise for
drainage purposes.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. LaPine, before we go to Mr. Shane, do you have any follow-
up questions?
Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Baki, it isn't that the developers didn't want to develop
this in residential. Mr. Soave came here two or three times with
two or three different proposals. He wanted R-1. We didn't
want R-1. If we would have went for R-1, he would have
developed residential homes. So what you're saying here really
doesn't hold water with me because he wanted more than . .
we wanted a higher classification of zoning in there than he
wanted to give us. The one plan that was proposed by Mr.
23168
Raymond C. Hurley, we approved. Council approved it and he
decided for whatever reason he didn't want to develop the
properly. As far as I'm concerned, that's what we should have
stuck with and that's what we should stick with today.
Mr. Baki: Okay. I understand. That's why I'm saying, . prohibitive.
That's why it didn't go through as RUF. That's the only reason.
Because you have to put in detention and to do that you're
going to lose a large space so he wouldn't be able to put the
houses in as designed. That's why they didn't do the project.
That's why it sat there and that's why it's still silting.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, but they came in with a proposal for five homes. He must
have known what he was doing or they wouldn't have come in
and made the proposal.
Mr. Baki:
Not, apparently, when they checked with Wayne County's
requirement and that's one of the reasons.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't want to get into a debate with you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Shane:
I have a question for the staff. Mr. Taormina, for the record,
what does the Future Land Use Map forecast for this particular
piece of properly?
Mr. Taormina:
I'll show the Future Land Use Plan on the overhead. The
subject property is shown as Low Density Residential on the
Future Land Use Plan. The area shown in purple is the extent
oflhe planned Office District within the area.
Mr. Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions, Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane:
Not at this time.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions for the petitioner before we go to
the audience? Mr. Gallagher, thank you. We're going to go to
audience participation at this point. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
James Gibson, 16978 Oporto. Good evening. I am just west of the proposed
site. Starting with Mr. La Pine's question, I have some photos
here with the amount of water that's really there. Even though
that petition went through with five homes, one of the homes
was going to be five bet off my property line because they so
developed it, so it was a side yard. I have over three feet of
23169
water in my backyard if you'd like to look at these pictures. This
was caused by building and backfilling in the area. These
pictures go back to 1984. I'm happy to see they're going to put
in that big of a detention pond. I still have a real concern they
will be able to gel rid of the water. In 1977, 1 approached the
City about trying to relieve the water, and they told me we could
run a drain, a French drain, from the east portion of my properly
to Oporto and put in a drain. They came out and they shot it
and they looked at the fall, and there was less than six inches of
gravity feed to gel the water off the back of my property. I'm
sorry to say I sold my properly to a builder in Livonia that was
not respectable or honest. He put his plans through Livonia and
he was building one of the first wolmanized homes in Livonia
with a wood basement. The City was gracious enough to allow
him to continue to build once he hit water and that raised his
house five fool over my house. What that did was shed all the
water from his property to my property. I talked to Engineering
and they said we're going to put in a French drain. And that
was the terminology Mr. Gallagher used to me. When the
French drain was installed to the south of me, I watched it go
from the east side at a low to a crown and back down. The man
that ended up with the home, the way his sump pump works, he
first has to backfill east before he can drain west. And that was
the case when we called the engineers out. They said, oh, its
loo late. There's nothing we can do. Well, I want to make sure
today when we do this that everything Mr. Gallagher is talking
about and the other gentleman is taking about, getting rid of the
water, really happens. I could pass these pictures around. I
showed them to H.
Mr. Walsh: Please do
Mr. Gibson: Okay. These are real pictures. They're dated on the back. Its
not something that's made up. Its a true problem and it's
caused by illegal land filling. The home to the south of me, on a
Friday night, they brought in 35 dump trucks full of dirt and filled
the backyard. I was told I could not backfill my yard, that it was
illegal to shed water to the south or to the east or to the west.
And only because I believe in the law, I never tried to do it. So I
still live in a swamp. And I'm hoping Mr. Gallagher is saying the
truth. He mentioned he might have to put one or two beehives
in along each properly. That's possibly true. When you built the
four homes on Munger, was it three or four that was built across
from your house? Two? They made them put in a beehive at
the back of the property which is right on the comer. I tired to
gel the City at my expense to lap into it, and they said, no.
You'll kill every tree along your easterly border. If you go back
there now, every tree is almost dead from drowning. The water
23170
is that deep. The only solution there is, is for proper drainage.
And I don't know how we can gel proper drainage unless these
gentlemen are really willing to do it. The doctor who claims, Mr.
LaPine, knows nothing about this building, he has no drainage
in his whole parking lot. Everything drains either to the west or
to the south. According to Mr. Gallagher, he refused to tie into
drainage. That gentleman is trying to blow some smoke around
here if he doesn't want another doctor's office. Excuse my
language. He is the culprit as far as water shedding to the west
and to the south, but there's nothing he could do. I just drove by
and I looked at the walls. Supposedly the Inspection
Department is supposed to inspect. I know they inspect
churches because I manage a church. They come out and they
inspect everything, but I don't see them inspecting the walls.
These walls behind the houses on Munger are falling apart. If
you drive in off of Six Mile and you look at the walls, someone
has to be responsible for maintaining the wall. Now, I have the
feeling Mr. Gallagher doesn't want to put up a concrete wall.
And at first I was opposed to it because, believe it or not, those
parking lots are full of cars at 1:00, 2:00 in the morning, and you
see their headlights. You can see the parking lot if you look ...
I know the pictures but, I'm a good 600 feel from the doctors
offices, and every night we have cars in those parking lots, 1:00,
2:00 in the morning, with their headlights shining due west.
There's nothing I can do about that. With this next petition, I'm
going to have a parking lot 10 feet off the back of my lot. Now
he talked about wanting to put up a plastic fence. My one
neighbor, I don't want no plastic fence. I don't think I want a
concrete wall either. The one thing I do want, and the only thing
I want, is to get some relief to get rid of the water. Both
gentleman have said that they're going to be able to do this.
Well, I know the City asked for a bond, and I've kiddingly said to
Mr. Gallagher, I'd like to have a bond in my name. If there's no
water, I'll give the money back. But I've been lied to or
deceived loo many times by people in the right position. I think
I've said enough right now. If there's any questions you have
for me, I'd be more than glad to try to share with you. I'm not an
engineer. I'm a common sense person. When I say I manage a
church, our building department now, since 1977, I've been at
this one church in Livonia, and since we've laid off ... we have
more inspectors now than we do ever. I dont mind paying $50
for an inspection. I think all the inspectors that come out do a
good job. I with the inspectors were inspecting the building
behind Munger and looking at the fence. Some of the walls ...
I went behind one person's house and the wall is caving out
from the amount of water going through the four fool fooling.
And Mrs. Henderson has documentation when they requested
the wall because the doctors on Six Mile did not want to put up
231]1
a retaining wall. And because we had the right people in the
right positions, the retaining wall helped to stop the water from
migrating south. But I don't think at that time anyone asked
them to put any catch basins in or any way to get rid of the
water.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Gibson, one thing I'd like to point out, and I appreciate your
comments, I'm allowing this so it can go into the record. We will
decide in terms of the rezoning tonight and eventually a site
plan issue. We don't have engineering assistance at this body.
If this proceeds with an approval or denial, the City Engineer will
be able to opine as to drainage issues, and then Wayne County
also has to be involved. So I want people to understand, we are
going to hear your comments on drainage. Its not part of our
authority to say that it's going to drain properly or not. That's
held by the Council, but I do want to lel this into the record
because they do read it. And as it progresses, you'll be able to
have more information. I just dont want you think when we sit
here, we're not responding.
Mr. Gibson:
I've watched many Channel 8 station meetings, and I recognize
all of your faces, and I know where you live. I think you're all in
Livonia. I think you're all up here doing what you think is right. I
dont condemn any of you for what you're doing. I believe the
doctor that called Mr. LaPine is not telling the truth.
Mr. Walsh:
We're not able to judge that.
Mr. Gibson:
Well, I can be because the mail doesn't lie. You know you sent
R out to him.
Mr. Walsh:
I can say for myself that it will have no bearing on my decision
whether he's here or not.
Mr. Gibson:
They didn't built the homes because technically I don't think
they could have been built back there with the amount of water
and no place to put it. As you see in those pictures, that water
isn't new. Its been there since 1984, actually before 1984.
Mr. Walsh:
We appreciate you bringing those in, and thank you for your
comments. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to
speak?
Nancy Reppke, 29900 Munger. Good evening. My property is directly east of
this proposed site. I too experience water problems, and as Mr.
Gibson had said. One of my questions, and maybe this isn't the
proper forum, would be the wall. There's a concrete wall that
runs on the west side of my property from north to south. Would
231]2
that wall remain? I would hope that it would because I like that
wall and I have documentation. I didn't bring it tonight because I
wasn't sure if it was the proper forum for it, for when that wall
did go up and it was because of the water problem at this
proposed site. And if my memory serves me right, I believe
there was a four foot foundation to that wall because of all the
water. That's just my concern. What will happen to the wall? I
would hope that it would stay. I do have a dog and it certainly
helps to contain him in my backyard, and I also like it for the
security. If there's going to be a parking lot over there, it would
help. Those are just my concerns and the water problem.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina, this petition would not affect the wall, would it?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe...
Ms. Reppke:
My lot is right there.
Mr. Taormina:
Your property is right here?
Ms. Reppke:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
And the wall that she is speaking of extends from this point
north to this northwest corner of her property. The ordinance
would require that the wall be maintained for at least that portion
of the property where it abuts the proposed parking district.
While the ordinance does not require a wall for the area that
abuts the RUF district, I see no reason why that wall would have
to be removed as part of any petition involving the development
of this property, other than possibly issues involving drainage.
To the extent that the wall might serve as an impediment to
proper drainage between these properties, then it might be
something to consider as far as altering the wall or removing it,
but I see no reason why it would otherwise have to be removed
as part of this petition to develop that site.
Ms. Reppke:
Who is responsible for maintaining those walls? Like I have one
behind my property also.
Mr. Taormina:
That wall was developed, I believe, in connection with the
development of these properties to the north. It has since been
split and sold, so the new owners of that property would be
responsible for the maintenance oflhe wall.
Ms. Reppke:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other comments or questions regarding this
petition?
23173
Cheryl McGuire, 29628 Munger. Listening to the people who live the closest to
this proposed development, I give their comments a lot of
weight. My only thought was that to extend the OS office distad
even further into a residential area on a long Tenn planning
basis is maybe not the best use of this properly. If there is as
much of a drainage problem back there as my neighbors say,
certainly that ought to be addressed, and it sounds like they're
almost looking at this as a godsend for them. I can relate to
that. Nevertheless, I would oppose the further encroachment of
the OS office district into a residential area. I think that you've
got a brand new home at 29977, a residential area across the
street, across Six Mile, and I would like to see it stay residential
if possible.
Dale Michelson, 29930 Munger. Good evening. My wife Diane and I live at
29930 Munger. We've been in this home for about three years
now so we're relatively new to this area. However, through
conversations and discussions with our neighbors, and we were
fortunate enough to attend the meeting several weeks ago to
learn more of this proposal. We're familiar with some of the
proposals for rezoning in past years and we appreciate that. I
think we all know that sooner or later we'll be looking at some
sort of development in that area. So we asked ourselves, on
the one hand, given the past proposals where condominiums
have been put into place, it's likely that we'd have mega -
structures looming over our backyard. And of course that's not
desirable. Like some of our other neighbors, we do have water
drainage concerns in our yard. Any options to alleviate that are
certainly worthy of consideration. I respect the fact that this
Commission has expressed concerns for residential
development. We all applaud that again. I don't see the
benefits to me if I have superstructures in my backyard. But
given what we know and given the prospect of development
somewhere down the line, based on what we know of this
project, our preference with a development like this, it seems to
be harmonious with both industrial and residential concerns. So
that's why I would give this my support at this time. My ultimate
preference would be to leave it as it is forever, but I dont think
that's the practical solution. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to
speak? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the
public hearing. Mr. Gallagher, we're going to proceed to ...
Mr. Gallagher: Do you want to see these?
231]4
Mr. Walsh: No, its really a zoning issue tonight. We'll see the site plans as
we move forward unless the Commission wishes to walk
through the site plans. We have a better idea tonight than we
did a week ago what you're proposing. We'll keep the
discussion as close as we can to zoning issues tonight. With
that, a motion would be in order unless there are any additional
questions or comments.
Mr. Alanskas: This is really a lough call. As we all know, in the past we've
tried to put residential in there and it hasn't come to be. I think
on this one particular piece of property that this new zoning
would be proper, so I will offer an approving resolution.
On a motion by Alanskas, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 4, 2006, on
Petition 2006-02-01-01, submitted by Dilip Dey, R.P.T.
requesting to rezone the property at 29945 and 29929 Six Mile
Road, located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Oporto Avenue and Middlebell Road in the Northeast I/ of
Section 14, from RUF to OS and P, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-
02-01-01 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
additional office uses to serve the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is complementary to
the OS zoning on adjacent properties fronfing on Six Mile
Road in the area to the east;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developed character of the Six Mile Road frontage
properties to the east; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a
transitional use to help buffer the adjoining residential
neighborhood from the nuisances emanating from the Six
Mile Road thoroughfare.
Mr. Walsh: Is there support? Is there support, calling again? Hearing no
support, the motion fails. Is there an alternate motion?
231]5
On a motion by Shane, seconded by La Pine, and adopted, it was
#04-40-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 4, 2006, on
Petition 2006-02-01-01, submitted by Dilip Dey, R.P.T.
requesting to rezone the property at 29945 and 29929 Six Mile
Road, located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Oporto Avenue and Middlebell Road in the Northeast I/ of
Section 14, from RUF to OS and P, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-
02-01-01 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the existing OS zoning along Six Mile Road in the
area to the west of Middlebelt Road adequately provides
for office uses in this area;
2. That there is no demonstrated need for additional office
services in this area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with
the Future Land Use Plan designa0on of low density
residential land use for the subject area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning would be detrimental
to the residentially zoned properties to the west and south;
and
5. That the proposed change of zoning would lend to
encourage future requests for similar zoning changes
along Six Mile Road in the areas to the west of the subject
property.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Yes. I'd just like to say I really sympathize with all the people
back there who have water problems, but the thing you have to
realize, no matter who develops this property, the Engineering
Department is going to insist that they be able to take care of
the water problems they have now. We have no control over
Engineering Department. We hope that they do their job and
they somehow come up with a solution for whoever develops
the property. But as Mr. Shane pointed out, I've been to that
area two or three times and checked behind the buildings.
There's office buildings behind office building up there. There's
more than enough office buildings in that area. And then it
bothers me that Jimmy's Rus0cs have closed across the street.
That kind of takes down from that area of town. So I believe
we're doing the right thing here. I think the right zoning for that
23176
area is residential, and, hopefully in the near future, we'll gel
residenlial in that area that somebody can come in and develop
R in such a way that we can get some nice homes and get some
young families in there and get some more young children going
to our school system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow: I'm going to support the motion. As Mr. LaPine said, I'm
sympathetic to the water concerns, but on a pure zoning issue,
it defies everything I've learned here to continue the change of
zoning to the west where it's currently abutting residential. The
whole site practically borders on residential. To me, its just
further encroachment, and I would like to hope that somewhere
down the line that it can be developed residential and cure the
water problems with the neighbors. I'm sympathetic to it but it
doesn't sway me to change my vote regarding the zoning.
Mr. Walsh: I just want to take this opportunity to indicate I'm going to vote
against this item. Had I not been chair, I would have supported
Mr. Alanskas' motion. It is a lough call. There's just no
question. I think that one of the neighbors indicated correctly
that development is inevitable at some point. We've been over
this a number of years. This is the plan I think that best fits the
needs for the City. I'm not deaf to the comments about office
encroachment, but I believe it's the best use for this property.
For that reason, I'll be voting against the denying resolution.
With that, would the Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, LaPine, Morrow, Smiley
NAYES: Alanskas, Walsh
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM#2 PETITION2006-02-01-02 BEVACQUA
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
02-01-02, submitted by Pietro Bevacqua of Bevacqua Building
Company requesting to rezone the property at 29965 Six Mile
Road, located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Oporto Avenue and Middlebell Road in the Northeast I/ of
Section 14, from RUF to OS.
23177
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated February 28, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
at this time and the legal description is comect. No additional
right-of-way is required. The drive approach to Six Mile Road
will require a permit from Wayne County and detention will be
required in accordance with their Storm Water Management
Ordinance." 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?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, the house just to the west, the brand new home on Six
Mile Road. Do you know which one I'm talking about? When
was that built, about three years ago?
Mr. Taormina:
I think two or three years ago. That's correct.
Mr. La Pine
Do you know what the value of that house is?
Mr. Taormina:
I do not, Mr. LaPine.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Baki, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan. I am here on behalf of the
pefitioner. There's an older house on this property that this sits
on at this time, and the intention was from day one to develop
this older house with the piece next door when the time comes.
As you guys heard, every time a petition next door comes in,
this comes in because always like they work together on the
same thing. This is one way to put a newer building instead of
the older house that sits there. The house that sits on that
properly right now is valued at about $100,000. The house next
door I think is valued around $250,000 - $275,000 for value. I
know some of the questions Iasi week when we had the study
was about the driveway. The driveway doesn't go all the way
around. There is landscaping in front of it. I don't know if
anybody checked on it from the newer home. We did talk to the
neighbor next door and we did talk to him about, like you heard
from the first item, the first petition, there is a water issue in the
23178
backyard on this property, on the neighbors properly, far west
as probably three more homes. The water is silting there and
it's all due to the piece next door that was denied. Part of that
property is high. The borderline is low and that's why the water
is silting there and it's not going anywhere and has no drainage
whatsoever, especially its clay. It's not going to go anywhere.
Its going to sit there and that's what's been creating most of the
problems on the homes next door. We talked to the neighbor.
He told us some concerns. He doesn't want the masonry wall.
He just put up a brand new plastic fence he wants to keep. He
likes it better. He only asked us if we can up it from four feel to
six feel. We agreed. We said not a problem. We can change
it. He did some in the front six feet but not the back. We
agreed and we told him we'd give him some landscaping. And
we're going to drain his backyard into ours into the other piece
next door, so we're still doing some drainage for them to help
them out in the front. And this, if you build a new house on this
lot, it would be around 2,000 - 2,200, almost like you're building
a house. I know you have a parking lot but that's what we're
doing. We're doing office. Mr. Bevacqua is going to be using it
as his own office He's renting right now in Livonia and he
wants to own his own building. He's owned this land for a while
and he wants to build his own office so he can move his
establishment there from Seven Mile where he's located at this
time.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? No
questions? I's a quiet group tonight. Then that will allow us to
go to the audience. Thank you, Mr. Baki. Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against this pefition?
Alan Crosswell, 29977 Six Mile. I live at 29977 Six Mile. That's the properly
that's adjacent to the lot that lheyre looking to develop. My
concerns, as mentioned before, is the standing water. It was
probably 20 percent of the properly in the back that I do have
standing water. The problem is that its there all year round. It
causes an increase in mosquitoes. So that's an issue. When I
moved into this properly two years ago, one of the reasons I
moved there was the fad that the other areas were being zoned
for residential. If this does go through, Sam pointed out some of
the changes I'm looking for if that happens. My concern is I'm
going to lose trees. I'm going to lose a view of greenery, and I
don't now how quiet its going to be. The biggest concern that
other people haven't brought out, what does it do to the value of
the housing of all the residents that are around there with more
commercial property coming in? No one here can answer that
question. I talked to a sales office here and they couldn't tell me
whether it was negative or positive. I talked to real estate
23179
agents. They say it's somewhat negative depending on what's
going to be put in there. So that's one of my concerns, is what
will the value be of my property and the other residents'
property? That's about it.
Mr. La Pine:
Are you in the new house?
Mr. Crosswell:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
And you prefer, I gather from your conversation, you would
prefer a nice residential home rather than an office building?
Mr. Crosswell:
Yes, but if progress happens, and progress does happen,
there's not a lot we can do about it. Then there's certain
changes that if this goes through that I would like to see done.
Mr. La Pine:
The problem I have, I'm in favor of residential because of the
fact once we rezone it OS, then somebody else goes on the
other side and says, oh, boy, we've got OS here. Why can't we
have another OS? And before we know it, we're moving west
with OS zoning, and that's why I'm more inclined to go along
with the residential.
Mr. Crosswell:
It creeps.
Mr. La Pine:
Right. It creeps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Crosswell. Is there anybody else in the
audience that wishes to speak on this item? Seeing no one
coming forward, I'm going to close the public hearing and a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by
La Pine, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-41-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 4, 2006, on
Petition 2006-02-01-02, submitted by Pietro Bevacqua of
Bevacqua Building Company requesting to rezone the property
at 29965 Six Mile Road, located on the south side of Six Mile
Road between Oporto Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the
Northeast % of Section 14, from RUF to OS, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Pefition 2006-02-01-02 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the existing OS zoning along Six Mile Road in the
area to the west of Middlebelt Road adequately provides
for office uses in this area;
23180
2. That there is no demonstrated need br additional office
services in this area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with
the Future Land Use Plan designation of low density
residential land use for the subject area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning would be detrimental
to the residentially zoned properties to the west and south;
and
5. That the proposed change of zoning would tend to
encourage future requests for similar zoning changes
along Six Mile Road in the areas to the west of the subject
property.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: I just want to make one comment. Notwithstanding what we're
hearing tonight on number one, what we're looking at tonight
based, on the current zoning, this would be spot zoning. Thank
you.
Mr. Alanskas: This petition is entirely different than the one we had earlier.
You're right next to a new home, and I think it should stay
residential. So I will be supporting the denying resolution.
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2006-02-02-04 URBAN INTERIORS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
02-02-04, submitted by Urban Interiors, LLC, requesting waiver
use approval to operate a second hand store (consignment
shop) in the Mem-Five shopping center, on property located on
the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and
Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
23181
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 1, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
at this time. No additional right-of-way is required. The legal
description of the area of the waiver use follows." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February
17, 2006, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a
second hand store (consignment shop) located on the north
side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Bainbridge
Avenue in the Southwest X of Section 14. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated March 15, 2006, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the plans in connection with Urban Interiors
located in the shopping plaza at 31190 Five Mile Road. We
have no objections or recommendations to the plans as
submitted." The letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated March 17, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of February 15, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The rear north drive at the west end needs repair. (2) The
concrete light pole bases, especially the ones south of 'Pat a
Cake' and one at the west property line are severely
deteriorated and need a structural evaluation along with a repair
or replacement. (3) Many dumpsters are unenclosed and
positioned in the northeast Cromer of the center near the
building. (4) Twelve news boxes are clustered in one location
and three (3) at anotherin the front of the main building. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Alleana Meltzer,
Urban Interiors, 14801 Greenbriar Court, Plymouth, Michigan
48170. I have to say I have a horrible fear of public speaking.
Mr. Walsh:
You're doing fine so far.
Ms. Meltzer:
Okay. All I've said is my name so far.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
23182
Ms. Meltzer:
Just that I hated the fact that they had to kind of lump me in with
consignment because its not what I really want to project. I
work for an interior design firm, and we get a lot of the custom
pieces from designers that have done show houses where you
have to custom design furniture that has to go into a model
home or a show house, and then once that's done, they are
pretty much lett with it. Some of these are very custom, wry
expensive pieces of furniture and that's kind of what I'm dealing
with than a lot of just kind of bad mattresses and old things, and
just kind of a stigma that sometimes goes along with
consignment or resale. That's basically it.
Mr. Morrow:
I notice here new home furnishings. You're going to do some
customer drapery and bedding, along with some hand painted
furniture and murals. Getting back to the consigned items,
which I think you've explained that there might be items that
have been used somewhere.
Ms. Meltzer:
The custom bedding and drapery, now, those are ...
Mr. Morrow:
I mean just the furniture.
Ms. Meltzer:
Only the furniture, lamps, any accessories, any of the bedding,
the drapery, the pillows, any personal items like that are custom
made for the clients to possibly match the pieces, custom
furniture that they purchase, but none of that is consigned.
Mr. Morrow:
So what percentage of your business would be, as we have it
down here, your upscale consigned furniture?
Ms. Meltzer:
Because its new to me, I don't really know. I would say 20 — 30
percent possibly. I think it depends. The reason I have to say
it's consignment because it actually was made for somebody
else even though it wasn't technically used by somebody else.
Because they're show homes, nobody sits in the chairs. Its just
so that when you lake the lour you go through and everything
looks great. It's not really used by anybody.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Would people come to you and say, I have a piece of
furniture I'd like to see you sell for me? Would that be an
option?
Ms. Meltzer:
It would but it would have to be something that would be
approved of. I don't know how to say this without being
offensive to anyone that does the other business, but I'm not in
for just lalling anything in to make money. It has to be
something that's just great looking or it was an antique or it was
a very expensive, very barely used piece of furniture.
23183
Mr. Morrow:
Something exceptional is what you're saying.
Ms. Meltzer:
Yes. I'm really not in to be just kind of like sort of a Salvation
Army. I really dont want to start that.
Mr. Morrow:
We're seeing a lot of these resale shops and its almost
becoming a collage industry in Livonia if we're not careful.
Ms. Meltzer:
I know. It kind of looks like a big garage sale inside because
they kind of start adding like lawn mowers and suitcases and it
just becomes ... and bad clothes. So that's why I'm just kind of
slicking to what I know and going with that.
Mr. Morrow:
And how many square feet is it again?
Ms. Meltzer:
I think it's 2,200 or 2,300.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Have you signed a lease yet?
Ms. Meltzer:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
You've signed a lease even though you know it's a waiver?
Ms. Meltzer:
Yes, because ... this sounds terrible. My mom had a business
that she started in Livonia 20 years ago, and I didn't realize that
you had to get a business license. I thought you just had to
apply for your sales tax license and my federal ID. I did not
even realize I had to do this. That's my own fault, but that's
why. I'm ahead of my game.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. I have a few questions if the properly owner is here
tonight, but that's it.
Mr. Alanskas: How long is your lease for?
Ms. Meltzer: Three years.
Mr. Alanskas: Three years. Okay. Now, this Urban Interiors. Is this the new
name of your business?
Ms. Meltzer: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: You've done this for what firm, what company?
23184
Ms. Meltzer:
I work for Alternate Interiors in Troy, Michigan, right now and
this business is new. We have a family business and we have a
costume rental business that we've had for 20 years.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because when this first came to our study, I was really against
another consignment shop because we do have quite a few,
you know, but ...
Ms. Meltzer:
They're everywhere.
Mr. Alanskas:
What you're saying is an enfirey different concept of something
different you want to be doing. You're saying these draperies
would be used and the bedding would be used that you'd be
getting in?
Ms. Meltzer:
No. Actually, its my sister ... because we do like all the
costuming, making costumes and stuff, she started doing this.
So she actually manufactures the drapes and the bedding. Just
for own my taste, that's kind of a personal item that I wouldn't
want to have you buy somebody else's. Your bedding is your
bedding. You dont want to have someone else's stuff.
Mr. Alanskas:
Being that its consignment, would this be, percentage -wise,
how much less would this be if somebody went to a store to buy
this new?
Ms. Meltzer:
I'm sorry. What are you asking me?
Mr. Alanskas:
This is a going to be consignment shop on say draperies and
bedding. The amount that you would sell for would be much
less if someone went to a store to buy it brand new.
Ms. Meltzer:
No, because the custom bedding and drapery is custom made
for you. The only thing that would be lesser priced is the
designer furniture because when you have to have something
custom designed, a piece of furniture, a chair can get into the
thousands of dollars, and then they can't use it anymore. So
you would be getting a piece of furniture that was once, say
$3,000, for probably half of that. The custom bedding and
drapery is going to be more costly because it's custom made for
you. Its to your specifications to match your home or your
bedroom. So that will be just the price that she charges. Its not
discounted in any way. It's probably actually a little bit more
than a store.
Mr. LaPine:
1, like Mr. Alanskas, when I first got this case, I see
consignment, I go, oh no, not another one in town. But I'm glad
that you clarified that. I do have a couple questions. Number
23185
Mr. LaPine: And the other question I have, I hope you did your background
check and you think this area is the right location for this
because, as you know, it sits far off Five Mile Road. It sits back
into the center with a lot of other stores and you've got all kinds
of signs competing with yours. And I don't think you can, quite
frankly, expect that just the traffic that comes into that shopping
center can sustain your operation there, and I just hope that you
did...
Ms. Meltzer: Well, my girlfriend, actually, she graduated U of M in marketing
so actually she's doing all that for free for me so it works out
great. But no, there's a lot of advertising involved because you
can't expect people to just happen upon you there.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. I have other questions but they're strictly for
the owner of the properly.
Mr. Walsh: Any other questions?
Mr. Shane: What gives me comfort about this is d sounds to be like there's
very little consignment going on here.
one, custom draperies — if somebody has a new home and
wants to get custom draperies, you do that. Is that correct?
Ms. Meltzer:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
What is one of a kind hand painted furniture? Whalis that?
Ms. Meltzer:
I have a lady that wants to work with me. Her daughter is a
childhood friend of my sisters. Her husband makes dressers,
chairs, very simple things, and she just paints the most beautiful
things. If you had a child's room and say you pick out bedding
or the bumpers that come with your crib, and you want your
furniture painted with that design, Winnie the Pooh, whatever,
she paints it on there. She does monograms of you children's
names on the things and she just does beautiful hand painted
furniture, and then she also ... if you've ever seen someone
who has a mural painted on their wall for whatever the theme of
your home is, she also does that.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Two more questions. If I understand what you said, your
mother or your sister or somebody has been in this type of
business before so you're not getting into something that you
don't know.
Ms. Meltzer:
Well, we have a costume rental business in Plymouth that we've
had for 20 years, so the manufacturing of things, no. They've
done, forever.
Mr. LaPine: And the other question I have, I hope you did your background
check and you think this area is the right location for this
because, as you know, it sits far off Five Mile Road. It sits back
into the center with a lot of other stores and you've got all kinds
of signs competing with yours. And I don't think you can, quite
frankly, expect that just the traffic that comes into that shopping
center can sustain your operation there, and I just hope that you
did...
Ms. Meltzer: Well, my girlfriend, actually, she graduated U of M in marketing
so actually she's doing all that for free for me so it works out
great. But no, there's a lot of advertising involved because you
can't expect people to just happen upon you there.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you. I have other questions but they're strictly for
the owner of the properly.
Mr. Walsh: Any other questions?
Mr. Shane: What gives me comfort about this is d sounds to be like there's
very little consignment going on here.
23186
Ms. Meltzer:
That's why I said I hate that they had to put that in there.
Mr. Shane:
Most of this is new, newly designed and newly painted,
whatever. If that's the case, then I have a lot more comfort
about what you're doing.
Mr. Walsh:
Do we have the property owner in attendance?
Mr. Taormina:
I hope so. He indicated that somebody would be here
representing the ownership of the center.
Mr. Walsh:
Has anybody here observed Mr. Terrace? Ms. Meltzer, we
have some concerns with the properly. It has little to do with
you, and we were hoping for the opportunity to talk with the
properly owner.
Ms. Meltzer:
I've never actually met him. I know that they've been kind of
going back and forth with the Inspector because they keep
telling me later and later when I can actually gel in. So I don't
know that they're going to be here.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Well, we wouldn't expect you to compel that as a tenant.
Mr. Taormina:
Our staff did have a conversation with the owner and he
indicated he would be here this evening, so we apologize for
that.
Mr. Walsh:
We will certainly indicate at a minimum our disappointment in
the record. Are there any additional questions or comments?
Mr. LaPine:
I don't what to try to hurt this young lady. She's trying to get
started in business, but also I think this may be the only
opportunity we have to gel some things fixed over there,
especially behind the building where the paving is in terrible
shape. There's 19 dumpslers back there. There's a lot of things
that have to be fixed in that center. He wants this lessee and in
tum we want some upgrades of the property. I went by and
check the building the other day. You're doing some
renovations on the inside now.
Ms. Meltzer:
They are. Actually, I ...
Mr. LaPine:
How close are you to being able to move in?
Ms. Meltzer:
Well, they told me March 20, but construction is never on time.
So I dont know. I'm just waiting. They said that they were done
but then I kink some of the duct work ... you know, its just
23187
been kind of things that they had to update. It is my
understanding that these are new owners to this building, that
they have purchased it according to the real estate agent, that
they haven't had this for very long, unless that's not true. I don't
know.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, lel me ask you, Mr. Chairman. If we go ahead and make a
motion on this item, is there any way we can gel the owner in
here to see if we can gel this thing cleaned up or shall we leave
it to the Council? Hopefully, they'll get it cleaned up for us.
Mr. Walsh:
I'll speak if you don't mind. I'm a little bit out of order, but I dont
want to hold you up. I think you did a wonderful job tonight. But
Mr. LaPine is absolutely correct. I think with all due dispatch we
ask the Council to insist on the owner's participation. That's just
my opinion.
Mr. LaPine:
I can go along with that as long as we indicate somewhere in
the resolution that we want the Council to make sure that the
owner of the property and indicate some of our concerns.
Mr. Shane:
I concur with that position. I do not want to hold this lady up.
But on the other hand, I don't want this to pass by the city
without something being done. So if we can have something in
the minutes or the motion that tells the Council what we're after,
then I'll be happy.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm just troubled that the owner had her sign a lease whether or
not he knew there were certain waivers that were required from
the city. So that puts her in kind of peculiar position, which
doesn't make me think too much of the new owner. I dont want
to hold her up either, but if we can condition it so that,
particularly the rear, what the Inspection Department is troubled
with. I've check the back and it's absolutely nightmare back
there. I've never seen so many strewn dumpsters and disrepair
of the driveway back there.
Mr. Walsh:
That's a good point, Mr. Morrow, and actually the approving
resolution, Condition 3, specifically addresses the
correspondence. So we can put the conditions in there and any
others that we might be thinking of.
Mr. Morrow:
And the fact that we're not holding up this new entrepreneur
who is anxious to gel started, and hopefully the Council will pick
up the slack.
Mr. Alanskas:
Through the Chair to Mark. Mark, are you aware that there are
new owners that own the ...
23188
Mr. Taormina:
She is correct. That is my understanding.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Through the Chair to Mark. If we added in on the approving
resolution under the conditions, add number four, say that all
conditions that the Inspection Department indicated in their
letter has to be corrected before the occupancy permit can be
issued. Would that be enough to take care of it?
Mr. Taormina:
This is what I would suggest is that a condition be added to the
resolution that would stale, "that the owner shall submit a plan
to the Council addressing the concern of the excessive number
of dumpsters at the rear of the center."
Mr. La Pine:
And also the rear driveway is in terrible shape. It has to be
replaced.
Mr. Taormina:
We can say something to that effect as well regarding the
driveway. Putting the onus on the owner to submit that plan to
the Council as an attachment to this petition. Maybe that's
something that can be done prior to their final action.
Mr. LaPine:
If it's agreeable to the Chairman and the rest of the members, I
think that's fine with me.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay.
Ms. Smiley:
I just had one thing and that is, can we also add something in
there, while I feel very confident about this lady, that the wavier
use not be open to another consignment store that could come
in after that, or are we doing that?
Mr. Walsh:
The agreement, Mrs. Smiley, is that you're referring to?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct. We can include language to that effect as well.
What that would do is it would limit this business operation, this
waiver use, to you as the only proprietor, as opposed to allowing
this waiver use to run with the land, and then allow other
consignment shops to operate in that same space that might not
adhere to the same business principles that you have.
Mr. Walsh:
Just to round this out, I want to make certain ... Ms. Meltzer,
thank you for your participation.
Ms. Meltzer:
Am I done?
23189
Mr. Walsh:
Yes. You're all set. Thank you. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Dean Ricci, 30917
Dorais. I am the second street behind the shopping center in
question. When I got the notice in the mail about the
consignment shop, I had my concerns and I think those have
been answered. Is this the old Heslops store that you're moving
into?
(inaudible reply)
Mr. Ricci:
Okay. I dont have a problem with granting this waiver use for
this individual, but I was enlightened to hear that you have some
concerns about that shopping mall. I moved into the properly
on Domis in July of 1999, so I'm going on my 16 year
anniversary as a Livonian, and everyone of those 16 years I've
seen that property fall to the wayside. I mean it's very poorly
maintained. I think maybe five or six years ago the facade was
changed and some improvements were done, but like you say,
the rear of the mall is in really bad shape. If there's anything
that the commission can do to gel the property cleaned up, I
think if you have that opportunity you should pursue it.
Mr. Morrow:
Excuse me, sir, just as a comment. I appreciate your comments
as you share our concerns. This petition will go forward to the
City Council assuming that its approved. You will have another
notice where you can voice these same concerns to your City
Council and reinforce the need to upgrade the site wherever
possible.
Mr. Ricci:
I appreciate it.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak on
this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the
public hearing and a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-42-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 4, 2006, on
Petition 2006-02-02-04, submitted by Urban Interiors, LLC,
requesting waiver use approval to operate a second hand store
(consignment shop) in the Merri-Five shopping center, on
property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between
Merriman Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Southwest 114 of
Section 14, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2006-02-02-04 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
23190
1. That the area utilized for the sales and display of
merchandise shall be in accordance with the floor plan
submitted with this request;
2. That there shall be no outdoor sales, storage or display of
merchandise, and no storage of merchandise in any type
of temporary or portable unit, structure or trailer;
3. That the following items listed in the correspondence dated
March 17, 2006, from the Inspection Department shall be
resolved to that department's satisfaction:
• That the rear drive at the west end shall be replaced;
• That the concrete light pole bases in the south parking
lot and at the west property line shall undergo a
structural evaluation and shall be repaired or replaced
as needed;
4. That the owner of the shopping center shall submit a plan
to the City Council addressing the concern of the excessive
number ofdumpslers atthe rear of the center;
5. That used clothing and appliance sales are restricted and
are not a part of this approval;
6. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition;
7. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
8. That the petitioner shall submit a Letter of Understanding,
approved as to form by the Department of Law, signed by
the property owner and petitioner indicating that this waiver
use will be voluntarily abandoned if the petitioner moves
from the premises or eliminates the resale portion of its
business, or if the owners sell, assign or transfer more than
50% of their interest in the company; and
9. That the plan referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
occupancy and zoning compliance permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
23191
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Taormina will add some language to Condition 4.
Mr. Walsh: Mark, I did not write down verbatim the language. Is it going to
be added as Condition 4?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. We will renumber those. That will be Condition 4.
Mr. Walsh: Okay, if you will re -state that so Ms. Smiley can accept that
Mr. Taormina: That the owner of the shopping center shall submit a plan to the
City Council addressing the concern of the excessive number of
dumpsters at the rear of the center. I think you also wanted to
include the agreement that would limit this waiver use to the
current operator.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. The motion has been amended and supported. Just for
clarity, I want to make certain, Mr. LaPine you had indicated that
you wanted the rear drive replaced. We have it as repaired.
Mr. LaPine: Quite frankly, if you go back and look at it, I think it's way
beyond repair.
Mr. Walsh: I just wanted to make sure it was dear. If that's okay with the
maker and supporter of the motion, we will change the first
bullet point under Condition 3 to replace instead of repair.
Ms. Smiley: Okay.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution, positive for you and lots of comments for the
landlords. We wish you the best of luck.
Mr. LaPine: Good luck and we hope that we'll see you in Forbes Magazine.
23192
It 0=1 171 E3l9=kIYOle] 7 =0 1! 0171=1N=
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefifion 2006-
02-02-05, submitted by Bean There LLC requesfing waiver use
approval to operate a limited service restaurant (Beaner's
Gourmet Coffee) in the Fountain Park Development, on property
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest''/. of
Section 27.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under pefition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 3, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposal at this time. The legal description as shown is for
the overall 1.60acre site and contains some typographical
errors. The legal description to be used for the waiver use
follows." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated March 7, 2006, which reads as follows: 'This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to operate a limited service restaurant on property
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest X of
Section 27. We have no objections to this proposal with the
following stipulations: (1) Hydrant spacing shall be consistent
with City of Livonia Ordinances. (2) Access around building
shall be provided for emergency vehicles with a minimum
vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, a turning radius of 53 feet
wall to wall and an inside turning radius of 29 feet 6 inches. (3)
Fire lanes shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width,
able to withstand live loads of fire apparatus, and have a
minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. (4) Fire lanes
shall be marked with freestanding signs that have the words
'Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in contrasting colors (on both
sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority having
jurisdiction. (5) East and west access drives shall be marked as
fire lanes." The letter is signed by Donald F. Donnelley, Senior
Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police,
dated March 16, 2006, which reads as follows: We have
reviewed the plans in connection with Beaner's Gourmet Coffee
located at 33314 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
23193
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letle r is from the Inspection Department, dated March 17, 2006,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February
28, 2006, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, I thought you said something at the study session. Didn't
you say there was going to be an additional door on the west
side?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. That's what I thought you said. The other question I
have is, I assume where these cross hatches are here are
where the two handicap places are. Is that right?
Mr. Taormina:
There are two here and there are two addifional ones.
Mr. LaPine:
So four spots forthe whole center aphis point.
Mr. Taormina:
That's what this plan would indicate. I'm not sure that is how it
was finally approved by the Inspection Department. Sometimes
those plans are altered according to their final inspection.
Mr. LaPine:
The other queston I have is about the door on the west side,
which I have no objection to, but do you know what that door is
for because I wouldn't think that would be an entrance. Maybe
for people going to the back for the parking or maybe they're
going to use it for deliveries. Do you know that for a fact?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know whether or not it would be used for delivery
purposes, but it would appear to be available as a customer
entrance.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the pefifioner here this evening?
Nicholas Seehafer, Wolgasl Corp, 1494 N. Graham Road, Freeland, Michigan
48623. I'm representing the pefilioner this evening. I'm the
architect of record. To answer your question on the doors real
quick, the door on the north end of the building is for deliveries.
It's written in the lease that deliveries are only through the rear
23194
of the building. The door to the left hand side of the west of the
building is an emergency egress only door required because of
the occupant load of the space itself. So the main customer
entrance is the southern door only.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, are you going to have deep fryers in there?
Mr. Seehafer: There is no cooking besides the warming of sandwiches and the
baking of cookies on the premises.
Mr. Alanskas: There will be no cooking as far as hamburgers, hot dogs?
Mr. Seehafer: Not at all.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you
Mr. LaPine: I don't see a dumpster on here. Does he have a separate
dumpsler or one dumpsler? I notice on the east side there is a
big compactor back there behind the pet store. Is that for the
whole center?
Mr. Seehafer: That is for the whole center.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
It says you're going to have hot grilled sandwiches.
Mr. Seehafer:
What they call a hot grilled sandwich is a panera bread
sandwich. It's precooked chicken, cheese, and it's put on a
small panini grill, and basically it grills both sides of it and wars
it. It actually does that ...
Mr. Alanskas:
So you will have a grill for doing that?
Mr. Seehafer:
Itis asmall panini grill about this big.
Mr. Alanskas:
If you have grease, you'll have to put a container in the back.
Mr. Seehafer:
There are no grease laden foods in this operation at all.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Do they have other operations?
Mr. Seehafer:
Currently, I do believe there are. I want to say 30 or 40 of these
throughout Michigan, Indiana, Ohio. Currently building in
Florida, Illinois and other states.
23195
Mr. La Pine:
Is your primary business service sit-down or is a lot of it
carryout?
Mr. Seehafer:
I couldn't really answer the amount, but I would have to say
most of it is carryout.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Are you going to have internet service?
Mr. Seehafer:
Thalservice is available free ofcharge.
Ms. Smiley:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is this the same Beaners that is in Lansing?
Mr. Seehafer:
It is, yes. Otherwise known as Golden Orange.
Mr. Morrow:
How many do you have in this area?
Mr. Seehafer:
In this area, this would be the first in Livonia itself. Currently
there is another one beginning construction in Canton, which is
nearby. Mainly in the Slate of Michigan right now, the stores
are located in Lansing, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo and Ann
Arbor, and they're starting to go into like the Grand Blanc areas.
Mr. Morrow:
So basicallywe're looking at like two in the metro area?
Mr. Seehafer:
Correct. It is a franchise company. The franchisee is here this
evening. It's a development company. They try not to bunch
them together. We do not want one on every corner.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you.
Mr. Seehafer: One other item I would like to ask. I just heard that they have
outdoor sealing. The client has asked if we could add a couple
exterior tables during the summer months to the western facade
of this, basically two little bistro tables out in front of the glass. It
would still be under the total count, plus it would be a seasonal
thing.
Mr. Alanskas: Being that its not on the site plan, I don't know how we could
approve it by not showing it on the site plan. Is that correct,
Mark?
Mr. Taormina: I have no objection to amending the plan. It would be subject to
review by the Inspection Department to see that there would be
231%
the proper clearance for ingress and egress to the sidewalk and
parking areas.
Mr. Seehafer:
If you could go to the floor plan, it would actually not even be on
the sidewalk area. Currently, on the western portion of that
corner is a landscaped area. They're proposing to put a little
patio area right in front of those storefronts to the lett of the
plant. They'd like to put a single bistro, which is just a very small
round table with two chairs. A nice day, someone wants to sip a
chilled drink. It would be a very nice western exposure.
Mr. Morrow:
As long as there is adequate room, I really dont have a problem
with that. The only other thing I would ask is, has this been
cleared by your landlord?
Mr. Seehafer:
Correct. Yes. They have approved the plans.
Mr. Morrow:
They have no problem with that?
Mr. Seehafer:
They have absolutely no problem at this time.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
How many tables? Two?
Mr. Seehafer:
I would think two tables, four seats total.
Mr. Shane:
That would be enough?
Steven Auvenshine,
Bean There, LLC, 46091 Windridge, Canton, Michigan
48188. I'm the owner of Been There, LLC. There's only room
for about two tables over there. There might be enough room
for three, but I'm just looking for the opportunity that should you
approve this, that we would have some outdoor sealing, casual
night cap of coffee or cool drink before they might enjoy the City
of Livonia. Its a nice western view. So probably two, but again,
the landlord has given approval if this Commission gives
approval. So that's why I've tried to do my homework a little bit
ahead of time.
Mr. LaPine:
Could you tell us the hours of operation?
Mr. Auvenshine:
Six to 9:00 are the standard hours of operation, and then once
we gel opened, we'll try to adjust if there's a need for earlier or
later or whatever.
Mr. LaPine:
In the summertime, you don't sell any ice cream or sodas or any
sluff like that, do you?
23197
Mr. Awenshine: We have sodas, coke, what do you call it ... fountain drinks,
Fountain Park. At any rale, we do serve cold iced coffee drinks
that have like an ice dream base to them.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close
the public hearing. A mo0on would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-43-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 4, 2006, on
Petition 2006-02-02-05 submitted by Bean There LLC
requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant (Beaner's Gourmet Coffee) in the Fountain Park
Development, on property located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the
Southwest ''/ of Section 27, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefition 2006-02-02-
05 be approved subjectlolhe following conditons:
1. That the Floor Plan marked Sheet At prepared by Wolgasl
Professional Services, dated February 13, 2006, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except that a maximum
of six outdoor seats shall be permitted on the west side of
the building, subject to approval by the Inspection
Department;
2. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed 30, including 24 interior seats and 6 exterior seals;
3. That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed
in the correspondence dated March 7, 2006, from the
Livonia Fire and Rescue Division;
4. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefition,
and any additional signage shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
5. That wall signage shal not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes;
6. That no LED Iighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
23198
7. That there shall be no more than two tables located outside
the building at any time; and
8. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina:
As I understand the resolution, it has been altered to allow two
tables on the outside of the building. If we could also consider
amending Conditions 1 and 2, Condition 1 would read, "That the
Floor Plan marked Sheet At prepared by Wolgast Professional
Services, dated February 13, 2006, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except that a maximum of six outdoor seats
shall be permitted on the west side of the building" And
Condition 2, 'Thal the maximum number of customer seats shall
not exceed 30, including 24 interior seats and 6 exterior seats"
That would enable them to have three chairs for the two tables
on the outside.
Mr. Shane:
No problem.
Mr. Alanskas:
No problem.
Mr. Walsh:
So we've got agreement on that from the person who made the
motion and the supporter. The motion then would stand a;
stated.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay.
23199
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#5 PETITION 2006-03-02-06 COMMUNITY ALLIANCE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
03-02-06 submitted by Community Alliance Credit Union
requesting waiver use approval to construct a one-story
financial institution with a drive -up canopy for banking services
at 37401 Plymouth Road, on property located on the south side
of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jughandle
Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 30.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 8, 2006, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the proposal at this time. The legal description as typed has
some missing data for the second described curve. However,
based on the data shown on the drawing, the description is
correct. No additional fight -of -way is required. The two drive
approaches 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
March 13, 2006, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct a onestory financial institution with a dfive-up canopy
for banking services on property located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jughandle Road
in the Southeast''/. of Section 30. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulations: (1) This Division
requests that the drive be posted (on both sides) 'Fire Lane —
No Parking.' (2) Access around building shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with a minimum vertical clearance of
thirteen feet six inches, a turning radius of fifty-three feet wall-to-
wall and an inside turning radius of twenty-nine feet six inches.
(3) Fire lanes shall be marked with freestanding signs that have
the words 'Fire Lane — No Parking' painted in contrasting colors
(on both sides) at a size and spacing approved by the authority
having jurisdiction." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker,
232M
Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated March 15, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of March 6, 2006, the above -referenced petition
has been reviewed. The following items are noted. (1) The
proposed building setback yard spaces affronting Plymou#r
Road and Edward N. Hines Drive are deficient as shown on the
site plan at 56.5 feet and 56.0 feet respectively, where a
minimum of 75.0 feet is required. This would require a variance
granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) The existing 4 foot
high 'page wire' fence should be removed as part of the
approved landscaping plan that would include the `natural'
areas. (3) The light pole height as shown on the site plan is
25.0 feet and should be limited to 20.0 feet per the planning
memo dated 10-31-01. (4) The proposed monument sign at the
driveway on Plymouth Road and on the Newburgh Road side is
excess in sign length at 11.0 feet where a maximum of 10.0 feet
of sign length would be allowed. These signs need to be
reviewed separately and require a variance granted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Ronald
Stanow, Plan Reviewer. With respect to Items 3# and #4 in this
letter, I'd like to mention that the revised plans now show the
light poles at a maximum height of 20 feel in connection with
Item 3. And for Item #4, the length of the monument signs have
been reduced to 10 feet, so it is in conformance with the Zoning
Ordinance with respect to sign length. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, I was always under the impression when a building is built
and it intersects two main thoroughfares, in this case Plymouth
Road and Haggerty, they were entitled to two ground signs. Is
that coned?
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Nowak is going to check that. Dependent on the total
amount of frontage, he will look that up and provide you with an
answer during the hearing this evening. Actually, Mr. LaPine, I
can answer that question for you now. Only in certain
circumstances are two monument signs permitted, and those
would be for group commercial centers. Because this is a
single business, they are only entitled to one monument sign
regardless of the amount of frontage or the number of roads that
they front upon.
Mr. LaPine:
So basically they meet all the standards of the city except for
the setbacks on the 75 and 56 feet, and they corrected the sign
23201
and corrected the dumpster. They really have no other
violatons except for those two things. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
The two setbacks and one additional monument sign. That's
correct.
Ms. Smiley:
My question is also about the sign. This is a pretty unique piece
of property, wouldn't you say? Do we have anything else like
that anywhere else in the city?
Mr. Taormina:
No, I can't think of anything offhand. This site is unique with
respect to the fact that it has four road frontages.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bill Donnan, Arpee/Donnan,
Inc., 36937 Schoolcratl, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'm representing
Community Alliance Credit Union. Tonight, I have with me
Shane Spencer from the Credit Union and Dan Frazier, who is
the contractor with the company that is going to be building the
building. I guess I dont have anything to say except that we'd
like to gel your approval. The setbacks, again, we tried to set
the building approximately in the middle of the properly, the
building itself, linearly east and west and north and south with
the extension of the drive-in aisles and windows to the west.
Other than that, I'll answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to your hours, is it open on Saturday?
Mr. Donnan:
As of now, no, but they are under consideration.
Mr. Alanskas:
Monday through Friday, what are the hours that it's open?
Shane Spencer, Community Alliance Credit Union, One Auto Club Drive,
Dearborn, Michigan 48126. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Good evening.
Mr. Spencer:
The location that we have currently is open from 8:00 to 4:30
p.m. We're thinking of extending the hours at this location to
5:30 or 6:00, possibly, but currently at our main office we are
8:00 to 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Alanskas:
And you're not open on Saturdays?
Mr. Spencer:
No, sir, not currently.
23202
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. How many members do you have in your credit union?
Mr. Spencer:
Approximately 8,200.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, as far as the drive-in, they have the room for the stacking
of the cars to meet the ordinance and they have the lanes so if
anybody wants to pull out, they can go around. Everything
meets the ordinance?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, I'll close
the public hearing. A motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-04-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on April 4, 2006, on
Pe00on 2006-03-02-06 submitted by Community Alliance Credit
Union requesting waiver use approval to construct a one-story
financial institution with a drive -up canopy for banking services
at 37401 Plymouth Road, on property located on the south side
of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jughandle
Road in the Southeast % of Section 30, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Pettion 2006-03-02-06 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 of Job #06005 prepared
by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., dated March 29, 2006, as revised,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 submitted by
Arpee/Donnan, Inc., dated March 30, 2006, as revised, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That an automatic, underground irrigation system shall be
provided for all landscape areas and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
4. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A-2
prepared by Thomas D. Auer, Architect, dated March 29,
23203
2006, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
5. That brick used in the construction of the building shall be
full face 4inch brick, and precast masonry unit systems
shall meet ASTM 216 standards;
6. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent
properties and roadway;
7. That all parking spaces shall be double striped;
8. That signage for this use shall be limited to two ground
signs, each not to exceed a maximum sign area of 30
square feet or to exceed 6 feel in height and 10 feel in
length, as portrayed on the Monument Sign Plan prepared
by Huron Sign Company, subject to the granting of a
variance for excessive number of ground signs by the
Zoning Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining
thereto;
9. That the petitioner shall seek any needed variances from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building
setbacks;
10. That the existing 4 fool high "page wire" fence that extends
along a portion of the southerly property line shall be
removed;
11. That the petitioner shall comply with the stipulations listed
in the correspondence dated March 13, 2006, from the Fire
Marshal; and
12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
al the time of application for the building permits.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
23204
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I'd like to thank the petition for making the changes that we
requested with the brick so quickly and coming back with a
coloring rendering so quickly. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: It was very helpful.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. Gentlemen, one moment please.
Mr. Alanskas: Gentlemen, when you go to the Council and get your approval,
when are you planning on getting this thing done?
Mr. Donnan: As soon as we gel all our permits and approvals.
Mr. Alanskas: So do you think it would be done by the fall?
Mr. Donnan: We hopeso.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Good luck.
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 921st Public Hearings
and Regular Meeting
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 921s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
by the City Planning Commission on March 7, 2006.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#04-45-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 921s' Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 7,
2006, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Alanskas, Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Smiley, Walsh
23205
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 923d Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 4, 2006, was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman