HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2006-08-2923483
MINUTES OF THE 931'' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 29, 2006, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 931st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ian Wilshaw John Walsh
Members absent: H Shane
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, 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 of the proceedings tonight.
Mr. Walsh: I'd also like to note at the beginning of this meeting, and we'll
also have a few comments at the end, but the Commissioners
are certainly welcome to speak. Tonight is Bob Alanskas' last
night with us before he moves down south. Bob, I want to thank
you for all your years of service to the City and to the Planning
Commission. We will definitely miss you here.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. We will miss everybody here loo.
Mr. Morrow: It is my understanding Bob will be joining the Planning
Commission in the community he is going to.
Mr. Walsh: So they will be well served in the not too distanlfulure
23484
ITEM#1 PETITION 2006-07-01-05 PLANNING COMMISSION
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2006-07-
01-05, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #325-06, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, requesting to rezone properly
at 9400 Stonehouse Avenue, located on the east side of
Stonehouse Avenue between West Chicago Boulevard and
Minton Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 31 from RIF to
PL.
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated July 11, 2006, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering
Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The
following corrected legal description should be used in
connection with this petition." The letter is signed by James
Zoumbaris, Superintendent of Public Service. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Seeing
none, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Good evening.
Diane McCarthy, 9349 Eastwind. Good evening. I live in the condomi niums that
are to the north of this proposed property. We hadn't heard ...
the proposal was public property ... does that mean there will
be a potential streetighl? Does that mean Whispering Winds
will have access because you mentioned that there's access
from Stonehouse and from the other end, but you didn't mention
Whispering Winds, because there are four condos that face that
property that do not have a road in between. So this will directly
impact those homes, and lighting and pathways is an issue
because that means people where there has always been
privacy. And so I'd just like a better understanding of what
public means.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, do we have a site plan in the computer that we
canshow?
Mr. Taormina: Unfortunately, I do not. I will add this in response. The path, as
it was shown conceptually and approved by the Parks and
23485
Recreation Commission, is located in the central portion of the
site. The path will not be illuminated. It has no connection to
the development to the north, the Whispering Winds
condominiums. There was no lighting in connection with those
improvements. It was intended that this would remain a passive
park only at this time. The Parks and Recreation Commission
will have to take up the issue of any additional improvements
beyond those that have already been approved. What this body
is considering this evening is the zoning classification of Public
Land for this property. That would limit its use to only uses that
are permitted within the PL category, and again, it reflects the
current public ownership of that property.
Ms. McCarthy: Okay. Will there be proposals once it is approved?
Mr. Taormina: Those proposals will not be subject to a review by this body.
That would be something that would be taken up by the Parks
and Recreation Commission.
Ms. McCarthy: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: We have somebody here. Good evening. Ma'am, would you
like to speak?
Eleanor Bussey, 9309 Newburgh. Just for a moment. My husband and I live on
the property that lies directly to the east of the proposed
change. I kind of echo my neighbor to the north in Whispering
Winds because it's been very difficult to get information about
exactly what this site is going to entail once it becomes a park, if
that takes place. It's literally in our backyard, and we already
have people that kind of cul through to go back in there anyway.
And there's a question about the actual legal description that
we're a little confused about in terms of how far back that's
supposed to go between the two properties.
Mr. Walsh:
From north to south or from east to west in terms of the depth?
Ms. Bussey:
From east to west.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. And then are you talking about the legal description that
would lake it closer to Newburgh?
Ms. Bussey
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
This map would roughly show the delineation line. Mark, do we
have the actual legal description?
23486
Mr. Taormina:
The legal description is provided for this property, but I'm not
sure it would address this woman's concern relative to where
the boundary is between her property and the park properly.
That's something that would either have to be surveyed or
maybe you could determine that from your own survey
description of your properly.
Ms. Bussey:
The reason I'm asking is because I've look at this map on the
City website, and it looks like it comes farther into our properly
than we understand it to be from documents we have, deeds
and whatnot, and our legal description. And we've had a hard
time ... you know, we haven't been able to make a lot of these
other meetings where this has been discussed. We don't know
where the access is going to be either.
Mr. Morrow:
Ma'am, as the Planning Director indicated, it will remain a
passive park and the interior will have just some foot paths with
wood chips. There might be a bench or two in there, but as far
as to the north and the east, I don't believe there will be any
access to the north and the end of the woodchips would end
long before it got to your property line.
Ms. Bussey:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
So there's no improvements other than putting in wood chips
and maybe a bench or loo. The park has no development other
than that scheduled.
Ms. Bussey:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
As the chairman said, should the Parks and Recreation
Commission decide to make it an active park, which is very
unlikely, they would have to go through this process.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, if I may direct those residents that have
concerns relative to the improvements of this properly to our
Planning Department, we would be happy to show them the
plan that has been developed up to this point. Or they could go
directly to the Parks and Recreation Commission for that
information because I'm not sure when those improvements are
scheduled. I think it was going to be concurrent with the
development of the property to the south, but I apologize for not
having the plans here this evening. But as Mr. Morrow has
indicated, the general description is a path that extends from
Stonehouse through the approximate center of the properly. I
2a 7
think it loops back and then there's a connection to the south,
but that's pretty much it, and it's only a woodchip path.
Ms. Bussey: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: We apologize that we don't have it here, but if you don't mind
making an effort, they could certainly show you the exact plan.
Seeing no one else coming forward, I will close the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-88-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, on
Petition 2006-07-01-05, submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #325-06, and
Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
requesting to rezone property at 9400 Stonehouse Avenue,
located on the east side of Stonehouse Avenue between West
Chicago Boulevard and Minton Avenue in the Southeast''/. of
Section 31 from RUF to PL, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-01-
05 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 is in accord with the
current use of the properly as public open space and will
provide for additional recreational opportunities in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning reflects the public
ownership of the land; and
4. That tie proposed change of zoning is supported by the
Livonia Parks and Recreation Commission which voted
unanimously to have Park Site AA placed back on the
Master School and Park Plan.
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.
23488
YI=I,4EibM:J=k iY Ile] 7 L'1111I--Dril!4 71719*9 11711=17YK
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
07-01-06, submitted by S & K Investments, Inc. LLC requesting
to rezone property at 14801 and 14815 Farmington Road,
located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon
Road and Five Mile Road in the Northeast'''/ of Section 21 from
R-2 to C-1 and OS.
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. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first letter is
from the Engineering Division, dated August 14, 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 is
correct and no additional right-of-way is required. Detention
facilities and the drive approach to Farmington road will require
Wayne County approval." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Housing Commission, dated August 28, 2006, which
reads as follows: "The Livonia Housing Commission and the
residents of Silver Village are in receipt of your Notice of Public
Hearing on the aboveaeferenced rezoning petition. The
Commission has met with the residents and they have
expressed a concern relative to the amount of landscaping
adjacent to Silver Village and the site lighting for the property.
The site is immediately adjacent to three residential buildings in
Silver Village and the nature/use of the proposed G7 (Local
Business) zoning does not appear to be compatible with the
residential setting of the Silver Village housing community.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the rezoning
petition, and please call me should you wish to further discuss
this matter." The letter is signed by James M. Inglis, Director.
The third letter is from a resident of Silver Village, received by
the Planning Commission on August 28, 2006, which reads as
follows: "The residents of the Livonia senior housing complex
(known as Silver Village) are concerned regarding rezoning on
Farmington Road for office purposes under Petition 2006-07-01-
06. If all or any of the existing trees are removed, this will
eliminate shading for us, as well as lights from incoming cars
and autos shining into bedrooms and Irving moms in Buildings 7
and 8." The letter is signed by Josie Smith, President of the
Silver Village Senior Club. The fourth letter is from the J.D.
Dinan Co., dated August 23, 2006, which reads as follows: "In
23489
regards to the above petition, please let it go on record to say
that J.D. Dinan Co. is not in favor of this rezoning. Our
company owns numerous office complexes in the Livonia area.
As a result of the climate of the real estate market these days,
we have experienced a considerable decrease in the demand
for leased office space. If you look around the city, you will see
that we are inundated with office for lease' signs.
Unfortunately, there is no indication that this situation is going to
get better anytime soon. In addition, the real estate taxes would
go up. It is our opinion that adding another office complex in the
City of Livonia would be detrimental to the many property
owners already trying to survive in this market" The letter is
signed by Kim Paterson, Manager, Heritage Commons Office
Center, LLC. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff?
Ms. Smiley: Just for clarification, Mark, did you say that the Future Land Use
for this is OS? There's no C-1 in there?
Mr. Taormina:
That is coned. Office is the land use category idenfified on the
Future Land Use Plan.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, sir.
Harry Kzirian, S & K Investments, Inc., 26675 Wembley Court, Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48331. We think this area will be great for
commercial, only the front part, because we have the Detroit
Edison. Its almost impossible to make one building. That's
why we'd like to put two buildings, one in the front, as you can
see, and one in the back side. We have a very good connection
with Kinko's. And we're thinking maybe pulling Kinko's in the
front and a coffee shop or deli, something like that, that will help
the area offices and businesses. Previously, I was successful to
put two buildings in Livonia, one was commercial, Village Plaza,
Five Mile and Newburgh. I put 15,000 square feet, and recently,
a couple years ago, I put one on Newburgh Road, south of
SchoolcraR. I think this is a great area for what we're proposing.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Are there questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Alanskas:
See, the only thing is, if you look at our zoning map in the area,
everything is OS. If we tried to put commercial in that area, it's
what I would term as spot zoning. I just think it's a bad idea to
do that. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Sir, how long have you owned this property?
23490
Mr. Kzirian:
We're in a land contract. We didn't even close on it yet.
Mr. Morrow:
The reason I ask the question is, you heard previously that they
tried to rezone that commercial in the past and both this body
and the Council turned it down. Were you aware of that?
Mr. Kzirian:
We heard about that. The only thing is, my objection would be,
if we put Kinko's, that's similar to office. I would not even
consider it commercial. I know we're asking for commercial, but
ifwe put Kinko's, that's like office.
Mr. Morrow:
We have to go by what the Zoning Ordinance says. And as you
can see, probably since that time, there's been a lot more office
development to the north of that property. So it's pretty well
locked in for office use only. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
You mentioned when you first made your presentation that one
of the reasons that you want two buildings is something about
the Edison lines?
Mr. Kzirian:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
I don't understand.
Mr. Kzirian:
There is a heavy Edison line right in between the two buildings,
right where the dots are. We cannot put one big building. It's
going to be divided. So that's why we're thinking of putting
commercial in the front and office in the back.
Mr. LaPine:
I am, like other members of the Commission, opposed to
commercial in this area. There's no commercial on the west
side of Farmington Road from Lyndon to the cemetery. It just
doesn't seem right now to start having some commercial in
there. But the point I want to make to you, why couldn't you
build ... if the property was rezoned to OS, which we think it
should be, you could put two buildings there and split it so that
you don't interfere with the overhead lines by putting parking
maybe in the middle somehow. It isn't that you can't use the
building if you don't get commercial. You have other
allernaUves. Have you considered that?
Mr. Kzirian:
If it comes to it, we're going to have to. We're going to have to
put an office building, but we wanted to put, like I said, Kinko's.
I think because of the area, businesses, a lot of offices, I think
thafs very suitable.
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me say I think you're absolutely right. I think it would be a
good location for a Kinko's because of City Hall, the courthouse
23491
and things of that nature. There's a lot of attorneys there who
would probably use the Kinko's, but this isn't the right location
for it. I'm sorry.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just one thing I want you to understand. Like you say, you'd
like to put Kinko's in there if it was commercial, but say they're
only there three or four years and leave. Then you have a
commercial properly there that you could put any other type of
usage you'd want, and that would not be a good idea, I don't
think. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Obviously, what you're hearing tonight, and I certainly agree
with the rest of the commissioners, that I don't think commercial
is appropriate here. What I'd like to see is office. If you were to
have an entire development of office, as Mr. LaPine mentioned,
you could have a couple different office buildings there, maybe
with some less intense usage of the property. The office
building that you have on this conceptual plan appears to be
about the size of all three buildings that are in the Centennial
Plaza to the north of your development, and even the two that
are proposed in the Centennial Plaza south combined. Would
you consider perhaps two or three smaller, less intense usage
of land office buildings? Does that seem like something you
would be willing to propose?
Mr. Kzirian:
Yes. We're considering ... I mean if this doesn't go through,
we're thinking of office condos, that type of thing.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Something that would blend in with the other office buildings
that are on that side of the street?
Mr. Kzirian:
Right. I did some research. There's a big demand for small
offices, like 1,200, 1,500 square feel.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Do you have any potenfial tenants for this conceptual office
building at this point? Have you thought of what type of offices
you would like in there?
Mr. Kzirian:
Not right now. No. Just the front part. We have a very good
connection with Kinko's. We thought if that works, that will bring
a lot of traffic and makes it easier to rent.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for the petifioner? All right.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kzirian:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: At this point, we're going to go to the audience. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? We'll dose with the petitioner having the opportunity to
address any of the issues that have been raised. If you do wish
to speak, would you please come forward to either of the
microphones. And again, if you will, stale your name and
address. I do remind everybody that what we have before us is
a rezoning for this property.
May Yomans, 33744 Lyndon. I reside at Silver Village. We have a very deep
concern with any changes going on in there, especially during
Spree time. We have people coming and they claim they're
going to visit in the hospital back there, and they come trooping
through. This year we had quite a few young people coming
through carrying cartons of beer. And when we'd say
something to them, they'd say, oh, they said we could come in
from that office building over there. Something has got to be
done. If a new building is coming in that they know they've got
to put up some kind of barrier because its not safe. My son-in-
law was there, and he almost was ready to deck one guy
coming through there. It is a safely concern, as well as what we
said about the trees coming down and car lights shining in the
windows. I wouldn't be affected by that but I can see the people
that would be.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to
speak on this item? Ladies and gentlemen, if you do wish to
speak, it would be helpful if you could please come down even
while somebody is at the microphone and queue up. If no one
else is coming forward, I'm going to ask if the petitioner would
like to speak again. Is there anything else to add?
Mr. Morrow:
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the sense that the
petitioner has is that the option of a commercial zoning is
probably not going to prevail. So I would say he has an
opportunity tonight to willingly downgrade the G7 to office and
that could probably go forward with an approving resolution.
Should he maintain the commercial, it would probably go
forward with a denying resolution. So I just offer that, Mr.
Chairman, if I'm not off base and if the petitioner would like to
consider it.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, do you understand Mr. Morrow's points?
Mr. Kzirian:
Yes, I do.
Mr. Walsh:
Are you willing to have us consider an office only zoning?
Okay. At this point, a resolution would be in order.
23493
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Smiley, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, on
Petition 2006-07-01-06, submitted by S & K Investments, Inc.
LLC, requesting to rezone properly at 14801 and 14815
Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Lyndon Road and Five Mile Road in the Northeast''/. of
Section 21 from R-2 to G7 and OS, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-
07-01-06 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning would constitute a
spot zone since it is not contiguous to a similar zoning
district;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will be detrimental to
and not in harmony with the zoning and land uses along
Farmington Road in this area;
3. That the existing commercial zoning in proximity to the
Farmington and Five Mile Road intersection adequately
provide for commercial uses in this area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a
comprehensive solution to future development of the
subject property, as well as adjacent properties;
5. That the proposed change of zoning would lend to
encourage future requests for similar zoning changes
along the west side of Farmington Road in this area; and
6. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with
the Future Land Use Plan designation of office use for the
subject 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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: Did the petitioner choose to go forward with the commercial? I
couldn't hear the answer?
Mr. Walsh: He said he would go forward with office only zoning if it was
recommended tonight.
23494
Mr. Morrow:
But we have a denying resolution with the office?
Mr. Walsh:
A denying resolution is on the existing petition, which is for
commercial and office.
Mr. Morrow:
But do we have the opportunity for him to change that to office
only?
Mr. Walsh:
That would be up to, at this point, an amendment to the motion.
We could offer that. He has indicated that he would find that
acceptable.
Mr. Morrow:
Could we go to the Planning Director?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, we do not have a prepared resolution for the approval of
only an office. What the Planning Commission may consider
this evening is a formal written request on the part of the
petitioner to change his petition to office only and maybe include
with that a revised conceptual plan if that is something that you
would like to see before acting on this, and then table the item.
As you know, we have 60 days to review this petition, and that
can be extended at the petitioners request. So if he can agree
to the tabling motion this evening, then that way you could take
this matter up possibly with a revised petition.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, my motive was only that because it had been denied in the
past and really it's even got more office development along
there. To have it denied at both levels, then you have to start
the process again. So if this was something he would agree to,
I'd be willing to offer a tabling resolution so he could come back
to us with an office only, and then we could go forward with that.
Mr. Walsh:
And the petitioner has indicated that he would consider office
only. The resolution on the table right now is a denial for the
petition. Only a tabling resolution successfully adopted would
slop that from moving forward, or ultimately the vole.
Mr. Morrow:
I would offer that tabling resolution.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and approved, it was
#08-89-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, on
Petition 2006-07-01-06, submitted by S & K Investments, Inc.
LLC, requesting to rezone property at 14801 and 14815
Farmington Road, located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Lyndon Road and Five Mile Road in the Northeast %of
23495
Section 21 from R-2 to C-1 and OS, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that Petition 2006-07-01-06 be tabled
to allow the petitioner to revise his plans for rezoning to OS
only.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Wilshaw, LaPine, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES: Alanskas
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shane
Mr. Walsh: The motion passes. For the petitioner and for the ladies and
gentlemen in the audience, what that means is that we've given him
the opportunity to revise his request to office only, which is more
palatable based on the comments that I heard from my colleagues
this evening. The site plan issues that were raised in terms of lights
intruding into the neighboring residences would be something that
would come up if the rezoning is approved and then a site plan is
presented. So, it is tabled for future consideration pending on
some response from the petitioner as to what he wishes to do. Sir,
what I would recommend you do is contact Mr. Taormina or a
member of his staff and they will direct you at this point. Thank
you.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2006-07-0247 KATHLEEN McCARTY
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
07-02-17. submitted by Kathleen McCarty requesting waiver use
approval to operate a real estate office at 15712 Farmington
Road, on property located on the east side of Farmington Road
between Rayburn Avenue and Broadmoor Court in the
Southwest % of Section 15.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under pefifion plus the
exisfing zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 31, 2006, 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. No additional right-of-way is
required. The legal description for the project follows." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
23496
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
July 13, 2006, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed
the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a
real estate office on the east side of Farmington Road between
Raybum Avenue and Broadmoor Court in the Southwest X of
Section 15. 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 August 7, 2006, 2006, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in regards to the
proposal for McCarty Real Estate Office located at 15700
Farmington Road. We have no objections or rec mmendabons
to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by David W.
Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated July 21, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 11, 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 Mr. Taormina?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Mr. Taormina, it isn't
very often we see a proposal like this where we have an office
building where one little area in the office building is going to be
a waiver use. My question is, does that mean if they move out,
anybody can move in there that needs a waiver permit as long
as they meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance?
Mr. Taormina:
The waiver use applies only to real estate uses in that unit only.
Thats cored.
Mr. LaPine:
If somebody wanted to go in there that needed a waiver use,
they couldn't say, well, there's a waiver already there, even if
they meet all the requirements. It only can be a real estate
office. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? If you could please step
forward. Good evening.
Kathleen McCarty, 15704 Farmington, Livonia, Michigan 48154. Hi. I'm the
owner of Embassy Title Agency, which is next door to 15712
Farmington Road. I'm a little nervous. When I opened up my
title company, I had planned on eventually having a real estate
company or a mortgage company next door to me, and I have
the opportunity to do so now. I think this would be a great asset
2aas7
to the City of Livonia. I'm doing very well in my business, so I
think this would be a good thing.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. McCarty?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Yes. Hi, Ms. McCarty. How many employees do you expect to
have working in the real estate office?
Ms. McCarty:
Well, there should be six to start out.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Are these going to be realtors?
Ms. McCarty:
Yes. They are realtors that have been in the business for over
25 years.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Is this going to be a chain, like a large chain?
Ms. McCarty:
No. It will not.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. You don't expect to get too much in the way of foot traffic
coming in and out of this real estate office, do you?
Ms. McCarty:
No.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Most of the realtors work out of their homes or go to seller's
homes.
Ms. McCarty:
Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
How many employees do you have?
Ms. McCarty:
Ihave seven.
Mr. Morrow:
You have seven. Do you do your closings in your office?
Ms. McCarty:
It's 50 percent. The real estate normally is in my office, but
most of the refinances are out of the office.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay, but there are some customers coming in to close?
Ms. McCarty:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions? Okay, thank you, Ms.
McCarty.
23498
Ms. McCarty: Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this pefifion? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going
to close the public hearing.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-00-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, on
Pefifion 2006-07-02-17 submitted by Kathleen McCarty
requesting waiver use approval to operate a real estate office at
15712 Farmington Road, on properly located on the east side of
Farmington Road between Rayburn Avenue and Broadmoor
Court in the Southwest % of Section 15, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Pefifion 2006-07-02-17 be approved subject to the following
condition:
That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any addifiona I signage shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and City Council;
Subject to the preceding condifion, this pefifion is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolufion
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolufion.
23499
Robert German, 30643 Munger, Livonia, Michigan 48154. I'm the owner of the
building. My people do want to start operating real estate as
soon as they can. I know that it takes a while for your approval
to be sent to the City Council. I wonder if it would be
appropriate for me to ask the Planning Commission to invoke
the emergency clause and waive the wailing period?
Mr. Walsh:
We don't have an emergency clause, but is there any objection
to waiving the seven day?
Mr. Morrow:
Do you have any insight as to the Council's agenda if this would
do any good?
Mr. Taormina:
No, I'm not aware of how this would speed it up. It may or may
not. I dont know.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I know Mr. German is doing business a long time in
Livonia and runs a good operation. So in the event that it may
help, I will offer waiving the seven day period.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
#08491-2006
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of
the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure, regarding the
effective date of a resolution after the seven-day period from the
date of adoption by the Planning Commission, in connection
with Petition 2006-07-02-17 submitted by Kathleen McCarty
requesting waiver use approval to operate a real estate office at
15712 Farmington Road, on property located on the east side of
Farmington Road between Rayburn Avenue and Broadmoor
Court in the Southwest %of Section 15.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. La Pine:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I always thought the procedure was we
wouldn't give seven day waivers unless we were beforehand so
notified by the President of the Council. That's always been the
procedure. For someone to walk in tonight and say they want
the seven day waiver ... Mr. German, as Mr. Morrow has
pointed out, has been around Livonia a long time and knows the
procedures. I would think if he wanted the seven day waiver, he
would have went to the City Council, Mr. McCann, and he would
have to look up their schedule and see if you're going to get on
the agenda. I mean, I wouldn't object to it, but I think we should
follow procedures.
23500
Mr. Walsh: The requirement is capable of being waived by this body in the
absence of communication from the Council, but the Council
doesn't have to accept an accelerated scheduling. So it may
pass tonight, Mr. German, but Mr. McCann is the only person
who can be the arbiter of whether or not to accelerate your
petition.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, that was kind of the vein in which I offered it. We're not
sure it will do any good but in the event that it does, it will be in
place, but it may not happen.
Mr. German: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, would the
Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Smiley, Wilshaw, Walsh
NAYES: Alanskas, LaPine
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Shane
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION2006-07-0248 TCFBANK
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
07-02-18, submitted by TCF National Bank requesting waiver
use approval to construct and operate a bank with drive -up
service facilities at 13401 Middlebelt Road, on property located
on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcratt Road
and the CSX Railroad in the Northeast % of Section 26.
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. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated August 14, 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 is
correct except that there is an error in the second call as
23501
follows. Underground detention facilities are shown, which will
require Wayne County approval, and the drive to Middlebelt
Road will also require Wayne County approval." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 25,
2006, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a bank
with a drive -up window on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 7, 2006,
which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards
to the proposal by TCF Bank located at 13401 Middlebelt This
is a high traffic crash location. Rush hour traffic will create a
vision obstruction for traffic exiting for northbound Middlebelt.
Therefore we suggest a 'no left tum' sign for train exiting onto
Middlebett Road. Traffic should be routed out to Industrial or to
the driveway farther north." The letter is signed by David W.
Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated August 1, 2006, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 18, 2006, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) No detail has been provided for signage review. The ground
sign location is permitted. (2) We calculate the required parking
as 24 spaces, not 26. (3) All parking spaces are to be double
striped. 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 for the staff?
Mr. La Pine: Yes, I have one question. Mark, you indicated that there is
going to be a new drive at the west end of this properly. Is that
the far west end because there's a drive there now.
Mr. Taormina: Yes. Actually, if you look very closely at this drawing, there are
two lines here that show the approximate location of the existing
curb cul off Industrial Drive and which provides access to the
site of the Derby Bar. And you can see that would be closed off,
landscaping would go in its place, and the new driveway would
be relocated about 85 feel to the west.
Mr. La Pine: But that drive is already there.
Mr. Taormina: No. This driveway does not exist. This would be a new curb cut
to Industrial Drive.
23502
Mr. LaPine:
You mean there's going to be two driveways there side by side?
There's one there now.
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe there is one. This is all grass. I'll show you the
aerial photograph. I'll actually zoom in on the area and you'll be
able to see exactly how that looks. If you look carefully, this is
where that curb cul exists today. There is the footprint of tie
Derby Bar.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that.
Mr. Taormina:
There is a grassy area at the rear of the site, and the new
driveway would be located approximately here.
Mr. Morrow:
There is one further to the west.
Mr. Taormina:
There is another driveway a little bit further to the west, which
goes into the Wal-Mart property, but now there would be a new
one here. This would be closed off and a new one added here.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. How far will the new one be from the old one?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe its 85 feet.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening, sir.
Michael Rein,
Bowers & Rein Associates, 2400 S. Huron Parkway, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48104. Good evening. I'm representing TCF this
evening and answering any questions that the Planning
Commission has. I'll just add one thing to Mark's presentation.
If you're familiar with our Plymouth Road branch, it will be the
same materials. The predominant color is the brownish red
brick. The other brick is the accent. The soldier course is
throughout the elevation. This is the split face block at the base,
which is really mostly hidden by shrubs. This is the color of the
columns in front facing Middlebell, and it's a green shingle roof.
So in case the Commission had any questions about the actual
materials, and then Mark asked us to prepare a perspective.
This is if you were on Middlebelt Road looking into the center.
This is what would be facing Middleblet Road.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Hello, Mr. Rein. I assume that your building hereon Middlebell
will basically look the same as the one that's on Plymouth Road
and some of the other TCF's branches that you have.
23503
Mr. Rein: Yes, that's our brand image now, and chats why I wanted to
make sure that the Planning Commission understood its the
same material, its the same presence, that we have on
Plymouth Road.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. It's an attractive looking building. I have no problems
with the building as it looks right now. I do have a couple
questions, however, regarding the traffic flow in and around your
property. This is something that concerns me a bit. Right now,
you have an ATM that on the site plan shows as being in the
westerly lane, the furthest from the building. Would you be
willing to consider moving that ATM up to the building itself like
your Plymouth Road branch has?
Mr. Rein:
Yes, since that was constructed, TCF, in response to some of
their customers, not complaints, I guess, but they weren't able
to find the ATM in the first lane as easily as it being located on
the outside. And also they noticed that most of the competition
has put their kiosk or ATM on the outside. So this is their
response to it. You're right, though. It is different than what is
on Plymouth Road. Mark had apprised me of some concerns
that were raised at the working session. If its something that is
shared across the board, I'm certainly willing to take that back to
TCF and say it was the desire of the Planning Commission that
it come back into that first lane next to the nighttime security
box. I couldn't eliminate that lane, but we could dedicate the
inside lane again to ATM and nighttime deposit and have that a
traditional drive-thru lane on that fourth lane.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Would you be willing to consider having it as a bypass lane, that
farthest lane?
Mr. Rein:
I can move that kiosk where the ATM is, but in terms of the
traffic and the volume, I couldn't make that a bypass. We really
considered the bypass to be, if these cars were all here, really
to be here.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Rein:
But I could, if it's the Planning Commission's desire to move this
in, I could do that, but I couldn't give up that lane in terms of
consumertreffic.
Mr. Wilshaw:
It seems that night deposits and ATMs are sort of
complementary services in the sense that they're short services
and people tend to go to ATMs during the day, night deposits
toward the evening. It seems like you could double up those
two functions in at least the one lane, and it would give you
23504
some added security of having the ATM inside the building
when you service it so you don't have someone having to go out
to the farthest lane with bags full of money to fill @ up.
Mr. Rein: And that certainly was the thought. Most of our branches are
like that. It's been since the Plymouth Road branch was
constructed and developed that they've changed the site plan or
the modifications to account for people asking for it, but certainly
there's a precedent wfthin the City of Livonia to bring that back
in.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That's what I would like to see. I don't know about the
other commissioners, but that's my thought. The other one is
regarding the flow of traffic exiting those drive-thru lanes. You
have the cars basically turning left from that drive-lhru lane
going along the building, across the front of the building, through
the parking lot and either out onto Middlebell or back around
another loop to gel to Industrial Drive. You're mixing vehides
and pedestrians quite a bit there by doing that. Obviously, it
would be much safer for cars exiting your bank to turn onto
Industrial Drive where they can then proceed to the light at
Industrial and Middlebell to either tum left or right. It focuses
traffic to a traffic light, which lends to be safer. And as we heard
from the Police Department, this is a high crash area as it is. Is
there a way that you can exit the traffic from that drive-lhru onto
Industrial Drive without them having to go through your parking
lot and do these loops?
Mr. Rein: It is our opinion, no. Obviously before we even got to this stage,
there were a lot of different layouts considered. One of the hard
driving design rationales with drive-thru traffic is to keep it safe,
to keep it accessible, and to really keep it simple. The fact of
the matter, there's a couple of things that go on when people
leave here. Often, they're still sorting through, putting things
away in their wallet, putting the receipts away, counting their
money, making sure their driver's license was returned. Yet,
they're conscious of cars behind them, so they are leaving. We
have found that the longer, within reason, that we have a
queuing or a process for them to right themselves and to gel
back to the idea that they're driving. The other consideration is
when you have the four lanes trying to bring them down into a
single exit point involves some greater awareness when you're
bringing people down to a single point. Mark during his
presentation mentioned an easement. We were only allowed
one curb cut. When our engineers were talking to Wayne
County people and some Livonia people, in both instances they
wanted the curb cuts away from the intersection as far as
possible. So we have a fairly narrow front, but this is the
23505
existing curb cul to the Derby and there's another one here. We
closed one off, which is what Wayne County wanted us to do.
We moved that over here. And then it was mised earlier, we
moved this one a little further to the west. The circulation does
come back in. There's a potential for pedestrian interference.
The other fact of the matter is, there's a lot of traffic that comes
through the drive thm and we've all been stuck behind them that
can't gel their business done in the drive thm, and despite them
trying to gel things done, a lot of the traffic has to come into the
bank. And so this is an opportunity for them to not have to go
through a circuitous route because there's a certain dollar
amount that they cant go through the window. A person has to
come in. There's just simply a lot of transactions that people try
and do through drive-thru for the ease of it and they cant, so
they have to come in. TCF took a long look at this. We've been
looking at this site, as Mark can attest, for quite a few years.
From a management standpoint and from an operational
standpoint, TCF is very comfortable bringing people back in
here. The suggestion from Public Safely about no left turn,
having grown up in this area, that's a fine idea. We'd have no
problem installing a "no left turn' sign with everything going on
across the street with Costco and Meijer and the gas stations.
We think that's a fine point. This is obviously going to be
redeveloped. In a small site, .9 acres or thereabouts, we think
we've done the best we can to manage the circulation for our
potential customers, but we would move that ATM in.
Mr. Wilshaw: It is a decent looking site plan. I just wish you could lake a lime
better advantage of the Industrial Drive opportunity to funnel
traffic in and out of your site. Its going to be difficult the way it's
laid out.
Mr. Rein: Not to interrupt, but the other thing we did look at was bringing
everybody to the right, and that simply in such close proximity to
people coming in or leaving, and particularly this lane, whether
ft's an ATM or not, if this person is forced to come to the right,
and you can't give them the option of going right or left, because
invariably this person is going to lake a right and this person is
going to take a left. So it has to be a one-way flow. We have
separated the truck traffic. The only truck traffic we really have
is for the dumpster and they'll be able to back up and get out
this way. So we were conscious of minimizing the interference
with our customers. Its in our best interest. But in this case,
knowing through surveys and experience what people do when
they're leaving here, this type of queuing and this length is not a
bad idea.
23506
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'm thinking of the DFCU financial branch up at Seven Mile and
Newburgh. That has a nice traffic flow pattern that keeps the
dine-thru traffic separate from the pedestrian traffic that's
walking into the branch.
Mr. Rein:
I wish I had more room. Even the Plymouth Road site does it
better, but with this site and the Derby Bar, we didn't have a lot
of room.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure. Just out of curiosity, do you know what percentage on
average of your business is drive-thru traffic versus walk-in
traffic?
Mr. Rein:
I don't know the percentage, but you probably have all heard the
ads. TCF does a lot of marketing and they go for extended
hours during the day and seven days a week. Usually most of
our branches are two or three. They wanted four because they
really do market. They think their customers are looking for
those extended hours and longer hours during the day and on
weekends. Solheyvery much markelfor drive-thru.
Mr. Wilshaw:
It seems like you're going to have a fair amount of drive-lhru
traffic here too.
Mr. Rein:
That's what our hope is.
Mr.Wilshaw:
Okay. Verygood. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Just for clarification, I'm looking at this color rendering that
indicates TCF at Middlebelt Road and Industrial Drive. This
particular one doesn't seem to match the plan because in
looking at it, it says on this rendering, that lane one is ATM and
nightdeposit.
Mr. Rein:
I'd like to say it was an anticipation of Mr. WiIshaw's request. I'd
like to say that, but it was actually a mistake on our part. That
shouldn't have said that. It was only suppose to say the night
deposit, but we will be moving it in there and losing this kiosk.
So it is partly true, but you're right. It was an error on our part.
Mr. Morrow:
So you are saying you're going to move the ATM along with the
night deposit?
Mr. Rein:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
And there will also be a service window there?
Mr. Rein:
Correct.
2350]
Mr. Morrow:
Thank you.
Mr. Rein:
Well, no, I'm sorry. Just for clarification. Once we move the
ATM over, that lane then becomes dedicated only to nighttime
deposit and ATM. There won't be the old fashioned window that
comes out of the wall.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I thought.
Mr. LaPine:
Will you go to the Iasi board, the one you talked to Mr. Wilshaw
about? I'm a little confused. On Middlebelt Road, the entrance
on Middlebelt Road, so cars can enter off of Middlebelt Road.
Now they want to go to the bank. They go up that road. They
go into the drive-thru, right?
Mr. Rein:
Correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Now they get there and they find out they can't do their
transaction there, so they come back going east and park over
here. Now they leave there, and then they've got to go back out
because they can't get out onto Middlebelt because they want to
make a Teff hand turn. So they have to go all the way back out
and then out to the road and then down to the road. It seems
like a lot of driving to me.
Mr. Rein:
Its a very small site.
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, I understand.
Mr. Rein:
If we had more room, we might have laid it out differently, but in
trying to meet the exterior landscape requirements, our own
circulation, the size of the building. We also think that even
though its circuitous, it is in everybody's best interest to come
out to the light.
Mr. LaPine:
I agree with you 100 percent there. Did you ever consider
moving the drive-thru over to the north side of the location?
Mr. Rein:
And rotate them this way?
Mr. LaPine:
That's right.
Mr. Rein:
Yes, the problem with that is, because of the stacking
requirements, we become real close to Middlebelt, and then a
lot of communities would rather not see the drive thm, and this
way we're hiding it.
23508
Mr. La Pine: Okay. That makes sense.
Mr. Alanskas: I have one question in regard to your banks being open on
Sundays. Do you get a lot of business on a Sunday?
Mr. Rein: We really do. It's surprising to me because we're also open
Saturdays obviously and you have six days, but they absolutely
do. It's not the full day, but it's six hours.
Mr. Alanskas: That's quite a bit.
Mr. Rein: Yeah.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions or comments? Okay. Thank
you, sir. We appreciate your time. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? I'm
Sony?
Unidentified audience member: (inaudible)
Mr. Walsh: No, the commentary is related to the item specifically.
Unidentified audience member: I have a question.
Mr. Walsh: All right. Sir, if you could step forward to the microphone.
Unidentified audience member: I read in the paper today that the City of
Livonia is going to contract with the City of Detroit and pay for a
bus line extending into our city.
Mr. Walsh: Okay, sir. That would not be anything this body is ...
Unidentified audience member: When would I be able to address that or how or
when?
Mr. Walsh: What I would suggest to you is to contact Karen Szymula in the
City Council office.
Unidentified audience member: Karen?
Mr. Walsh: Szymula. And she can let you know when they're meeting. I
think there's an upcoming committee meeting at which they'll
discuss it. That's a Council matter, not this body.
Unidentified audience member: You don't have anything to do with that?
23509
Mr. Walsh: Not this body, no, sir. She can let you know when the
committee meeting is going to be and also when it will be on for
a study session and a vote. She can give you the full schedule.
Unidentified audience member: Yeah, I thought it was tonight.
Mr. Walsh: Do they have a committee meeting tonight?
Mr. Taormina: I'm not aware of it. You'd have to check on the second floor or
you could check with the officer out front. He or she will let you
know if there's a meeting upstairs.
Unidentified audience member: Okay.
Mr. Walsh: Yes. Check with him. The Council has chambers on the
second floor where they conduct their committee meetings.
Unidentified audience member: I have a website concerning transportation and
its called Savethefueltax.org if anyone is interested. I want to
coordinate the different transit agencies to get more federal and
state money.
Mr. Walsh: Well, sir, I encourage you to . I'm not dismissing your
suggestions. There's nothing we can do with them.
Unidentified audience member: I know. I understand.
Mr. Walsh: Your best betwould be to contactthe City Council.
Unidentified audience member: I just want to educate the public. That's the
purpose of my website. Okay. Thanks a lot.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this item? Good evening.
Sandi Bevak, Howard Schwartz Commercial Real Estate, 30054 Orchard Lake
Road, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. Hi. I represent the owner of
the adjacent Wal-Mart property. I have a question to clarify the
site plan. Are those two entrances to the right going into the
Wal-Mart property?
Mr. Rein: They are simply proposed connections. We have no easements
or anything. When we were dealing with the Planning
Department and knew that this site was going to be
redeveloped, we hoped as that plan moves forward ... because
we think there's an economy of scale, but for right now, those
are simply proposed. They will be green until we have a chance
23510
to work out a formal agreement whether it's with you or a
successor.
Ms. Bevak: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional comments from this audience on this
item? Seeing no one coming forward, I'm going to close the
public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Alansas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-02-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, on
Petition 2006-07-02-18 submitted by TCF National Bank
requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a bank
with drive -up service facilities at 13401 Middlebelt Road, on
properly located on the west side of Middlebell Road between
Schoolcraft Road and the CSX Railroad in the Northeast % of
Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2006-07-02-18 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP1.00 prepared by
Bowers & Rein, dated July 13, 2006, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, except that the ATM shall be
eliminated as a freestanding structure and be relocated to
the inside ofthe building;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP1.00 prepared
by Bowers & Rein, dated July 13, 2006, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers shall 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 Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet A5.00
prepared by Bowers & Rein, dated July 13, 2006, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except with the change
as noted above in Condition No. 1;
6. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall
be full -face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions;
23511
7. That the site's dumpsler enclosure shall be of masonry
construction to match the building brick and shall have
metal gates which, when not in use, shall be closed at all
times;
8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent
properties and roadway;
9. Thatall parking spaces shall be double striped;
10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
11. That a NO LEFT TURN sign shall be installed for traffic
exiting onto Middlebell Road in accordance with the
suggestion contained in the correspondence dated August
7, 2006, from the Traffic Bureau of the Division of Police;
12. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for the building permits; and
13. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the dale of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void allhe expiration ofsaid period.
Subjecllo 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.
23512
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mark, the Condition #5 where they talk
about the "Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet A5.00
prepared by Bowers & Rein, dated July 13, 2006, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to," now that plan shows just the
night deposit on the first lane. Shouldn't it be revised to show
that the ATM is going to be in that area too?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, and we can add a statement, "as revised above,' and then
what I think you need to do is to make a note, probably on the
site plan, Condition #1, clarifying where you want that ATM
relocated, either to the lane dosest to the building or within the
building itself. I'm not sure if you mentioned that.
Ms. Smiley:
No I didn't. Should we put "in the lane closest to the building?"
Mr. Taormina:
I would look for direction from either the architect or Mr.
Wilshaw.
Ms. Smiley:
He already agreed to do that, right?
Mr. Rein:
Just as we did on Plymouth Road, it's inside the building. It's in
that first lane. So that's what we would do here.
Mr. Wilshaw:
That sounds good.
Ms. Smiley:
Isn'tthat the way its shown on your preemptive strike?
Mr. Rein:
Yes. We're so clever.
Ms. Smiley:
You are.
Mr. Walsh:
So, Ms. Smiley, are you comfortable with that, and the support,
Mr. Alanskas? Do you support that change?
Ms. Smiley:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes. Completely.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Rein, I'd like to thank you for your time tonight. I was unable
to join my colleagues last week due to a family matter. I
understand they discussed these issues at great, great length.
I'm just hearing some of them for the first time. I appreciate
23513
your explanations, and I appreciate TCF's investment in our
community. It is substantial. It's not just branches. It's an office
building and we're glad to have you.
Mr. Rein: We're excited to be here and I'm sure everybody has seen the
corridor is coming along nicely. So we're night on schedule
there.
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 2006-07-0249 WOODHAVEN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
07-02-19 submitted by Fusco, Shaffer & Pappas, Inc., on behalf
of Woodhaven Retirement Community, requesting waiver use
approval to construct an addition to the existing Woodhaven
Retirement Community, at 29667 Wentworth, on property
located on the south side of Wentworth Avenue, west of
Middlebell in the Southeast % of Section 14.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition and provided
the following history of the site's development. In 1983, the site
of the nursing home was rezoned to PS, Professional Services.
That was later changed to OS, Office Services. It was in 1984-
85 when the site plan was approved and it was granted to the
Apostolic Christian Church for the construction of a 66 -bed
nursing home known as Woodhaven of Livonia. In 1986, the
City Council approved changes to the original site plan, and
then in 1993, the site plan was granted for the expansion of the
facility, which consisted of two additions that totaled 5,000
square feel and increased the number of beds by 12, for a total
of 78. In 1995, the Council approved a properly exchange
involving the adjoining 2.7 acres of city -owned land, and then in
1997, site plan approval was granted for Woodpoinle of Livonia
Senior Housing.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated August 2, 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. No additional right -0f -
way is required. The legal description for the waiver use
follows. A detention area is required in accordance with Wayne
23514
County's Storm Water Management Ordinance or a waiver of
this requirement is needed from the County based on the
amount of increase in the impervious area." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 3, 2006,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct an addition
to the existing Woodhaven Nursing Home on property located
on the south side of Wentworth Avenue, west of Middlebelt, in
the Southeast 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 Inspection Department,
dated August 11, 2006, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of July 31, 2006, the above-referencodpetition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) There is no side yard
setback requirement when abutting non-residential property
(west property line). (2)An accessible passengerloading zone,
property constructed and marked must be located at the main
entry. At this Department's review, the accessible parking
location and count will be reviewed. We would recommend that,
if possible, one or two spaces be located at the front entrance
(in addition to the required loading zone). (3) No signage has
been reviewed. (4) The light pole bases are depicted at 27 feet
high above grade. The Commission and/or Council may wish to
address this proposed height. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. There is a letter from John and
Kristine Penney, residents at 29750 Wentworth Avenue, dated
August 27, 2006. I would read that letter at the Commission's
request. Otherwise, I will indicate that it outlines a number of
issues of concem by the Penney's and their objection to the
proposal as submitted.
Mr. Walsh: We all do have copies of that letter so we have that information
with us this evening. Is that it for the correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, it is.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Taormina? Seeing none, then
we will go the petitioner. Good evening.
James Pappas, Fusco, Shaffer & Pappas, Inc., 28382 Franklin Road, Southfield,
Michigan 48034. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Pappas, if you have items to show us, I'm going to suggest
you go over to the other podium.
23515
Mr. Pappas: I'd like to thank Mark, first, for a great explanation of the project.
It was very organized and well done. What I would like to do is
just follow up on that stating that we did meet with many of the
neighbors from the surrounding community last Thursday in
regard to this project. And if I could just maybe walk you
through some of the presentation that we gave to them and
some of their concerns and how we fell we addressed those.
This is a little bit different view than you saw there with just the
building of the surrounding area and our building to show some
of the neighbors how the new building affected the residential in
the surrounding area. We then provided a blow-up of that with
Wentworth right here, north is up on the rendering as you can
see. Some of the biggest concerns of the neighbors had to do
with the trees along Wentworth. A Iittie bit about that. We did
put together a plan of the trees in the area. As you can see, the
building sets back 40 feet as required for the setback from the
properly line at this point. It is our intention from the edge of the
building out, we need to clear 20 feel of the area for
construction and clear area needed for the windows for this type
of a community. Beyond that 20 feel though, we are intending
to leave all the existing trees and growth to the street. This is
actually the property line. Wentworth, because of its location in
the nghl-0f-way, it's a 60 -fool wide nghl-0f-way, but sits to the
far north end of that nghl-of-way. So beyond the properly line,
we have approximately an additional 30 feel of heavy growth in
that area. After discussions and comments from the
surrounding neighbors, I think the consensus was they'd like to
see the heavy growth left there and not removed. We had
proposed a scheme to them. This is the north elevation with the
undergrowth taken out but the trees left in place that we're
leaving on the site. There are some very mature trees in that
location, more of a park -like setting. Again, their
recommendation was that we leave the heavy undergrowth in.
If you're familiar with the street, it's very dense in that area. So
we agreed to do that. One of the other concerns of that, you
can see on this drawing here, the trees to be removed are
indicated in yellow, and those are all within that 20 fool area.
The trees indicated in red, which are scattered throughout that
area, are trees that are either dead or in very poor condition.
There are approximately 20 of those, 18 of those 20 are Ash
that have died and are in place. It is our intent to remove those
that are on our property. When we remove those trees, we are
going to disturb some of that undergrowth. There are seven
dead trees that sit within that 20 fool area that we plan to keep
and we did agree with the neighbors that we would provide
seven evergreens back in those locations so that some growth
would occur and mix with the deciduous trees in the area. One
of the comments of the residents was, also you will notice there
23516
are several dead trees that are on public properly. They just
requested that I request of you if the City could get those
removed. I don't know if I'm in the right spot, but that was a
suggestion that came up at the community meeting. There was
concern about access off of Wentworth. There will be no
vehicular access from Wentworth. There will be no pedestrian
access from Wentworth as well. We did discuss with the
contractors as well as the Board of Directors of the community
and the administrator here tonight, construction traffic will come
through the access drive. We will not cul a new access drive
across from Wentworth. There was some concern about
lighting because of the requirements by codes. We do have to
gel walks from some of the exit doors along the north side of the
building. We will have lighting at those exits as required by
Code, but we do not plan to put any additional bollards or walk
lighting to encourage pedestrian traffic at that location. It's
specifically for emergency egress from those rooms. Another
concern that did come up at the meeting as well is there
appears to be a lot of traffic that may be coming to the
community, may just be lost because it's a dead end road, but
do come down to the end of the street, turn around at the end,
and then leave. But what we did agree to, the sign for the
Woodhaven community is in this location. Its an existing
ground sign. As part of this design, we will look at the design of
that sign to help improve signage and accessibility to the
building as one of their suggestions for improving access into
the site. One other area, there is, the very last home on the
property, a turnaround has kind of been developed there. I
don't know if by people driving on it, but some of this area has
been cleared directly across the street from them. As part of
that, there is a dead tree in that area. As part of some of those
improvements is where a couple of those evergreens will go as
well. So really, Mark made a great presentation on the overall
design. Just trying to show you that we did meet with the
community trying to have a compromise on many of their
concerns and issues. I'll be happy to answer any additional
questions you might have about the design.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the pefilioner? Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow: Yes. Did I hear in the presentation that you are proposing light
standards 27 feet in height?
Mr. Pappas: That is what was shown in the parking area. If we need to
reduce those to 20 feet, we have no problem with that.
Mr. Morrow: We would like to reduce them per our ordinance.
2351]
Mr. Pappas: Absolutely. That will be corrected.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I notice in your presentation, you indicated some trees that were
on city -owned property that are dead, and I would assume they
were all probably Ash trees.
Mr. Pappas: There are 20 trees that are either dead or in very bad shape.
Eighteen of those are Ash. I think one is a Willow and there's
another species.
Mr. LaPine: I would assume the department you would have to gel
permission from would be the Forestry Department to lake
those trees down. And I think they'd be more than happy to
have the developer lake them down than at the city's expense.
Would you say I was right in that?
Mr. Taormina: I have no comment.
Mr. LaPine: I think if you contact the Forestry Department, I think they'd be
more than happy for you to take those dead trees down.
Mr. Pappas: I'd be happy to do that. I'm just generally leery of doing work on
public properties.
Mr. LaPine: I would definitely get their permission.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you were going to have evergreens. What type and
how high would they be?
Mr. Pappas: I imagine at planting, we're talking about a six to eight foot
evergreen initially. I don't have the species. It would be one
that the City recommends.
Mr. Alanskas: Itwould not be a real small evergreen?
Mr. Pappas: Typically, landscaping ...
Mr. Alanskas: Starting at six feet. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Just about the landscaping. Obviously that's probably the
greatest concern of the residents and of us to make sure that
your development is properly screened. With these changes
that you have on this map shown, do you believe that once
these changes are complete, that for all intents and purposes
the screening of the development will basically be the same as it
23518
currently is once you replace some of those dead trees and so
on?
Mr. Pappas:
I can't say it's going to be similar because we are ... as you
can see this area here, those are trees that we are removing.
But we are in far excess of ... beyond the setback. We are not
clearing any of that brush. We're leaving that 20 fool, and we
are providing a total, from the edge of the street to the point that
we will not clear of approximately 50 feel.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Pappas:
And its pretty heavy brush in that area.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And do those green indications show where the evergreens are
going to go?
Mr. Pappas:
Those greens are the existing mature trees that we're not
disturbing.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I see. Does that map show where the evergreens are going to
be placed?
Mr. Pappas:
It does not. The intent was ... where you see the red trees that
we're removing, because it is very heavy brush, if we went in
and planted evergreens, we would disturb the heavy brush that
is there. You need probably a 10 fool by 10 foot area just to
plant a tree today with the equipment. Our intent was that when
the dead trees are removed, that area would be cleared just
from the process of removing the dead tree. We're planning to
go back into that same location, so we're trying to save as much
ofthe underbrush as possible.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. I believe that the idea, if you can, work with the Forestry
Department, to remove the dead trees that are even on the city
property, if that's possible, that would be a really nice gesture.
Mr. Pappas:
We can contact them and see if that's possible.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Great. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just one question. You say there are dead trees on your
property. How long have they been dead? I mean, why haven't
they been removed before now that you want to have something
done on the building?
Mr. Pappas:
Right now, it's just a heavily wooded area. You might not have
noticed, but they're there.
23519
Mr. Alanskas: But I mean if they're dead, they should have been removed
quite awhile ago.
Mr. Pappas: They are Ash trees. You know the Ash disease has been
around, what is it, about five, six years?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Mr. Pappas: So it may have been that some of them may still be alive but in
poor condition.
Mr. Alanskas: But you're saying now they're dead.
Mr. Pappas: They are dead now. I don't know how long they've been dead.
Mr. Alanskas: What I'm saying is, I'm just concerned with how you're taking
care of that properly where its a very wooded area on your side
of the property.
Mr. Pappas:
Its in very similar condition to the surrounding properties to the
west of us, which is the entire park property. As you walk out
there, it's just a very natural wooded setting.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, sir. Would you explain to me again the directional sign or
the signage leading into the site?
Mr. Pappas:
The project signage occurs in this location.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that on the Middlebelt ....
Mr. Pappas:
It is not. Middlebelt is here. This is actually the access dive
that comes in at this point off of Wentworth. Middlebelt is here
and the signage is at this location.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. So in other words, your intent would be to improve that
directional sign there?
Mr. Pappas:
That is correct.
Mr. Morrow:
To preclude as much traffic that's trying to go in there from
going further west on Wentworth?
Mr. Pappas:
Just to make it a little bit simpler to read and ...
23520
Mr. Morrow: Yes, I notice that if you're not paying attention, you can miss
that drive pretty easy.
Mr. Pappas: Yes. That was one of the suggestions of the board.
Mr. Morrow: I just wanted to make sure I understood it because I can see
where it will need a little help around there to get the people
visiting that facility not to miss that tum. There's nothing you
can do about somebody who is lost. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, you had a comment?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, I'm just going to show this partial north elevation. This is
actually one of the entrance or exit doors that Mr. Pappas
referred to on that side of the building that would face
Wentworth. You'll notice the colonial -style wall sconces or light
fixtures. I was just wondering Mr. Pappas if, because of the
concerns regarding lighting, these might be modified to be a
shielded light fixture instead. I know you're trying to match the
design along the other portions of the building, but I'm just
wondering if there might be a way of doing a better job of
shielding the light.
Mr. Pappas:
Those could be shielded, but at our community meeting, we did
indicate that we would try to get that light up underneath the
canopy in a recessed doorway to provide for better screening.
Mr. Taormina:
Okay. So it may not be visible at all is what you're saying.
Mr. Pappas:
You're always going to see some light from a lit entry like that,
but we're going to recess it up into the canopy.
Mr. Taormina:
So these would be moved up.
Mr. Pappas:
These will be eliminated.
Mr. Taormina:
I understand.
Mr.Pappas:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Down lighting.
Mr. Pappas:
We do have to get adequate access light on the surface for
exiting purposes by building code, but we can gel it up into that
soffit.
Mr. Taormina:
Thank you.
23521
Mr. Wilshaw:
On the Landscape Plan, the island that is towards the front
entrance of your facility right near the porlecochere, there is an
indication of a ground sign on that island?
Mr. Pappas:
There is a ground sign there currently just giving direction. As
you access the site through the entry drive, there is just a
directional sign for clarification between Woodpoinle and
Woodhaven.
Mr.Wilshaw:
That was my quesfion. What does that sign say?
Mr. Pappas:
It's to tell you which way to go at that point for circulation. And
as one of the comments for the additional loading area, we are
expanding that loading area currently as indicated in the drop
Off.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this pefition?
John Penney,
29750 Wentworth. Good evening. I live at the house at the end of
the street. First, I'd like to thank everyone who has attended
tonight. We do have a lot of neighbor representatives from
Wentworth. Wentworth is a relatively short street in this area
consisting of 10 houses and we have good representation from
the neighborhood. I'd like to point out a couple more points to
the gentleman's presentation. I think the neighbors are unified
that we are not in approval of this expansion. I did draft a letter
and I'm glad that it did become part of the public record to voice
some of my concerns. I have had in the last two days time to
review some of the plans and I have drafted a second letter that
I would like to either comment from or include into the public
record if I may.
Mr. Walsh: Yes, if you would comment from it and then pass it to Mr
Taormina and we will enter that into the record as well.
Mr. Penney: Okay. I have five points that I would like to make. There was
an earlier petition in 1993 where the Woodhaven Retirement
Community provided the city with a site plan that proposed two
additions to their establishment. Those addifions at the time
were a lot smaller in size and, in my opinion, a lot more
agreeable and more in spirit with the rural setting of the
neighborhood. I have included a couple copies of those plans.
So the previous additions that didn't go forward are a lot better
than the new one that is being proposed. Second point, the
neighbors are unanimously opposed to this expansion. Yes, we
met with the architects. Yes, we met with members of
Woodhaven, but we are unanimously opposed to this petition.
23522
I'd like to describe what I think is a litlle bit of an oversight in the
site plan. I did not see a light intensity plan or a illuminescent
plot to prove that there will be no nuisances caused to the
adjoining community by light coming out from their facility. So
I'd like to have that included in the Site Plan. Third, I don't
believe that the site plan adequately describes the required
greenbelt of the northern edge of the property. This leads into
my fourth point, which is that this site is zoned OS, and OS is
typically used for eight hour a day operations five days a week.
Since this is a nursing home, it is a 24/7 use. So therefore I'd
like to increase the greenbelt area to the northern part of the
property as a way of shielding the residences from this 24 hour
a day operation that operates south of us. More trees are
definitely needed on the site plan to provide the adequate
shielding the greenbelt should provide. Fifth, I do not believe
the HVAC system location was described on some of the site
plans. I would just like to make a point that those need to be out
of sight and that the neighbors cannot be affected by either
noise or vibrations coming from those HVAC systems. That's a
summary of my points, and I'd like to hand the letter over to you.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Penney. I appreciate it. Good evening.
James Persaini, 29620 Wentworth. Good evening. Hello everyone. Thank you
John. He's a lot more articulate than I'm going to be. My name
is James Persaini. This my wife, Terri. First of all, excuse me if
I sound nervous and angry, because I am nervous and angry. I
would just like to let you know that there's already paint lines on
our street like they are ready to start tomorrow, like this is
already approved and it's going ahead. That's just wrong. In
my humble opinion, they do not care about our street or
community. They care about their census or how many elderly
people they can squeeze in and how much money they can
make. On our little private residential street we all pay dearly for
because it is beautiful and private. If this goes through, we'll be
looking out of our front windows, understand that - out of our
front windows every day at a brick wall and lights, 24/7, every
single day. And I dont know if it was highlighted in Mr. Pappas'
diagram there, but along the edge of it there's going to be a
walkway. Along the edge of their property there's going to be a
walkway. So that has to be lit all the time for the residents.
How can that not invade our homes and privacy? It does
nothing for the community or the surrounding area. I know
times are tough all over, but sometimes you have to say no to
corporate greed and takeover for the good of the community
and the surrounding area. In closing, I thank everybody for
listening to me and my stuttering and mumbling. But in closing,
23523
this lakes away from the beauty, and last but not least, it takes
away from our property. Sincerely, James and Teri Persaini.
Cindy Toth, 29724 Wentworth. I moved onto Wentworth over 10 years ago
because of the beautiful vegetation. I invite all of you to come
down the street sometime. It is really an incredible sight.
People comment on it whenever they come down there. Its
beautiful. You feel like you're up north. As a property taxpayer,
I believe the Planning Commission should deny this resolution.
I do not believe that Woodhaven has demonstrated that their
expansion on the north side is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding area. I question whether the petition has
shown the need for expansion also and to the greenbelt that
they agreed to keep 20 years ago when the land swap was
taken. There is space on the other side of the building, which
they originally planned on building on. We feel they have not
kept their word to us through the years. I know that the addition
with extra traffic and lighting will lower our property values and
completely change the feel of our neighborhood. Who would
want to pay premium dollars, like we paid for our homes, to face
a building with trees in front of it and traffic 24 hours a day? I
think you would agree it's totally a change of what we all bought
into. Our privacy and our beautiful street will be destroyed. So I
do request that you deny their resolution. Thank you.
Louis Toth: I live with my wife, Cindy, at 29724 Wentworth. I just wanted to
say that if the development could be redone where it's not
encroaching so far into the greenbelt area that does exist there,
it would be very beneficial. Thanks.
Kristine Penney, 29750 Wentworth. I live with my husband in the house at the
end of the street. Part of my job during the day, everyday, is to
evaluate business cases and to write business cases. I do not
believe that Woodhaven has presented a sound business case
for spending $4 million dollars for just 10 additional beds. Now,
as a resident of Wentworth, a new resident Wentworth, we paid
an extreme premium to live in this beautiful neighborhood at the
end of this beautiful street. And learning about the history of the
struggles that the long-time residents of Wentworth has had with
Woodhaven previously, part of me is a little skeptical and part of
me wonders what's next. If they are asking to spend $4 million
right now for just 10 beds, part of me is thinking that maybe they
have an ace up their sleeve and that maybe this is just the start
of something else. The current zoning of that area does allow
for two story. Maybe that's the next step that they're planning to
help earn back some of that $4 million. They are a nonprofit
organization and they do not pay taxes on their property, at
least not that I could find in my research on the City of Livonia
23524
website. We do pay property taxes on our properties and we
don't mind because we love living in the City of Livonia. I was
born in Livonia. I grew up in Livonia and I'm very pleased to be
here and looking forward to raising my own family on Wentworth
in this beautiful setting. That concerns me about my property
value versus their property value. There has been mention of a
path, and I'm not sure my fellow residents have adequately
explained our fears of the past. We've already had some
instances of residents wandering onto our street, which we have
taken due care to return to the nursing home. And we're
concerned that this path will look like a lovely place for an
afternoon stroll, and if they start walking along this path, what's
to slop them from coming on Wentworth? Not to say that's
wrong, but we feel that maybe the path really isn't just an
emergency exit path and the way that it kind of winds along the
edge of the property, very scenic for an afternoon stroll, and
that's part of the reason why they're taking down some of our
beautiful trees that we look out on everyday. We would hope
that maybe they could ... we aren't sure what the building code
is, but possibly could they move that path in a little closer to the
building if this addition really does need to go through, if the
business case really is, in fad, there. Then they can leave
some of the additional trees that are already in place. That
would be an alternative but our true hope and desire is for you
to reject their petition this evening. Thank you very much for
allowing us to speak.
John MacDonald, 29606 Wentworth. We feel that this is going to hurt the resale
value of our houses. In addition to the building where the
placement of their dumpsler and their loading area will be
directly across from our houses. I'm not sure where they want
to put the additional lighting. If they double stripe the parking,
will that create a need for additional parking? That's all.
Dana Knochel, 19343 S. Hampton Drive. I am a volunteer board member of
Woodhaven Retirement Community, and we have studied long
and hard this plan and have tried to lake many, many things into
consideration and would simply ask for your support this
evening. Thank you.
Mark Wieland, 31324 Hillbrook. I'm a member of the building committee for this.
I'm a Livonia resident. Again, I concur with Dana. I would
appreciate any due consideration. I can assure you we, as a
building committee, are trying to do everything in our power to
address all the concerns of the residents. We're residents of
the city loo and agree that they duly have to be considered.
Thank you.
23525
Randall W. Gasser, 29667 Wentworth, Livonia, Michigan 48154. 1 am the
Executive Director of the Woodhaven Retirement Community.
Mr. Walsh: Let me interrupt you for just one moment. Are you going to
speak as a resident or are you really here in your official
capacity?
Mr. Gasser: lam.
Mr. Walsh: I'm going to ask you just to wail unfit I'm certain that we're done
with our public hearing. Thank you. Is there anyone else
wishing to speak for or against this pefifion item not affiliated
with the organization because they will have the last word? If
you've spoken already, sir, I'd really like to go to new
comments.
Mr. Persaini: Maybe I could make one quick comment?
Mr. Walsh: Sure. Come on up. It won't be picked up on the microphone
otherwise. You came here and wailed, so we'll certainly listen.
Mr. Persaini: On his drawing, I really want to emphasize the pathway that
they fail to bring up at all in their presentafion. That pathway,
like I say, for safety . supposedly those exits are for
emergency exits. By law, don't those have to be lit 24 hours a
day?
Mr. Walsh: That's our understanding for the emergency exit; they must be
Id.
Mr. Persaini: Okay. And along that pathway for residents' safety, would you
not keep it lit?
Mr. Walsh: When we gel to that point, that's one of the questions I have
written down for them. What happens is, we lake in your
comments and we'll ask some quesfions of the petitioner when
you're sealed. So we hope to address that as we move
forward. Raise your hand if we don't.
Mr. Persaini: Okay.
Martha MacDonald, 29606 Wentworth. I'm John's wife. A lot of things have
been mentoned. The HVAC system, I believe, is what Mr.
Penney was talking about when the generator kicks on when we
lose power. It's very noisy. We gel to stay up all night and
listen to their generator. I understand that they need air and
lights to house the seniors and they shouldn't be without air or
lights, but its very annoying. We live right across from where
23526
they would put the new proposed dumpster and we can pretty
much tell you the time they come to dump the trash. It's every
other day or so. If I'm wrong, then you can tell me. Sometimes
they come as early 6:00, they come 7:30, they come 1:00 in the
afternoon, all different times. If the dumpsler gels moved, it
would be moved closer to my house. I will hear it more. We put
up with lights in the parking lot on change of shift. Not only the
lights, but the staff and the employees of that nursing home,
unfortunately, blare their radios at limes. We do hear that even
when we have the heal on in the winter. So if they move
everything closer to us and lake away that greenbelt, we're
going to be bothered more by the noise and the lights than we
have to put up with now. I've never complained to Randy
because he is my neighbor. I understand it's a facility that does
run 24/7 so I've given them the benefit of the doubt that they
have probably tried to keep everything down, but at limes it just
does not work. So we do put up with a lot of noise and a lot of
traffic from those people. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this item? If not, then at this point I'm going to close the
public hearing and go to the petitioner. Randy, you're on. This
is your opportunity to address some of the points, and we'll
certainly have some questions for you.
Mr. Gasser: Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to address the group
tonight. As I mentioned, I have been the Executive Director
there since 1986. In September, I will have been there 20
years. We have tried through the years to address any need
that's been risen by the neighbors. We have had, like the lady
previous to me mentioned, very, very few complaints, if any,
from the neighbors through the years. I wanted to address
Jack's comments about the parlang lot striping. Two parking lot
re -dos ago we went from single line striping to double line
striping. So the last two go-arounds, we've already done double
line striping, so that will not change. It's already in place. You
can take a look at that. In terms of the HVAC units, those are
intended to be totally hidden behind a mansard roof so they will
not be on the ground and visible as you see in some
developments. They will be totally masked behind there. Its
not our intention to lake down any trees that are owned by
anybody other than us. We feel that the green space we are
maintaining is nearly double that which is required because of
the way Wentworth is laid out, and I thank you for your time.
Mr. Morrow: We heard one comment from I believe it was a lady relative to
expansion in the future. She mentioned something about two
23527
stones. Is your development pretty well maxed out where you
are now?
Mr. Gasser:
We have absolutely no plans for a two-story development
anywhere on that side of the properly. And should that happen
after I'm no longer there, there would need to be a public
hearing and people would have the opportunity to debate that.
We have never, in all of this planning process, even considered
a two story development. It's never come up one time.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, through you to Mark. Mark, I think you said
earlier what would be the largest beds they could have on that
site as compared to what they're requesting now.
Mr. Taormina:
They are well below the density at this stage. They're at one
bed for every 1,600 square feet of land area, and the OS district
would permit a much higher density of one per 500 square feel.
Technically, there would be the opportunity to continue the
expansion of the facility. I'm not sure how the State enters into
the approval process and whether or not there are other
constraints posed on the site relative to parking and everything
else, but there would still be some opportunity for expansion
based on the density allowance.
Mr. Morrow:
That's what I wanted to know versus what he indicated. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman
Mr. Gasser:
May I speak to that?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Gasser:
The question came up with our meeting with the neighbors. We
were compared to Henry Ford Village in Dearborn and they said
what's to slop you from becoming a Henry Ford Village in
Dearborn because that organization in about a year and a half
time put up 1,000 apartments. And our response to that was,
we have been on that site since 1986, and in 20 years time,
we're proposing to be up to a total of 100. So when you
compare 100 spaces over 20 years as compared to 1,000 in a
year and a half, there really is no comparison to that. And we
went on to expand that. We are an independent, standalone
organization that was started by the Apostolic Christian Church
and that is a 100 member congregation. We simply dont have
the resources to do the major expansion that would be feared.
Mr. LaPine:
We heard a number of comments this evening about people
saying traffic, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I can't
believe people are coming and going that much. Are we talking
23528
about a change in shifts or people coming in to visit people in
the middle of the night? I'm confused about what they're talking
about when they say that.
Mr. Gasser:
That's a fair question, and I think what they're making reference
to is our traffic flow. It does shut down when people go to bed,
which is anywhere between 800 and 1000 in the evening.
However, there is a shift change at 11:00 at night, and there are
a total of six people that work in that people. So there are six
cars that come in at 1100 and six cars that leave at 11:00 at
night. And then virtually there is no traffic until the next morning
when about 600 in the morning, there would be those six
people leaving. Those shifts are staggered. So some leave at
6:00 a.m., some leave at 7:00 a.m.
Mr. LaPine:
So that's what they're talking about, a change in shift. I thought
they were talking about people coming in to visit people in the
middle of the night, but that isn't the case.
Mr. Gasser:
That does not happen.
Mr. LaPine:
The second quesfion I have is, again, has to do with the traffic.
There was an indication that the dumpslers are picked up at
different limes. I believe our ordinance says you can't pick up
anything before 6:00 in the morning. Isn't that the maximum?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe it's 7:00 in the morning.
Mr. La Pine
Can that be changed so that they don't do it loo early in the
morning or loo Tale at night?
Mr. Gasser:
We will absolutely address that. The first we heard of that was
Thursday night. Typically, Republic Waste come about 8:00 in
the morning but if they're coming before that, which they said
that is happening, we will talk to them about that, and they will
be responsive, I believe.
Mr. LaPine:
Very good. Thank you very kindly.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Just a question about your future business plan. Do you have a
growth plan slated out or do you have a business plan as to
what the future holds for your development at this point?
Mr. Gasser:
We really don't. Our organization is a very conservative
organization and we look at our business more as a ministry
than as a real estate operation. And so, as I mentioned, we
really don't have the deep pockets to be able to do a lot of
development. What we need to do, we need to do it borrowing
23529
and we can only borrow so much. And I wanted to address the
lady who felt like maybe we were spending loo much to do this,
what we are calling a repositioning. We would love to spend
less because everything we borrow has to be repaid, but we're
actually incurring a lot of additional expense to do things that will
be aesthetically pleasing, to do things in a way that will enhance
the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Along that line, what insfigated this particular expansion
of your facility? Was it a need to do this?
Mr. Gasser:
Absolutely. That's a fair question. Our building was built in
1986, and of our 80 beds, 76 of them are in shared rooms. And
the current retiree is not interested in sharing a 200 square foot
bedroom with somebody they're not related to. That was the
case back in the 1980's, but we've become a much more private
consumer and we value our privacy. So what we're planning to
do is add on rooms so that we can create more privacy. We're
actually adding on more than 10 rooms, and that's so we can
lake some existing rooms and make them private. The reason
we're adding the 10 rooms is we need that incremental revenue
to pay back the debt, and that's what makes this financially
feasible. Outside of that, we would have to raise our rales
beyond what the consumer would want to pay, and I would
invite any of you to compare our rates as a not -for -prof( to the
other rales charged by facilities in Livonia, and you'll find that
we provide access to people at more modest income levels
which is consistent with our mission.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Very good. I appreciate that. My other question is
perhaps more for Mr. Pappas. It's in regard to the walkway that
we've heard some of the residents discuss. There is on the site
plan an indication of a walkway that meanders through the
wooded area on the north end of the property and connects to
those two exit ways. Is this a walkway with a sole purpose to
facilitate the emergency exit of residents?
Mr. Pappas:
That is correct.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Pappas, I'm going to ask you to move over because our
cameras are set up and we don't have a lot of flexibility.
Mr. Pappas:
In regard to the walkway, we are required to have that walkway.
The intent was to locale the walkway in the 20 fool that we have
to clear adjacent to the building and not take it into the wooded
area.
23530
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. When I was on the site, which was a couple different
limes, I did happen to see a number of residents, half a dozen
or so, that were walking through the property, in the parking lot
or the driveways, you know, out for a stroll, stretch their legs,
and I think that's excellent that they are able to do that. I can
see the residents' concern that this would be an attractive place
to have as part of their walking route if it's accessible.
Mr. Pappas:
Can I address that?
Mr. Wilshaw:
Sure.
Mr. Pappas:
It is an attractive location and the residents of the building are
neighbors within the community. However, the walk when it
reaches the far west end, doesn't go anywhere but into the park.
So it doesn't proceed past that point. It just connects to the
exits that are located at the north end of the building. It doesn't
wrap around the building so eventually it would dead end at the
west end of the building.
Mr. Wilshaw:
On the east end, does it conned to the parking lot?
Mr. Pappas:
Yes, it does.
Mr. Wilshaw:
So a walker could go that way.
Mr. Pappas:
Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Is there a possibility of moving that walkway closer to the
building, to abut the building?
Mr. Pappas:
I prefer not to abut the building, but as I said, we are locating it
in the 20 foot space that we need to clear anyway. There's 20
fool of clear space that I need to clear to construct the building
to maintain the building, etc. So it's in that 20 fool space.
Mr. Wilshaw:
And you don't intend on having that walkway lit other than just
the doorways?
Mr. Pappas:
The exit doors have to be lit by code and they have to provide
adequate light out for a certain distance. The entire walk will not
be lit. Its not required by Code and its not our intent. If
possible, if the Board WII allow, if I could address a couple of
the concerns of the neighbors I heard if that's acceptable.
Mr. Walsh:
Yes, please.
23531
Mr. Pappas:
With regard to the smaller addition, as was mentioned several
limes, we are only proposing a one-story building, not a two-
story, which is allowed. We are well short of half the allowable
density on this site at the current time with the additional beds.
The HVAC units will be within the units. We're proposing a fan
coil with a roof -mounted DX or condenser, so those will be
hidden on the roof. The majority of the roof currently, as you
may have noticed in the picture that was flashed up on the
screen, is actually a flat roof. The new addition that we're
proposing, that's all existing flat roof and those are units that
you can effectively see from a distance. The proposed roof will
have a mansard to give it the look of a hipped roof around the
perimeter to screen that equipment. We did include some
additional trees. There was a suggestion about pholometrics. I
didn't see any requirement with it as part of this package. If
exiting photometrics are desired, we can easily provide those at
the Board's desire. We are shiffing the dumpster location
slightly but the loading area and dumpsler location is in
approximately the same location it is in now. As you can see on
this blow up, the current dumpsler location is here. The current
loading for the kitchen is this location. Kitchen loading will
remain in that same location. The dumpsler is being located to
this particular location with access from the building side.
Again, the parking, we're in excess of parking required on this
site as well. Just in conclusion, I think that we tried to be aware
of the neighbors' concerns. We're not here looking for any
variances on this site. We're not here maximizing the density as
was mentioned by a big time developer. We're below the
height, and we think it's an appropriate addifion to this building
for the senior community. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
One of the major concerns that I heard coming from the
residents was the light that would be leaving your site into their
living rooms across the street and into their homes. In looking
at that area and the aerial I have here, it seems fairly dense. So
can light actually escape through there across the street, or it is
so dense it's ...
Mr. Pappas:
It may be fairly dense in the summertime, but it appears to me
that the majority of that undergrowth is not evergreen type
materials. Its deciduous. Truthfully, I would imagine in the
wintertime that light would gel through that growth. In the
summertime, I would question if it could.
Mr. Morrow:
Now would this construction add to that ability of the light to get
through?
23532
Mr. Pappas: It will. Our building is closer to the property. It's no closer than
the existing building at this location. This is just slightly off the
setback at this location, but at this location, there is only one
house.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. I wanted to get his input on that.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any additional questions for the petitioner? Al this
point then, a motion is in order.
On a motion by La Pine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-03-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, on
Petition 2006-07-02-19 submitted by Fusco, Shaffer & Pappas,
Inc., on behalf of Woodhaven Retirement Community,
requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the
existing Woodhaven Retirement Community, at 29667
Wentworth, on properly located on the south side of Wentworth
Avenue, west of Middlebelt in the Southeast % of Section 14,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2006-07-02-19 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C300 prepared by Nowak
& Freus, dated July 25, 2006, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L100 prepared by
Allen Design, dated July 27, 2006, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except that the Petitioner shall plant
additional trees along the north side of the property at the
direction of the Planning and Inspection Departments to
maintain a natural buffer between the development and the
adjacent homes;
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 Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet A200
prepared by Fusco, Shaffer & Pappas, Inc., dated July 27,
2006, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
23533
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be fulkface 4
inch brick, no exceptions;
7. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing on adjacent
properties and roadway;
B. Thal all parking spaces shall be double striped;
9. That the stipulations and recommendations of the
Inspection Department regarding accessible parking
location and count and the provision of a properly
constructed and marked accessible passenger loading
zone located at the main entry, as listed in the
correspondence dated August 11, 2006, shall be
incorporated into this approval;
10. That the site's dumpsler enclosure shall be of masonry
construction to match the building brick and shall have
metal gates which, when not in use, shall be closed at all
times;
11. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition;
12. That any light fixtures along the north wall of the building
shall be recessed and shielded;
13. That all roof -top mechanical equipment shall be shielded
from view either by extending the height of the parapet wall
or by installing a screen pre -approved by the Inspection
Department;
14. That a staged tree clearing process shall be used in
conjunction with city staff, so that the number of trees to be
removed is minimized. Temporary barrier fencing shall be
used to contain all construction equipment;
15. 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
16. pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained and
23534
construction has commenced, this approval shall be null
and void at the expiration of said period.
Subjecllo the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina:
If I might make a couple suggestions. Number one, relative to
the wall -mounted light fixtures, that they be recessed along the
north side of the building. Number two, that we include a
condition relative to the screening of any roof mounted
mechanical equipment. I believe that's shown on the plans, but
if we could add that as a condition. Third, that we have a
staged clearing process whereby the petitioner would work with
the city and rough stake the construction prior to any tree
clearing. The city would then work with the petitioner on
establishing the precise clearing limits and removal of
vegetation for the addition. And then lastly, that the petitioner
will work with the city relative to the landscape plan and, in
particular, the planting materials that would go on the north side
so as to fill in any gaps that are created as a result of the
clearing to help shield that area from the adjoining residences
and maintain it in as natural a condition as possible.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you want these as additional points?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
I have no objection to that.
Ms. Smiley:
No objection.
23535
Mr. Walsh: The resolution then stands as amended
Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to say to the petitioner, now these evergreens,
you say they're going to be six feet high. You can buy
evergreens 12 to 14 feet high. 1, as one commissioner, would
like to see you put in higher evergreens to help shield on the
north side, if possible.
Mr. Morrow: I certainly welcome the additions that Mr. Taormina made
because he's involving the city as far as where they can clear
and also working with the petitioner to make sure that the light
that would be leaving the site would be diminished as much as
possible.
Mr. Wilshaw: I also like those additions. I was going to propose that we did
see some changes in the landscape here tonight, and I would
like to make sure those were incorporated into the approving
resolution and that the City Council gets a chance to review
those. So I'm glad to see that's been added. This is a difficult
situation in the sense that none of the residents are supportive
of this, but I think that the petitioner has attempted to alleviate
some of the concerns of the residents and I think they do have
properly rights and certainly they do have a right to develop on
their property, but they need to do so in such a way that it
minimizes the impact on the residents and the neighbors and I
think that they are attempting to do that. So I think I'm
supportive of it at this point.
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 PETITION 2006-06-03-01 LORI BARNES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2006-
06-03-01, submitted by Lori Barnes, and pursuant to Council
Resolution 334-06, requesting to vacate a six (6') fool wide
utility easement for the purpose of installing a pool at 17417
Francavilla Drive, located on the west side of Francavilla Drive
between Six Mile Road and Myron Drive in the Southeast''/. of
Section 9.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
23536
Mr. Taormina:
There is one items of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated July 16, 2006, address to the Honorable
Members of the City Council, which reads as follows: "We are
in receipt of Ms. Barnes letter of June 1, 2006, requesting the
vacation of a 6 foot easement on her property. There are no City
utilities in this easement and, from the City's standpoint, we
have no objection to the vacation. We have noted, however,
that the proposed mute for the Detroit Edison, SBC/AT&T and
Bdghthouse lines encroaches on the Flood plain of the Beitz
County Drain. Work in this area would require a permit fmm the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which could be
a time consuming process. Ms. Barnes may want to consider
altering her plans to avoid work in the Flood plain." 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? It seems fairly
straightforward. I think the petitioner has been wailing patiently
behind the camera. Thank you for staying. Does anyone have
any questions for him? Otherwise, I think we can proceed.
Ms. Smiley:
Didn't we establish at the study meeting that there wasn't any
work on the flood plain?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. What we determined is even if there was work within the
flood plain, as long as he wasrit altering the grade, it wouldn't
be a problem.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I'd like to make an approving resolution if there's no other
questions.
Mr. Walsh:
We'll go straight to that.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I think that there's certainly no involvement from the city in that
we have no use for that easement. The petitioner is taking this
action at great personal expense and time on his part, and if he
can go through the whole process successfully and gel the pool
that he wants to have in his backyard, then kudos to him. So
we will start this process out by giving him an approving
resolution.
On a motion by
Wilshaw, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#08-04-2006
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2006, on
Petition 2006-06-03-01, submitted by Lori Barnes, and pursuant
2353]
to Council Resolution 334-06, requesting to vacate a six (6') foot
wide utility easement for the purpose of installing a pool at
17417 Fmncavilla Drive, located on the west side of Francavilla
Drive between Six Mile Road and Myron Drive in the Southeast
% of Section 9, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2006-06-03-01 be
approved, contingent upon and subject to the relocating of the
affected public utility equipment presently occurring within the
subject easement area, for the following reasons:
1. That the portion of the easement area proposed to be
vacated can be more advantageously utilized by the
properly owner if unencumbered by the easement;
2. That the portion of the easement area proposed to be
vacated will no longer be needed once the existing utility
equipment that extends through the subject easement area
has been re-routed and moved further west into a new
easement area that is to be recorded;
3. That the Engineering Division has no objection to the
vacating ofthe six (6) fool wide easement; and
4. That no public utility company has objected to the
proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, hal notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of
the Livonia Code of Ordinances, 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#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 929TH PUBLIC HEARINGS
AND REGULAR MEETING
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 929"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on July 25, 2006.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Alaskas, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
#08-05-2006 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 929" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on July 25,
2005, are hereby approved.
23538
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Alanskas, Morrow, Wilshaw, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Shane
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Walsh: Before we conclude, I wish to again note that this is the last
meeting for Mr. Alanskas, and we do wish you the best.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you very much.
Mr. LaPine: I've probably known Bob longer than anybody on this Board.
We've worked together for many, many years on the Planning
Commission, and we're close friends with the former Mayor
Bennett. We worked together on the city's balls and elections
and he is going to be missed, especially on the Planning
Commission because I look to him for the landscaping. Bob, it's
been a pleasure working with you all these years. I hope you
have a great time down south and you have good weather.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. I hope you all have a chance to come down and
visit us.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 931s' Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 29, 2006, was adjourned at 10:01
p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman