HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-06-22 16925
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 22, 1999,the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
787th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Michael Hale
Dan Piercecchi Elaine Koons William LaPine
H. G. Shane
Members absent: None
Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV, and Scott Miller, Planner II were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning
request,this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will
hold its own public hearing, makes the fmal 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
"gar the City Council for the fmal determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan is denied tonight,the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City
Planning Commission become effective seven(7) days after the date of adoption. The
Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon
their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight. We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans of our agenda.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-8-18 by
Americenter of Livonia requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior of the office building located at 39111 Six Mile Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the south side of Six Mile between Haggerty and
Quakertown. The AmeriCenter of Livonia office building is located between
the two high rise green glass office buildings. The petitioner is proposing to
reface or cover all four exterior elevations of the existing building with full
face 4-inch brick. Presently the existing building is wood siding. The
submitted Elevation Plan also notes that the existing siding that screen the
rooftop mechanical equipment would be painted. Other than the renovation of
the exterior of the building, the remaining overall site would remain as is. A
color rendering or brick sample has not been submitted at this time.
16926
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated June 10, 1999, 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. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested.
Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is
signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated June
16, 1999, which reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the
Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted." The letter is
signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. There is a letter dated
June 16, 1999, which reads: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of the office building on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to
this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Paul Offer, 39111 W. Six Mile, Livonia, Michigan 48152. I work with James Blain, the
building owner.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about your petition?
�` Mr. Offer: I have a color rendering I would like to show. We are replacing all the existing
wood siding with the face brick and that will be supported by structural
columns and those structural columns will hold the steel that supports the brick
on the face of the building. I have a sample of the brick down here also.
Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: When you remove the siding, isn't there insulation behind that?
Mr. Offer: Right now there is plywood behind the wood siding and insulation behind that.
Mr. Alanskas: Would you explain when you pull it off to put on the brick, would you explain
how you would do that?
Mr. Offer: The wood siding currently is nailed on and also stapled. When we pull that off
the exposed surface will be the plywood. The building will still be enclosed.
Mr. Alanskas: So you will put the brick over the plywood?
Mr. Offer: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Isn't the plywood warped?
Mr. Offer: There will be an underlayment.
16927
Mr. Alanskas: There will?
Mr. Offer: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Hale: As part of the reconstruction, are you going to do anything with the front sign.
When I was out there to take a look at it, it seemed like the sign frame which is
also made out of brick is somewhat in disrepair. It might be a good
opportunity to address that as well. Is that part of the current plan?
Mr. Offer: No it is not but we can take a look at it.
Mr. Hale: On the back part of the building, there is a lower piece of metal that goes on
the bottom that is part of the building. Is that going to be covered with brick as
well?
Mr. Offer: Is that the blue trim you are talking about?
Mr. Hale: Yes.
Mr. Offer: That will be just repainted to match the brick.
Mr. Hale: O.K. So it won't be brick all the way down. Is it about a foot wide.
Mr. Offer: Only in places. Usually it is about 3" to 4".
Mr. Hale: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: I have just one question. On your drawing you say you are going to paint the
existing siding. What do you mean by the siding? What is up there now?
Plywood or wood?
Mr. Offer: Is it a siding? It is like a cedar siding. It is about three inches.
Mr. LaPine: Is it in fairly good shape?
Mr. Offer: Yes. It just needs to be scraped down and repainted.
Mr. LaPine: That is the thing I noticed when I was out there.. It looks like the paint has
been peeling and I was wondering if it was worth doing
Mr. Offer: To do the roof, we would have more structural problems supporting the brick
on the roof..
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
16928
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved it was
#6-108-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-6-8-18 by Americenter of Livonia requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the office building
located at 39111 Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 prepared
by James Blain Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on
May 27, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face
4-inch brick; no exception
3) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with
this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council.
4) That there be a repair to the front signage as located on the building.
N..
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-8-19 by
Montgomery Ward requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to refurbish the exterior
of the store located at 29501 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
35.
Mr. Miller: This property is located on the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt
(Wonderland Mall). Montgomery Ward is proposing to refurbish the exterior
elevations of their store and auto service center located in the Wonderland
Mall. The submitted Elevation Plans show and note that the entire exterior of
the store would be repainted. On the north elevation or main storefront facing
Plymouth Road, dryvit panels would be installed between the entrance doors.
Fabric awning would be placed over both entrance door areas. On the east
elevation or the side that faces Middlebelt Road,the same arrangement of
dryvit, as on the north elevation, would be installed in approximately the
middle of the wall. Both dryvit areas would function mainly as a backdrop for
a wall sign. The west elevation would only be repainted to match both the
north and east elevations. The auto service building that sits in front of
Montgomery Ward and out toward the intersection of Plymouth Road and
Middlebelt Road would also be entirely repainted to match the main store. The
submitted color rendering shows that the colors of the store would be a
16929
combination of light and dark tans or brown. The fabric awnings would be red
in color.
v..
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is a letter dated June 10, 1999, 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. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested.
Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is
signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. There is a letter dated June
16, 1999, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of the store on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to
this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal.
There is a letter dated June 16, 1999, which reads as follows: "In response to
the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the exterior
renovation of the existing building." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs,
Police Officer, Traffic Bureau. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Norm Abplanalp, Corporate Office at 535 Chicago Ave., Chicago, Ill.
Mr. McCann: Want to tell us a little bit about your project?
Mr. Abplanalp: As Scott indicated to you, our original intention was to paint the entire
building. After discussion with him and Inspection today, I don't think that is
really necessary. When I say that, and with the exception of creating a
monochrome effect by painting out the black columns and trim to kind of unify
the building and make it a mass of the color to match the brick. We would do
the same thing on the auto center. This material is a curved dryvit wall in this
color and the two entrance light dryvit, kind of an off white, an Amarillo white
and then the two red awnings. In effect, the area on the side,the high sign on
the side, I don't believe it is necessary to leave the brick the color it is to put a
sign behind that so we would just mount the sign on the existing brick at that
point. So with your agreement I would like to leave that off but do the sign
here. I would also add, after looking at the auto center today it'll need a little
bit more than just the monochromic paint job to tone that out and with a little
study and sign placement I think we can improve that imagine quite a bit.
Mr. McCann: We talked about creating the image last week of the dryvit and carrying that
theme over to the auto center so that they looked like they matched. Had you
thought at all about that?
Mr. Abplanalp: It's a bit of a marketing problem in that there are two business basically, auto
express and the store even though it is certainly owned and operated by
Montgomery Ward, we would like some continuity color wise, not every part
16930
of the store imagery applies to that building but I would acknowledge, Mr.
McCann, that it is a difficult building and it needs some help.
Mr. McCann: All right.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, do you plan on submitting a revised site plan?
Mr. Abplanalp: Actually these colors and very much the same. With the exception of the
sign panel I would like it to stand the way it is, if you will accept that. I will
submit a corrected elevation plan.
Mr. Piercecchi: If I understood you correctly, you talked about making some vertical paths
of paint.
Mr. Abplanalp: They are shown painted out here. So the elevation remains the same.
Mr. Piercecchi: No, leaving the brick but painting only portions of the building with vertical
columns of paint.
Mr. Abplanalp: Yes, in fact they are depicted here, is what I am saying. Whether we painted
the whole building or not they would appear the same. Because we are
painting it the same color as the brick.
Mr. Piercecchi: In other words, the tan brick that is there now will look tan. Well, I am glad
to hear that you are not paint the building because that could lead to problems
down the road.
Mr. Abplanalp: I agree.
Mr. Shane: I understand your comment about the auto center being a separate business but
it also has a separate sign and wouldn't that be enough to separate it from the
main building if you were to put the dryvit on there as Mr. McCann suggested?
Mr. Abplanalp: I think there is some room for the dryvit and we can do that. I have a little
trouble with the red awnings. There is to place to it and it seems a little bit out
of character.
Mr. Shane: I agree with that. The dryvit, I think, you might want to think about that.
Mr. Abplanalp: We'll add the dryvit.
Mr. Alanskas: What you are proposing to do on this store, is this a prototype or have you
done this in other Montgomery Ward stores?
Mr. Abplanalp: In 1998 we opened three prototype stores across the country, Las Vegas,
Nevada, House of Merriman, Bloomingdale, Illinois This is the first group of
stores selected for the year 1999 so in fact it is in the first 20 stores of the chain
of some 250 stores.
16931
Mr. Alanskas: But you've done some stores with the red awnings and the same colorations ?
Mr. Abplanalp: We certainly have.
Mr. Alanskas: I wish you would have brought some in so we could take a look at them, how
they looked when you got done with them. Do you have those available for us
to take a look at?
Mr. Abplanalp: We do.
Mr. Alanskas: Are they here this evening?
Mr. Abplanalp: No,they are in Chicago. I didn't realize your interest. They are pretty
straight forward. They look pretty much the same as the renderings.
Mr. Alanskas: I know but looking at a rending and looking at an actual building is two
different things, as you well know.
Mr. Abplanalp: But the buildings vary.
Mr. Alanskas: I know, but as one Commissioner, I would still like to see those. Thank you,.
Mr. LaPine: In due respect to the other Commissioners who have spoken on this I think the
awnings should go on the auto express. I think it kind of evens off the front
and the back of the building. My other problem is, how many years has
Ward's been there, forty years? This is the first renovation I know of that has
gone on the outside. You've done all the work on the inside and not on the
outside. I would think that after all those years that you would really do a
renovation on this building. After that many years, the building should have
outside structural problems that should be fixed and a whole new concept. I
have to commend Ward's in the last couple years you've done an excellent job
of merchandising your product a lot better than you have in the past. Your
circulars are a lot better and there are a lot of things that you are doing good
and I think it is showing up in your sales figures. I think we have reached a
point not where that center needs, that particular store needs some upgrading.
Here you are just doing a cosmetic job as far as I am concerned. You are not
really upgrading the store. I worry about the paint. It says you are going to
paint some certain areas. Is that paint going to match after it has been there
after all those years?
Mr. Abplanalp: That store is painted now, sir, we are just changing the color. They are about
a foot wide.
Mr. LaPine: When they are painted they won't show up darker or lighter than what is there
now?
Mr. Abplanalp: No, we'll match the brick that is there now. I think I should explain, this is a
substantial piece of construction. These boxes on either end, stick out from the
wall several feet. This wall is bowed and sits in a planter. This is more than
16932
just paint up. As I said, it and has been successful in other locations. It
physically changes the image of the store.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. I just feel very strongly that at this point and time, almost forty years, I
think it is time for a real upgrading of the store.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else? I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience
you wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, before I close,
is it your wish that we pass on this and revisit the auto center and bring that
back. Obviously, we don't want to approve that portion of it and we are going
to hold that end of it up anyway?
Mr. Abplanalp: Mr. McCann, if that is the correct thing to do, yes, we will resubmit the auto
center. We would like to get going on this part of the work. It is a substantial
piece of construction and we would like it to meet our marketing campaign.
Mr. McCann: All right. That is a question that is up to the Commissioners to vote on but I
wanted to get your wishes on the record.
Mr.Abplanalp: I would be glad to resubmit.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, approved, it was
',tar RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-6-8-19 by Montgomery Ward requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to refurbish the exterior of the store located at
29501 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A5.1 prepared
by Chipman Adams, LTD., as received by the Planning Commission on
June 4, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A5.2 prepared
by Chipman Adams, LTD., as received by the Planning Commission on
June 4, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with
this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and
4) That the auto center is not considered part of this approval.
Mr. McCann: Al, you will add specific language that the plans will be updated as he said
they would be regarding the painting?
16933
Mr. Miller: The second elevation plan you approved was for the auto center, you may want
to take that off.
New
Mr. McCann: A5.2? O.K. so we can delete Number 2, Scott?
Mr. Miller: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: And then Number 1 will be amended in our resolution. Is there support?
Will the secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Shane, Koons, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Hale
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails for lack of support. Is there a secondary
motion?
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to table this because right now I think voting we
don't know what we are getting at and I would like to table this to our next
study and have them bring this back so that we will know exactly what it is
going to look like and I would like to see those photos of the other stores that
you have already done this to, in our possession.
v` Mr. McCann: The next meeting would be our regular meeting and public hearing would be
July 13, 199.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale, and unanimously approved it was
#6-109-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 99-6-8-19 by Montgomery Ward requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to refurbish the exterior of the store located at
29501 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 be tabled to July 13,
1999.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
I'm sorry. There isn't much we can do for you.
Mr. Abplanalp: If I may just understand the procedure. The next study session is when?
Mr. McCann: The next study session we are going to vote, if you can have your plans, that
is when we will go through and look at our items. June 29, 1999, is our next
study. If you can have a preliminary plan for us then that is fine but we don't
get to vote on it until July 13, 1999 because of the July 4, 1999, holiday.
`` Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-6-8-20 by
Nordstrom Samson Associates requesting approval of all plans required by
16934
Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
relocate the ATM on the bank located at 31441 Plymouth Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr. McCann: Before we go any further, the Planning Department received a letter dated
June 22, 199, from Peter J. Albertson, Vice President of Nordstrom Samson
Associates, asking that they be removed from the table for the meeting of
June 22, 1999. Do we have a motion to remove from the table?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#6-110-99 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that Petition 99-6-8-20 by Nordstrom Samson Associates requesting approval
of all plan s required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection
with a proposal to relocate the ATM on the bank located at 31441 Plymouth
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34 be tabled to date uncertain.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. LaPine: Did they indicate when they want to come back or they going to let us know?
Mr. McCann: They are going to contact us.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna
Application by Karl Robinson requesting approval for the installation of a
satellite dish antenna for property located at 32458 Wisconsin Avenue in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 34.
Mr.Miller: This is a dish that was put up without Planning Commission approval. This
site is located on the north side of Wisconsin between Hubbard and Ohio. The
applicant is requesting approval to retain a satellite dish antenna that was
erected without the required site plan approval by the Planning Commission.
Once the Inspection Department discovered the dish, they informed the
property owner of the correct steps in obtaining a permit. The submitted site
plan shows that the dish is located between the garage and the inground pool.
The 7-1/2 foot diameter dish sits atop a 12 foot high pole and is anchored to
the southwest corner of the garage. The dish is black in color and is of a mesh
construction. Mr. Robinson was given an example copy of a neighbor consent
form. At this time, no type of correspondence from the abutting neighbors has
been submitted.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? I don't see the petitioner. Is Karl Robinson
in the audience tonight? Are there any questions from the Commissioners for
the staff? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously denied, it was
#6-111-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby deny the
Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Karl Robinson requesting approval for
16935
the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 32458
Wisconsin Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34 be denied for the
... following reasons:
1) That due to its size and location, this dish antenna would be detrimental
to the aesthetic quality and beauty of the neighborhood by presenting a
visual blight that could jeopardize the property values in the area as set
forth in the comprehensive plan of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That the dish antenna is disturbing to and not in harmony with the
surrounding area.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petitioner has ten(10) days in which to appeal to the City Council in
writing. That concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda.
The Commission will now proceed with items pending before it. These items
have been discussed at length in prior meetings and therefore there will only
be limited discussion tonight and participation will require unanimous consent
from the Commission.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-10-1-19 by
Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile
Road between Oporto Street and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 14 from RUFA and OS to R-2.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#6-112-99 RESOLVED that,Petition 98-10-1-19 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto Street
and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFA and OS
to R-2 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Al, is there any new information on this item?
Mr. Nowak: We have a letter from Nancy Henderson, dated June 18, 1999, which reads as
follows: "Dear Sir/Madam, Attached please find a copy of my
correspondence of December 6, 1998,to the Livonia city Planning
Commission regarding the above referenced petition. My position and
feelings on Mr. Leo Soave's proposed development have not change since
December, 1998, even though he has changed the proposed lot sizes from 60'
by 120'to 70' by 120'. My property was purchased with the knowledge that
the adjoining property to the west was not zoned residential. I know from
reading the Livonia Observer, i.e. the March 7, 1999, edition regarding
Merriman Forest,that I am not the only Livonia resident to oppose losing the
"country in the city" feeling. The back can stop at your level, i.e. with the
Planning Commission. Unless these types of developments continue to be
.r. approved, as they so abundantly are in the city, the emigration from Livonia
of many long time residents is certain. You are quickly taking away one of
16936
the attractive features of Livonia. I would further emphasize that the concrete
wall on the west side of my property(Lot #27) was constructed because of a
„_ water drainage problem. I will not elaborate further, but ask that your
members again read my previous letter to the Planning Commission. Thank
you for your time and consideration in this matter."
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us about the changes. We have already held the Public Hearing.
This site plan is slightly different. Can you tell us about it?
Mr. Soave: We started with 13 lots and we have cut it down to 11 lots. If I may add, on
Six Mile, most of those lots are 60'wide anyhow which on our plan is 70' and
75'wide which will compliment what we are trying to do here.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Did I hear you say along Six Mile Road they are 60' Lots?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir, they are 60' lots.
Mr. Piercecchi: The ones I am looking at here are 190" a couple of 60's, 135', 94' 102', 100'.
Mr. Soave: On a piece I am talking about there is a house just west of the medical
buildings, you know where the kennels is,just west of there that has been
N` split, you've got 60' by 330'.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is part of your package?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then you've got the next lot which is over 100',that is Lot 106.
Mr. Soave: That is going west there?
Mr. Piercecchi: These three lots are zoned RUF and the lower section is OS, correct?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is almost a perfect square there. That is really a strange looking parcel,
Mr. Soave. Have you tried to obtain more property in that area?
Mr. Soave: No sir, this is all we can do right now. It looks kind of awkward on the layout
but on the east side of Oporto Road,the houses will be fronting Six Mile and
going further which would be facing south, it will look better than what it is
showing now.
."` Mr. Piercecchi: Some of those lots that are running perpendicular to Lot 106 are 300' long.
16937
Mr. Soave: They are 300' long.
Mr. Piercecchi: No body wants to try to get subdivided in those areas to permit more of a
box? It looks like a "Z" backwards.
Mr. Soave: I agree.
Mr. Piercecchi: If this R-2 doesn't fly, do you have other plans?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir. We submitted this in October of last year, we have been playing with
these plans since.
Mr. Piercecchi: I know. But at that time you wanted R-1.
Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Because we are buying commercial and trying to residential, and
everybody wants a piece of everything it seems like, it is going to be hard. If
I don't get R-2, I think I might have to drop this.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Soave, with R-2 you only have 11 lots?
Mr. Soave: Yes
Mrs. Koons: What would it have been with R-1, how many lots?
Mr. Soave: With R-1 we started with 13 lots.
Mr. LaPine: I am not really happy with this design. Realistically this is about the only
thing that could be done. We are taking a piece of commercial property and
taking it out of use making it residential. We are moving it from R-1 and
making it to R-2 which increases the size of the lots. Unfortunately we are
going to see a lot more of these type of subs around the city because there is
very little land left. This is not the best configuration but I can assure we are
going to see some other configurations that are going to be worse than this. I
have no qualms to supporting this proposal this evening.
Mr. McCann: It looks like there are some people in the audience who want to speak on this
issue. As I stated when we began the pending items of the agenda since we
have already have held a public hearing it will require unanimous consent by
the Commission to open it up to the public? Is there anyone who objects to
opening it up to public? Since no one objects to the audience speaking to this
petition, who ever would like to speak please come down to the podium, be
ready to speak on the topic and if there is nobody standing and ready I will
close the hearing. I am going to limit you, since we have had a public hearing
on this, to three minutes.
John Bartus, 30069 Munger, Livonia. I have been a resident there for 28 years. I am
president of the North Liverance Homeowners Association which includes
16938
that complete area that this proposal is involved. You have a letter on file, I
don't know if it needs to be read again but I have some additional concerns
regarding this proposal. My basic concern is the proposal doesn't address
some of the engineering concerns that Mr. John P. Hill stated in a letter dated
November 18, 1998, in which the developer would need to dedicate the
appropriate right-of-way, 60'. He is still showing a 50'wide road there. I
consider that dangerous as far as entrance and egress to a very busy highway
like Six Mile. The fact that the developer would be required to obtain
easements from abutting parcels to gain access to existing storm sewer. Who
in the area has he obtained easements from. The area is 100% against this
proposal. I don't think he has these easement. The third one, the one that
concerns me even more is that to accommodate a 20 year storm, there is a
possibility they will have to have a retaining basin there for the storm sewer
system to elevate that water pressure. Now considering the climate changes
we are having, I think those 1 in 20 year storms are coming about one every
year. It's apparent we may be reaching the limit of the capacity of the storm
sewer system in this area. This could result in possible flooding of existing
properties or water back up in the basements. What effect does this have on
future developments in the area as they also would have to hook up to the
storm sewer system. Would they also need retaining ponds? Will the final
result be that the storm sewer system will need to be upgraded for increased
capacity at a cost to the existing residents just to accommodate the developer's
desire for larger profits. It would seem that future forward planning for
development of this area should include consideration of the existing storm
sewer capacity and the effect denser housing project will have on it. The
`quer question bears thought as to whether the zoning change from RUF to denser
housing is suitable for proper future development of the area.
Janet Doody, 29860 Munger. I live next door to Mrs. Henderson who wrote the letter to you.
I have never been involved in anything like this before and I was in the
hospital when the first meeting was held so I couldn't be hear to speak on this
before but I can tell you that when I read the proposal, my blood pressure
definitely went up that day. The doctors were wondering what was
happening. We moved to Livonia from Canton nine years and the reason we
moved was because Canton didn't seem to have planning in their building
plans. They were putting up strip malls when other strip malls were empty.
They were adding more expensive housing when there people who couldn't
afford expensive housing that wanted to move into the area. They were
building homes galore without increasing road size. Just from what I've
heard hear tonight with the other plans that you talked about previously, there
seems to be more of a sense of planning in the Livonia area and that was part
of the reason why we moved here because we felt things were more stable
here. As Mr. LaPine stated,there is not much left to build on and does there
have to be things built on that not much is left because those areas are what
gives the City the positive esthetic effect that Livonia has. Thus the reason
why my husband and I chose the area. We feel that this housing development
would cause a crowded, sardines in a can type of look, like we see happening
`'% across Six Mile Road from us, putting large homes on small lots essentially
16939
packing them in like sardines. I would appeal to your sense of planning that it
would not be an esthetically good thing for the city of Livonia.
Dr. Ronald Larafill, 30175 Northly Court, Farmington Hills. I am part owner of the adjacent
property in the medical building. I have three concerns. When I reviewed the
proposal, it appeared to me that entire lot that was owned was going to be
split off and rezoned and actually we wanted to buy a portion of it and it was
in discussion with the owners and wanted to be sure it was not the entire
section is rezoned to residential. Secondly I am concerned about requiring a
retaining wall or some sort of masonry wall between the residential and the
commercial office building zoning and that we are not going to be required to
build a masonry wall because we are the office building zoning and the
residential zoning usually doesn't have to build the wall. Thirdly, I am
concerned about the drainage.
Mr. McCann: The Engineering Department would take up the drainage problem and they
would have to meet the requirements in order to develop it. As to the
retaining wall, if there is no retaining wall there now, H. maybe you could
answer this one better. If they are going to move the wall, it would come at
their cost but if there never has been a masonry wall, it generally is a burden
on the commercial.
Mr. Shane: This is probably a question for the staff.
Mr. Miller: Whoever would come second, if this becomes residential and if Mr. Soave
`"' develops it he would be required to put it in
Mr. McCann: Since he is changing the boundary line.
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Shane: Another answer might be if there is an office building there and they add to it,
it might cause the building of a wall.
Fred Brandt, 30175 Munger. We just had a couple more houses built on Munger and the
other side of Six Mile is a regular subdivision too. What is happening is
down towards our part is you are taking away the beauty of Livonia. There is
nothing to building. The environment is disappearing and my problem is that
every year we are getting more and more water down by me because I live in
a flood plain down through there. I noticed that when we do have a rain
storm on Six Mile it does get overflowed,the street does. I am concerned
about that and I am concerned in the future where is all this water going to.
You are just wiping you plain area. The Planning Commission, I feel, isn't
really looking at it that hard or going out there and seeing what it is really like
in that area.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, how long have you been living there?
Mr. Brandt: Four years.
16940
Mr. Alanskas: In the last four years that you have had water problems, have you called the
City and complained?
Mr. Brandt: No.
Mr. Alanskas: Why not?
Mr. Brandt: There is an easement.
Mr. Alanskas: If you have water problems there now, why haven't you called the City?
Mr. Brandt: There is no water but I notice that the water is getting higher.
Mr. Alanskas: Why do you think with only 11 homes there will be water there now?
Mr. Brandt: There is another subdivision that is suppose to be put in back there too.
Mr. Alanskas: Your thinking there may be that water, you don't know that there will be
water.
Mr. Brandt: Well, do you know?
Mr. Alanskas: Usually, if we have a problem with drainage or water, Engineering looks at it
and they send us a letter saying there is a problem here, you can't do this. We
have not received that from Engineering. I am assuming that there will be no
problem. If there is, Mr. Soave has to do what Engineering says to correct
that situation. O.K.?
Mr. Brandt: O.K.
Jim Gibson, 16978 Oporto. I moved in 1977 and have been a resident of Livonia since 1954.
In answer to your question about contacting Engineering about water.
Mr. Alanskas: Yes?
Mr. Gibson: I have contacted Engineering about water and floods. Four feet of water in
my back yard. As I look at this plan, I question why commercial wasn't built
there years ago back in that area. I also know that the natural drainage, and I
know that Engineering has looked at it, Engineering has been to my home and
they have taken the transit and shot the area. Engineering has denied the right
to extend to drainage ditch from Munger north before because of the cost to
the City at footage cost of tearing down all the trees to put in natural drainage.
If you are to take and look at Leo's proposal and you run down the western
line on the north/south line there is one solid tree line there. When I contacted
the City and visited the Engineering Department, they said "no we will not put
a drain in there because it is too expensive". When I go to the back of my
yard back 75 feet, I can stand in as much of 3 feet of water when we have had
a good rain. We used to have a lake there. I divided my property because I
16941
had an acre and a half and I wouldn't go smaller and the developer was quite
upset he wanted me to split my property in half. I said no, I like an acre of
land. The minimum the City required then was a half acre. I was not going to
change and go to a smaller portion than an acre. I didn't mind having a half
acres next to me because I saw the problem with the drainage. I don't believe
the Engineering Department has gone back out there and I think there is
something called a "perk" where you have to test the ground for perking. I
believe that whole commercial quadrant back there is like a flood plain for all
the commercial. I hope you reviewed the drawings before. Leo is in the
business of developing land. He personally came through our area and asked
homeowners if we would sell him. He wanted to buy the back of our lots. He
did ask residents, he asked my wife. I know Leo tries to make the residents
happy in this area. I know he is a very fine builder. I feel bad that this area
has such a large water problem. I think it is even more costly than he realizes
to try to get rid of that water. When you look at the other lots going to the
east, all those people, they are not here because they are not really affected, if
he builds there is going to be more water there unless we put in some big
expensive drains. I like the scenery. I know I can't change your opinion of
what you are going to do but I really feel that the homeowners in that area
going to be drastically impacted by water runoff. When you talk about what
is coming down Six Mile, we haven't had bad rains in the last three years.
When the previous builder built the three homes on Munger they were made
to put in bee hives. They were made to put in drainage. It helped there but it
didn't help the quadrant where we are looking at and I know the dog kennel
has been an eye sore for years but you certainly could build beautiful home
where that dog kennel was. That is all I have to say. Thank you.
Lance Boyd, 16944 Oporto, directly south of Jim Gibson's lot. I just moved in two years into
Livonia. I graduated here at Stevenson High. I looked at about 40 different
homes in the surrounding communities before I picked the rural urban farm
setting that we have here. We have a lovely tree line at the back of the lot,
forty to fifty feet high trees. I am confident that Mr. Soave will put an end to
those trees. Also, I am curious what size homes he wants to put up on those
small lots are. Is he going to put up 2,000 sq. ft. homes or 3,500 sq. ft.
homes? What I am worried about is we are going to end up with what will
look like a condominium right at the back of my 300' yard. Also,the
drainage problems, I agree with Jim, the rear 100' of my yard is flood from
February to April. My home has a wooden basement, not a concrete one.
That flood water would cause me severe damage. My basement is completely
fmished, pool table, big screen TV and all that. I don't want to walk down to
my basement and swim in it basically. Hopefully we could keep it to half
acre lots minimum. The trees hopefully would stay. I don't want
condominium looking residents in my yard. That is all I have to say. Thank
you.
Gay Caswell, 29930 Munger. We moved in to this home 15 years ago and I don't think there
has been one year of peace. We have had to fight so many lot splits and
different things trying to change our neighborhood what we moved there for.
Every day I marvel at the beautiful trees and the wild animals I get in my
16942
yard. This will pretty much, I am sure, destroy that. The water is a very
serious problem in our yard. If I've looked at the paper work correctly, I think
�r.. we are even lower than some of these other homeowners are. I have to find
the old pictures, I have pictures of the back of our yard looking like a lake and
in the wintertime, one time we had a lot of rain and it froze over and you
could have ice skated in our back yard. We used to have at least three water
main breaks, I don't know if that is related to the water problem. But every
winter we'd go through three water main breaks. That is better since they
have done that. I also worry about how the water system can take on the
additional homes. I noticed the change in our water pressure when I am
watering outside. I am thinking, how does that work when more homes are
added? Are we going to get more pressure pushed our way. I don't think so.
So there are a lot of concerns. I was a little confused by Dr. Larafill. I saw
him come in and shake hands with Mr. Soave and he does own the property
behind us that he wants to change to but yet he seems to object to things. So I
am confused as to what his stand actually is either he wants to sell it or he
doesn't want to sell it and that is in his hands.. But if I have anything to say
about it I'll keep the office because we are looking at car lights coming into
the back of our house by the way it is situated. Probably a two story home
looking down at the back of our yard is something I have never lived with. So
I do hope you look at the whole picture for everyone. Thank you.
Tom Leventis, 16999 Doris. I live in one of those new homes that just put in that area and I
have been there less than a year. Initially I signed this petition against this
particular parcel because they were 60' lots and this thing was in my mail box
so I thought I better come up. The reason I am not opposed to it now is
because they are 70' lots and that 10 feet makes a big difference and I don't
mind new homes in the area. I have kids. I would like more kids to live over
there and I understand the concerns of my neighbors but trees look good and
somebody owns the property and it is easy for everyone else to say the trees
look good but somebody owns the property and it is not there just to have it
sit. In regards to the other homes that are going in back there because there is
already an approval to put 14 more homes in on Munger which are going to
go in pretty soon. All the water from that is going to dump into the ravine
back there. So that has already been set up. As far as the width of the street
goes, 50 feet, Munger itself is not nearly 50 feet wide. I don't even think
Munger is 30 feet wide. So if this street is going to be made 50 feet wide and
is probably 20 feet wider than Munger. I would like to see it go up. I would
like to see the neighborhood develop and I hate to see the land sit there like
that. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Soave you get the last word.
Mr. Soave: Thank you very much. As far as the 60'right-of-way. On the Wayne County
right-of-way when you go into Wayne County right-of-way that has to be 60
feet wide. As far as the storm drainage, we have been having these problems
when you go in for rezoning and everybody comes out and there are storm
problems. We've done a whole subdivision, it was 12 lots on Kenwood that is
on Sunset and Fargo. Before I bought the property the sheet runoff from 600
16943
feet down to Fargo. We put the storm in, the whole area is dry now. As far as
the storm problem, if I cannot solve the problem with the storm problem that
property will not be developed. As you know as legal minded as people are
now a days, I am not going to jeopardize what I worked for to go in there and
do a half hazardly development and then worry about everybody trying to get
a piece of everything that I have worked for,that is not going to happen. As
far as the retaining the wall the appease the doctor's concern, I will put in a
retaining wall. As far as new homes being an eye sore, I would anyone of you
folks to sit on Six Mile and look south and see a little 750 sq. ft. home that is
ready to fall down. The kennel, if you kicked it, it would certainly fall down
and I cannot understand why anybody would object to somebody spending
hard earned money going in there and tear down those old houses and put up
new houses. That's all I've got to say. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaPine: I am going to make an approving resolution but I've got something I would
like to say to the people in the audience. I am not happy with these little
mini-subs as they have been called many times. The reality is that this is a
buildable piece of property. The ideal situation would be we would build no
more homes in Livonia. but people have property and they have the right to
sell it and develop it as they see fit as long as they meet the requirements of
the ordinance. It would be nice if the residents could buy all this property and
split it up among themselves and keep it wooded, but that it not going to
happen because property is too valuable. Therefore, it really puts us in a bind.
What do we do with these properties? Do we turn these people down so that
can't build. Eventually they will take the City to court and the courts are
going to rule that a person has a piece of property and it can be developed into
a subdivision and homes can be built on it. We've got to let them use it.
Therefore, I am not happy about this but our hands are tied at this point,..
Therefore, I will make the motion to approve this.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I don't want to hash this out again. I believe this plan is a good plan. I know
there was a possibility of putting a three story office building there, and I know
you people wouldn't want that. You are only talking 11 homes. If you look
at how it is put out it looks pretty roomy. I know we are just saying this but
you've just got to see it. Thank you.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved it was
#6-113-99 RESOVLED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 15, 1998, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-10-1-19
by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Six
Mile Road between Oporto Street and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 14 from RUFA and OS to R-2,the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-10-1-19 be approved
to a change of zoning to R-2 for the following reasons:
16944
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to the surrounding
land uses in the area;
Nftwir
2) That the proposed zoning district will allow a reasonable development
of the subject property for single family residential purposes at a
density that would be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan
recommendation of low density residential land use in this area;
3) That the proposed rezoning would promote the development of public
utilities, such as storm sewers to help alleviate flooding problems that
occur in the area; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a buffer between the
established single family residential uses to the west and south and the
office zoning and uses to the east.
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to Council with an approving resolution. You can leave your
name tomorrow with the Council office and they will notify you when it will
be heard.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-4-2-13 by
Phoenix Land Development Corporation requesting waiver use approval to
construct a planned residential development on property located on the east
side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 27.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved it was
#6-114-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-4-2-13 by Phoenix Land Development
Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned residential
development on property located on the east side of Farmington Road north
of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 be taken from the
table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Is there any new information Al?
Mr. Nowak: We have received a letter from the petitioner dated June 17, 1999, which
reads as follows: "Enclosed are twelve (12) sets of revised architectural
plans for the captioned project. The revisions reflect the comments of the
Planning Commission at the June 8, 1999, meeting. The rear elevations have
been modified to show additional architectural elements. It is our feeling as
well as the architects that the introduction of any more materials will have a
negative effect on the elevations. It is also important to understand that due
16945
to the amount of brick and limestone on the front elevation it is economically
and structurally infeasible to make the rear elevations brick. In addition we
have agreed to reduce the density of this project twice. As in any other
Now development the economics are the driving force behind the density of the
project. We have rezoned the proposed residential portion of the property
from the existing commercial and light industrial districts. The cost of
purchasing intensely zoned property and down zoning has great economic
impact on the development. For these reasons any further reduction in
density may make the entire project economically infeasible. We are
confident that upon review of the revised plans the Planning Commission can
approve our site plan. If you have any questions please feel free to contact
me." The letter signed by Steven Schafer of Phoenix Land Development.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Schafer, do you want to explain to us the revisions of your site plan?
Steve Schafer, 32000 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 145, Farmington Hills. I wasn't able to mount
these on boards. Do you all have copies of these plans?
Mr. Nowak: The first three boards, I think, are on the Phoenix project are the revised
plans.
Mr. Schafer: Per our last meeting there was some concern on the rear elevation as far as
detail and we went back to our architect to have him add some architectural
elements to the rear elevations. There are some dimensional shingled roofs
that come out over the cantilevers in the rear on the ranch buildings and on
�.. the townhouse buildings we put in a row of shutters in there as well. There
has also been some detail added within the sited areas to bring out the details
of the windows a little bit more. Again the side elevations, all of the sites of
the buildings are all brick with limestone as well as the front elevations that
you have seen before. These buildings will be bricked all the way up to this
point. At this point this building cantilevers out and this then comes in and
these portions go in and out up the rear side of the building and those are the
details that we have added at this point.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir you have mentioned this on more than one occasion, about the economic
feasibility will be destroyed by reducing the number of units in getting less
density in there. Can you furnish us evidence to prove that?
Mr. Schafer: Oh sure. I am not shy about the price of the property or the economics of the
project.
Mr. Piercecchi: You just said it was unfeasible.
Mr. Schafer: I don't think the letter says destroy. It would certainly reduce the economic
feasibility of the project. As you know,there are still some issues looming
out there such as the wetlands. Those could get quite costly. We have
demolition costs involved that have not been finalized, could get quite costly.
As you know,this was a Meijer's site. It is a commercially zoned site and
16946
commercial property demands the highest dollars in the market place now a
days.
Mr. McCann: Excuse me, that is not commercially zoned property.
Mr. Schafer: Part of that is commercially zoned property, the residential.
Mr. Piercecchi: Only the front part.
Mr. Schafer: No,there is part of the commercially zoned property that exists there now is
reverting to residential.
Mr. Piercecchi: But we just made it R-8, no, that is right,just recently.
Mr. Schafer: We haven't had the full reading in Council to change the zoning.
Mr. McCann: The back was manufacturing, the property.
Mr. Schafer: No,there is industrial, and manufacturing back there as well as commercial.
Mr. McCann: Right, the Meijer project zoning never went through.
Mr. Schafer: That's fine. The point is we are taking commercially zoned property and
industrially zoned property and putting it into a residential zoned property
which we requested. We requested R-8II, it was recommended by the
Planning Commission to grant R-8I. We have agreed to reduce the density to
the R-8I zoning standard. That is where we are at at this point.
Mr. Piercecchi: R-8 standard is 160 units.
Mr. Schafer: That is not what we understood. I had a long discussion with Al. Al was
going to research the minutes. At the Planning Commission Mr. Nagy, Bill
Roskelly and myself sat in an office and determined the density.
Mr. Piercecchi: The only way you can go higher than that is to grant waiver use as a planned
residential development. But the standard R-8 for a three story building is
160 units.
Mr. Schafer: But these are four story buildings.
Mr. Piercecchi: No,they are three.
Mr. Schafer: O.K. Well, these are four, on the rear elevation. One,two,three, four.
Mr. Piercecchi: Well then that is something brand new, isn't it?
Mr.Schafer: No.
Mr. LaPine: It has always been that way.
16947
Mr. Nowak: The lowest level is the garage level.
New
Mr. Schafer: There is also some living space within the ranch behind the garage.
Mr. Piercecchi: I thought the living space was three floors
Mr. Nowak: I think under the terms of our zoning ordinance that would be considered a
three story building, like a quad-level or tri-level house, it is not considered
a three story or four story house based on our zoning ordinance. That would
be considered a three story building. Also in responding to an earlier
question, although I think it has been answered, if he applied for site plan
approval under the R-8I zoning classification, as a conventional site plan, the
maximum number of units he would be allowed would be 160. He is going
the route of a residential development in order to be allowed the maximum
density that is allowed in that district which is 220 units.
Mr. Piercecchi: But he needs a waiver to get that?
Mr. Nowak: Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Schaffer: Well, Mr. Piercecchi, when we had the joint meeting last December or
January with Council and Planning Commission that was all discussed, there
was substantially more units discussed at that time, there wasn't any real
serious objections at that point that we heard.
v..
Mr. McCann: When you were here before us and we approved this, and we said R-8I, you
said you could live with it. At that time we said 202 units and you said yes,
202 units.
Mr. Schafer: I don't recall saying 202 units.
Mr. McCann: That's what we were the understanding of the R-8I.
Mr. Piercecchi: I remember making the comment myself. We are talking about 200 units, I
said. That was agreed upon. This seems to be a never ending battle on this
density. We are going to let you finish your program but I am going to
request that I be permitted to submit a motion.
Mr. McCann; You went over all your changes, correct?
Mr. Schafer: We discussed all the changes at the last meeting. I believe we've addressed
all the changes that were discussed at the last meeting and that is what I
believe we have done.
Mr. McCann: One of the things that you said you were going to create more open space by
having more end units.
16948
Mr. Schafer: No,that wouldn't create any more open space, it would just create less units.
We agreed last time that if we determined that we would want to reduce units
`4110, and add some of those ranches on the ends of the buildings that we would
come back before you for approval of that to reduce the density at that point.
Mr. McCann: I have a question for the staff If you have three stories on top of a garage
within our classification, would that be a three story unit for R-81?
Mr. Nowak: Yes.
Mr. McCann: If there is living space with the garage on the bottom floor, would that still
qualify?
Mr. Nowak: As a three story unit?
Mr. McCann: Or would it become a four story unit?
Mr. Nowak: The floor plan that he submitted for those units, I am not sure where it shows
that there is living space in the garage portion of the building. We might
have to get an interpretation from the Inspection Department but my
understanding was that the building would be composed of a ranch on the
first floor and a townhouse unit that would be the second and third floor
stories so that would be a three story unit or a combination of units.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, his calculations too using the three story deal on the R-8V
'41.' waiver is 220 units and that is 2400 sq. ft. per unit and divide that into 12.1
acres and you find out that that is 220 units.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Schafer, with you new rear elevation here, is the rear portion of these
buildings the only portion of the whole project that is not full brick or
limestone?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: So the three sides of the building are either brick or limestone?
Mr. Schafer: With the exception of this material, but again these are not your typical rough
sprung spruce, they are prefinished materials with tongue and groove
underneath, your know the porches. There is a pyphon brand of material
which is a high end architectural style molding. But as far as any siding, no
there is not and there is brick on the first level of the rear of the building.
Mr. LaPine: On the first level?
Mr. Schafer: Above the garage.
Mr. LaPine: This rear elevation you showed us this evening that is on all of the buildings
`om- or some of the buildings?
16949
Mr. Schafer: All of the buildings. This shows what on the ranch end unit right here.
Otherwise, it is like this on all the other buildings.
Mr. LaPine: I have one other question. At this point you don't have your wetland
situation taken care. Let's assume the worse happens and they won't allow
you to use the wetlands. They have to stay in that location. Then where are
we at at that point? Are we back to square one?
Mr. Schafer: I would hope the seller would substantially reduce the price of that property
to do that but I don't believe we are heading down that road. If you don't
mind, let me bring you up to speed on the wetlands and what has transpired.
By statute there was a request for a public hearing and that was held this past
week. There was a fairly well organized group of people that came and
objected. There was only one person I saw at all the hearings that we have
had, a lot of these other people that were objecting had not really come in.
So I think it was more definitely on the environmental end. Certainly there is
no dispute as to where the line is or how much wetlands is there. I believe on
July 1 we have a meeting with the DEQ again in the field and at that time we
will determine the amount of mitigation that will be required for the project.
Initially we had meetings with DEQ to potentially try to preserve some of
that but the indication was that this wetland had been so severely comprised
with the development to the north and the cut off of the drain that even
reducing its size further and leaving a small portion of it would comprise it
even more. I think they recognize this is an issue of what it is going to be. Is
it going to be one and a half to one or two to one. Is it going to be an
emergent wetland? Is it going to be a wooded wetland?I think those are
issues that are going to surface now and that is all a part of cost as well.
Wetlands are a lot more costly than others. Again, I think it is going to come
down more to the economics than seeing the site plan change. If it is reduced
further in units, we have a long road ahead of us to get this project to happen.
Again, I think I it going to be an exciting project. We've got some great
users. We've gotten a tremendous amount of response from individuals that
have been down to Dearborn. We have models open there. From a sampling
of the residential I have no reservations at all that this is going to be hugely
successful development. I don't want to start pricing it over, I want to make
it affordable. I'm not looking to come out and charge extremely high prices
but it is very price sensitive. If we lose a number of units, they have to be
add into the cost. The cost of the units end up going up. I think the
development works. We have really tried to make it work with the
pedestrian walkways and the sidewalks and the spaces that we have created.
I went out and looked at that wetlands the other day and I said boy we could
preserve it but from the standpoint of looking at it or facing it, it's not a real
pretty site.
Mr. LaPine: At this point, you firmly believe that you are not going to be turned down by
the DEQ?
Mr. Schafer: I think it would just be how reasonable the permit is going to end up coming
out. I don't think there will be a complete denial of the permit.
16950
Mr. LaPine: So your whole project at this point is at a stand still, to some degree, until
you know exactly what is going to happen to the wetlands, would that be
correct?
Mr. Schafer: That is a correct statement.
Mr. LaPine: So you are moving on hoping that this is going to happen but if this thing
changes, then we will have to go back to square one.
Mr. Schafer: My thoughts are if we are able to proceed out of tonight's hearings and move
forward to Council, that we would be held up at the Council level until that
permit is issued and from a standpoint of practicality of being able to get in
the ground, start engineering drawings get moving along. I think we really
want to try to get as far forward as we can so we can get in the ground this
year with the project. It would be sort of a shame for us if we were delayed
another month in this process and we are to the point where we can get back
in front of Council to have the first and second readings to be able to close
the transaction and can get the project started.
Mr. Alanskas: Listening to you and listening to the members of the Planning Commission, I
keep hearing tabling, tabling, tabling. We've done this three times. In my
mind there is no sense tabling something if there is no give between two
parties. You are saying 220 and we are saying 200. If in your mind, there is
no way that you can even go down any more, in my mind there is no sense in
tabling this. We should either say that we want 200 and you want 220 we
will have to deny this. If this is what you want. Because if you don't want a
tabling resolution, if we can't come to an agreement, I think tabling is
useless, in my mind. What is your thought?
Mr. Schafer: At this point for me to concede that, it is again the economics. Once I am
denied or I get feed back from DEQ. I've got some rough sellers. I've got
to tell you that there is another user that would like to go on this site. A retail
user. If we fall out,the Georges may have to fall back under the current
zoning. He knows he's got a rough road if that happens. He wants to sell his
property. The price is the price. Their expectations were raised when
Meijer's regardless of what happens or if it wouldn't have been approved.
The sellers have a certain mind set. That is what I am working against here.
Mr. McCann: I have a couple of questions. We have talked about this before and I just
have not been able to come up with a satisfactory answer for myself. I have
concerns. I like the looks from the front of your project but I don't see any
greenbelt. I know we are going to have parking and it's like you are standing
in a parking lot and you are looking at this, I realize with your density that
you have problem. One of the concerns that I have is the back not being
brick. You say that you have to cantilever it out at the second floor above
the garage. Why not make the garage 2 feet bigger. Everybody likes extra
room for their bicycles and everything else they have in their garage. What
16951
is wrong with putting or bringing the back of the building up so it's straight
instead of having it coming up to the first floor and cantilevering it out?
r..
Mr. Schafer: The building would stand substantially taller on the front.
Mr. McCann: We are talking about the first floor only.
Mr. Schafer: I understand.
Mr. McCann: It's in about a foot and a half from the second floor, correct?
Mr. Schafer: A couple of feet.
Mr. McCann: If you brought the garage out and make the garage 2 feet bigger it would go
straight up. Would that exceed your footprint for the property?
Mr. Schafer: Yes and it would affect all my setbacks and all of that throughout the project.
We have already extended these a little bit bigger than what you saw at
Dearborn. I think as I had mentioned in an earlier meeting, we asked a group
of homeowners that have lived in the unit for a some time and we asked what
design changes would be helpful or that they were having some problems
and there were some issues that we addressed with the change.
Mr. McCann: So you made the units bigger inside but the footprint is already exceeded
your 220 units. You put them on a smaller base so you could get bigger units
on top.
Mr. Schafer: Right.
Mr. McCann: We also have some concerns with regard to the Fire Department. Dan did
you want to bring those up or is Officer Corcoran going to make the
presentation?
Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, I have discussed your layout with the Fire Marshal and he has many
many concerns, especially with the power truck units. Mr. Corcoran is here,
I will let him explain it.
Jim Corcoran, Fire Marshal. My main concern is that the Fire Department personnel and
equipment have ready access to the buildings in order to conduct prompt
emergency evacuation of fire fighting operations. The difficulty I have with
this plan is with the rear elevation along the units from a fire fighting point of
view, it is essentially a four story building. The only piece of equipment that
can conduct a rescue operation has a turning radius wall to wall of 45 feet
and curb to curb of 41 feet. While I can't scale the drawing, it doesn't appear
that equipment will be able to get around these corners in this area here.
There would have to be some sort of an adjustment. They have provided
20 feet essentially a fire lane in the back that exceeds the requirement by 2
feet. That is more than sufficient. The main concern is just simply being
able to get the equipment around to the back of the rear of the buildings.
16952
Mr. McCann: Also to the courtyards and the center?
Mr. Corcoran: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Do you have an estimate of how much room you would need?
Mr. Corcoran: I' m not qualified to do that but it would appear probably shooting from the
hip the end units would have to go away. But I would have to defer to an
architect's judgment on that. As long as they can provide the turning radius.
Mr. McCann: 45 feet?
Mr. Corcoran: That is wall to wall. The difference between curb to curb and wall to wall, is
like in your car if you go up to a cement bumper, your bumper hangs over.
When we make the turn even though the tires would make it if the bumper
hangs out so that is why you need a wider turning radius.
Mr. Piercecchi: Jim, I went through this to some degree and it appears to me that there are 11
or 12 areas that are affected by this.
Mr. Schafer: We had an opportunity to meet with the Fire Marshal and with our engineer
and we have agreed to do some different landscaping treatments on the
islands in order for them to be able to get over these and we are going to
verify that these radius will meet the requirements for the Fire Department.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to eliminate the curbs?
Mr. Schafer: We will probably have to do something with the paver. Something with
more detail. Something that is going to be very attractive. But it has to be
pulled over by the Fire Department then we will accommodate that. That is
something we got in at a late hour or before the revisions were sent in.
Mr. Piercecchi: I don't think so. I think you were notified of this much earlier in the game.
Mr. Schafer: At the last meeting there was some discussion and we hadn't received any
correspondence. That was the first time we heard of this.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Chair, I am wondering if there was any correspondence from Mr.
Corcoran to the Planning Commission or to the staff? This is the first I have
heard of this issue.
Mr. Nowak: Yes there is a letter of May 28. It is in the file. I believe it was read at the
Public Hearing.
Mr. Alanskas: You said you would have to do something with the landscaping. Are you
going to eliminate some landscaping?
*ft lir
Mr. Schafer: We'll have to pull it back, yes.
16953
Mr. Alanskas: If you pull back, you are going to lose landscaping.
lbw
Mr. Schafer: I think there were some trees spec'd out that will have to be pulled back
Mr. Alanskas: If you pull it back, you will have to take it out.
Mr. Schafer: I certainly don't want to lose the green if we don't have to. If that is the
condition, we will make certain that we use the trees.
Mr. Alanskas: How else could you do it while not losing any landscaping.
Mr. Schafer: For instance, these trees here can be pulled back. Obviously the caliper of
the trees, these would have to be pulled back as well as these trees to
maintain a 45 degree radius
Mr. Alanskas: Then what would happen four or five years down the road when these trees
get bigger?
Mr. Schafer: We should certainly make sure that we account with that with our
landscaper.
Mr. Alanskas: Only because landscaping grows, it doesn't diminish, it gets bigger. If you
put those in the plan and they said they would be o.k. and five years down
the road and these trees get bigger we will have the same problem all over
again.
Mr. Corcoran: Another area that is not addressed by the code but at 45 degrees north
latitude we have things like snow removal. Obviously in the summertime we
have full access but after accumulation of snow, where are they going to put
it?
Mr. Alanskas: That is another problem.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I will make a tabling motion and I base it on the following
remarks that I have put together, so please bear with me. I will start by
saying, like each of you, I have studied this design for many hours and I am
completely puzzled by the resistance to reduce the number of units and
toward increasing open space. Each of you realize that the standard number
of units without waiver is 160 for R-8 three stories, sixty less than this
particular plan. I believe there is room for compromise and I am shocked
that there seems to be very little interest in doing something at this stage of
the game. In addition, Mr. Chairman, R-8 limits the structure to 20%of the
area. The developers have utilized the complete 20%. Why must each
square foot be used? In regard to open space, if the property were treated as
v... a subdivision, they would be required to furnish three acres of open space. I
could find only one area, one bonafide area, which was 33' X 95' which
16954
really qualified for open space. This amount is about a 1/10 of an acre.
Don't you feel that we are short changing the potential customers for that
area. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I can't accept filling 12 acres with only
... structures, streets and parking at the expense of the environment. I believe
there are solutions to make this project more livable. For example, how
about reducing the number of units. Perhaps include some high structures,
rearrange some units. I will give you a good case in point, Mr. Chairman. I
see little value in having a 60' wide by 300' greenbelt with parking on both
sides at the Plymouth entrance of this development. First of all, by parking
cars next to it you are not even going to have any visual impact. Reducing
this to a subdivision street, for instance, of 30 feet which is quite wide for a
greenbelt and eliminating the parallel parking shown would free up close to
half an acre of open space. That simple thing gets us a half acres of open
space. I believe this is a good start and I an confident that mine is better,
etc., etc. and I believe that the architect can fmd other areas. Another area
I am having trouble buying is the street dimension. Normally a free 20 foot
width is o.k. property with curb parking on both sides of the street however is
a necessity in order for this project to be completed in order to meet the
parking requirements. I am very troubled. You must realize that this design
does not allow for what we just discussed previously. A 44 foot 6 inch
radius for the tower fire unit. This is new information, Mr. Chairman, and
on this basis alone, this project should be tabled. In addition, what about
snow removal as our Fire Marshal stated. Something to consider when all
the spaces along the street are used up due to this project meeting all the
parking requirements. It isn't like a subdivision where you have an
'" occasionally parked car here or a car parked occasionally there. A heavy
concentration of vehicles in a commercial and residential area to me is
awesome. Try to imagine over 400 cars and trucks, I believe, it is common
for husband and wife to be employed at this stage of our development. Try
to imagine over 400 cars and trucks leaving and arriving at the same time in
the morning and evening hours. Perhaps equal to or greater than the traffic
mess the Meijer's store would create in the same location and you remember
this project was bitterly opposed by our residents. Sir, I want you to succeed.
To build in Livonia and I am confident an improved version can be obtained
with mutual cooperation. Fellow Commissioners we are not under any time
restraints to hastily pass this proposal. The wetlands issue, as we mentioned
earlier, will not be resolved for a month or two. It's conclusion could have a
profound impact on this project. Mr. Chairman, I move that this matter be
tabled until the July 13, 1999, meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and approved, it was
#6-115-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 8, 1999,on Petition 99-4-2-13 by Phoenix
Land Development requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned
residential development on property located on the east side of Farmington
Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 be tabled to
July 13, 1999.
16955
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Hale, Koons, Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This petition will be tabled to the July 13, 1999 meeting. Hopefully you will
be able to resolve all the outstanding issues.
Mr. Piercecchi: Could the petitioner have at the meeting of July 29, 1999, some of the
financial data and that to prove the feasibility of the reductions. We want to
cooperate with you, o.k.?
Mr. Schafer: Yes. Can I attend that study meeting?
Mr. Piercecchi: As far as I am concerned, you can attend.
Mr. McCann: I prefer you attend at this point. I would like to resolve any outstanding
issues.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-5-2-16 by
GMRI, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a full service
restaurant on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#6-116-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-5-2-16 by GMRI, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to construct a full service restaurant on property located on the east
side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Is there any discussion?
Chris Fortmueller, Darden Restaurants, 1751 Directors Row, Orlando, Florida. We have
taken into account the comments the Commissioners gave to our architects
and engineers last week and incorporated these into the design here this
evening. Basically at the request of the Board, we have reoriented the
building so that the deck will be facing towards the Champps, or the plaza
center,the deck will be facing south. We have also kind of nestled it behind
the gazebo so the gazebo will be out in front of it now. We have incorporated
a landscape area between the deck itself and the gazebo which will help to
strain the sound additionally. We have also incorporated a structure over the
top of the patio cover which I presented at the last meeting. We have replaced
all of the split face block around the building with a brick as requested. We
r.• also have the chimney for the piz7a oven we have replaced with brick which
used to be a lap siding. Basically we have incorporated everything that was
16956
requested at the meeting. The roof on the deck, mostly to address the sound
issue which was the biggest area of concern at the last meeting. To kind of
`, reiterate some of the things that we've incorporated to address that are
orienting the deck away from Haggerty Road, putting the gazebo out in front
of it so we have the structure in front of the deck where the music is to be
played. we also have landscape buffer between the deck and the gazebo and
also additional landscape area out in front of the gazebo which will help to
further screen the sound. We also have agreed to enclose three sides of the
bandstand so the music will be projected towards the building only and, of
course, with the cover the enclosure, four to five months out of the year, the
sound being projected towards the building it should be more than adequate
levels not to obstruct or cause concern with the residents across the street.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: No. 1, in regards to your entertainment, how often do they perform out there?
Every hour or half hour or what is the basis for that?
Mr. Fortmueller: I believe it is on the half hour. They take one set then they take a break.
Mr. Alanskas: Now, when they are taking a break, are you playing CD's or music
continuously?
Me. Fortmueller: Yes, there is music that is played out there.
"" Mr. Alanskas: And what type of music is played out there?
Mr. Fortmueller: Similar type music, island music, Jimmy Buffet type tunes and that kind of
thing.
Mr. Alanskas: With a band or with one person? You said when they perform there would
only be one person playing. Is that correct?
Mr. Fortmueller: That is correct. When there is a performer out there, it is one entertainer.
Mr. Alanskas: Now, when he is not, what are you playing? Is it a band?
Mr. Fortmueller: No. It is recorded music.
Mr.Alanskas: Of what? A person singing?
Mr. Fortmueller: Similar type music. It may not be the same entertainer's music but other
performer's music.
Mr. Alanskas: Will it be more than one person performing? The reason why I asked is you
said it would be one entertainer's performing it wouldn't be that noisy, right?
If you are going to be playing CDs or tapes and you have a band playing, for
Na. example, it would be noisier, or am I wrong?
16957
Mr. Fortmueller: Well sir, it still be played at the same sound levels or less than. It is
amplified music so if it is coming out of a speaker, it will be at lower levels
Newyet than what the band would be
Mr. Alanskas: We are still talking about 5 decibels?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir.
Mr.Alanskas: All right, thank you.
Mr. Hale: When I originally had made some comments on this, I asked why you couldn't
position the building in a way that the deck was facing east toward the movie
theater. Have you looked at that at all, as a possibility?
Mr. Fortmueller: The main reason we wanted to keep this at least as a southerly exposure,
one of the important features is if you go to the Bahamas and relax out there,
is the sun set. It is a minor, I wouldn't say it is a minor detail, it is kind of a
major detail for Bahama Breeze, that we sit on the deck and you can see some
sort of sun set, it is kind of goes along with a Bahamian theme. So that is why
we presented this at the work session along with the feature to enclose the
band stand and the screening and the additional landscaping with the gazebo
out in front of the deck. It is my understanding that was, the consensus was
that would work. That was our preference.
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to go just a little further on what Mr. Alanskas said, on one band.
You called it a band stand but we look at it as a single performer operation.
That particular individual, to my knowledge, was going to be in a screened
area and the noise was going to penetrate across the building. If you use loud
speakers, how is that going to work? Is there going to be one speaker in that
area to make sure that is being funneled towards the building?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes, it won't be one speaker, but they are all funneled towards the same
direction. That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: But they will all be in that three station enclosure?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes, there are some, probably, that are underneath the structure above high
on the beams but all of the speakers for the entertainment area will be directed
right here on the deck. All of the speakers will be located in this area.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you have any problem with limiting it to a single performer and not use
the loud speakers? I think there is a point on noise. We can't have somebody
and you are not checking the noise level. That is what you stated in your
initial presentation, if I remember correctly. That a single performer with a
guitar or that type of instrument would perform in an enclosed three section
enclosure aimed at the building and now we are getting loud speakers.
r•► Mr. Fortmueller: The term loud speaker, the music will be played at a lower level it is at
conversation level decibels. It is at lower level than what the entertainer
16958
would be playing at. The people can sit out on the deck and enjoy an
appetizer and it would not be at a decibel level and they could not talk over.
It is at that low of a level.
Mr. LaPine: On the same vein that everybody has been talking about,the problem I have,
I don't know what decibels are, I'm not a sound person. You could tell me
five decibels and I don't know what that is All I know is if the sound is loud
my ears can pick it up. How many speakers are you going to have
inside/outside this three section enclosure? Two speakers?
Mr. Fortmueller: I believe there are two speakers.
Mr. LaPine: Is that music piped into the restaurant?
Mr. Fortmueller: When the entertainer is playing, it is piped into the restaurant.
Mr. LaPine: So the speakers are hooked up to speakers within the building itself, the
dining room?
Mr. Fortmueller: Inside the restaurant,that is correct.
Mr. McCann: They are also hooked up to the ceiling speakers that are pointing down at the
people.
Mr. Fortmueller: When the entertainer is playing the speakers are above within the
entertainment area. It is one entertainer. When he is playing his music it is
amplified from this shell area.
Mr. LaPine: When I'm talking about speakers, I'm talking about these large speakers. Or
are they small speakers? What size speakers are they?
Mr. Fortmueller: They will be in this area.
Mr. LaPine: They can be geared to tune them up or down?
Mr. Fortmueller: The maximum level will be established by our sound engineers not to
exceed what the ordinance allows, actually it will probably be less than that..
Mr. LaPine: The problem I have with that is that you say the engineers are going to gear them
at a certain level. The engineer is out there every night to see that it is done
right?
Mr. Fortmueller: Right but when they establish the maximum sound level the entertainer or
the management can not raise it above that level. They can only turn it down
below that level.
r.. Mr. LaPine: Unless somebody knows that it is there, the average person wouldn't know
what that is?
16959
Mr. Fortmueller: The maximum level? That is allowed by code?
Mr. LaPine: Right. What I'm saying, is the average person that is sitting in that restaurant
wouldn't know what that level is, if it is a 5 decibel, or a 6 decibel or a 10
decibel.
Mr. Fortmueller: If they are not knowledgeable.
Mr. LaPine: That is what I'm saying, if I went to that restaurant and the music was playing
and I thought it was too loud and somebody could tell me it was a 5 decibel. I
would have to accept that a true fact because I really don't know what a 5
decibel is.
Mr. Fortmueller: If a guest thought the music was too loud the management could turn it
down in that given area. They can reduce the levels in certain areas without
reducing the whole system as well.
Mr. LaPine: Another question I have, this new proposal you sent us tonight, is this where it
says front elevation, I asked you earlier, is this what is gong to be along
Haggerty Road? I've got all these other plans here. I want to know exactly
what is going to be along Haggerty Road.
Mr. Fortmueller: The west elevation facing Haggerty Road will be this elevation right here.
The porte cochere does face Haggerty Road and then the gazebo is out in
4111111, front. The deck where the entertainer plays is behind the porte cochere and
additional landscape area out in front of the gazebo and this walkway leading
to it. We have separated the deck from the gazebo and this walkway with a
large landscaping area in here. We could put additional screening and
vegetation in here too.
Mr. LaPine: If you would indulge me, Mr. Chairman, if you would come here and tell me
all these elevations, show me which is north, east , west and south.
Mr. Fortmueller: Because when we turned the building...
Mr.LaPine: This here is south, is that correct?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes, that is south. That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: If this is facing south, then this has to be facing Haggerty Road, is that
correct?
Mr. Fortmueller That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Is this the entrance?
Mr. Fortmueller: That is the entrance to the restaurant.
16960
Mr. LaPine: So you have a road here in front of Haggerty Road?
r.. Mr. Fortmueller: In front of the entrance to the restaurant,there is the porte cochere and then
drive on and then parking and then landscaping.
Mr. LaPine: Then this is south and this is west?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir, that is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Then what is this one here, the left side elevation? Where does that face?
East, west or what?
Mr. Fortmueller: That actually is the elevation that will be facing the movie theater.
Mr. LaPine: That will be east?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: Which one of these is north?
Mr. Fortmueller: Do you have that colored elevation that I presented last week?
Mr. LaPine: This is everything I've got, right here.
Mr. Fortmueller: The north elevation would be this one right here with the service yard and
"" this will be a brick elevation here that will be facing the parking field.
Mr. LaPine: All along here will be landscaping? Is that correct?
Mr. Fortmueller: That is correct. Out in front of the building. That would be along here.
This is the porte cochere, we have this landscape island that is directly in front
of the building. We have this landscaping. We have all this landscaping out
here plus all this landscaping.
Mr. LaPine: In other words, people can drive by and drop people off and everything is
valet parking?
Mr. Fortmueller: Everything is valet parking.
Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: I do have some background in audiology and can help with the decibel issue, I
think. The worse thing we would ever want would be one speaker. What you
want is multiple small speakers so that the sound will be more defused so there
would be continuity of consistency of sound. It is not really the amount of
speakers we should be concerned about, it is the decibel level and I think that
has been addressed.
16961
Mr. McCann: I would like to add one comment to that. I assume, and I am familiar with the
restaurant business, if you are going to pipe it inside that you have one central
Nor speaker system with the little speakers in the ceiling pointing down through the
whole area.
Mr. Fortmueller: Inside the restaurant. Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: Then you also have them within the deck area putting down too, for when you
are piping in your music.
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: So wouldn't the ones on the deck be on the same time when the singer is on?
Mr. Fortmueller: No sir. When the singer is performing it overrides that music and it is
played through those speakers,the entertainer's music.
Mr. McCann: But it is also piped into the main building?
Mr. Fortmueller: And into the main building.
Mr. McCann: Into the main system.
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes.
Mr. McCann: But you shut down part of the system on the deck? You understand what I'm
saying? You've got little speakers all through the restaurant. You've got them
all on your deck so that when you are playing your regular recorded music
everybody on the deck and inside can hear it. When your musician is on, you
are saying you are piping it to the inside of the building into those speakers but
you are cutting out the speakers on the deck.
Mr. Fortmueller: When the entertainer is playing on the deck, it is just the music within the
bandstand because the speakers are situated as a radius to span the music
across the deck like this.
Mr. Alanskas: I just have a question because I could not make last week's study, originally
you wanted 131 outside seats, what have you reduced to?
Mr. Fortmueller: We have reduced the outside deck seating on the waiting deck, it will be
down to 72.
Mr. Alanskas: And still the 31 on the other side?
Mr. Fortmueller: The 30, so the total seating outside is 102.
Mr. Alanskas: So you are going to have 102 outside seating?
y..
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir.
16962
Mr. Alanskas: One will be for cocktails where the entertainment is and the 30 is for dinner, is
that correct?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: You say 72 on the deck. If I understood you last week at our meeting that does
not include people sitting at the bar.
Mr. Fortmueller: There is no seating at the bar. It is a stand up bar.
Mr. LaPine: But there are people at the bar.
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: How many people could stand at the bar?
Mr. Fortmueller: There potentially could be none if they are all seated on the deck, there are
72 fixed seats on the deck.
Mr. LaPine: You are telling me the bar is strictly a service bar that you get the drinks and
take them back to the table? No body is standing at the bar drinking?
N" Mr. Fortmueller: The guest can approach the bar to order a drink.
Mr. LaPine: How many people can stand at the bar and drink?
Mr. Fortmueller: I don't have a number for that. It would be based on how many people and
depending on the square footage we have here but basically they would just be
approaching the bar to obtain a drink and then go sit down at their table on the
deck and enjoy the music there.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have waitresses serving drinks at the table?
Mr. Fortmueller: Yes sir. We also have that too.
Mr. LaPine: So, conceivable there could be more than 72 people out on this deck at any one
time?
Mr. Fortmueller: That is a possibility but it shouldn't be much more than that,just people
basically waiting for a table.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved it was
r..
16963
#6-117-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on June 8, 1999, on Petition 99-5-2-16 by GMRI, Inc.,
on behalf of Darden Restaurants, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a full service restaurant (Bahama Breeze) on property
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile
Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-5-2-16 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet PS3 prepared by Wolfgang Doerschlag
Architects&Engineers, dated June 17, 1999, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
2) That the Exterior Elevations Plan marked Sheet A2.1 prepared by
Wolfgang Doerschlag Architects and Engineers, dated June 17, 1999, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 388
seats, of which no more than 72 shall occur on the Waiting Deck and
no more than 30 on the Sunset Deck;
4) That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted for approval
within 30 days following approval of this petition by the City Council;
5) That the exterior material on the chimney for the pizza oven shall be
brick, stone or stucco
6) That all light fixtures shall be shielded and all light standards shall not
exceed 20 feet in height;
7) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with
this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; and
8) That the stage area for the solo performer on the Waiting Deck shall be
enclosed on three sides with the open side facing the building.
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.
16964
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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Motion to hold a Public
Hearing on the question of whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan
of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, so as to delete the
subject portion of Helman Park, located south of Curtis Avenue, and east of
Wayne Road in Section 9, and to amend Part VII,the Future Land Use Plan,
so as to change the designation of the subject property from Recreation/Open
Space to Community Service.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Hale and approved it was
#6-118-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held on the questions of whether or not to
amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School
and Park Plan, so as to delete the subject portion of Helman Park, located
south of Curtis Avenue, and east of Wayne Road in Section 9, and to amend
Part VII,the Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the designation of the
subject property from Recreation/Open Space to Community Service.
N.. FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Hale, McCann, Shane
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes
of the 784th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on May 4, 1999. All
members were present with the exception of Mr. Shane.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was
#6-119-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 784th Public Hearing &Regular Meeting
held on May 4, 1999 are approved.
`��- Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
16965
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes
of the 785th Regular Meeting held on May 18, 1999. All members were
present with the exception of Mr. Shane.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it was
#6-120-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 785th Regular Meeting held on May 18,
1999 are approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the 380th
Special Meeting held on May 25, 1999. All members were present with the
exception of Mrs. Koons, Mr. Hale and Mr. Shane.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and approved it was
#6-121-99 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 380th Special Meeting held on May 25,
1999 are approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 787th Regular Meeting held on June 22,
1999 was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
•
•
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: . , ��
J. 1 es_ fcCann, Chairman
i
/
/rw