HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-06-23 16190
MINUTES OF THE 766th REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 23, 1998, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
766th 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 McCann Elaine Koons Robert Alanskas
William LaPine* Michael Hale
Members absent: Daniel Piercecchi
Messrs.'s John Nagy, Planning Director, and Al Nowak, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning or vacating request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver of use request, or site plan approval, and the request is denied,
the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise
the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
request for preliminary plat approval. Planning Commission resolutions become
effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has
reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with
approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them
depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 98-3-
8-10 by Ronald Abraham, on behalf of Stables Bar, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a parking lot on property located at 14920 Middlbelt Road in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24.
Mr. McCann: This items have been discussed at length at prior meetings, therefore there
will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will
require unanimous consent from the Commission.
Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence since this item was tabled.
Mr. McCann: Does the petitioner have anything to add?
Mr. Abraham: No, Sir.
16191
Mrs. Koons: At our Study Meeting we discussed with Mr. Nagy and the staff that they
were going to talk to you about putting in a brick wall.
Mr. Abraham: I am looking into it. It is not out of the question.
Mr. McCann: Sir, if we made a recommendation of approval to the City Council with the
condition of the brick wall, we think it would dress up the area and clean
up the area.
Mr. Abraham: Explain to me what you want.
Mr. Nagy: Your planting strip along the sidewalk area, in order to protect those
shrubs, and also to better screen the cars, there should be a low wall about
30"high in back of those shrubs, both as a backdrop for the shrubs and to
conceal the parking lot, parallel to Middlebelt, the full length of your
planting strip along Middlebelt Road. At the corner where your area is
widened, the wall would die into that raised area where your heavier
planting is at the south corner of the property.
Mr. Abraham: Not a problem.
* 7:34 PM - Mr. LaPine arrived.
Mr. Hale: What happens if some day you do acquire that barber shop and the
adjacent parcel, what are you going to do with the parking? Would you
extend it through?
Mr. Abraham: I don't know. I have been trying to buy that barber shop for quite a few
years. I would like to make it all parking.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it
was
#6-96-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-3-8-10 by Ronald Abraham, on behalf
of Stables Bar, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
parking lot on property located at 14920 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 24 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 51 prepared by R.A. Zischke
Architect, as received by the Planning Commission on March 25, 1998 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
r..
16192
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS 1 prepared by R.A.
Zischke Architect, as received by the Planning Commission on March 25,
1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that a
two and one-half(2-1/2) foot decorative brick wall shall be installed
behind the landscaping along Middlebelt Road;
3) That the brick used in the construction of the decorative wall shall
be full face four inch brick, no exceptions;
4) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8-19
by Gator Construction, Inc. on behalf of Alpha Baptist Church, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a recreational building on property
located at 28051 West Chicago Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, supported by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it
was
#6-97-98 RESOLVED, that Petition 98-5-8-19 by Gator Construction, Inc. on
behalf of Alpha Baptist Church, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a recreational building on property located at 28051 West
Chicago Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 be taken from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence on this petition.
Robert Scott Kaye, Gator Construction& Design, LL., petitioner. The reason we were
tabled at the last meeting to take a survey and completely redesign this
structure to reflect more on the residential surroundings. I think we have
done a good job in accommodating with that.
Mr. Alanskas: If you got approval, when would you start building that?
16193
Mr. Kaye: We would like to start this year and start building as soon as possible. I
would say the project has a three to four month duration.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you had any problem with graffiti on the walls of the church? If you
have only four feet of brick, well they seem to not want to touch brick.
Mr. Kaye: I would like to direct that question to Mr. Mike Shepherd here from the
church.
Mike Shepherd, 31334 Roslyn, Garden City, Michigan: No, we haven't had any
problems at all with graffiti on the buildings. There is a big, white wall on
the south side and we have never had any problems.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Kaye, in our meeting last week, we talked about having more of an
overhang in your roof and possibly putting more windows in the back, and
I see in your notes that you are willing to consider that.
Mr. Kaye: Yes, the overhang is not an economic issue. The soffit that protrudes in
what appears to be the first floor area has a two foot extension. I believe
on your plans we call for a 16 inch extension soffitt on the overhang for
the main roof structure and we will agree to equal that to match the one on
the bottom. As far as the windows in the rear, it is something that is
desired by the applicant, but he is proceeding cautiously in that area
because of the intensity level of children we have playing in the rear and
the screening it imposes on the property. We had some reservations
because of the children playing back there and the integrity of the
windows and their getting damaged by rocks and broken. So that is a
concern that we've talked about since we had the staff comments. How do
we protect the investment and possibly protect from breaking and entering.
Mrs. Koons: How high off the ground are those windows?
Mr. Kaye: We have two sections of windows proposed by the elevations. We have
windows up high which are clear windows which would let some light
into gymnasium. We have some lower windows that would light the
locker rooms and areas that are around grade. I believe those are around
four foot six. I think the windows on the second floor have a sill height of
fourteen foot six.
Mrs. Koons: Are you concerned about the 14' windows?
Mr. Kaye: I guess they could both be broken. The windows on the ground level
would be easier to replace, but the same concerns are with both windows.
16194
Mr. Alanskas: Didn't we on the church on Newburgh and Five Mile Road put"phony"
windows in? They weren't real windows, they were to dress up one side
of that building. Couldn't we do that here?
Mr. Nagy: I believe so, yes.
Mr. Kaye: If you were to make that motion, we would like the option to consider
either going ahead and putting the full vision glass in, or putting in a false
window and I would like to have some time to discuss that with my client.
If it is a security issue, I think they would like to make that decision.
Mr. Alanskas: We would just like to break the starkness of that wall.
Mr. LaPine: Your new proposal is a lot better than the first one. This is primarily a
gymnasium. Is it also a multi purpose room?
Mr. Kaye: I believe it has other intended uses besides a gymnasium.
Mr. LaPine: I am also curious about the four classrooms. What are they used for? My
concern is that you are separated from the church and this sets on its own,
so something else must be going on in there.
Mr. Shepherd: Some of the activities we have take place in the bigger room and then are
split up into smaller groups and put into the classrooms. For example, on
Wednesday nights we have a pioneer program for the kids. We meet
altogether at the beginning of the program and then we split up and we
like to have a smaller area to separate them.
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to have a day care center or anything like that here?
Mr. Shepherd: No.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, supported by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, it was
#6-98-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-5-8-19 by Gator Construction, Inc. on
behalf of Alpha Baptist Church, requesting approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a recreational building on property located at 28051 West
Chicago Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 51 prepared by The Foresta
Group, as received by the Planning Commission on June 12, 1998 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That all parking spaces shall be 10'x20' and doubled striped; 16195
3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L1 prepared by The Foresta
Group, as received by the Planning Commission on June 12, 1998 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and yard areas immediately adjacent to the new facility and all planted
materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
6) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet Al
prepared by The Foresta Group, as received by the Planning Commission
on June 12, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
7) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full
face 4 inch brick, no exceptions;
8) That the petitioner shall meet to the Department of Public Works
Engineering Division's satisfaction the following requirement as outlined
in the correspondence dated May 27, 1998:
- that a ire hydrant shall be located on the southwest corner of the
new facility's parking lot
9) That the petitioner shall meet to the Department of Public Safety
Livonia Fire & Rescue's satisfaction the following requirement as outlined
in the correspondence dated June 1, 1998:
-that the entrance drive be posted on both sides as "No Parking" or"Fire
Lane,No Parking"
10) The overhang on the upper roof shall match the overhang as shown
on the lower roof projection;
11) That there shall be three sets of windows added to the east
elevation at the 20' level.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: The motion passes. You will go on to the City Council with an approving
resolution.
16196
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application and Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 98-1-8-2
which received site plan approval to construct two office buildings on
property located at 19400 Victor Parkway in the North 1/2 of Section 6.
Mr. McCann: I have a letter from Jack Kirksey, Mayor of Livonia that he requested be
read into the record: Dear Planning Commissioners: Prior commitments
preclude my attendance at tonight's Planning Commission meeting. I am
especially interested in Petition 98-1-8-2. I have met with members of the
Villa's Homeowners Association and they have shared their concerns
relative to the development of the property south of the Villas's. I have
visited the development site several times. I support their primary concern
of relocating the service drive that is proposed directly behind the south
side of their homes. The proposed location will compromise their quality
of life. I strongly support a relocation of the service drive that would be
less intrusive. Sincerely, Jack E. Kirksey, Mayor. John, do we have any
other correspondence?
Mr. Nagy: There is no other correspondence.
Robert Yurk, Ghafari Associates, Inc., 17101 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, Michigan:
The plan was presented in detail at the last Planning Commission meeting.
The majority of the plan is intact as was presented previously. We have
made some revisions at the east end of the site with some addition of
understory trees and shrub planting materials to try and get a mixture
along Victor Parkway. I do have the landscape architect who is working
with us, and I would like to have him address the specifics of that.
John Krueger, Hansen Krueger Partnership: At the last meeting we had a planting of
strictly canopy trees along Victor Parkway and it was suggested that we
get more variety to make it more like a botanical garden there. We have
added understory trees. They are medium height trees. The varieties are
Amelanchier, Redbud, Flowering Dogwood; basically native-type plants.
For the ground plant we have added some rather large shrub beds:
Redstem Dogwood, Witch Hazel, Inkberry, Fragrant Sumac, Arrowwood,
Viburnum Plicatum. Again basically native-type plants and plants that
will grow to 8' to 10' in height and equal in spread.
Mr. LaPine: Could you describe how the retention basin is going to be?
Mr. Krueger: We do have a section through the retention basin. We are trying to have a
permanent pond of water with a water jet display in it. It will be at low
water detention and the detention is up above that, about 5' of detention
when it rains. The back wall of the basin would be Michigan field stone.
It is not a vertical wall, more of a cobble type slope. Behind that is fairly
16197
dense evergreen planting. We have evergreen trees in 2' and 3' staggered
rows 15' apart.
Mr. LaPine: When you say a floating fountain, I am not sure what that means.
Mr. Krueger: Basically it floats because the water level varies. If you get a small rain,
the detention basin will rise. This floating fountain is similar to the ones
you see in golf course ponds. They are made with all different types of
water effects, but basically the fountain unit floats when the water level
rises, the fountain will rise. Victor Drive slopes down to the detention
basin, the fieldstone wall behind it, going up towards the parking area and
then the screening that we have between the basin and the parking area
with the evergreen trees, flowering trees in front and canopy trees behind
that.
Mr. Alanskas: On the northern entrance there, have you added more trees since our last
meeting?
Mr. Krueger: I believe since the last meeting this has not changed in this area. We did
add trees since our concept drawing. I couldn't tell you the overall
percentage of landscaping, but we've added 7 evergreen trees, 5 canopy
trees and 4 flowering trees in that area.
Mr. Alanskas: What kind of trees and what height are they in the corner?
Mr. Krueger: We are putting in White Pine and Austrian Pine and those are 10' high.
We are putting in Red Maples and White Oaks, 3" caliber, 16' to 20' tall.
Mr. LaPine: Are you saying in the upper northwest corner you have added trees? Our
original plan shows 16 trees.
Mr. Krueger: No. The additional plants on the plant list are from the service drive down
to this drive (showing the landscape plan).
Mr. Alanskas: I came by there before the meeting and I noticed that you did take down
those piles of wood chips that the neighbors complained about. I see two
are gone, but tonight you have one big one taller than the first two. Of
course it's further away from the neighbors, but it is still the same
problem. Is there a reason you can't make them short and more of them?
Mr. Yurk: I have talked to the contractor. Our company is not the one doing the
work out there. I have also talked with the petitioner. In an attempt to try
and get them to keep the wood chips down and to keep the disturbance
down as much as possible.
16198
Mr. Alanskas: I think you better talk to them again because I was there at 7:00 and they
were still doing this. It is intrusive.
Mr. Yurk: I understand.
Mr. LaPine: The last time we discussed this, I had a concern about the parking lot. To
me it looks like a shopping center parking lot. I went through Valassis
twice last week. Is there any way we can get more landscaping inside that
parking lot to break up this sea of asphalt? What you are showing here is
12 trees and that's a good sized parking lot. Maybe you could get some
spots to plant flowers to break up that starkness of the parking lot.
Mr. Yurk: Our original plan that was approved in site plan review had one line of
islands that ran the continuous length of the parking lot to break it up in a
north-south direction. We also have the change in elevation between the
parking lots. That change varies from 3' to 6' and then bermed 2' above
this area to try and shield the parking as you see it from Victor Parkway.
As part of the landscape concept, with the canopy trees that are placed
along Victor Parkway, in an effort to reduce the rigidness of the plan, the
islands were grouped together instead of being one island that is 10'x40'.
Every other one was grouped with another island to create islands that are
20'x40' making them larger and allowing us to establish larger, more
significant islands with more plantings. We certainly could go back to
where we have the islands down through the center. There would be more
..• of them, they would be smaller though. We would not be able to establish
as large of groupings of landscaping.
Mr. Alanskas: I am sure you heard the Mayor's concerns about the driveway towards the
neighbors, and I know we discussed this before. Is there any way you can
take that drive and put it on the other side of the building?
Mr. Yurk: I had a conversation with Mr. Nagy earlier today and he indicated that the
Mayor had sent some correspondence related to that, so we haven't had a
lot of time to look at it. It is something that I am not sure about. We have
some issues relating to the grading and the retention in this area. Also, on
the previously approved site plan, this area was designated to be a fire lane
by the Fire Department and it allows direct access into the site directly to
the buildings. If we were to relocate the drive to the south, it would put
the two drives extremely close together and also create a circuitous
route for any fire trucks accessing the site.
Mr. Alanskas: How close together would they be?
Mr. Yurk: The two driveways would be approximately 200' apart.
16199
Mr. Alanskas: That's not very close in my estimation. That's a possibility if we could
take that traffic from the neighbors, if at all feasible, it would make
v..
everyone happy.
Mr. McCann: I will expand a little on Mr. Alanskas' question. If you did move the
driveway a little south of the pond, couldn't the pond be a little more oval
in shape to give you a little more room to bring the driveways north? By
making it oval, it would give you another 50'-60' and that would give you
about 300' of separation.
Mr. Yurk: That is a possibility. We would have to look at it from an engineering
point of view. There is a required capacity that was dictated to us by the
overall development of the park that was done originally.
Mr. McCann: My concern was if you move the drive south, would you still be required,
because of the building design, to put the drive behind the building for
loading and shipping?
Mr. Yurk: Yes. There is a requirement that we have a fire lane on all four sides of
the building. I am sure that's a preference of the Fire Department, as well
as related to the building code and the size of the buildings that we are
constructing.
Mr. McCann: Did you take a look at any other possibilities, such as a larger berm on the
�` north side of the drive?
Mr. Yurk: That possibility would exist within the buffer area. What is commonly
referred to as the 100' buffer and gets wider as it goes west, we were
allowed to bring that drive right up to the buffer line. In an effort to
minimize the disturbance to that buffer area, we have the road 10' outside
that line which allows us to construct the road and regrade only up to that
line so that we can stay fully outside of that buffer area which puts us 110'
off the property line.
Mr. McCann: Can you show me on the plan?
Mr. Yurk: This plan shows the Villa's condominium area. The first unit some 55'
from Victor Parkway, and going back to the last building here.
Mr. McCann: You have a berm at the front end of this property, correct?
Mr. Yurk: No, there is no berm currently as part of the plan.
Mr. McCann: You say there is 10' north of your road.
Mr. Yurk: That is correct.
16200
Mr. McCann: One of the other concerns that I have is that if you are going to have
shipping, I assume the rear entrance is just for garbage. Your containers
are in the back?
Mr. Yurk: Yes. There are trash compactors behind each building. The buildings are
for professional office use. There are no restaurants or food service, so
there won't be any refuse like that in the compactors.
Mr. McCann: I assume office deliveries would be from the back, or would they be from
the front?
Mr. Yurk: They could be made from either side. Both sides are open for that use.
Mr. McCann: The other concern I had was limiting the time for deliveries and trash
pickup until 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning and nothing on the weekend.
Mr. Yurk: I believe that was discussed as part of site plan review. I don't remember
the specifics.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Nancy Gaston, 38685 Jahn Drive: I am the head of the Livonia Hills Subdivision
association. My home backs up to probably where the dumpsters are
going to be. While searching for a piece of information in the public
hearing minutes of 1986 with David Johnson and other city officials, I
found it was like reading a time capsule buried for about twelve years.
This is a statement made by Mr. Tangora: The owner, Mr. Johnson, of
Victor International, will retain complete control. He will keep control of
the landscaping, architectural, etc. He is known as a quality developer.
The type of products he builds in the metropolitan area are quality
products. He is not going to be selling offparcels of land. He will present
a master plan and will adhere to such plan. I would like to know what
happened to this plan. It seems like it was kind of chiseled in stone at one
time. I am very familiar with Dave Johnson's work, his concept and
development. He is a man to be admired. In no way do I believe the
handling of this piece of property in any way equals one of his goals. I
would like to know who is responsible for letting this company come in
and plow down the property the way it was. It destroyed years of natural
growth. It doesn't suit the site that was designed to be put into the Victor
Master Plan. The day before the dozer started his work, there were three
men in the woods behind my home. They were brought to my attention by
a cracking sound coming from their direction. When I approached them,
they were at the back of my yard. One was holding a machete-type
instrument swinging at every tree and sapling within his reach. When I
16201
asked what they were doing there, their answer was "I don't know". I
asked if they were surveying and they said "I don't know". I asked if they
were looking for survey markers and the answer was still "I don't know".
I said I would like to talk to somebody who did know and they radioed for
the supervisor who after ten minutes did not show up. You have
professional people dealing with you and coming to your offices and
explaining what you have. What we have is a bunch of"I don't knows".
We have bulldozers that are working from early morning until nightfall.
Now I have footage between my property and the building site backed up,
not that in any way is their major damage down, but the cushioning of the
noise barrier is a little weaker. I would also like to know about the
cleanup of the debris on this footage. There is a lot of downed and rotted
trees including trash that has been there for many years. What attempt is
going to be made for a buffer zone? One hundred feet is nothing,
absolutely nothing. This gentleman talked about a driveway being too
close at 200 feet. I would like to have you people come and walk through
the backyards of Livonia Hills Sub, through the church and through the
Villa's and you will see exactly how close that road is in our backyard.
The leaves on the trees are probably only there for five months of the year.
Seven months they will be barren and it will be extremely noisy. That also
brings up the problem of lights. We have a row of security lights from the
Target store across the expressway. On a misty day, our whole backyard
is lit up from those lights. Lights from this building, twenty feet up, will
just cause problems, not to just the homes that are backing up to it, but
also going into the subdivision. The way the ingress and egress is
designed tells me that no consideration has been attempted to any of the
concerns of the homeowners or residents. We have found it shocking and
unsightly in what they have destroyed. Then to have a roadway back up
into the so-called buffer footage, is not responsible and in no way any
relief How many parking spaces are supposed to be available for this?
Mr. McCann: I know they are very close to being what the City requires.
Mr. Nagy: The total spaces required is 1,566 including 32 which will be barrier-free
spaces. The parking provided for building #1 totals 844, and for building
#2 totals 734, for a grand total of 1,578 parking spaces.
Ms. Gaston: And that's how many cars going one way into that lot, and that is not
including going back out. That's not including if they are making office
runs or if they are going out for lunch or any other thing. That is nothing
but a highway. It is like Eight Mile Road. The traffic from Victor was
enough in consideration twelve years ago at the City meeting. Lanes on
Seven and Eight Mile Roads have been widened as said. The traffic on the
five lanes on Seven and Eight Mile are horrendous and Victor is not even
near completion. This was supposed to be widened for the traffic in the
Victor complex. Can you imagine what will happen and what it will be
16202
like when this whole area is completed with the offices and a restaurant. I
wanted to find out too what are the business hours? Are there any set
hours or will we have to come back because of businesses or a fitness
center that may want to go in and can't keep with the 9:00-5:00 hours that
they others are keeping in the area. I think that is a very important issue.
Whether the driveway is behind our homes or not is having the noise and
everything filter back to our subdivision. What kind of privacy do we
expect to have? Window placement is important in a tall structure. Has
that been taken into consideration as far as the impact of the windows onto
the people that are in the Villas or in our subdivision? I have already been
in buildings on different floors to see what can be seen, and looking down
you can see an awful lot. In the back of my home I have three bedrooms,
a bathroom, a kitchen and my backyard. That is open for viewing by
anybody in the building. I believe there are city policies relating to
proposed changes that will not adversely affect the area. The way all of
this has been set up seems to adversely affect the area, the homes and the
residents. In our subdivision for the last three years, the people have been
hooked up to City water and we have some serious problems with the
water pressure. Is this building going to be hooked up to our water line?
Mr. McCann: I'm trying to give you as much time as I can, but we normally limit it to
three minutes.
Ms. Gaston: I'm speaking for people who will not be speaking here.
Mr. McCann: That's fine and I am going to give you as much time as you need, but I do
want to remind you that we are at the landscape plan stage.
Ms. Gaston: This is going to be part of the landscaping because of the stuff that is
going to be pouring off as far as water lines. I wanted to find out if we are
going to be hooked up with them as far as the water, or if they are going to
have their own separate water lines. I would like to find out what kind of
pressure that they are going to be having. The problem that we are all
going to face with the project has everything to do with the value of our
largest investment which is our homes. The biggest drawback with the
sale of homes in our subdivision is the noise. We really don't need
anything else to make our homes unsaleable because of the noise causing
the problem and us not being able to get a realistic price. This is not the
feelings of just me. These are other people's concerns in the sub. I have
no contact with the people in the Villa's.
Daniel Gaston: That was my wife. I just wanted to reiterate a few things, but one of the
things I found to be interesting was that over the eighteen years that I have
been there, they said they would never develop that property and
unfortunately it is being developed. My concerns are that leaving the
location of the building, putting it in my backyard versus taking that
16203
building and swinging it so that it has exposure to 275. From an
architect's standpoint, and to take that building, swing it around and
change those plans, you are talking a drop in the bucket as far as the
financial end of that business. If they were to look at that plot plan and
say we want to put a building up and we went through from an eight story
and we finally conceded to let professional office come in. At that
elevation we were under the impression that they would put in something
that would be away from. I would think the facility would be moved away
from the backyard of my residence, but I think it is also interesting that
after they took all the trees down that they could install and do so much for
the Victor Parkway residents that drive down there to the Villas. They are
trying to appease them by giving them a few shrubs. I think it is a mere
drop in the bucket. If they went out and took that building and moved it
another 50' to 60' southward and put up some pines and deciduous trees.
The road I understand has to be there for purposes of the fire protection,
but when they took down the woods, they left me open to the point where
you have a clear vision in a lot of the areas all the way through and you get
a lot of that light filtering from all the other adjacent neighbors. I can see
as far as Seven Mile Road from the illumination of the Mexican restaurant
and Lone Star restaurant. We also see lighting on the other side of the
expressway. If they are going to build a building, they are going to build it
and we are not going to stop it. Flip the building, put it where it belongs,
expose it to the 275 people that are driving to and from work, but don't
give it to me where I have to sit and look at it every day for the rest of the
time that I am there. Put pine trees up, put a berm up, when I proposed the
question to the man that laid out that floor plan, why didn't you put the
landscaping into my backyard into that area, he said you have the
greenbelt. There is no undergrowth. It obviously doesn't get any sunlight
or exposure so you have saplings. You don't have any barrier at all and I
am concerned about the winter time. You need to do some landscaping
consideration and if you are going to vote on this petition tonight, I would
suggest that you say no and make the developer go back that has the
money now and do what he is supposed to do.
Robert Currier, 38144 Vista Drive South: I am a member of the Board of Directors of the
Villa's Condominium Association. During the Planning Commission
meeting of May 9, a number of the residents of the Villa's used the
opportunity to express their concerns, dismay and disappointment to the
City and the developer. Perhaps they will also use this opportunity to do
the same again. From my perspective in two cases out of the two, we are
not going to get it back in. I would like to rely upon you to interact with
the developer to lessen the impact, both short term and long term on the
residents of the Villa's and on the physical area surrounding the Villa's.
We have 42 homes, detached condominiums, with an aggregate value
approaching $11 million. On Monday four members of the Board of
Directors met with John Nagy and Mayor Jack Kirksey. We presented a
16204
list of concerns that were raised by the membership of the Villa's
Condominium Association at our annual meeting of June 17. Those
concerns were presented to the Mayor and Mr. Nagy and copies were
requested to be forwarded to you and members of the City Council. These
concerns are real and in many cases understated. I would like to address
what we believe would lessen the impact on the Villa's. I am not going to
go through the list of concerns. I did not hear that they have been entered
into the record and I would appreciate it if they are entered into the record.
Mr. McCann: For the record, each one of us received a copy of this. If you would like to
read it into the record, you are more than welcome to do so.
Mr. Currier: This is a letter dated June 22, 1998 to Mayor Jack Kirksey, members of
the City Planning Commission and members of the City Council. At the
annual meeting of the Villas Homeowners Association, held June 17,
1998, the subject of the office development project located to the
immediate South of the homeowners property and on the West side of
Victor Parkway, was extensively discussed. Many concerns were
expressed by the homeowners present. These concerns include:
1) The devastation of the forestry and property involved. Trees estimated
to be over 100 years old were removed in a two day rampage.
2) The lack of consideration on behalf of the developer and contractors
with construction machinery beginning their work as early as 6:30 a.m.
and continuing until after 6:00 p.m.
3) The now lack of privacy for homeowners situated on the South side of
Vista Drive.
4) The amount of debris, dust, dirt that has been generated on the homes,
decks, and windows of the homeowners on the South side. Many of these
homes have recently been painted and the Association will incur
additional expense to power clean these homes or in some cases re-paint
the homes effected, at great expense to the Association. (The expense for
8 homes was $13,000.)
5) The `feeding frenzy" of local real estate agents anticipating that many
homeowners would be so disgusted with the construction, that the time
would be right for encouraging a sale at reduced costs. (No one in their
right mind would buy a house now on the South side of Vista Drive.)
6) The fear of the homeowners that the "mess" created by the
construction project would significantly reduce home value or interest in
purchasing for those homeowners that choose to sell.
7) The concern of"South" side homeowners that their additional$10,000
investment to secure a home that "backed up to a wooded lot" would not
be realized if faced with a service road and parking lot in their back yard.
8) The anticipation that the construction process would not be held to
reasonable hours, with construction vehicles arriving before 8 a.m. and
continue until after 5:00 in the evening which is the time the neighbors
16205
return home after work and begin to enjoy their deck and privacy.
Because the construction site is within 100 feet of the homeowners
property, the above are serious concerns and must be responded to by the
developer either directly or with attention to the design, engineering and
landscaping of the project. Addressing the concerns that relate to
destruction of the natural landscape,privacy, and preserving property
value, The Villas Homeowners Association respectfully request the
support and assistance of Mayor Jack Kirksey, the City of Livonia
Planning Commission, and the Members of the City Council in securing a
commitment from the developer to comply with the following: (The most
important concern is:)
1) RELOCATING THE NORTH SERVICE DRIVEWAY TO THE SOUTH
SIDE OF THE PROPOSED RETENTION POND.
Note: The current design has the service driveway directly behind the
south side homes. The noise, dust, and traffic of this design are not
conducive to peaceful living that you, as well as The Villas homeowners,
expect to enjoy when they are at home.
2) CONSTR UCT A 10 FOOT BERM TO BORDER THE EASEMENT TO
BUFFER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
FROM THE VILLAS PROPERTY. 10 FOOT BERM TO BE
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.
3) THE BERM TO BE LANDSCAPED WITH 10 FOOT SPRUCE AND
PINE TREES STAGGERED TO BLOCK ALL OPENINGS THAT WOULD
MAKE THE CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIBLE.
A" 4) THE BERM TO BE FULLY SODDED TO PREVENT EROSION.
5) THE BERM TO BE LANDSCAPED WITH SMALL BUSHES AND
PLANTS WHICH WILL GIVE ITA "NATURAL FOREST" LOOK
SIMILAR TO THE FOREST THAT WAS DESTROYED.
6) THE BERM TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRAINAGE TO PREVENT
FLOODING ONTO VILLAS PROPERTY. (Another concern is that the
retention pond might leach into the basements of the homes located on the
South side of our development).
7) MINIMUM LENGTH OF THE BERM WOULD EXTEND ALONG
OPEN AREA ON EASEMENT.
8) THE BERM TO BE MAINTAINED AND MANICURED BY THE
DEVELOPER DURING CONSTRUCTION OR PROPERTY OWNER
AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
9) ADDITIONAL SPRUCE AND PINE TREES WITHIN THE
EASEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAS AND THE NEW BERM. THIS
WILL REPLENISH THE FOREST LANDSCAPING THAT WAS
DESTROYED BY THE DEVELOPER..
10) IF THE ABOVE CHANGES RESULT INA VARIANCE IN THE
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE OFFICE
COMPLEX WE REQUEST THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVE THE VARIANCE.
16206
Compliance with the above will work toward restoring the property
destroyed and enhancing the property value of the homeowners, the City
of Livonia and the Victor Drive Office Park. We look forward to the
*" continued support of our City Leaders and thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely, The Villas Homeowners Association Board of
Directors and Homeowners.
Mr. Alanskas:You say that you repainted, what would cause that to repaint the homes?
Mr. Currier: There is soot coming off of those black stumps they have been grinding
up. It is like turpentine. I don't know the physical makeup. You park
your car in front of your house for a couple of hours, it is just covered with
it.
Mr. Alanskas: Does it wash off?
Mr. Currier: It did wash off my car, but looking at a house that is 25' high, it sticks to a
house.
Mr. McCann: This will become part of the official record. Your analogy to the
toothpaste being out of the tube, I should make it clear to the audience that
we are here on the landscape plan tonight. The developer has already
received approval for site regarding the pond, the roadways, the
construction of this by City Council. Final approval has been made. We
..y are going to try and work with them on some of those concerns. I think
the point that you make on what can be done to increase the barrier and
lessen the load. Further that the problems with the actual construction,
John, that would be through the Engineering or Building Department?
Mr. Nagy: Both.
Mr. McCann: Both would have to address those. We do not have the powers that the
Council has to request reports or investigations into this. This will go on
to Council who does have the authority to require all those departments to
report to them. At this point we just make a recommendation regarding
the landscape plan to the Council. Some of your suggestions we will take
up with the developer after we go through the plan.
Mr. Currier: Thank you for your comments and your empathy. I can see that you are
definitely empathetic with the concerns of the homeowners.
Lee Miller, 38128 Vista Drive South, Villas: Just a few more points. My neighbor did a
pretty good job, but I just want to add a few more things. The location of
the drive is of course a big issue. The fact that it is going to be 100' away
from our bedroom is preposterous. Unbelievable that trucks, garbage
trucks and vehicles of that nature are going to be within 100' of our
16207
bedrooms. Regardless of the time of the day, even if it is just a narrow
band in the middle of the day, it would be very difficult to live with
something like that. I heard him say that the Fire Department requires an
access on all four sides of the building. There's a couple of things that
could be done to work with that and make everybody happy, hopefully. If
that drive is moved to the southerly location, I would suggest that now it
would be more on that side of the building as opposed to not being
covered. Am I making myself clear?
Mr. McCann: Would you go to the mike and point out what you are suggesting.
Mr. Miller: The point I am trying to make is that as the drive comes in through here,
no where does it pass along this side of the building. If the drive were
somewhere in this area, then it would be on all four sides of the building.
It would more closely comply with what the Fire Department is requiring
and, of course, the benefit to us would be that we don't have all this traffic
within 100' of our bedrooms.
Mr. McCann: I understand. There is a drive between the pond and the building there at
this time.
Mr. Miller: If it were relocated here, that would put it on the other side of the building.
Also in conjunction with that, because of the proximity to the homes,
�.. could the northerly portion of the drive just be limited to just emergency
use. If it has to be there for legal reasons and for obvious safety, that is
certainly a valid point, but if it could be reserved for emergency use only,
and confine the ingress and egress to some other point that would not pass
right behind our homes, I think that would satisfy all the requirements, and
to have that portion of the driveway pass right behind the homes when the
requirement of providing access for fire departments is only a very small
percentage of the time it would be used. For that purpose, I think the
relocation would solve all the problems. A few other points: As a result
of the height of the building and the proximity to the homes, laying it out
on a triangle, it is easy to see that there is nothing to prevent the occupants
in the higher floors of the building, not just during construction, but during
occupancy, from peering into our bedrooms and livingrooms. I think we
should be entitled to our privacy. I think that really violates our right to
privacy to have a four story building 150' from our bedrooms.
Mr. McCann: We reduced it from a twelve story building that was Digital, before your
development was approved.
Mr. Miller: That certainly would have been a lot worse, but I don't know how high
you would have to make a berm in combination with the height of the
trees to shield people to the extent the original trees would have. It is done
and over with and you can't cry over that, but the point is that had that
16208
been done, that would have maintained our privacy and the lights and all
of that. So now if something could be done to restore it to that artificially,
'%11wir I think we would be less harmed. It's a big point as you have heard so
many people say.
Mr. McCann: I'm sure everybody is concerned with those same concerns.
Mr. Miller: Of course not all the blooming trees in the world, although beautiful, will
provide any privacy during the non-blooming season. I know evergreens
are kind of bland one after another, but they do provide privacy.
Evergreens and then augmented by more beautiful trees, that would be
nice, but again those trees provide no privacy during the non-blooming
season. Just to say there are trees there, it will look nicer, but functionally
will have a problem during many months of the year. Last point: What
assurances are there that in extremes conditions of accumulating ground
water during unusually heavy rains that the excess that is not containable
in the catch basin will not flood the homeowners' property? I know every
attempt will be made to contain it, but many times, as we have all
witnessed by all the flooding that goes across the world and particularly in
the United States where we have had a lot of unusual flooding, and now
people are faced with something that wasn't designed into the scheme and
that has to be a concern of ours. Unusual conditions will cause excess
water to run into our basements.
Denise McHenry, 38419 Vista Drive South: My property backs up to the property we are
discussing tonight. Mr. Currier has represented the Villa's homeowners
very well this evening. The concerns he raised represent the concerns of
all the good neighbors and voters here tonight and I would think you
would all be concerned with that, and I know you will be. You have been
supportive in the past. I want to bring out a couple additional items that
maybe haven't been addressed. There was some comment from the
landscape designer that some of the trees will be shielding Victor
Parkway. I have heard that comment made a couple of times although I
heard no reference to shielding the homeowners that are now exposed. I
am closer to where the actual building will be put up. The people at the
east end are left totally naked without trees now, totally exposed, have no
privacy. The shielding from Victor Parkway is nice in theory, but there
has been no discussion of shielding those neighbors. I would like more
discussion to that issue. I would like some assurance that there are more
than twelve trees to keep people from peering into their property. One
other issue I would like to make everyone sensitive to. I have been very
close to calling the Fire Department a number of times because, as you are
aware, the big piles of wood chips are smoldering on most mornings.
There are two smaller piles towards the west end that had steam or smoke
coming out of them. In the process of going through the machine they
become very heated, and I am concerned about the spontaneous
16209
combustion exposure and maybe a fire during which my property would
be exposed to and all the homes on the south side. It could even expose
�., the whole subdivision. If we could get rid of those piles of wood chips, I
think it would be a better situation for everybody.
Peter Grant, 18152 Vista Drive South: I bought my home about one month ago. My
property is going to back right up to these office buildings where these
four stories are going to be looking down at me and my wife may be doing
illicit acts together, whatever the case may be. I don't want anybody 100'
away from me looking down at my bedroom, my livingroom and my
kitchen, even my back porch. Where's my privacy now? I know you guys
have already okayed these plans, why can't you just take the buildings and
move them to the other side and be done with it. You wouldn't have any
of these problems. You could have a service drive on that side of the road
now because the building would be on the south side of the property. I
don't know why this wasn't looked at earlier. I would never have bought
that house. It cost me $250,000 and I would never have bought it if I
knew I would have buildings that would be looking down on me.
Ms. Gaston: What is the footage before we are notified of any type of property change?
The reason I am asking is that when this came to you before, there wasn't
anybody in Livonia Hills who was notified that this building was going
up. The last thing we were notified on was of a fitness center going in.
Mr. Nagy: This is not a change. This development fully complies with all of the
standards and requirements.
Ms. Gaston: So there was no reason for anybody in our subdivision to be notified.
Mr. Nagy: That's right. There is no ordinance requirement requiring the posting of
the property or to give notice to the adjoining property owners with
respect to approving site plans or landscape plans.
Mr. McCann: The theory is that since it is the proper proposed zoning, if you know that
it is POI going in there, you would expect that type of development to go
in there because it fits the property zoning.
Ms. Gaston: I understand that, but I was talking about where the dumpsters go and
having the road go in there and having the trees removed. I didn't know
that was part of not being notified of the kind of construction that would
be going on in our backyard.
John Warner, 38121 South Vista: I want you to support that petition that was given to
Mr. Nagy as much as possible. Would everyone from the Villa's stand up.
I just want to show you that we want to save a lot of time. I know that you
guys worked hard and late and in an effort to save time and no
16210
misunderstanding of what we would like and how we are disappointed
with the way this whole thing went on, we would like you to do as much
�.., as possible to make us happy.
Mr. McCann: We appreciate your comments and show of support.
Electra Stamelos, 38131 Vista Drive North: The only comment I want to make is that it
is a shame that this wholesale rape of this area was allowed, and don't
forget that we have the rest of Victor Parkway that is going to go under the
knife. We have a wonderful neighbor, the Valassis Company. They took
into consideration not only the neighborhood, but the natural beauty of the
trees and they did a fantastic job of locating their building and satisfying
everybody's requirements. We are proud to have them as neighbors. Now
what you guys have to do is watch out at what is going to happen to the
rest of it. This particular parcel has unfortunately has been raped. It's
disgusting to have this happen. Those trees were 100 years old when I
moved in here 45 years ago. To have it go down like that with no
consideration, I am embarrassed for architects, for artists and for
landscapers. Maybe you need to have an ordinance on your books that
says any property that has trees 75' and taller, there has to be a
consideration that you guys have to go out and look at it before you allow
it to be raped. Am I making myself clear? I am speaking from an
aesthetic point of view. Don't forget you have Greenmeade over there.
`"r.. You can't allow that to go down the tubes either.
Mr. McCann: John, there has been some discussion tonight. Do we have the percentage
of greenbelt provided for this?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is 26% of the site.
Mr. McCann: Does that include the 100' buffer zone?
Mr. Nagy: No, it includes just the area within the development portion of the
property. The buffer zone was set aside as a permanent, undisturbed
natural area as part of the original plan for the site.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? I am going to let you respond to several of the
things that were cited today. I understand that you are not in a position to
state whether or not the developer can move the road. I assume you are
the architect.
Mr. Yurk: That's correct.
Mr. McCann: Is the owner of the development here?
r..
Mr. Yurk: No, the petitioner is out of town and not able to be here tonight.
16211
Mr. McCann: Let's look at the concerns that you can help us with which we do have
... authority over tonight, and that is the greenbelt area. One of the concerns
is that you do have that 10' berm. John, on a 10' berm, we can go up
about 4'?
Mr. Nagy: No higher than that.
Mr. McCann: One of the concerns was that for all the neighbors that the trees cover the
higher part, but with lights coming and going, especially in winter and
nights when the people are getting out and it gets dark around 5:00, the
lights would affect them. A 4' berm over the length of the northern drive
with evergreens throughout would protect them from the light and the
encroachment. Is that something you could add into your plan?
Mr. Yurk: For clarification, do you mean across the entire east-west part of the site?
Mr. McCann: That's correct.
Mr. Yurk: At this time, due to cost implications, I am not authorized to make a
change like that.
Mr. McCann: What other changes can you recommend be done to protect the neighbors
�`.. from the lights, from the intrusiveness as far as landscaping?
Mr. Yurk: We currently have the 100' plus buffer. It is my understanding that when
the park was developed that was something that was dictated as part of the
development of the park. We have kept the road an additional 10' outside
of that. The buildings are an additional distance away from that. We put
the parking on the south side of the building to shield it from the
residential area. If there is a desire for some additional trees at the extreme
east end within the buffer area- right now we have 16 trees in there, a
combination of evergreens, canopy trees and flowering trees. That is
something that the petitioner would consider. If you have been out to the
site, going back at least three condominium units within the 100' line,
there are no trees there. That area appears to have been mowed regularly
which prevented anything from being developed there. An additional two
units back, there are low scrubby brush, if you will. Between the fifth and
sixth unit, the trees make a significant vertical jump in that area. The
petitioner would be willing to add some evergreen trees within the buffer
area from Victor Parkway back to that fifth unit which is some 290' from
Victor Parkway. There would be some consideration that would have to
be made at the intersection between the drive and Victor Parkway because
one of the conditions that was made when the site plan was previously
approved was for vision in that area by the Police Department for cars
16212
coming off of that drive on to Victor Parkway that they have vision on to
Victor Parkway.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Yurk, see if I understand what you said. On the berm and the
evergreens all along that, did I understand you to say that you don't have
the authority to make that decision?
Mr. Yurk: Yes. There are significant cost implications with that that I have not
discussed with the petitioner, so this evening I am not prepared to make a
commitment for that.
Mr. LaPine: John, what is the width of the road behind the pond?
Mr. Nagy: 22'.
Mr. LaPine: Can the retention pond be moved 22' to eliminate the road and then put
the road down along Victor Drive? I think one of the biggest objections
besides trying to shield the people is that they don't like the drive behind
their homes. If we move the retention pond 22', then you would be further
away from the other drive down Victor way. You could put a second
drive down there. Is that feasible?
Mr. Yurk: I understand what you are saying. I suppose it is feasible. We would have
ti.. to look at the engineering relative to the pond. There have been bids
received and contracts let and it would affect those. Again, from a cost
point of view, that is something that I would have to discuss with the
petitioner.
Mr. Alanskas: I know we had this tabled before, but it sounds like the gentleman does not
have the authority to say what he can do. This is a landscape plan this
evening we are discussing. I think it sounds like we should table this
again until the petitioner comes back with another plan with additional
landscaping there. He says he can't say what they can do, if anything, so it
would be unfeasible to try and approve this plan this evening.
Mr. LaPine: I think what Mr. Alanskas says is true and at this stage of the game, the
roads have not been constructed or laid out and it seems to me that there
can be some solution and the least they can do is look at it and come back
with an alternative plan.
Mr. Yurk: The site plan was previously approved by the Planning commission and
subsequent to that, the City Council. I can't say that the inclination of the
petitioner is not to move the road. The road is outside the 100' line. We
placed it an additional 10' beyond that so that we could stay fully outside
of the buffer during construction. The PO zoning that is on the site would
allow a setback of 60' without the buffer, so the buildings could be within
16213
60' of the property line without the buffer. Effectively, the drive could be
immediately adjacent to the property line with a 6' high screen wall. My
`.. understanding of the development of the park again was that 100'
demarcation line and hence the buffer was developed as a separation
between the office development and the residential zoning in that area.
We have stayed outside of that area. We have tried to address it in the
parking, the lighting, signage, etc. Based on that the site plan was
previously approved and the project has moved forward based on that
approval.
Mr. Alanskas: I agree with what you are saying, tonight we are here on the landscaping
plan, but I am sure you have a time planned for what you want to do. I
know you have a plan approval for the building. You are back here
tonight for landscape approval and I, as one commissioner, don't see how
you can go forward if you have to go back to the petitioner regarding
additional landscaping. Is tabling this, or making you another week or two
off, going to bother you that much because you are still working and doing
chips for the next two or three weeks?
Mr. Yurk: No, tabling the petition would not be a problem. As I have indicated, the
petitioner is more than willing to add additional landscaping in the buffer
area to try and fill in the area where the 100' line is open. The inclination
is to not move the road and a berm across the entire length of the property,
�.. I am sure the petitioner would not agree to that.
Mrs. Koons: I want to make sure Mr. Yurk has a copy of the letter from the neighbors.
Mr. McCann: We will provide him with that.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it
was
#6-99-98 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table the Sign Permit Application and Landscape Plan in connection with
Petition 98-1-8-2 which received site plan approval to construct two office
buildings on property located at 19400 Victor Parkway in the North 1/2 of
Section 6 to July 21, 1998.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: This is tabled to the 21st and we will be meeting back here in this
auditorium. You are all welcome to come. This has been heard on
separate occasions and we have heard you. Again, this is a pending item
and it will require unanimous consent of all the commissioners to allow
the audience to speak. We are going to address the issues. Keep in mind
16214
that this is a landscape plan. We are going to address the issues. Keep in
mind that this is a landscape plan. We are going to look to the petitioner
in the meantime to address the issues that were presented in your petition
and letter to the Planning Commission, as well as if he would voluntarily
move the drive. Otherwise it would have to go to Council and they are the
only ones with the authority to do anything else.
Mr. Alanskas:I would like you to come back before us with the maximum amount that
you would be willing to put in for additional landscaping. It doesn't make
sense for you to come back and say, OK, I will put in another two or three
trees and we say, well, that's not enough, let's table it again. Let's get
these things done and over with. I would like to see you come back with
the maximum amount that you would be willing to put in on that north
side.
Mr. LaPine: I understood everything the petitioner said this evening; the site plan has
been approved and everything according to that site plan is the way he has
it on his plan, but you don't have any expenses at this point or any roads.
So there is a possibility that the road can be moved. All we are asking is
to look at it and see if it is feasible to maybe move that retention pond or
move the driveway to another location. I don't see where there is any
expense as far as the developer's concerned because the building is not
being moved, the parking is not being moved. All we are asking is that
�.. before you put in the road if there is a possibility of moving it from that
location. I would like for you to come back to the next meeting with some
answers.
Mr. McCann: Can you also request that a representative from the builder be here who
has the authority to make these decisions?
Mr. Yurk: Yes.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is a Motion to
Hold a Public Hearing pursuant to Council Resolution#406-98 to
determine whether or not to amend Article XVIII of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended, to add thereto a new Section 18.66 imposing bonding
requirements pursuant to MCL 125.84e.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it
was
#6-100-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution#406-98, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby
establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or
not to amend Article XVIII of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to add
16215
thereto a new Section 18.66 imposing boding requirements pursuant to
MCL 125.584e.
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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: The next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 763rd
Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on May 5, 1998. All members
were present at this meeting with the exception of Mrs. Koons.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#6-101-98 RESOLVED, that the minutes of the 763rd Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held on May 5, 1998 are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
�.• Mr. McCann: The next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 764th
Regular Meeting held on May 19, 1998. All members were present at this
meeting with the exception of Mr. Alanskas.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#6-102-98 RESOLVED, that the minutes of the 764th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on May 19, 1998 are hereby approved.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: That concludes the pending items portion of the meeting. We will now
begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans portion of our agenda. Members of the
audience may speak in support or opposition of these items.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Revision to
Petition 87-4-8-14 which received site plan approval to construct an office
building on property located at 9130 Middlebelt Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 36.
16216
Mr. Nowak: This request involves an office building located on the southeast corner of
Middlebelt and Grandon Avenue. As part of the original condition of
�.,. approval for this office building, there was a condition that there shall be
inside storage of trash. The location for outside dumpsters is prohibited.
The petition is now coming back with a request that he be allowed outdoor
storage of trash which would consist of two garbage cans for each unit
within the building and that these would be located just outside the back
door along the easterly side of the building.
Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence on this item.
Peter Jabbour, 29549 Lyndon, Livonia: I own the office building. I bought it from Dr.
Strong. He built it in 1988 and I bought it in 1991. He had some trouble
leasing the building from '88 to '91 and that's when I bought it. It was
75%vacant. Since I bought the building, I have never had it 100%
occupied. A lot of tenants are concerned with where they could put their
trash. Now I have my accounting office in there, a dental office and State
of Michigan leases for a health screening unit. They provide free medical
examinations for retired state employees. I also have a small realty
company. I have about 700 sq. ft. that is vacant. The dental office has
been putting their trash cans outside, which is basically two trash cans.
They are sealed with lids. Some of the neighbors contacted the City and
the City came out on a couple of occasions. The Inspection Department
`to.. recommended that we send an order to allow us to store some outside
trash.
Mr. Alanskas: What kind of problems are you having with the neighbors? Is the trash
blowing away?
Mr. Jabbour: No. There are no problems. When the site was originally approved, they
didn't allow outside trash. Some of the neighbors are here. I don't know
if they were offended by the trash cans being outside. We have I believe a
6' brick wall between us. We have a small berm in the front. We have
some greens. In order for you to see the trash cans, you have to stop in the
middle of the street to see the trash cans.
Mr. Alanskas: How often are your trash cans emptied?
Mr. Jabbour: Weekly, on Mondays.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you ever have a time when the cans are so full that you have more
refuse than two cans will hold?
Mr. Jabbour: I can't answer that. I have an accounting office. I don't through any trash
outside. We just generate paper and it is confidential, so we don't want to
put it out until it is ready to be picked up. The dental office might be, but
16217
if you allow us some trash cans, they could use mine. They don't need
more than two.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Ben Matusz, 29197 Grandon: I live right next door. I have some photos of how close his
property is to my house.
Mr. McCann: If you would like to bring them up, we will pass them between us.
Mr. Matusz: There is property across the street with a similar building. They never put
out trash. I called the Ordinance Department several times about the trash
being out there. I quit calling because they told me he was going to come
here and request what he is requesting, and he could keep putting it out
until such time as it was approved. I can't believe that. There's a health
screening place and I don't know what they do there, but whatever they
put out, there are children that go by there from Emerson Junior High.
When school is out the pass through there, they sit back there and drink
big gulps of whatever, and I can imagine them going through the garbage
cans. This building is 13' from my property line. I have 10 garbage cans
10' from my house. I lived there when the building was put up. I was
well aware of this. Why change it now? Nobody else has garbage cans
out. Let him put a dumpster in front of the building, or get a trash
compactor. What do we need garbage cans out there for? When is it
going to stop - then the guy across the street is going to want garbage cans
also. Do we make these rules to break them? This man took it upon
himself to drain his drainpipe in our backyard. There's 2' of water in my
backyard. He took it upon himself to put a pipe in underground and let the
water run into our property. The Inspection Department made him reroute
it. He's got weeds all over. He never put weed killer on his lawn. I put in
on myself just to keep his weeds away from my property. I don't think it
is right for him to put garbage cans out there. I can't put them out, why
can he?
Robert Nejojian, I live across the street from Ben. I don't want to see garbage cans out
there. The man is all right. I have no problem with him. I watch the
property. I see the kids back there drinking and I told him and he
appreciated it. I make sure no one gets out of line in the area because my
house is so close. I have the other building with 8 offices in it. If he puts
garbage cans out there, I will get a dumpster next to my house. They
throw their garbage over the wall, like the wall is going to stop that. I
don't need their garbage. Now the kids might go in there and start
throwing it on Ben's wall. I don't need them coming from 7-Eleven,
which is 1/4 mile down, walk through the back of the building and throw
their stuff in my yard. I pick up their beer cans that they throw on my
16218
lawn. I get ten cents for every can I pick up, but I still don't need it. If
they are going to do this to Ben's house, I'm next. Next to me is a
driveway, so it is going to be worse for me.
Mr. Jabbour: I know the neighbor here complained about the drainage system we put in.
When he called and said it bothered him, we removed it. We are sensitive
about that. He mentioned a dumpster. It is hard for us to have a dumpster
up front because we are exposed to Middlebelt. The other point is, we
have 21 parking spots, and we have five tenants. If we put a dumpster, it
is going to sit right in the middle and take up three parking spaces. It is
really a hardship on the tenant and on me. The dental office and State of
Michigan, they do not put medical waste outside. They have a service that
picks that up. I can understand your being concerned about the
biohazardous stuff It would basically be just a bunch of papers put
outside. We will not make it look like a dump. We can add some
greenery if you want. We have a brick wall and we don't have a lot of
room to work with.
Mr. LaPine: The medical waste is kept inside the building and is taken away by a
separate company, right?
Mr. Jabbour: Yes.
`.. Mr. LaPine: Everything else that comes out of there is paper. Why can't each tenant
buy one of these small compactors and put it out once a week for pickup?
Mr. Jabbour: I can recommend it. You can't really put everything in a garbage
compactor. I have one in my house,but what's the point. You still have
2 or 3 bags to put outside.
Mr. LaPine: So they can put them for curb pick up. What is the problem?
Mr. Jabbour: I never put my garbage outside. The only office that really does, is the
dental office. I was glad to see them move in and I'm sure the
neighborhood is.
Mr. LaPine: I think there is a solution and you should take it up with your tenants.
Mr. Jabbour: As far as the garbage compactor, it doesn't compact a lot of paper. They
will still have 3 or 4 bags of paper waste.
Mr. LaPine: If they put their garbage out only once a week, unless they generate a lot
of paper, you would need no more than one or two compactors.
.,. Mr. Jabbour: I can recommend it, but in all honesty, I came here based on their request
because they kept on saying we have to do something about that.
16219
Mr. Alanskas: Listening to the two neighbors, it sounds like the biggest problem they
`�.. have here is the kids coming by and throwing trash all around. Do you
have a problem with kids loitering in the back of your building?
Mr. Jabbour: Maybe a couple of times a year. One of the neighbors brought it to my
attention that maybe we should turn off the lights in back because the kids
are hanging around. I can't do anything about it. It's not cost effective for
me to fence the whole area. It's not a problem.
Mr. Alanskas: If two small trash cans can take care of one tenant for a whole week, I
don't think that you are having that much trash back there. With your wall
back there, I don't see how that trash could get over that wall. People
must be throwing it over.
Mr. Jabbour: If it becomes a problem, I could fence the back end of the building.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you there normally all day yourself?
Mr. Jabbour: I am in there probably ten hours a day.
Mr. Alanskas: At the end of the evening, do you go back and check and see if there is any
refuse in the back of your facility?
Mr. Jabbour: Every day in the morning, I check.
Mr. Alanskas: It sounds like maybe you should do it in the evening.
Mr. Jabbour: We leave the door open once in a while. We go out to the back. Some of
the girls who work next door go out and smoke in the back, so there is
always people there. My parents live about four blocks from there, so I do
walk there a couple of times a week. I grew up in the neighborhood.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and adopted, it was
#6-103-98 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Revision to Petition 87-4-8-14 which received site
plan approval to construct an office building on property located at 9130
Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That Panning Commission Resolution#5-116-87 is hereby upheld
and that there shall be inside storage of trash; the location of outside
dumpsters are prohibited, for the following reasons:
16220
a. That the petitioner has failed to justify the need for outdoor
storage of trash;
b. That the City believes optional way of storing trash inside,
such as the use of trash compactors, would better suit this
site;
c. That outdoor storage of trash could cause possible health
and safety hazards;
d. That this request would not be aesthetically in the City's
best interest.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Hale, Koons
NAYS: Alanskas, McCann
ABSENT: Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The motion passes, you have ten days in which to appeal to City Council.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-6-8-20
�.. by John Del Signore requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a
commercial building on property located at 14050 Eckles Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 19.
Mr. Nowak: This is a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located
on the east side of Eckles Road, north of Schoolcraft Road. They are
proposing a 15,000 sq. ft. building to be located on the northerly portion of
the site. They are providing parking that exceeds the required parking of
the zoning ordinance. The building elevations show that the building
would be constructed out of masonry block. There would be an entrance
area that would be highlighted by brick. Over the second story windows
would be a band of dryvit. The landscape plan showing the landscape
treatment of the site is 15%, which is the minimum amount required by the
zoning ordinance.
Tino Del Signore, 55580 Eight Mile,Northville: Basically this would be an building for
rent and we have a couple of companies that are looking at the site.
Mr. McCann: What type of businesses would be involved in that?
... Mr. Del Signore: I am not sure right now. This is with realtors right now.
16221
Mr. Alanskas: Because you are close to the corner of Eckles there, is there any reason
you can't put a little more landscaping in along the east side of the
r.., building? I have no problem with the building, I know the last building
you built is gorgeous, but because this is almost on the corner, I would like
to see a little more landscaping.
Mr. Del Signore: We have the required amount.
Mr. LaPine: Your building faces Eckles Road, is there any reason why that truck dock
has to be in front of the building? Can't it be put in the back somewhere?
Mr. Del Signore: This was a request by a client of our realtor. If you want it in the
back of the building, it would be difficult to get the trucks there.
Mr. LaPine: The dock could be on the east side of the building. It looks like there will
be semi's there. I don't know how long that driveway is, I am just
wondering if they could swing in there without going into Eckles Road.
Mr. Del Signore: Yes, they can.
Mr. LaPine: I don't particularly like the truck well in front of the building. I think it
takes away from your building and the other one you have up there.
'.,.. Mr. Del Signore: If you did it the other way, you would take away from the
landscaping. You would have to put the building on the west side of the
property and you would have no room for landscaping.
Mr. LaPine: I don't particularly agree with you, but that's fine.
Mr. McCann: What kind of trees are on the north side of the property along the truck
well?
Mr. Nowak: Cranberry Viburnum.
Mr. McCann: How high do they grow?
Mr. Nagy: Eight feet to ten feet.
Mr. McCann: How far out, once the trailer is backed in, would it stick out from the
building?
Mr. Nagy: About 48 feet.
Mr. McCann: How deep does the well go into the building?
Mr. Nagy: Twenty feet.
16222
Mr. McCann: So if it came out 28' with trees on the south side, it would pretty much
block the truck from the road without blocking visibility for backing in.
Mr. Nagy: They do have some materials at the corner of the building. They could
probably add to that to bring it out the full 28'.
Mr. McCann: Which would block the view of the truck in there loading and unloading.
Mrs. Koons: Also for balance since we have such an abundance of parking spots as you
drive into the driveway where there is just a little bit of greenery to the
right, could we beef that up a little too?
Mr. Nagy: That's what Mr. Alanskas was asking, and Tino indicated a willingness to
do that.
Mr. Del Signore: I would also like you to note that three sides of this property is
owned by Ford Truck and there is no landscaping on their north or south
side. It is just semi trucks and tractor-trailer trucks, so even if I block our
semi's, you would see nothing but trucks.
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition.
r.. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Hale and adopted, it was
#6-104-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 98-6-8-20 by John Del Signore requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property
located at 14050 Eckles Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Kenneth E. West
P.E. as received by the Planning Commission on June 2, 1998 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 prepared by Kenneth E.
West P.E. as received by the Planning Commission on June 2, 1998 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
16223
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 prepared
by Kenneth E. West P.E. as received by the Planning Commission on June
2, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6) That the masonry material of the building shall not be painted and
will be in harmony with the color of the brick;
7) That the brick use in the construction of the building shall be full
face 4 inch brick, no exceptions;
8) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed
out of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all
times;
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Hale, Koons, McCann
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Piercecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-6-8-21
by ADI Realty, on behalf of Arbor Drugs, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a retail store and a bank on property located at 19120
Middlbelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Nowak: The property involved in this request is located on the northeast corner of
Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads. The property presently contains a
Michigan National Bank and an Elias Brothers Big Boy. The proposal is
to remove the two existing buildings and to construct a free-standing
Arbor Drug Store on the southerly portion of the property, and a Michigan
National Bank on the northerly portion of the property. The two buildings
would be connected by a canopy which would protect the drive-thru aisles
which would serve both of the buildings. The site has access by a drive on
Seven Mile Road and a drive from Middlebelt Road. The parking
provided on the site exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Ninety-eight are being proposed whereas the zoning ordinance requires
.�, seventy-one. There has been a revision to the site plan and the landscape
plan in that they have eliminated four parking spaces near the corner of
16224
Seven Mile and Middlebelt which will now be a landscaped area. That
increases the landscaped area to about 16.5%, so it is a little over the
Neer required 15%. The building elevations show that the buildings will be
constructed primarily of brick on all four sides. An area at the top half
entrance of the drug store and the upper portion of the tower of the drug
store and the drive-thru would be dryvit. The roof would be standing
seam roof panels.
Mr. Nagy: The Traffic Bureau indicates they have no objection to the site plan as
submitted. The Engineering Dept. in their letter of June 11 indicates they
have no objection to the proposal and they will require a soil erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, a grading plan and an underground site utility plan
to process permits. The Fire Marshal indicates that their office has
reviewed this site plan. The subject building is to be provided with an
automatic sprinkler system. A hydrant shall be located between 50 and
100 feet from the fire department connection. The Inspection Department
indicates that no signage was reviewed in connection with the site plan.
The Arbor Drug structure occupies two separate parcels of land. The
petitioner will be required to combine or split and combine these 2 parcels.
The petitioner should be advised to contact the Department of Assessment
to determine what action needs to be taken to address this issue. There are
no wall sections depicting types of wall construction for the building,
dumpster or 6' masonry wall. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Gary Adams, Architect, 7440 W. Greenwich, Bloomfield Hills: I promised to bring some
samples of materials and give you a clearer picture of the appearance.
These colored elevations are closer to the actual tonal values than what
you saw earlier. These are brick samples. You can see there is a very
subtle tonal difference, the darker brick being the main fields on the drug
store. The lighter brick is the main fields on the bank with the darker
brick being used as a banding element. These are samples of the metal
deck and the lighter color is the stucco sample which picks up the lighter
brick color. The burgundy that you see is the roof color and the trim of the
cap flashing. The walls are block and brick, block on the inside and brick
on the outside. This is a fully sprinkled building. Everything that you
read from your various departments we would fully comply with.
Mr. McCann: The brick on the outside is full face brick?
Mr. Adams: Full face brick all the way around. We do have stucco on the feature
bands. We are fortunate that there are a number of mature trees that are in
pretty good shape and we have been able to plan this so that we can keep
all of those that are not right up against the buildings that have to come
down. We are trying to augment that. We will never match the size. We
•r„� are augmenting it with flowering trees like crabapples and these are
positioned across from the package pickup window across from the
16225
pharmacy and the drive-thru of the bank, as well as the entrance. We are
framing it with crabapples keeping the large locust tree and with some low
Slow shrubs and some flowering material between them to create the vista that
we were talking about to the entry. Right now we have trees and green
space and we would continue that on along the back side of the property.
There is plant material on the west side of the buildings. There are some
on the east side, but minimal because this is in back of the houses.
Mr. Alanskas: For the two drive-thrus for the bank, are there ATMs located there?
Mr. Adams: There is one, the third one away from the bank.
Mr. Alanskas: Is that ATM mainly for driving, or can someone walk up to that machine
and be safe?
Mr. Adams: It is for driving.
Mr. Alanskas: What if someone wants to use it for a walk-in, wouldn't that be a problem?
Mr. Adams: It is not designed to be used for a walk-up ATM.
Mr. Alanskas: Is it designated for that? If someone didn't know, could they walk up?
NNW Mr. Adams: It can be so designated.
Mrs. Koons: The drive-thru for the drug store, what would people be able to purchase
there?
Mr. Adams: It is strictly for prescriptions, to drop off and pick up. That's all it serves.
It is so positioned that the pharmacy is immediately behind it and that is
all that you can get.
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Nagy, do we have an ordinance that says that drive-thrus will be
prescription only? That it can't be beer and wine?
Mr. Nagy: No. That's regulated through the Liquor Control Commission.
Mrs. Koons: Is it a State regulation?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: I would assume that the whole parking lot would be redone, repaved and
double striped?
Mr. Adams: Yes.
16226
Mr. LaPine: The property behind here at one time was owned by owners of the Big
Boy restaurant. Do you know what he is going to do with that property?
Mr. Adams: No, I do not. That is not part of this project.
Mr. Adams: There is one other thing that I think is important to you. There are a
number of curb cuts coming off of Middlebelt, 4 curb cuts. What we are
proposing is to close three of these, keep one, and keep the one existing off
of Seven Mile. We think that is an improvement that you should be aware
of.
Mr. LaPine: John, I notice that there light poles are 25' high.
Mr. Nagy: Correct, that is not a problem.
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition?
Dan Calalano, 14058 Ingram, Livonia: I am a realtor in the area. I was one of the
realtors that put together the Livonia Nursing Home. That particular piece
of property was an eyesore. This restaurant that they are proposing to tear
down is really not an eyesore. In the area you have a mall struggling and
it is trying to renovate and change. If you build around Livonia Mall and
complement it with smaller businesses, utilizing the land that is available
instead of tearing down thriving businesses, I think you will have more
growth in that area. I have a site plan that Arbor Drugs proposed about six
months ago. It utilizes the land across the street from it. There's a vacant
lot there available for use for the bank that might be more appropriate,
alleviating congestion or traffic problems that might be in the area and
making full use of that whole area. I think it is a more constructive idea.
Mr. McCann: Where were they looking to developing?
Mr. Calalano: Next to the VFW Hall.
Mr. Hale: This Elias Brothers restaurant is obviously selling out. This is not
governmental condemnation of the property. Why do you think it is a
thriving business in that area that is being destroyed?
Mr. Calalano: It seems that they are trying to squeeze quite a bit in a little area. If you
put everything in one basket, take away from these little spots, you are
pretty much telling people in the area that you are not seeing a lot of
growth.
There was no one else wishing to speak on this petition.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
16227
#6-105-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
ti. to the City Council that Petition 98-6-8-21 by ADI Realty, on behalf of
Arbor Drugs, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a retail
store and a bank on property located at 19120 Middlebelt Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 prepared by Gary Adams
Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on June 22, 1998 is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LS-1 prepared by Gregory
M. Baughman Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on
June 22, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped
and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
�.. maintained in a healthy condition;
5) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3
prepared by Gary Adams Associates, as received by the Planning
Commission on June 5, 1998 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full
face 4 inch brick, no exceptions;
7) That the walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out
of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all
times;
8) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage
shown on the plans and that all signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval.
9) That the parking lot will be new, not repaired, and doubled striped.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
16228
Mr. McCann: I had some concerns about a tenant leaving Livonia Mall. I think it was
inevitable by the marketing structure of Arbor Drugs, Rite Aid and all the
other drug stores around town. Obviously as the gentleman stated, they
were looking at the VFW property and other local properties. I think that
the site plan that was provided us tonight will enhance the corner of Seven
Mile and Middlebelt. I think the petitioner worked with us to create a little
more greenbelt area right at the corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt and
by enhancing that corner, it should help all the businesses in the area to
make it more pleasing to the shoppers in the area. I think it will benefit
the city and that is why I am going to recommend approval.
Mr. Nagy: For the information of that gentleman, by developing this proposal we can
also get rid of a non-conforming building that is not currently in
conformance with the proper setback. The bank does not meet the current
standards for front yard setback. It is a non-complying building and one
of the objections of the zoning ordinance is to eliminate non-complying
structures.
Mr. Alanskas: I am going to support this myself and I think it is going to be an
enhancement. I do hope that when the petitioner comes back for signage,
I am sure you are going to have the new name of your company instead of
Arbor Drugs, and I hope you will be in compliance with the sign
ordinance and not try and get a lot of big signs on that corner.
Mr. McCann: That is a control zone. This will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Hale, Acting Secretary, announced the last item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8-15
by ADI Realty, Inc. on behalf of Arbor Drugs, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection
with a proposal to construct a retail store on property located at 29500
Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Nowak: The involved property is located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west
of Middlebelt Road. The property currently contains an office building.
The proposal is to remove the existing office building to construct a new
Arbor Drug Store. The site would have access from a driveway from Five
Mile Road. It would also be accessible from the McDonald's site and
there would be provision for access to the property from the office
building to the north. The parking provided on this site exceeds the
requirements of the zoning ordinance. The landscaping shown on the
landscape plan also exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance. It
provides for 20% of the total site area, whereas the requirement is 15%.
The building elevations show that the building would be brick on all four
,., sides. Over the entrance area there would be synthetic plaster canopy
system which is comparable to dryvit material. Over the drive-thru
16229
window on the west side elevation would also be this synthetic plaster
canopy system.
Mr. Nagy: There is no additional correspondence. The only thing I would comment
on is that you recall this item was before you at a previous meeting at
which time after evaluating a proposal, that the commission did resolve
and recommended against this site plan approval. Pursuant to the zoning
ordinance, the petitioner had ten days in which to appeal that decision to
the City Council. They failed to do so in a timely manner and in order to
accommodate his desires to seek that appeal, we have granted permission
to refile.
Mr. McCann: So he refiled and this is a new petition and we are revisiting the old
petition.
Mr. Nagy: Essentially we are revisiting the old one. A new fee was paid.
Mr. McCann to the petitioner: Is this essentially the same plan set forth that we have
already reviewed and discussed at length?
Matt Ray, 3331 West Big Beaver, Troy, Michigan: Yes. There are no changes proposed.
Mr. McCann: I should say for the record that it was partly my fault that evening as I said
it would automatically be appealed and the record reflects that. I
apologize that it had to be appealed by yourself A recommendation for
approval automatically goes to Council, and a recommendation for denial
has to be appealed within ten days. So that the record is clear and there
are no questions. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Seeing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#6-106-98 RESOLVED, that Petition 98-5-8-15 by ADI Realty, on behalf of Arbor
Drugs, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a retail store
on property located at 29500 Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 14 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general standards and
requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the surrounding area, as well as the City as a whole, is already
adequately serviced by this type of commercial use;
16230
3) That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns
deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents;
4) That by the nature of the proposed use the traffic flow to and from
the property will unduly conflict with the established and normal use of
the neighboring area;
5) That a commercial use is contrary to the goals, objectives and
policies of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by
the City Planning Commission which is to ensure compatibility and
appropriateness of uses so as to promote property values, enhance
neighborhood conformity and enjoyment;
6) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. You have ten days in which to appeal to the City Council.
This concludes tonight's meeting. To our friend Dan Piercecchi if you are watching
tonight, we hope you are back soon
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 766th Regular Meeting
`.w held on June 23, 1998 was adjourned at 10:00 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Y
Michael S. a e, Acting Secretary
ATTEST: �/�----
mes C. McCann, C airman
/du
1
vow
1