HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-05-09 17708
MINUTES OF THE 805th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 9, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 805th
Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive,
Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas *Elaine Koons
Members absent: LaPine, Hale
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Bill Poppenger, Planner I
and Robby Williams were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn,
will hold its own public hearing, make the final determination as to whether a petition is
approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
ti.w preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten
days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by
the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The
Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon
their filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight.
*Elaine Koons arrived at 7:40 p.m.
ITEM #1 PETITION 99-10-01-16 Fire Station No. 3
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-10-01-
16, as amended, by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #218-00,
and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, proposing to rezone certain property located on
the west side of Farmington Road north of Seven Mile Road (the former Fire
Station No. 3 site and the adjacent residential parcel to the south) in the S.E. 1/4
of Section 4 from PL and RUF to C-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
17709
Mr. McCann: Is there any additional correspondence?
'taw Mr. Nowak: There is no additional correspondence in connection with this item.
Mr. McCann: Since this is a resolution from the Council to go to the Commission, are there
any questions?
Mr. Alanskas: I don't have any questions but we had had this one time and we said that we
thought that OS was a suitable zoning and my thought is that in going to C-2
that there is so much C-2 there right now that I still think we would have less
traffic and less congestion with OS.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anyone in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Theresa Brown, I represent MacDonald's restaurant, 19311 Farmington Road, Livonia. Your
point sir, is traffic, the big topic. Close to that intersection that are two bars,
two fast food chains, K-Mart which also has a restaurant in there. There is
Wine Castle and bakeries on both sides of Seven Mile. If it was rezoned, it
would leave the opportunity for more restaurants, either full service or fast
food. That would definitely support his point. The traffic flow would be
intense especially if there was another drive-dun involved. The drive-thru
alone in fast food is 60% to 65% of that business, no matter how much your
volume is. Sixty-five percent of your business is going through the drive-thru.
r,., I cannot see that much traffic because right now on a calm day the traffic is
very intense there. Just to back up a point, Paul Hammer is the owner operator
and he was going to be here tonight but he had a family situation that came up
and he had to go and help out. He purchased the property 10 years ago for a
little over a million dollars with the existing properties there. He has invested
over one million dollars in his property. He is not going anywhere. He
invested his money again with the investment in his future as well and the
future of his employees too. The man could have taken the tear down rebuild
routine with MacDonald's because it is more efficient, more time consuming.
It is just the way MacDonald's likes their buildings. He didn't. He took the
customer's view and the customer demand and kept a bigger building, a bigger
dining room, more spacious. You're not sitting up against other customers.
We invested in a play land that was one of the first in Livonia. I believe it was
the first in Livonia because of the customers. He did that. He reinvested all
the money back into the business.
Mr. McCann: We are going into your own personal situation but what we are trying to do is
determine what is a proper zoning for the citizens of Livonia.
Ms. Brown: Established businesses, he is one of them. The two bars and the restaurants in
the area, they have been there and then to rezone it to add more to it at that
intersection would be ridiculous.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no
one, a motion is in order.
17710
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved it was
#5-92-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-10-01-16, as amended,
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #218-00, and pursuant to
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, proposing to rezone certain property located on the west
side of Farmington Road north of Seven Mile Road (the former Fire Station No.
3 site and the adjacent residential parcel to the south) in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 4
from PL and RUF to C-2, General Business, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend and reaffirm to the City Council that the subject properties
be rezoned from PL and RUF to OS, Office Services, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional office uses in
the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area;
3) That the location of the proposed zoning district is consistent with the
Planning Commission's adopted goals and policies for office development;
and
4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a transitional use
between the commercial uses to the south and the multiple family residential
to the north and would provide for a buffer between a heavily traveled major
thoroughfare to the east and single family residential uses to the west.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: I agree with Mr. Alanskas that this particular property is adjacent to residential.
It is also adjacent to C-2 which is a general business classification and in C-2
you can place on that property any number of things. There are a couple of
pages worth in the Zoning Ordinance of commercial uses in addition to
restaurants. OS provides much less intensive uses than C-2 and which is much
more compatible adjacent to residential. I am in favor of rezoning this property
to OS as requested.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-03-01-04 South side of Glendale Avenue
17711
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-03-
01-04 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R. #152-00, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, proposing to rezone property located on the
south side of Glendale Avenue between Farmington Road and Merriman
Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 27 from PL to M-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence. The letter is from the Engineering
Division, dated April 12, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal
description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer.
Mr. McCann: This is a petition by the Council from the Planning Commission. Is there
anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing
no one wishing to speak, I am going to close the Public Hearing. A motion is
in order.
`..
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#5-93-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
2000 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-03-01-04 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to C.R.#152-00, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Glendale
Avenue between Farmington Road and Merriman Road in the N.W. 1/4 of
Section 27 from PL to M-2 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2000-03-01-04 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning reflects the fact that the subject
property is to be sold and will no longer be under public ownership;
2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use
Plan designation for the property of"Industrial"; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended
17712
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Nilaw
ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-03-01-05 Sam Baki
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-03-
01-05 by Sam Baki requesting to rezone property located at the southwest
corner of Gill Road and Northland Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 4 from
RUFB to R-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is a letter from the Engineering Division, dated April 6, 2000, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no
objections to the proposal. The following legal description should be used in
connection therewith: 'That part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, T. 1S., R.
9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more particularly described
as beginning North 0°10'55"East, 1320.00 feet from the South 1/4 corner
of Section 4 and proceeding thence South 89°59'37" West, 268.00 feet;
thence North 0°10'55"East, 165.00 feet; thence North 89°59'37"East,
268.00 feet; thence South 0°10'55" West, 165.00 feet to the point of
beginning.' We would like to request that the developer be required to
dedicate the Easterly 43.00 feet of the property for Gill Road right-of-way to
conform to the master thoroughfare plan. Additionally, we would like to point
out that the developer would need to extend the public storm and sanitary
sewer to the property if more than one structure is to be built on the property.
A public water main is already available for the property. We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Baki, 36800 Seven Mile Road, Livonia. This property is zoned RUFB. The actual
dimensions that were mentioned earlier is shy of about 10 feet. The actual
record is 165 feet facing Gill Road and 235 feet in depth off of Gill on the
Northland side. The extra 10 feet belongs to this property and will be, what
Engineering mentioned they wanted to be delegated to the City to make the
road 43 feet. The dimensions on the property as it exists is 165 feet X 235
feet. By giving that to the City for the right-of-way so Gill Road will be just
on the other side, we have a deficiency on one of the lots, which is on the
corner, within 77 feet. We are trying to save the house. The house is in
�.. good condition. We came before the Commission for the R-2 zoning
because we have a 74 foot and 77 foot lot which would be more feasible to
be an R-2 than an R-3 even though we meet the overall depth, the 165 feet.
17713
We are over in the size and just like the lots on the west side, which are 78
feet, they have a deficiency in the frontage, is a R-3 zoning.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Baki, we recognize there are three homes in that area that do not meet
the R-3, 80 foot width requirement, which are 77 feet and 78 feet, something
like that. Would the 35 feet setback be a problem for you?
Mr. Baki: No it won't.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am reluctant to go with R-2 because everything else in there is R-3, even if
some of them don't match. Hopefully, my fellow Commissioners will agree
with me that I would like to see this as a R-3 and let you go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals. I don't see why they would deny you the right to build
there for only a couple of feet.
Mr. Baki: I understand.
Mr. McCann: Is there an expansion of Gill Road planned or is it to keep the right-of-way
within the City?
Mr. Taormina: The intent would be to maintain a consistent right-of-way width for any
number of reasons, although there may not be any present plans present or
sl,w foreseen plans to expand the road. There is always a need for utility
extensions and things like that where the necessary right-of-way should be
available. Where the opportunity presents itself to acquire or to have the
additional land provided, we try to take advantage of those situations.
Mr. McCann: If there are no other questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Nick Novak, 34452 Northland, Section 82, right across from this lot. I have lived in this
house for about 12 years. I have enjoyed the large pine trees but I always
knew there would be building on it. What I am seeing, I don't have a problem
with building on it as long as, if you are familiar with that area, that whatever
is built there is consistent in value and type of building there. I am sure this
Commission will watch that. I am sure that under the R-2 the size of the lots
that I saw that are necessary, that can be done. I just came down here to make
sure that you are aware.
Mr. McCann: We are familiar with Mr. Baki. He is building the homes on Seven Mile in
front of Fox Creek, the new subdivision. Mr. Baki, are they going to be
similar to the homes you are building on Seven Mile?
Mr. Baki: They will be close, not as big. We already have some people interested in
putting in 2500 and 2700 sq. ft. homes on these lots. They will be fully
bricked on the first floor,just like I acquired on Seven Mile and the whole
frontage will be bricked.
17714
Mr. McCann: So it will be brick front, 50% brick all around with 2500 to 2700 sq. ft.
`w• homes.
Mr. Baki: That is on the colonial. We are putting two colonials there.
Mr. Novak: What is the estimated value of those homes?
Mr. Baki: $350,000 to $400,000.
Mr. Novak: No problem. Thank you.
Ron Grabowski, 19511 Gill. I am on Gill adjacent to the property. My only question is, the
orientation of the house. I haven't seen anything that you are planning to do.
When you sub-divide it, how are the two houses going to face?
Mr. Baki: They are facing Northland Drive. Three lots are going to be facing Northland
Drive.
Mr. Grabowski: Will there be any covenant deed restrictions about fences? Since my house
is adjacent facing Gill Road, will they be able to run a fence all the way up to
the sidewalk?
Mr. Baki: That I can't answer. Technically, because we are not doing a subdivision. It
sow depends on the subdivision next door and what kind of a requirement they
have as an association.
Mr. Grabowski: Doesn't the City have a requirement about a fence not being able to go past
the front corner of an existing structure. Basically, it would like the front
corner of our garage or whatever struck out the farthest towards Gill Road.
Mr. McCann: I think it is just that it can't enter the right-of-way, isn't it Mark?
Mr. Taormina: In the case of a corner lot, I believe the requirement is that the front yard be
maintained clear. But that would be the front yard of the proposed building
site. I don't know that it would be based on the setback that this gentleman is
referring to.
Mr. Baki: The way it works, the front yard you have to be behind it, on their front yard.
In the back, they rely on the setback of the building. The setback of the
building is a minimum of 25 feet. Your houses are 35 feet so technically they
can go 25 feet from the right-of-way. That is what has usually been done in
the past. If we have to come in and say there is no fencing, I don't remember
that there is any fencing in the back or anywhere around it.
Mr. Grabowski: The subdivision behind us, that is one of the covenant deed restrictions.
They are not allowed to have fences or plantings that defme the property line,
I believe. The Gill#1 doesn't have the same requirements. We are bound by
the City fencing requirements. My only concern is that there will be a fence
17715
going down all the way out to the sidewalk. It may look a little bit odd
compared to the rest of the properties that are all set back. Pretty much
r•• everything else is facing Gill Road and that would be that one piece of
property that would be the different one facing Northland.
Mr. Baki: The only way they can do that is by submitting for a ZBA approval, if they
want to go up to the sidewalk. The most they can go is 25 feet from the right-
of-way. They can't go past that. That is the requirement. If they need to go
any further, they have to go to ZBA. The owner or buyer will have to go to
ZBA and request a waiver. We can't control that.
Mr. Grabowski: I am not familiar with the terminology but the right-of-way would basically
be the curb?
Mr. Baki: No, from the sidewalk. From the sidewalk back.
Mr. McCann: That is something you can work out with the City of Livonia Engineering for
the exact requirements. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Shane: To the staff, this property can be developed through a lot-split process as
opposed to a subdivision?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
`.. Mrs. Koons: The existing house will be a 74 foot lot?
Mr. Baki: Yes.
Mrs. Koons: How many feet does that put on each side of that house?
Mr. Baki: Eleven feet on the west side, 19.7 inches on the east side.
Mrs. Koons: Are you pretty certain you are going to build two stories so the footprint of
the house doesn't need to be any bigger than that?
Mr. Baki: At this time, that is what we are planning. I have had some people calling
who are interested in colonials and that is what they are looking for at this
time.
Mrs. Koons: What if it is a ranch?
Mr. Baki: On the corner lot, we will go on the depth wise. You can't go too wide. You
still have to meet your requirement on R-3 which is 8 feet on both sides. We
will keep that. The depth is the only thing we have to work with. We have
the depth.
Mrs. Koons: My view of that piece of property is that the existing house is almost cottage
�"' like with the flora and fauna around it. I hope you can maintain as much of
that as you can.
17716
Mr. Baki: We will. We will be saving all the trees in the property line in that lot in the
r.. middle. The rest of the trees are going to be moved out of there because
most of them are in the right-of-way or in the location of where the second
house is going to be. Some of these trees will be going somewhere else in the
area where people can go look at them.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#5-94-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on May 9, 2000 on Petition 2000-03-01-05 by Sam Baki
requesting to rezone property located at the southwest corner of Gill Road and
Northland Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-
03-01-05 be approved, as modified, to rezone the property from RUFB to R-3,
One Family Residential, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the prevailing R-3
zoning in the area;
2) That previous zoning changes that have occurred in the area have set a
precedent for rezoning to the R-3 classification; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding zoning districts in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution as to R-3.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-04-01-06 SSOE, Inc./Meijer
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
01-06 by SSOE, Inc. on behalf of Meijer requesting to rezone property on the
east side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railroad in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
�... Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
17717
Mr. Nowak: We have one item of correspondence. It is a letter from the Engineering
Division, dated April 14, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
�.. request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal
description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Scott Nowakowski, Real Estate Manager with Meijer, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan. Also
with me this evening is Michael Hoefelin with SSOE. What I would like to do
is visually show you what we are proposing out there. On the bottom drawing
is the Meijer store, Middlebelt and Schoolcraft at the bottom of the sheet, not
currently shown. We have the Meijer store, north is facing down and here is
the Hawkins Feed store. That is currently how the site is approved. What we
are proposing is to raze the building and to add additional landscaping and fill
this in with parking. We would peel some of the parking spaces from the front
or the perimeter of the main parking lot and place it closer to the store.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mrs. Koons: How many parking spaces are you talking about?
Mr. Hoefelin: I think as approved. We have not changed the amount of parking. There are
approximately 1450 parking spaces on site.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you own any other property on that site besides what you just acquired?
Mr. Hoefelin: The property we own, if you can make it out, is in this area here.
Mr. Alanskas: But no other?
Mr. Hoefelin: No.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no, do you have any last comments sir?
Mr. Hoefelin: No.
Mr. McCann: I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
#5-95-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-04-01-06 by SSOE,
Inc. on behalf of Meijer requesting to rezone property on the east side of
17718
Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2, the Planning
�.. Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-
04-01-06 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will place the subject land area under
the same zoning classification as the adjacent property and will provide
one uniform zoning classification in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are
consistent with those permitted on adjacent property; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-03-02-15 Arbor Drugs, Inc./CVS Pharmacy
�.. Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-03-
02-15 by Arbor Drugs, Inc., d/b/a CVS pharmacy requesting waiver use
approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses in connection with a new CVS
pharmacy proposed to be located on the Northeast corner of Middlebelt Road
and Seven Mile in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Engineering Division, dated April 6, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant
to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the
legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with
the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April
12, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to our request of April 4, 2000,
the above referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no
objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior
Building Inspector. The third letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated April 18, 2000, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request for waiver use
approval to transfer SDD License #10681 and SDM License #11868 to the
17719
property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to
this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
�.. fourth letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 24, 2000, and reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the listed site plan, because the copy of the site
plan has been reduced we were unable to take the measurements necessary to
determine proper widths and lengths. The handicap parking spaces must
meet the 8 foot width requirements and 20 feet in length. They appear to be
only 18 feet in length. For a handicap parking space to be 8-feet in width, the
corresponding aisle must be 5 feet in width. The other parking spaces
indicate a width of 10 feet but are also only 18 feet in length. They do not
meet the requirements of 10 feet by 20 feet as required by ordinance." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? We have no one from Arbor Drug or CVS
Pharmacy? Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, is it safe to say that the comment from the Police Department in
which the plan is not properly drawn and that the site plan as approved for that
site would provide for those handicapped spaces as far as the proper width and
so forth?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. The site is under construction and it has gone through all the
necessary reviews by both the Inspection and Engineering Departments. All of
Now those issues should have been addressed at the time of the review of the site
plan.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved it was
#5-96-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-03-02-15 by Arbor
Drugs, Inc., d/b/a CVS pharmacy requesting waiver use approval to utilize
SDD and SDM licenses in connection with a new CVS pharmacy proposed to
be located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Seven Mile in the
S.W. 1/4 of Section 1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-03-02-15 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of
the zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
17720
4) That the granting of this petition will not increase the number of SDD and
`r... SDM licensed facilities in the general area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-04-02-16 Rocky Zebari
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
02-16 by Rocky Zebari requesting waiver use approval to utilize additional
building area for parts storage and product display in connection with an
existing auto repair shop located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Beatrice and Hugh Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are three items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Division
of Police, dated April 24, 2000, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed
the listed sited plan as submitted. Parking is adequate based upon the
indicated one employee. Should more than one person be employed at the
business, which would seem more likely, additional parking will be needed.
The site plan does not indicate handicap signs as required by city ordinance.
Each handicap space to be individually signed. Landscaping near the
driveways should be of a type that will not interfere with a clear line of sight
for the exiting driver. Because of the fencing and landscaping along the
sidewalk, we would recommend that stop signs be installed before the
sidewalk for each exit to reinforce the fact that exiting vehicles must stop
before crossing the sidewalk. The site plan does not indicate proposed
lighting. We would recommend proper lighting to sufficiently light the
parking lot for crime deterrence." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated April 25, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of April 13, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted: (1) The existing landscape needs maintenance and
repair. (2) The parking lot needs to be re-double striped and is not
configured per the plan. (3) Dumpster enclosure gates were open on
several site visits (three different dates). (4) Trash and debris were at east
and rear lot line and debris stored outside the dumpster enclosure. (5) The
building mansard needs repair and painting in several areas. (6) The front
entry door trim and finish needs to be completed. (7) Trash was stored in
front yard along with an ice machine. (8) Entry door, indicated on east
17721
elevation plan, has been removed and the area needs to be completed (9)
There appears to be overnight (or longer) storage of vehicles (in violation of
CR 191-99) Other than as noted above, this Department has no further
objections to this petition. I trust this provides the requested information."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated May 2, 2000, which reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with
a request for waiver use approval to expand an existing building for the
storage of parts in conjunction with an existing auto repair facility at the
same location on property located at the above referenced address. We have
no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran,
Fire Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Song Kim, 1215 Torpey Drive, Troy, MI. I came tonight to tell you gentlemen that my
business has been open for two years. I am trying to open up a tire store and
have tires and a parts department.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Kim, after visiting today, when is that boat in the back going to be
removed?
__ Mr. Kim: Tonight I am going to take it to another place.
Mr. Alanskas: Where are you going to stock your tires? How are you going to get into that
building? What kind of an entrance are you going to have?
Mr. Kim: We have a floor plan for the Commissioners. There is one door between Kim's
Auto store and the party store. We will use the door to enter the shop at the
front of the building.
Mr. Alanskas: Roughly, how wide is that door going to be?
Mr. Kim: A standard size door.
Mr. Alanskas: The reason I am asking is because, as you know, you cannot store vehicles
outside overnight. We were wondering if you had to, if you could store some
vehicles in there also. But if you only had a small opening, you couldn't do
that.
Mr. Kim: That building is only 8 feet high. In the future I could put the door between
the stop and the party store. I could put in an overhead door, but I don't have
any plans for that.
Mr. Alanskas: Looking inside the glass to the vacated building, it is just full of refuse, full
`'"' pop bottles and food. Do you have any problems with rats or mice in that area?
17722
Mr. Kim: I don't have a key to enter that building.
�.. Mr. Alanskas: I understand that but do you have that problem?
Mr. Kim: No sir.
Mr. Alanskas: It has been vacated for at least a few months and all that trash and rubbish is in
there. I would think we could have a problem with rodents in there.
Mr. Kim: As far as I know, all of his family is trying to move all the pop bottles and
other things. They are moving everyday.
Mr. Alanskas: Has he given you a date when he is going to get that building completely
empty?
Mr. Kim: Roughly two weeks.
Mr. Alanskas: Because right now we have no idea what is in there and the condition of the
inside of the building.
Mr. Kim: Every time he comes, he asks to borrow tools from me. I help him a little bit.
I can see there is no food in the building. The only thing I can see is the pop
bottles.
'r.. Mr. Alanskas: To the rest of the Commissioners, when I was there today, the garbage area,
the gates were closed. You have done a nice job getting that cleaned up.
Thank you.
Mr. Shane: Do you lease this space?
Mr. Kim: Yes sir.
Mr. Shane: Do you have any control over the maintenance of the site itself?
Mr. Kim: I have a small business and I try to clean it up with my family.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Inspection Department. I don't know if you are
aware of this, but it lists certain maintenance items that need to be done on the
site including upgrading the landscaping area, the parking lot and some other
things.
Mr. Alanskas: They were done. I was there today and they are done.
Mr. McCann: Regarding the selling of tires. You are going to do the installation of tires,
correct?
Mr. Kim: Yes sir.
17723
Mr. McCann: Most of the tire stores that I see have three or four bays dedicated to just
installing and changing tires and rotating tires for the customer and
'tor maintenance and repair. How would you be able to do that and maintain your
repair shop?
Mr. Kim: As far as I know, any repair shop does the repairs. I am not going to just open
a tire shop. It will be general repair. I want to do some tire business but not
like other tire stores.
Mr. McCann: How many vehicles do you have on site at a time?
Mr. Kim: Approximately 10 vehicles.
Mr. Alanskas: There were 14 there today.
Mr. Kim: I have 20 years experience. The customers come one day and on other days
they don't come. I cannot explain why.
Mr. McCann: I am concerned about the overnight parking as Mr. Alanskas was and what the
solution is.
Mr. Kim: I do have two vehicles for loaners because the customers ask for loaners but I
do not have a plan where to keep them right now. Overnight, I do try to put
the vehicles in the garage which one is up in the air and the other one is
`.. underneath. Some days I do have to leave them outside but I try not to park
them outside but it is my situation right now.
Mr. Alanskas: Next to the dumpster you have a large wooden crate that has a huge sign in it
which says Cooper Tire in it.
Mr. Kim: Yes sir.
Mr. Alanskas: As I understand, you told me today you plan to put that on the corner where
the sign is. Have you already been to the ZBA for that?
Mr. Kim: I cannot recall. Two months ago, I think, I went to the ZBA. I cannot recall
what meeting it was.
Mr. Alanskas: I don' t recall seeing notes that you were before the ZBA. Is it your plan to put
up a sign on that corner?
Mr. Kim: They asked me to go to the Planning Commission meeting and after that they
could approve it.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you know if that sign is in compliance as far as the size of the sign? Do
you know how big it is?
`"" Mr. Kim: As far as I know.
17724
Mr. Alanskas: How big is it?
`.. Mr. Kim: I gave it to the sign company when I applied for it.
Mr. Alanskas: That will come afterwards if you do get approved for this.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Lowell McKeehan, 20360 Beatrice, Livonia. I am concerned about the traffic there from any
expansion of Kim's Auto. When they first came in there, we had a lot of
mechanics race up and down the street with their cars. I think that is kind of
under control now but I am concerned about any expansion for the safety of
my grandchildren and my neighbors. When I moved there it was a very calm
street, not much traffic, and now it seems like we are getting more traffic. We
are getting lawn services parking on the street, operating a business and I just
don't think it is a good environment. Thank you.
Dennis McKeehan, 20360 Beatrice, Livonia. My concerns were basically addressed by my
father. That is the traffic situation there. Several times that I have seen the
mechanics come ripping up and down Beatrice Street. I know it is not just
Beatrice Street that they are using for a test strip. My concern would be, how
can we be assured and the residents of the subdivision as a whole that any
additional square footage obtained by the auto repair facility would not be
utilized to obtain more mechanics and therefore increase the speeding traffic
throughout the subdivision?
Mr. Alanskas: The expansion that he is going to be doing is strictly for storage of tires and
parts. They would still only have the three bays that they now have. They
would not have any more bays for doing additional work. So you wouldn't
have additional mechanics or additional facility to repair vehicles. It is strictly
for storage.
Mr. McKeehan: I understand but my expectation would be that there would be a substantial
volume of business.
Mr. Alanskas: Hopefully for him. That is what he is doing it for.
Mr. McKeehan: I have no problem with that. I spent most of my adult life as a mechanic
and I know what they are looking for. But I see no reason why they can't use
Eight Mile Road as a test strip.
Mr. Alanskas: Do they go very fast down the road? Do they speed over the limit?
Mr. McKeehan: Yes.
�"" Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you. We can address that with Mr. Kim. Thank you.
17725
Mr. McCann: If there is nobody else wishing to speak, I am going to ask Mr. Kim to come
forward. Mr. Kim, how many mechanics do you have working for you?
s..
Mr. Kim: One mechanic. But this week, Monday, I started another helper. So including
myself, that would be three.
Mr. McCann: Who test drives the vehicles?
Mr. Kim: Most of the time I do because I do have a license as a master mechanic so I do
finalize them. Sometimes one of the mechanics who worked with me, he did
test drive a couple of times with his son and his cousin's cars. I asked him not
to do it. We try not to use Beatrice Road. Mostly we test drive them on Eight
Mile Road.
Mr. McCann: Did you put a sign up inside your building that there will be no test driving of
vehicles on Beatrice?
Mr. Kim: I will put up a sign but I don't have a sign up yet.
Mr. McCann: And you will not test drive any vehicles on Beatrice.
Mr. Kim: I did several times.
Mr. McCann: Can you stop that practice?
`..
Mr. Kim: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: You are giving us your word that nobody will be test driving vehicles on
Beatrice? It is not an appropriate place where children are playing.
Mr. Kim: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved it was
#5-97-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-04-02-16 by Rocky
Zebari on behalf of Kim's Auto requesting waiver use approval to utilize
additional building area for parts storage and product display in connection
with an existing auto repair shop located on the South side of Eight Mile
Road between Beatrice and Hugh Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 2, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2000-04-02-16 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site plan, marked Sheet 1, prepared by Seymour Zate, Architect,
',..., received by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2000, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
17726
2) That the landscaping on the site shall be repaired and restored so as to be in
conformance with the landscape plan, prepared by Landesign, as received
by the City Council Office on March 23, 1999 (approved in connection
with Petition 98-11-2-22), and shall thereafter be permanently maintained
in a healthy condition;
3) That there shall be no additional changes to the exterior of the building
unless approved by the Planning Commission and City Council;
4) That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double striped so
as to be in conformance with the site plan;
5) That there shall be no overnight outdoor parking or storage of vehicles on
the site;
6) That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, scrap
material, debris or other similar items generated by the subject use;
7) That the vehicle repair work conducted in connection with the proposed
use shall not permit such repair as bumping, painting, spraying or
rustproofing;
8) That the repair shop area will continue to be confined to the area where it
— presently occurs in the southwesterly portion of the building;
9) That the additional area of the building shall be used only for customer
waiting, product display, office and storage (including indoor overnight
parking of vehicles); and
10) That all of the site and building maintenance problems outlined in the
correspondence dated April 25, 2000, from the Inspection Department shall
be rectified to that department's satisfaction.
11)That there shall be no test driving of vehicles on Beatrice or any other side
streets.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 16.11 and
19.06of the zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area;
3) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
17727
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance, as
'New amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: Condition#5, sounds nice but I don't know how he is going to accomplish it.
Mr. McCann: My thoughts were that we did go on to elaborate on#9 that the additional area
could be converted so that he could store vehicles. So he could make a door
through the existing door right in through that area, to possibly store vehicles.
It is the only way I can see to do it, if he is willing to comply.
Mr. Shane: Can we get a commitment on exactly what he is going to do. He can store four
vehicles inside right now. If he has ten, what is he going to do with the other
six?
Mr. McCann: That is why I was looking at #9 and that was the only way I would approve it
with#9 being in there.
Mr. Shane: I would have preferred to see it somewhere on the site plan. To show the door
there and that he is going to use it. That is what concerns me.
Mr. McCann: If there is a unanimous consent of the board, we can open it up to Mr. Kim to
comment on that issue.
Mr. Alanskas: The only way he can do that, is that he has a cement wall across there between
the two buildings. He would have to take out cement block, which is no big
deal, to put a door in with a steel frame around it. It could be done very easily.
Mrs. Koons: Are we more realistic in stating that a small number, being one or two be
allowed to be stored outside?
Mr. McCann: That is very difficult to control. If you just said there was no overnight
storage, then he has to make arrangements within the building to comply. I
wouldn't suppose he would have an occupancy permit for the other area for
storage until such time as he made arrangements for the storage. Would he?
Mr. Shane: I wouldn't think so. I would like to hear from him.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Kim, the Planning Commission's concern is that right now you are not
allowed to store vehicles in the parking lot overnight. That is one of the
conditions that were approved by the Council when you began your operation.
You told us you can't comply with the condition that the Council gave you the
first. Now you want us to continue this. Our only solution at the prior study
meeting and tonight is, that you have to make some type of arrangements for
the storage of the vehicles inside. Our solution was to create a door
somewhere within the building so that you could use some of the extra storage
17728
space for vehicles. We put that in our resolution that that would be allowed.
Would you be able to do that?
Mr. Kim: Yes sir. I do have a plan to knock the wall out which is the one bay door.
Approximately eight feet high there is a high beam up there and we can knock
the wall out and store the vehicles through one of the hoist. I can store
approximately four or five cars inside.
Mr. McCann: All right. Are there any other questions for Mr. Kim?
Mrs. Koons: Mr. Kim stated earlier that he had one or two vehicles that he loaned to people.
Do those also have to be inside?
Mr. McCann: Not if the customer has it and Mr. Kim has their car.
Mrs. Koons: Otherwise they would have to be inside?
Mr. McCann: Yes. There is no storage of vehicles outside on a commercial site.
Mr. Kim: I am not against the other garages near my place, but on Eight Mile Road there
are many shops that have overnight parking storage. I am afraid to leave
vehicles outside overnight. I do have liability insurance. I do try to put the
vehicles inside the garage.
Mr. McCann: I understand what you are saying but our concern is that a lot of the businesses
have been around there for a long time. What we are trying to do along Eight
Mile Road is clean up the area. Make it as nice as possible for all the residents
and for the businesses. It is like so much work is being put into Plymouth
Road. The nicer we can make it look and the appearance is better, more
customers will come. It will benefit you and everybody along Eight Mile
Road and it will make it a better place for the residents to live. But we have to
work with each individual parcel as it comes to us.
Mr. Kim: Mr. Chairman, I know Rocky is trying to clean out his party store within two
weeks and I can promise I can open up a bay door and make it an inside
parking space. I can bring you a picture so that I can prove that I did it.
Mr. McCann: O.K. But you are going to have to show that to Council when you go on to
Council. You have to understand that this is already a condition of your use of
that property. Therefore, you are in violation now by outside parking. We are
just trying to help you to conform to the requirements. Thank you. Are there
any other questions from the Commissioners? If not, please call the roll.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Koons, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: Shane
ABSENT: Hale, LaPine
17729
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 99-09-03-02 KOSMOWSKI
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-09-
03-02 by Michael Kosmowski requesting to vacate a certain six-foot
easement located along the north line of his property located at 9991
Clements Circle East (Lot 400 of the Thomas Elliot Subdivision).
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence and it is a letter from the Engineering
Division, dated April 14, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time. The
following legal description should be used in connection therewith: 'That
part of the North 1/2 of Section 36, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne
County, Michigan described as the North 6 feet of the East 124 feet of Lot
400, Thomas Elliot Subdivision as recorded in Liber 72, Page 19, Wayne
v,.. County Records.'Because of the close proximity of the proposed garage to
the property line, we would like to request that the homeowner provide a
grading plan for the new construction before any building permits are issued.
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter
is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Michael Kosmowski, 9991 Clements Circle East. I basically would like to replace my
existing garage with a new garage.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will close
the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
#5-98-2000 RESOVLED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-09-03-02 by Michael
Kosmowski requesting to vacate a certain six-foot easement located along the
north line of his property located at 9991 Clements Circle East (Lot 400 of the
Thomas Elliot Subdivision), the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-09-03-02 be approved,
assuming no objection from any public utility company, for the following
reasons:
17730
1) That the subject easement is not needed to protect any public utilities;
ti.. 2) That the land area covered by the subject easement can be more
advantageously utilized by the property owner if unencumbered by the
easement; and
3) That the Director of Public Words and the City Engineer have no
objections to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above Public Hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code
of Ordinances.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2000-02-03-01 Vasu-Demetriade
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-02-
03-01 by Razvan Vasu-Demetriade requesting to vacate the diagonal portion
of the 12- foot easement that runs across his property located at 17595
Merriman Road (Lot 1 of Thomas F. O'Connor's Merriman Park
Subdivision).
slaw Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: We have one item of correspondence and it is a letter from the Engineering
Division, dated April 14, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. We have no objection to the vacating of the diagonal portion of the
easement at this time. The following legal description should be used in
connection therewith: 'The centerline of a 12'easement more particularly
described as beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Thomas F.
O'Conner's Merriman Park Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 6, Page 88,
Wayne County Records, located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10, T. 1S.,
R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan and proceeding South
89°58'20" West, 116.76 feet to a point of beginning; thence North
67°27'54" West, 187.56 feet.' The remaining portions of the easement along
the North and West sides should be retained for future uses. We trust that
this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything additional we need to
know?
17731
Razvan Vasu-Demetriade, 17595 Merriman Road, Livonia. The only reason is that I intend to
extend the house. The easement for the drain is no longer there in the first
'4,,,. place and I can't do anything with my house if the easement is there.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, how big of an addition are you wanting to put on?
Mr. Vasu-Demetriade: In the back of the house is the family room and I will probably
expand that 16 feet deep towards the back of the property.
Mr. Alanskas: You are only picking up 12 feet. How are you going to put up an additional
16 feet?
Mr. Vasu-Demetriade: Because the easement passes diagonally across the corner of the
house, I cannot expand into the back.
Mr. Alanskas: When you expand, will you still be O.K. as far as not protruding onto
someone else's property?
Mr. Vasu-Demetriade: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#5-99-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-02-03-01 by Razvan
Vasu-Demetriade requesting to vacate the diagonal portion of the 12 foot
easement that runs across his property located at 17595 Merriman Road (Lot 1
of Thomas F. O'Connor's Merriman Park Subdivision) the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-
02-03-01 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the subject portion of the easement no longer functions for drainage
purposes since the drain for which it was established to protect is no longer
in existence;
2) That the land area covered by the subject portion of the easement can be
more advantageously utilized by the property owner if unencumbered by
the easement; and
3) That the Engineering Division has no objections to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above Public Hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
17732
`•� ITEM #9 PETITION 2000-04-06-02 M-2/General Manufacturing District
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
06-02 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended,
proposing to amend Article XVII of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for SDD
and SDM licensed establishments as waiver uses in the M-2, General
Manufacturing District.
Mr. McCann: This is a petition by the Planning Commission and this is basically so that they
can sell food services and alcohol to homes through an on-line service. Is the
petitioner for Web Van here?
Chris Koch, Abbott Nicholson, 300 River Place, Detroit, Michigan. Basically, it is an
e-c commerce business. Webvan will provide for grocery shopping on-line. It
will have a large warehousing facility which is located in Livonia, Michigan,
through which grocery shopping orders will be placed and fulfilled. The idea
is that consumers can go on-line and pick their products. It has a full range of
products, as large, if not larger than most large supermarkets that you typically
shop at. Place their orders, pay and designate a time for shipping. Webvan
guarantees the products will be delivered to your house within a 30 minutes
window of your designated time. The reason that we are here tonight, as with
`.. any other grocery store, they would like to sell alcoholic beverages. Kind of a
quirk, the Liquor Commission requires that whenever a liquor license is
issued, the facility be open to the public. Webvan is not in the business of
having individuals coming to the property however, in order to comply with
State Liquor Law requirements they will have to have some small window
service. For instance if someone should happen by and would desire to buy
alcohol on the premises, that is why the waiver use SDM licensing is required.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: How do you patrol if someone orders liquor, or beer or wine, and they are
underage? How do you control this? This is the only concern that I have.
Mr. Koch: It basically would be like someone buying alcohol, beer or wine at a store.
First of all, there are policy statements on the Internet. You have to have a
credit card to place your order. Also, when they come to the premises, the
individual who placed the order has to be present. They have to produce a
valid driver's license or valid picture I.D. at the time and the alcohol will not
be dropped unless all of those requirements are met. Basically, it is like
training somebody who is working at a supermarket or party store.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the age of your delivery people who deliver to these homes? Are
they young people between the ages of 18 and 21?
17733
Mr. Koch: The delivery staff is yet to be employed. I would assume it will run the gamut.
I would assume that it would not be limited to only young people because
N%w service is so important and they want to introduce a new way of shopping.
They are not going to staff their service people with a bunch of young
individuals.
Mr. Alanskas: If someone was working there at a young age and they had some friends that
were underage and they wanted some liquor, they would say "don't worry, I'll
get it to you." I want to make sure that doesn't happen.
Mr. Koch: I think the best way to answer that is, Web Van guarantees that it is going to
comply with all state and local regulations. And to the extent there are state
laws requiring that you have to be a certain age to handle alcoholic products,
and sell them, those same requirements would apply to them.
Mr. Alanskas: In your other facilities that you have open now, what percent of your sales are
liquor and beer and wine?
Mr. Koch: That I don't have an answer to. But I would be surprised if it were any
different that any typical supermarket. I'm sorry I just don't have the numbers
for that. I can get that information for you though.
(Livonia Police Officer: Advised that there is a tornado warning and that we should
consider going down to the basement. 8:50 p.m. to 9:10 p.m.)
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
Mrs. Koons: I have a question. What is the window of time if someone places their order, is
it within one hour, ten hours, or 12 hours or 35 hours?
Mr. Koch: There is a lead time. I think that is at least a couple of hours lead time but after
that the person can designate at least up to seven days when they would like it
delivered.
Mrs. Koons: What would be the earliest?
Mr. Koch: I think it would be within a couple of hours.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: What are the hours of operation?
Mr. Koch: For alcohol or the whole business? They will be accepting orders all the time.
Mr. McCann: The meeting is temporarily adjourned due to power outage and tornado
warning. Time is 8:50 p.m.
Mr. McCann: The meeting is reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
17734
Mr. Piercecchi:' What will the retail hours be?
Now.
Mr. Koch: Retail hours will be 24 hours a day. Placing an order and delivering, with the
exception of alcohol and restricted products those will only be sold pursuant
to state and local law which means you can't sell on Sunday or deliver after
2:00 a.m. and you can't sell before a certain time in the morning. Other than
that, groceries and amenities, it will be a 24 our service.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
#5-100-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-04-06-02 by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, proposing to amend
Article XVII of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for SDD and SDM licensed
establishments as waiver uses in the M-2, General Manufacturing District, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2000-04-06-02 be approved for the following reasons:
1) The proposed language amendment will provide for the sale of SDD and
�... SDM products in the M-2 district in connection with businesses that
provide online grocery ordering and delivery service directly to its
customers via the interne;
2) That the proposed language amendment is needed to accommodate this
new trend in merchandising which will provide for more variety of services
to customers; and
3) That the proposed language amendment will provide standards and
requirements relative to the location and operation of SDD and SDM
licensed businesses in a M-2 district.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. We will now begin
the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of the audience
may speak in support or opposition to these items.
17735
ITEM #10 PETITION 76-12-08-30 Dr. Sivertson
�.. Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 76-12-
08-30 by Dr. Sivertson to amend plans approved by the City on February 2,
1977 for the construction of an office complex on property located at 31636
Schoolcraft Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. McCann: On February 4, 2000, the Planning Department dated received a fax from Dr.
Fredrick Smith asking us to table this so that he can amend the plans.
Mr. Taormina: We have tentatively scheduled that for the June 28, 2000 study meeting.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#5-101-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 76-12-08-30 by Dr. Sivertson to amend plans approved by the City on
February 2, 1977 for the construction of an office complex on property located
at 31636 Schoolcraft Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 22 be tabled to June 28,
2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #11 PETITION 2000-04-SN-04 Country Style Market
ti..
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
SN-04 Country Style Market requesting approval for signage for the
commercial building located at 19618 Middlebelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of
Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt and St. Martins. On
September 16, 1999, this site received waiver use approval to utilize SDD and
SDM licenses within an existing unit of the small commercial center. As part
of that approval, it was conditioned: That no signs are approved with this
petition and any new signage, either freestanding or wall mounted, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council prior to the issuance of any sign permits. In compliance with that
requirement, the applicant is requesting approval for a wall sign for the
southern most unit of the center and a tenant identification ground sign.
Because the proposed ground sign is deficient in setback and does not identify
tenants equally and because the wall sign is in excess of sign area, the
applicant would be required to be granted a variance by the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Upon an on-site inspection it was noticed that there is a design
feature (half circle) in the dryvit facade over the unit requesting the sign. The
submitted elevation plan does not show the design feature so it is not known if
the sign would be placed over it, and in effect, cover it, or be positioned to
either side of it.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
17736
Mr. Taormina: I don't believe the petitioner is here this evening. There is one item of
�., correspondence. Would you like for me to hold off on this?
Mr. McCann: Yes. Is there a motion to table this?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas , seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved, it was
#5-102-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that Petition 2000-04-SN-04 Country Style Market requesting approval for
signage for the commercial building located at 19618 Middlebelt Road in the
S.W. 1/4 of Section 1 be tabled to May 25, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #12 PETITION 2000-04-08-04 Dunkin Donuts
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-04-
08-04 Dunkin Donuts by John Marvsich requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct additions to the commercial building located at 19010
Middlebelt Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebelt between Seven Mile and
Dardanella. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct additions to the
existing Dunkin Donuts restaurant located on the subject site. Presently the
building is 1,540 sq. ft. in size. The petitioner is requesting to construct a 234
sq. ft. addition to the front and a 166 sq. ft. walk-in cooler addition to the rear
of the building. Once completed the additional 400 sq. ft. would enlarge the
building to a total of 1,940 sq. ft. The front addition would consist of the
existing roof overhang area being enclosed and the concrete walkway
underneath it being widened. New glass panels and an aluminum strip system
would be installed. The appearance of the new front facade would be very
similar to what you see today. The rear addition would be in the form of a pre-
finished aluminum freezer. According to the elevation plan a couple of the
sections of the existing mansard roof that are damaged would be replaced,
repaired or patched. After the fixing of the damaged sections, the mansard
roof would then be repainted and a new metal accent band would be added
along the bottom edge. Presently there is no landscaping on the site. The
petitioner is planning on installing landscaping up near the building. All these
areas have the notation "new irrigated landscape island" directed at them. The
other new landscaping would be located at the northwest corner of the site.
This area does not mention irrigation. The site plan shows a new enclosed
trash dumpster area located at the northeast corner of the site, behind the
building and up against the existing protective screen wall. The enclosure
r.. would be 6 ft. high and constructed out of decorative block. A note on the site
plan indicates that the existing parking lot would be patched, repaired and
17737
sealed. The petitioner is also requesting approval for a new ground sign. This
sign would be located within the new landscape area in the northwest corner of
the site. The existing large pole sign, located a few feet back from where the
proposed sign would be located, would be removed. Because the proposed
ground sign is in excess of sign area than what is permitted by the sign
ordinance, the applicant would be required to be granted a variance by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Division
of Police, dated May 2, 2000, reads as follows: "In response to the captioned
petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The second
letter is from Livonia Fire &Rescue Division, dated May 2, 2000, and reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct additions to the restaurant on property located at the
above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter
is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated May 2, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of April 27, 2000, the above referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The parking lot needs maintenance,
repair and double striping. (2) The existing right-of-way landscaping needs
maintenance and cleanup. (3) Accessible parking as depicted is incorrect.
The adjacent aisle to the 8-foot space must also be 8 feet wide. (4) All
signage on property, as depicted, will need a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. The ground sign must be a minimum 10 feet from the
property line (to the edge of the sign) and the maximum square footage is 30
square feet(not 32 square feet). The wall sign may not project above the
roof line (deck line of mansard), which it does with the shroud. (5) The
required existing protective wall is deficient in height(existing is 4 feet tall-
required is 5 feet to 7 feet). The north 2/3rds of said wall is leaning to the
east and is out of plumb 7 inches. If the height deficiency is accepted, the
wall should either be repaired to plumb or certified by a structural engineer
as to its structural soundness. (6) The landscaping appears to be deficient
of the required 15% at 10.6% (4.4%deficient) which may be waived Grass
is not specified as "sod"and must be clarified (7) The dumpster enclosure
does not have a detail as to construction,footings, etc. and must be clarified
as to the Petitioner's intentions. (8) The abandoned telephone pole should
be removed or provide a reason for it to remain. (9) The existing pole sign is
noted to be removed (10) The mansard has additional areas that need to be
repaired other than noted on plans (south face and north face). This
Department has no objection to this petition other than as previously noted
I trust this provides the required information." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The fourth letter is from the Engineering
Division, dated May 4, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request,
the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have
`` no objection to the proposal at this time. We trust that this will provide you
17738
with the information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E.,
Civil Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
John Marvsich, ArchiCivitas Architects, 1150 Griswold, Detroit, Michigan. I think that
project is covered sufficiently. I think we have addressed some of these issues,
if not all, pertaining to the letter from Alex Bishop.
Mr. McCann: All right. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: On the sign, you are allowed 30 sq. ft. Is there a reason why you are asking for
32 sq. ft.?
Mr. Marvsich: I believe that we have changed it to 30 sq. ft.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: My concern is the landscape plan and some of the material you have selected
here, Honey Locust, for example. You have three of them within probably 20
feet which isn't going to work because of the size the tree gets. You have a
couple of locations where you have two and you have three next to the
building and that is not going to work because it is too close. I think you need
some substitution of plant material. I would suggest another tree other than
Honey Locust because I think you are going to be unhappy when you start
doing the fall clean-up. You have these compound leaves that are not easy to
clean-up. You might select something else like a maple or something like that
would be better. Also, by the walk-in cooler, you have a number of Honey
Locust back there which I think you should substitute in there maybe some
Austrian Pine would do a better job of screening, and some substitutions along
the north side of the building. It is too close for a large deciduous tree in there.
Mark, you might want to make sure before this goes to City Council make sure
that some of these items are revised.
Mr. McCann: Is this something we can bring back as a landscape plan?
Mr. Shane: I think this is something that could be satisfied with staff These are my
suggestions. I think you need to look at that and maybe some other materials
other than what he has there might be more appropriate.
Mr. Marvsich: I think the issue of the Austrian Pine for the screening in the back is a very
good one. The reason the Honey Locust was chosen was because it didn't have
as dense a leaf so consequently there is more of an issue of being able to see
through it.
Mr. Shane: That is fme. But you need to spread them because they are too close.
`"' Mr. Marvsich: I understand.
17739
Mr. McCann: Is there anything? Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or
against the petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
r..
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
#5-103-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-04-08-04 Dunkin Donuts by John
Marvsich requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to the
commercial building located at 19010 Middlebelt Road in the N.W. 1/4 of
Section 12 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the site & landscape plan marked Sheet SP-1 dated May 4, 2000, as
revised, prepared by ArchiCivitas Associates, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
3) That all landscape plans be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director and 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;
Nur4) That the exterior building elevation plan marked Sheet A-4 dated April
26,2000, as revised, prepared by ArchiCivitas Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5) That any brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4-
inch brick, no exception;
6) 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;
7) That all light standards shall be shielded from the adjacent properties and
shall not exceed 20 ft. in height;
8) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
the following site deficiency as outlined in the correspondence dated May
2, 2000:
- that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double
striped
- that the existing landscaping in the right-of-way shall be
cleaned up and brought back to a healthy condition
that the existing protective wall along the east property line
`r shall be repaired to plumb and certified by a structural engineer
as to its structural soundness
17740
9) That the 30 sq. ft. ground sign shown on the approved site and landscape
plan, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and the sign base shall be
constructed out of full face 4-inch brick, no exception, to match the
building.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will
now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have
been discussed at length in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent
from the Commission.
ITEM #13 PETITION 2000-01-02-04 Bill Brown Ford Signage
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-01-
02-04 Bill Brown Sign discussion of signage for commercial property located
on the north side of Plymouth Road between Sears and Middlebelt Road in the
S.W. 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional?
Mr. Taormina: There is nothing additional to report.
Bob Gunnigle, Bill Brown Ford, 32222 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional since we met with you last?
Mr. Gunnigle: Just to review that is a piece of property that is a good piece of property but it
is not a great piece of property and we think we need the requested signage to
get people including the signage on the facade because that building sets back
over 100 yards from the center of the street.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I have one.
How tall is that building?
Mr. Gunnigle: I don't know the answer to that offhand.
Mr. McCann: I was wondering because it appeared to me as I was driving by and looking at
the site yesterday, that there really is good visibility of that building from the
street because it is quite a tall building and I was wondering how tall the new
sign on the building exterior would be.
Mr. Gunnigle: Thirty nine inches.
Mr. McCann; How far off the ground?
Mr. Gunnigle: I can estimate about 25 feet off the ground.
17741
Mr. McCann: I think that is going to be real visible there. Is there a reason? Just the distance
back from the main road is why you are requesting additional signage there?
Mr. Gunnigle: Yes. To let people know that this where the activity takes place. We think
that would be helpful.
Mr. McCann; Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, a
motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
#5-104-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-01-02-04 Bill Brown Ford for signage for
commercial property located on the north side of Plymouth Road east of Sears
Drive between Middlebelt Road and Tech Center Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of
Section 26 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements outlined
in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That the applicant has not justified the need for excessive signage for this
location over what is permitted by the sign ordinance;
3) That approving this signage request would set an undesirable precedent for
the area;
4) Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best
interest.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I really have a problem with this denying resolution. I am going to go along
with the denial because that is the request by the petitioner. I still think there
are ways that we could both work together. Possibly when it gets to Council,
he can discuss the situation because we all know he is very excessive with
what he wants to do there. There is always give and take and I can see their
point in regards to having the signs because of the building being so far back.
Of course, the question is how much should we allow him to have and
hopefully Bill Brown Ford and the Council can work that out. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am going to support the motion to deny. I don't think Bill Brown Ford has
been denied too much signage when you realize that they have four signs at the
used lot, six signs currently at the main area, which is just a little bit west of
that area, and I would like that just one wall sign, which of course according to
this request, in itself, is 65 sq. ft. in excess of what is allowed for a building
that size. The ground sign is 239 sq. ft. in area in excess and it is way over and
above and unnecessary to me to have Bill Brown Ford be a successful
operation at that site.
17742
Mr. McCann; I really believe Bill Brown is an integral part of this City. It is a long
established business. He has worked hard to work with the Plymouth Road
development. I want to see him a success. I like the idea of having the
Terrace building renovated and used for his used car sales, however, as much
as we are trying to renovate Plymouth Road, to bring more traffic and business
that will help him, one of the things that we are trying to do is make everyone
comply with the sign ordinances, unless there is an extreme hardship. There
hasn't been any hardship shown here. That building should be easily seen from
Plymouth Road because of its size and it's height off the ground. The Terrace,
I don't believe, will add anything addition to Bill Brown. I think Bill Brown is
a bigger name in the City and better known than the Terrace would be. It has
been a second run theater now for 15 years and I can't see that would help
them by keeping that portion of the sign so therefore, I am going to go along
with the denying resolution.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
You have ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council.
ITEM #14 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of
the Minutes of the 803`d Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March
,,r, 28, 2000
Mr. McCann: Since we don't have a quorum present to vote on the minutes, they will be
tabled to the next voting meeting, May 25, 2000. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#5-105-2000 RSOLVED that the Minutes of the 803rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held by the City Planning Commission on March 28, 2000, are tabled to May
25, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 805th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on May 9, 2000 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
4+ .21-)4-'"62-Z-AC
Dan Piercecchi, Acting Secretary
ATTEST: -tvt-c�} LL
?Imps C. McCann, Chairman
/rw
/