HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-11-01 18080
MINUTES OF THE 814th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Wednesday, November 1, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 814th 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 William LaPine
Members absent: Elaine Koons
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II,
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
't•- 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.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-09-01-17 Marco Soave
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-09-01-17
by Marco Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Bethany and Victor Parkway in the S.E. 1/4 of
Section 6 from RUFC 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?
18081
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 4, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
\N. 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 Livonia Fire &
Rescue, dated October 11, 2000, which reads as follows: "Livonia Fire &
Rescue has no objections or concerns relative to the issues raised in the
following petition." The letter is signed by Alan W. Brandemihl, Jr., Fire
Chief, Livonia Fire &Rescue. There is a letter received in the Planning
Department on October 27, 2000, from Neil Blavin, D.D.S., 19235 Newburgh
Road, Livonia, which reads as follows: "Concerning Petition 2000-09-01-17
to rezone the property behind my office, I hereby register my objection. There
is already too much office, retail up and down this corridor (some unrented)
and this is a cute,picturesque little house that helps keep the residential
character of our neighborhood." The next letter is from Michael Soave and
Dominic Soave, P. O. Box 664, Keego Harbor, Michigan 48320, dated
November 1, 2000, which reads as follows: "We are opposed to the rezoning
of the property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Bethany
and Victor Parkway. We are the property owners of the commercial building
located at 19213-19241 Newburgh Road. We are currently having trouble
trying to keep our rental buildings leased and have had too make several
concessions to keep tenants. More commercial and office space will result in
° vacancies. The Michigan Department of State has notified us they are
'sew currently looking for another location to reduce their rental base. Thank you
for your attention on this matter." That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia. We have a rendering I would like to show
you. I think that you all know that Marco Soave is the son of Leo Soave and
they have been builders in this City for a number of years. Their residential
and commercial developments are always of a very high class. I think that the
rendering shows the type of commercial development that Marco would like
to put in. He has some contacts from people who would like to be tenants of
the development. There is a catering center that would cater to businesses in
the surrounding area. There is a coffee shop that has expressed an interest.
Some other things, obviously, would be interested in the type of development
that is going to be in that area in the next several years. Things like florists
and dry cleaners and things of that nature. I recognize that we are not into the
site plan and building but I think this gives you an idea of what Marco would
like to build here. I think it is a nice design to have in the neighborhood. He
went to the extent to show you the type of development that he would like to
put in.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Is this request for commercial or office?
18082
Mr. Tangora: This is a C package.
'�- Mr. Piercecchi: I got the impression that there was some change of plans, that they would
request OS rather than C-2.
Mr. Tangora: No. The request is still for C-2. I might explain that because we did talk
about it with Marco and other people who are involved in advising him
whether a C-2 or an office type of development would be appropriate here.
Obviously, we all know the development that will be going on in the Victor
Center and along Seven Mile Road along north or Seven Mile Road where the
Oakwood Hospital and some of the other developments are being planned
there. We know that, with all of these as office developments, we feel that
another office development may be a little bit too much in there. This would
be kind of a supportive type development to these office developments,
possibly condominium developments, which are also planned for the area.
Mr. Piercecchi: Can you, sir, tonight show us where there is a need for a C-2 package there?
Mr. Tangora: There may not be right now but I think that within the next couple of years
after your Victor Center development and the one in the Victor Center will
probably be built within the next year and a half to two years, we are going to
have more of a need for this type of service through those offices than more
office in there.
sto.. Mr. Alanskas: Is that showing four or five units in there?
Mr. Tangora: I think it is four.
Mr. Alanskas: I think you will agree with me that when you are talking about a large office
building, four and five stories, and if that was a small OS, there are a lot of
firms and businesses that don't want to be in a large building. They would
rather be in a small area, that you are seeing right there. So the way you had
that rending constructed, it could go either way and I don't think you would
have a problem getting tenants for OS in that type of building. It is a good
looking building. It is beautiful really and to have four or five tenants in an
OS structure, I don't think you would have a problem at all. I really don't.
Just three years ago, we had a request for a drug store on that corner property
for commercial and we denied that because we didn't want any more
commercial in that area. And to deny something there and then say we are
going to put commercial right across the street, that doesn't make any sense.
Mr. LaPine: Going west on Seven Mile Road from Newburgh, except for the gas station,
we have no commercial from there all the way through Newburgh Road. In
my opinion, we don't need it. We have strip malls that are empty that we
need to fill up before we start building new strip malls. About three months
ago Leo Soave was in and he wanted us to rezone some property across the
street to build an office. Why doesn't he go over there and build the office at
this location?
18083
Mr. Tangora: He has another location where he wants to build an office that is not on the
Seven Mile Road corridor but it is in another location that he is going to put
`"es. in an office for a construction firm.
Mr. LaPine: He was really hot for that location on the south side of Seven Mile Road,
which we denied and which the Council denied. It seems to me if he has this
parcel, it would be an ideal location. The next question is some of the
proposed tenants that you mentioned in your presentation, like the cleaners.
We've got a big cleaners that just opened up on Newburgh Road which is
struggling to make it a go now. The center across the street from which we
got the letter where they have the Secretary of State's office, there are some
vacancies in there. I don't think there is a need for any more commercial up
in that end of town, personally. I have no objection going OS but I do have
some problems with the commercial unless you can convince me otherwise.
Thank you.
Mr. Tangora: I certainly would like to convey my thanks to your thoughts about that
because you definitely are trying to help the young petitioner make a nice
development on this piece of property and we appreciate that. His thoughts
right now are that he would like to go forth with the C-2. He feels that it will
be a good addition to the area, especially when it is built up and the office
buildings and the condominiums that are going to be constructed there are
going to be needing the type of services that a small shopping center would
make available and he feels by that time that his building and the type of
�.. tenants he would be putting in there would certainly be an addition to the area
rather than a problem.
Mr. LaPine: Does he own the property or does he have it on a contingency?
Mr. Tangora: He has an option to buy.
Mr. Alanskas: Am 1 hearing from you that you would rather have a denial on the commercial
and not approve it OS?
Mr. Tangora: Yes, at this time. We considered the OS before we even filed the petition and
thought maybe that would be an option but at this point in time he would like
to go with the C-2.
Mr. Shane: Do you know if your petitioner attempted to purchase any other property? It
looks like there is a vacant piece of property to the north.
Mr. Tangora: Yes, there is.
Mr. Shane: Do you know if he tried to include that into his proposal in any way?
Mr. Tangora: He has been talking to the property owner to the north of him. There isn't
`,, anything definite.
18084
Mr. Shane: The reason I asked that is that since there is possibly going to be
condominiums to the west, it may be such a thing that these two properties
together could be in conjunction with that development in some way and
maybe residential is the idea here as opposed to the other two.
Mr. Tangora: We talked about that too. As of tonight, we don't have anything definite that
we can tell you. He has been talking to the property owner but nothing has
happened.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I am going to go to
the audience. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Allan Mabbott, 19255 Bethany, which would be the fourth and fifth parcel north of Seven
Mile on the west side of Bethany. My wife Mary is with me too. We have
some concerns about the site itself that I don't think have been addressed.
One was the pond that exists on the site. I wonder if there is a wetland issue
with that pond and also, the elevation of the site. A lot of the site is more than
five feet below the centerline elevation of Seven Mile Road. We are
concerned about how much fill would be placed in there.
Mr. McCann: Let me answer those two questions real quick. The DEQ is very
conscientious about wetlands and about water retention. All of those permits
have to be pulled from the State and it has to be reviewed and if it is wetlands,
it would be a long process before they would be able to build on it.
Mr. Mabbott: I was just curious if the City Engineering report had addressed any of those
issues about the elevation, or if it could possibly be a flood plain, or elevation
of a large portion of the site.
Mr. McCann: They have already indicated that there is a creek through there and that is an
issue.
Mr. Mabbott: O.K. We have an objection to that mainly because it creates a strip zoning
type of technique. It is a step from one property owner to the next and so on
up Bethany. We are concerned about the traffic on Bethany. Currently, we
are plagued with people parking on the east side of Bethany between Seven
Mile and the north border line of the shopping center there because they don't
like the inlet and outlet to Newburgh Road so they find it is convenient to just
park on the residential street and cross the street and go to the Secretary of
State's office, including the City's own garbage hauler. Those trucks are
parked on our street, notoriously to use the gas to pick up snacks, etc. In fact,
the City placed boulders on the east side of Bethany to try and stop people
from eroding the berm there by driving on it. If any of your people would
like to take a look at it, it is deteriorating just because of the traffic that comes
through our street and it is a residential street that dead-ends at Northland.
We just have a concern that it is going to create a strip zoning type of attitude
in the area that we live in. We have also been the family and residents at this
18085
site since 1928. We go way back with the City in living on that parcel.
Thank you for your time.
Brett Phillips, 19235 Bethany, directly north of the site plan. I have met with Marco and he
has given me a reasonable compromise to his development and his
compromise is to build another home directly south of me as a buffer home
between the strip mall and my house. If you approve this zoning, it is
something I would have to live with. But I also have to express, as I
expressed to Marco, I don't feel that we need another strip mall in Livonia.
But if this is something that has to be approved or was going to be approved,
Marco gave me a reasonable compromise. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I don't see anybody else. I am going to close the Public Hearing. Mr.
Tangora, do you have any last comments?
Mr. Tangora: I have no further comment.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. H. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-190-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 1, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-09-
01-17 by Marco Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side
of Seven Mile Road between Bethany and Victor Parkway in the S.E. 1/4 of
�.. Section 6 from RUFC to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-09-01-17 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That this area of the City is currently well served with a variety of
commercial uses;
2) That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a need in this area
for additional commercial uses such as are permitted by the C-2 zoning
district;
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which will cause
additional traffic congestion in the area;
4) That the proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in
harmony with the adjacent uses in the area, particularly with respect to the
residential uses to the north; and
5) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which will erode
the quality of life experienced by the adjoining residential neighborhood.
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.
18086
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? If there are no comments, I have one. I am a little
concerned whether it should be OS or remain as residential. I don't believe we
need commercial in there. I think OS would be a decent buffer between the
existing commercial and the new construction to the west. But since the
petitioner would rather not have it go to Council as OS, we will go along with
his wishes.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petition is denied. It will automatically go on to Council.
ITEM #2 PETITION 99-01-01-01 Phoenix Land Development Corporation
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-01-01-01, as
amended, by Phoenix Land Development Corporation requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road
and Capitol Avenue in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 and M-1 to R-8I.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-191-2000 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-01-01-01, as amended, by Phoenix Land
Development Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the east
side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Capitol Avenue in the
S.W. 1/4 of Section from C-2 and M-1 to R-8I, the City Planning
`` Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-01-01-01 be taken from
the table.
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 from the Engineering Division,
dated October 5, 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 I. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Steven Schafer, Phoenix Land Development, 32000 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 220,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Want to explain this?
18087
Mr. Schafer: Yes. We had a study session about a week ago and there were some
suggestions made to the plan that we had submitted and we certainly
concurred with those suggestions. We are in the process now, and I hope by
Now- the end of the week I plan on finalizing the layout and hopefully we'll be back
in front of you within the next couple of weeks for a study session and then
another hearing. I think what you will probably end up seeing is additional
residential with additional setbacks off of Farmington Road and a little bit
better configuration on the northeast corner of the site where we had
discussed some of the residential unit placements. We are working on that
and I think we will be back with an even better plan within the next couple of
weeks.
Mr. McCann: Our next meeting is November 21, 2000, and then after that December 12,
2000. If I am going to table this, I am going to allow people to speak tonight
but I want them to know that they can come back when we have something to
speak about on a date certain rather than say, "Well, we'll come back and we
are not going to notify them." Is the December 12 meeting soon enough?
Mr. Schafer: Is that another Public Hearing?
Mr. McCann: Yes it is. Otherwise, we will go into January.
Mr. Schafer: We'll make the December 12 meeting.
Mr. McCann: I am going to open up the hearing now to the public with the understanding
°,14.- that this will be tabled to the December 12, 2000, Regular Meeting and Public
Hearing and that we will, if there are no objections from the Commissioners,
we will open it up to audience participation on that date. Is there anybody
who wishes to speak tonight on this issue? Seeing no one wishing to speak,
then it will be set as a regular item on the December 12 meeting. I am going
to close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-192-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 1, 2000, by the City Planning Department on Petition 99-01-01-01,
as amended, by Phoenix Land Development Corporation requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road
and Capitol Avenue in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 and M-1 to R-8I,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-01-01-01
be tabled to December 12, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #3 PETITION 99-04-02-13 Phoenix Land Development
,,....... Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 99-04-02-13 by
Phoenix Land Development requesting waiver use approval to construct a
18088
planned residential development on property located on the east side of
Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 27.
r.. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-193-2000 RESOLVED that, Petition 99-04-02-13 by Phoenix Land Development
requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned residential development
on property located on the east side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth
Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that Petition 99-04-02-13 be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional as far as correspondence, Mr. Nowak or would
that be premature too since we are going to be revising the plans?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. Because this is a companion petition and this item will be tabled.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Schafer, you would like to table this to December 12?
Mr. Schafer: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Again, I will go to the audience with the same understanding. Is there
anybody wishing to speak for or against this petition? Hearing no one, I will
close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-194-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 1, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 99-04-02-
13 by Phoenix Land Development requesting waiver use approval to
construct a planned residential development on property located on the east
side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section
27, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 99-04-02-
13 be tabled to December 12, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-09-02-30 White Castle System, Inc.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-09-02-30
by White Castle System, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and
operate a fast food, limited service restaurant with drive-up windows as well
as inside seating on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Woodring Avenue in the N.W.1/4 of Section
34.
18089
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 five items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Division
of Police, dated October 4, 2000, which reads as follows: "After reviewing
this site plan, we have the following recommendation: Placement of Stop
signs: (1)At the Northbound exit to Plymouth Road (2)At the east exit to
the main aisle way and(3)At the westbound exit from the site. Please
remind the petitioner that each Handicap space must be individually signed."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The second
letter is from the Engineering Division, dated October 4, 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. We would like to point out that there does not
appear to be a convenient location to service the building with a sanitary
sewer connection. The following legal description should be used in
connection there: 'Part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, T. 15., R. 9E.,
City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, more particularly described as
beginning at a point distant South 00°54'16" West, 60.00 feet and South
88°39'44"East, 426.00 feet along the Southerly line of Plymouth Road(120
feet wide),from the Northwest corner of Section 34; thence proceeding
along the Southerly line of Plymouth Road South 88°39'44" West, 190.00
feet; thence North 01°2076"East, 170.00 feet to the point of beginning.'
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter
is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The next letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated October 11, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 29, 2000, the above referenced
Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1)As proposed this
petition will need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
number of parking spaces. Required are 26 spaces,provided are 22. (This
includes the two (2)spaces required for drive-thru parking.) (2) This
Petition needs to be redrawn to accommodate the minimum 12'width of the
drive-thru lane. (3) The Petition does not detail lawn areas as sod and
should be clarified (4) This Petition proposes to take parking from the
adjacent center and does not detail if it is required parking or not. This
should be clarified (5) This Petition notes a salt storage facility on site and
does not detail if it meets all requirements for proper salt storage. (6) The
signage associated with this Petition has not been reviewed due to a lack of
detail. However, it appears that at a minimum, variances from the Zoning
Board of Appeals would be required for 4 excess wall signs and excess
signage square footage. This Department has no further objections to this
Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector.
We have two letters from the Livonia Fire &Rescue Division. The first one
is dated October 11, 2000, and reads as follows: "Livonia Fire 7 Rescue has
no objections or concerns relative to the issues raised in the following
Petition. The letter is signed by Alan W. Brandemihl, Jr., Fire Chief,
N4 taw
Livonia Fire & Rescue. The second letter from the Livonia Fire &Rescue
18090
Division, dated October 13, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct and
operate a White Castle fast food restaurant with drive-thru and carry out
�► service on property located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Joel R. Williamson, Fire
Marshal. We have a letter from White Castle, dated October 30, 2000, which
reads as follows: "Regarding Petition 2000-09-02-30 requesting waiver use
to construct and operate a White Castle restaurant at Sheldon Center Plaza,
Farmington &Plymouth Roads. Please table our scheduled Public Hearing
on November 1,2 000. If there are any questions regarding this request,
please contact me at (248) 477-1450 X 14, Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. -
4:00 p.m." The letter is signed by Joseph Barts, Detroit Area Construction
Rep. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Before I go to the petitioner, I did have a moment to speak to the petitioner
regarding his letter to have this tabled. The petitioner is now in negotiations
with the Wonderland Mall owners to have a drive-thru at that location. That
would negate the need to move the location to the Sheldon Center area. They
don't have anything in writing yet so that is why they are adjourning this so
that they would be able to get that done. They are asking it to be adjourned
for two months. Tonight is the Public Hearing on this item so we couldn't
adjourn it once notice was given. I will open the floor tonight to anyone who
would like to speak to this item but we will probably be tabling this to the
February 13, 2001, hearing so that he has time to negotiate a new lease with
Schostak Brothers and then they would be withdrawing this one, if that in fact
r,,,,,, does happen. Is there anyone who would like to speak for or against this
petition this evening?
Michael McGee, 11041 Arden, Livonia, 48150. I am currently the President of the Old
Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association. My question is really one of
process. As you are probably aware, this petition has created a fair amount of
discussion in the neighborhood and I also want to publicly thank Mr.
Taormina for keeping us advised. For example, this change that the petitioner
has asked for to table the matter for some time. We appreciated getting that
notice so that we could let some people know that they could stay home and
read stories to their kids rather than come out to a public hearing. Assuming
it does come back, if it is not withdrawn, we just want to make sure that we
are notified of the meeting. We made note that it is the 13th of February,
2001. If there were to be some change in that, we would hope to be notified
of that. Also, is it the practice of the Commission, even though it is not a
formal public hearing, to take public comment as if it were a public hearing?
How would that be handled?
Mr. McCann: Normally, what we try to do is complete the public hearing, if there is
unfinished business that we have to come back on and give everybody their
opportunity to comment. But it seemed in this case that the issue hopefully is
a dead issue. They would like to stay where they are. They have been there
for a long period of time. Their concern is having drive-thru. They think
Schostak has reconsidered. They are in negotiations to do that and build a
18091
new building at that current site. If that in fact happens, this will go away but
we will give you notice and anybody else who gives a written request of the
hearing. Of course, we will let you know if anything changes and as on the
`'r••- previous items we discussed, normally you have to have unanimous consent.
Everyone here tonight has said that if we do table this without discussion
tonight, that all residents would be allowed to speak at the next hearing.
Mr. McGee: We appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Richard Kent, 11040 Ingram, Old Rosedale Gardens and I am the representative of the
organization to City government. Even though apparently we have a chance
to speak in February, since I am not home reading stories to my kids, I guess I
might as well say what I intended to say. My understanding is that this is a
request for a waiver use, which means to me that the petitioner has to show a
reason to grant a waiver. You are under no obligation to grant a waiver
unless a reasonable argument is made that good planning would be served by
the granting of this waiver. Is that not correct?
Mr. McCann: In this zoning district it is a waiver use.
Mr. Kent: I think you need to think about the compatibility of this restaurant to the
development that is currently there and also what is going to be there in the
future. We know very soon that we are going to have residential area
extending to the north of Plymouth Road so the area becomes more
residential in character and of course, there will be a need for those people to
eat when they don't eat at home and they want to go eat somewhere. We
know that Mr. Schafer is working with various companies to provide some
kinds of eating establishments on the other side of the road and we have Bill
Knapp's, and so on. I think this eating establishment is called a restaurant. I
wouldn't call it a restaurant but by definition it is a restaurant but I think a
drive-in restaurant is a type of restaurant I don't think helps improve the
image of this part of Livonia or the quality of life for people in southern
Livonia and I think we would be better off without it. I think that if it were a
different kind of restaurant, I don't think people in our neighborhood would
be objecting to it. But this kind of restaurant is the kind of restaurant you can
actually smell when you drive by, unfortunately. That is not really what we
need or want. It will create unpleasant fumes from the fat that they fry this
stuff in and traffic problems. Any of the White Castles I have seen,
architecturally, they don't blend in with the neighborhood. They try to stand
out and have this kind of a look, which again, I don't think we really want one
at that address. I hope you will think to the future about what that corner is
going to look like and I think if you do, I think it will be better without this
White Castle/Church's Chicken restaurant. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Seeing nobody else, I am going to close the Public Hearing. A motion is in
order.
,,� On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
18092
#11-195-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on November 1, 2000, on Petition 2000-09-02-30 by
White Castle System, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct and
`'�► operate a fast food, limited service restaurant with drive-up windows as well
as inside seating on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Woodring Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section
34, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-09-
02-30 be tabled to February 13, 2001.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will be adjourned to the February 13, 2001, hearing at the request of the
petitioner.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-08-06-05 City Planning Commission
(Cell Tower Notification and Fees)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-08-06-05
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to CR#608-00 and Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 12.03, 19.03 and
19.05 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance relative to the issue of public
notification requirements for all proposed cellular tower installations on
public zoned lands and the issue of increasing the application fee for new
cellular tower support structures.
`..
Mr. Taormina: This item was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council. The
intent is to provide additional notification requirements for all new cellular
tower installations on publicly zoned lands. Currently, the notification
requirements for cellular towers on PL zoned properties are the same
procedures used for all waiver uses and what makes cellular towers unique is
that the lease area is confined to a relatively small area. In most cases
involving new cellular towers on publicly zoned lands, applying the current
waiver use notification requirements does not adequately inform those
residents who may be affected by the proposed operation. This new proposed
language amendment would provide the following forms of additional notice
procedures prior to Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.
Number one, written notice to all persons owning property within 600 feet of
the property purchased or leased for the purpose of erecting a new cellular
tower, would be notified. This would double the current requirement, which
is 300 feet. Secondly, it would require at least 15 days prior to the hearing, the
erection of 4'x 4' signs at one or more prominent locations around the
premises for the purposes of notifying pedestrians and motorists of the fact
that a wireless communication structure is proposed on the subject property.
The final part of this language amendment would provide for an increase in
the application fee associated with all wireless support structures. Currently,
the fee is $400 and that is charged in use with all waiver use petitions. This
`,.- fee would increase to $1,000 in the case of new cellular towers support
structures. This would help defray the cost associated with the processing of
18093
these applications including the increased public notification requirements.
Thank you.
``► Mr. McCann: Are there any questions?
Mr. Alanskas: The $1,000 cost, are we in line with other Cities at the $1,000?
Mr. Taormina: It varies quite a bit. There are some communities that do establish fees close
to that. We feel that this is reasonable given the impact associated with the
review that is necessary for these structures and also the fact now that the City
has to, what we feel is necessary as part of this public hearing process, to
install signs in a manner that will notify people that may be affected.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there cities that charge more than $1,000?
Mr. Taormina: I was not able to see anything that was more than that. We didn't really
canvass too many communities in terms of those application fees.
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?
Donna Mulcahy, 30850 Robert Drive, Livonia. I am very happy that you are considering
changing the way residents are notified about this because I live right across
the street from Devonaire Park on Robert Drive, at the corner of Robert Drive
'taw and Sunset, if there was a corner. Actually, Sunset would go into, it's like a
"T" where I live. Last year when Nextel wanted to put a cell phone tower in
the park, the way I found out about it was a neighbor of mine saw them
surveying the area and told me to keep a lookout in the paper to see what
exactly was going on. So I did. I saw the public notice. My husband and I
didn't like the idea of 150' cell phone tower going in our small little park over
there. We would have had one of the best views of the cell phone tower of
anybody in our neighborhood. It would have been right there in our picture
window. But we did not receive written notification. My husband and I
started a petition. We collected hundreds of signatures and as we went door
to door, people said, "They want to do what?" And the next thing was, "Why
weren't we notified about that"? Going door to door I found out that a
neighbor of mine did receive written notification and I didn't. I had a better
view of it really than she did because her side window faces the park where
my picture window faces the park. I was confused. I thought notification
was given to residents within 500 feet and you said 300 feet. I am not sure
exactly was it was.
Mr. Taormina: It is 500 feet. You are right.
Ms. Mulcahy: I took a measuring wheel and from that proposed site to my property line was
626 feet. Increasing it to 600 feet wouldn't help me at all. I do like the signs
but I think there should be some provision in there that there should be a sign
on each street abutting it. For example, in the case of Devonaire Park, there
18094
should be a sign on Robert Drive. There should be a sign on Sunset and
possibly a sign on Henry Ruff Then I am thinking of people on the other side
of the park like toward West Chicago. I don't know how that would help
them. I also have some concerns about some wording in there. Regarding the
signs it says that they should be erected at one or more prominent locations
around the premises, leased or purchased for such wireless communication
facility. But I would think before the property is leased or purchased, that
they would want approval for a cell phone tower. So maybe you should
change that wording to like a" proposed leased site" or something like that. I
like the signs but I think there should be some provision in there that specifies
that it should be there on the streets abutting the public land. Also, I think
that as far as written notification, I think that you should go back to what was
suggested at the legislative committee and make it 300 feet of the perimeter.
Send notifications out 300 feet from the perimeter of the park. Use that
instead of the little cell phone tower site. Otherwise the park eats up the
notification area and residents aren't notified of it. I hope you understood
what I was saying. Based on the expressions on your faces, it is hard to tell.
Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was
#11-196-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on November 1, 2000, on Petition 2000-08-06-05 by
,., the City Planning Commission, pursuant to CR#608-00 and Section 23.01(a)
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended,
to determine whether or not to amend Sections 12.03, 19.03 and 19.05 of the
Livonia Zoning Ordinance relative to the issue of public notification
requirements for all proposed cellular tower installations on public zoned
lands and the issue of increasing the application fee for new cellular tower
support structures, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2000-08-06-05 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendments will provide for additional
public notification, in a visible location near the leased area, for all
proposed cellular tower installations on public zoned lands; and
2) That the proposed language amendments, relative to public notification
requirements for all proposed cellular tower installations on public zoned
lands and an increase in the waiver use application fee for new cellular
tower structures, are recommended by the Cellular Tower Committee.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: The suggestion on the sign that the language be changed to indicate that they
would be placed in one or more locations around the premises proposed to be
18095
leased. I like the word "proposed" because it is not really leased yet until it is
approved.
Mr. McCann: Most of the time it is with an option or some type of an agreement so I don't
think that would hurt although I think the intent is there.
Mr. Shane: I think the intent of this, for the lady's comments, it says that you place the
signs in four different places. I don't think it means to say that it will be four
places on the actual leased property but four places on the public property
within that leased area would occur. At least I hope that is what it means. If it
is in the middle of the park site, I hope it's on the edge of the park site where
people can see it.
Mr. Piercecchi: The notification will go out for 600 feet.
Mr. McCann: You have one four foot by four foot sign or more depending on the park. A
four foot by four foot sign, as we all know from our elections, is a pretty good
size sign and if it is up for two weeks in advance of the petition, the
neighborhood should get a good general idea of what is going on. That was
the intent behind the four foot by four foot sign. Further, at least my feeling
was, that by going 300 feet from the end of the parks, is you go up near Rotary
Park, it stretches for one mile and you try to go 300 feet all the way around it,
you would be putting a tremendous burden in cost on the City and be notifying
people that wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about. In your
location, it does make a difference but the idea of putting a sign up, four foot
*law by four foot on the public land or the park where it would be seen, that you
give notification at least 600 feet to the neighbors. You may not get
everybody but you are going to get enough people out there and you are going
to give sufficient notice. You are going to advertise it in the newspaper. You
are going to put a sign up so that everybody that drives by it for two weeks can
see it. That you are going to notify the closest neighbor so that people will get
the idea what is out there so that they can come before us and spread the news
themselves. But I think these amendments should be sufficient to get the
notice out there. Is there any other discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: To the lady, you know this was prepared for us by our Law Department and
when we approve this, it will go on to the City Council and at that time, at the
Council's meeting, you can come down if you would like to say that you would
like to see or that, and it can always be recommended to the Council and they
may want to change something.
Mr. Shane: I just wanted to say I did read that wrong. I thought it said four signs but my
main point is that I hope the sign is located where it can be seen.
Mr. McCann: The City is going to be putting it up and since we are paying for it, hopefully
we will put it where we want it to be seen.
Mr. Shane: The language says it has to be in the leased area and technically that wouldn't
do the trick.
18096
Mr. McCann: The one in Rotary Park is near the leased area it would be tough. Maybe we
should put that in a "visible location near the leased area".
\..
Mr. Taormina: The intent really is, as Ms. Mulcahy stated, to place these signs close to the
park entrance so that people utilizing the park or driving by would be well
aware of the request. The lease area was several hundred feet back into the
park, most people wouldn't see the sign. So we would install a sign at the
entrance and possibly even at the entrance to the adjacent residential streets.
Each situation is going to present different circumstances. That was why it
was difficult to prepare this language. A slight modification referencing the
entrance is not a problem.
Mr. Shane: I presumed that was your intent but it doesn't necessarily say that.
Mr. Taormina: That was definitely the intent as we discussed this item in committee. Another
point of clarification, she is correct;the requirement is presently for 500 feet
from the leased area. The tower itself has to be minimum of 300 feet from
any residentially zoned property. The intent being that there would not be a
situation where a tower, if it were at that minimum 300 foot setback, would at
least provide notice out an additional 300 feet beyond the boundary of the
property to those residents around the park. As you indicated, we do not want
to overburden the department with the notification process. In some cases,
some of these parks are almost a half-mile in distance and we didn't see the
need to notify residents who live that far away from the petition.
Mr. McCann: Will the Secretary please call the roll.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Piercecchi, Shane, LaPine, Alanskas, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Koons
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above 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 is
adopted. The petition will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. This concludes the Public Hearing portion of this meeting. We
will now proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda.
Members of the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items.
ITEM #6 PETITION 83-01-02-01 Chi-Chi's Restaurant
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-01-02-01
Chi-Chi's Restaurant requesting approval to amend a previously approved site
18097
plan to close off one of the driveways of the restaurant located at 29330
Schoolcraft Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 24.
"�- Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt.
Chi-Chi's Restaurant is requesting approval to close off one of their three
driveways. North of the restaurant is a service drive that provides access to
the Henry Ford Medical Center form Middlebelt Road. Chi-Chi's also uses
this drive, as does the Olive Garden Restaurant to the north, for access and
has two driveways off of it. One driveway enters Chi-Chi's almost
immediately as you exit off of Middlebelt Road and the other driveway is
farther down towards the east and provides egress/ingress to the restaurant's
rear parking lot. It is this rear driveway that is being requested to be closed
off. The restaurant's third driveway is off Schoolcraft Road. The petitioner
has explained that vehicles enter their site off Schoolcraft; cut through the
parking lot; enter the service drive by the restaurant's rear driveway; and then
exits out onto Middlebelt Road. This is done mostly during rush hour when
drivers want to bypass the backup at the intersection. This has started to
become a regular routine and the restaurant worries one of their customers or
employees is going to get hit. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that a Full
Service Restaurant must have at least two (2) separate driveways. By closing
off the rear driveway, the restaurant would still conform with a drive off
Schoolcraft Road and one off the service drive. The petitioner is planning on
closing off the drive by putting in curbs and installing landscaping equivalent
to what is along that stretch of the service drive. An on-site inspection shows
that the driveway is already closed off with bumper blocks and "Do Not
'tow Enter" signs.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Livonia
Fire &Rescue Division, dated October 19, 2000, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request
to close off one driveway on property located at the above referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Joel
R. Williamson, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the Engineering
Division, dated October 23, 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. We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated October 23, 2000, which reads as follows: "We
have reviewed the plans in regards to a proposal by Chi-Chi's requesting
approval to close off the northwest driveway. We have no objections to the
plan as submitted. We would suggest that a "No thru Traffic"sign be placed
at the Schoolcraft entrance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 24, 2000, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request of October 17, 2000, the above referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The driveway referenced in this
18098
petition is currently closed with a system of 11 yellow parking blocks and
two "Do Not Enter"signs. The curbing and pavement exists as original.
(2) The eastern section of the parking lot needs maintenance, repair and
`�- some repaving. The entire parking area needs to be double striped (3)
There was trash strewn about the inside of the dumpster enclosure and the
gates were open on October 23" (4) The wooden screens around the
electric transformer need repair and maintenance. (5) The parking blocks
along the south side of the parking area need to be reset with fasteners
properly installed (6) The landscaping and parking light poles need clean
up and maintenance. This Department has no further objection of this
Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? I don't see the petitioner. Is there
anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Since
there is nobody in the audience wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-197-2000 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 83-01-02-01 Chi-Chi's Restaurant requesting
approval to amend a previously approved site plan to close off one of the
driveways of the restaurant located at 29330 Schoolcraft Road in the S.W. 1/4
of Section 24 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the request by Chi-Chi-'s to eliminate the easterly most driveway off
the access drive to the north of the restaurant, as shown on the site plan
received by the Planning Commission on October 17, 2000, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That curbs and landscaping, equal to what is already along that stretch of
the access drive, shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department;
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; and
4) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
the following site deficiencies as outlined in the correspondence dated
October 25, 2000:
- that the inside of the dumpster area shall be cleaned up of any
debris and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in
use, closed at all times
- that the wooden screen around the electric transformers shall be
repaired and maintained
- that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double
striped
- that the parking blocks along the south side of the parking area
shall be reset with proper fasteners
18099
- that the entire site's landscaping and light poles shall be cleaned up
and maintained
`41► 5) That all other conditions and requirements, as set forth in Council
Resolution#224-83, shall be adhered to.
6) That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be
submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits
are applied for; and,
7) That a "No Thru Traffic" sign be installed at the Schoolcraft entrance
drive per the recommendation of the Traffic Bureau.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane: Would the maker object that there be a "No Thru Traffic" sign erected at the
Schoolcraft entryway?
Mr. Piercecchi: I thought of that when I was reading the resolution but I thought that the
signage would be handled down the road but I can add that if nobody objects
to that, if Mr. LaPine has no objection.
Mr. LaPine: I have no objection.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
r.. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 85-02-08-01 Community Choice Credit Union
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-02-08-01
Community Choice Credit Union requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
amend a previously approved site plan in order to expand the parking lot of
the credit union located at 15420 Farmington Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section
15.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Farmington between Five Mile and
Roycroft. The Community Choice Credit Union is requesting approval to
expand their existing parking lot. Presently along the south elevation of the
building runs the old drive-thru approach lane. This lane was abandoned
when the credit union incorporated the vacated portion of Westmore Avenue
as their drive-thru stacking area. The credit union now uses the old approach
lane as an employees'parking lot. There is no type of striping within this area
and the employees park sporadically on a first come basis. The petitioner is
proposing to stripe the subject area to provide more convenient parking for
the employees of the credit union. Because of limited space, the petitioner is
proposing to install nine 30°parking spaces along the south property line. To
provide enough aisle way to access the new spaces, part of the existing
18100
landscaping along the south elevation of the credit union would be removed.
Because of the angle of the parking spaces and the narrowness of the aisle
way, the access drive would be designated one way only. The Zoning
'�•- Ordinance does not provide standards for 30°parking spaces and only notes
that "angles less than 45° are not recommended". The petitioner has
submitted a diagram showing the dimensions and standards required for such
an angled space. Based on this information, the proposed parking spaces
would meet the criteria needed for 30°parking. Each space would be double
striped and measure 10 feet by 20 feet. New landscaping would replace the
gravel area that is located on the left side of the drive as you enter off
Farmington Road. Staff has also suggested to the petitioner that the idle
blacktop area on the right side of the drive, labeled on the plan as "No
parking/sidewalk safety zone"be replaced with landscaping. The petitioner
has stated that the credit union feels removing blacktop and installing
landscaping in this area would not be cost effective.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the Livonia
Fire &Rescue Division, dated October 19, 2000, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request
to expand the parking lot of the credit union on property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Joel R. Williamson, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 23, 2000, which reads as follows:
sow "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. We would like to point out that parking angles of less
than forth-five (45) degrees are not recommended by City Ordinances. Other
than the previous item, we have no objections to the proposal at this time. We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The third letter from the
Inspection Department, dated October 23, 2000, reads as follows: "Pursuant
to your request of October 17, 2000, the above referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition proposes new parking in
addition to the previously approved parking. (2) The existing lot north of
the building needs maintenance, sealing and double striping. (3) The
proposed parking does not meet standards in Ordinance#543 and is not
recommended The one-way driveway width is 10 feet at the narrowest
point and does not meet minimum width standards. Further, the western
most proposed space may back over a sidewalk, which is not permitted.
Variances would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals to be
constructed as described. (4) The drawing,page 1 of 2, has an incorrect
scale 1"=100'. It should be 1"=10. (5) The signage noted as "employee
parking"does not fall within directional signage definition. Therefore, as
proposed, would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (6)
The petition does not address required lighting for the parking area. (7) It
would seem this petition could accomplish the same end with parallel
parking spaces and the new changes. This Department has no further
objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior
18101
Building Inspector. The fourth letter from the Division of Police, dated
October 24, 2000, reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans regarding a
proposal by the Community Choice Credit Union requesting to expand the
parking lot for employee parking. The dimensions shown on the diagram for
the minimum space required to safely backup a vehicle indicated the parking
space width is actually nine feet. Ten foot widths are required for parking
spaces. The site drawing indicates ten foot widths when measured from the
center of the double striping lines. It would be our recommendation to widen
the spaces to ten feet between the lines while still using the double striping.
Should there not be enough room for ten feet between the double lines then
single line striping should be used. We have no other objections to the plan."
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?
Rodney Nofs, 1318 Garfield, Port Huron, Michigan 48060. On behalf of Community Choice
Credit Union, they had an existing condition where people were parking
haphazardly in the back portion similar if you were to have grass and
someone is walking and creating a furrow and then you put a sidewalk in that
particular location. This creates a necessity for the convenience of the
employees. They are finding themselves wanting to park during daylight
hours at the back portion of the building. There are employees that do park at
the front if they are working at a darker time such as 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. I
think it is 6:00 p.m. when they do close. So they do walk out on the north
vr. side where the lights are. This has been sporadic parking for several months.
There has been no problems with lighting simply because they are out and
gone before the darkness does occur. As far as the parking angle, I would like
to point out that there were several studies that were done on behalf of our
client's request, anywhere from parallel parking to 90 degree, to 45 degree.
There was no request for 60 degree parking. There was then at this particular
point analyzing the existing conditions at the site and trying to do an impact
of less cost and that would then lead to an initial proposal of 45 degrees. That
was submitted and we worked closely with the Planning Department who
reviewed it and on the 40 degree parking, we realized that the backup area
would be a difficulty and so on that we did call off compact cars. But then we
would have to indicate every space to have every space to have a compact
where a difficulty occurred. I took this back to another study and then
reviewing the parking requirements it said it was only recommended that they
use only 45 degree parking. That is great if you have a brand new site and
you can layout the building, and the parking and the setbacks and the ramps
and things like that properly but this is an existing condition and my
philosophy is that there are many solutions to a problem but that there is only
one correct answer. Since the 45 degree has some problem with the
terminology of a compact car in certain areas, I went back then and pulled out
the litho that showed 30 degree parking and the proper designations for
backing, turning radiuses, isle widths and I have exceeded the minimum
ti.w requirements for 30 degree parking as per a litho that was given the Planning
Department. I went to the optimum design requirements so that made it
18102
difficult for the existing site and that is why we are taking up some existing
landscaping to accomplish the optimum layout for the 30 degree parking. So
we did not shortcut the design requirements for the 30 degree parking. As far
`r as the 10 foot widths requirements, on this last plan submitted I believe you
do see an actual layout of a standard car, 16'8" by 6'8" and you can see that
that car in that position looks like it fits quite comfortably. In fact, I would
like to suggest, if you would allow me to reduce the painting that is occurring
there, because the painting somehow sticks out beyond that but I am naturally
obligated to follow the requirements of the parking. So you do see those
requirements there in front of you. The only difference is that there was no
dimensions I could use from the standard zoning ordinance and I understand
that is when you use a brand new site. There is no building. There is no
difficulties but this one here we do have constrictions and this is laid out to
meet those demands. They are not the minimum. They are the optimum.
That way I can protect myself, my client and the people that have vehicles
that are backing up. Again, this is the best layout. This is better than going
with the parallel parking and that is why it is suggested. It is easy in. It is
easy out. It is not backing and maneuvering, twisting and turning and
bumping into another vehicle.
Mr. McCann: What about the end spot. It doesn't look like by the time you get to the far
eastern spot, trying to back up that car, is that last spot necessary?
Mr. Nofs: We did show one being removed. Hopefully you have that drawing.
`,.. Mr. McCann: Yes, we do. It shows the lawn area.
Mr. Nofs: Yes. Presently, with that gone, there is no difficulty for a car backing out and
then proceeding. The reason that may seem difficult in just looking at it, you
have to recall that on the opposite side of the parking area, we do have 90
degree parking. Those people are backing out and swinging around to
maneuver themselves out also. That is the reason that we just have a 10 foot
lawn area occurring on the south side. All of the other elements as far as even
the security person that may pull up, there is even a space that technically he
is not in the way of somebody who may enter and want to pass through to a
parking space. That is the other nice thing about this. It is not necessarily
strictly for the parking. It may be for a security officer or someone that might
want to pull up, an ambulance or something, there is enough room there that
we have even that option that has played into this. At this particular time, I
would like to request a consideration from the client. The Planning
Department and the client were given the documents at the same time,
actually. The client reviewed it and he, Chief Operating Officer Rob Bava,
has looked at it and his concern is that he is trying to not waste elements that
are already there. Even with the shrubbery and the plantings, we did a
tremendous research on this to layout this plan effectively, and again,
optimumally. You would actually see the asphalt area that we are now calling
for lawn and landscaping, he would like to see that retained as asphalt simply
because of the cost,the energy, the fuel that was needed to make that. The
base that was already there underneath that has to be removed again. The
18103
energy it would take to extract that and then to replace that again; and then to
take anything that was suggested for putting that landscaping or any
requirement that you are asking for in another location. He is open to that.
`r- He has a lawn area out in front.
Mr. McCann: He has a rock pile out in front. That is all I can find.
Mr. Nofs: That is true and he is going to take care of that. He threw that in also.
Mr. McCann: That is part of the site plan that we are redoing here. That is part of it.
Mr. Nofs: His concern is if he can find another alternate location that you would be
happy with in shrubbery, to compensate the percentages that are being
removed and to keep the existing conditions of the asphalt that is presently
there.
Mr. McCann: Why only 10 feet on the west edge? It appears to me that you can take it out
another five feet. You don't need 26 feet to back out.
Mr. Nofs: You may not but I would think if there is another vehicle that stops in there, a
security vehicle that might be dropping money off, or there might be an
emergency or something.
Mr. McCann: If you've got a person backing a vehicle against cars trying to park over 200
feet, I don't see how you can say....
r..
Mr. Nofs: Can somebody help me here? If you had two 90 degrees cars parked, I think
this is true, that you need a 25 foot isle way. Isn't that correct? If there is a
car backing out and there is another vehicle in the other direction, I think
there is a 25-foot isle space that is required. That would be my concern. If a
car is backing out I am at least giving that number. I don't think they would
allow me to go down to twenty. That is the reason I am concerned about
those three vehicles.
Mr. McCann: Is the isle width in a parking lot twenty feet?
Mr. Taormina: Twenty-two feet for 90 degree parking.
Mr. Nofs: I stand corrected. My general studies for optimum would be 25 feet and I
usually would go no less than that simply because of the restrictions that each
driver may have.
Mr. Alanskas: Scott, on our notes here, what percentage of landscaping do they have? Do
we have the 15%?
Mr. Miller: Across the street you have the vacant lot. If you consider this site, he is way
over.
Mr. Alanskas: No, around the credit union itself.
18104
Mr. Miller: Considering the amount he is taking away, there probably is no net loss. If
you look at this, he is only removing four feet and he is regaining this and a
`► little bit here. It is probably about the same.
Mr. Alanskas: We've to have at least 15%.
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions?
Mr. LaPine: I am kind of confused. He doesn't want to take out this asphalt area that we
now designate as lawn area, for what reason, because it cost money to take it
out?
Mr. Nofs: A lot of people are into this green architecture now a days and what they look
at is, you bought a building and the building has some value to it. But yet a
person, sometimes because they want a larger building, they will tear down
the building with all of the natural resources that were there on the site to
remove it to build something else. Almost in the same circumstances there is
fuel that was used to make the asphalt. That will now be destroyed and
possibly be re-used though, but also we would have to take equipment to dig
up the asphalt, take up the sub-base and bring in other equipment to put down
a proper base for the sod and the landscaping where, if we went to another
portion of the site, we have a lot of lawn area that exists in other locations on
the residential side. The client says it would be nice to even look outside my
window. I have some lawn area there. I would be willing to put shrubs in
vr„ there, as many as you would like to have equivalent to what this little section
is here.
Mr. McCann: The problem is, driving up and down Farmington Road, I have been a
member of this credit union since 1969 and when this was pointed out to me,
I looked at it and said, "There is just a lot of improvement." It's a big part of
our community. I've been a member there. I've done a lot of things with
them and I am more concerned about the people driving up and down. As a
businessman and as a member of the Community Choice Credit Union should
be concerned about what its impression is to the community.
Mr. Shane: It certainly is not unprecedented for this Planning Commission to require
similar types of operation to remove asphalt during landscaping. This is done
a lot. I have two concerns. One is, as Mr. McCann stated, you are going up
Farmington Road, this is a nice spot for landscaping. If it stays asphalt, there
will be a car parked there, and that was the whole reason for doing this in the
first place, is not to allow a car to park there because of the necessity for
backing over sidewalk. You've haven't convinced me. Not even a little bit.
The lawn area belongs there and the landscaping. I don't see any reason for
not having it.
Mr. Nofs: In fact, I did show that, per the Planning Commission's recommendations and
all of that is shown. I had to just, on behalf of the client,just make that
18105
statement, again, that he had requested that I do so. I just thought I would
bring that up.
441.► Mr. McCann: To the staff, there is that lawn area, again I don't know if it will help or not,
but it looks to me like it is cut in there short. I will leave that to the staff;
whether it is appropriate to be ten feet, or whether that should be carried out
two or four more feet but there doesn't appear to be any new vegetation going
in that lawn area. I know there is the tree there. Is that going to be
satisfactory or should we be looking for some low shrubs to continue the way
the Civic Center Office Plaza is done?
Mr. Taormina: There certainly would be an opportunity within that area to do some
additional plantings. Bearing in mind that it would have to be in the form of
a low shrub or flower as opposed to anything taller. That is simply because of
the sight lines that we would need to protect in that area for visibility for cars
pulling in and out. Certainly, there is the opportunity to continue that
landscaping to include more of that lawn area. With respect to whether or not
it should be widened, we would want to take a little bit closer look at where
that approach is going into the site. It would appear from looking at this plan,
that yes it could be extended a little bit farther to the north. But then I see the
approach coming in and I'm not sure exactly where there would be a
continuation of the curb line in that area.
Mr. McCann; You find no problem with the design as far as the cars pulling in and backing
out, that that will work?
'ti..
Mr. Taormina: I do not see a problem with the current design, quite honestly. I would note
also that the new car space that is proposed on the north side of the lot, my
guess is that that first 35 or 40 feet of the site would still allow for some kind
of two way directional traffic so that car could actually back out and exit out
that approach. I am not sure if that is going to be restricted to one way or not.
Maybe that is a question for the petitioner.
Mr. McCann: Is it intended that they would be able to back out and turn around and drive
out or is it going to be backing up to the front entrance and then turning
around? The far easterly spaces, would those people be trying to back up and
turn around and go out or would they just back up to the western portion of
the parking area and turn around there?
Mr. Nofs: The intent is that we are trying to have one way indication where they were to
back up to the lawn area and then to continue around. There is an option
where if there was a situation they could literally, the ones that are next to the
building, could back up and actually head in the opposite direction. I am
assuming that may happen also, knowing people.
Mr. McCann: There is no parking on this designated parallel parking on the north side.
There is no intent for that. Is there? I don't see it marked on here.
18106
Mr. Nofs: It will be 90 degree parking. But I am assuming those 90-degree cars would
back out and then they might, those three, may actually go in the opposite
direction, at times. I am going to assume that,just knowing people.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-198-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 85-02-08-01 submitted by Community Choice
Credit Union requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to amend a previously
approved site plan in order to expand the parking lot of the credit union
located at 15420 Farmington Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 15, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the request by Community Choice Union to expand their parking lot,
as shown on the Parking Area Layout plan marked Sheet 1 dated
November 1, 2000, prepared by RC Nofs, Architects, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2) That this property's landscaping along the right-of-way of Farmington
Road shall be sodded, cleaned up and maintained to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department;
r„" 3) 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;
4) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
5) That all other conditions and requirements, as set forth in Council
Resolution#212-85, shall be adhered to.
6) That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be
submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits
are applied for; and
7) That additional landscaping be installed in the "lawn area" shown in the
southwest corner of the site on the approved plan subject to the approval
of the Planning Director.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
�,. ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
18107
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of Minutes
of the 812th Public Hearing and Regular Meeting held on October 3, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-199-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 812th Public Hearings & Regular
Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 3, 2000, are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 814th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on November 1, 2000 was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/ �Lb2J� Lk;LG�
` ) / i Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
`,Nor ATTEST: , /� 'C � L�t
ames C. McCann, Chairman
/rw '
e.,