HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-10-03 18015
MINUTES OF THE 812th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
'". OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 3, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
812th 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 Elaine Koons
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II,
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
preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to
ti.. 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 2000-08-01-15 Livonia Public Schools/Rosedale Gardens
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-08-01-15
by Livonia Public Schools requesting to rezone Lots 1137 to 1146, inclusive,
and Lots 1167 to 1176, inclusive, of Rosedale Gardens No. 4 Subdivision
including the east half of the adjacent vacated Hubbard Road in the N.E. 1/4
of Section 34 on the west side of Cranston Avenue between Orangelawn
Avenue and West Chicago Road from PL to R-1.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
New Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
18016
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The letter is from the Engineering
Division, dated September 12, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition.
`'it., We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The following legal
description should be used in connection therewith: 'Lots 1137 to 1146 and
Lots 1167 to 1176, also including the East 1/2 of the adjacent vacated street,
Rosedale Gardens Subdivision No. 4, located in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 34,
T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, as recorded in
Liber 59, Page 75 of Wayne County Records.' We would like to point out
that there is currently a sanitary sewer line running under the existing school
building and that the developer will be required to exhibit due care when
removing the structure. Also, the developer will be required to relocate or to
provide adequate easements for the existing sewer as to provide for future
maintenance. We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. We
have a letter from Consumer Energy, dated September 27, 2000, addressed to
the Livonia Planning Commission, which reads as follows: "Consumers
Energy may have natural gas facilities in the area of the above described
petition. If so, and it is deemed necessary to relocate or remove our facilities,
there will be a cost to the owner to do so. We have enclosed a portion of our
1/4 section map for your review. Note that gas service laterals are not shown
on these type of maps. If you have any questions,please contact me at 734-
513-6260. I have enclosed a business card for your use. Again, thank you for
the opportunity to review the notices for your Public Hearings." The letter is
signed by John R. Turner, Team Leader. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dave Watson, Director of Operations for the School District. What we are proposing here is
an education opportunity for our Career Center students. Each year our
Career Center students build a home. They have done so for the last seven
years. They have done it for longer than that but under the current builder,
they have built for about seven years. They are currently building off of Stark
Road, south of Plymouth. Our homes are built to match whatever the existing
area is. For the most part, we have homes that are currently for sale and one
that was built during the last school year is 2170 sq. ft. They are well
constructed homes. It was appraised recently at $235,000. So it is not, by
any means, a small home. It is something that anybody would be proud of to
own. They are very well constructed. We build one home a year. I know
that this is in some discussions with people in the neighborhood and I know
there has been an issue about the length of time. I think that that can be
remedied by alternating from the west side of the property and going back
over to the Cranston area so that we are not impacting the same street all the
time. We can do some things of that nature. Our kids, for the most part, work
in a couple of two-hour blocks. They would come in the morning, well after
most people would probably be up and gone. They only work during the
school time. Any holiday times and so on, the kids are not there because they
follow the school schedule. They work for a couple of hours in the morning.
18017
That group changes and another group comes in the afternoon and works for a
couple of hours. The high school day ends somewhere around 2:15 p.m. By
2:00 p.m. they are backed up and basically on their way. Occasionally,
'tow depending upon the weather, they might stay a little bit later but for the most
part, their day ends at 2:00 p.m. and they are off and they are gone. We have
a trailer that moves back and forth. It is stored at the Career Center so
nothing ends up being stored on the site other than some occasional building
materials.
Mr. McCann: Would the remaining properties remain under sod and maintained?
Mr. Watson: Yes. It would be similar to what we did at the Bentley Center. This
particular property will be hydroseeded. It was scheduled to be hydroseeded
this week so it may have already been done. It will be hydro-seeded and the
district will take care of mowing it much as we have done with the property
that is along Five Mile at the Bentley Center when we took that building
done?
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Are these ranches or are they both colonial and ranches?
Mr. Watson: We are looking into that. We are going to be working with an architect that
we haven't selected yet. For safety purposes we tend not to build two story
homes. Remember, these are high school students. They are very young
*.. people and this is their first experience in building. We are looking at a
couple of different ranch models and story and a half models. There are a
number of story and a half models in that neighborhood. We will do a couple
of different elevations or takeoffs of each one of those so that they appear to
be different. We will work with an architect and attempt to make those in a
sense, conform with the neighborhood, but as far as two stories, I have had
several discussions with both the instructor and the principal at the Career
Center who feel extremely uncomfortable with kids at that height who really
this is their first experience at building.
Mr. Alanskas: That is why I asked that question. You say you have a builder who oversees
what they do?
Mr. Watson: Yes. There is a registered builder, Mr. Dennis Reitz at the Career Center,
who is the overseer. They also bring in trades when it comes time to do
masonry. A mason will come in, demonstrate how to do it, work along side
with them for a while and then the kids take over from there. We spend a lot
of time building a home because if it isn't right, they make them it take down
and start over again.
Mr. Alanskas: I can see why, if you only a few hours in the morning and a few hours in the
afternoon, that is a long time to build a home.
18018
Mr. Watson: We start in the fall,just the time that school is back in session and the home is
completed when the kids leave in the springtime.
Mr. Alanskas: We are talking that it will take an eight year period to build these eight
homes?
Mr. Watson: That is correct. We build one home a year.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: How many students participate in this type of program?
Mr. Watson: It varies. I think this year's class size is about 15 students in the morning and
15 students in the afternoon but it can be 15 to 20 for each session.
Mr. Piercecchi: Then roughly about 40 students?
Mr. Watson: It will vary from year to year. There have been times when they have only
had a morning session but the last couple of years due to the high visibility
and the demand for the people in the trades, we have been fortunate to have
enough students to run both a morning and afternoon session.
Mr. Piercecchi: In other words, you target between 30 and 40 students participating?
Mr. Watson: That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do these ventures that you are doing, do they turn out to be a profit or a loss
situation?
Mr. Watson: For the most part, they hold their own. We have to pay the instructor. There
is also an aid that works with the instructor so we have two adults working
there besides the trade people that come in. Overall, there is probably a little
bit of profit made, but for the most part, they are a break even situation for us.
We do accumulate a little bit of funds so that we can start the next house and
also to pay for any kinds of development costs.
Mr. Piercecchi: If granted the zoning change, when will this first home be started?
Mr. Watson: We would start the next home next fall.
Mr. Piercecchi: And it would take eight years to complete all eight?
Mr. Watson: That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am pleased to see that the lot sizes that you are using are 80 feet which is
wonderful because I think the lot sizes are a little bit larger than a 60 foot
minimum requirement for the R-1.
Mr. Watson: That is correct.
18019
Mr. LaPine: I am going to take a little different vein here. As you well know, you have
been down this area. Rosedale is one of our older areas. There are a lot of
�- homes that are built on smaller lots and I see an opportunity here to get some
green space in that area. Have the School and City exhausted all avenues of
swapping land here and making this as one big park or buying the land or are
you selling the land to the City for a nominal fee?
Mr. Watson: We look at it, as you well know from sitting in the position you are, the
spaces within the City to build homes is decreasing. There are not as many
lots around to be developed. Many of them, when you look at the value that
they are selling for, are considerable. We look at the areas like, for example,
our property that was at the Stark School site and we worked in conjunction
with Mr. Roskelly and with some other contractors and began to develop that
particular site. Taking down the school that was there that wasn't used any
more and in a sense putting it back in good use for the community. The issue
for us is that this is an educational opportunity for kids. There is a need out
there for skilled trades people and we do need to work at continuing this
program and as like any other developer, there is limited space that we have
available for us to use. Also, without in a sense impacting green space some
place else.
Mr. LaPine: I can understand but it still seems to me that because this area is such a
congested area, that it would be more of an advantage to the residents who
live in that area now to have a large park in there and have a green area
`,,y instead of building some more homes. Getting back to my original question,
have you exhausted all avenues of swapping this land or selling it or anything
like that?
Mr. Watson: We have not looked at swapping the land. There is, of course, the large park
just south of this particular area where Whitman was that was a school site
that we are allowing the City to, in a sense, use about three quarters of that
site for a park. There is the park just to the west so there is considerable
green space down in there that the district is already cooperating with, as far
as allowing the City to use a significant portion of land at the Whitman
School site for park purposes. I have worked with Mr. Reinke in that area
with that park.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. Shane: If the plan is implemented, such as we saw on the screen, there is a cul-de-sac
that is constructed within the Hubbard Road right-of-way. Would the school
district be responsible for the cost of that?
Mr. Watson: Yes. We would be responsible, as we have done with some of our others,
with developing the site. In other words, putting in the necessary roads and
the engineering for that particular space.
18020
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition?
`► William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia, I'm the School Board's Engineer and
Consultant for this project. I would just like to add a couple of things. As
Mr. Taormina indicated, at this specific point, the School Board is willing to
relinquish up to four of the 40 foot lots, or which would dimension 130' x 160'
as open space. This open space, I understand, is to be a "tot lot" as well as a
parking lot to facilitate the City of Livonia's land. In addition to that, in view
of the fact that the lots will be 80' x 130', you will still have a large percent of
open space on each lot. I think it has more than satisfied the minimum
amount of green space required. In fact, it has been very generous with the
donation of this entire large parcel or four lots. As far as the cul-de-sac, the
City and none of the residents wanted this street to go through. It would be
simple to continue that street, Hubbard Street, right through and connect. So
as a result, we are putting this cul-de-sac in which would have a 40' radius on
the pavement with a max of 50' outside so that you have adequate turn around
for fire, maintenance or any other conditions. I think it would certainly
enhance the area and again this Hubbard road is an 86 foot right-of-way. As
the engineer states, we will put in a 19 foot road bed. That is going to offer a
lot of open space as well. In fact, at some given time, the City could even use
that for parking or for landscaping or whatever. Certainly, the school would
at this time do some landscaping in that right-of-way as is required by the
City of Livonia. Thank you.
Nt., Mr. McCann: Now I am going to open it up to the audience. Anybody who wishes to make
a comment for or against the subject petition may come forth and do so.
Mike McGee, 11041 Arden, Livonia, 48150 within Rosedale Gardens. I presently am the
President of the Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association. There are a
number of other people, both from the neighborhood and from the
Association, that are here this evening. Our Vice President, Joann Lafferty, is
ere, Tom Wozniak, who many of you know, has been very active and the past
president is here. Christine Johnson, our secretary and several other people
that I probably didn't notice in the crowd. I do want to make a comment
about the narrow question of what to do about this zoning petition. I want to
make a number of more global comments about the project in general, but I
want to start with the comment that Mr. LaPine just made which I think is a
very good comment. He asked Mr. Watson whether or not all avenues, in
terms of the open space, have been exhausted. I think it is fair to say that they
haven't been exhausted. I say that only because it seems to us that we are at
the beginning of this process. We have been involved in conversations
among the City and the School District in involving ourselves, the
Association, and we are very grateful for the opportunity to have been part of
those discussions and we want to be constructive and play a constructive role
in those discussions but they have only been going on since about the
beginning of September, insofar as our involvement is concerned. It seems
to us that there are a fair number of questions. Questions about open space,
questions about what the site configuration will be, questions about what the
18021
architectural style of the homes will be, questions about the timing of how
long the program will go on and so forth, which really need to be addressed at
the beginning rather than at the end. My point in putting it that way, is
'�- because if we were to take any situation in our community in which a
developer, and in this instance the school district, I think it is fair to say is
playing the role of the developer. Any developer that comes into the
community or is in the community and proposes to put in a significant
number of new homes in a well established neighborhood, generally
speaking, I think it is fair to say that the posture of the City has been, we are
going to make sure we understand precisely what is going in and on what
time line before we give all of the necessary approvals. It is our
Association's position that we would respectfully request that this petition be
treated in exactly the same way. In that sense, we think as far as the narrow
question before you tonight of the rezoning, the cart is a little bit before the
horse. That there isn't probably any powerful need that we know of in terms
of timing to have the rezoning move along so quickly in advance of the
substantive issues being worked out. From our standpoint what we would
like to see in terms of the substantive issues, these are ideas we have
conveyed to the School District and we will continue to convey them. They
have taken these comments, I think in the spirit in which they are offered of
being constructive. The lock-in configuration, the number that is presently on
the table of eight, which is frankly a reduction from an original proposal of
10, we see that as a positive thing. There is a fair amount of concern among
the adjacent neighbors about the timing. I recognize the suggestion that has
been made about to try to mitigate sort of the effect on any given property by
.,. doing a house on Hubbard one year, and then Cranston the next year and kind
of jumping back and forth. The fact of the matter is that if you live there, that
is a lot of activity for a very long period of time and if you are a long time
resident and a senior citizen, that is a very long period of time. Eight years is
a long time to have to put up with that sort of thing. We have heard as a
Board, concerns expressed in that regard. We are very concerned about the
ultimate style of the homes that are built as you can understand. Rosedale
Gardens this year celebrated its 75th anniversary as a neighborhood,just as the
City celebrated its 50th anniversary as a City. I don't have to tell you how
proud we are of that neighborhood. It is a great neighborhood for the City
and we do take a lot of pride in it. One of the things that we like best about it
is that there is a certain style of home that I think is characteristic of the area.
We certainly have no qualms about the quality of the homes that the school
district has built through the Career Center program. We support that
program. It is a great program. They turn out kids that are very well trained
in the trades and we would agree with Mr. Watson that in terms of the quality
of what is built, it is of a very high quality. They are teaching people how to
do the job right. They are not necessarily driven by a profit incentive and so
we have been told that if it is not done right the first time, they come back and
do it right and that sort of thing. The quality of the home is not the issue.
What is the issue is, will the style of the home fit into the neighborhood? It is
a very great concern of ours that we have expressed in terms of the point Mr.
Alanskas touched on which is, "Will you have any two story homes?" As
NNW
you know there is a great mix of homes in our neighborhood but a substantial
18022
number are two story homes and to have, in essence, this very well defined
area develop with suddenly eight homes without a single two story, in our
view, would aesthetically not be the best thing that could be placed there. We
have expressed these concerns to the district and will continue to do that. I
think this discussion that we are having with them is intended to be ongoing
and will probably go on for quite some time and I feel that there is a way to
resolve all of the issues to the satisfaction of everybody. But they are not
resolved as of yet and for that reason our position is that we are a little bit
premature in being here this evening. Our Board is not in the position at the
moment to say that we are in support of the petition. Not to say that we won't
be, but we are not this evening. For that reason our preference would be to
have this matter tabled until the process has a chance to go forward a little bit
more fully and we begin to resolve some of the questions. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mike, you brought up some important points. But as you know, we cannot
condition zoning. This is strictly a zoning issue. I think your concerns will
be resolved during site plan approval. The issue tonight is only whether it is
good for the City to rezone this property from what it is to R-1. That is what
we are deciding on not the height of the houses, how much brick, etc. Thank
you.
Mr. McGee: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment to what Mr. Piercecchi raised and I
certainly agree that this is a zoning matter. We can't condition the zoning.
That is certainly true and I would be the first one, I think I have probably
made that same statement from time to time. But I think in fairness to the
`,w points voiced here tonight by Mr. LaPine, let us say that there is some further
development, or evolution of this agreement which does result in some sort of
a land swap so that the School District does get the lots that they need to do
this program but that they are not in that location. In that we do have a park
site that is a little bit larger. Then I would imagine that we would then have
to go back and rezone the property from residential to public land and since it
is already public land why wouldn't we wait to do that until we know how
much of that is going to be residential. That is the position of our board. We
appreciate the opportunity to share these comments with you.
Tom Wozniak, 11407 Cranston, Livonia. The only reason I came up here to speak is that the
residents have either called me or because I visited all the homes adjacent,
save maybe two or three, adjacent to that property and have heard a great
number of concerns from the people. I heard the comment about by the time
you get to 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. most people are up and gone. Well
Rosedale Gardens is unique in that the neighborhood does not empty out.
There are a lot of elderly residents there and that is whom I talked to. People
in their 70's and people in their 80's who live there, some of them directly
adjacent to that property all day long every day. So they do have concerns.
Even simple concerns like when they heard the increase in the width for this
particular zoning to 80 feet, the first thing that concerns them is, does this
imply, it may not, but does it imply the extra space is needed for a attached
garage that will be the focal point of that development. In Rosedale what you
see is a home in the front of the lot, the garage is tucked at the back. With a
18023
wide lot is that because the garage then becomes the focal point. Nobody
likes shoveling a lot of snow but in Rosedale Gardens we do because our
garages are at the back of the lots. So that is also a concern. Just one other
'•N► point, I don't think there are many residents in the City of Livonia that are
asked to put up with construction for eight full years and like Mike
mentioned, for someone in their 70's or 80's, that could be the remainder of
their life. They would like to have a quiet neighborhood. They would like to
be able to look out and see neighbors or see a park or see grass or see flowers
or see something that is established as opposed to this type of activity going
on for that length of time. Also, the comment made about green space, I
would think that most of the residents in Rosedale Gardens would certainly
welcome additional green space. Thank you.
Tim Bailey, 9826 Cranston, which is directly across the street from the property we are
talking about. As Mr. LaPine mentioned, and as we showed on the screen
when we first started, this is probably the most densely populated area of
Livonia and any time you talk about bringing more people into this area, it
becomes a concern of ours whether it is developing a shopping center or a
pool hall or building homes. We are talking about additional traffic in our
neighborhoods. We are very concerned about that and one thing that just
came to light to me is that some of this green space we are talking about is
actually borrowed space. I am assuming that the School Board still owns
some of this green space and that the City doesn't own it and it appears that
possibly we may not have that green space in the future. My hope is that the
City acquire this land and offer us a green space that is owned by the City, not
just loaned to us by the school system. I feel bad when I see trees get cut
down and houses put in place of them. That is a sore spot to all of us these
days. There are some wonderful oak trees over there on that land that we
possibly could use and I hope that they will, at least, keep that in mind as they
develop it. One point I did want to bring out is that the grass has not been
hydroseeded over there yet. We have been living in dust for a good solid
month over and I don't look forward to that each year. I think I will just end
with that. I really would like to see a green space put in there and I am very
concerned about the houses that may be developed in that area and I hope that
we can worked together on this. Thank you.
Julie Noble, 9906 Hubbard. Those before me have covered the salient points but I am really
compelled to touch on the length of time that this project would take. I would
ask those proposing the project and people making the decisions really think
about people living there and putting up with construction for eight years,
nine months out of each year, for eight years. I know it is your job to decide
what is best for the City but we are also the City and I feel real strongly that it
is a small area and that would be a lot of construction over a long period of
time. Mr. Wozniak brought up a point about senior citizens. I am not one
yet but I will be if these houses go up. I will be one by the time they are
finished.
Joan Smykowski, 9826 Cranston. My only concern is that there is disproportional number of
these homes being built in southern Livonia and I don't understand why there
18024
aren't more of them being built in northern Livonia. It seems like we are
getting the brunt of it. We are going to have this brunt for over eight years. It
seems very unfair to us. That is my only point.
Jan Afonzo, 9918 Hubbard,just north of the proposed site. I would just like to say that I
think you know that Old Rosedale Gardens residents are sort of a funny
breed. We get excited about things like finding an Irishman who can wipe on
wet plaster and not have to sand it afterwards because he is so smooth with
his trowel. If someone finds a craftsman like this - that can do work on our
homes, the news of it spreads like wildfire throughout the neighborhood,
people clamoring to get the phone numbers and get on the wait list of these
craftsmen to do work on their homes. We are so excited this week. We
finally finished some stucco work. It took an Italian man to do it but we
finally found him. Anyway, we spend extra time, extra effort and extra
money out of respect for the historic nature of our neighborhood and it
worries me a little bit when I hear Mr. Watson say that they are looking into
the style of the homes. I, for one, wouldn't be totally against the idea of
having homes built on this site even by the Livonia Public School system and
how I would love to see those students trained in wet plaster and stucco. I
mean they would really be guaranteed jobs for a long time if they could pick
up some of these old trades. But I would really like to hear the Livonia
School system first commit itself first to respecting the style of the
neighborhood, not just the architectural but the materials as well, at least that
an effort be made to vary the materials of the homes as well. I wouldn't be
totally opposed to the building of the homes or of the Livonia Public School
system doing it if it could be done in less than eight years or perhaps a couple
of homes could be built by the Livonia Public Schools and if some of us
residents who would love to buy a large lot like that to build another home
that would fit within the style of the neighborhood. Please put us as first on
your list to be willing to do that. Some sort of a compromise, perhaps a
combination that wouldn't take eight years and that would provide a variety of
homes. Or even if the Livonia Public School system allowed some of us to
buy the lot, give them the money in advance and provide an architectural
rendering of a home and ask them to build it for us and when they reach the
points that their liabilities won't allow them to climb to a second story, allow
us to provide another contractor who certainly could finish that portion of the
project. Could we perhaps not come to sort kind of a compromise on these
issues of style and architecture? Anyway, that is all. Looking into the style
is a little too nebulous to me and if that is all the further we can go, then I
would just have to oppose the residential entirely and go for the green space.
Thank you.
Brenda Bagazinski, 11404 Ingram. I am not directly connected to the area that is being used,
however, I am speaking to represent all of the stay-at-home moms. We do
have a number of older residents, that was addressed, but we do also have a
large number of young families with young children and many stay at home
moms. This length of construction also would greatly affect us especially
with the connected park to the area as well as the park that is close by, Meis
Park on West Chicago. That is a high traffic area whether we are walking
18025
through the neighborhood to get to the park or using the park that is directly
connected to it, Klenert. Klenert Park is very much used for football, baseball
and T-ball throughout the year and when we are there, when we are watching
°r•• games or participating, we are going to be in that area of construction as well.
I see it as a safety issue as a mom of young children for this construction to be
going on for that large amount of time, having these basements dug, big holes
in the ground, structures that would be unsafe if it was to be so close to the
two parks for that length of time. Thank you.
Merrill Thomas, 31709 W. Chicago. We have been residents in Livonia since 1962 and at
one time we considered moving to another location in Livonia to have a little
more space in the home and when we looked, we spent a whole week of our
vacation looking for a new home and ended up staying where we are on the
south side of West Chicago building a new addition to the back of the home.
One of the things that I admired so much about the current Rosedale Gardens
area is that many people are adding large additions to their homes in lovely
style which is, I think, an addition to the neighborhood and to those families
who want to continue to live in Rosedale. One of the things that I looked at
when it was mentioned that the school district does have this area here and we
can build eight homes on it. I think this is a large concentration when you
look at the possibility of having a more unique home built there that might be
two stories, that might deal with different architects, in a more beautiful
nature and I think that if the fact that the school district does own this, that
this would be cost saving to the school district because they already own it. It
seems that the district could recoup this in the resale of this home once it is
`.. built and the cost of a new lot that they would pick from whence ever but I am
afraid of limiting to the architectures that have been described, not allowing a
full two story home to be built. We live in a two story home. We love it. We
are senior citizens, both retired and we continue to stay there and will stay
there. This is one of my concerns that I wanted to bring forth. Thank you.
Curt Martin, 9921 Hubbard. I think I agree pretty much with what has been said here. If this
gets rezoned R-1, we have no recourse on making the Livonia Public Schools
sell some property so we don't have eight years of construction. But if that is
the case, I think this needs to be rejected because I don't think any of us
should put up with eight years of construction. I do think that the homes
need to conform with what is existing now. That is all I have to say. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann: I am closing the Public Hearing. Is there any last comment by the school
system?
Mr. Watson: No.
Mr. Shane: Before we do that, I would like to ask Mr. Watson a question. Mr. Watson, is
there something about the process we are going through here that causes you
to want to rezone this property one year ahead of time or something that
needs to be accomplished because of it?
18026
Mr. Watson: First of all, I am not a developer. This is my first opportunity to go through
this type of process. I deal with the School Board and we have our own
Board meetings and I know that kind of process. I need to provide a space for
`► the students that will be in the program next year to have a place to build a
home. Many of these students are coming up through a program called
"Building Trades". They are looking forward to building a house. They
become very proud of what they build. As the school year draws to a close,
we always have an open house and the kids bring their parents and other
people to see what they built and they go through it and they point out to their
parents the things that they did. There are a lot of issues regarding starting
something from the ground up and completing it and having some pride in
what they do. The District has an obligation to these students that are in the
class that comes just before the home construction course in the building
trades class and those students that are looking forward to building a new
home. The only issue I have regarding time is to make sure that next year
when these students come up to build a home, they have a place to work.
Again, not being real familiar with the length of time that this takes, I always
feel getting started early is a benefit rather than having to push and wait at the
end.
Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, having taken into consideration the comments I have heard, I
am not sure we need to be moving as fast as we seem to be. For that reason,
because of the issues involved, I would like to see this petition tabled, at least
time enough to allow all the parties involved to get together and discuss some
of the issues.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine and approved, it was
#10-177-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
3, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-08-01-15
requesting to rezone Lots 1137 to 1146, inclusive, and Lots 1167 to 1176,
inclusive, including Rosedale Gardens No. 4 Subdivision, including the east
half of the adjacent vacated Hubbard Road, located in the N.E. 1/4 of Section
34 on the west side of Cranston Avenue between Orangelawn Avenue and
West Chicago Road from PL to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2000-08-01-15 be tabled to October 17, 2000.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, if I may say, I don't think even that is enough time. I think we
are cutting it too close. If this petition wasn't reheard until the first of
January, it still could be done and taken care of by the spring of next year.
Mr. McCann: We have an issue regarding getting it within 60 days to the City Council so I
don't think we have a choice.
Mr. LaPine: Well then let's give them the whole 60 days.
Mr. McCann: Do you know when it was filed, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: It was filed the first week of August.
18027
Mr. McCann: We are at the 60 days. We have to move on it at the next meeting. I don't
think we have a choice. The only available meeting we could table it to, if it
`'�► is felt that it has to be tabled, would be to October 17, 2000.
Mr. Shane: That is fine. At least it gives them a little more time.
Mr. McCann: Will the Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Shane, LaPine, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
To the audience, it has been adjourned. We will be meeting again on this on October 17,
2000. As this will be a pending item at that time, there will only be limited discussion.
Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission on that evening.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-08-02-29 PRS Contracting, Inc.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-08-02-29
't.. by PRS Contracting, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited
service restaurant at the Livonia-5 Shopping Plaza on property located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Sunbury and Harrison Avenues in the
N.W. 1/4 of Section 24.
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 four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 6, 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. The following legal description should be used in connection with
this petition: 'That part of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 24, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of
Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, described as beginning at a point distant
North 89°52'10" West along the North line of Section 24, 318.45 feet and
South 00°20'10"East, 110.00 feet from the North 1/4 corner of Section 24
and proceeding thence South 89°52'10"East, 20.00 feet; thence South 00°
20'10"East, 50.00 feet; thence North 89°52'10" West, 40.00 feet; thence
North 00°20'10" West, 16.00 feet; thence South 89°52'10"East, 20.00 feet;
�.. thence North 00°20'10" West, 34.00 feet to the point of beginning.' We trust
that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter is
18028
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the
Division of Police, dated September 14, 2000, and reads as follows: "We
have reviewed the proposed site plan. It is our understanding that the
parking lot will be resurfaced and re-striped as indicated on the site plan.
The site plan currently indicates only two handicap parking spaces. City of
Livonia Ordinance requires three handicap spaces. All handicap parking
spaces must be located as near as possible to the entrances of the buildings
which they are intended for and each must be accompanied by its own sign;
no sharing of signs of adjacent spaces. The Traffic Bureau has no other
concerns regarding this site plan." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated September 15, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
August 25, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted: The Barrier Free restrooms are improperly sized, as
depicted, and may affect the floor plan once corrected. 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 fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated September 20,
2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to renovate space for a restaurant 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. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
New
Ilio Alessandri, 120 E. Sunnybrook, Royal Oak, Michigan, architect representing PRS
contracting. Again we hope to occupy approximately 1900 sq. ft. within the
Livonia-5 Shopping Plaza. One side would be a coney island restaurant,
limited to 30 seats, and the balance would be an ice cream parlor. As I
mentioned in my letter, the objection was the existing barrier free toilets.
They are accessible but they are accessible under the old code. In my
conversation with the Plan Reviewer, he suggested that if we moved the 'lay'
to the opposite wall, we could probably conform. At the time I didn't know
whether we could or not but looking at the plan and moving the 'lay'to the
other side, we would have no problem conforming. The issue was that there
was not enough room adjacent to the water closet for the wheel chair to back
up into it. If we move the 'lay'to the other side, we would have enough room
for the wheelchair to back up against the water closet as well as making a five
foot turn. I see no problems conforming to all of the barrier free
requirements. As far as the parking is concerned, I understand that the owner
of the plaza will be striping it and I believe that they are to provide three
spaces. I think in that respect also that the building will comply.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: I am pleased that you can comply on the barrier free but according to the
letter that was just read there has to be three. I understand currently that you
are projecting two.
a
18029
Mr. Alessandri: Spaces?
Nr.. Mr. Alanskas: Handicap.
Mr. Alessandri: I understand, when it is restriped, it will provide three spaces. This will be
done by the owners of the plaza. I understand that they have a permit to pave
and restripe the parking lot.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nowak can you address that?
Mr. Nowak: As a condition for the remodeling the front of the building, one of the
conditions imposed by Council was that the entire parking lot be repaired and
restriped, in accordance with all requirements including handicap spaces.
Mr. McCann: I see the owner is here. Does he want to come forward?
Ryan Kattoo, 29201 Telegraph, Suite 450, Southfield, Michigan 40834. I just wanted to
address that I am not the owner. I am the property manager and to get
approval on the renovation, we had to reseal and double stripe the parking lot.
We have three to four parking spots allocated for the new parking lot layout,
which has already been approved by the City. I believe Mr. Taormina has a
copy of that. If he needs that, I can provide him with another one, showing
that handicap parking will be provided for the site. It is scheduled to be put
in. We delayed it because we didn't want to do it during construction. There
is no reason to rip up the parking lot as construction was continuing along the
site.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: You said that you wanted to move the bathrooms on the side of the restaurant.
Where would you put them?
Mr. Alessandri: No. We are moving one of the sinks to the opposite wall.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the size of the bathroom? We don't have any size here.
Mr. Alessandi: They are about five feet. They really comply with the old requirements for
barrier free.
Mr. Alanskas: How about if someone wants to come in there with a wheelchair?
Mr. Alessandi: Yes. That is what it is about. With moving the sink to the opposite wall,
would allow someone to come into the space. There is enough turning, the 60
inches available for turning the wheelchair but there is also enough space to
move the wheelchair back against wall adjacent to the water closet so that the
user can transfer easily to the water closet.
Mr. LaPine: Is the operator of the restaurant here?
18030
Jacob Sobray, 18234 Middlebelt Road, Livonia, Michigan.
�- Mr. LaPine: Do you have a restaurant now or is this your first time in operation?
Mr. Sobray: In my 79 years, I have had several restaurants.
Mr. LaPine: What are you going to serve here, hot dogs, hamburgers, french fries? Can
you give me an idea of what type of food you will be serving?
Mr. Sobray; That would be the start of it and then we would also add to it as we see what
the public would want. The primary menu would be various types of coney
island hot dogs, soups, salads and desserts.
Mr. LaPine: The seating capacity here is only 30. You can operate here successfully with
only 30 seats?
Mr. Sobray: We are hoping with the number of hours from 6:30 a.m. to about 9:30 p.m.
Mr. LaPine: Can people get food in the restaurant and walk over to the ice cream parlor
and sit over there and eat?
Mr. Sobray: No.
Mr. LaPine: That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas: At our last meeting we had a restaurant, a coney island, that was 30 seats and
they found that they could not survive with only 30 seats. They wanted more.
With the size of the building you have there, you couldn't have more than 30
seats. I just want you to be on record that 30 seats is all that you are going to
have there. You wouldn't be able to come back and say that you want more
seats because you don't have the space there.
Mr. Sobray: We are looking towards the turnover and knowing what the turnover is,
usually there is a turnover of three or four tables in an hour. So that could be
increasing the volume.
Mr. Alanskas: Are you also going to serve breakfast?
Mr. Sobray: Breakfast will be the main feature.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
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 wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing that there is nobody wishing to speak, I am going to
close the Public Hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved it was
18031
#10-178-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
3, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-08-02-29 by PRS
`.- Contracting, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service
restaurant at the Livonia-5 Shopping Plaza on property located on the south
side of Five Mile Road between Sunbury and Harrison Avenues in the N.W.
1/4 of Section 24, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2000-08-02-29 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the proposed restaurant shall be limited to no more than 30 customer
seats;
2) That the restrooms in the proposed restaurant shall comply with Michigan
Barrier Free size requirements; and
3) That Michigan Barrier Free requirements shall be complied with in regard
to number, location and size of handicapped parking spaces provided on
the site and each handicapped space shall be accompanied by its own
identification sign.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complied with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 10.03and 19.06 of
4110• the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-09-PL-01 Preliminary Plat approval of Wooded
Creek Subdivision
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-09-PL-01
Preliminary Plat approval of Wooded Creek Subdivision proposed to be
located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Savoie and Harrison in
the N.W. 1/4 of Section 13.
18032
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 two items of correspondence. The first one is from the Division of
Police, dated September 18, 2000, and reads as follows: "We have reviewed
the preliminary plat for the Wooded Creek Subdivision and have no objection
to the preliminary plat as submitted. A stop sign will be required for the new
street where it intersects with Savoie Street." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is from the Engineering
Division, dated September 19, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced plat.
The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal. The proposed
subdivision property has existing public utilities in place for connecting to.
We would like to point out that the developer will be required to identify and
stake out any existing floodplain and wetlands areas prior to beginning
construction, and will be required to leave these areas 'as is'. We trust that
this will provide you with the information requested" The letter is signed by
David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. We have two letters from interested
citizens. One is a letter from William Craig, 20050 Milburn, Livonia. The
letter is dated September 29, 2000, and reads as follows: "The Wooded Creek
Subdivision preliminary plat will be coming before you for approval. I would
like to bring to your attention some observations I have made at the site.
Four of the proposed sites; numbers 3,4,5, and 6 clearly have property that is
floodplain. Site number 7 may have property that is flood plain. I believe any
work that may impact the floodplain would require a permit from MDEQ.
Should a permit be applied for, I will exercise my right to comment on that
permit. I would not be in favor of any impact to the floodplain. I have also
observed some condition that may indicate possible wetlands on the property.
I believe any work that would impact wetlands would require a permit form
MDEQ. Again, should a permit be applied for, I would make opposing
comments for granting that permit. I also observed a great deal of man-made
debris at the back of the property. There was a large amount of broken
concrete,pieces of farm equipment and other building materials. There were
several rusting drums, various fuel tanks and fuel oil tanks. Those drums and
tanks were reported to MDEQ-ERD for inspection, since there may be
unknown products in these containers. I have a concern that these containers
and their contents may end up in the Bell Creek or its floodplain. Would you
ask the owner to explain what will happen to all this man-made debris?
Hopefully, it can be removed and properly disposed of I hope no approving
recommendation is given without first having the owner securing the proper
MDEQ permits. Development of this property should be as environmentally
sensitive as possible. I would like to commend the developer for not rezoning
this RUF property. There will be less loss of open space, hopefully less loss
of trees, a lesser amount of impervious surfaces, less polluted runoff, and
minimized impact on water quality by keeping the RUF zoning. Keeping RUF
also means less negative impact to a premium neighborhood and the
neighbors that value it." The second letter is from Mr. and Mrs. Harry W.
18033
Bushway, 29127 Grove, Livonia, dated October 3, 2000, and reads as
follows: "We are concerned that the proposed new home construction off
Savoie will negatively impact our country like setting, natural drain system,
`"�► resale value, damage to access roads and current tax structure. We are
opposed to the pending construction for the following reasons: The new
construction of homes so close to the ravine and the loss of trees will disturb
the natural water drain off. Several new home sites will have property which
includes a portion of land on both sides of the ravine. As new homeowners
attempt to landscape the issue of possible flooding to the area becomes a
threat. The area is currently a flood risk zone. The access roads to the
proposed new building are Savoie and Grove. These streets were recently
changed from gravel and dirt with ditches to black top and a sewer system.
This was done at great expense to the homeowners and caused conflict among
the neighbors. During the construction many heavy trucks will travel up and
down the roads causing deterioration with possible needed repairs. The
builder should be responsible for future road repairs and construction traffic
should be limited to Savoie as the building site is off Savoie. This would
prevent traffic problems and road deterioration to both Savoie and Grove. We
are also aware of the style and value of homes to be constructed. We have
concerns that these homes will devalue the existing homes. This has been an
issue in many areas recently. Many existing homes are older and the resale
appeal has been the country like setting which will change with the
construction. if the builder is allowed to build on a site that is not a 1/2 acre
site as zoned it wills et a president to allow future smaller plot sites. The
current tax structure is RUF. With the construction of homes of greater value
than was currently exists and the possibility of smaller lot sites the RUE tax
system would change. This would cause an increase in taxes and a hardship
to many homeowners." That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, engineer and design consultant for this subdivision for
Mr. Soave. The one letter I just heard regarding the garbage etc., or whatever
it was, that is not true. In fact today, I personally went over there. I
interviewed my field crews and in the process of preparing the topography of
this property, we walked every foot of that land and there are no such things
as any concrete, any drums, and no debris, none of these things. Over to the
west, there are a couple of lots that face a different street and some of the land
dips across the finger of the Bell Creek. At that point, that would be to the
west of what we are developing, I have seen some broken concrete and a few
items. Perhaps it is a contractor that owns that. I am sure your Ordinance
Department, at one time, must have spoken to that person. I can assure you
that this piece of property has no debris whatsoever with the exception of the
existing houses, the entire parcel of land is virgin property. No other
buildings and no other structures have ever been on this property. As far as
comments regarding the floodplain and wetlands, the floodplain we indicated
and is shown on this plan. We are fully aware that when we subdivide this,
the Department of Natural Resources will insist that we show by virtue of
restrictions on the subdivision identifying that land and indicating that at no
18034
time can any structure be the first floor. It has to be one foot above the free
board of the 100 year floodplain. The indication on this drawing will show
you that we have adequate footprint for all of these homes and we will not
encroach in the floodplain one iota. Certainly, because of the extreme bank at
that point, there are no wetlands on this property. Other than that, I am open
for any questions.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: What will happen to the existing house on lot 1 and the house where the
proposed road will come in?
Mr. Roskelly: Where the proposed road comes in the adjoining existing home would then
become the corner lot. Is what you are referring to?
Mr. Shane: It looks from the drawing as if when you construct the road, there is an
existing house where the road will be constructed. That is what the drawing
says.
Mr. Roskelly: If you are looking close at that excepted parcel, it says "east 290 feet",just
directly north of the proposed road.
Mr. McCann: Right underneath the proposed road is a house.
Mr. Roskelly: Oh, that one is coming down.
Mr. McCann: That is what he asked.
Mr. Roskelly: I thought you were speaking immediately to the north is a home that presently
has, if you see the fence line on that one, it is about 14 feet from the property
line. By us creating this road, the proprietor, Mr. Soave, will dedicate to this
person another 14 feet, 12 feet or 15 feet, whatever it takes to give him a
minimum of 25 feet per your ordinance for a side yard abutting a road. That
land would be given to that owner in fee title. The only thing might be that
perhaps we might keep an easement but he will own that land so as to not be
conflicting with the existing ordinance of a side yard.
Mr. Shane: The short answer is that the house will come down?
Mr. Roskelly: In answer to your question, the house is gone out of there.
Mr. Shane: The house on number 1, is there an existing house on number 1 that you are
creating?
Mr. Taormina: That is actually an outbuilding.
Mr. Roskelly: An outbuilding?
Mr. Taormina: It is mislabeled on the plan.
18035
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Wendy Georgas, 28165 Six Mile Road. I have some pictures.
Mr. McCann: Before the pictures are passed around, Mr. Roskelly would you take a look at
the pictures to see if that is what you are referring?
Ms. Georgas: I had the opportunity to walk this wooded area quite a few times with my dog.
It is a great place. At this time, it is almost impassable. I have many
concerns regarding the floodplain. On the FEMA map that I have here, there
is almost like an abutment coming out on lot 9 and lot 8 and it comes out
further and that encroaches almost to the middle of those two lots. I happen
to take a walk out there during the last big rainstorm. We have a new river
coming through. There was an old road many years ago that has now become
a natural a runoff stream, like a runoff stream from those properties. Mr.
Roskelly has had an opportunity to look at these pictures. May I pass them
through now?
Mr. McCann: Please. We would like to look at them.
Ms. Georgas: There is also a couple showing you the latest runoff. The first one starts with
a small concrete pile. There are tractor implements. There are old oil drums.
There are fuel tanks. There are lighting, fencing, etc., you name it has been
dumped there. According to the MDEQ, if it is considered an ancient dump,
it cannot be touched. It will have to stay there because once you start moving
you are going to end up with more environmental problems back there. The
wetlands are taking that property over again. I have some photographs from
1985, 1990 and 1995 of the area. They encroached back. It used to be an old
apple orchard years ago but there is horsetail,jill weed and all plants
indigence to wetlands and it doesn't stay within that floodplain area. They are
much higher up. Once we start getting rid of these and they start getting
cleared out, that is going to take away the natural process of purifying the
water, slowing the water down so the people down river do not get flooded
out. I think the responsibility should start up river. If you put a subdivision
in of 12 homes, you are looking at 12 sodded lots. Everyone is going to have
a sprinkler system and that runoff is just going to impact that wetlands area
and the flood area tremendously. That is my concern. I don't think any work
should be done. If this is approved, which it is your discretion to approve
this, unless the MDEQ issues a permit. It is a very sensitive area. To be
honest with you, I don't want to see any work done until that permit is issued
because there could be a possibility of clear cutting. I have seen it done
before and it is not nice. We are going to lose the trees. We are going to lose
the animals, which a lot of people say, "O.K. fine." But most importantly we
are going to lose the wetlands back there. Livonia cannot afford to keep
losing wetlands. It prevents flooding. Other than that, I do commend the
developer for the RUF instead of going with another zoning. Also, a few of
Nifty
the lots do not meet the 22,000 sq. ft. for half acre. Sure, a couple of them are
18036
only a couple hundred square feet short but that does set a precedent as well.
The next guy will come in and say, "Well, mine is only 500 square feet short."
The subdivision, if we can keep it down to a few homes and stay off those
``or wetlands and prevent any more damage that has already been done over the
years, great. It would be good for the City and it is going to be good for the
neighborhood.
Mrs. Koons: I don't know if you carry an expertise in wetlands but ...
Ms. Georgas: No, I do not. I am not an expert.
Mrs. Koons: I have a couple of questions and if you can't answer them, we'll have to talk to
MDEQ. What would qualify a dump as an ancient dump?
Ms. Georgas: An ancient dump? What the MDEQ qualifies as an ancient dump is
especially with oil barrels and fuel tanks sitting back there. If they have been
sitting back there, and they will determine whether it is an ancient dump or
not, and they are rusting out but they haven't broken open. If you go in and
touch those and start to move them, and whatever is in them, is going to spill
all over.
Mrs. Koons: It is not a time period then, it is an evaluation.
Ms. Georgas: It is an evaluation whether it is or is not an ancient dump and they will
determine whether it is or not. There is an awful lot of debris back there.
Mrs. Koons: You have made the assumption, diagnosis or whatever, that because there are
plants indigence to a wetland, that you would consider this area a wetland?
Ms. Georgas: I think we should seriously have someone take a look at it and determine
whether or not it is a wetland. It is something I would be more than willing to
do.
Mrs. Koons: Plants that are indigenous to a wetland, would they indeed be coming up
toward Six Mile if they were indigenous plants and spread by ....
Ms. Georgas: Only if you come and look at my koi pond. But no. On my side of the
ravine, they come up, the indigenous plants per se', according to the wetlands
here, right up to the top of the floodplain. It is on the other side of the ravine.
When I was over in the other area trying to figure out how far they could go.
I couldn't figure it out. I know I was on level land and I hadn't started going
down into the floodplain area. The only thing you can follow is the surveyor
tracks right now. It is just so overgrown.
Mrs. Koons: Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Just for clarification, a half acre lot is 21,780 sq. ft. and the smallest lot in this
subdivision would be 21,786 sq. ft. So there is nothing smaller than a half
acre lot being proposed. There are some sizes 35,191 sq. ft.
18037
Ms. Georgas: What is a half acre considered, how many square feet?
Mr. Alanskas: 21,780 square feet.
Ms. Georgas: I apologize then. I have more than a half acre myself. Thank you.
Richard Seaman, 16702 Savoie. I am the lot just north of Parcel A on the map. I have been
in Livonia since 1952 at the same address. The house was built there. I had a
choice of building behind my tree, which is about 100 feet from the road
which would have put me, the house that is currently on Parcel A is
approximately 300 feet from the road. I put my house in front of the tree that
is on my property so it is 50 feet from the road rather than be behind it to keep
the country setting. That way I wouldn't be right on top of the house. I can
see from these parcels, Parcel A and Parcel B, I believe are going to be 88
feet wide. The requirement is only 10 feet from the line. However, that
would only put the house on Parcel A only 25 feet from my house. I built my
house 15 feet from the line, not ever thinking that someone would buy this
property and that house would be torn down and one would be built right next
to me. I don't know what can be done to make sure that house is farther from
the property line than 10 feet because that puts it right on top of my house.
Also, since I am a little bit lower than the land goes down from the crest on
Grove there and it goes down toward Savoie and Six Mile, I was wondering if
they do put a home on Parcel A, the runoff, I would want to make sure that
would not run onto my property and into my house. Also, as was stated by
',Nov the lady before that she walked that area, I would want to make sure that each
of these other nine parcels have at least a half acre of usable land. You can
have a half acre but it can be down in the ravine and it would not be very
usable and that would not be in keeping within the setting of having a half
acre of usable land. Also, speaking of the roads, from the letter that you
received from the Bushways, sure the surface damage would be repaired by
the builder, if any would occur, however, what would happen to the base?
The road it suppose to last 25 to 30 years. Driving heavy cement trucks over
it to build 12 houses plus to tear down the four houses they plan on tearing
down, what is that going to do to the base and deteriorate the road? When
what we went through with the construction of the road, it was assessed by
frontage foot on Savoie and Grove. Of these twelve homes three homes
would be on Savoie and nine homes would be using the road but if something
happens and there has to be repairs on these roads, according to current
ordinances, they won't have to pay anything. I think that something should be
done that the builder put something in escrow to help defray the costs of any
future base repair that needs to be made during the deterioration of this road
during construction and the removal of the homes. I would like to commend
the builder though for not going less than half acre lots or you would probably
have a lot more people here. Thank you very much.
Danny Winegarden, property owner of 29181 Grove which is adjacent to this property.
Fortunately for you people, the City doesn't mail out any notices to anything
over 500 feet from the designated property tonight so there is only about 10
18038
people that got the notice. I heard about this last night about 11 o'clock. I
don't know why the City can't let the whole neighborhood know. I fought the
paving on Savoie and Grove for about five or six years and even when the
Council approved it, there was about 78% against the paving but they paved it
anyway. I knew this would happen, that we would get some development
down there. The previous speaker covered some of the topics I was going to
about the road. Our property cost us about $11,500 to pave our property. My
neighbor had to pay for two parcels about $16,000. So everything is all paved
for the builder here to come in. I don't know if you are aware but a concrete
truck will weigh 72,000 pounds. To build nine houses you are going to have
probably 14 loads for each house. You are going to have dozers being loaded
in and backhoes. All your earth moving equipment and I don't if he is going
to have it paved or black topped, so if it is concrete, you can add those trucks
to that figure. The road is only an asphalt road. The City told us if there was
any paving in the future, it would be up to the residents that face the street.
Now this subdivision is going to get a free ride on anything. I was an
industrial commercial builder for 32 years in Livonia. I just built factories
mostly. When we built a factory we had to put up a road bond for a year but
the problems don't show up though after a year. You can look at your major
highways. They look beautiful for a year but after the third year doing the
heavy pounding on them, they don't look so good. If you take all these trucks
and put them on these asphalt roads, you are going to have trouble. Maybe
not this year but that road is not going to last the way it is suppose to and they
won't have a nickel invested in that thing. My daughter got some petitions
signed here. Unfortunately, she didn't have time to get them copied because
`r•- we didn't know about the meeting. If I could leave them and get them back.
Mr. McCann: You can leave them and we will get them copied and return them.
Mr. Winegarden: Livonia is comprised of about four different people. You've got apartment
people, you've got condo people, you've got subdivision people and you've
got the rural urban type people which that whole neighborhood is. Here you
are going to build carbon copy, probably big foot houses. I am not sure what
they look like but they are going to be carbon copy, same color of brick, same
color of roof. You can drive up Grove or Savoie nothing is the same. It is a
nice type of early American neighborhood to me. That is what those people
wanted up there. Now we are going to get subdivisioned to death. If he
keeps all the requirements on the half acre lot, there is nothing we can do
about it, but let him get one foot inside that property and we'll fight like the
devil, believe me. We'll be watching everything we can do and unfortunately,
Mr. Soave gets his way with everything in Livonia, as you know,just from
watching the Council meetings. Thank you.
Jim Horner, 16624 Savoie. I am right in the middle of everything here. My purpose here
tonight is I definitely don't want to stand in the way of something I think
would be beneficial to Livonia. But I do have concerns that I want to bring
out. I have met with Mr. Soave and he seems to be a man of his word and I
hope he doesn't prove me wrong. Concerns that I have are the privacy that is
going to take place as far as this road goes. We are going to increase the
18039
traffic volumes there and if you figure there is going to be nine homes in this
location with two cars per family, I am going to need some sort of a privacy
fence or privacy hedge along that road. Also, I was interested in the time of
this project. Are we going to have vacant lots for how long? Is this project
going to go on and on and on? The radius of this cul-de-sac, the island back
there, what is the size of that?
Mr. Taormina: Would he like the length of the cul-de-sac?
Mr. Warner: Yes. I would like to know the turn around size, the radius.
Mr. McCann: Do you have that on the top of your head, Mr. Roskelly?
Mr. Roskelly: 60 feet.
Mr. Warner: The prices of the homes I understand are going to be between$300,000 to
$500,000. I am not for sure but that was what I was told. Like I said, I don't
want to stand in the way of progress but we are in here tonight just to vent and
express concerns. We trust in the Council to make sure that it is for the best
for the people involved in it and not for one or two individuals. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I am going to close the Public Hearing.
Is there a last comment by the petitioner?
Mr. Roskelly: I want to comment on a couple of items. Number one, for the lady who
``- indicated what looked like an oil tank and maybe a couple of barrels that were
somewhere near the stream or the finger of the Bell Creek. We certainly
didn't locate those. I am not saying they are not there. It is not an issue as far
as I am concerned. As far as she indicated, there are wetlands along with the
floodplain. I still continue to indicate to you that there would be no wetlands,
but certainly we are all aware of the fact that this entire project has to be sent
to DEQ for their critique of wetlands, sewers, water lines and everything else.
So certainly you will all be convinced and I hope I have that there is not a
situation, every lot is a half acre, for the lady who indicated they weren't.
They are all adequate lots. We will have adequate side yards. The one
gentleman, unfortunately, per your ordinance, Mr. Soave could build a house
10 feet from his property line which would give this gentleman 25 feet, yes.
Perhaps he may not but he certainly could by virtue of the ordinance. But
certainly Mr. Soave and myself are aware of the fact that we are trying to
create the most desirable sites possible and just recently,just across the creek,
I had the subdivision of Camborne Pines and certainly nobody in this room
can indicate that that is a bad subdivision or in any way hindered or impaired
the values of any home in the City of Livonia. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was
18040
#10-179-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October
3, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-09-PL-01
Preliminary Plat approval for Wooded Creek Subdivision proposed to be
�.. located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Savoie and Harrison in
the N.W. of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Wooded Creek
Subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That a landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval prior to final plat approval which shall provide for landscaping
for the cul-de-sac island area; and
2) That a plan for the required entrance marker shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval prior to approval of the final plat.
For the following reasons:
1) That the preliminary plat is drawn in compliance with all applicable
standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 and
the Subdivision Rules and Regulations; and
2) That the preliminary plat represents a good land use solution to
development of the subject land.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the
Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police
Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion. Hearing none, I have just a couple of comments to
the audience. One, I want you to understand that we are concerned about the
environment issues but you have to also understand that we have to review
these petitions as they are brought before us. In this instance this land is
zoned RUF. The petition before us meets all City Ordinances. An owner who
pays property taxes has a right to develop their land in accordance with the
City standards. In this case, he has met every one of them. Part of the
obligation he is going to have to face is to make sure that the water is drained
properly and that he doesn't back drain on other properties. That he is going
to go to the DEQ and they are going to review it for any wetlands. He will
not be able to build into the floodplain. He will have to meet all these
standards. Mr. Soave has been before us and where we have requested he
looked at certain things like building too close to another home. He has
worked with us before and we have never had a problem and I think that is
something that should be talked over with him. But when we have a project
like this that meets all the City Ordinances within a certain area, we really
have no choice. He is entitled to build on it and we love to see half acres. We
18041
rarely see any more half acre subdivisions coming. Hopefully we'll see more
of this type but there is not much land left.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the Public Hearing portion of our agenda. We will now
proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of our agenda. Members of
the audience may speak in support or opposition to these items.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-08-08-11 CVS Pharmacy
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-08-08-11
CVS Pharmacy by Mark Miller requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a retail building on property located at 39500 Five Mile Road in the
S.E. 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Miller: I will make a brief presentation and then turn it over to the petitioner to make
his presentation. This site is located on the north side of Five Mile Road
between Middlebelt Road and Hidden Lane. The petitioner is requesting
approval to construct a CVS Pharmacy Store on property that sits just west of
the Five Mile/Middlebelt Road intersection and is located between a Thrifty
Flower Shop and a Co-Op Credit Union. The two-story office building
presently sits on the site which was once occupied by the Ford Total Cost
Management Group. CVS currently occupies a retail unit in the Mid-Five
Shopping Center, which is located across the street on the south side of Five
Mile Road. To make room for the new building, the petitioner is planning on
demolishing the existing structure. This proposal is very similar to a request
by Arbor Drugs that was denied by the Planning Commission at their June 23,
1998, Regular Meeting. The Planning Commission felt at that time that the
general area was already adequately serviced by this type of use and the
proposed common drives between this site and the adjacent properties to the
east conflicted with the established vehicle and pedestrian traffic of the area.
In a letter dated June 24, 1998, the petitioner appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council. At their meeting of September 23,
1998, the City Council, upon hearing the request, sent the item to the
Committee of the Whole. On May 14, 1999, the petitioner withdrew their
request for Site Plan Approval. The petitioner is requesting to construct a
10,880 sq. ft. retail building. As with the previous plans from Arbor Drugs,
access to the site would be achieved by a single drive off Five Mile Road or
by two connecting driveways off the McDonald's property to the east. For
this plan to work, part of the McDonald's parking lot would have to be
reconfigured. The parking spaces along the north parking would be relocated
within the CVS site, along its east property line, and would be accessible from
the restaurant's drive-thru lane.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
'Nr
18042
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first one is from the Division of
Police, dated September 18, 2000, and reads as follows: "We have reviewed
the site plan for the above listed petition. There currently is a McDonald's
sign and a payphone located on the west side of the common driveway for
McDonalds and the florist. Because of the expected increase of traffic using
this common driveway, the telephone and sign will need to be removed from
this driveway. A stop sign will need to be installed at this driveway for
exiting vehicles. Please remind the petitioner that each handicap space must
be individually posted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue, dated
September 20, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a retail store 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 third letter is from the Engineering Division, dated September 25, 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 David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated September 27, 2000, and reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of September 5, 2000, the above referenced
Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Easements are
mentioned that are "to be obtained". These should be clarified (2) As
depicted, the Barrier Free Parking is incorrect and must be the closest to
�i► the entrance. (3) The parking striping is not denoted as double striped and
should be clarified (4) As proposed, this Petition will need many variances
for signage from the Zoning Board of Appeals. (a) Excess square footage
on monument signage. They are allowed 30 square feet,proposed is 32
square feet. (b) Excess square footage wall sign. They are allowed 85
square feet,proposed is 134 square feet. (c) Excessive number of wall
signs. Allowed is one,proposed are nine. (d) Excessive ground signs with
advertising. The petitioner needs to clarify as to exactly what directional
Signage is proposed, especially on the Middlebelt entrance. (5) The
relocated McDonald's dumpster enclosure may work better with the entry
angled more to the north to facilitate the servicing vehicle. Other than as
noted above, this Department has no further objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The fourth letter
is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue Division, dated September 20, 2000, and
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a retail store 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. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Joseph Galvin, 150 W. Jefferson, Suite 2500, Detroit, Michigan. I am here tonight with Dana
Rosenthal, Mark Miller and Dr. Tappan Data. Dana is the architect, Mark is
18043
the Real Estate Director for CVS Pharmacy and Dr. Data is a Traffic
Engineer. We are here tonight asking for you to approve all of the plans
which are required for us to construct, in accordance with this site plan. We
�`■' ask you to do that and we respectfully request that the signage issues be dealt
with at a later time because we believe they are material and substantial
benefits to the City of Livonia from this construction and because we meet,
and far exceed as a matter of fact, all of the ordinance requirements under the
City's zoning ordinance for site plan approval, substantial and material
benefits to the City. To orient the Commissioners, the property we are
talking about is outlined in red, Five Mile, Middlebelt. McDonald's restaurant
is located here. There is an office building which is obsolete and which, as
you can see from the photograph is, except for the lawn and the shrubs in the
front, an unremitting sea of asphalt. Those are ground level photographs to
orient you. The first is taken at the front of the building, the second at the
side, the third shows the rear of the building and the fourth is an angle shot
across the parking lot. You would be able to pick up the same recreational
vehicle that is shown here on the aerial photograph. What we propose to do
will immediately organize the uses of the quadrant of the intersection. It will
organize them both physically and from a traffic standpoint. One of the most
immediate impacts is with respect to the McDonald's parcel. Currently the
McDonald's site, as you can see, almost abuts the property line with the parcel
that our site plan encompasses. We are in effect increasing the size of the
McDonald's parcel sufficiently for McDonald's to pick up an additional 12
parking spaces. This will put the McDonald's parcel into conformity with the
City's current ordinances with respect to parking spaces. They currently have
'�... 40. They are required to have 50. They will have 52. In addition, and I think
it is easier to see from the photograph, by adding this area to the McDonald's
parcel we are in effect creating a workable site for that land use. The addition
of our building does a couple of things. First, physically you are taking and
you are razing the building that you just looked at, replacing it with a modern,
physically attractive building. The project will immediately improve both the
McDonald's parcel and this parcel. The door is there. I almost forgot. The
door I am talking about is on the McDonald's restaurant side. In fact, there
are two doors on that side. The one that is to the north is currently open. I
think the one to the south closed. The point being that these new spaces will
be accessible and the traffic circulation on the McDonald's site will be
improved. The real reasons that this should be done are best illustrated by the
photo. This is a land use pattern which just grew. Flower shop is there,
which is converted gas station center. McDonald's is there on a site which is
not sufficient for it physically. An antiquated office building is there and a
sea of cracking asphalt. We are proposing to bear the cost of correcting those
issues. These are substantial benefits, we believe, to the City. We have taken
great pains to organize our site to integrate it with what is already there so that
when we are through with our development we will have done something
which benefits us but benefits all of you. Because we propose to do these
things and because our proposal does meet the ordinances of the City, we
respectfully request that you recommend favorably to the City Council the
approval of this site plan. In listening to the comments in the letters, we are
18044
able, as I know the Commissioners know, to meet each of them with relative
simple changes.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: The spaces that McDonald's is going to pick up, are you selling them the land
or giving them the land, or what?
Mr. Galvin: We are granting to them an easement to use them. In practical effect, we are
giving to them the spaces.
Mr. Alanskas: The existing drug store across the street is how many square feet?
Mr. Galvin: It is 12,000 sq. ft. and this one is 10,880 sq. ft. This one is a little bit smaller
actually.
Mr. Alanskas: Why do you want to go from a 12,000 sq. ft. building to a smaller building?
Mr. Galvin: The key issue is not the particular size of the building, but the fact that this is
a free standing building and it is not located as is the current one across the
street in a relatively less visible location. I am not going to say invisible, but
it is close. It is the location and the freestanding nature of the site.
Mr. Alanskas: If you have a larger building, can't you put more product into the building
itself?
4..
Mr. Galvin: As a theoretical matter, maybe. I don't know how the two lay out to be
honest, but that is not the issue. The issue is to make a competitive modern
structure, from our point of view.
Mr. Alanskas: You say that the traffic, I am sure that will be addressed by this gentleman
here. I would like to read to you what I think it is very important is traffic
circulation to be considered with the review of this petition: "(1) The
proposed entrance drive on Five Mile would offset the existing driveway to
the shopping center located on the south side of Five Mile, causing potential
left-hand turning conflicts between the two uses. (2) Some confusion may be
caused by the proposed driveway connections between the CVS/pharmacy
and the McDonald's. (3) The proposed connecting drive in the northeast
corner of the site would not prevent two-way circulation. As a result, traffic
generated by the proposed CVS/pharmacy would increase the number of
turning movements onto Middlebelt Road from the McDonald's site. (4)
According to trip generation rates provided by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 6' Edition, the proposed 10,880
sq.ft. retail Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive-Through Window would
generate substantially more traffic than a 20,000 sq.ft. general office use
during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic." Also, I am also concerned
that people on Middlebelt and Five Mile, they may want to cut through. That
`„ to me could be a big issue.
18045
Mr. Galvin: Do you wish to deal with those issues? We could bring Dr. Data up.
Mr. Alanskas: Sure.
Nifty
Mr. Galvin: Wish the permission of the Chair, if we may,just to deal with the aerial
photographs.
Mr. Alanskas: I've got a copy of the aerial right here.
Mr. Galvin: I think that the aerial shows that we are not offsetting, to start with the drive.
But beyond that, Dr. Data, you have looked at the issues and if Mr. Alanskas,
if you could help us by going back to the start of your laundry list, we will go
item by item.
Mr. McCann: We are losing control of the meeting.
Mr. Galvin: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I apologize.
Mr. McCann: Dr. Data, the issue before us is the traffic pattern with regard to the ability to
re-enter through McDonald's and enter Middlebelt Road.
Dr. Tappan Data: Can I preface that with some of the information from the ITE how many
trips are coming in?
Mr. McCann: Doctor, have you prepared a report?
Dr. Data: I am analyzing it right now.
Mr. McCann: So you do not have a prepared report?
Dr. Data: Not completely, but I have analyzed it and I have data which I can present.
Mr. McCann: You have data to present tonight but is not complete?
Dr. Data: Actually, they are numbers which I have collected and can provide to you.
Mr. McCann: O.K. Let's hear what you have to say.
Dr. Data: We are looking at a 10,880 sq. ft. building. It will generate 113 trip ends at
the worse during the P.M. peak hour. Let's understand; 113 trip ends means
the number of vehicles coming in plus the number of vehicles going out to
that particular site, according to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the latest
version, it also says that 40% of the trip ends will be pass-by trips. That is
historical of the CVS/pharmacy or any kind of drug store. In the evening
when people go home, what they do is they will stop by and pick up
something from the drug store to go home. Those are not additional trips.
Let's try to understand that the intersection of Middlebelt Road and Five Mile
Road has approximately 4800 vehicles per hour during the P.M. peak hour.
That is between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., the highest number of cars that can
18046
come in. You are looking at less than 2% or 1% variation and I have been
collecting data at that site to show that the variations from day to day is about
3% to 5%. The amount of traffic is not that great.
Mr. McCann: Sir, did your analysis take into account that this has a drive-thru pharmacy
and that may
Dr. Data: Of course. The drive-thru pharmacy is not like the drive-thru McDonald's or
Burger King store. The drive-thru pharmacy has very few traffic coming in
during the peak hours. When I finish all of my data collection you will see
that even taking a similar store and another place, you will see hardly ever
there are ever too many people lining up to take that. I don't think that ought
to be a concern. One of the issues was that the traffic, because we are moving
this driveway on this side, this can cause problems in terms of left turning?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
Dr. Data: If I look at the traffic assignment for the number of vehicles we talked about
according to the ITE trip generation, we are looking at approximately 11 cars
an hour, at the most, coming in from this side to turn left. Eleven cars an
hour, so one car you are looking at every five minutes turning in. The
magnitude is, I think, the most important thing to consider when you are
analyzing a traffic situation. You are not going to have, in my opinion, these
two are too close at this time, what it is. Moving this farther west is going to
improve the traffic operation there. It is going to improve it in a sense that
.`. this driveway will be farther away from the major intersection. That was one
of concern. What you have here is that you have a very similar kind of
situation existing here and some even there as well. You are not having a
problem per se' there. What makes you believe you are going to have a
problem? The most important thing is that the drugstore traffic is not like
traffic from a McDonald's store or a gas station or any of that nature. It is a
store, and because there are so many drugstores near by the individual trips
made by the consumers, by the customers, are much shorter these days. So
you don't drive as far to go to a CVS store. You go two or three miles to find
a CVS store. That is also a very positive thing. The other concern you had
about the left turn, if you will kindly repeat that concern.
Mr. McCann: We are concerned about the traffic re-entering into the McDonald's and trying
to exit onto Middlebelt.
Dr. Data: Anybody who is going to enter the property here and go and park and do their
shopping or their business in CVS, I don't think the circuitous way they are
going to come out that is going to be anybody
Mr. Alanskas: Sir that is not what I meant. What I meant is, if somebody is on Middlebelt
Road and they don't want to go to the light, they can cut into McDonald's and
come out on Five Mile. They can make a shortcut through there.
Dr. Data: They can do it now.
18047
Mr. Alanskas: I know they could.
Dr. Data: They can do it now. It is not going to change anything. I don't think anybody
does that because my office is in Livonia on Vasser Avenue right on
Middlebelt Road, off of Middlebelt Road. I am very familiar with that. The
cut through concern, if you want, I can put up a video to show you that there
are no such people who will make a cut through because it is very difficult to
do that. The current property of McDonald's is such that if you can just go
around and come out this way, that is the only thing they will do. What we
are going to do by providing the access is it is going to be a much longer trip
for the person to go around to come back to Middlebelt Road. It is much
easier for them to go on to Five Mile Road and exit out of there.
Mr. Alanskas: Or just the reverse also because I am there all the time. If you are going east
on Five Mile and before you get to that light, that light is so congested with
cars turning left, I would be glad to cut into that parking lot and come out on
the other side.
Mrs. Koons: Dr. Data, what is the number you used as the peak hour - 130 or 113?
Dr. Data: One hundred thirteen according to the ITE trip manual, 113 trip ends per
hour.
Mrs. Koons: Then how did you come up with 11 cars in the turn lane per hour?
Dr. Data: Eleven cars are going in....
Mrs. Koons: Out of 113 in and out per hour, only 11 cars are turning in?
Dr. Data: One hundred thirteen is total.
Mrs. Koons: In and out?
Dr. Data: Out of which you have 55 cars are coming in and 58 cars are going out. Out
of 55 cars the distribution happens because you have a lot more traffic on
Middlebelt Road. Obviously the traffic from Middlebelt Road will come to
the property more than Five Mile Road.
Mrs. Koons: Show me with your finger how the Middlebelt people are getting there.
Dr. Data: This is Middlebelt Road. This is southbound. This is northbound.
Mrs. Koons: How are they getting to the new proposed site?
Dr. Data: Those who are going southbound, they are going to enter the property here.
,` Mr. Alanskas: At McDonald's.
18048
Dr. Data: At McDonald's. Those who are coming in north bound, they are going to turn
left because you have an exclusive left turn lane phase. They are going to
turn here and then turn right into the driveway.
Mrs. Koons: That is one question. The other question, you said 40% of your traffic is pass-
by traffic. Right?
Dr. Data: That is what the Trip Generation Manual talks about. It is probably even
more during the evening peak hour.
Mrs. Koons: But even though they are pass-by traffic, they still have to get into a turn lane
to turn.
Dr. Data: Absolutely. I have considered that in my analysis and notes, I have
considered that. But imagine you are looking at 55 cars coming in and 58
cars going out from an intersection which has over 4,000 cars. That 4,000
cars varies. I have a data here 4,778 cars were found when collecting the data
at that intersection between 5:15 p.m. and 6:15 p.m.
Mrs. Koons: I don't know if this is you Dr. Data or Mr. Galvin, could you pretend the CVS
is there and draw for me with your finger how the car would come from Five
Mile and go through the drive-thru. On that map you have there.
Dr. Data: If you have people coming in east bound, they will turn left here. They will
go around this way and come out.
Mrs. Koons: So they are going to pass by the front of the building and go around the back
of the building?
Dr. Data: Right.
Mrs. Koons: Now will you show me the drive-thru of McDonald's?
Dr. Data: From here? If they are coming in here they will enter here and go out this
way.
Mrs. Koons: How are they going to drive through McDonald's? Now we have a customer
coming to McDonald's drive-thru.
Dr. Data: McDonald's drive-thru is here. This is a separate driveway and they will turn
around and go out this way.
Mr. Shane: If I am coming from the west and I am going to turn left into this site,
correct?
Dr. Data: Yes sir.
18049
Mr. Shane: If I am coming from the east on Five Mile Road, I am going to turn right into
the site. If I am coming from the south, I am going to take a left, you said, at
Five Mile Road and turn in.
Dr. Data: Then turn right, yes.
Mr. Shane: So the only people that I am going to serve by that driveway are the people
from the north?
Dr. Data: That is correct.
Mr. Shane: Tell me why you need the exit to Middlebelt Road.
Dr. Data: Fist of all this is going to be a shared driveway. It is not from the point of
view an access management. This is an ideal situation, what we all ought to
be promoting, because it is not increasing any other curb cut. That is number
one. Number two, it is the number of cars which you are passing though. You
are restricting them to come to the signalized intersection which improves the
level of service for this intersection itself.
Mr. Shane: You haven't convinced me. I think that you have less traffic congestion if
you eliminated that entry into your site so that everybody could come off of
Five Mile from whatever direction, and ignore McDonald's altogether. Your
congestion is going to come from McDonald's and CVS fighting with each
other with this traffic not to mention the flower shop.
44111.
Dr. Data: Let us imagine another scenario. If you had a CVS drug or any other drug
store in an independent place, you would definitely have two driveways,
correct? You don't have anything in the City which doesn't have two
driveways for a similar development. If that is the case, I think it was a very
conscience decision and the architect and we consulted to make it a single
new driveway which is away from the existing ones and utilizing the existing
one there. Even if it is 10, 20, 30 cars an hour, if you can take away that
many cars coming to the signalized intersection and have them make a right
turn, that is the greatest thing that you can do because you bring them into the
intersection, you are creating a separate additional vehicle at that intersection.
Mr. McCann: Sir, if you are going to add 10, 20, 30 cars going in, you are also going to
have 10, 20, 30 cars turning left back onto Middlebelt out of McDonald's.
Isn't that creating a bigger problem? There is no light there. It is heavy traffic
and during a rush period, to me, having people adding 30 more cars coming
out of McDonald's and turning left onto Middlebelt is going to create more
problems than anything we could deal with.
Dr. Data: Let's assume say 10 or 20 cars coming in, entering here, and out of those 20
cars, it is proven that probably 60% of them just to go to the CVS pharmacy,
buy something and go back. Those are the people that will have to go in, get
serviced here, get out this way and turn left. Those who are pass-by traffic,
they are not going back north. They are continuing on south. So what they
18050
are doing is entering here, coming out, turning left and turning right at the
intersection of Middlebelt.
`or Mr. McCann: Then you are going to have people going down Five Mile turning left and
they are going to want to turn left on Five Mile and go north. You are going
to have per average, at least as many people coming in to turn as wanting to
come back out on the street. No matter what direction they come from. I
guess what I am telling you is that they are not going to go on to Five Mile
and turn left. They are not going to go on to Five Mile and turn left. They are
going to go back in through French's Flowers, wrap around McDonald's, get
caught in that traffic and you are going to have just as many cars come in off
of that exit, want to go back in that exit and turn left onto Middlebelt.
Dr. Data: My opinion is that is not going to happen because the McDonald's drive is a
very tight drive.
Mr. McCann: Exactly. That is my concern. Turning at McDonald's is very bad news.
Dr. Data: That is exactly why the additional traffic who are destined to go to CVS will
never go.
Mr. McCann: Then why should we have an entrance there to the south end going into
French's Flowers? Why would we want that if you are telling me it is bad
news to have people going back through McDonald's, why would we leave a
drive open for them to do that then?
Dr. Data: I am saying coming out of this drive, is going to be difficult for the CVS
customer.
Mr. McCann: Exactly. So why do you have the drive open next to the flower shop?
Dr. Data: Which one are we talking about? Here?
Mr. McCann: Yes.
Dr. Data: This is because some people can turn in here and can go there as well.
Mr. McCann: If they are turning right, they can turn go onto the other drive just easily, can't
they?
Dr. Data: Suppose they go there and they want to come back here? Suppose they go to
CVS pharmacy and they want to come to the flower shop. What will they
have to do? They will have to go in turn right, get out, turn left on the road
add to the traffic, again turn left into the flower shop. This is why access
management engineering, provide internal driveway as many as possible.
Mr. LaPine: Assuming somebody was at the McDonald's drive-thru and they picked up
their food and now they want to go over to the pharmacy, how do they go
from there?
18051
Dr. Data: If they are here?
`1010.- Mr. LaPine: Yes.
Dr. Data: I don't think McDonald's allows... The only way they can do this is they can
turn around again and go this way or they will have to come out and go into
this way and go into this way.
Mr. LaPine: So if somebody goes to McDonald's and wants to then cut over to the
pharmacy, they either have to go back around, come out to Five Mile, go out
the exit to Five Mile.
Dr. Data: Or come out this way.
Mr. LaPine: Which I think is kind of confusing. And vice versa, the same thing would be
if they went to the pharmacy first. You are moving the pharmacy from the
shopping center over here for basically you want, I believe, you want the
drive-thru. Is that correct?
Mr. Galvin: No sir.
Mr. LaPine: I would think because you are in a shopping center you get more exposure
and more traffic in that shopping center. I grant you, today the shopping
center is not as viable as it was five years ago. Farmer Jack's has moved out.
+r.. Other stores have moved out. My question is why do you think this location
gives you better visibility and more traffic than you had in the shopping
center?
Mr. Galvin: The visibility I think is spoken for physically by the photograph. As you
know, although we don't have the entire shopping center in there, we are in
literally at the crotch of the shopping center. We are blocked by the
vegetation. If you don't, and Mr. LaPine, that that CVS is there before you
get into that area, you are not going to figure it out by seeing it. This site has
a great deal more visibility. I honestly, and we don't mean to be
argumentative with the Commission. We really don't. We think this is going
to be a real improvement. I mean that, a real improvement to the current
existing conditions there. We don't believe we will do as well at our current
location as we can do there or we wouldn't be making this presentation to you
or pursuing this. Enough said about that.
Mr. LaPine: Most people that go to pharmacies, no matter if it is CVS, or Arbor, or if it is
Walgreen's, it is normally neighborhood people within a radius of two miles.
People will go by that location day in and day out to work, know you are in
there. You can't tell me they don't know you are in there and that is the
people you are servicing. If you are telling me that you are going to be at this
location and people that live in Plymouth Township or Northville or Novi are
.,�, going to stop there because they go by there, I don't believe that. They are
18052
going to go to the one closest to their home than they are to stop here just to
pick up something on their way home.
Mr. Galvin: It is clear to me that I will be unable to persuade you with what I say but I am
going to say it anyway because I believe it to be true. I believe that we will
do better at this location, building here sir, than we will at that location and
this is not, and I want to go back to your original question, this is not just
because there will be a drive-thru. Yes, there will be a drive-thru. Yes, we
know based upon our current market that we need a drive-thru in order to be
competitive. Leave that aside, the location itself is far superior for our
business and I understand, Mr. LaPine, based on how you said it and your
sincerity, and I mean that you will not find that persuasive to you but please
consider that I believe with the same fervor, the same level of fervor that what
I said is the case, and for the Commission as a whole, I want to make one
remark on the traffic issue. Please consider what we are proposing in the
context of the fact that this property will be used. I suggest to the members of
the Commission that we are one of the few users who are willing to correct
the McDonald's condition. Willing to give away the land that is necessary to
do that in order to do what we want. Please consider that whatever use goes
there is not going to change the availability of that cut-through at
McDonald's. That changes no matter who goes there. I do not believe that
there is any basis statistically and I think Dr. Data's numbers establish it but I
don't think anybody can establish statistically that somehow because we are a
CVS pharmacy, that somehow we are going to make the situation in the
aggregate by doing all the things that we proposed to do. I understand that
this parcel has been a difficult and arduous parcel for this Commission.
Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one
wishing to speak, a motion is in order..
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved it was
#10-180-2000 RESOVLED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-08-08-11 CVS Pharmacy by Mark Miller
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a retail building on
property located at 29500 Five Mile Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 14 be
denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use
is in compliance with all of the general standards and requirements asset
forth in Sections 18.58 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the surrounding area is already adequately serviced by this type of
commercial use;
18053
3) Sufficient commercial space is presently available in this area to
accommodate the proposed use;
°'` 4) The proposal would result in hazardous vehicular turning movements in
relation to routes of traffic flow, the location of access drives to the main
traffic thoroughfares, and to street and road intersections;
5) The proposal would encourage 'cut-through' traffic between Middlebelt
and Five Mile Roads to avoid turning at the intersection;
6) The proposed development would generate an increase in traffic and
would cause added traffic problems to the major roads of Middlebelt and
Five Mile Roads, which are already overburdened with traffic;
7) That a commercial use is contrary to the goals, objectives and policies of
the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia, as adopted by the City
Planning Commission, which is to ensure compatibility and
appropriateness of uses so as to promote property values, enhance
neighborhood conformity and enjoyment;
8) That the proposed use is detrimental to and not in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area; and
9) The proposed use relies on an excessive number and area of signs,
including off-site directional signage, which would not be compatible to
or in harmony with the surrounding area and would not comply with
Section 18.50 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I just want to say that for the past 10 days I have gone to that existing
drugstore every day at different hours and that store is a nice drug store and it
is very very busy. I just think to relocate that store and to tear down an office
building would be a travesty because in the last two years the City has built at
least seven new office buildings and they are all full. In fact, right now we
are in the process of approving two six story buildings. I can't see why that
building can't be used again with a little modernization, cleanup to get people
to come in there and to use that building and to put a drug store, whether it is
Walgreen's or any other drug store, I think would be a travesty. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, I have a comment. To be honest
with you I like this design better than the last one. I have a real problem, even
your traffic engineer stated, it is difficult and problematic to have people re-
entering into the McDonald's area and turning left onto Middlebelt from the
Middlebelt Road entrance. The south entrance on the property is real
problematic for this and I also have a problem with the fact that as part of this
package we have nine wall signs, one ground sign with an excess above our
ordinance of eight wall signs and over 297 sq. ft. of additional signage above
and beyond the required ordinance. When this package was brought before us
18054
the petitioner knew well what the City standards were and decided to
completely ignore them and feel that there was absolutely no basis for them
and that to me is a little bit upsetting.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petition is denied. You have 10 days in which to appeal the decision in
writing to the Livonia City Council.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-09-08-13 Red Lobster Restaurant
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-09-08-13
Red Lobster Restaurant requesting approval to repaint the exterior of the
restaurant located at 29980 Plymouth Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth between Middlebelt and
Tech Center Drive. The petitioner is proposing to repaint the exterior of the
Red Lobster Restaurant that is located in front of the Media Play Store and
the recently approved Big Lot Store. Presently the restaurant is painted a dark
maroon color with gray trim. According to the Exterior Elevation Plans and
the submitted color legend, the restaurant would be painted mainly a light
cream color with blue trim. The parapet wall along the roofline and the top
section of columns by the entrance would be painted a tan color.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 25, 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 at this time. We would however like to request that the developer be
required to re-stripe the parking areas to conform with current parking lot
striping standards. 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 September 27, 2000,
and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 19, 2000, the
above referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1)
New entrance pole lighting is being added as of this date. (2) The parking
area needs maintenance, repair, sealing and double striping. (3) The
landscaping, in general, needs maintenance, trimming and clean-up. (4)
The landscaping timbers near the front entrance need to be replaced and
the rear landscape beds need new edging. (5) The two (2) dumpsters were
not in the enclosure and are stored in the parking lot. This Department has
no further objections to this Petition."The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of Police,
dated September 28, 2000, and reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
listed proposed plans for alterations of the Red Lobster and we have no
objections to the plan as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue
18055
Division, dated September 28, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to repaint the
exterior of the existing restaurant 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. That is the extent of the correspondence from
the departments. I would like to note that we did receive a response to several
of the items of concern reported by the Inspection and Engineering
Departments and this is through a letter dated October 3, 2000, from Arthur
McIntosh, Design Project Manager from Darden Restaurants, Inc. I can read
this or if he is present, he may want to go over each of these items.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mr. Taormina: Apparently not.
Mr. McCann: No one from Red Lobster Restaurants? Mr. Taormina, go ahead and tell us
what they stated.
Mr. Taormina: This is addressed to Alex Bishop, C.B.O. Senior Building Inspector for the
City and the following reads as follows: "The following is in response to the
five (5) objections to the petition for the Red Lobster remodel in Livonia,
Michigan. Objection 1: New entrance pole lighting is being added as of this
date. Answer: The facilities department is adding six (6) new parking lights
at and near the parking lot entrance, (three poles with two lights each).
Objection 2: The parking area needs maintenance, repair, sealing and
ti.. double striping. Answer: The facilities department is going to grind and
remove the asphalt top-coat, pour a new top-coat, and stripe the lot.
Objection 3: The landscaping, in general, needs maintenance, trimming and
clean up. Answer: Our landscape contractor is going to perform a standard
upgrade to exterior along with this remodel, which includes the above-
mentioned and more. We do not allow, however, the landscaping to begin
their work until the building has been painted due to the painters "trampling"
and disrupting the landscape work and plantings. Objection 4: The
landscaping timbers near the front entrance need to be replaced and the rear
landscape beds need new edging. Answer: Our landscape contractor will
replace the timbers and apply new edging as mentioned in the above note.
Objection 5: The two (2) dumpsters were not in the enclosure and are stored
in the parking lot. Answer: We have just had, or are in the process of
having the damaged concrete dumpster pad fixed or replaced. When the new
concrete paid in place and cured, ALL garbage dumpsters will be contained
and held with in the enclosure. We have submitted the above solutions to
your objections and will complete them as stated. It is our intent to have a
clean, safe and well-maintained facility, and will do everything to embody
this. If you have any questions or concerns,please call."
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for against this petition. Is
there a motion from the Commissioners?
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
18056
#10-181-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-09-08-13 Red Lobster Restaurant
`taw requesting approval to repaint the exterior of the restaurant located at 29980
Plymouth Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 26 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Exterior Finish Plan marked AE-1 dated 8/23/00, as revised,
prepared by James R. Jones, Jr. Architect, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2) That the colors of the restaurant shall correspond with those specified on
the "Red Lobster Remodel Color Legend"submitted to the Planning
Commission on September 19, 2000.
3) That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction
the following site deficiencies as outlined in the correspondence dated
September 27, 2000:
- that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and double
striped
- that all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the
Michigan Barrier Free Code
- that the existing landscaping of the site shall be trimmed, cleaned
up and maintained
�.. - that the landscaping timbers near the front entrance shall be
replaced and new edging shall be installed around the rear
landscaping beds
- that the existing dumpsters shall be kept in their enclosure and the
enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at
all times
4) 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.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-09-08-14 Marke Building
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-09-08-14
Marke Building requesting approval to refinish the second floor exterior
elevation of the building located at 15225 Farmington Road in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 21.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Farmington between Five Mile and
Lyndon. The petitioner is proposing to refinish the exterior of the second
floor of the Marke Building. The first floor of this building is occupied by
18057
O'Malley's Bar& Grill and a Neon Village dry cleaners. The first floor is
presently finished in a back-and-forth diagonal pattern wood siding. This
lower half of the building would remain untouched and left as is. The second
floor is utilized as office space. The petitioner would like to remove the
existing metal louver material and replace it with dryvit. It is the desire of the
petitioner to give the second floor a somewhat two-tone look. A light cream
color or "Sea Shell" dryvit would be installed on the top and bottom third of
the floor with the middle section covered in a little darker shade or "Oatmeal"
color dryvit. This middle band of dryvit would be the same width as the
existing windows. The Elevation Plan shows that only the north, east and
west elevations would be refinished. It is not known at this time if the
petitioner plans on refinishing the south elevation in any way. This elevation
does not have the metal louver material on it and is constructed out of a
painted block. An existing deli restaurant abuts right up against the lower
half of the south elevation.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 25, 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 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
second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 27, 2000,
�w. and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 21, 2000, the
above referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: The
parking areas need maintenance, sealing and double striping. This
Department has no other objections to the Petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is from the Division
of Police, dated September 28, 2000, and 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 fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
September 29, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to refinish the second floor
exterior elevations 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. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Frank Grisa, 15603 Edington Road, Livonia.
Mr. McCann: Would you tell us the reasons for your modifications?
Mr. Grisa: The primary reason is that we have bird problems. Birds fly in those little
louvered holes in the siding on the second story and they are nesting on
window ledges and various projections that are underneath there, depositing
18058
seeds. You have weeds growing out of the building like trees and droppings
on people and it is just not very nice.
``' Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, is there a reason why you do not want to continue the top facade around
the south part of the building. When you are coming north you can see the
building.
Mr. Grisa: If we can afford it, we are going to do it. Otherwise, we are going to paint it
to match.
Mr. McCann: Can you come around about 30' or 40' so at least the view of it is covered?
Mr. Grisa: If it is the same color, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. It'll just be a
smooth finish on that stone product.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you plan on doing anything to the lower wooden base?
Mr. Grisa: No sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Nothing at all? You are not going to power wash it?
Mr. Grisa: We power wash that and refinish it about every three years. That will
k probably be done next year.
`ow
Mr. Piercecchi: If it is power washed, then it will be re-stained?
Mr. Grisa: Yes. That is a continuing process.
Mr. Piercecchi: How about the parking lot repairs that were mentioned? Can you bring those
up to speed?
Mr. Grisa: The parking lot, we just put new asphalt down several years ago and it does
need seal coating and striping.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is not double striped right now, is it?
Mr. Grisa: It is not. Will you require that now?
Mr. Piercecchi: The ordinance now is quite specific on it as of a year or two ago. It states that
it should be 10' x 20' and double striped. So anytime a parking lot is repaired
and resealed and everything is covered up, yes, we like that.
Mr. Grisa: I see.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? Since there is
no one wishing to speak, a motion is in order.
18059
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
`�- #10-182-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-09-08-14 Marke Building requesting
approval to refinish the second floor exterior elevation of the building located
at 15225 Farmington Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 21 be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1) That the Exterior Finish Plan marked Sheet 1 dated September 19, 2000,
as revised, prepared by Frank L. Grisa, P.E., is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to, except for the fact that the dryvit material shall wrap
around the southeast corner of the second floor and continue 30 feet along
the south elevation and the remaining upper half of the south elevation
shall be painted to match that of the dryvit;
2) That the color of the dryvit shall correspond with those specified on Sheet
2 dated 9/19/00 and submitted to the Planning Commission on September
20, 2000;
3) 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;
4) If the diagonal wood siding is power washed it shall be re-stained; and
5) That the parking lot repairs shall be made and the double striping be
employed.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I guess I have the only comment. Mr. Pat Sullivan
called me and stated that he is in support of this with O'Malley's Bar& Grill
down below. I don't think they like the bird droppings either.
Mr. Grisa: No they don't.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2000-09-08-15 City of Livonia (Eddie Edgar Ice Arena)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-09-08-15
by the City of Livonia requesting approval of all plans in connection with a
proposal to construct an addition to the Eddie Edgar Ice Arena located at
33841 Lyndon Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. McCann; Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert Andrus, Andrus Architecture, 355 Northland Drive, Suite B2, Rockford, Michigan
49431.
18060
Mr. McCann: Are there any preliminaries before we go forward with this?
fir. Mr. Taormina: No. There are no items of correspondence.
Mr. Andrus: What you have before you is a colored site plan. You had the liberty of
seeing a predecessor to this last week. Essentially, what you see in the yellow
is the existing Eddie Edgar facility with the burnt umber color being the new
addition to the south of the facility. We are not at this point in time proposing
any additional parking. There is a parking tabulation count on the sheet
which shows the existing capacity of the Eddie Edgar parking lot, as well as
the parking lot to the south of the Ford Field in addition to the park, of which
the name escapes me, to the southwest of the field. Those three parking lots
in combination are in excess of what the requirements are for the new and
existing seating capacity of the Eddie Edgar. The floor plans are still in a
state of design with the Building Authority and with the committees
established by the City. Essentially, what you see before you is a revision of
what the Commission saw last week. Again, yellow being existing and the
mustard being renovation of the existing and the burnt umber being the new
addition. Before the Building Authority right now are two different schemes.
We are in the process of trying to condense the project down to a palatable
size for the budget. In this particular scheme that is before is the larger of the
two so we are showing you the worse case scenario at this point and time.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: The dressing rooms in the old Ford arena, has that been addressed?
Mr. Andrus: It has been addressed. In the scheme that is before you, we are showing two
additional locker rooms in the existing and we are hoping to be able to afford
an upgrade of the existing locker rooms in the existing rink as well.
Mr. LaPine: We are going to have only one entrance for both arenas, is that correct?
Mr. Andrus: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Otherwise, the entrance that is now at Ford on the north side, that will be
eliminated?
Mr. Andrus: That is the east side and yes, it will be eliminated. That wall will be closed in.
That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: How much land is going to be taken south of that building to accommodate
that new building?
Mr. Andrus: The new building is in the area of about 35,000 sq. ft., so that would equate to
about three quarters of an acre, I would guess. I did not run those numbers.
Mr. Piercecchi: In feet, is it a couple of hundred?
18061
Mr. Andrus: In feet it would be approximately 160 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi: I understand you are going in being deficient in parking but you are holding
some land in bank for parking if it is needed. How much space is that going
to take up?
Mr. Andrus: That space accommodates an additional 211 parking spaces and I would say
that is going to take up another 180 feet to the south.
Mr. Piercecchi: So the site that is going to attach to the ice arena is going to take up roughly
340 feet, south, with concluded parking?
Mr. Andrus: Correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Will there be entrances back and forth between the two buildings?
Mr. Andrus: Aside from the entry area, there will be at least one cross over corridor
linking the two facilities, yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: Can these facilities operate singularly?
Mr. Andrus: They can, in fact, for dry floor activities, as we refer to them. There is going
to be a continuation of the shows and events, the Spree, etc. One side can be
used independent of the other. That is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: You said the square footage of this building is 35,000?
Mr. Andrus: Approximately.
Mr. Piercecchi: Where did I get the 48,000 sq. ft.?
Mr. Andrus: We have gone through several schemes. You probably saw a predecessor,
which was larger.
Mr. Piercecchi: So it has been scaled back. It will meet the budget then?
Mr. Andrus: We are hoping so.
Mr. LaPine: To accommodate this, we have to eliminate the tennis courts.
Mr. Andrus: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: To the best of your knowledge, are they going to be relocated to some other
location?
Mr. Andrus: I apologize. I have no knowledge of that. I would recommend contacting the
City.
18062
Mr. Alanskas: In looking at your schematic I don't see provisions for food anywhere.
Mr. Andrus: There is a concession.
Mr. Alanskas: Where is it?
Mr. Andrus: It is near the entry in this scheme, right when you walk in.
Mr. Alanskas: It doesn't show it on here. It shows offices and the lobby. I see nothing here
for food. Oh, there it is. Thank you.
Mrs. Koons: It is my understanding that when the task force looked at all of the recreation
activities and use that we were not using the tennis courts to full capacity.
Mr. LaPine: The only thing I can say is that when I go by there, I see a lot of kids out
there.
Mr. McCann: I would like to go on to the site plan. I guess we have some questions in
regards to the parking issues. You are land banking 211 spaces. Is that
correct?
Mr. Andrus: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: My concern is that we have seating in the old arena of about 400 seats,
according to the plans. We have seating in the new scheme for about 1200
`r.. persons, spectator bleachers. According to your sheets, that is 1610 and that
doesn't include the players' locker rooms or whatever as the maximum
amount of seating. According to the site plan, the existing parking is about
200 spots and we have 211 spaces in reserve. I suppose this has been looked
at but if you get a Churchill/Stevenson hockey game, there is a large number
of people that attend those games and if you have anything going on, pee wee
games going on in the other arena, I don't think it is going to sit vacant on
Friday or Saturday nights.
Mr. Andrus: If I could address that issue. First of all, the existing rink now seats 1200 to
1500. We are going to be removing some of those seats to accommodate this
addition. So now the new arena will be the large arena with the 1200 seats.
That is why there is only 400 anticipated for the existing facility. When it
comes to the big hockey game and it is at capacity and 1200 people are at the
facility, the City Ordinance states one parking space per three seats. So if we
take that 1200 divide by 3, we have 400 parking spaces of which we have
accommodations for between the Eddie Edgar parking lot and the Ford Field
parking lot to the south. So the capacity for that rink, we are covered. As a
scheduling pragmatic side of the ice rink, we will not schedule something on
the second sheet of ice at the same time as a known capacity crowd on the
primary one. So it is our belief right now that the second sheet during that big
event would be used for a pee wee practice or something of the like where
So- you are going to have 15 or 20 cars as opposed to 400. So again we would be
able to fall under the amount of parking we have provided.
18063
Mr. McCann: I am looking at this and the future parking area. Although you don't plan to
use it at this point you may decide that it is necessary later on, there is no
entrance to Stark Road. I would think, especially during peak performances,
with 400 parking spots that it would help alleviate traffic problems by having
an entrance off of Stark Road.
Mr. Andrus: I completely agree. We thought perhaps the Commission would not allow us
to have a curb cut because of that 90-degree turn in the road. But if we would
be allowed to have a curb cut, I agree, it would greatly help alleviate any type
of traffic jam.
Mr. McCann: What 90-degree turn?
Mr. Andrus: Where Lyndon Road curves into Stark. The building would be blocking that
intersection somewhat and it was our contention that perhaps the Commission
would not allow a curb cut there for fear that it would be a blind entrance way
or exit way. Barring that issue, we would love to have a curb cut there.
Mr. McCann: You are talking about the north end of the building?
Mr. Andrus: Correct.
Mr. McCann: I am talking about the south end of the building.
�`.. Mr. Andrus: I realize that but it was our contention that people entering or exiting may not
be able to have a good sight line because of the mass of the building to that
corner and traffic.
Mr. McCann; What is the set back of the building from the road?
Mr. Andrus: I believe the existing is about 30 feet.
Mr. McCann: You should have a pretty good view at that point and you have about 400
feet?
Mr. Andrus: Correct.
Mr. Shane: Especially if you put the entrance way down at the bottom of it, by the
parking lot.
Mr. McCann: You can do it at either. To me, you've got plenty of room there but that is for
future plans but to me, when you have these type of events, having double
exits would be a real benefit.
Mr. Andrus: I agree.
18064
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in
the audience wishing to speak on this petition? Hearing none, a motion is in
k order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-183-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-09-08-15 by the City of Livonia
requesting approval of all plans in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the Eddie Edgar Ice Arena located at 33841 Lyndon Avenue in the
S.E.1/4 of Section 21 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Preliminary Site Plan dated stamped October 3, 2000 by Barton
& King Engineers is hereby approved, subject to final approval by the
City Council;
2) That the Preliminary Floor Plan marked Sheet A-2.0 dated 9/27/00 and
the Preliminary Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked A-3.1 dated
9/28/00, both prepared by Andrus Architects, are hereby approved subject
to final approval by the City Council; and
3) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
4) That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4-inch brick, no
exceptions;
Mr. McCann: Before we go on, did we come up with the building elevations? I just want to
show the people at home, if you can point out the different building elevations
because I think they are attractive and will benefit the City.
Mr. Andrus: What you are seeing here is the front of the building and this is an existing
brick wall with an existing stucco like material with the wood truss plan.
What we have done is we have integrated the brick and tried to mimic the
stucco with an esthetic dry product which is typically used to try and pick up
on a stucco fmish and carry that finish all the way around the building. We
have placed an emphasis on the entry to the building with a decorative store
front system with an ethesis or dryvit overhang or canopy and with a sanding
seam metal roof on the entry area so that we have a real attractive entry that
will be well received by participants and spectators and inviting to welcoming
them into the facility.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the
Miscellaneous Site Plan portion 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.
18065
ITEM #8 PETITION 2000-07-02-28 RC Riley & Associates (Sprint PCS)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-07-02-28
by RC Riley&Associates on behalf of Sprint PCS requesting waiver use
approval to install a 133 foot monopole antenna structure for shared usage
and its accompanying electronic equipment cabinets on property located on
the north side of Five Mile Road between the I-275 Freeway and Knolson
Avenue in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, has there been some modification to the plans?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. Each of the Commissioners should have included in their packets a
revised site plan showing the new location of the cellular antenna. We have
also received a letter from Melanie Parrott, a paralegal, from the firm of
Richard Connor Riley& Associates, L.L.C., dated September 28, 2000,
which reads as follows: "Enclosed please find thirteen (13) revised site plans
for Sprint PCS'proposed wireless communications facility to be located at
39200 Five Mile Road in the City of Livonia. The revision shows that Sprint's
lease area has been moved south to meet the setbacks from all residential
districts to the north, south and east and the leased parcel will be enclosed by
a brick wall that will match the existing brick wall that surrounds their
dumpster. Sprint was tabled from the August 29, 2000, Planning Commission
hearing to the October 3, 2000, Planning Commission agenda. If you should
ti.. have any questions or require further information,please feel free to contact
me. Thank you." That is the extent of the correspondence and I believe there
is a representative available from Richard Connor Riley to go over the
revisions.
Robert Starkman, 30150 North Telegraph Road, Suite 420, Bingham Farms, Michigan. If
you recall, the site was initially located to the far northwest portion of the
property. We have moved the site significantly to the south based on
discussions, both with Mr. Taormina and with the Italian American Club. At
this point and time we are 540 feet from south of the north property line. We
are 330 feet west of the commencement of the church parking lot and it is 280
feet to go to the south property. The setback requirement was 158 feet which
is the height of the tower plus 25 feet. Other than our proximity to the MDOT
right-of-way to the west, we meet setbacks from residential and from the
church and hopefully we will receive approval from the Planning
Commission.
Mr. McCann: I looked at it and I think it is a great plan. Are there any questions from the
Commissioners? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved, it was
S.,, #10-184-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on August 29, 2000, on Petition 2000-07-02-28 by RC
18066
Riley&Associates on behalf of Sprint PCS requesting waiver use approval to
install a 133 foot monopole antenna structure for shared usage and its
accompanying electronic equipment cabinets on property located on the north
�► side of Five Mile Road between the I-275 Freeway and Knolson Avenue in
the S.W. 1/4 of Section 18, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-07-02-28 be approved
subject to the granting of variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals for
deficient setbacks from residential zoning districts and from a public street
and subject to the following additional conditions:
1) That the architectural site plan, marked Sheet A-1, prepared by Kennith
Clark Associates, Inc., with a revision date of September 26, 2000, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the enlarged site plan, marked Sheet A-2, prepared by Kennith Clark
Associates, Inc., with a revision date of September 26, 2000, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3) That the tower elevations, marked Sheet A-3, prepared by Kennith Clark
Associates, Inc., with a revision date of September 26, 2000, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That the site details plan, marked Sheet A-4, prepared by Kennith Clark
Associates, Inc., with a revision date of September 26, 2000, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to; and
5) 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.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
18067
ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of Minutes
of the 810th Regular Meeting held on August 29, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-185-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 810th Public Hearings &Regular
Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 29, 2000, are
hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 812th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on October 3, 2000 was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
c-- .4tiiyat..52)JtLex_&
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: _ /• t e
Ja es C. M Cann, Chairman
/rw