HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-08-29 17949
MINUTES OF THE 810th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
'sew OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 29, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
810th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William LaPine
Members absent: Elaine Koons
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner II,
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
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 2000-06-01-13 Joseph Trupiano (Marney Group)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-06-01-13
by Joseph Trupiano on behalf of The Marney Group requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue
and Green Lane Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 from R-1 to R-C.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence and it is from the Engineering Division,
dated August 7, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
17950
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. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Joseph Trupiano, 37219 Fairfax, on behalf of the Marney Group.
Mr. McCann: Can you tell us a little bit about your petition?
Mr. Trupiano: It is a petition for an 18 unit building, two story condominium, but we wanted
to leave an area to the south of the building and try to leave that intact, if we
could. We are just calling it right now a recreation area. We thought it would
provide a good buffer for the existing residents and it is heavily wooded. We
also try to preserve as much of the natural vegetation as we possibly can.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: To begin with, are you aware that your approach is contrary to the Future
Land Use Plan for the City?
Mr. Trupiano: No. I was not aware of that sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: It really calls for a low density residential in there. I wanted to know what
your intention was for the northerly 180 feet of property which your site plan
leaves undeveloped? You say you are just going to leave it raw?
Mr. Trupiano: We had intended on leaving it raw but there are some of the homeowners
adjacent to the property who are interested in purchasing it. We are
negotiating with them for the purchase of that property as well. We haven't
decided which way we are going to go on it.
Mr. Piercecchi: Have you considered developing the entire property as a cluster project?
Mr. Trupiano: Yes we did.
Mr. Piercecchi: This could be single family, one story, which would be much more
compatible to the adjacent neighbors and you could get 12 of those units in
there.
Mr. Trupiano: I understand. With a density of 12, to be quite honest,this project doesn't
suit our needs. I understand there was something else, a union hall, which
was much more commercial in its nature. We try to develop it consistent with
some of the existing homes. There are a lot of two story homes in the area
and this is no bigger than a standard house, like a standard story and a half or
�... a colonial. It is the same height, all brick and wood. It is not any taller than a
standard house would be.
17951
Mr. Piercecchi: My recollection of Green and Foch that they were really only one story.
ti.. Mr. Trupiano: No. There are some one and two story houses in and around the area.
Mr. Piercecchi: Not adjacent to that property.
Mr. Trupiano: Not necessarily adjacent to this property.
Mr. Piercecchi: That is what I am talking about, compatibly. We are trying to determine
compatibility with the neighbors. That is why I suggested the cluster concept
which could be a one story structure and it would fit in there beautifully.
Mr. Trupiano: We did look at the cluster option and it was much more invasive than this as
far as the setbacks. They would be right in their backyards. There would be a
racetrack around the middle of it and they would be basically bordering the
entire property line. This gives them a lot more privacy than cluster housing
would. We did look at that option and that is why we tried to go this way.
We understood that. From what we understood, there was a recommendation
from Mr. McCann that they thought the right zoning for this property would
be to go residential multiple. That was our understanding so that was the
direction that we headed.
Mr. Alanskas: At our study you passed out pictures of what you wanted to build. Is that
what you had in mind? It looked like a transient hut.
Mr. Trupiano: Transient hut?
Mr. Alanskas: It didn't look very good.
Mr. Trupiano: Have you had the opportunity to go out to Newport Creek?
Mr. Alanskas: No I have not.
Mr. Trupiano: Maybe the picture didn't do it justice because we had great success with this
product in the past and I developed land, along with my partner, John Dinan,
James Towne Pembroke. We have had great success in Livonia of other
projects as well.
Mr. Alanskas: When you said they would be made out of brick and wood, what did you
mean by wood?
Mr. Trupiano: It is brick all the way around. There are some wood accents. There are some
painted lap siding and rough sawn on the facia board, so it would be
consistent with what is in the area.
Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, should the rear 200 feet or so not be used for this project, and
instead sold to the abutting property owners, how would that affect the
density?
17952
Mr. Taormina: Depending on what the density would be for this project, he would have to
rely upon a certain amount of land area to achieve that density. Under the
r..- original development concept which showed 14 units, there was a line drawn
on that plan which occupied roughly just over an acre, which was consistent
with the land area requirement for a 14 unit development. With the addition
of four units as we heard this evening, I am not sure where that line would
have to be.
Mr. Trupiano: I'm sorry. That is 16 units and the density here is 20. We are four under what
we could try to go in as. I just wanted to clear that up. I did say an 18 unit
building. It is actually a 16 unit building.
Mr. Taormina: The requirements for a 16 unit development would be something greater than
what was shown on the original concept plan but it certainly would not
require the entire balance of that site to the north.
Mr. Shane: But it would be safe to say that Wall of that property were deeded to the
abutting property owners, that would reduce the density somewhat, all the
property which they show as vacant on this plan. That would be about 200
feet or so.
Mr. Trupiano: The back of the parking lot line, the engineer took that into consideration
when he did the density calculations and there is some site data. That will
give you all the specifications. I believe that we would not proceed in the sale
‘441,,, of any of this property until we had site plan approval for X amount of units
just to make sure that we had enough ground cover.
Mr. LaPine: Do you own this land now?
Mr. Trupiano: We presently have the land under option.
Mr. LaPine: Contingent on getting the approval?
Mr. Trupiano: Exactly.
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?
Eric Kraffa, 15410 Foch. I have been living there for 10 years. The last time they tried to
develop this area back there, we didn't like what they had planned. This time
around it does look a lot better, what they are offering us. Personally, I can
only speak for myself. I don't like the idea of having an upper and lower unit.
But the whole layout looks real nice. I am one of the owners in the back of
the property that has agreed to purchase some of the property, if this goes
through. I think everything looks nice but I don't like the idea of having a
double story unit back there. But the decision is going to lie with the rest of
my neighbors. As for me, I like the idea but that is only one person. Thank
'414.0r
you.
17953
Jason Councilman, 15365 Green Lane. My property isn't far enough north to have the option
of purchasing it. My biggest concern is the two stories. The only two story
�w home around me is my neighbor and he has a double lot so his house isn't
right up next to mine. As far as that goes, it would be nice to get all the junk
grown around my fence off there. I agree with the gentleman before. As long
as the neighbors agree, that is fine, but the concern is the two stories.
Kevin Sykes, 15326 Foch. I actually just took possession of this house last Wednesday. I
closed on it on July 31, 2000. I did have a question for the Chairman. How
did I get left out of the notification for the hearing? Is it simply because the
property was in transition. What was the cut off for notifying residents?
Mr. McCann: The notice regarding that property would have been sent to the old neighbor's
name from the Assessor's Office whoever is the holder of record. So if you
just recently have taken possession, it probably was forwarded with his mail.
Mr. Sykes: I found out about the meeting about 30 minutes ago so I haven't had much
time to prepare but I do have concerns that it is a two story building because
as the gentleman made reference to, they are all one story houses, single
family houses and I don't think it would look very nice or be very contiguous
with the area to have a two story unit there. I think that the land would be
much better used for multiple single family homes. Thank you.
Ernest Iafrate, 3084 Augustine Drive, Milford. This property has been an eye sore and has
been before this Commission about four or five times. They have turned
down a church, a UAW hall and many other requests. This is the first time I
have heard somebody come up with a good plan as far as what to do with this
property. I do not think this property has anything to do to make any type of
hardship on any of the neighbors. Right across the street the City of Livonia
put up a garage door company which is two stories right adjacent to the
property there and I don't think any of the neighbors have complained as far
as that property goes. Also, this property has been used as a dumping ground
and I might say, by all the neighbors on both sides for the last 20 years. My
mother is now deceased and we wish that this Commission would go ahead
with this plan because I think it is a good plan. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: I am closing the Public Hearing. Sir you may have the last comments.
Mr. Trupiano: If you take a look at this site plan, and again this really doesn't do it justice,
but we intend to go into the wooded area and clean up the dead trees, the
debris, the brush and really straighten it up and make it look nice. We also
intend to plant an extensive amount of landscaping around the entire site as a
greenbelt to soften this up a bit. I really wish we could do everything low
rise. It is unfortunate but at this stage, we concentrated a lot on talking about
the building and the height of the building but I was hoping that we would
talk about the rezoning effort because these plans are preliminary and they are
subject to change. We are not approving this building tonight. We are only
talking about the rezoning tonight so I hope that you take that into
17954
consideration and we are flexible with the amount of landscape and the
berms. We can do a lot of things to make this building look even nicer than it
already does and I invite anybody in the audience who is concerned about it
•• or any of the Planning Commission members to come out to Newport Creek
and I will personally take you on a tour of the building, the exterior and one
of the units.
Mr. Alanskas: Where is Newport Creek?
Mr. Trupiano: Newport Creek is at Eight Mile and Gill, right behind Farmington Hills
Collision, Family Video, 34780 W. Eight Mile. My number is(313) 510-
3610. Call me. Give me an hours advance notice and I'll meet you out there
and I'll show you what we did out there. We did a nice job and it is a good
product and we would like to build it here. I appreciate your time.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#8-156-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
29, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-06-01-13 by
Joseph Trupiano on behalf of The Marney Group requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Foch Avenue
and Green Lane Avenue in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13 from R-1 to R-C, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-06-01-13
be tabled to September 19, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-07-01-14 Brashear, Tangora and Spence, LLP
(Durresi Restaurant)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-07-01-14
by Brashear, Tangora and Spence, LLP on behalf of Durresi Restaurant
requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road
north of Joy Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence and it is from the Engineering Division,
dated August 7, 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. The
following approximate Legal Description is acceptable to this Department
and should be used for petition purposes only therewith: A parcel of land
17955
being situated in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 31, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia,
Wayne County,Michigan being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast Corner of said Section 31, T. 1S.,R. 9E., City
'�•• of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan and proceeding thence along the
southerly line of said Section 31, Centerline of Joy Road(120'wide) S.
89°58'40" West, 60.04 feet and N. 02°13'20" West, 60.00 feet;thence along
the northerly right-of-way of Joy Road,S. 89°58'40" West, 649.96 feet;
thence N. 00°01'20" West, 301.67 feet; thence N. 89°58'40"East, 292.40
feet; thence N. 00°01'20" West, 39 feet; thence N. 89°58'30"East, 80 feet
to the place of beginning of this description;thence N. 00°01'20" West, 30
feet;thence N.89°58'40"East, 65 feet; thence S. 0001'20"East, 30 feet;
thence S. 89°58'40" West, 65 feet to point of beginning. We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested" The letter is signed by John
P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road, Livonia. I represent the Durresi Restaurant and Joe
Kapidani. The last time we were before you was last fall to gain waiver use
and both the Planning Commission and the City Council granted the waiver
use and Mr. Durresi was able to get into operation. Obviously it was a
disappointment to him because he thought he would be able to utilize the
space for a larger restaurant. To go back through the history to refresh your
memory and I think you remember some of the details. Mr. Kapidani is an
Albanian immigrant. He has been here for about nine years. He has worked
at the restaurant and it was run by some of his relatives and he saved up
enough money to gain his own restaurant. He lives in the area, in Livonia,
and saw this space and was taken there by a real estate agent who represented
that he could put his restaurant and his space, as indicated by Mr. Taormina
which is 30'x 65' or 70', which would allow him occupancy when he laid it
out some 70 or 80 people. After he signed the lease for five years and
committed himself to over $200,000 worth of equipment for the kitchen, he
found out that the ordinance was a C-1 ordinance and did not allow for
anything over 30 seats. I guess you could say that is his fault but he saw a
commercial strip that was represented that he would be able to put a
restaurant in there. Unfortunately, he was limited by an ordinance that he
didn't really understand. We got him into operations and we wanted to see
how he was going to do. He has been open since sometime around January
and he has been losing money there ever since. In fact, he had to go back to
work in the other restaurant that he worked at before, before he opened up this
restaurant. He works here at this restaurant and he works at the other
restaurant to make enough money to pay the bills and to keep his family alive.
In the meantime, his wife runs the restaurant during the daytime and he is
there whenever he can be. I think we are not blaming anybody. It is an
unfortunate situation and since he has his money invested, I tried to help him
out when he originally opened the restaurant because he really didn't
understand the difficulty he was getting into. So he did get into operation and
I think if you have been there, you will see that he runs a clean, good
operation but he is somewhat hampered by families that could come in there.
17956
He has15 small tables and 30 seats. He came to me and wanted to know if
there was any possibility that he should expand the restaurant and I have
talked to some people about if there ever was an individual that really needed
`k• help that Mr. Kapidani is such a person. I certainly think he is entitled to
some help. It is a good City that should be sympathetic with this situation.
When I looked at this situation and knew that we couldn't do anything with
the C-1 because of the ordinance limiting of 30 seats, the only thing we could
is either to rezone the entire shopping center to C-2 or to rezone a portion of it
which is the portion that Mr. Kapidani occupies. I think we are all aware that
the C-2 type of zoning is a more intense use. This is a very limited
neighborhood shopping center and I think when I looked at it, I don't think it
was fair to the neighborhood or even to the City to request a total rezoning to
a C-2 for the entire shopping center. So therefore, we considered just
rezoning the section that Mr. Kapidani is occupying and I am aware that there
has been some incidences in Livonia, in the past, where this has been
accomplished and it has been used in the same type of a situation where the
City didn't want to rezone the entire shopping center and considered, and
approved, the small rezoning. So that is what we are here about. I think this
individual, even though you don't know him, and he really can't come up here
and express himself very well, this is his dream is to operate a family type of
restaurant. I think any other type of person, when confronted with the type of
difficulties, losing money here, would probably go in and file for bankruptcy.
These people don't. They just work harder and they will continue to work
hard and make enough money to keep his family going. We are here to ask
for your help, and ask for the City's help to enable him to enlarge his
restaurant. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: How many more seats does he require?
Mr. Tangora: What he really would like to do is put booths along both sides of the
restaurant. Obviously, booths can accommodate four people and I think we
figured it out that you can have seven booths on one side and six booths on
the other side. So you are talking about 52 additional seats. It would be a
total of 70 to 80 seats, which the area could accommodate very well.
Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, is it possible for the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance
in this case, a use variance?
Mr. Taormina: It is possible.
Mr. McCann: Do they have to exhaust their other remedies first?
Mr. Taormina: I believe in this instance, the Zoning Board of Appeals would first look to see
whether he has attempted to rezone the property.
`ism. Mr. Alanskas: I was there today twice. It is really a very clean restaurant. However, at
12:30 p.m. the restaurant was half full and at 1:30 p.m. it was three quarters
17957
full. The question I have is, is he busier in the evening than for lunches or
vice versa?
'' o- Mr. Tangora: I am not sure. We have a person here from the neighborhood that probably
could explain. I don't think it is really attractive to families or to groups
without the family type of restaurant. I think he feels strongly that he needs
the booths to make it look like a successful restaurant and it will attract more
people.
Mr. Alanskas: How long did he sign that lease for?
Mr. Tangora: For five years.
Mr. Lapin: When he was in here originally, we had a lot of discussion about this and I
supported his petition. At that time we thought he couldn't make it with 30
seats. At that time you brought up the point that later on you may try to get
the rezoning and I really felt sorry for the gentleman. He got roped into a
lease and he didn't know about the rules and regulations that you have to go
through. My problem at this stage of the game is taking one unit and
rezoning it to C-2. Now, saying that, I wouldn't have any objection to doing
that if I knew that this gentleman was going to own that restaurant from now
to doom's day. He has a clean operation. I went behind the building and
there was no garbage lying around. He is doing a good job. It is what
happens later. As you well know, the zoning goes with the building. He may
sell this building in a few years and we get somebody else in there and does
`, , just a terrible job and it puts us in a terrible light. If there was some way that
I could be guaranteed that when he left that would go back to C-1, which we
can't do, I would more than happy to give it to him. That is my dilemma at
this point.
Mr. Tangora: Obviously, I can't give those types of guarantees because I don't know. He
could walk in front of a streetcar or something like that. All I can tell you is
that this is his American dream is to operate a family type restaurant. His
whole family is behind him. His wife works there. His whole idea is to own
his own restaurant without having to go to work in another restaurant working
for someone else. I just think the type of people that they are, they are hard
workers. They are honest people. I think without guarantee he is going to be
there for a long time.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Tangora, you inferred that this has been done in the past many time. Can
you tell me where this happened? I can recall I think one of them.
Mr. Tangora: I didn't say many times. I said it has occurred in the City in the past that I was
aware of. I am aware of that it happened over on Wood Creek Shopping
Center for the Bogart's Billiard Parlor, it was a rezoning. I think when they
wanted to put food in there along with a Class C license, I think they had to
come in and get a C-2 zoning. I have been told there is another place, I think
it was in Concord Plaza, I'm not really sure about that, I can't guarantee that,
but I think that was the other one.
17958
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Tangora, you are aware that this is really the epitome of spot zoning and I
think you are aware that we don't like to set a precedence inasmuch as we can
`�• sympathize with this particular individual and Mr. LaPine had a great
suggestion. Perhaps that can't be a guarantee but perhaps it can, I don't know.
Mr. Tangora: I took a look at it and I know there is a question about spot zoning. The
question was whether to come in and rezone the entire shopping center, which
I think is objectionable to the City and also to the neighborhood or to come in
for an individual for spot zoning if you have it. I think that is the lesser of
two evils.
Mr. McCann: I am going to go to the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition?
Jerry Dwyer, 37742 Northfield. I live in the sub that is right behind the strip mall. There are
30 homes in there and they are six years old now. The strip mall went in
about four or five years ago. This space was empty until he took it over. We
started going up there and I happen to be the association president so I went to
every home when Joe told me what his plan was or what he hoped to
accomplish. Nobody in the neighborhood has a problem at all with him
expanding the seating. Mr. Alanskas, when you asked about going in there at
certain times and you saw today, we go in there on Sunday mornings after
church for breakfast every Sunday. I have four kids still at home and my
wife. If you see how the tables are set up, I have to take two tables, pull them
`ow together so now I am taking up, if he's got 30 seats in there, I am taking up
over 20% of his seating. So what ends up happening, every time we go there
I see families walk in, look around and walk out because there is not the
seating for a family restaurant like there should be. Nobody in the
neighborhood has a problem. He keeps it real clean. As a matter of fact, the
people down at the end of the street who abut to the wall, since he has taken
over because he makes sure that the Papa Romano's, the Subways, the Dairy
Queen are doing their job in keeping the back area clean too so nobody has a
problem with it.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. If there is nobody else wishing to speak, I am closing the Public
Hearing. Mr. Tangora, do you have any last comments?
Mr. Tangora: No.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, very reluctantly, I am going to give a denying resolution. The
reason why I am doing this is because if you grant one person a spot zoning,
then Subway may say, "Well we are so busy we may want some more seats."
Then they want theirs to be included and you open up a can of worms.
�, On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, it was
17959
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on August 29, 2000, on Petition 2000-07-01-14 by
Brashear, Tangora and Spence, LLP on behalf of Durresi Restaurant
v..r requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road
north of Joy Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-
07-01-14 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony
with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning represents spot zoning in that the
balance of the shopping center property would remain in the C-1 zoning
district;
3) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to set a precedent of
rezoning a small part of a commercial development to a different, less
restrictive zoning district so as to accommodate a proposed use which is
contrary to good land use and zoning principles; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning would invite future requests for
zoning changes from C-1 to C-2 for similarly situated properties and thus
erode the local business character of shopping centers that were
established in C-1 districts for the purpose of providing neighborhood
type commercial services.
Sew
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I am really caught on this one. I understand what the motion is
trying to accomplish but I also have sympathy for the petitioner in that,
number one, he is an immigrant and did not know the rules and regulations.
Unfortunately, he did not hire an attorney at the time when he signed his lease.
We have a situation today in this country where the big corporations get all the
restaurants. They are getting all the big box stores now and the little guy who
is trying to struggle and start out a new business is stymied at every corner. I
am very sympathetic to the man's plight although I have to say I am not in
favor of spot zoning but if there was anyway that we could work this out, I
would be willing to make a tabling motion and see if there is some way we can
work out this the situation and have the staff check with the Zoning Board of
Appeals and see if that is the route to go or some other route. Therefore, I will
make a tabling motion.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved it was
#8-157-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on August 29, 2000, on Petition 2000-07-01-14 by
Brashear, Tangora and Spence, LLP on behalf of Durresi Restaurant
requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road
Now
north of Joy Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to C-2, the Planning
17960
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2000-07-01-14 be tabled to
September 19, 2000.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi
NAYS: Alanskas, McCann
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Tangora: I appreciate the comments and I certainly appreciate Mr. LaPine's concern
and I feel that this is an individual that we should go out of our way to try to
help.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2000-07-02-26 Jeff Williams (Playworld Amusements)
Livonia Rotary Club
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-07-02-26
by Jeff Williams (Playworld Amusements) on behalf of the Livonia Rotary
Club requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival consisting of
amusement rides, games and food concessions to be held on October 6, 7 and
8, 2000, in the parking lot of Wonderland Mall on property located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue
in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 35.
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 August 7, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant
to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The following
approximate legal description should be used in connection with this petition
only: That part of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 T. 1S., R. 9E., City of
Livonia, Wayne County,Michigan more particularly described as
beginning at a point distant North 89°49'46" West, 1230 feet and S.
00°10'14" West, 60 feet from the Northeast corner of Section 35 and
proceeding thence South 00°10'14" West, 170 feet;thence North 89°49'16"
West, 350 feet; thence North 00°10'14"East, 170 feet; thence South
89°49'16"East, 350 feet to the point of beginning. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested." The letter is signed by John P.
Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated August 7, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
"or request of July 27, 2000, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted: (1) The 60'setback distance from Plymouth Road
17961
needs to be clarified to 60'setback distance from the property line. This
Department has no other objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
\.. Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is from the Division
of Police, dated August 9, 2000, and reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
proposed site plan and have no objections regarding the placement of the
amusements and the proposed time of operation. In regards to parking of
vehicles to the rear (south side) of K-mart,parking must be a minimum of 150
feet from the wall. Vehicles parked at this location should not be left running
between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.per City Ordinance." The letter
is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Livonia Fire &Rescue Division, dated August 9, 2000, and reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with
a request to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Rotary Club 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?
Jeff Williams, 31250 Cooley, Westland. I represent Playworld.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional we need to know about this? Any changes since
the last time you were here, what month was it, June?
Mr. Williams: I think it was May.
Mr. McCann: And there are no changes from that carnival?
Mr. Williams: Exactly the same except we are downsizing it. There will be less rides.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to
the audience. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or
against this proposal? Seeing no one, I am going to close the Public Hearing.
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was
#8-158-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on August 29, 2000, on Petition 2000-07-02-26 by Jeff
Williams(Playworld Amusements) on behalf of the Livonia Rotary Club
requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival consisting of amusement
rides, games and food concessions to be held on October 6, 7 and 8, 2000, in
the parking lot of Wonderland Mall on property located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 35, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2000-07-02-26 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
17962
1) That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Playworld
Amusements, which are October 6, 2000 through October 8, 2000,
`.. inclusive;
2) That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as
illustrated on the site plan submitted with this request;
3) That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment and
apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be located at least
60 feet distant from the Plymouth Road right-of-way line;
4) That all trucks and other transportation-related vehicles and equipment
and temporary housing quarters shall be parked or stored within the
southwesterly portion of the Wonderland Mall parking lot, but no closer
than 200 feet from the adjacent residential properties to the south;
5) That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks during late
hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. including motors on
any refrigeration trucks;
6) That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter
dated July 10, 2000, from Jeff Williams, Routing Director of Playworld
Amusements, which have been approved by the Police Department;and
7) That the unobstructed access to any hydrants within the carnival area be
`ft. provided for the Fire Department.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not
interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not
impede access to the Wonderland Mall; and
4) That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use.
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.
It will go on to Council with an approving resolution.
17963
Mr. Alanskas: I have a question. When your people put those metal stakes into the parking
lot, how far down do they go into the parking lot? You know when you put
`.. up your tents and you tie a rope to it.
Mr. Williams: We don't have any stakes that go into the lot. The only two stakes that go into
the ground is for the generator.
Mr. Alanskas: How do you repair those, with a wet tar?
Mr. Williams: We find a split in the asphalt.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2000-07-02-27 Pugh Shows, Inc.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-07-02-27
by Pugh Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival
sponsored by the Livonia Mall Merchants Association consisting of
amusement rides, games and food concessions from September 20 through
September 24, 2000, in the parking lot of Livonia Mall, on property located
on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Purlingbrook Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter from the
Division of Police, dated July 31, 2000, and reads as follows: "In response to
the captioned petition, the Police Department has no objection to the site plan
as submitted. The Police Department has no objection to the proposed hours
of operation as proposed in the correspondence dated July 10, 2000,
addressed to Chairman McCann." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated August 7, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of July 26, 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed.
This Department has no objection to this Petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Senior Building Inspector. The third letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated August 7, 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 S.E. 1/4 of Section 2, T. 1S., R. 9E., City of Livonia, Wayne
County, Michigan described as beginning at a point distant South
89°52'00" West, along the South line of Section 2, 400.00 feet and North,
60.00 feet from the Southeast corner of Section 2 and proceeding thence
North, 330.00 feet;thence South 89°52'00" West, 480.00 feet;South,
__ 330.00 feet; thence North 89°52'00" West, 480.00 feet to the point of
beginning. We trust that this will provide you with the information
17964
requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The
fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 9,
2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
.44111/
in connection with a request to conduct a carnival sponsored by Livonia Mall,
L.L.C. 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?
James Wegerly, 3041 Serenity, Oakland, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything new? We did this not too long ago, correct?
Mr. Wegerly: Yes we did. We've done it a couple of years at Livonia Mall. I might
mention also that accompanied with me this evening is Carl Zarbo, the
General Manager of the Livonia Mall, in case you might have any questions
for him. This is the identical area we occupied this spring and we are asking
for a duplicate approval by the Commission. There is one request we must
ask and I don't know if I should ask this now or not but if you do vote
favorably on this item, we must request a waiver of the 7 day waiting period.
Mr. McCann: I am aware of that. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Hearing none, is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the Public Hearing. A
N... motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#8-159-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on August 29, 2000, on Petition 2000-07-02-27 by
Pugh Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival
sponsored by the Livonia Mall Merchants Association consisting of
amusement rides, games and food concessions from September 20 through
September 24, 2000 in the parking lot of Livonia Mall, on property located on
the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Purlingbrook Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 2, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-07-02-27 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by Pugh Shows,
Inc., which are September 20, 2000, through September 24, 2000,
inclusive;
2) That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as
illustrated on the site plan submitted with this request;
ti..
17965
3) That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other equipment and
apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be located at least
\rip. 60 feet distant from the Seven Mile Road right-of-way line;
4) That all trucks and other transportation equipment shall be parked or
stored within the northwesterly portion of the Livonia Mall parking lot,
but no closer than 100 feet from the west property line abutting the
Ziegler Place site or 250 feet from the south property line abutting
Hunters Brook Condominiums;
5) That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks during late
hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. including motors on
any refrigeration trucks;
6) That there shall be no living quarters at the location of the stored trucks;
7) That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in a letter
dated July 10, 2000, from James K. Wegerly, President of Pugh Shows,
Inc., which have been approved by the Police Department;
8) That access to fire hydrants is provided for the Fire Department.
For the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance#543;
2) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
3) That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will not
interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area and will not
impede access to the Livonia Mall;
4) That no reporting City department objects to the proposed use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi: I also move that the 7 day waiting period be waived in this case.
Mr. McCann: The waiver of the 7 day rule, one of the things that we require on this is that
there is contact with the Council President. My understanding is that the staff
has done that. The Council will hear it a little sooner so that you would be
before the Council in time to hold the carnival.
17966
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#8-160-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness
of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 2000-07-02-
27 by Pugh Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to conduct a carnival
sponsored by the Livonia Mall Merchants Association consisting of
amusement rides, games and food concessions from September 20 through
September 24, 2000, in the parking lot of Livonia Mall, on property located
on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Purlingbrook Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #5 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. 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 August 7, 2000, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the
proposal. The legal description contained in Exhibit E and labeled "Lease
Area"of the documents submitted has been approved and should be used in
connection with this petition. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 7,
2000, and reads as follows: "In response to the captioned petition, the Police
Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted. One inaccuracy
was noted which involves the height of the fence surrounding the site. Sheet
A-2 indicates an eight foot high chain link fence. Sheet A-3 and A-4 indicate
a chain link fence with a height of six feet. This should be clarified prior to
approval." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The third letter is from the Department of Public Safety, dated August 9,
2000, and reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to install a 133 foot monopole antenna structure
for shared usage and its accompanying electronic equipment cabinets on
17967
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
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated August 16, 2000, and
'11` reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 1, 2000, the above
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This
petition as proposed, will require two variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. (A)Deficient set back to a residential district. (B)Deficient set
back from a publicly traveled road (2) The petition purposes an easement
and access road through curbing, landscaping, and parking spaces.
Clarification should be provided as to how the landscaping, traffic control
and parking spaces will be replaced and/or modified. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Robert Starkman, Richard Connor Riley&Associates, 30150 North Telegraph Road, Suite
420, Bingham Farms. We are counsel to Sprint PCS. This site was selected
out of four possible candidates, within the search ring that was developed by
our radio frequency engineers. With me tonight is Rahjid Batra, who is the
radio frequency engineer, assigned to this project and Nick LaVel who is our
construction manager from Chicago who is also assigned to the project and
they can answer any specific questions with respect to any items. But initially
there were four sites that we were looking at in terms of placing some form of
telecommunication towers to benefit customer in this area. The first site we
Nolo. looked at was St. Mary's Hospital. We approached the administration....
Mr. McCann: You know what, we've got a lot of people in the audience, it is really relevant
what we are trying to focus in on is this particular site and how it fits within
the site, especially the variances that would be required because you are
abutting residentially zoned land.
Mr. Starkman: Correct. With respect to that, I can let Mr. LaVel deal with the fall zone issue
but it is really the position of Sprint and the other carriers that when we build
a monopole, I can understand the setback concerns, but these towers are
designed to fall within themselves. The letter in your packet from Valmont,
we have a letter from Summit, both of which are tower manufacturers, will
indicate the towers are designed with what is called a bend over feature which
is sort of like if you see individuals with white canes that fold from long to
short, the towers do the same thing. If we have sustained winds of anywhere
from 85 mph to 90 mph which in Michigan, I hear that occurs once every 75
years, the tower, if it is structurally unstable, will fall within itself, section by
section, in a pile. It isn't as if it is going to tip one way or the other in any
direction.
Mr. McCann: But that doesn't change our ordinance. Our ordinance says you have to 180
feet away. For whatever reasons, you still have an ordinance there.
17968
Mr. Starkman: I understand that. The reason why we placed the tower where it was, was
because of the expansion concerns of the Italian American Club. They
r.�. wanted to not lose as much parking as they would if we placed ourselves in
the middle of the parcel. Because of the fact that the residences are based on
my map
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina or Mr. Miller, do we have the drawings that you prepared for
us? I believe we have one of the whole site that shows where the parking lot
is. The current position is to the far north point is where you are placing it,
correct?
Mr. Starkman: Correct.
Mr. McCann: We talked at the study meeting about moving it down to the north end of their
parking lot on the westerly portion, somewhere in that area so that it would
meet the two variances. Is that a problem for your tower being in that
location, approximately 200 feet south of where it currently would be?
Mr. Starkman: It would not be a problem for us to place our tower there. The concern was,
and initially our drawings quite frankly had our tower placed there. The
concern of the club was again for taking up parking spaces and inhibiting
their ability to expand in the future. That was why they decided, along with
us, to move the tower farther to the north to an area that is wooded and would
provide a wooded buffer to the north to the west and partially to the south and
would provide that to the existing neighboring residential uses.
sow.
Mr. McCann: After finding out about the variance problem, have you discussed moving the
tower with the gentleman from the Italian American Club.
Mr. Starkman: Yes we have and they have the concern for the inhibition of their ability to
expand in the future. We would be willing to place our tower in that location.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, do we know how far the distance is there between the north
end of the parking lot and the farthest point? Can you check that for me? We
also have a representative from the Italian American Club so is going to
speak.
Mr. Taormina: Placing the lease area as close to the northern edge of the existing parking lot
as would be possible, would move the tower roughly 275 feet to the south,
from where it is presently shown.
Mr. McCann: How much of a buffer between that and the parking lot would it give them if
they did that?
Mr. Taormina: That would be right up against the edge of the existing parking lot.
Mr. McCann: You say there is 275 feet between the northern edge of the parking lot and
the position of the...
17969
Mr. Taormina: From the existing tower location.
Mr. McCann: So they can bring it back almost half way?
Mr. Taormina: That would provide a setback of about 210 feet.
Al Deflaviis, President of the Italian American Club of Livonia. I would like to speak on
behalf of the proposal and maybe clear up some items. The group that is
requesting the proposal, came to us originally with that exact proposal to put
that pad right on the north edge of the parking lot. We went to our Board of
Directors and reviewed their plan and it was determined that it may not be in
the best interest of any future plans that the club may have or whatever those
plans may be. We requested that they go back and place it the furthest
northern part, back in the woods, as far away from the club and the parking
lot and possibly the church so that it wouldn't disturb anything. We asked
them to go back as far as they could go and they came up with this proposal.
That is how it got to this point.
Mr. McCann: All right. Even with the understanding, if they put a site in there, you would
be able to build parking around it. It is not going to be as well hidden. But
according to Mr. Taormina, it is about 275 feet between your parking lot and
the farthest north point and you would need to be south of it 160 feet,
approximately?
Mr. Taormina: The setback has to be at least 158 feet so it could be moved a little bit further
Nolo. north from that location in order to comply with the setback.
Mr. McCann: So it still could be setback from the parking lot, but not all the way. Would
that be a problem for the Italian American Club?
Mr. DeFlaviis: At this point it would because we are at point where when they came to us
originally back some months ago, we kept sending them back to the drawing
board until we had a final proposal that we knew the Board and the general
membership would accept. We actually went to a formal meeting and
proposed this plan and gave them the ability to come here. If this isn't
accepted, we would have to go back to our own Board.
Mr. McCann: Were you aware at the time that this was non-conforming?
Mr. DeFlaviis: We didn't know how much we were out but we knew that they wouldn't have
brought it to us unless it was conforming at the time. We didn't feel that it
was correct. It would limit our future plans, if we have any, whatever they
may be. I can't tell you that we are going to do anything but you know the
club plans to be there for quite some time and the other issue, so you
understand, there has to be ingress and egress to this site at all times and the
original plan called for an easement that runs through the center of the
parking lot. It kind of jogs around but it goes through the parking lot. We
r..• may re-stripe, reconfigure, something at some time in time and this easement
may cause a problem in doing that at some point in the future. We thought it
17970
would be best if we put this as far north as we possibly can so where we know
we probably are not going to be some day and as far away from everybody
and I guess at that point I guess we figured we have it covered from the north,
from the south and from the west. It is the east that we knew we were real
close on.
Mr. Alanskas: You know the area that you want is only 30' x 40'. Is that correct?
Mr. DeFlaviis: Correct.
Mr. Alanskas: That is not a big piece of property. I am just wondering if that small of an
area would defer from your plans whatever they could be in the future. They
are not taking half an acre. It is only 30' x 40'.
Mr. DeFlavvis: Again, I cannot make that decision. I would have to go in front of the 809
families and explain it to them.
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?
Earl G. Goetsch, 15255 Knolson Avenue, Livonia. I am a retired Professional Engineer, State
of Michigan, Registration#6405. Most recently retired, Mechanical
Engineer, Ford Motor Company, in the field of automotive emission controls
and past US Service Inspector of Engineering Material in the Detroit
Ordinance District. History exposes error; error in design, error in
manufacturing, error in quality and error in giving premature certified
approval of which haste is a dominant factor. Recent events like tires failing
on SUV's with no forewarning or the surface of I275 loss of mechanical
integrity and separating or a jammed 20mm machine gun in a P38 fighter or
the collapse of the double deck Oakland Bay bridge or the explosion of the
Hindenburg dirigible at its anchor are all examples of failure costing human
life and wasted taxpayer dollars. I object to granting approval of this request
for waiver at this time on the basis of insufficient evidence of known or
unknown health effects and potential hazards. Upon examination of the
petition documents at the planning commission office these concerns were not
addressed and no mention of HEW approval was made. Let's find out more
before proceeding with this technology. Thank you.
Rob Olenzek, 15508 Knolson. The trees along the highway there, provide us as silence from
the highway. If they plan on cutting some of these trees down, that is going
to make more of the highway noise come to our houses. Plus, the waves, I
don't know what type of waves these are. If they are microwaves, are they
harmful to us, our families and our kids? I purchased this house three years
ago and I plan on having a family and I don't know what these waves will do
to our families in the area. Plus, when I walk out of my house, the first thing I
will look at is a big tower. I don't want to see that. There is a walking park
back there. At the end of that street there is a dog walking park and you have
kids playing back there. I would hate to see a kid climb up one of these
17971
fences and climb over and get hurt on these poles. I don't agree with this.
That is all I have to say.
Margaret Krupp, 15529 Knolson, Homeowner for 30 years and has lived directly behind the
wooded area there. My concern is the health issue. We are being told not to
use cell phones because of the radiation, or whatever. Your footage, I don't
have any idea who calculated that and who were the people that ascertained
that so many feet or so many inches is a safe radius. Also, the past years
when we have had no rain, that wooded area is extremely dry. It is like a
matchbox. If a lighting storm does affect this pole that it would cause that to
be an enhancer, we would have a fire back there. Today on I275, a car
crossed the median and hit head on and I know there were deaths. I am not
saying that a car could come up on that median and how close it is going to
parallel that fence but that fence is very minimal and the barrier is very
minimal. The location, as far as from us is fine, but you are on highway
where there are 250,000 cars that go by there everyday. I strongly oppose this
pole.
Mr. McCann: I don't see anyone else wishing to speak. I am going to close the Public
Hearing and give the petitioner the chance to make any last comments.
Mr. Starkman: The packets that everyone on the Planning Commission was provided,
indicates the structural integrity of the tower that would be built. Moreover
we have documentation from Summit Manufacturing that is the manufacturer
of the exact tower that would be installed at this location. It would, again,
`".. meet all the national safety requirements for towers of this type or any type
with respect to its structural integrity. Again, based on the comments and on
the variance issues, if possible, we would like that this matter be tabled so that
we can meet with the members of the Italian American Club administration
and review the possibility of moving the tower so that we do meet the
requisite setbacks in the area.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: Regarding alternate moving sites and landscaping and the proposer to deal
with the proprietor of the said property which is going to have this facility
installed upon, and hopefully to bring this property and this proposal more in
line with our ordinance, I move to table this until a date appropriate to the
schedule.
Mr. McCann: I am going to ask Mr. DeFlaviis if he would come forward. If there is an
alternate site that might be available that would meet the ordinance and be
hidden, when would you need to take it to the Board. I hate to set a meeting
for September 19 and you come back and say "Well, our meeting is the 20th
so I can't tell you anything yet."
Mr. DeFlaviis: We meet the third Thursday of every month.
17972
Mr. McCann: The next meeting would be the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting which
would be October 3, 2000. That would give us time to at least look at it.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved it was
#8-161-2000 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
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 that Petition 2000-07-02-28 be tabled to October 3, 2000.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2000-05-06-03 City Planning Commission
(Special Area Development Control-Millennium)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-06-03
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#164-98,
and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.47, Special Area Development Control so as to include the area
N"" surrounding Millennium Park in a new control zone in portions of Sections
23, 24, 25 and 26.
Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment, if approved, would create a new vicinity
control zone in the area at the intersection of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft
Roads. The proposed district would encompass the S.E. 1/4 of Section 23,the
S.W. 1/4 of Section 24, the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25 and the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 26. Therefore, it would encompass land within one half mile radius of
this intersection. The zone would exclude all property located within the
single family residential zoning districts. The effect of the proposed new
Millennium Park control zone would be to provide additional regulation with
respect to exterior building alternations and signage within this designated
area. With few exceptions, and notwithstanding the requirements for site plan
review under Section 18.55 any external modifications to any commercial or
office buildings within the proposed control zone would first require the
review and approval of both the City Planning Commission and the City
Council. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the Public Hearing. A motion is
in order.
`�- On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
17973
#8-162-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on August 29, 2000, on Petition 2000-05-06-03 by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#164-98, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section
18.47, Special Area Development Control so as to include the area
surrounding Millennium Park in a new control zone in portion of Sections 23,
24, 25 and 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2000-05-06-03 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide more control over
and more uniform standards for development within the designated area;
and
2) That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the City's
policy of paying particular attention to areas of the City with special
development potential.
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.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2000-05-06-04 City Planning Commission
(Enclosed Parking)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-06-04
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#351-00
and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of the Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to
amend Section 27.10 and Section 27.09A, enclosed parking standards in the
R-8 and R-8C Zoning Districts.
Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment is an outgrowth of a recent Zoning
Board of Appeals case involving a variance and the number of covered
parking spaces required under Section 27.10 of the Zoning Ordinance. This
was in connection with the Bell Creek Square planned residential
development, which is presently under construction at the corner of Six Mile
and Farmington Roads. Under current standards the number of covered
parking spaces required for a development of this type is a proportion of the
total number of required parking spaces and from multiple dwellings
including condominiums or apartments, the required parking ratio which is 2-
1/2 spaces for each unit with two bedrooms at least 1/2 of these spaces must
be enclosed by either means of a garage or a carport. In 1990 the Zoning
Ordinance was amended to increase the required parking for multiple family
projects. The driving force behind this amendment was the recognition that
more parking was needed for guests and residents of multiple family projects,
However, an unperceived consequence of the amendment was its affect on the
requirement for enclosed parking. Because of the objective of the change in
17974
the Ordinance in 1990 was to provide sufficient and convenient parking for
residents and guests, we believe that a more appropriate standard would be to
assign a number of covered parking spaces based on the number of dwelling
units and not the total number of parking spaces. For this reason, we have
proposed amendments to the Ordinance that would provide that at least one
parking space for each one and two bedroom unit within a condominium or
multiple family development and at least two parking spaces for each three
and four bedroom unit must be contained within an enclosed parking
structure. That is the extent of our proposed amendment.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, I will close the Public Hearing. A motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#8-163-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
29, 2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-05-06-04 by the
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#351-00, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of the Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 27.10 and Section 27.09A, enclosed parking standards in the R-8 and
R-8C Zoning Districts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-05-06-04 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment is complimentary to the parking
requirements contained in Section 18.38(2) of the Zoning Ordinance
which provide for sufficient resident and guest parking for multiple family
dwellings; and
2) That the proposed language amendment will base the number of covered
parking spaces required for high-rise multiple family residential
developments on more appropriate standards relating to numbers and
types of dwelling units rather than as a percentage of the total number of
parking spaces required.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
This concludes the Public Hearing portion of our agenda. We will now
proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. Members of
the audience may speak in support or opposition of these items.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2000-08-SN-12 American General
17975
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-08-SN-12
by American General requesting approval of signage for a commercial
building located at 19618 Middlebelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Miller: This site is located at the northeast corner of Middlebelt and St. Martins. The
applicant is requesting approval for a conforming wall sign for one of the
units of the commercial center located on the subject site. This unit sets
between the Country Style Convenience Store and the Perani's Hockey Shop.
The new sign would be located over the main entrance of the financial
business, within the dryvit band that runs along the top of the center. Signage
permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is 1 wall sign not to exceed 22
sq. ft. in sign area. Signage proposed is 1 wall sign- west elevation-
"AMERICAN GENERAL" - 22 sq. ft. in sign area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one letter and it is from the Inspection Department, dated August
23, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to our request of August 24, 2000,
the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1)
As proposed, this petition will need to remove permanent window signage
to meet the maximum 10 sq.ft or will need to obtain a variance from the
zoning Board of Appeals for excess wall signage. (2) Address signage
now existing is deficient the 4 inch minimum size Other than as noted
above, this department has no further objections to this petition. I trust this
will provide the requested information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Daniel Gace, 19618 Middlebelt Road, Livonia. I am here representing American General.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us?
Mr. Gace: I was told by the sign company to show up in case you had any questions
regarding our company.
Mr. McCann: Is it an interior lit sign?
Mr. Gace: Yes.
Mr. McCann: You have no objection to turning it off one hour after closing?
Mr. Gace: I don't know for sure if it is an interior lit sign. I am pretty sure it is.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to
the audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
17976
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to give an approval on a conforming
sign.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#8-164-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-08-SN-12 by American General
requesting approval of signage for a commercial building located at 19618
Middlebelt Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 1, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Sign Plan as prepared by General Sign Company dated May 8,
2000, for a sign having a maximum area of 21.96 sq. ft. is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this
business closes;
3) That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
r..
ITEM #9 PETITION 2000-08-SN-13 Arco Service Corporation
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-08-SN-13
by Acro Service Corporation requesting approval for signage for the office
building located at 17187 Laurel Park Drive in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Laurel Park between Six Mile and
Laurel Court. ACRO Service Corporation is a firm that provides human
resource services primarily to the automotive industry. According to a
company official, ACRO leases approximately 16,000 sq. ft. of office space
at 17187 Laurel Park Dr. with plans to lease an additional 2,000 sq. ft. in the
near future. They are located on the first floor of this four-story office
building. The applicant is requesting approval for a wall sign for the office
building located on the subject site. The proposed sign would be located on
the rooftop screen of the west elevation and would face the I-275
Expressway. Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50G for
multi-tenant office building is 1 wall sign identifying name of development -
not to exceed 100 sq. ft. in sign area. Signage proposed is 1 wall sign- west
elevation= "ACRO" = 85 sq. ft. in sign area. Excess signage - identifies a
tenant. Because the proposed signage identifies a tenant of the building and
not the development itself, the applicant would be required to be granted a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
17977
Mr. Nowak: There is one letter and it is from the Inspection Department, dated August
24, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 16,
... 2000, the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted: (1) The parking lot, in its entirety, needs repair, maintenance,
sealing and/or re-surfacing. (2) As proposed, the petition will need a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for wall signage identifying a
single tenant in a multi-tenant building. This department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Senior
Building Inspector.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Keith Berg, 17187 N. Laurel Park Dr., Suite 165, Livonia, MI 48152.
Mr. McCann: Anything additional you would like to tell us?
Mr. Berg: No sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: What percent of the building do you occupy?
Mr. Berg: We occupy somewhere in the neighborhood of about 20% of that building.
Mr. Piercecchi: You just occupy about 20% of that building?
Mr. Berg: We are, if not the largest, the second largest tenant. The previous largest
tenant which had a sign there was Alexsis and they have taken it down. I
asked our landlord, who supports our sign, to provide whether we are the
largest or not.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is the building 100%occupied right now?
Mr. Berg: I don't know that sir. I could ask our landlord.
Mr. Piercecchi: This is in violation of our ordinance. We don't generally identify a tenant on
a building but if you were at 50%or 60%, I would feel differently about it too
but 20% doesn't, in my opinion, appear to be a major tenant.
Mr. Berg: I base that on the fact that we are renting right now 18,000 sq. ft. and it is
roughly a four story building. I don't have all the figures in front of me.
Mr. LaPine: How long have you been in the building?
Mr. Berg: We have been a tenant in that building for 14 years.
Mr. LaPine: And you have expanded over the years and using more and more space?
Mr. Berg: That is correct. Yes. Alexsis had a sign up there. The Zoning Board gave an
••- approval for them in 1994.
17978
Mr. LaPine: Prior to that you say there was another sign up there for another tenant?
Mr. Berg: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: So that means that you were in the building at the time they were there?
Mr. Berg: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: How much space did they have? Can you tell me that?
Mr. Berg: I can't tell you that.
Mr. LaPine: I have no big objection to the sign. It is just that, I am like Mr. Piercecchi, I
could see if this was your world headquarters, fine or if all of this building
belongs to you, you want your name out there. The problem you have is that
you just have 20% and somebody else may have 40% and they may say "I
need a sign too". "We would like to have our name up there too." It creates
a problem. That is all I can tell you. Under our ordinance it is not permitted
and you still will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a waiver.
Mr. Berg: That is correct. We understand that and at that point we can probably make
it a lot more clear in terms of the largest tenant in that building, what they
occupy versus what we have. It might make it a little bit more convincing.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody
Now in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one,
any last comments sir?
Mr. Berg: No sir.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am gong to offer a motion to deny. I don't consider 20% or less a major
occupier of said building, which is 130,000 sq. ft.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it was
#8-165-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-08-SN-13 by Acro Service Corporation
requesting approval for signage for the office building located at 17187
Laurel Park Drive in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 7, be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements outlined
in Section 1850G of the Zoning Ordinance;
2) That the applicant has not justified the need for any additional signage for
`.- this location or having a tenant identified on the building;
17979
3) That approving this sign request would set an undesirable precedent for
the area;
4) Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best
interest.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: This is a really touchy situation. The question I have is if you have been
there for 14 years, have you had a problem with people finding you in the
building? It doesn't make any sense that all of a sudden you need a sign.
Mr. Berg: I think because of the recent growth of the business. The largest percentage
of our employees, we are a staffing firm, and many of our people that we
screen for applicants come from areas in Detroit and Warren as well as our
engineering and technology people that come from outside the state, and
other countries. There is no identifying characteristics on those buildings
other than address signs. Many times we have people tell us that they had
difficulty finding Acro inside of the building because there are no identifiers.
We simply looked at the approach that there were previous signs on the
buildings that were granted under the ZBA and since we are a growing
tenant and remain in that building and wish to continue in that building, we
received the support of the landlord for this proposal. We would like to have
some identifying characteristics so that our people that come to us can find
the building more easily.
r..
Mr. Alanskas: O.K. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, I don't want to with argue you but they have big numbers on top of those
buildings, don't they?
Mr. Berg: There are address signs, that is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: They are huge numbers. Our Chairman just calculated the space you occupy
and it is 13.9%
Mr. McCann: It is a rough estimate. If there is no further discussion, please call the roll.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Piercecchi, Alanskas, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: Shane
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
The petition is denied. You have ten days in which to appeal the decision in
writing to the City Council
17980
ITEM #10 PETITION 2000-05-02-21 Newburgh Park Condominiums
Landscape Plan(The Ivanhoe Companies)
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-02-21
Newburgh Park Condominiums Landscape Plan by The Ivanhoe Companies
which received waiver use approval to construct a Planned Residential
Development on property located at 19753 Newburgh Road in the S.E. 1/4 of
Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Newburgh between Pembroke and St.
Martins. On July 19, 2000, this petition received waiver use approval to
construct a condominium development on the subject property. As part of
that approval it was conditioned: "That the landscape plan shall come back
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council." In
compliance with that requirement, a Landscape Plan has been submitted. The
plan has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with all applicable
standards and requirements. The overall planting scheme is residential in
nature. Each unit would have at least one tree in front of it and many would
have multiple. The detention pond in the middle of the development would
have numerous plantings around its upper edge. The south property line
would be lined with approximately 50 evergreen trees that should provide
adequate screening from the abutting properties. Newburgh Road would be
separated from the development a 2'/2 ft. to 4 ft. high undulating free form
earthberm and landscaping.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one letter and it is from the Inspection Department, dated August 24,
2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 16, 2000,
the above referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1)
This petition is unclear as to whether the deciduous trees meet the
minimum 8 feet height requirement and needs to be clarified (2) The
required common recreational area, designed and oriented to fit the needs
of the occupants, is not noted on this plan. This should be clarified (3)
Comment#9,(under notes), states Hydro-seed or sod and should be
changed to sod only. This department has no further objections to this
petition other than as noted above." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Kevin Christiansen, representing The Ivanhoe Companies and Marvin Walkon Associates,
7001 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 200, West Bloomfield, Michigan. I am here
this evening representing the Ivanhoe Companies. Mr. Shapiro, who you are
familiar with, sends his regrets. He was not able to attend this evening due to
a prior engagement. Mr. Walkon who was here earlier this evening also had
to leave. He sends his regrets as well. I am here before you this evening, as I
was last week in your study session, with the landscape plan for the
Newburgh Park Condominium development. As indicated, this development
17981
was approved by Council back in July. As indicated in the minutes, we were
required to come back before you, as well as the Council, with our landscape
plan. We are here with that landscape plan this evening which is the plan you
reviewed last week at your study session. Since the study session meeting,
we have not made any changes to the plan, however, you may recall we did
have some discussion regarding one particular issue with respect to this
landscape plan and that was the issue of buffering the neighbors to the south
of the project. To the south of this project is a residential neighborhood. We
have met with those neighbors on several occasions at various points and time
along the way with this development project. We have discussed screening
their property along that line between their development and our
development. In light of that, this landscape plan reflects a very dense
vegetative screen, an evergreen screen now, in light of all the comments that
have been made along that south property line. We feel that this addresses
one of the concerns that the neighbors have had in discussions we have had
with them along the way and that is to adequately screen, buffer if you will,
the residential development itself from the condominium residential
development. You may also recall there was another point of concern and
that point was providing some security, if you will, between the condominium
project and the residential development to the south. In light of a barrier, or a
structural type barrier, you may recall that there was discussion along the
lines of a fence. That discussion took place here and was forwarded to the
Council. Notwithstanding the Council's comments with respect to that fence,
you may be familiar with the fact that they were not supportive of that fence
as we had worked with the neighbors on and you moved forward.
Notwithstanding their comments, we have met with the neighbors again and
at this stage we are willing to address the second concern that they have and
that is to provide some type of structural barrier. In our discussions with them
what we are willing to do at this stage is to provide a 6 foot high chain link
fence that would run along the entire south property line of the project on the
property line between the residential development to the south and our
condominium residential development and to wrap around and to link up with
the existing masonry screen wall that is between our property and the office
building to the west. That would provide that structural barrier that we have
had discussions with the residents about and at the same time, addressing that
concern, we would then provide the very dense vegetative screen which you
see on your landscape plan. We are willing to do that. That is the discussions
we have had with the residents, again notwithstanding the comments of the
Council. The only thing that we would need to work out with the neighbors is
that we would need to have a temporary easement in order to allow for the
installation of the fence and then a permanent easement that would allow for
maintenance, as necessary. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Has this cyclone fence ever gotten in with the conversation with the City
Council? I know they did not like the wooden fence.
Mr. Christiansen: No. We have not approached the Council with this proposal.
17982
Mr. Piercecchi: But your proposal here, if I can repeat what you said, would be a five foot
cyclone chain link fence that would be highly landscaped.
Mr. Christiansen: It would be a six foot fence and it would be densely landscaped as shown
on this landscape plan, the fence running the entire length of the south
property line and along the west side linking up with the masonry screen
wall.
Mr. Piercecchi: Would the landscaping be on the residential side or on the Ivanhoe side?
Mr. Christiansen: It would be on the side of the condominium development.
Mr. Piercecchi: On the Ivanhoe side.
Mr. Christiansen: That is correct.
Mr. Alanskas: On your site plan you have a nice example showing a street lamp and a bench
seating but in regards to the retention pond, it says water fountain feature per
developer's selection. That means you can select what you want to put in
there?
Mr. Christiansen: Maybe I can show you some examples of what we have. I actually have
two examples. You did mention the landscape elements, the street lights
and the benches. This is a layout board that shows examples of the types of
street lighting that we would be proposing. Again, we haven't totally
completed all of our architectural work to the finished degree so that we
want to make sure that we match all of that in concert. What you see here
are representative examples of what we will go ahead and install at the
development. You will also see the type of benches that we are looking to
install and we may then also, in terms of landscape elements, we talked a
little bit at the study meeting of the pedestrian orientation around our
aesthetic water feature. We would put in a walkway, the benches and the
trellis features that you see here. The question though was with respect to
the examples of the fountains. This is what you see here. These are the
examples of the types of fountains that we would place in the pond.
Mr. Alanskas: Which one are you thinking you may want to put in?
Mr. Christiansen: These are fairly close and similar. It would be something along these lines.
You will see a spray fountain here. This one here is a little bit more ornate.
It depends on our engineering and the actual engineering with respect to
the pond and what we will be able to use.
Mr. Alanskas: Will there be colored lighting at all?
Mr. Christiansen: At this stage, no.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to that fence, there are a lot of areas have this nice looking wrought
iron black fence instead of a chain link fence. It looks so much more classier.
17983
Mr. Christiansen: One of the concerns is maintenance and the other concern is security, too.
Our experience has been that as far as solid fencing that the cyclone
fencing would provide the greatest security.
Mr. Alanskas: But that has to be maintained also. They have to be painted after so many
years.
Mr. Christiansen: We understand that and that is why we are looking at the easement
agreement to allow us to do that. Either way there is some maintenance
with any type of fence that you would use. But our experience has been
that to put up this type of fence, a six foot cyclone, is probably the longest
fence without specific maintenance and would provide the greatest barrier
of security.
Mr. Alanskas: I know on these porcelain fence, because I inquired about these for a home,
that they can put on a black porcelain where there is no painting or
maintenance whatsoever.
Mr. Christiansen: That is something we would certainly be amenable to working out.
Mr. Alanskas: You've got such a good looking project and when you say a chain link fence...
Mr. Christiansen: Initially our discussions have been that we always felt that landscaping
always provides the greatest aesthetic and that we don't necessarily,
typically on our projects, look at fencing our projects. We like to have an
open relationship with our neighbors in particular, residential to residential.
But certainly we respect and understand the concerns of the adjacent
property owners. In order to address that, we have had these discussions
and at this point in our discussions with the neighbors, this is the proposal
that we are willing to support.
Mr. LaPine: I agree that the cyclone fence does a better job. I understand what the
neighbors want is secondly, once you get this heavy concentration of
landscaping, you are not going to see the fence anyway, at least from your
side. They are going to see it but you are not going to see it. I've got a
question about the lighting. This little light fixture you show here, it that one
of the ones you are considering too?
Mr. Christiansen: The three light example, with the bulb on top?
Mr. LaPine: Yes.
Mr. Christiansen: That is an example of what we may do.
Mr. LaPine: Underneath there, where you've got existing office and then you've got about
a 10 to 12 foot high decorative pole, then there is a little line there that says
`'�- guest parking typical 9' x 20' stalls. Everything is 10'x 20', right?
17984
Mr. Christiansen: The requirement of the City is what we are required to follow.
Mr. LaPine: When I saw the 9'x 20' I thought maybe you were going to make the parking
for the people less than what is required.
Mr. Christiansen: We are required to follow your ordinance.
Mr. LaPine: Otherwise I think you guys have done a nice job. I understand from our last
meeting, the property line from the south to the back of your building is now
40 feet when originally it was 35 feet?
Mr. Christiansen: Yes that is correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: We had a letter from one of our departments that said that the City tree height
was not specified.
Mr. Christiansen: My understanding from what I heard Mr. Taormina allude to was that the
minimum height for the deciduous trees are 8 feet. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That was the indication given by the Inspection Department and I note here
that most of the trees range in height from 7 feet to 8 feet.
Mr. Christiansen: We would follow your ordinance requirements.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am very pleased with this. I was very concerned about the detention area. I
have seen areas where they end up with a ditch and this is certainly a much
larger improvement than that with a fountain in it with that moving water. It
should be the highlight of your subdivision.
Mr. Christiansen: It is intended to be and we discussed that at the study meeting. It will be a
focal point.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one wishing to speak, a motion is order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was
#8-166-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-05-02-21 Newburgh Park Condominiums
Landscape Plan by The Ivanhoe Companies which received waiver use
approval to construct a Planned Residential Development on property located
at 19753 Newburgh Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 6, is hereby approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Landscape Plan for Newburgh Park, identified as Rev. Job No.
LP &LS 8.00 79B, dated August 15, 2000 as prepared by Calvin Hall&
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
17985
2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
3) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
No"" sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
4) All parking spaces shall be 10' x 20' instead of 9' x 20' as shown on the
plan.
5) That the petitioner has agreed to install a 6 ft. cyclone fence the whole
length of the southern property line and along a portion of the westerly
property line where it will tie into the existing masonry wall on the Dinan
property.
Mr. Shane: I have a question for Mr. Taormina. Do we need to talk about the fence or is
that something that would be permitted irregardless?
Mr. Taormina: As you will recall, this issue was addressed previously. I think the minutes
will reflect the discussion this evening regarding the fence and there is no real
need to include it as a condition of the motion.
Mr. McCann: Do you think we should put in there since the plans state 9 feet that all spaces
shall be 10 feet and that they should 10' x 20' instead of 9' x 20'?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. McCann: And that the spruce trees will all be a minimum of 8 feet.
Mr. Shane: Agreed.
Mr. LaPine: I have a problem with what you just said, Mr. Taormina. It me, it should be in
our motion about the fence so that the Council knows that the petitioner has
once again met with the neighbors and agreed to the fence. If the Council
wants to take the fence out, that is their prerogative but to me, that should be
part of the motion. That the petitioner agreed to a six foot cyclone fence the
whole length of the southern property line and then goes north to hook on to
the existing parcel of the Dinan property. I would like to see that as part of the
motion.
Mr. Shane: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Christiansen: We would be supportive of that as well. We have committed to that with
our neighbors.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
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
17986
discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent
from the Commission.
ITEM #11 PETITION 2000-05-01-10 Leo Soave Building Company
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-05-01-10
by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property located
south of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the N.E.
1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved, it was
#8-167-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that Petition 2000-05-01-10 by Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing
to rezone property located south of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and
Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF to R-2 be removed
from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Is there anything additional?
Mr. Taormina: No, there is not.
Mr. McCann: I believe since our last meeting, there was an additional plan, wasn't there,
Mr. Taormina, showing the cul-de-sac?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. We did see an alternate plan showing the cul-de-sac. It is a little unclear
if it is the petitioner's intention to develop the site according to this plan. The
petition this evening is with respect to the rezoning only. The petitioner,
however, has indicated that, depending on his ability to negotiate the
acquisition of additional property to the south, that would depend on whether
or not he decides to construct a cul-de-sac.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke, Livonia, MI. This is a second phase of a 20 lot subdivision
which was approved last year. This petition is for a nine lot extension, which
has a cul-de-sac, which is R-2, 70' x 120', 840 sq. ft. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Soave, if your petition is approved, do you plan to develop the site as a
plat or a site condo?
Mr. Soave: It is going to be a platted subdivision.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is it still you intention, as stated in your letter dated July 26, 2000, to include
a cul-de-sac without any provision to extend the road further south?
17987
Mr. Soave: At the present time, sir, I don't have any additional land. This is all the land I
have and it is going to be with a cul-de-sac. Yes sir.
'N` Mr. Piercecchi: But your intention is to put the cul-de-sac in with new sites that will abut the
property south with no provision to go further south. Is that correct?
Mr. Soave: I don't have any plans right now, no sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: What do you mean right now? If you are going to put in a cul-de-sac, you are
going to put houses around it, right?
Mr. Soave: Yes sir.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to leave an empty lot?
Mr. Soave: I'm sorry, Mr. Piercecchi, we haven't given too much thought to that. Some
of the neighbors are here. They are for extending the road but right now, this
is all we have.
Mr. Piercecchi: The reasons I am asking these questions is, let me quote your first paragraph
if I may, "in connection with the above referenced zoning petition and
comments and recommendations that were voiced at the public hearing on
this matter, I have revised the proposed subdivision plan to provide for a cul-
de-sac to terminate the road. Much of the opposition to the change in zoning
seems to focus on the extension of this development due to the proposal
terminating at the south property line. By this change in the road
configuration and with the cul-de-sac, the extension of the subdivision will
not happen."
Mr. Soave: Yes sir. If I may answer, since then some neighbors have expressed an
intension to sell some of their property but if the City doesn't want that road
extension and if the neighbors don't want it, then I don't want it either. Yes
sir. That is the way I feel about it.
Mr. Piercecchi: Could you repeat what you just said? You said some neighbors want it and
some neighbors don't want it.
Mr. Soave: If the neighbors don't want the road extended and if the City doesn't want it
extended, that is fine with me, sir. I am not going to do it.
Mr. Piercecchi: We can't have perquisites on rezoning. We cannot condition zoning. It is just
that everybody here, at least I am speaking for myself, would feel more
comfortable if we stopped here. I don't think one acre lots are huge lots or
two acre lots. When you go further west, my daughter just bought a place,
and the smallest lot in her subdivision is an acre. We seem to think when we
get one acre lots they are huge and that they should be cut in half. I don't
necessarily feel that way. I believe in space. Your intention is to not go
•.. further south beyond what you are requesting and that is lot Fl and Gl?
17988
Mr. Soave: Yes sir. If you want a promise that I am not going to pursue it further, that is
a promise. That is fine.
�`" Mr. Piercecchi: That is Fl and Gla.
Mr. Alanskas: With the cul-de-sac you are showing nine lots. Would you lose a lot? Would
you have eight or would you still have nine with the cul-de-sac?
Mr. Soave: These lots are going to be 70' x 120'. They are going to have a total land area
of 840 sq. ft. If we can accommodate those concerns, we will have nine lots.
If not, we will have to go to eight lots.
Mr. Taormina: There was one item of correspondence that the Planning Department did
receive and that was on August 22, 2000 and that was a petition that was
signed by six residents, all with addresses on Cavell Street. The petition
reads as follows: "We the petitioners and residents along Cavell Street in
Livonia do hereby wish to show our support for the rezoning of this section of
Livonia from RUF to and R-2 zoning. This zoning would be in conformance
with the overwhelming majority of residential zoning in this section of the
City." Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything?
Mr. Soave: Can I give you an additional petition with five more signatures for the
rezoning?
Mr. McCann: You can present that to the secretary. I see there are some people in the
audience who may wish to speak on this petition. Is there any objection from
the Planning Commission to opening the floor up to the audience?
Planning Commission- responded unanimously.
Calvin Finton, 14777 Cavell. I bought the house three years ago in November. I bought the
house because it had an acre and because it had trees there and wildlife there.
I have grandkids and I want them to learn about that and not have to live in
the city. I don't want to sell my property. I don't want to see any of it
rezoned. When it gets rezoned, they keep building more and more. They
have built behind me. I have had raccoons made residence in my attic
already. They have to go somewhere too. I would like to see all the wildlife
stay and the trees stay and the peach and quiet. I am not going to sell, no
matter what. Thank you.
Adrian Mannarino, 14695 Cavell. I am also against the rezoning. I am the furthest neighbor
that would be affected at this point. My biggest concern is the constant
request of the additional property further south, requesting to get it rezoned.
That is my big concern. I certainly would be more in favor of what was
spoken of with the cul-de-sac where that issue would be settled at this point
and time. I know some of the neighbors are in favor of this are my neighbors
and I want to say publicly I don't hold any animosity against the other people
17989
that are in favor of this proposal. They are my neighbors but I live in a
country where I can voice my opinion and my opinion is that I am against it at
this point and time.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. But you are for the cul-de-sac?
Mr. Mannarino: Yes.
Representing mother who lives at 11425 Cavell and basically her concern is that the land
currently between the two roads which is proposed to be rezoned would be
landlocked if it was not rezoned and made available. She has owned this
property for my lifetime, which is for 50 years, and her main concern is that
the property be made available for sale if she so chooses and the rezoning
would be in correspondence with that desire.
Paul Maceri, I don't live in Livonia but I have worked in the City for 10 years and I own an
investment home in Livonia. I want to tell this Commission, too, that I am
representing Soave Building Company in the marketing and sales of these
homes in Kenwood. First of all I think it is pretty obvious to everybody that
the rezoning we are asking for is in conformance with the overwhelming
majority of that residential rezoning in that section of the City. But I would
like to talk about just a little different perspective that you may or may not be
interested in. I have spoken with quite a few of the homeowners in back there
and like any other issue there is disagreement and there are people on each
side of this issue. One thing that I think a good many of these people that has
been expressed so far that are concerned about is the fact that if this rezoning
RUF to R-2 is made final and there is no option down the roads for those
folks who do want to sell a part of their property. I have been in this business
and I specialize in new construction, I have done four new subdivisions in
Livonia in the last eight or nine years, and I have been involved in acquiring
property and I have seen people change their minds, over time. I guess what
we are looking for here, I have talked to hundreds of families all over Livonia
and we have talked acre lots and the fact that these are not big lots. I have
watched subdivisions in every part of Livonia, four hundred, five hundred
thousand homes being built on 80' x 120' lots. I have a lot of young families
tell me, "Paul we don't want a big lot because we don't want the maintenance
involved in that big lot." But even more important that than, we are losing a
lot of young families who bought their first and second home in Livonia and
they are looking to do something a little bit different. We have wonderful
homes in this City but the truth is the overwhelming majority were built in the
'50s, '60s and some in the '70s. There really is a shortage of affordable
housing in here. What Soave Building Company is doing here is truly
building an affordable house. We have a$219,000 ranch that nobody is even
close to in Livonia. I think you gentlemen are aware of the type of housing
that is being built. It is all well above $300,000. We are asking for the
opportunity to build an affordable house, to stop losing people in Livonia and
to attract these young families who are looking for this type of house and can't
ir.. find it at a reasonable price. We have the opportunity here, some of these
people that have been along Cavell for a lot longer and have lived there, know
17990
the history of the street. I don't know what the current thinking is of this
Commission but I think the idea was to develop that section as an R-2 and
somewhere along the line it got side tracked. What we are looking for, and
what I think a lot of people are looking for is the option, if they do choose,
and we are not talking about turning these lots into postage size lots. Most of
these properties are 500 and 600 feet deep. All we are looking to do is
acquire the last few hundred feet of their property. That leaves most people,
if they do choose that option, a 300 foot deep lot. I think it is unrealistic to
look at Livonia in the year 2000 and say that this is a rural community. It is
not a'50s or'60s farming community. I think really if you are looking for
acreage or serenity probably the first place that wouldn't pop into your mind is
Livonia. My perspective, like I say, is from the families that I have talked to
and what we need to do is provide affordable housing, in my opinion, in this
City so we can retain some of those young families. That is what we want to
do here and we just want these folks to have the option to do that in the
future. We don't want to foreclose that option. Thank you for your time.
Denise Hunter, 14901 Cavell. I have lived there for 15 years. I support my neighbors in their
endeavor to sell their very own private property, if they want to. I moved into
that community for the same reasons that a lot of other people did, to have
that property, to have the wildlife and to have the peace and quiet but it seems
that it was important to the City at one time to develop that neighborhood and
it was important to have all the properties split to go along with what the City
wanted. Since I moved in there, there has been a lot of construction around
the area. There was a lot of wildlife. It was very nice. There were deer, and
ti.. foxes and there was a whole cycle of life back there. That has been
interrupted by the new development. What we have left is raccoons,
thousands of rabbits and snakes. Everything else has vacated to the golf
course and beyond. This is not a rural life here. I am afraid from Bell Creek,
that the rats may come in as well to feed on what animals are left. I believe
that we should have the option as Mr. Maceri said, to sell the property if we
wish. Some people moved in to have that kind of property. Some people
moved in to have that kind of investment. This has been going on for many
years, people proposing to buy the back property. It seems to me that if the
City or individuals wanted it to remain rural, that they should bid on the
property along with everybody else to keep it rural and afford everyone else
the opportunity to do what they wish with their own property. Thank you.
Russell Barnes, 114801 Cavell. I bought that house in 1989. I have been there for
approximately 12 years. I have six children. We enjoy it back there. They
play back in there. I am strongly opposed to the changing of the rezoning.
There is no way I will ever sell my property. That is all I have to say.
Richard Birdsal, 14933 Cavell. We moved there in 1937 and in those days we needed to farm
the land. It was small farms and that was the reasons we got it. My piece of
property is only 80 feet wide and 660 feet deep and it is a maintenance
problem as far as I am concerned for my land so I would like the option of
being able to sell that property. Thank you.
17991
Paul Pinkstaff, 15035 Cavell. In fact I am adjacent to the development to the north that is
already in process. That was one point that I wanted to make, given that these
developments are going on all over Livonia they have to be somewhat
consistent with the land use plan that Livonia has. Given that there is that
consistency it is a very fair thing to do that the people want to sell, sell, and
the people who don't want to sell, they don't have to sell. I think that is a very
basic kind of right in this country. If you are consistent with what is going on
around you, and we have to be or these developments wouldn't be cropping
up all over the place. The other thing is this development is going to make it
larger, when we sell, so it is going to attract more of these families that I think
Livonia wants to attract. So that has got to be good for Livonia. Number
three, I think Mr. Soave is probably a good developer for Livonia and he
ought to be allowed to leverage what he already has got going on. I doubt
that his margins are obscene on these things. If he can get just a little bit
more leverage based on some more land that is a good thing for him also. If
you look at what has happened in the last very short number of years, I would
say we've got almost one hundred homes on the north and south of this land
and that is going to put a lot of pressure on this vacant land and for one thing,
if I don't sell, I am going to go out and increase my umbrella policy quite a lot
because the probability that I'll get sued because somebody's kids went out
there and fell down on some broken glass that I didn't see, went way up. I
think everybody in this whole situation is going to be better served if we go
ahead with this development and I also think it is very strange that you would
want to make a decision to block further development by requiring some kind
of a structural thing that I hadn't even thought of that until tonight. I think it
is just strange and it seems very inconsistent with what this kind of body
should be doing. So in general, I am very much in favor of it and the people
don't want to sell, don't have to sell but the people that want to sell should be
allowed to have that option. Thank you for your time.
Remon Oudeh, 14995 Cavell. I own one of those lots that is being rezoned. I am in favor for
the rezoning, obviously. I agree with some of the neighbors that large lots are
really nice and beautiful. I bought my property there eight years ago for that
main reason. It wasn't because of the house. The house was really old, still is
and needed a lot of work. Since then I have done a lot of work to it. I
personally in the past years have seen more and more water collection in the
back and causing more damage to the property and increasingly coming
closer to the house and to the garage. Most of all it is a maintenance problem
than anything. A lot of the people said they don't want to see the property be
rezoned because they believe it is somewhat country there but let's not kid
ourselves. We are right in the middle of Livonia and there is not much
country left right now. I am not here to convince anybody else to sell their
property if they don't want to but if I am not mistaken, I thought this was a
free country you could do what you wanted with your own property as long as
it is within the law. I am in favor and I don't want to see this turned down.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and approved, it was
17992
#8-168-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 25,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-05-01-10 by Leo
`,%.. Soave Building Company, Inc., proposing to rezone property located south of
Five Mile Road between Santa Anita and Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 24 from RUF to R-2, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2000-05-01-10 be approved for
the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with recent zoning
changes in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an extension of an
existing residential development currently in progress to the north of the
subject property;
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing
character of the area; and
4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are
consistent with other developed properties in the area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: We are not here in reference to taking away options. We are discussing two
�.. lots. Whether we want the road to go further. There is no question that the
area is centered around two lots. We would prefer a cul-de-sac and not
penetrate further south. When I asked Mr. Soave about what he was going to
do with the plat or site condo, I was concerned about the looks of the houses.
The houses he built now with wainscot, he can improve on that. This is what
it is all about, whether we allow the building of eight lots in there surrounded
by a cul-de-sac. That is what the issue is here tonight.
Mr. Shane: The issue tonight is whether we are going to rezone the property from its
current classification to R-1 and the issue of whether or not there is a stub
street or a cul-de-sac can be dealt with when the petitioner files the plat.
Mr. LaPine: I intend to vote against the proposal. Everybody is right. They have a right to
sell off their property but that doesn't necessarily mean that once that property
is sold that they can get the property rezoned and get the classification they
want. I maintain that we have very few land left in this City. We have a lot
of small lots in this town. Just about all the lots are built on 60', 70' 80' and
90' lots. There are still people out there that like large lots. In my opinion,
we have very few of that left in this town and therefore I am not in favor of
selling off any more of these lots. They can sell them off but that doesn't
necessarily mean they can get the rezoning. I am favor of leaving some of
these large lots for people who want to but the large lots. Thank you.
�"'� Mr. McCann: Please call the roll.
17993
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Shane, Alanskas, McCann, Piercecchi
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: Koons
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
ITEM #12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Approval of Minutes
of the 808th Regular Meeting held on July 11, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was
#8-169-2000 RESOLVED that the Minutes of the 808th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on July 11, 2000, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
L.-
AYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi, LaPine, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 810th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held on August 29, 2000 was adjourned at 9:49 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Lair/..Cf3i
�/ Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTE
/ James Mc ann, Chairman
/rw