HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2015-09-01 MINUTES OF THE 1,075TH PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 1, 2015, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 1,075th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: Scott P. Bahr Kathleen McIntyre R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Gerald Taylor
Members absent: Ian Wilshaw
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Morrow 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 and 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.
Mr. Morrow: Before I ask the Secretary to read the first item on the agenda,
Item #2, Woodhaven Retirement Community, is going to be
tabled tonight., If you are here on Item #2, all we're going to do
is just read the petition and then promptly table it. This is at a
request of the Petitioner, who needs more time to look at
various options on his petition. Also, before I close the hearing,
anyone in the audience will be given the opportunity to speak for
or against the granting of each of these petitions. Item #2 will
be tabled indefinitely. If you want to leave your name with the
Planning office, I'm sure they wouldn't object to calling you
when it comes up.
September 1, 2015
27049
Mr. Taormina: We will table this item to a date certain.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. It wasn't in his memo. We'll address that when the time
comes.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2015-07-02-13 PANAMERA MOTORS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2015-07-
02-13 submitted by Panamera Motors requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(g) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a used auto
dealership with outdoor display of vehicles at 35085 Plymouth
Road, located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Wayne Road and Yale Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
33.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to operate a used auto dealership with outdoor
display of vehicles. This property is located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Wayne Road and Yale Avenue. This
site is roughly .62 acre in size. It is 100 feet in width and has a
depth of roughly 270 feet. The zoning of the property is C-2,
General Business, as are the properties to the east and west.
There is industrial zoning to the north on the opposite side of
Plymouth Road and residential homes directly to the south of
the subject property. In terms of the existing conditions, the
property does contain a building that is roughly 1,920 square
feet. It is the former site of Paddy's Pub. New and used car lots
do require waiver use approval under Section 11.03(g) of the
Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner's intentions are to renovate
the building to utilize it as a sales showroom with office space.
This facility as proposed would not perform any auto repair
services. Panamera Motors is seeking approval to display a
total of 37 vehicles. The vehicles would be displayed within the
parking spaces available on the site, which is along the west,'
east and south sides of the property. All the vehicles would be
at least 20 feet from Plymouth Road, which is a special
requirement for this particular use. Customer parking would be
along the west side of the building and behind the building along
the existing grass area. Since there are no service bays for this
facility, the required parking is based on the retail sales area of
the building. In this case, that is based on a ratio of one space
for every 500 square feet of gross floor area of the building, so
you're roughly looking at four customer parking spaces. We
counted a total of 48 available parking spaces, 37 of which
would be used for the display of vehicles. That leaves 11
spaces for customers, an excess of 7. So there is more than
adequate parking for customers of the facility with the limitation
September 1, 2015
27050
of 37 display vehicles. In terms of lighting, the plans do indicate
that there would be wall pack fixtures, although we don't have
any details regarding the type of lighting that would be used. We
just know that they would be mounted to the building to
illuminate the vehicles in the lot. The plan does show a new
trash enclosure behind the building near the southeast corner of
the site. The walls of the enclosure would be eight feet in height
and it would be constructed out of brick to match the exterior of
the building. In terms of landscaping, when you eliminate the
areas within the Plymouth Road right-of-way, roughly 15 percent
of the site is devoted to landscaping which is the minimum that
we require for commercial properties. The landscaping would be
basically along the front of the site along Plymouth Road.
Directly behind the building there is a grass strip and then
there's some small amounts of landscaping at the rear of the
property. As required, between commercial zoned property and
residential lots, there is an existing masonry wall along the rear
of the property line where the site does abut the single family
residential district. In terms of modifications to the building, the
most significant change would be the provision for a side
entrance on the west side of the building. New windows and
doors would be added along the northwest corner of the
building. Otherwise there would not be any significant changes
to the building, some painting and maybe some additional
stonework along the front of the building, but no additions to the
structure, just cosmetic changes along the facades of the
building. We do not have any information at this point regarding
wall signage. They would be allowed a 32- square foot sign on
the front of the building. The petitioner has provided some
rendered elevation plans. Lastly, I'll show you a map that
identifies all of the existing active and inactive new and used car
dealerships along Plymouth Road. This is something that the
Planning Commission did request at the study session
regarding this item. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the
departmental correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated July 21, 2015, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposed project at this time. The legal
description included with the petition appears to be correct and
should be used in conjunction with this petition. The existing
parcel is assigned an address of#35085 Plymouth Road which
is correct for the proposed development. The existing building is
September 1, 2015
27051
currently serviced by public utilities which are not indicated for
alterations under the proposed remodeling. Should the owner
need to alter the existing service leads to the building, plans will
need to be submitted to this department to determine if
Engineering permits will be required. Also, should the owner to
do any work within the Plymouth Road right-of-way, they will
need to contact MDOT for permit requirements. One item that
we would like to mention is that the proposed location of the
dumpster enclosure shown on the submitted drawings appears
to be directly under the overhead wires running through the
parking lot. The owner may need to determine if there will be
adequate clearance for dumpster service, or contact the utility
companies about having the lines relocated." The letter is
signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
July 23, 2015, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed
the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a
used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations:
Providing that all details in regards to NFPA 118.2.3.4.4 1 8 oz.
Dead Ends. Fire Department Access roads in excess of 150 feet
in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the fire
apparatus to turn around." The letter is signed by Keith Bo,
Senior Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated July 22, 2015, which reads as follows: "I have
reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no
objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Joseph
Boitos, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated August 17, 2015, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition
has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) Repair masonry
wall as needed at south property line. (2) Replace deteriorated
asphalt parking lot. (3) Parking spaces are required to be, 10'x
20' and double striped. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Mark, one question I had is, is the Plymouth Road Development
Authority still in existence and does this fall within the
boundaries?
Mr. Taormina: It does, Mr. Chair, but the Board does not meet often enough to
bring these petitions to you in a timely manner. Unfortunately,
we do not have a recommendation regarding this petition. We
cannot convene a meeting of the PRDA in time to provide you
September 1, 2015
27052
with a recommendation. Their next scheduled meeting actually
is in October.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions of the Planning
Director? Seeing none, we will go to the petitioner. We will need
your name and address for the record please.
Mike Hamoudi, Panamera Motors, 42191 Ann Arbor Road, Plymouth, Michigan
48170. Committee members, ladies and gentlemen, good
evening. My name is Mike Hamoudi, owner of Panamera
Motors.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. You've heard the presentation to the Commission.
Would you like to add something to that?
Mr. Hamoudi: I would like to thank Mr. Taormina. Regarding the dumpster, if
you need any modification or anything, we can work together to
see if we can change the location. We can put it on the other
side if that's going to be a problem with the wiring. As I
mentioned when we had the meeting before, there's going to be
a little bit of renovation. It will have new pavement and all the
work is going to be up to code. So whatever the City requires,
it's going to be up to code. Hopefully, we can serve the City of
Livonia with good quality cars that's going to suit their needs. If
you have any questions, I'm ready to answer.
Mr. Morrow: Commissioners, do you have any questions?
Mr. Bahr: Thanks for coming tonight. How long have you been in
business?
Mr. Hamoudi: I started the business in the automotive industry back in 2007 as
a salesman with Bloomfield Honda in Bloomfield Hills. I worked
there until 2010 and then 2010 I moved to Victory Honda of
Plymouth until 2013. Then I opened my own business. I'm
currently renting the lot at the corner of Ann Arbor Road and
Lilley, which used to be Fox Hills Chrysler. My cars are
displayed over there right now. I'm renting part of that lot
because it's a huge lot. It takes about 500 cars. The owner is
still fighting Chrysler to get his dealership back, his license back,
and I think it has been already approved. So I've been looking
for a new place for the past two years. I'm already doing a lot of
business with the City of Livonia. My mechanic shop is here in
Livonia on Farmington Road and Plymouth Road. His name is
Jurgen. My body shop is also in Livonia and also the detail shop
that I use for my cars. All my cars will be inspected by the
mechanic who used to work at the Honda dealership for the
September 1, 2015
27053
past 12 years. He's a very good mechanic who does inspections
on the vehicles and makes sure they're safe to be driven. After
that, we take the cars for detail and if they need body work, we
do the body work. So all the cars that are going to be displayed
on this premises will be already inspected and they're very safe
cars and quality cars for sale.
Mr. Bahr: And you answered by second question, which was what was
prompting your move. So thank you.
Ms. Smiley: Good evening and thank you for coming. I'm very impressed
with your pictures and I went by your dealership where you are
right now and you very nicely displayed. My argument isn't with
the kind of business you do or how you do business, it's more
that between Merriman and Newburgh, I just counted eight car
dealership. I don't want Plymouth Road to be entirely car
dealerships. Have you explored any other locations in Livonia?
Mr. Hamoudi: There is a location which is next to this location, but that's going
to be too big for me. There's a very big vacant lot and it's going
to be too much. It's too big for the kind of business I want to do.
I want to stay like a midsize dealership so I can provide good
quality cars to the community. I don't want to go too big. I don't
want to go too small. But Livonia is the city that I want to do my
business in since I'm already conducting a lot of business here
and I don't want to be far away from my mechanic shop, my
detail shop. As you mentioned the dealerships, I understand. I
used to work for a new car dealership, Victory Honda, and
Bloomfield Honda, and they both sell used cars. Both cities,
Livonia and Plymouth, they don't have any good quality used
car lots. I mean, I understand . . . the new car lot will not provide
the kinds of cars I have. My cars will be the good quality cars for
back to school students, people looking for good, affordable
cars in between $5,000 to $15,000 price range. When I used to
work in Bloomfield Honda, I wanted to buy a car for myself. I
used to work for them and I couldn't find anything under
$15,000, which I couldn't afford at that time. If you have a kid
who's going to school, would you go out to like one of the big
dealerships here and spend $25,000 to $40,000 to buy him a
vehicle or would you be looking more to spend something
between $5,000 to $7,000 to $10,000 maybe for a good reliable
car that's going to last him for five, six years? There's no kind of
dealership in this town with that kind of price range or that kind
of cars.
Ms. Smiley: Like I said, my argument is not with the business or how you're
doing it. That's exactly your clientele, those college kids or those
September 1, 2015
27054
young people who just got a job that don't want the big car, but
what I'm saying is, there's eight dealerships between
Farmington and Newburgh right now. You would be number
nine. It's always good to compete.
Mr. Hamoudi: I understand.
Ms. Smiley: But I just don't want the whole area to be a strip of automobiles.
Mr. Hamoudi: I won't be. I mean that strip of the road over there where my
dealership is, the only dealership next to me will be Ralph
Thayer and there's the Avis Ford. I mean the Ford dealership,
but basically their used car lot. But if you compare, I mean, 2, 3
and 4 it's all owned by one owner; it's all one dealership.
Ms. Smiley: But it's quite a bit of space that's for automobiles. Thank you,
sir.
Mr. Taylor: I think Mrs. Smiley is on the right track. We have 12 active
dealerships, three inactive dealerships and three dealer storage
lots. I grew up in Detroit where Livernois was used car lot
dealerships. That was it. And I certainly don't want Livonia to
become that way. I appreciate the fact that what you want to do
to the building. It looks nice, but I just don't feel that we need
another dealership on Plymouth Road. Thank you.
Mr. Hamoudi: I can assure you, sir, that this will not be anything close to what
Detroit car lots are or Eight Mile car lots are. It's going to be a
good quality used car lot. As you can see, I'm already doing
business in the City of Plymouth and I didn't have any
complaints from them for the past three years. So it won't be
anything close to like what you people call junkers or lots with
cheap cars. No. It's going to be good quality cars. It's going to
be very representable and it's going to be a good business that
the City of Livonia should be proud of.
Mr. Taylor: I know you say you're going to have newer cars, but once we
put the dealership in, there's nothing to say that they have to be
all used cars, new used cars. They could be back to the '70's or
'80's as far as I'm concerned. Nothing says what kind of cars
you have to sell on that particular lot, except that it's a used car
lot.
Mr. Hamoudi: Well, sir, it's not the year of the vehicle; it's the quality of the
vehicle. It could be a ten year old vehicle, but it could be a really
good, reliable car. All my cars are inspected and they're safe to
drive. When I was shopping for a car for myself back seven,
September 1, 2015
27055
eight years ago when I went to Detroit lots, the quality of cars
you see over there, they don't have any safety inspection.
Mr. Taylor: I guess I don't question what you want to do and how you do
your business. I just don't think we need another used car lot on
Plymouth Road. Thank you.
Mr. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mark. Mark, and maybe you said this
already, but do you know how long this property has been
vacant roughly?
Mr. Taormina: It's hard to say because I think there was a use for a very brief
time in that building, but prior to that, I think it goes back a
couple years. It's been certainly under-utilized for the last couple
years. I think the pub shut down probably a couple years ago.
There was another use in there briefly, and then it's been vacant
for probably a year since then.
Mr. Bahr: Is this the first time we've had interest shown on that?
Mr. Taormina: No. I've had a couple of inquiries about the building, one for a
small confectionary or coffee shop. I think there was another
restaurant that had some interest in the building. It is set up as a
lounge or restaurant because that's the former use and I think
it's outfitted as such right now.
Mr. Bahr: One more question for Mark. On the map that you showed
where there's the inactive dealerships, I noticed one of them
says "site cleared." Are those zoned in such a way that they are
dealerships? If somebody else wanted to come in there, they
could just come in there without coming to us?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. The inactive dealerships would include the former Olson
Olds, which as you know, that site has been completely cleared.
There is no real indication that it would be reused as a
dealership. The one identified on the map as "B" has already
been site plan approved. That was approved by the Council as
Lang Auto Sales, although it's not likely to go in as Lang Auto
Sales, but there is some indication that it will open in the next
few months as a used car lot. "C" is the former Nissan/High
Tech Auto facility. That was a dealership years ago. It's being
used for auto repair purposes right now. There is a storage lot
connected to that, but it still has the right to be used as a
dealership should anyone want to use it as such. The owner has
retained his license to use it as a dealership in the future.
Mr. Bahr: Okay. Thank you.
September 1, 2015
27056
Mr. Morrow: Anyone else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against the granting of this petition? We'll need
your name and address for the record.
Tom Carey, 15664 Oporto, Livonia, Michigan. I did not come here to speak on
behalf of this gentleman here, but the Commission here is
saying that maybe there's another location for this kind of
dealership. But my thought would be, wouldn't it be better if it
was clustered together so when you wanted to buy a used car
or a new car, you went to that nice row on Plymouth Road. I
understand there are some that are not being used today, but
this gentlemen here wants to bring some used vehicles, and
he's a sole proprietor. He's not a multimillion dollar operation.
He wants to wedge himself a little bit into where the row is
today. If we put him on the other side of Eight Mile in Livonia,
he's not going to get the traffic. He's got to have some traffic. I
came here for another reason, but I thought, I'd rather go look
for a used car and go down one road and be done with it. Sorry.
Mr. Hamoudi: Thank you very much.
Mr. Morrow: Seeing no one else coming forward, I will close the public
hearing and ask for a motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Taylor, and adopted, it was
#09-56-2015 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on August 18, 2015, on
Petition 2015-07-02-13 submitted by Panamera Motors
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(g) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
operate a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles
at 35085 Plymouth Road, located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Wayne Road and Yale Avenue in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 33, which property is zoned C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2015-07-02-13 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the 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 City is currently well served with similar uses to
that which is being proposed;
September 1, 2015
27057
3. That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the need in
the area for the type of commercial service proposed to be
operated on the subject site;
4. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that
the proposed use would be compatible to and in harmony
with surrounding uses in the area;
5. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate
that the site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
6. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other
things, are intended to insure suitability and
appropriateness of uses.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, Taylor, Morrow
NAYS: Bahr, McIntyre
ABSENT: Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. The denying resolution prevails. You have
10 days to appeal this decision to the City Council. Should you
make the appeal, they will ultimately make the decision as to
whether your petition is approved or rejected. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Hamoudi: Thank you, sir.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2015-06-LS-09 WOODHAVEN
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015-
06-LS-09 submitted by the Woodhaven Retirement Community,
pursuant to Section 3.05.050 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances,
as amended, to determine whether or not to dispose of a portion
of city-owned property at 29825 Puritan Avenue (Golfview
Park), located on the south side of Puritan Avenue between
Middlebelt Road and Henry Ruff Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 14.
September 1, 2015
27058
Mr. Morrow: As I said in my opening remarks, we have a communication
from the Petitioner requesting that this item be tabled. I think the
Planning Director had indicated that we might be able to have a
date certain.
Mr. Taormina: The Petitioner has indicated a few weeks, so I would say
September 22 would be a good date.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-57-2014 RESOLVED, that Petition 2015-06-LS-09 submitted by the
Woodhaven Retirement Community, pursuant to Section
3.05.050 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended, to
determine whether or not to dispose of a portion of City-owned
property at 29825 Puritan Avenue (Golfview Park), located on
the south side of Puritan Avenue between Middlebelt Road and
Henry Ruff Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, be tabled
until the Public Hearings and Regular Meeting of September 22,
2015.
Mr. Morrow: That would be a study meeting on September 22?
Mr. Taormina: No, that would be the voting meeting. Maybe it would be helpful,
Mr. Chairman, since there might be some audience members
still here on this item, if I can just explain what's happening.
Mr. Morrow: All right, why don't you fill us in?
Mr. Taormina: We tried to contact as many folks as possible. We are working
with the Petitioner in an attempt to develop an option that would
either eliminate or greatly reduce the need to utilize any of the
city-owned property. We've met with the Fire Marshal to look at
the design, along with the architect, and we're considering some
design options. We need to investigate that a little further, stake
out the building, take a look at various construction options for
the building and see whether or not we can accomplish that.
We'll certainly let the Commission know when we have an
answer to that. Hopefully, again, it's all with the goal of
eliminating the need to utilize any portion of the park and still
allow the Petitioner to accomplish his goal of expanding the
facility. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Any other questions?
September 1, 2015
27059
Ms. Smiley: Mr. Chair, would it help if you read the letter from Mr. Gasser,
who is the Executive Director of Woodhaven Retirement, as it is
his request?
Mr. Morrow: If that's what you want.
Ms. Smiley: Would that help if we put that in the minutes?
Mr. Morrow: I think we can make it part, but if you want to share it with the
audience you can.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Do you want me to read it?
Mr. Morrow: Go ahead.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. It says, "Dear Mark, On behalf of the Woodhaven
Retirement Community not-for-profit corporation, I am
respectfully requesting that the Planning Commission consider
adjourning our request for the purchase of adjacent city owned
property, as currently on their Tuesday evening, September 1
agenda. We would like a few weeks to continue studying some
creative alternatives, with the goal of eliminating or greatly
reducing the impact of our needed renovation on the
surrounding neighborhood. We appreciate your collaboration
and understanding in this matter." It is signed by the Executive
Director of Woodhaven Retirement Community.
Mr. Morrow: It is this letter that triggered the tabling motion. If there is no
other discussion, let's have a roll call on the tabling motion.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It has been tabled to a date of September
22.
Ms. Smiley: Can he speak?
Mr. Morrow: Go ahead. I'll allow it.
Unidentified speaker: I got one of these. And then I got another one of these
and I didn't get one to say this is postponed. We're supposed to
be here today. So what is the communication process and what
is the date of that letter that you received there?
Ms. Smiley: This was sent on Monday, August 31, which is probably why
you didn't . . .
Unidentified speaker: So yesterday?
September 1, 2015
27060
Ms. Smiley: Yesterday.
Unidentified speaker: So the petitioner had the ability to do that yesterday and
these people came here today with no notification. I'm just
asking for clarity. So on the 22nd, if there's anything the day
before, someone from his group or somebody needs to notify
these residents because this is the second time it's postponed.
And they have other things to do besides come here with a date
of the 31st and the 1st and get postponed again. Okay? Thank
you.
Mr. Taormina: Again, we apologize for that. It was very late notice that didn't
allow us the time to send out notices for everyone to receive,
but we did attempt to make some calls and send some emails to
try to get the word out. So we do apologize for that, and I would
just encourage anybody that they're welcome to call my office
and we'll keep you up-to-date on the progress of this. If we do
know well in advance of that meeting whether or not it's going to
move forward or possibly be withdrawn altogether, we will send
out notices and let people know.
Mr. Morrow: Ma'am, if you would come to the podium. We'll need your name
and address.
Barbara Wozniak, 15756 Oporto, Livonia, Michigan. I am strictly right behind the
area that you are speaking about. First of all, I'd like to know if
there's anybody in here that did received an email or a call in
regard to the cancellation.
Mr. Morrow: Regards to what? Talk to the Commission.
Ms. Wozniak: In regards to the cancellation as of August 31st that this meeting
was cancelled until further notice, which was September 22nd.
I'm asking if anybody in this room did receive an email.
Mr. Morrow: I think it's already on record.
Mr. Taormina: We sent out emails to those people who did provide us with
their emails on correspondence. There were only a couple. We
could only notify the people that we had email information or
phone numbers for.
Ms. Wozniak: Okay, but you also mentioned you had a phone call.
Mr. Morrow: Please don't talk from the audience. This is an official meeting.
September 1, 2015
27061
Ms. Wozniak: You also mentioned you called some people, so there was
email and a call.
Mr. Taormina: Let me explain this again. A couple of people who did provide
written correspondence to the Department did leave their phone
numbers, and those persons we did call personally. So, again,
we made every attempt we could to try to contact the people.
Mr. Morrow: It's unfortunate, but we can't proceed tonight.
Ms. Wozniak: That's okay. I just have one more question. I would like to know
exactly what they are doing with this property that they are
looking at.
Mr. Morrow: Ma'am, that's what the meeting of the 22nd is about. We have no
idea at this time.
Ms. Wozniak: So we don't know if it's a parking lot or if it's a structure?
Mr. Morrow: No. They've asked that it be tabled. All that information should
be revealed on the 22nd. You'll get it about the same time we do.
Ms. Wozniak: Wow. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bahr: May I make a comment please? I think everybody up here can
understand the frustration with coming out to a meeting and not
being able to be notified ahead of time and the Planning
Director has explained why that was. I think it should be noted,
though, that the fact that many of you are concerned about this
has already been noted through our study meeting. I know that
the management of this property is aware of that. Your interest
in this is not in vain. The very reason why this has been delayed
tonight is precisely because the people who manage this
property want to take your concerns into account and want to
work out a solution. We don't know what that is yet, and I know
it's frustrating that you're here and didn't know that, but it's not
in vain. Your voices have been heard. They will be heard on the
22nd should you chose to come back, but the whole reason
we're having this discussion is precisely because your concerns
have been expressed through emails, etc. Thanks.
Mr. Taormina: And I'd like to point out, Mr. Chairman, if I may, there is a good
chance that this will be withdrawn altogether. That's the hope
that the next notice I send to the residents would be one that the
Petitioner has elected to withdraw his request altogether and is
no longer pursuing the acquisition of any city-owned property.
But I can't guarantee that at this point. We'll wait to see.
September 1, 2015
27062
Mr. Morrow: That's one of the options he is pursuing. Let's hear from this
young lady over here.
Sharon Marshall, 15591 Hidden Lane, Livonia, Michigan. My question is, like
everyone else, where would we submit our emails so that we
could be notified? And then I also want to know if we are
unable to now attend the 22nd meeting, if we can submit letters
that will be read out loud and presented here at the Planning
Commission meeting?
Mr. Morrow: Yes, to both. If you want to call the office tomorrow and give
your email address . . . .
Mr. Taormina: Why don't I just provide the email address? It's
planninq a(�ci.livonia.mi.us. If you could be so kind as to pass
that around.
Ms. McIntyre: Just one additional comment. I share the sense of frustration
everyone has, but I also get the sense that some people think
this is an unusual procedure and out of order. It is the right of
any petitioner at any time to request that something be tabled.
It's not under our control or under the control of the Planning
office. If anyone here was a petitioner, you can request right up
to the day before the meeting that something be tabled. So this
is not us allowing anything that is not absolutely part of the
standard procedure. And when we get notification late, the
Planning office - and I've worked with the Planning office for a
long time - makes the best efforts to let people know. So I
apologize but this was nothing that was under our control or
nothing that was allowed as a wink and a nod to this particular
petition. So, I'm sorry for the frustration but it's part of the
process.
Mr. Morrow: Ma'am, this is not a public hearing.
Unidentified audience member: I just wanted to say I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: And we appreciate that you appreciate it. It's unfortunate. I've
served on this Commission many years, and every now and
then at the 11th hour somebody pulls the rug out from under us.
We didn't plan it that way. As the Planning Director indicated,
one of the options that they're pursuing is that they will no
longer require that property, but he has to play out the string. As
Mrs. McIntyre said, the petitioner can ask for it to be removed.
He paid for the petition so he has the right to request a delay.
Again, the Commission apologizes for your inconvenience. We
September 1, 2015
27063
are really the people's representative up here. We're not
politicians. So we feel very badly that it couldn't go forward as
planned, but we have to work with the residents as well as the
petitioner. So again we apologize and we're going to move on.
Ms. Smiley: The reason he wanted you to stay at the microphone is because
it's on TV and as long as you're being nice, we'd like to see that
on TV.
Mr. Bahr: Who wouldn't want to come to a Planning Commission meeting
on a Tuesday night?
Mr. Morrow: If all goes well, the Petitioner will no longer need that property,
and if he does, we will explore what the options are on the 22nd
Thank you very much.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2015-08-SN-03 TRINITY HEALTH
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015-
08-SN-03 submitted by Trinity Home Health Services requesting
approval of an additional wall sign pursuant to Council
Resolution 312-06 for the office building at 17410 College
Parkway, located within the College Park commercial and office
complex on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile
and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request for an identification wall sign for Trinity Home
Health Services which is located in a single use, two story office
building that is within the College Park development on the east
side of Haggerty Road between Six and Seven Mile Roads. The
subject office building was constructed in 2006 and 2007. There
was a condition when it was approved that any signage be
separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. Only conforming signage was
allowed with the original site plan. The site is zoned OS, Office
Services. They are allowed a single identification wall sign. The
building is oriented at a 45 degree angle and there are two main
driveway entrances, one on the north side and one on the south
side. There is an existing sign located on the northwest corner
of the building that reads "Trinity Senior Living Communities"
and measures 100 square feet. The proposed second sign
would be placed on the same side of the building but at the
opposite end, which is the southwest corner. It too measures
100 square feet and reads "Trinity Home Health Services."
Together the two signs would total 200 square feet. The length
September 1, 2015
27064
of the building is roughly 240 so the estimated distance between
the two signs would be 175 to 185 feet. This request, if
approved, would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals
because it does exceed the ordinance requirements for signage.
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: I cannot locate any correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Seeing none,
would the petitioner come forward? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Keith Murray, Visual Entities, Inc., 2160 Byron Center Drive, SW, Grand Rapids,
Michigan 49519. Good evening. I'm here tonight to present on
behalf of Trinity Health an additional wall sign which reads
"Trinity Home Services." This particular sign when it was
proposed, and Trinity had looked a couple years ago of doing
this, and then I think once they signed a longer term lease and
committed to this property, then they committed to get this sign
put on the building. This particular sign on this side of the
building deals with home health and hospice care. This building
is open from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. So we get a lot of families
that come in at different hours so it's easily identified. As you
know when you approach that building coming from Haggerty,
you almost can't see it. There is nothing out on Haggerty Road
in the way of signage for this property. So they approached us
some months ago to come and take basically the same size
sign that's at the other end of the building and put it at where
we're proposing currently. It would be illuminated. I spoke with
their staff. Currently I went over there a couple times this week
and I noticed the sign that is existing is not illuminated. I think it
could be on a timer and it might be off, but when I asked them
about illumination from our study meeting, they were thinking
8:00 p.m. to midnight, and then it would come back on at 4:00
a.m. to 7:00. Whether that would be a time clock or photocell,
I'm not sure, but they kind of like the photocell idea so then
when the time changes in the summer, then it reflects the sign
actually being on less.
Mr. Morrow: Anything else?
Mr. Murray: I just wanted to make sure. I had a couple notes here. I think
I've covered it.
Mr. Morrow: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
September 1, 2015
27065
Mr. Taylor: There are two separate businesses in this building now, right?
Mr. Murray: Correct. It's still wholly owned by Trinity. Their Senior Living is
one side of the building that takes care of different matters, and
the right side, when you're looking at the building, would then
take care of that staff that would help people . . . .
Mr. Taylor: So it's for identification actually is what it is.
Mr. Murray: Correct.
Mr. Taylor: It's a very good looking sign. I have no problem with it. I think it
is very informative and it's needed for the building.
Mr. Murray: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: Any input as to the time the sign is illuminated? Would you
repeat those times again?
Mr. Murray: Well, the times we talked about was from 8:00 p.m. to midnight
and from 4:00 to 7:00, but we offered them to look at a photocell
because doing a time clock, if you lose power, then your clock is
off and it could be running at all different hours, even during the
day. So using a photocell would help eliminate those issues and
only come on at those times. You can still utilize a time clock
with a photocell, but now your sign is only on at those hours
needed. You don't need a sign especially here all night long.
Mr. Morrow: So you're going to use a photocell?
Mr. Murray: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Okay.
Ms. McIntyre: Just to clarify, a photocell with a time clock because the
photocell would have it on all night. It's not your intent to have it
lit up all night.
Mr. Murray: Well, the photocell basically reacts like during the day, it's like
putting your hand over this, and then if it's sunny out, it stays off.
As soon as it gets dark, it comes on. The time clock would act
as an additional device for that. So between the two, it works
good.
Ms. McIntyre: So it wouldn't be illuminated all night. You'd use the photo clock
so it's not on in the middle of the night.
September 1, 2015
27066
Mr. Murray: Yes. These are going to be LED lights that will be inside those
letters, so it's a low consumption at least for them anyways.
Mr. Morrow: Well, you're back there all by yourself. I don't think you're going
to blind anybody.
Mr. Taylor: This has to go to the Zoning Board, right? So you might want to
nail down exactly what you want to do so the Zoning Board can
make the correct decision.
Mr. Murray: Okay. Sounds good.
Mr. Taylor: Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by McIntyre, seconded by Taylor, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-58-2015 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-08-SN-03
submitted by Trinity Home Health Services requesting approval
of an additional wall sign pursuant to Council Resolution 312-06
for the office building at 17410 College Parkway, located within
the College Park commercial and office complex on the east
side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the additional wall sign shall be installed in
accordance with the Sign Plan submitted by Trinity Home
Health Services, as received by the Planning Commission
on August 5, 2015;
2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
3. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Ms. McIntyre: Do we need to amend Item 3, Mark?
September 1, 2015
27067
Mr. Taormina: It's not as if this sign is going to interrupt anybody. That's kind of
a boiler plate condition. If you want to eliminate #3 altogether,
we'll just strike it.
Mr. Morrow: Let's just strike it. He can go forward. What he told us tonight,
the Zoning Board will ultimately make the decision.
Ms. McIntyre: So we're striking #3 and then to Mr. Taylor's point, you'll explain
to the Zoning Board exactly how the photocell and timing clock
will work and what your proposed hours would be.
Ms. Smiley: So that is okay with Kathleen. Is it okay with the supporter?
Mr. Taylor: Yes.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
Mr. Murray: I just have one question. There is going to be another meeting
then?
Mr. Morrow: Yes, at the City Council level, and subsequently to the Zoning
Board of Appeals
Mr. Murray: Do I attend that meeting as well?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. Murray: And there will be a notification?
Mr. Morrow: The City Council will make you aware of their meeting date, and
then I would imagine you would have to set up your date to
meet with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Murray: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you very much.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2015-08-SN-04 LIVONIA YMCA
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2015-
08-SN-04 submitted by Huron Sign Company, on behalf of the
Livonia Family YMCA requesting approval of a replacement
ground sign with variable electronic message board for the
recreational facility at 14255 Stark Road, located on the west
September 1, 2015
27068
side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft Road and Lyndon
Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request for a replacement ground sign for the Livonia
YMCA on Stark Road. The zoning of this property is R-2, One
Family Residential. Privately owned and operated community
buildings located in any residential district are restricted to a
single identification sign not to exceed 6 square feet, and if
erected as a ground sign, shall not exceed 4 feet in height and
shall be setback at least 20 feet from the right-of-way. The
YMCA currently has a monument sign. The sign has been on
the site now for a number of years. It totals 56 square feet
altogether, is 4'8" in height and is setback roughly 30 feet from
the right-of-way. Unfortunately, we don't have any history
relative to the existing sign, and whether it received approval
from the Zoning Board of Appeals. It obviously exceeds what
the ordinance provides for this type of use. To replace this sign
with anything that is of equal size or even larger, as proposed, is
going to have to go the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval.
The proposed replacement sign is roughly 71 square feet in
size. Bear in mind when you look at this plan, the ground level
is that line just above the posts. The posts on the lower part of
the drawing represent the foundation for the sign and those are
below grade. The sign, as I indicated, is 71 square feet in total
size, representing an increase of about 15 square feet or 27
percent over the existing sign. Its height is 8'1". Certainly it's
taller and larger. Part of the reason for this is the fact that the
lower half of the sign includes a variable electronic message
board which measures roughly 2.5 feet in height by 8'3" in
length for a total area of 20 square feet. I'll just mention too that
variable electronic message boards are not allowed in
residential zones regardless of the use. The proposed sign
would be installed in the same general location as the existing
ground sign. However, it would be slightly closer to the street. It
would be 15 feet versus 30 feet from the sidewalk. The sign is in
excess of the area and height limitations, and because it also
has a deficient setback from the adjacent public thoroughfare,
and it contains a variable electronic message board where none
is permitted, it would require Zoning Board of Appeals approval.
Mr. Chairman, there is no correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: By ordinance, what is the required setback?
Mr. Taormina: The setback requirement is 20 feet from the right-of-way.
Mr. Morrow: And they are at 15 feet?
September 1, 2015
27069
Mr. Taormina: They are showing the new sign at 15 feet. That is correct. This
plan shows the proposed sign oriented in an east-west direction
perpendicular to the roadway as opposed to the existing sign
which is setback slightly further and is oriented parallel to the
street.
Mr. Morrow: Any questions of the Planning Director?
Mr. Bahr: Mark, what is the square footage limit according to the
ordinance for a sign like this?
Mr. Taormina: Only six square feet and that applies to privately owned and
operated community buildings.
Mr. Bahr: I saw that and I just wanted to double check because you also
say "shall not exceed 4 feet in height." I'm imagining a 4 foot
high sign at 6 square feet. So that is correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct, and apparently we were unable to locate any
information regarding past approvals for that sign.
Mr. Bahr: So whatever sign they have is going to need a variance.
Ms. McIntyre: Through the Chair to Mark. A question on clarification of Section
18.50H(o). About two thirds of the way down, "Signs which
constitute Nonconforming Uses under Section 18.17 of this
Ordinance, or as to which variance(s) has/have been granted
for sign size, height, location, or number, must be eliminated or
brought into conformity with all currently applicable ordinance
limits prior to the issuance of a variable electronic message sign
permit for the business."Does that mean that all the other signs,
or does that mean that the sign that the electronic message is
going to be on has to be conforming? I'm confused by this
language.
Mr. Taormina: I can understand why you're confused. Number one, we
provided you with that language just to give you a point of
reference with how we regulate variance electronic message
boards in other zoning districts. Bear in mind, this type of sign is
not allowed in this particular district, but in those districts where
it is allowed, which are principally commercial districts, a
business is only allowed to have one of these signs where all
other signage on the site is in conformance with the ordinance.
Ms. McIntyre: Got it. So this is kind of like a double waiver kind of deal.
September 1, 2015
27070
Mr. Taormina: Well, yes, and we have had commercial businesses that go
before the Zoning Board of Appeals saying they'd still like to
have a variable electronic message board, with compelling
reasons why they can't bring all the signage into conformity.
Ms. McIntyre: So I think you just really honed in on my question, which I didn't
ask well. So the Zoning Board of Appeals can still grant a
variance, kind of superseding Section 18.50H(o)?
Mr. Taormina: It's all subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals. That's correct.
Ms. McIntyre: Thank you.
Mr. Taormina: The reason this is before you is, there was an addition
constructed to the YMCA back in 2000. With the approval of that
addition, there was a condition that effectively said any signage
has to come back before the Planning Commission and City
Council for approval. That is what triggered tonight's review of
this. It still has to go to Council. It still has to go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals regardless of what sign is approved.
Mr. Morrow: Any other questions? Is the petitioner here this evening? We
will need your name and address for the record please.
Bill Short, Huron Sign Company, 663 S. Mansfield Street, Ypsilanti, Michigan
48197.
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add to what you've
heard so far?
Mr. Short: Just a few comments I guess. My company is Huron Sign
Company and we're making all of the signs. There are ten Metro
Detroit YMCA's. We're doing all of those. It's been kind of an
interesting experience for me because I really hadn't had much
contact with the YMCA as I grew up. There was none in my
town. But in going around to every one of the ten over the last
couple months, I've been just completely astonished about the
kind of vibrance and beehive of activities that they are, and also
the appreciation by their host communities. The YMCA's are
non-profits. They are always looking for ways to increase
membership and participation, and the electronic signs have
proven to be an economical way to get the word out to the
public about their programs and events, such as open
enrollment, daycare availability, yoga classes, swimming
classes, on and on. All ten are getting new signs because
there's a rebranding program nationwide which has been going
on for a couple of years with the YMCA USA. This sign kind of
September 1, 2015
27071
represents a conformance or an extension of that rebranding
process. I might mention too that the sign, the graphics are the
only things that light up. The background is opaque and it is
dark at night. Many of these YMCA's, and I don't understand
why, but many of them are in R-zoned properties. This particular
property is ten acres. It's truly an exceptional situation in the
City of Livonia and the neighborhood is pretty exceptional too.
At night, softball is going on and ice skating and picnics and
whatever. So it's really an interesting situation. I guess that's
really all I have to say. I also realized, I might mention too, that I
got kind of a heads up from Planning that you thought the sign
was too big and I guess I understand. I also understand that I
have to come away from here with some kind of an approval for
us to move forward. So we've downsized our request if I can
present it.
Mr. Morrow: Let me just ask one question. Before you designed the sign, did
you visit our Sign Ordinance to see what was allowed?
Mr. Short: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Because I counted at least three variances from our Sign
Ordinance, setback, height, square foot and an electronic sign
in a zoning district that's not permitted.
Mr. Short: I am aware of that. First of all, it's my mission to do this. It's part
of my agreement with the Y to attempt to get their signs where
they want them and the stature that they want them. I truly think
that this is a great exception because of the size of land, the
type of neighborhood.
Mr. Morrow: Ultimately, this is going to have to be approved by the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Mr. Short: I understand.
Mr. Morrow: In other words, for lack of a better way to say it, the Planning
Commission initiates all petitions and it's sometimes very
difficult, particularly with a number of variances to our
ordinance, to approve them. But this is only your first stop and I
don't know how the rest of the Commission feels. We'll find that
out before the night is over. Let me see if there are any
questions.
Mr. Taylor: I could understand if you wanted to put this larger sign on a mile
road, but this is Stark Road. There's not that much traffic and it's
slow traffic that goes down there. So I wish you would just get
September 1, 2015
27072
more realistic on the size of the sign. I can understand why
everybody wants these electronic signs now. It's good
advertising, but we've got to get more realistic on the size and
the setback in order to make it work. Thank you.
Ms. Smiley: Are you telling us that this is a sign that is at all ten communities
where you're putting up the new sign?
Mr. Short: Oh, no. There are four proposed like this, and frankly none have
been approved yet, except Farmington Hills.
Ms. Smiley: I would repeat what Commissioner Taylor said. I think it's 25 or
30 miles an hour on that street, so they definitely have time to
read anything without it flashing. There's also homes across the
street. I understand why you need to change it because it was
like flush up against the building which I never really
understood. I mean if anything, it should be perpendicular as
opposed to parallel. But there are homes in there. Unless I was
going to the Y, there would be no reason for me to ever be on
Stark Road. I'm past where I have junior high kids. There's a
junior high there, but I find it to be a lot. In fact, way too much,
but we'll look at your new dimensions. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: The sign that was passed out. What is the square footage of this
one?
Mr. Short: It depends on how you measure it, but keeping in mind that just
the Y in the YMCA, you have a seven by . . .
Mr. Morrow: So this is 36 square feet?
Mr. Short: Yes. It's computed there. Sure.
Mr. Morrow: So that's roughly half the size of the one that you presented
initially.
Mr. Short: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Does the setback remain at 15 feet?
Mr. Short: We're certainly . . . if 20 is what you allow, maybe we could at
least get rid of one variance.
Mr. Morrow: Twenty feet is the allowable setback. That would remove one
variance if you go 20 feet.
Mr. Short: Well, if that helps, I'll do it.
September 1, 2015
27073
Mr. Morrow: Then of course being in a residential zoning district. It looks like
you've come a long way. You've cut it in half. Does the
Commission have any questions on the sign that he just
presented? Any comments?
Ms. McIntyre: I think this is a much more reasonable sign, and looking at the
facts and we understand we don't know if this was ever really
approved — that's close to a 60 foot sign, right — 5 feet by 12
feet? I'm very comfortable with this new configuration.
Mr. Morrow: Also, just looking at my notes here, I see that this 36.24 square
feet is actually quite a bit smaller than the existing sign, which if
my notes are correct, the current one is 56 square feet. Is that
what you said, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: So he's dropped the size down. It's something a little more we
can work with.
Mr. Bahr: I'm comfortable with this sign. This is a unique area over here
where it's not a highly traveled road and it's technically a
residential area, but residential homes are not across the street
from this. It's not going to bother anybody. It's parks over there.
There may not be a lot of traffic, but that's all the more reason
why I guess I don't have an issue with them having an electronic
sign like this. Stevenson High School has one. The Rec Center
has one. A number of places have them, and this is going to be
less intrusive on surrounding neighborhoods than what that
was. So I think if we go with a 20 foot setback, there's no issue
with this.
Mr. Morrow: Ultimately, it will still have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Bahr: There is legally an issue. I don't have an issue.
Mr. Morrow: We're trying to get it to something that maybe we can
recommend.
Ms. McIntyre: Just one additional thing. I think the electronic signs, I'm not the
biggest fans of them, but I think done well, they can actually
look better than when you have a lot of temporary plastic
signage up that say's "kid's day today." There's no way to put
this in the language that the Y, instead of using those temporary
plastic signs that don't look very good, would use this as the
September 1, 2015
27074
primary means of communicating their special events or
community activities.
Mr. Short: I'll pass that along.
Mr. Taormina: Would this Commission like to discuss the times of operation of
the variable electronic message board?
Mr. Morrow: Let's see. Do you have any idea of when this electronic
message board would be running?
Mr. Short: Well, when I heard the gentleman before me being questioned
that way, I called my contact at the Y. They open at 5:00 a.m.
and close at 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; open at 5:00
a.m. and close at 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. They'd
like to have it on when they're open, but they're flexible. If you
think it ought to be turned off before they close, they're flexible.
Mr. Morrow: So the hours they said at 5:00 in the morning until did you say
10:00 p.m.?
Mr. Short: Ten at night.
Ms. Smiley: Then Saturday and Sunday, 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.?
Mr. Short: Until 6:00 p.m. Yes.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. I'm glad you were listening and got on the phone.
Mr. Bahr: I guess I'll go through the Chair to Mark, but maybe somebody
else can answer the question if Mark doesn't know it. A place
like Stevenson High School or the Rec Center, did they have
time limits on their signs?
Mr. Taormina: No, but those did not go through this type of approval.
Mr. Bahr: I understand, and I don't have a strong opinion either way. With
my comments earlier, this being at a place that pretty much the
people that are going to see the sign are the people going to the
Y, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I don't think there's a
burning need to put restrictions on the time.
Mr. Morrow: So what you're saying is the 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. . . .
Mr. Bahr: Five to 10:00 p.m. would be totally fine with me.
Mr. Morrow: And reductions on Saturday and Sunday.
September 1, 2015
27075
Ms. Smiley: Five to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Morrow: Schoolcraft and the public schools, they do their thing. We don't
even see those. They just appear like magic.
Mr. Taylor: They do what they want to do. Let's put it that way.
Mr. Morrow: Is there anything else you want to say, sir?
Mr. Short: I don't want to screw it up.
Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against the granting of this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Bahr, seconded by McIntyre, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-59-2015 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2015-08-SN-04
submitted by Huron Sign Company, on behalf of the Livonia
Family YMCA requesting approval of a replacement ground sign
with variable electronic message board for the recreational
facility at 14255 Stark Road, located on the west side of Stark
Road between Schoolcraft Road and Lyndon Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the ground sign shall be installed in accordance with
the Sign Plan submitted by Huron Sign Company, as
received by the Planning Commission on September 1,
2015;
2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and the inclusion of a variable electronic message
board as illustrated on the above-referenced Sign Plan and
any conditions related thereto; and
3. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Taormina: The dimensions of the sign have been changed.
September 1, 2015
27076
Mr. Bahr: That's been changed?
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. Morrow: We'll let the staff come up with the actual numbers based on
this plan. They only have a 36 square foot sign.
Mr. Taormina: Did that include the limitation of hours?
Mr. Bahr: I didn't include it.
Ms. Smiley: Do you want to include it? Kathleen, do you want to include it.
Mr. Morrow: We won't speak to it as we did on the prior one. We'll leave that
up to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which will ultimately make
the decision. So you can present those hours to them or
whatever you want at that time. We're leaving that in the Zoning
Board of Appeals hands.
Mr. Short: Thank you.
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2000-12-02-37 SHAY ESTATES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, revision to
Petition 2000-12-02-37 submitted by Shay Estates
Condominium Association which previously received approval
by the City Council on December 20, 2004 (CR #588-04),
requesting to revise the approved landscape plan by removing
the requirement to maintain a wooden privacy fence for the
cluster housing development, Shay Estates Condominiums,
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Wayne
Road and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to revise the landscape plan for Shay Estates
Condominiums: a nine-unit single family detached cluster
housing development located on the south side of Seven Mile
Road between Wayne and Levan Roads. Shay Estates received
site plan approval on April 4, 2001. Then, in 2004, the developer
sought and received approval to amend the landscape plan
along the site's perimeter where Shay Estates abuts other
single family homes. The original plan showed a combination of
September 1, 2015
27077
berms, roughly two to three feet in height, as well as a variety of
trees and shrubs. On the original plan there was no indication of
any fencing, but due to concerns over drainage, the developer
had to alter the plan to remove some of the berms, primarily
along the west side of the project. The revised plan again
showed trees on top of berms in the areas where drainage was
not an issue, but included notes and a depiction of a wooden
board fence running along a significant portion of the site's
perimeter. It's unclear exactly what sections of the fence, if any,
were pre-existing. According to the developer, Mr. Sam Baki, at
no point during the construction of Shay Estates was a fence
erected. Nonetheless, the fence does appear on the plan and
the Shay Estates Condo Association is requesting that the plan
be modified so as to remove any obligation of maintaining the
fence. That way as sections of the fence deteriorate or fall
down, they can be removed without having to be replaced. The
request before you stems from a dispute between the
Association and neighboring homeowners who insist that a
section of the fence that was damaged and subsequently
removed at the direction of the City Enforcement Department
should be replaced in order to comply with the approved
landscape plan. This matter is currently in 16th District Court and
is being held in abeyance to allow the Association an
opportunity to amend the landscape plan in order to remove the
obligation of reinstalling the fence. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll
answer any questions you may have with my limited knowledge
on this, and I'll just tell you that there is no correspondence
pertaining to this item.
Mr. Morrow: There is nothing from an ordinance standpoint that requires a
fence outside of the landscape plan. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. There is no specific requirement for a fence in
this instance. It was just something that was shown on the plans
which is the reason for this request.
Mr. Morrow: They are not required to put a fence or berm up or anything. It's
simply from an aesthetics standpoint.
Mr. Taormina: Not where a single family abuts another single family property.
Ms. Smiley: You said there was a berm but because of drainage . . .
Mr. Taormina: There still are berms. It's a little convoluted in that when it came
back for revision in 2004, there were certain areas on the site
that couldn't accommodate a berm because of drainage
purposes. For that reason, those areas where the berm was
September 1, 2015
27078
eliminated, there were still trees planned, but for whatever
reason, there was fencing shown on the plan that didn't appear
on the original plan, and that is the reason why it's before you,
because the amended plan did show the fence. When it was
installed, I don't have the answer to that. Whether it was pre-
existing or it was installed between 2001 and 2004 or thereafter,
I don't know.
Ms. Smiley: I have one more question. In the bylaws, does it address the
fence?
Mr. Taormina: I can't answer that. I assume not because the Association is
attempting to make these changes.
Ms. Smiley: Eliminate them.
Mr. Taormina: Yes.
Mr. Bahr: Through the Chair to Mark, is that an all or nothing petition here,
or do we have the opportunity to require certain portions of the
fence and allow other parts to be removed?
Mr. Taormina: You have that option since it's open for reconsideration. That's
correct.
Mr. Bahr: I think we'll hear more later, but I had the opportunity to talk to
some of these neighbors, and we have some unique
circumstances here. There's some areas where I think there's a
legitimate need for that fence and I think there is some history
as to why it was put there, which we'll hear about. We'll see
what people have to say, but there may be an opportunity to do
something like that.
Mr. Taylor: The only thing is, when Mr. Baki came in with this plan, he
promised them a fence. Now all of a sudden they can't afford a
fence. Well, I don't know whether Mr. Baki has to pay for it or
who has to pay for it, but it was on the plan to start with, and
although it wasn't required because of the condominium and the
residential, it was there. I guess I'm waiting to hear from the
residents to see if they would rather have a real berm or a good
fence. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner here this evening? We will need your name and
address for the record please.
Doug Kath, Treasurer, Shay Estates Condominium Association, 19067 Shay
Court, Livonia, Michigan 48152.
September 1, 2015
27079
Mr. Morrow: You heard the presentation so far. Is there anything you'd like to
add to it?
Mr. Kath: I think the original issue came because we, meaning the Shay
Estates Condominium Association, were always under the
impression that this was not our fence. That's kind of how it
started. When we moved in there, the fence was already there.
Nothing was ever really said about it. Any maintenance or
repairs or upkeep on the fence over the years was done by
people on the other side of the fence. There's been some posts
replaced over the years. We never did any of that. So we just
kind of figured it wasn't our fence. When a section of the fence
blew down last spring and it kind of just laid on the ground for a
while, we didn't do anything because we were waiting for what
we thought were the owners of the fence to fix it. That never
happened. And then we did get a violation from the City of
Livonia. Well, let me back up a little bit. The violation from the
City of Livonia from the Inspection Department actually
mistakenly, instead of coming to the Condominium Association,
it actually went to the resident where the fence fell down, who
happens to be my father-in-law. I walked down there one day
and the man is 95 years old, and he's out there with a hammer
pulling nails. And I said, what are you doing? And he's all upset.
He said I got this violation that says I've got to remove this fence
and he's all upset. And I said, no, no, you don't have to do that.
The guy can barely walk. So rather than just leaving the fence
lying on the ground, my brother-in-law and I went down and we
removed the fence. We thought that was the end of it. And then
the Inspector came back, and I don't remember exactly the
sequence of events, but he said, well, you have to put a fence
back up there. You have to have a fence there. And we said,
well, no, it's not our fence. If somebody wants the fence up, it
should be the neighbors. It's not our fence. And he said, yeah
it's on the site plan so that means it's your fence, which we
didn't realize. So we kind of talked to some other people and
they said, yeah, I guess that's true. And then we were kind of
going back and forth, and then the Inspection Department called
me back one day and said, okay, we changed our mind
because we don't know whose property the fence is on. If that
fence is an inch or two on Shay Estates property, then it's your
responsibility. If it's an inch or two on their property, then they're
responsible for it. And he said, if it's your fence, we don't care
what you do with it. You can rebuild it, you can leave it, you can
paint it purple. We don't care what you do if it's your fence,
which is fine with us. We were just going to leave it. And then a
few months later, they called and said, yeah, we shouldn't have
September 1, 2015
27080
said that. Actually, you do need a fence there, again, because of
the site plan. So basically, we said, what are our options? Our
options were, we were told, well, you can try and get the site
plan amended, which is what we're trying to do now, to say that
you don't have to have a fence there. The fence really doesn't
serve any real purpose, other than the fact that it's on the site
plan. It is, like was stated earlier, I mean it's going to cost a
couple thousand dollars. We got a couple estimates just to
replace that 50 or 60 feet of fence, which we would rather not
have to pay. We have a very tiny little budget for our condo
association. We'd rather not have to do that. And the rest of the
fence, it's not like we want to tear the whole thing down,
although if we have to, we have to, but the rest of it is okay. Like
was said earlier, as it gets older and maybe another section
might fall, we don't want to pay $2,000 for this section, and next
year have another section fall down and have to pay again
when there's not a real need for the fence. I mean it looks nice
and everything, but it doesn't serve any real purpose. So
anyway, that's what we're asking for. We're asking just that the
site plan be amended so that we are allowed to have a fence
but not required to have a fence.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Any questions of the petitioner? I guess we have no
questions, so I'm going to go to the audience. Is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against the granting
of this petition?
Mark Mollon, 36270 Dardanella, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening. On the map
you had up earlier, I'm in the little inside corner. There's the
square lot there and on the inside corner, that's me, the triangle
lot. Next to that is my neighbor. The fence that is being
discussed runs along my eastern property line. I appreciate the
opportunity to address what our recollection is, which is a little
bit different from what Mr. Taormina said. Back when the
developer was at City Council making proposals, we
participated. Our concern was mainly that the street that goes
along this property line . . . I don't know if it's acceptable to
share some photographs with you.
Mr. Morrow: You can pass them over. Sure.
Mr. Mollon: Should I give one to the petitioner?
Ms. Smiley: Well, to Mark maybe so they can put it in the record. Could we
ask you what street you're talking about?
September 1, 2015
27081
Mr. Mollon: It's the common street that serves the houses here at the
condominiums. There's a circle there and then the street
extends down. So it's part of Shay Court. The addresses I think
are all on Shay Court there. So you've got the circle and then it
comes down to the end house and there's the other driveway
coming off of that. That's our backyard just to the west of the
fence and by the street. In the photographs, if you look at the
view going north, that's the existing fence on my lot, and you
can see a very narrow backyard, and the street is very close.
The south view, the same thing. There never was a berm there.
There are some trees there though. So you see the street there
serving those three houses. Of course, then there's associated
traffic as well as parking of vehicles there. Then the bottom
three pictures are showing a view from my upstairs so that you
can see how visible the cars are. The two east first floor views
are showing how valuable the fence is to us in terms of not
seeing and having the feeling that there's a street right in our
backyard. We think that the City Council had good reasons for
the concessions that Mr. Baki made back in 2000 when he
came before the Commission and the Council to propose these
condominiums, for the same reasons that we needed this
barrier for our enjoyment and safety, that those reasons all still
exist.
Mr. Taylor: Where does Mr. Dixon live?
Mr. Mollon: The triangular shaped piece. Sandy Dixon is here tonight.
Mr. Taylor: Oh, Sandy is here. Okay.
Mr. Mollon: I was surprised to hear that there was a change in 2004. We
didn't know that. Our recollection was that in the 2000 — 2001
timeframe, that many residents participated in meetings before
the City Council and there were objections made. In fact,
originally there were much bigger houses proposed and the
Council was concerned that these houses would have towered
over the whole neighborhood. So it was scaled back a couple
times. Then there were concerns about some kind of buffer,
especially along the street. So Baki agreed to build a fence. The
fence was built in 2001. It's on Shay Estates. We actually had to
plant a little bit more grass because the fence was back from
where we originally had grass for our lot. The other factor is that
when the building was going on, they needed to obtain an
easement for sanitary sewer. They came to us asking if we
would grant them an easement because it would be across our
property. One of the things — I can also hand copies out—was a
contract we had with the developer in connection with granting
September 1, 2015
27082
them an easement. I'd like to read one paragraph here. "As
shown on the plans approved by the Livonia City Council
(buyer) —which was the developer— will be required and hereby
agrees to construct a cedar board-on-board fence with
scalloped top running the entire length of the eastern property
lines of 36270 Dardanella and 36267 Dardanella, the fence to
smoothly join with the existing cedar fence along the north side
of 36270 Dardanella. Buyer agrees to locate this fence on Shay
Estates and that the fence will be maintained by Shay Estates."
I have copies of this agreement.
Mr. Morrow: What was the date of that document?
Mr. Mollon: This was on November 11, 2001.
Mr. Morrow: And it was for an easement.
Mr. Mollon: Yes. There's a recorded easement that doesn't show any of
that, but this was the background agreement that we had with
the developer.
Mr. Taylor: Obviously, the fence is on the Shay Estates property.
Mr. Mollon: Yes.
Mr. Bahr: I had a question I guess I'll direct to you. It sounds as if he has a
legal contract with the developer, between he and the
developer. I'm wondering whether it's a moot point what we do
here because it sounds like it's legally required whether it's on
the site plan or not.
Mr. Kath: Can I address that?
Mr. Morrow: Just a minute.
Mr. Bahr: I guess I'm asking you the question. Maybe it's a question for
Mark.
Mr. Morrow: Now, are you talking about just the area along the three homes
there?
Mr. Bahr: Yes. I'll direct the question to the citizen here, if that's okay. So
if I understood correctly, you have a contract between you and
the developer that, according to your understanding anyway, it
says that there's going to be a fence along the eastern side of
your property line. It just addresses that portion of the fence.
Right?
September 1, 2015
27083
Mr. Mollon: Yes. Our understanding was that the site plan required fencing,
possibly more than just that fencing, but we wanted to nail down
what type of fence and that it was going to blend smoothly on
either end with the other fences that were already there.
Mr. Bahr: You said you have copies of that?
Mr. Mollon: Yes.
Mr. Bahr: Do you mind passing them around. I'd like to see it.
Mr. Morrow: Sure. That's fine.
Mr. Bahr: What my point was, and I'm not an attorney. This may ultimately
be something for them to figure out.
Mr. Morrow: I see where you're coming from. Is primarily your concern the
fence along where the three houses are impacted by the road?
Mr. Mollon: Yes. I mean that's where the privacy . . .
Mr. Morrow: In other words, the road is practically in your backyard without
that screening.
Mr. Mollon: Absolutely.
Mr. Morrow: Is that what you're saying?
Ms. Smiley: He lives here. So I imagine he wants it here and here.
Mr. Morrow: Wherever this strip comes along here.
Ms. McIntyre: The easement is along the east. Is that right?
Mr. Mollon: No. The easement is along the southern edge of my property.
The sanitary sewer goes out to the west. So they tunneled
underneath along the southern side of my property in order to
get underneath there.
Ms. McIntyre: Got it. But in exchange for your giving them that easement, they
agreed in this contract, if you will, to put up the fence.
Mr. Mallon: Our understanding was it was already required by the City
Council, and what we were doing is getting the kind of the fence
that we wanted there. But also, we built into this that we wanted
Shay Estates to have the obligation to maintain this fence in
September 1, 2015
27084
particular. I understand that's a separately enforceable contract,
but I also think it's important that the site plan remain the same
because I think the City is in a much better position than I am to
make sure that the fence is there. Something like enforcing this
contract is probably not something economically sensible that
we would to enforce this for a couple thousand dollars amount
of fencing. So we think the really only practical way to make
sure that the fence is there is that it remain on the site plan.
Mr. Kath: Can I speak about one thing quickly?
Mr. Morrow: We'll get to you. Is there someone else that wants to be heard?
Sandra Dixon, 36267 Dardanella, Livonia, Michigan. I'm the property directly to
the south of the Mollon property. It's our property where the
fence blew down. I agree that Mr. Baki even states in here, as
shown in the plans approved by the City Council, the buyer will
be required to construct the all board fence. So it was our
understanding at the time that the plans were finally approved,
after much discussion and heated arguments with some of the
neighbors because, not only is it an aesthetic perhaps and a
safety issue with the street, there is a retention pond, or they
call it a detention pond, that is an open body of water. We have
two impaired children that live in our neighborhood. They still
live in the neighborhood. I mean it has a purpose. The fence
had a purpose then. It has a purpose still, and to say that only
one part of it matters, is to me totally not correct. It is our opinion
that this is still their responsibility. It was. It was deemed to be
their responsibility. It was agreed to be their responsibility. I
don't know how it falls in our hands. And I have emails dating
back, my emails date back to July 22, 2014, where I actually
had email correspondence with the Ordinance Department and I
had been calling since the end of May when it had fallen asking
them to let them know that this fell and they need to maintain it
and it's our understanding it's their property. We kept getting
comments back. It was a lot of confusion on the City's part as to
who really was responsible for the fence. I think they
acquiesced eventually and said, yes, it is the responsibility of
Shay Estates and that is our contention as well. I have my
emails. I have 18 of them that went back and forth with the
Ordinance fellow. He insisted that, oh no, you moved in and the
fence was there. We've been there since before, during and
after the erection of the condominiums so we knew the fence
wasn't there and that it was put in place at the City Council plan
request. If you want those emails you're welcome to them. I
have one copy only of all 18, but if you don't need them, that's
September 1, 2015
27085
fine too, but that's our contention. If you have any questions, of
course.
Mr. Morrow: Yes, sir. Now, we're back to you.
Mr. Kath: I did want to point out that the so-called contract, it's really not a
legal contract. It's a typewritten sheet of paper. It's not been
notarized. It's not been witnessed. Anybody could type that up.
That could have been typed up a year ago. I'm just saying
legally that's not really worth the paper it's written on. Whether
that's here nor there. It's really just a sheet of paper. Like I said,
there's no witnesses, no notarizations, no anything.
Mr. Morrow: But it is an agreement.
Mr. Kath: Well, it's not a legal contract.
Mr. Morrow: Anything else?
Mr. Kath: Yeah, there used to be a retention pond. That retention pond
has not had a drop of water in it for probably three or four years
now. There's no water in there anymore. Even whether or not
we're responsible, we being Shay Estates, or not, we're still just
requesting that the site plan be modified so that we aren't
required to have the fence there around the perimeter of the
property. There are other sections of our property on the east
boarder there where there's no fence at all. There's a chain link
fence over part of it. There's a little picket fence over part of it.
The part of the fence, well you can't see it, but on the top there,
part of that fence has actually been removed by the neighbors
on the other side because it was old and deteriorated and fallen
down. So he removed it and planted some arborvitae plants to
make a little bit nicer greenery rather than the old wooden
fence. So anyway, just a few other little points to consider.
Mr. Morrow: Is there anybody else that wants to speak?
John Scicluna, 19079 Shay Court, Livonia, Michigan. I bought the condominium
that I'm in just a year ago, and it looks nice, private. There's only
eight units. My neighbor, Doug, told me about this situation so I
walked down to the fence area that's in question. And the
greenery that's replacing it looks a lot better than the dog-eared
fence. It really does. Doug and I both live behind a resident who
took down the fence and put in 22 arborvitaes, like he said.
Believe me, it looks better than the fence. I don't know what
purpose the fence has today, but I like the greenery a lot better
than the fence. Thank you.
September 1, 2015
27086
Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mr. Mollon: May I respond?
Mr. Morrow: Yes, I'll allow you.
Mr. Mollon: That's kind of offensive to be accused of having committed
fraud or somehow manufactured this contract.
Mr. Morrow: We don't want to get into that. It is an agreement whether or not
it's legal from a lawyer's standpoint, but it is an agreement.
Richard Burrows, 19065 Fairway, Livonia, Michigan. I actually border the eastern
boundary of Shay Estates. I just wanted to touch base on the
comments about the additional fencing that was across the
eastern boundary of the property. Yeah, there is a variety of
selections that were made from those particular fencings, but as
is mine, they were all done at our expense at that time when the
development was going in. Got agreement, come got all the
permits, got agreement signature from the developer at that
time as well as my bordering neighbors as per the requirements
and the regulations for the fence. But anyway, I just wanted to
touch on that, that not all those fences were again a portion of
Shay Estates originally, but went it at the same time but at our
expense.
Mr. Morrow: Is your fence still there?
Mr. Burrows: It's still there. I've repaired it.
Mr. Morrow: You've got the greenery.
Mr. Burrows: No, actually, mine is actually a shadow box cedar fence that I've
had there since the development went in. I did repair it a couple
of years ago. There were some pickets that were showing some
age and some splitting so I replaced those. My neighbor not
only has a stand of evergreen trees, but inside his evergreen,
he actually has a fence inside his evergreen trees that is a vinyl
fence of four or five feet.
Mr. Morrow: So there's a variation up and down the property line.
Mr. Burrows: Right. Yeah. Again, from the home just to the north of me, it has
got a chain link that does have some trees, but there is some
greenery that I believe a lot of it was existing. That whole
property back there, Mr. Shay, it was heavily wooded. It was
September 1, 2015
27087
huge as far as the trees and stuff. So there is actually a Black
Walnut tree that is right behind my property there that's one of
the existing leftover trees at that time.
Mr. Morrow: So all the things that have been modified are on your property
and your neighbor's property.
Mr. Burrows: As far as what, sir?
Mr. Morrow: The plantings that you've put in.
Mr. Burrows: Again, I don't have any particular plantings or trees or anything
like that.
Mr. Morrow: Well, whatever you've done, your neighbors all up and down
that line, they have been augmenting whatever it is on their own
property.
Mr. Burrows: Right. Again, actually, the one to the north, Mrs. Rau, she has a
chain link that has been through there and it's been there. She's
lived there for 30 some years and it was existing even before
that.
Mr. Morrow: So it's a mixed bag.
Ms. McIntyre: Is your lot shown?
Mr. Burrows: Not in that particular picture, it's not.
Ms. McIntyre: It's further to the north?
Mr. Burrows: Yes. Like I say, I came because I got a notice that says . . . and
I was actually unclear as to what exactly it was.
Ms. Smiley: Could you give your address again?
Mr. Burrows: Sure. 19065. The third one off Seven Mile.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you. And just as a point of clarification, you said you put
up the fence.
Mr. Burrows: Yeah. My particular one when they were actually constructing.
Ms. Smiley: At your expense when this was being developed.
Mr. Burrows: Correct.
September 1, 2015
27088
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Did all your neighbors, they each put up
whatever fence they wanted at their own expense?
Mr. Burrows: Again, Mrs. Rau, my neighbor to the north, her fence was
already existing even at that time, and it has remained in place.
My neighbor to the south at that time, he planted his greenery
as well as. I think sometime later he put a fence inside that
helped because he had dogs and the dogs, they don't care for
the tree. They'll go through them. But then my neighbor a little
further down, again, I'm not familiar with what he specifically did,
but I know the adjacent neighbors were that way.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thank you.
Joan Mollon, 36270 Dardanella, Livonia, Michigan. I'm Mark's wife, and he did
put up an existing fence on the north side of our property back
in 1989, shortly after we moved in. We had two small children at
that time and the difference, I guess, they're saying there's no
difference with the different fencing around the property, but
nobody else has a road behind their house, and I think that's a
really big difference for us. There's cars always parked there.
There's a teenage boy that parks his car and his friends are
always parked there. That's fine except we don't want that in our
backyard. We need a little privacy there.
Mr. Morrow: And you're backyard is right up to the street or almost to the
street.
Mrs. Mollon: It is.
Mr. Morrow: And you use that as a buffer to the street.
Mrs. Mollon: Right. We do maintain the fence along the north property. We
have replaced all the posts. Their landscaping company has
helped the posts deteriorate quickly with their big machinery, but
my husband and I have spent, also, thousands of dollars
replacing that fence and keeping it maintained so the side of
their property looks nice.
Mr. Morrow: Okay. We appreciate your input.
Ms. Dixon: The fencing along the south side of the property was also put up
by Shaw. So it's not just along our backside here. There are two
more homes, three more homes actually, along the south side
that are affected by the fence.
Ms. Smiley: Ma'am, are you talking about homes on Clarita?
September 1, 2015
27089
Ms. Dixon: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Bahr: Mrs. Dixon, those homes on Clarita, are those yards already
fenced? Are there chain link fences in those yards, the homes
on Clarita?
Ms. Dixon: No. They have the wooden fence.
Mr. Bahr: I know they have the wooden fence, but there's not chain link
fence in addition to that?
Ms. Dixon: On the other side?
Mr. Bahr: The homes that are on Clarita. They're not?
Ms. Dixon: Not to my knowledge. I don't know what they have on the
opposite side of the fence.
Mr. Bahr: There are some portions of that neighborhood that I know the
yards are fenced, and I just wasn't sure if that was one of them.
Okay.
Ms. Dixon: What I can see, what he put up initially, when he put ours, he
erected all the other fencing that was put up. If they had
something of their own already on the other side of it, I don't
know.
Mr. Bahr: I got ya. Thanks.
Mr. Morrow: I think that's it. The Commission has had the benefit of a lot of
input. I'm going to ask for a motion and we'll see where we go
from here.
Mr. Bahr: As I_ said, I had actually had the opportunity to talk to the
Mollons and the Dixons last week. I walked their yard with them.
I think they have a legitimate concern. I think they have a very
real concern with being up against the road. That being said, I
understand the concerns of the Condo Association too, and
there's a lot of aspects about this probably that really aren't
different from a lot of other residential neighborhoods in Livonia
where we would not require fences for houses. I mean this is
basically a normal residential neighborhood otherwise. So I
know I asked about this earlier. I honestly was unsure what I
was going to do, but having heard all of this, I will offer an
September 1, 2015
27090
approving resolution. However, I'm going to make a modification
to it because I think we need to require the portion of the fence
that is along these folks property, and we can work with the
Planning Department to define what that is, but it's basically it's .
. . how to describe it. The portion that goes up against their
backyard and then as well as the portion that's in the side yard
of the Mollon's, and we can figure out how to legally describe
that. So I'm going to offer an approving resolution.
On a motion by Bahr, seconded by Taylor, and adopted, it was
#09-60-2015 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that revision to Petition 2000-12-
02-37 submitted by Shay Estates Condominium Association
which previously received approval by the City Council on
December 20, 2004 (CR #588-04), requesting to revise the
approved landscape plan by removing the requirement to
maintain a wooden privacy fence for the cluster housing
development, Shay Estates Condominiums, located on the
south side of Seven Mile Road between Wayne Road and
Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the requirement for fencing around Shay Estates
Condominiums, except for the parts that are bordering the
north and east sides of 36270 Dardanella and the east side
of 36267 Dardanella, shall be deleted from the approved
landscape plan; and
2. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#588-04, which granted approval for the construction of a
cluster housing development, shall remain in effect to the
extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing
condition.
Mr. Morrow: Do we have support?
Mr. Taylor: Clarification. I'm not sure what you're doing.
Mr. Morrow: Let's see if we can get support, and then we'll discuss it, Joe.
Mr. Taylor: I'll support it for discussion.
Mr. Morrow: Okay.
Mr. Bahr: Is it okay if I step up here and point it out?
September 1, 2015
27091
Mr. Morrow: Yes.
Mr. Bahr: The portions that I think, and Mark can maybe point with his
pointer, but it's basically from here up to the corner and then
continuing west at that corner. So that upside down "L" if you
will. I think there's a legitimate need for those fences. The rest
of them throughout here, I don't see that it's any different than
any other residential neighborhood and I don't see a huge need
for it. If that neighbor showed up tonight, that might have been
one thing, but I don't hear any complaints. We have one
resident that lives on the backside who said he doesn't have an
issue with it. So those are the ones that I think there's a
legitimate need for it.
Mr. Taylor: You're talking about the Dixons and the other gentleman. All
right.
Ms. Smiley: Can we amend half of the site plan?
Mr. Morrow: You can do anything you want.
Ms. Smiley: Can I, Mark?
Mr. Morrow: This is the landscape plan and you can amend the fence
requirement as part of the landscape plan. Is that correct, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. I think what maybe should be clarified here is that to the
extent that you're requiring or allowing for the other areas of the
fence to be removed, it's an acknowledgement that the
buffering, the separation between those areas, is sufficient to
meet the separation requirements between cluster homes and
single family homes. While the clustering provisions of the
ordinance don't require a fence, they do require adequate
buffering between single family clustered homes and
conventional single family homes. So I think you'd have to
acknowledge as part of your approval of amending the plan that
it's adequate in those other areas without the fence but not
adequate unless the fence is installed in the areas that I have
highlighted.
Mr. Bahr: Was that a question to me?
Mr. Taormina: No, it's to the Commission in deciding this matter.
Mr. Morrow: In other words, in justifying the need for fences in one area and
not required in the other areas.
September 1, 2015
27092
Mr. Bahr: Is there a separate city ordinance that handles that, Mark?
Mr. Taormina: I'll read to you what the ordinance says with respect to that item
and bear with me just for a moment.
Mr. Bahr: While he's looking, if there is according to our normal practices
a need for the fence, I just hadn't heard that.
Mr. Taormina: There is not a need for a fence, but it says "whenever a
proposed single family cluster project abuts an existing single
family residential district, such district shall be buffered by
means of one or more of the following methods as part of the
development of the single family cluster project: (1) locate the
detached single family dwellings on conventional lots
immediately abutting the existing development." That's not
applicable here. "(2) provide open space or recreation space
immediately abutting said existing single family residential
district; (3) provide significant topographical features,
landscaping or a combination thereof immediately abutting said
existing single family residential district" — which I believe would
have to apply in this case — "or (4) major thoroughfare located
between the cluster and the single family residential district." So
we're really deciding whether or not the landscaping and
topographical features that exist in those other areas are
sufficient to forego the need for the fence. And going back to the
plan, you can see what was required in terms of landscaping.
We did not do an inventory to determine what exists there
presently, but what you're saying is that in time, the Association
would no longer be obligated to maintain a fence anywhere
along the south property line, the east property line and the
northern leg of the west property line.
Mr. Bahr: That's correct.
Ms. McIntyre: I thought we were including the south.
Mr. Bahr: I was not including the south. I don't have a problem if you want
to include it.
Mr. Morrow: You looked at that didn't you?
Mr. Bahr: I did see it. I guess . . . there's fencing there. I don't see, if this
were a new development, I would not see a need to require it. I
think it's important to note too that what we're seeing here
tonight, they're not going to tear down the fence.
September 1, 2015
27093
Mr. Morrow: I think what you're trying to get at, Mr. Bahr, and maybe I'm off
base, but it would seem that from a planning standpoint, that
because the road that services those three houses is in these
people's practically backyard, it would seem a buffer between
that road and the residences would be in order.
Mr. Bahr: Right. I'll try to say it as succinctly as I can. I'm saying I think we
should require, that we should leave in the site plan, the
southerly most part of the western fence as well as the southern
part . . . man, I don't know how to describe this.
Mr. Morrow: The upside down "L."
Mr. Bahr: The upside down "L." That's what I'm saying I think needs to
stay there. The rest of it, I don't have a problem if it comes off
the site plan. That's what I'm saying.
Ms. Smiley: So you're saying like that "7" . . .
Mr. Bahr: Yeah, the "7." That's what I'm saying.
Ms. Smiley: It's almost like a "Z" and then over.
Ms. McIntyre: So aren't we only then excluding the eastern border?
Mr. Bahr: I'm excluding the eastern border, the eastern half of the
southern border and the northern half of the westerly border -
would no longer be required.
Ms. McIntyre: I can't follow that.
Mr. Morrow: See the road here? This is their backyard.
Mr. Taormina: I just highlighted the area on the plan.
Mr. Bahr: That's what I'm talking about.
Mr. Kath: But if you're talking about a buffer though, right there, the up
and down part, it's all . . .
Mr. Morrow: Sir, we're in discussion now between the Planning
Commissioners.
Mr. Kath: I'm sorry. Okay.
Mr. Taylor: I've talked to Alex Bishop many times on this subject, and
because one of the neighbors there had called me and I know
September 1, 2015
27094
him. It's a very kind of a sticky thing, you know, the way it's
written and everything, but it was on the plan. And Mr. Bishop
said that whatever the Planning Commission and the City
Council determines, they will enforce it.
Mr. Morrow: Anyway, like I said in the opening remarks, we've had the
benefit of a lot of input tonight, and we have a motion on the
floor that is supported. Is there any other discussion? Seeing
none, can we have a roll call?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Bahr, Taylor, Morrow
NAYS: McIntyre, Smiley
ABSENT: Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. We're maintaining the "7" up there as a
requirement. The balance of the fencing is not required. You
can delete that from the landscape plan. Now this will go to the
City Council and they will ultimately make the final
determination. This is only a recommendation to the City
Council. So you will have to do this again.
Ms. McIntyre: Mr. Chair, may I just briefly explain my vote?
Mr. Morrow: Certainly.
Ms. McIntyre: I'm in favor of all of the fencing that was recommended. I wasn't
comfortable, and I've gone and driven the property. I've not
walked the property to the extent Mr. Bahr has, but I've driven
the property and I was not comfortable with the carve out. So I
was voting to require the fence.
Mr. Morrow: All the way around.
Ms. McIntyre: Yes. I'm sympathetic also to the Association and we don't pick
on 95 year olds randomly, but we have something that was
required by Planning and I just wanted to clarify. Thank you for
that opportunity.
Mr. Kath: So can I get a little clarification? So the way that you just voted,
we don't have to, we can but we don't have to have a fence
anyplace but the "7." Correct?
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Bahr, that's what I got out of it.
September 1, 2015
27095
Mr. Bahr: That part of it is staying on the site plan.
Mr. Kath: That part is staying on the site plan.
Mr. Morrow: If you look at the map, you'll see where that road servicing those
houses impact the rear yards of the neighbors. It's a buffer. If
you look at the pictures that were submitted, the traffic is
practically in their backyard. This is a buffer from the road.
Mr. Kath: There's trees along there. That's a little overstating it.
Mr. Morrow: I guess, like I say, it will be sent to the City Council with the
motion you heard tonight.
Mr. Kath: One more quick question then. The top part of the "7," the one
that runs east and west there, I mean they already said that they
put that up and that's on their property. Right? So even though
it's on our site plan, it's on their property. We wouldn't maintain
what's on their property. Correct?
Mr. Morrow: Well, I don't know about whose property it is. This can be taken
up at the City Council.
Mr. Kath: Okay. Thanks.
ITEM #6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,074th Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 1,074th Regular Meeting held on July 28, 2015.
On a motion by Taylor, seconded by McIntyre, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-61-2015 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,074th Regular Meeting held
by the Planning Commission on July 28, 2015, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Taylor, McIntyre, Bahr, Smiley, Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Wilshaw
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
September 1, 2015
27096
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,075th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 1, 2015, was adjourned at
9:05 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
avat00ii
Carol A. Smiley, S cretary
ATTEST: 6Q-4R.sz___
R. Lee Morrow, C airman