HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2019-04-09 MINUTES OF THE 1,140th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 1,140t" Public Hearing and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members present: David Bongero Sam Caramagno Glen Long
Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: Peter Ventura
Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor,
were also present.
Chairman Wilshaw 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 petition is accepted or rejected.
If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective
seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the
professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff
has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which
the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2019-02-02-01 WADE'S SHOWS, INC.
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2019-
02-02-01 submitted by Wade Shows, Inc. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(I) of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance#543, as amended, to conduct a carnival in the parking
lot of Sears, sponsored by the Rotary Club of Livonia, consisting
of amusement rides, games and food concessions from May 16, i
2019 through May 27, 2019, inclusive, on property at 29500
Seven Mile Road, located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile
Road and Middlebelt Road in the Southeast Y4 of Section 2.
April9, 2019
29037
Mr. Taormina: This year's carnival event in the Sears parking lot at Seven Mile
and Middlebelt follows the same pattern that we have seen for a
number of years in a row now. The duration of this Springs
carnival would be 12 days and correspond with the weekend
before Memorial Day and run through Memorial Day. The hours
of operation are the same, 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. on the weekdays and
on Saturday and Sunday from noon to 11 p.m. The carnival
would be closed and moved on the 28th. It occupies the same
area on the site, including the storage and temporary housing
facilities in the parking lot. With that, Mr. Chairman, 1 can read out
the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 6, 2019, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above referenced waiver use approval
request the address of#29500 Seven Mile Road is correct for
the subject parcel, and should be used in connection with this
petition. We have no objections to the proposed petition,
although the following items should be noted. (1) Should the
carnival have the need to occupy, or should any of the associated
activities impact either of the Seven Mile Road or Middlebelt Road
right-of-way, a permit from Wayne County will be required as both
roads are under their jurisdiction. (2) All sanitary sewage from
the site, recreational vehicles or campers shall be disposed of
properly. (3) Should the operators need to have water provided
for their facilities, they should contact the City of Livonia Water
Department to obtain the proper equipment, including a water
meter with backflow preventer."The letter is signed by David W.
Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Fire Department, dated March 18, 2019, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to conduct a carnival on property located at the
above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Senior Fire
Inspector. The third letter is from the Police Department, dated
March 8, 2019, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans
in connection with the petitions. I have no objections to the
proposals." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 7,
2019, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
above referenced Petition has been reviewed. This Department
has no objections to this Petition. 1 trust this provides the
requested information." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna,
Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Finance
April9, 2019
29038
Department, dated March 7, 2019, which reads as follows: "1 have
reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition.
As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water
and sewer. 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. The last letter is
from the Treasurer's Department, dated March 6, 2019, which
reads as follows: `In accordance with your request, the
Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the
above noted petition. At this time there are no taxes due,
therefore 1 have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions for the Planning staff? I don't see any. Is
the petitioner here? We will need your name and address for the
record please.
Joanna Hardesty, Wade Shows, P.O. Box 51730, Livonia, Michigan 48151.
Pat Sukall, Livonia Rotary.
Ms. Hardesty: It is the same as we have done in years past. Nothing new.
Mr. Wilshaw; Ok. I think it has been about five years that you have had the
layout.
Ms. Hardesty: We were just talking about that. I think it has been seven or eight
years.
Mr. Wilshaw: That has worked out well for you hasn't it?
Ms. Hardesty: It has. It is a great fund raiser for the Livonia Rotary Club.
Mr. Wilshaw: Excellent. Do we have any questions for our Petitioner?
Ms. Smiley: What kind of security do you have for Wade Shows?
Ms. Hardesty: Actually, I just spoke with the Livonia Police Department on
Monday about the security. We work with them. We hire them
for our weekends and we also have a private security company
that we bring in that is approved by the Livonia Police Department
as well. They are there on site the whole time the carnival is
operating.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you.
April 9, 2019
29039
Mr. Long: I know in the past we have talked about this, but there is a pretty
good safety inspection system in place, can you speak to that for
a minute please?
Ms. Hardesty: Safety inspection as far as the rides go?
Mr. Long: Rides and such, yes.
Ms. Hardesty: The rides are inspected when they get to Michigan by the State
inspectors. This event is not the first one in Michigan. The first
one will be in Sterling Heights. Then they are inspected with each
tear down and reinstall. We have our third-party inspectors and
we have our own inspectors that do that. We have to receive the
first of the State inspection at the first event of the season here in
Michigan, but then as we go we contract with a third party.
Mr. Long: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our Petitioner? I don't see anyone.
Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item.
Ma'm, feel free to come forward.
Lynann Gerber, 19963 Myron, Livonia, Michigan. I didn't know that some of the
proceeds go to charitable situations. Is that correct, my
understanding?
Ms. Sukall: That is correct.
Ms. Gerber: I think they should do more to let us know about that. I would
even get: on one of those ferris wheels or something. Really, let
us know. I did not know that all of these years. That is great.
Mr. Wilshaw: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
item? I don't see anyone else coming forward. Ms. Hardesty,
anything else you would like to add?
Ms. Hardesty: No. Thank you for considering us again this year. We appreciate
It.
Mr. Wilshaw: Very good. Thank you, guys. I will close the public hearing at this
time and a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Long, seconded by Caramagno, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-29-2019 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on April 9, 2019, on Petition
2019-02-02-01 submitted by Wade Shows, Inc. requesting waiver
April 9, 2019
29040
use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(1) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, to conduct a carnival in the
parking lot of Sears, sponsored by the Rotary Club of Livonia,
consisting of amusement rides, games and food concessions
from May 16, 2019 through May 27, 2019, inclusive, on property
at 29500 Seven Mile Road, located on the northwest corner of
Seven Mile Road and Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 114 of
Section 2, the which property is zoned C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2019-02-02-01 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the carnival shall be limited to the dates as specified by
Wade Shows, Inc., which are May 16, 2019 through May 27,
2019, inclusive;
2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to
the area as illustrated on the aerial layout plan submitted as
received by the Planning Commission on March 1, 2019;
3. That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other
equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the
carnival shall be located at least sixty feet (60') distant from
the Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads right-of-way lines;
4. That the temporary housing and storage of other trucks and
equipment associated with the carnival shall be parked or
stored within the extreme southwestern portion of the Sears
parking lot, but no closer than sixty feet (60`) from the Seven
Mile Road right-of-way line;
5. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following:
Monday through Friday from 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.; and on
the weekends, Saturday and Sunday, from 12.00 p.m. to
11:00 p.m.; and
6. That access to fire hydrants is provided for the Fire
Department.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
April 9, 2019
29041
2. That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use;
3. That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes
will not interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the
area and will not impede access to Sears or Livonia
Marketplace; and
4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed
use.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2019-03-02-02 Leo Soave Building, Inc.
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda Petition 2019-
03-02-02 submitted by Leo Soave Building Inc. requesting
special waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 20.01 and
20.02A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to develop a Planned Residential Development under
the Single-Family Clustering option (Capri Court), consisting of
seventeen (17) site condominium lots, on properties at 20209,
20219, 20225, 20235 and 20307 Farmington Road, located on
the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and
Eight Mile Road in the Northeast '/a of Section 4
Mr. Taormina: This is a request to develop a site condominium under the single
family clustering option. This property is on the west side of
Farmington Road. It is between Norfolk and Eight Mile Road.
The overall site consists of five parcels that have a net land area
of 4.7 acres. There is 184 feet of frontage on Farmington Road
and the depth of the site is about 600 feet. Currently there is a
pending rezoning petition involving this property. The request is
to change the zoning from RUF (Rural Urban Farm) to R-1 (One
Family Residential). City Council gave first reading to the
rezoning on February 4, 2019 and second reading and roll call
are on hold pending a review of the site plan. Looking at the site
and the surrounding area immediately to the north is an office
complex that is zoned OS (Office Services). This consists of five
buildings, all single story. Across Farmington Road are other
offices under the OS zoning classification, as well as the Subu's
April 9, 2019
29042
Leather Bottle restaurant, which is zoned C-2, General Business.
Immediately to the west is On the Pond Condominiums zoned R-
7, Multi-Family Residential. Abutting the site to the south is the
Windridge Village sub-division, which is zoned R-3, One Family
Residential. Single-family clustering is an option that is available
under Article XX of the Zoning Ordinance. Clustering provides
flexible design standards which are intended to encourage more
efficient use of lands as a means of preserving open space,
providing single family development for difficult sites and offering
reasonable alternatives to multiple family development. This
option allows for either attached or detached single family homes.
In this case, all of the proposed homes would be detached single
family located on individual site condominium lots. With the R-1
zoning, the maximum density that would be allowed is equivalent
to four dwelling units per acre. Thus, the subject 4.72 acre site,
can support a total of 18 homes. The site plan before you shows
17 site condominium lots on the 4.72 acres and then one
additional acreage parcel located in the southeast portion of the
property for a total of 18 homes. A new access road called Capri
St. would extend from Farmington Road near the center of the
property and would provide access to all 17 site condominium lots
as well as the one acreage parcel. The new road has a right-of-
way width of 60 feet. It ends in a T--turnaround as you can see.
There are sidewalks provided in front of all of the lots that would
join with the existing sidewalk along Farmington Road. The
zoning ordinance states that where a clustering development
abuts existing single family homes, they must be buffered by
means of one of the following: locate the detached single family
dwellings on conventional lots immediately adjacent to the single
family residential district„ provide open space or recreation space
immediately abutting the existing single family district, or provide
significant topographical features, landscaping or a combination
of both immediately adjacent to existing single family district. This
proposed development abuts existing single family homes to the
south. These homes are part of the Windridge Village sub-
division, zoned R-3, and are located on the north side of Norfolk
St. They measure roughly 80 feet in width by 120 feet in depth.
Lots 12 through 17, within the proposed development located on
the south side of Capri Street, would exceed the minimum lot size
requirement for R-1 zoning. The six lots would each measure 70
feet by 120 feet. This is the equivalent to R-2 zoning. Between
lots 12 through 17, as well as the homes on Norfolk, would be the
development's storm water detention area. This would be a 60
foot wide common open space that would contain the storm water
holding basin, as well as the forebay which is used for pre-
treatment of the storm run-off. In a cluster development, for any
of the lots that do not abut a single family district there is no
April 9, 2019
29043
minimum lot size requirement. This applies to Lots 2 through 10,
located on the north side of the proposed street. These lots are
proposed to be 50 feet in width. There are two additional lots, one
and eleven, that would be 70 feet and 80 feet in width,
respectively. As I mentioned previously, storm water would be
managed along the south side of the property as well as in the
southwest corner of the property. I can zoom in on that area.
Again, you will see the relationship of Lots 12 through 17 and the
storm water detention pond located on the south side of the
street. There is landscaping proposed along this area and
throughout the development, located mainly along Farmington
Road adjacent to Unit 1, as well as the acreage parcel, and then
running along the south side of the property, providing additional
screening between the proposed homes and the existing homes
on Norfolk Avenue. There would be a row of Arborvitaes planted
as well as evergreen trees and other deciduous shrubs and trees.
The sub-division would be allowed one identification sign, and we
do not have details on that particular sign. Included in your
packet is information from the Master Deed and Bylaws
specifying minimum lot sizes and minimum home size, as well as
percentage of brick and other architectural features. The
minimum size for any one story home within the development
would be 1,300 square feet and any multi-story home, Cape Cod
or Colonial, would have to be 1,500 square feet. With that, Mr.
Chairman, I'd be happy to read out the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 7, 2019, 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 waiver use at this time. The existing
parcels are assigned the addresses of#20209, #20219, #20225,
#20235 and #20307 Farmington Road. The legal descriptions
provided appear to be correct and should be used in conjunction
with this petition. The existing parcels are currently serviced by
public utilities, but the information submitted does not show
proposed calculations, so we cannot determine impacts to the
existing systems at this time. The developer has been in contact
with this Department and is aware of the site plan requirements
including storm water detention and the requirements for
certifying that the storm sewer outlet has the available capacity
to handle the additional flows from the site. It should be noted that
the developer will also be required to obtain Wayne County
permits for any work within the Farmington Road right-of-way. We
will provide a detailed review once full Engineering site plans
April9, 2019
29044
have been submitted for approval." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 15, 2019, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to develop a Planned Residential
Development under the Single-Family Clustering option (Capri
Court), consisting of seventeen (17) site condominium lots, on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal."The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
March 8, 2019, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the plans
in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the
proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic
Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated March 29, 2019, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request, the above referenced Petition has been reviewed. This
Department has no objections to this Petition. 1 trust this provides
the requested information." The letter is signed by Jerome
Hanna, Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the
Treasurer's Department, dated March 6, 2019, which reads as
follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office
has reviewed the address connected with the above noted
petition. At this time there are no taxes due, therefore 1 have no
objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel,
Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance Department, dated
March 7, 2019, which reads as follows: "1 have reviewed the
addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are
no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer,
I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by
Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the
correspondence. Lastly, we have a letter from the Department of
Assessment, dated March 26, 2019, which reads as follows: "The
petition submitted by Leo Soave Building Inc. involves five
individual Tax Parcels. The proposed Condominium Project
incorporates all the parcels except a site designated as Parcel
`B'. This Parcel `B' will need to be split out from three of the five
parent parcels. The Assessor's Office recommends the property
split/combination application be submitted before proceeding and
would like to voice an objection to lot widths that are less than the
60-foot minimum." The letter is signed by Mary Ciolino,
Assessment Department. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Wlshaw: Are there any questions for our Planning staff?
Ms. Smiley: The lot next to lot 17, so that is going to be a park or something?
April9, 2019
29045
Mr. Taormina: No, that would be a homesite described via metes and bounds.
However, it would not be a part of the condominium. It would be
a separate parcel located outside the condominium development.
It would exist separately as an acreage parcel. It would have a
separate type of description and would not be a part of the site
condo. You would have to ask the developer why they chose to
do that.
Ms. Smiley: It is like a subdivision of 17 lots and then there is a guy next door
that lives all by himself. He is not connected to those people?
Mr. Taormina: That would be correct.
Mr. Wilshaw: Good question for the developer when he comes up. Any other
questions for our planning staff? I don't see any. Our Petitioner
is here, his representative, Mr. Baki.
Sam Baki, 38901 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Some of the concern
I understand. Some of the concern about the site. The overall
site is an 18 parcel sub--division, but due to some of the
calculations for detention and what we are trying to do to
accommodate the lots on the south side to be bigger than all of
them, the calculation came up that we needed to take that lot out
of the subdivision and keep it as an out lot. Sometimes, we do
that. That is one of the reasons, and the other reason we do that
is that he usually proceeds to put a model home on it while the
development is going. As an out lot it already has the sewer and
water connection off of Farmington Road. That is another reason
he does that. That out lot, if you notice, is 70 feet wide by 180
deep. It is bigger than all of them. It will still be a part of the . . .
it is in the subdivision but it is an out lot.
Ms. Smiley: Ok, I am afraid I am not getting it. So this is for somebody that is
going to live there, in a house that you are building that looks like
the rest of them because it is going to be the model home, but
you don't want him, this anti-social person, to belong to this
group?
Mr. Baki: No, sometimes we have them included.
Ms. Smiley: Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.
Mr. Baki: No. It is their choosing. We leave it up to them, but most of the
time they get included with the whole development.
Ms. Smiley: Well, I belong to a subdivision and everybody pays dues and we
pay for this and that. This person doesn't?
April 9, 2019
29046
Mr. Baki: Technically, no, not at this time, but we haven't put that in writing
or anything. It hasn't come . . . until the whole development is
done and everything approved then we will figure that out. As
you notice, there is a lot of landscaping on that side. If you can
see...
Ms. Smiley: I can.
Mr. Baki: Right on his property
Ms. Smiley: Uh huh.
Mr. Baki: Well, if it isn't included, then that means he has to maintain all of
that, not the association. It is a give and take, but it is . . . it is for
calculation purposes. It has nothing to do with the actual in lot or
out lot. We just kept it as big as it could be.
Ms. Smiley: Do we normally do this?
Mr. Baki: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: It has been done before as Mr. Baki explained. Sometimes it is
done to expedite the construction of a model home, while the
development is pending through the approval process. It can also
be done for reasons of storm water detention calculations. There
are certain minimum thresholds relative to storm water
requirements. If the development exceeds a certain acreage,
then it is required to have greater storm water detention. I think
the reason this is being done is really for both purposes.
Ms. Smiley: So he has his own storm water detention?
Mr. Taormina: Storm water detention will have to meet the County's
requirements for the size of parcel that they are creating as part
of the site condominium development. If they include the
additional lot that could trigger the requirement for additional
storm water detention.
Ms. Smiley: I think it is a bad idea.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Ms. McCue.
Ms. McCue: So again, to just kind of follow up with her, if we add it, there would
not be adequate storm water detention so what does this . . .
where does this parcel . . .
April 9, 2019
29047
Mr. Taormina: No, it will be adequate. It will meet the county's requirement the
way it is designed.
Ms. McCue: Even if you ended up adding this last parcel? If they add the
parcel that they left off?
Mr. Taormina: I think it becomes very close. I think five acres is the limit, and I
think it brings them right at five acres. Now whether or not the
county would require the additional storm water with that parcel
added, that I do not know.
Mr. Baki: Can I add some more stuff? If you notice that that lot is 60 by
180, 1 mean 70 by 180, the southern part of that 70, 1 mean of
that lot that extra 60 feet could be added as a detention if we
added it, but then it would be too close to Seven Mile, I mean to
Farmington Road. That is one of the other reasons too, to keep
it away from Farmington Road. There are a lot of different
reasons, but the main reason, as Mr. Taormina mentioned, this
way we can proceed with the lot to build a house as a spec while
the approval is going through Wayne County and the City of
Livonia which takes 2 months. That will get that spec up and
going just like they did up on Newburgh Road. If you notice, one
house is almost done. It is technically an out lot and we do the
same thing. So it has been done before all over.
Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else Ms. McCue?
Ms. McCue: I guess I just wanted to address the size of the other lots across
the street as well. Obviously, that is significantly different. I know
we have touched on this a couple of weeks ago, but I just have a
concern with the houses on the south side looking at the houses
on the north side. I think those houses are going to look very . . .
it is going to look very cluttered. If I were to go to buy a house on
the south side, I am not sure that I would want to look at the
houses on the north side. I guess my point is, can you explain to
me what the through process was with that number of lots?
Mr. Baki: When we started the whole process, if you recall when we came
for approval for rezoning, we went through the rezoning without
getting the layout and the cost and the expenses and all of that.
After we did all of the numbers, it came out that the minimum that
we can do on this side to make it workable for residential
development is 18 lots. We started with 20 and then we went
down to 18 with the zoning. We met with the neighbors, and a lot
of them are present here. We asked them to be here to let you
guys know that we met with them. We had a Committee of the
Whole. Me and Leo met with the neighbors about five times. We
April 9, 2019
29048
came to an agreement All they care about is the southern part
to be compatible or closer to their lot. That is why we created the
70 foot lots on the south side and that is why we gave the buffer
completely on the south side. The north side is office, nobody is
going to complain. They were all understanding, and they all
agreed on that principle and that is when we came back with this
site plan. That is how the Council even went ahead and approved
us for the R-1 zoning. I understand the other concern you
mentioned is the sale of that property. People are going to know
before they buy that they could be looking at a smaller lot. Now
the houses won't be different. The price range is still going to be
around $400,000 plus. It doesn't matter which lot they go. The
southern part might be around 500 and the northern part will be
around 400. The average is going between $350,000 and
$400,000 on a smaller lot. The bigger lots will be more
customized for more bigger homes. People will get to pick and
choose, but they know up front what they are getting into before
they buy it. it is not something new that they won't see it. The
homes will be up and the people will know what they are buying.
I do have a lot of good neighbors that we met with. They were all
happy. They came to the conclusion that they agreed with us.
That is why I gave them a call and said to please be present and
let the Commission know you're in agreement. That is why they
are here. You can start with my best friend there.
Mr. Wilshaw: They will certainly have an opportunity to speak in a moment.
Ms. McCue: I'm good. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Your good? Ok, anyone else on the Commission willing to ask
questions of Mr. Baki?
Mr. Bongero: Sam, I always just look at it from a bit of a different angle. I am
always concerned about the ponds because I have had
experience with them. Personal experience and I have done this
type of work, so with this development being under five acres we
know it is a 10-year storm pond requirement.
Mr. Baki: Uh huh.
Mr. Bongero: If it goes over the five it is a 100-year, so we know what we are
skirting at and that's fine. It's legal. We get it. So, you're at a 10-
year storm pond. The likelihood of a 10-year storm is once every
10 years. So this site, these 17 homes will accept in theory the
water generated from this site into this pond, but it doesn't accept
the neighboring properties. Immediately, it isn't a 10-year pond.
Technically for the site it is, but with the other adjoining properties
April 9, 2019
29049
draining in to it, it's not. In 2013 we had 2 100-year storms. The
ponds failed in our sub bad. Guarantee they will fail here, so the
only way that water is going to get out is that it is going to go into
those people's yards, probably up into their house, and then
eventually make its way over to Farmington Road. So, at a
minimum, I know the City has had problems with these ponds
before. All around the City, they have had them and I have talked
to the Engineering Department. They would like to see an
emergency overflow at a minimum on this pond, and I don't know
if you guys are willing to do it. I don't think they can enforce it.
But with that being said, would you guys be willing to do that and
if you did where is it going to go?
Mr. Baki: Okay. Some of your concern I understand. Each site, as you
know, is based on the soil. This property, just like certain
properties we developed in the area off of Eight Mile and
Farmington or west of it like Gill Road, is sand. The water won't
even sit there more than 24 hours. So as a 10-year or 100-year,
this site will accommodate it because of the soil underneath it.
With respect to drainage wise, it's not going to have an effect on
any neighbor or anybody else because of the soil condition. I
don't know what sub you are talking about, but I can tell you that
certain sites that we have, it will affect the site. It will affect the
drainage. It won't affect it on this one because we did some soil
boring.
Mr. Bongero: How can you be sure of that though?
Mr. Baki: Soil boring.
Mr. Bongero: We can go around and around, but to me it's like at a minimum.
We get a shot at it right? We can make it right now, right? So if
the City wants an emergency overflow, why wouldn't you just do
it? Do you know what I am saying? For the sake of the
neighbors, or did you ever think about putting the pond on the
other side where the commercial space is? You know what I am
saying?
Mr. Baki: I understand what you are saying, but this is what the neighbors
wanted. They wanted the buffer on the other side.
Mr. Bongero: I just want the neighbors to know that in theory this design works,
but I know from personal experience that if you get a 100-year
rain it's not going to work, and it is going to flood out. That's for
sure. It happened in my sub. That is why I am saying...I'm
concerned about that. Then the restoration on that side of the
property line too, how is that going to be restored on their
April 9, 2019
29050
properties because there is going to be disruption up and down
there. There is a utility easement there, and you are tying in to
some of those catch basins.
Mr. Baki: We are tying into one catch basin. Engineering makes sure we
restore everything we disturbed. We have done that in the past.
Mr. Bongero: The emergency overflow is not an option?
Mr. Baki: I don't know. I would have to look at the condition. I don't know
what is required to do that on this site or any of the sites, but I
know this...the detention will not get overfilled with a 10-year or
100-year because of the soil condition. The other thing that you
mentioned which was some the city developments in the past
failed, but we are talking 15 years and older. They didn't have
the requirement that they have now that the association has to
pay to maintain that detention. The detentions get cluttered with
weeds and everything else. That is what will stop it from draining.
When you have an association, as you read in the by-laws, it is
required by them to clean it. If they don't, the city will do it and
charge the association. It is part of the agreement with the city.
That has been done for the last ten years. We didn't do that 20
years ago, it wasn't required. That is what is new about the
detention area.
Mr. Bongero: Ok, thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. Any other questions for our petitioner?
I don't see anyone else. Mr. Baki, you can have a seat for a
moment, and we will hear from the rest of the audience. Is there
anyone else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? This is your chance.
Todd Salo, 33524 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan 48152. 1 am here tonight to support
the overall concept of the site development. Obviously, I am not
a civil engineer and wasn't aware of the issues you brought up
here. That was never discussed with us. I am very concerned
about what you have been saying here. I think it certainly merits
more discussion. Like I said, none of us are civil engineers that
could really answer that, and hopefully your expertise on your
board can. Several of us did meet with Mr. Soave and Mr. Baki,
around three or four times I believe. This plan is a reasonable
compromise addressing our concerns about density and
setbacks. We believe that single family housing is the best option
as far as enhancing our neighborhood property values and
making an attractive development for the City of Livonia.
certainly appreciate what you have been saying, I think it certainly
April9, 2019
29051
deserves more consideration. The other issue that wasn't
brought before us prior to tonight, is this out lot issue. Number
18 was never discussed with us as neighbors by Mr. Soave or
Mr. Baki. That was also kind of a surprise to us tonight too.
Obviously, there are some concerns there also. Again, I am not
a civil engineer and it sounds like those type of questions would
best be answered by somebody else.
Mr. Wilshaw: So, Mr. Salo, it sounds like what you are saying, in general from
what you have been discussing with Mr. Baki and Mr. Soave is
your happy to have conforming R-1 lots on the south side of the
street abutting your sub-division. Is that correct?
Mr. Salo: Not conforming R-1 lots, but we wanted lots closer to R-3 which
is 80 foot. I think original proposal that was brought to you
originally was probably 60-foot maybe 50-foot lots. The
reasonable compromise was 70 feet with a nice setback and that
is what we have been discussing the last few months.
Mr. Wilshaw: I see. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak
on this item? Good evening, sir.
Larry Kwiatkowski, 33410 Norfolk, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening, mywife Diane
is in the audience also. I have met with Leo and Mr. Baki, three
or four times. What we talked about and what they are proposing,
housing looks terrific. We have lived in that home for over 30
years. This is about the best proposal that we have seen in over
30 years. It is very favorable to all of us and the neighbors in the
audience. We have talked about this. Like Mr. Salo mentioned,
David you mentioned the water issues, it is a concern, but Mr.
Baki I think went ahead to say that the soil in that area would be
able to Dandle that type of flooding. True or not, again don't know
that. It would be a concern. It would be something that people,
besides ourselves in the audience, would have to consider. I
appreciate your time, and I hope you can look at this favorably for
Mr. Soave and Mr. Baki to put some nice homes in our backyard.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you.
Ms. Smiley: Can I ask you a question, Mr. Kwiatkowski?
Mr. Kwiatkowski: Sure
Ms. Smiley: How do you feel about those 50? You can put three houses
across the street from two houses? Does that bother you at all?
April 9, 2019
29052
These are all 70 on your side of the street, but on the other side
of the street they are all 50.
Mr. Kwiatkowski: Right behind our home they are going to have 60 foot of an area
where they are going to put landscaping and that is very
favorable. The homes that are closer to the stores . . . the store
that has been there for over 50 years, that doesn't really affect
me. What would affect me more is the past proposal that was
about a nursing center right behind our home. It was a 24-hour
nursing center. I would hate to see that happen, because our
subdivision sits right there. We are a very well-established
subdivision. You can see the neighbors' concerns also.
Ms. Smiley: More to my question, if you were a City Planner, and you were
looking at this one street of homes. You have six that are at least
70 feet wide and then across the street they are like 50, 50, 50.
You can get three of them where you can only get two on this
side. You don't think that is unusual looking? It is a sub-division
street really is what it is. It wouldn't offend you?
Mr. Kwiatkowski: It wouldn't offend me, not at all.
Ms. Smiley: Would you buy a house in there?
Mr. Kwiatkowski: I would buy a home in Livonia. Livonia, again, lived here over 30
years, and I haven't seen a piece of property that looks non-
conforming or evil.
Ms. Smiley: I don't think it is evil. I am not saying that. I am just saying that if
I had a 70 foot lot and my neighbor had a 70 foot lot and we had
3 lots and they were able to pack in three houses across from me
. . . it's just unusual. Aren't all your lots pretty consistent on your
street?
Mr. Kwiatkowski: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Ok.
Mr. Kwiatkowski: The homes they just put up on Farmington Road, between Six
and Seven, they are about 50-foot lots. They are beautiful
homes.
Ms. Smiley: On Farmington, yes.
Mr. Kwiatkowski: People are right into those homes, so I feel that any new home in
Livonia will be sold. The lots that are on Six Mile and Newburgh,
April 9, 2019
29053
that is going to be a beautiful subdivision. Those are R--2 and R-
3 homes correct?
Ms. Smiley: Uh huh.
Mr. Kwiatkowski: So 1 don't find any fault with those lots being 50 foot and the other
lots conforming to the way . . . backing up to our properties.
Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Kwiatkowski. Any other questions for this
gentleman while he is up here?
Mr. Long: Since you have been there for 30 years, you know the area real
good. Have you had any drainage problems in your yard?
Mr. Kwiatkowski: No, not at all.
Mr. Long: Have you had the occasion to dig into the backyard? Have you
found it to be a sandy base as Mr. Baki was saying?
Mr. Kwiatkowski: I put up 1 think 21 arborvitaes on my property, and I have put up
other trees on my property. My wife has me digging in the yard
quite a bit. We have never had an issue with standing water in
our backyard.
Mr. Long: Thank you
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kwiatkowski.
Mr. Kwiatkowski: Have a good evening.
Mr. Wilshaw: You too.
Ms. Gerber: It's Mrs. Gerber again. Still 19963 Myron Drive.
Mr. Wilshaw: You haven't moved yet?
Ms. Gerber: Carol, I wanted to address your issue because I am kind of an old
lady now and 1 . . .
Ms. Smiley: 1 didn't say that.
Ms. Gerber: Okay, I did. I have a big backyard and a big front yard. I think we
have got maybe a hidden group of people that might want a 50-
foot lot instead of an 80 because it is a lot of work. They still want
a nice house and they still want to live in Livonia. I think it is just
April 9, 2019
29054
a nice peaceful area over there. It might be a need that we would
be filling by having a few houses that are smaller lots. I don't
know, what do you think?
Ms. Smiley: I am in favor of all different size houses in Livonia and we are
building all kinds of things, even apartments and condos. There
have been different subdivisions, but this is one street. Perhaps
maybe that is why I find it weird, I guess. It is only one street long.
On this side you have six and on this side you have 11. It just
looks unusual to me that's all.
Ms. Gerber: Well, you know I try to look at the issues this way. It's been really
kind of fun because I have been busy with my life and with my
profession and everything. I know that from being a teacher that
you made a good plan and if everybody's got a little happy and
everybody's got a little disgruntled, and what it seems to me what
this plan is leaning toward is kind of that. That's called
compromise. I think Mr. Soave and Mr. Baki have been really
really helpful. They listened to us and what our concerns are.
That is really important. I appreciate, David, your concerns about
the flooding because that has been a personal experience for
you. I know Mr. Baki will be looking into the content of the soil
and so we will find out what is going on there. So, Carol,just think
about that. That would be kind of nice to have nice homes and
not so big lots. I can get over to Kroger and Jimmy Johns. Thank
you, guys.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Gerber. Anyone else in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this petition? I don't see anyone else coming
forward. Mr. Baki, is there anything else you would like to add?
Mr. Baki: The one thing I can say is that I thank the Commission and thank
the neighbors for all of their support. A lot of the ideas came from
them, more than just us. We did do group meetings and listened
to them and they listened to us and we worked it together. l do
appreciate their support. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Gerber's words are very wise. Are there any questions for
Mr. Baki before we end the public hearing? Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I just want to make a comment relative to the storm water
detention.
Mr. Wilshaw: Feel free.
Mr. Taormina: Not withstanding the fact that this is based on a 10-year storm
storage requirement versus 100-year, it still has to meet certain
April 9, 2019
29055
design specifications. Relative to detention and the contributing
drainage areas, all of these systems are designed with an
overflow. What happens is, the water that is collected in the basin
up to a certain level is then released into the receiving pipes, the
downstream pipes. That is attenuated, meaning that it is
restricted. Above a certain level, should there be a need, whether
it's the severity of the storm or a blockage in the outlet pipes, then
there is an overflow provided. That overflow is intended to handle
the additional volume and rate of flow, to a point. All systems
have their maximum capacity obviously. The engineers still have
to look at the details of this design, but 1 can assure you that there
will be some type of overflow provided with this system, because
that is a requirement in all systems that are designed today.
Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. That is appreciated. Any other
questions or comments?
Ms. Smiley: Was it the Accounting Department that recommended that they
all be 60-foot lots? Who recommended that?
Mr. Taormina: I can only assume that the Assessment Department was viewing
this not as a cluster, but as an R-1, conventional. Maybe they
weren't aware of the clustering. 1 am not sure why that was in
there. It is really at your discretion and Council's discretion as to
whether or not to apply the clustering provisions. The
Assessment Department maybe indicated the desire for 60 feet,
but I don't know the reason why. Maybe they aren't aware that
the application this evening is for a cluster development under
Article XX.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions?
Mr. Caramagno: I have to say this looks out of balance to me. It just does. I'm
sorry but it does. I don't care for the lot on Farmington Road and
don't care for the tiny lots on the other side. I fully support the
neighbors with what they want. If they want decent size lots that
are backed up to their properties, I think that is completely
reasonable and due to them I guess. I have an issue with these
50 footers across the street. I don't know how much compromise
there was over there. Doesn't seem to be a whole hell of a lot.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. Any other questions?
April9, 2019
29056
Mr. Bongero: Can we see what the houses would look like? Did you bring any
pictures with you?
Mr. Wilshaw: As Mr. Baki passes out these pictures, he is showing us pictures
that appear to be mostly from the Washington Park development
as a comparable style development. I will let Mr. Baki speak.
Mr. Baki: Just to specify, those are just for the 50-foot lofts not the 70
footers. The 70 footers are going to be more close to the
development going on Newburgh Road and Six Mile. That is what
the 70-foot would be like. On the 50-foot lots, because of the
concerns from the Commission when we met a few weeks ago
what kind of homes you can put on them. Those are the homes
that go on the 50-foot lots.
Mr. Wilshaw: So you have a variety of models available that fit on the 50-foot
lot and then also ones that fit on the 70's.
Mr. Baki: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: Does Washington Park has the 50's and the 70's across from
each other?
Mr. Baki: Yes. Not across from one another. Within. Even the one on
Newburgh Road, they are mixed up.
Ms. Smiley: Like how many roads are in Washington Park?
Mr. Baki: Four
Ms. Smiley: Four?
Mr. Baki: I understand it is an odd shape because it is only one street, that
is understandable. Like I said, after meeting with the neighbors,
their main concern is their south side to be bigger lots. So we
accommodated that, but we had to make the numbers work
overall and that is what we tried to do.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any questions? Mr. Baki, just a couple quick questions. What do
you expect the price difference to be on the houses from the north
side to the south side?
Mr. Baki: $350,000 to $450,000 —that is an average.
Mr. Wilshaw: That is the spread that you expect between those two sides of the
street?
April 9, 2019
29057
Mr. Baki: Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw: So, about a $100,000 difference.
Mr. Baki: Are you guys familiar with the different subdivisions we have done
in the past? Fox Creek estates they started at $450,000. Three
homes were at a million dollars when we sold them at the time of
the development. Sarah Estates started at $350,000. Three
homes are at a million dollar plus. We start from one point and
as you know, we are a custom builder. We accommodate to
whatever the people want.
Mr. Wilshaw: Those upgrades will kill you.
Mr. Baki: Those upgrades will kill you, but sometimes upgrades get you
what you want. You don't have to move for 30 years, 40 years
like some of the neighbors.
Mr. Wilshaw: I know. I went through it recently.
Ms. Smiley: The houses on Wayne Road, that new subdivision, what size are
those lots?
Mr. Baki: Those are 90-foot lots.
Ms. Smiley: They are all 90-foot?
Mr. Baki: They are R-4's yes.
Ms. Smiley: You didn't put any smaller ones in there?
Mr. Baki: Nape. They are all at $650,000 plus pricewise. There are some
60's, I'm sorry. I stand corrected. But all the rest of them are
bigger lots. We did that for a reason because of the size of the
home. We knew what people are looking for, which is bigger
homes - 3,500 to 4,000 square feet. The price range is $500,000
to $600,000 plus with extras.
Ms. Smiley: In terms of square feet, on the south side of the road, what is the
square footage on one of those houses?
Mr. Baki: You can accommodate a ranch by 2,400 square feet which will
be around $400,000 to $450,000 pricewise or a colonial at 3,000
square feet to 3,500.
Ms. Smiley: 2,400.
April 9, 2019
29058
Mr. Baki: For a ranch and 3,000 for the colonials and capes, 3,000 plus.
You can go up to 4,500 on each lot.
Ms. Smiley: So, 2,400 to 4,500. Then on the north side, what size are those?
Mr. Baki: You can do a smaller ranch which is 1,800 square feet just like
the ranch built on Farmington Road, the same size because they
are 50 foot lots, so we can do 1,800 square foot ranches with a
two-car garage or we can do a colonial at 2,500 --- 2,700 square
feet on a 50 foot lot.
Ms. Smiley: So, a colonial could be almost the same size as a ranch on the
other side of the street.
Mr. Baki: Like I said, we are a custom builder. We aren't like the Pulte's
and the Toll's where they just have specific homes and that is all
they build. We accommodate whatever the buyer wants. Leo has
been doing business for the last 50 years in Livonia. That is
exactly what he has been good at, accommodating what the
buyers want.
Ms. Smiley: Okay.
Mr. Baki: That is why we sell in a year or year and a half. The one
development is almost sold out and the one on Newburgh already
has overflow. Buyers waiting to finalize their deal just to build
houses there. We are almost sold out there too.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for Mr. Baki? I think we have talked about
everything. With that I will close the public hearing and a motion
will be in order.
Mr. Caramagno: Mr. Chair, 1 have some concerns like I said before. I don't
particularly care for this as it sits. Should it be denied? No, I don't
think so. Maybe a table motion is in order.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Caramagno has offered a tabling motion. Is there support?
Ms. Smiley: Support.
Mr. Wilshaw: Support has been given by Ms. Smiley. We have a tabling motion
by Mr. Caramagno supported by Ms. Smiley. Roberts Rules say
there is no discussion on a tabling motion; therefore we will go
right to a vote.
On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was
April 9, 2019
29059
#04-30-2019 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on April 9, 2019, on Petition
2019-03-02-02 submitted by Leo Soave Building Inc. requesting
special waiver use approval pursuant to Sections 20.01 and
20.02A of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to develop a Planned Residential Development under
the Single-Family Clustering option (Capri Court), consisting of
seventeen (17) site condominium lots, on properties at 20209,
20219, 20225, 20235 and 20307 Farmington Road, located on
the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk Avenue and
Eight Mile Road in the Northeast Y4 of Section 4, the Planning
Commission does hereby table this item to the meeting of April
23, 2019.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, Bongero, McCue, Caramagno, Wilshaw
NAYS: Long
ABSENT: Ventura
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. Mr. Caramagno, are you looking to table until the next
regular meeting?
Mr. Caramagno: Which is?
Mr. Wilshaw: We are looking at April 23, 2019, for the tabling. With that being
said, I believe we are all set on this item. The item has been
tabled. Thank you, Mr. Baki. We will see you back in a few weeks.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2018-12-02-24 KAC LIVONIA LLC
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018-
12-02-24 submitted by KAC Livonia, L.L.C. requesting waiver use
approval pursuant to Section 11.03(m) of the City of Livonia
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct an addition,
increase the number of service bays and renovate the exterior of
the existing automobile and truck repair facility (Kirk's Auto Care)
at 31390 Plymouth Road, located on the northeast corner of
Plymouth and Merriman Roads in the Southwest Y4 of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina: Thank you. Do we have a motion to remove it from the table?
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, the item was put on the table at our last meeting. is there a
motion to remove it?
April 9, 2019
29060
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-31-2019 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on January 15, 2019, on
Petition 2018-12-02-24 submitted by KAC Livonia, L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(m) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
construct an addition, increase the number of service bays and
renovate the exterior of the existing automobile and truck repair
facility (Kirk's Auto Care) at 31390 Plymouth Road, located on the
northeast corner of Plymouth and Merriman Roads in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does
hereby remove the item from the table.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried, and the item is removed
from the table. Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Taormina Thank you. The petitioner has submitted revised plans. The
changes before you reduce the size of the addition. Originally,
the addition was about 1,500 square feet and it is now 1,120
square feet. A reduction of roughly 390 square feet. What that
does is reduce the number of service bays added to the facility
from three, which was the original plan, to two. Currently, Kirk's
Auto Care operates with three service bays. Originally, they
wanted to add three more, but this would add two more, bringing
the total up to five service bays. On the north side, what this does
is push back the building from the north property line allowing for
a couple of additional parking spaces and the relocation of the
dumpster. This brings the total parking to 14 spaces. The
petitioner submitted additional renderings of what the building
would look like. This would predominately be a burnished block
material that would be used on the outside of the building. There
would also be accents of a composite material along the upper
part of the building as you can see the brown areas. Some
windows were added as well to the sides of the building. Not
much else besides. Those are the major changes that occurred
to the plan and the petitioner is here and can answer any
questions you may have. There is one additional item of
correspondence if I may read that out.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Taormina We have a letter from the Inspection Department, dated March
29, 2019, which reads as follows; "Pursuant to your request, the
above referenced Petition has been reviewed. (1) The parking lot
April9, 2019
29061
shall be repaired and restriped as necessary. Parking spaces
shall be 10' wide and 20' deep and double striped. (2) The two
parking spaces located on the north side of the proposed addition
will have their functionality impacted by the location of the
dumpster enclosure. This Department has no further objections
to this Petition. I trust this provides the requested information."
The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Do we have any questions for our
Planning staff? I don't see any. Our petitioner is here. We have
discussed this item in length. Is there anything else you would
like to speak about?
Chirstopher Lee, 90 Lawrence Street, Detroit, Michigan. Thank you for having me
again. I do think we pretty much discussed everything at the
previous meeting. I did want to let you know that we are . . .
actually, this weekend the parking lot is going to be power
washed and patched. We would hold off on the seal coating and
striping until after construction is finished so we don't just destroy
a nice new surface. There will be some substantial repairs to the
lot.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Do we have questions for our Petitioner?
Mr. Caramagno: Per our prior discussions here in the study sessions, the storage
container structure, that is going to be removed with this
situation?
Mr. Lee: Yes, oh yeah. You mean the current shed that we have on site?
Mr. Caramagno: Yeah, that's a nice way to call it.
Mr. Lee: Storage container, there you go, yeah. Yes, it will be removed
with this.
Mr. Caramagno: The condition of the tires stored outdoors, I think we talked last
time and I think Pete had a question about that as well. No more
tires outside?
Mr. Lee: Correct. There will be tire storage racks built in the new addition,
but we are actually putting some in the weekend. We are putting
some in in our existing building so we can take care of that issue,
sooner rather than later.
Mr. Caramagno: The bays that you are adding, they are a little higher, a little taller
than what your existing shop has. Will you have hydraulic lifts in
there?
April 9, 2019
29062
Mr. Lee: Yes. They will basically be electric hydraulic.
Mr. Caramagno: Will you have the ability to park cars under the cars that are in
there for more interior storage?
Mr. Lee: We will, yeah. That is one of the reasons why we wanted to add
height. The way it is currently, in our current building you can get
a car under if you have two really short cars. Adding the
additional space will allow us to actually put two cars that aren't
Mini Coopers on top of each other.
Mr. Caramagno: That is all I have. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for Mr. Lee? Don't see any. Anyone in the
audience wishing to speak on this item? We have one in the
audience. We will give him a chance to speak and then we will
have you come back up Mr. Lee. Thank you. Good evening, sir.
Richard George, 11680 Merriman Road, Livonia, Michigan. It is directly behind the
property. I have a lot of the same concerns that I had last time I
was here. I think there are some pictures of the property, if they
are available. l thought Mark may have . . .
Mr. Taormina: We made copies available to the Commissioners.
Mr. Wlshaw: They are in our packet.
Mr. George: If you take a look at the pictures, this is when the facility is closed.
It is apparent that the location is already overbuilt. The parking
that this location has, cannot handle the amount of cars that are
going to flow through right now. We are looking at adding
additional cars going through that location, and where are they
going to park? I spoke to Chris, and there are a couple of issues
that are very important. (1)The sewage that I am presently paying
for, and unless that issue is resolved . . . and I am always going
to be against this. I am not a municipality and I don't think that I
am responsible for other peoples waste water. Yes, I did buy in
to it unknowingly, but it still stands that if he is going to bring more
sewage, then maybe he should consider the $32,000 that it is
going to take to move those lines. (2) Let's not forget that this is
car and truck. We don't usually see trucks there because I don't
think Chris is doing very many trucks right now. If we start doing
trucks there, they are bigger, they are taller. Your 10-foot spaces
are no longer going to work. For a van, yes, for other trucks, no.
You have a corner there that is, if I am not mistaken, is the 12t"
busiest intersection in lower Michigan. It may be in all of Michigan,
April 9, 2019
29063
1 am not sure. I don't know if that is a fact, but it is a very busy
corner. We are going to create more congestion on a corner like
that, where you can't turn out of there now. If some of the things
that I addressed, for example, if Chris could purchase a piece of
property that he could move cars to, back and forth, it doesn't
have to be mine. Let me make that very clear. Then he can move
cars and be able to maneuver cars in that lot as he needed. 1 am
shocked that he hasn't even considered something like that. You
are taking something that is nonconforming and you are going to
add more building to it, more traffic, more trucks, more parking,
and it is just . . . I just can't see it. I have been in Livonia since
1969. 1 have come to a lot of meetings. I have seen many things
that were approved and denied that I couldn't understand. I am
here now because I have invested a lot on money in Livonia, a
lot. I pay a lot of taxes, but I can't understand this development.
I am willing to work with Chris if he wants to do something off site.
don't have anything to do with Chris' business or him. I just
would not like to see that area more congested or God forbid
someone killed at that corner because of that. Two driveways
there by the way. Plymouth Road and Merriman, cars going in
and out. Cars trying to turn south in congested area at 5 o'clock.
Have any of you been on that corner? This is a question that 1
am asking you. Have you ever been on that corner?
Mr. Wilshaw: I think it is safe to assume that we have all gone to that site.
Mr. George: So, lets look at this logically. I would love to help Chris solve this
problem. But putting a 100 pounds of material in a 10 pound box,
it's just not going to work in my opinion. I can go on and on and
on, but I am not going to strain your ears. I just would like to see
these problems solved before anything goes on that property. At
the least, the sewage and some kind of off-property parking.
Something that he can secure somewhere, so we don't create a
situation that in the future we could be sorry for. Do the pictures
show that the lot is full? I don't remember. If that lot is full in the
evening and he opens up in the morning, how are people going
to . . . they are going to be there at 9 o'clock so they are going to
be parked on top of each other waiting for people to come pick
up the cars? I think this is something that the body should look
at and see if they can work with Chris and help him solve these
problems. I am a businessman here. I am not here to push him
out, I am here to see that the property is built to its capacity, but
not to over capacity. I am really passionate about this. All of the
reasons that I gave last time, I am still behind. These two issues
have to be, in my opinion, have to be solved before, I hope, this
body approves an addition building on this property, which is non-
conforming already by the way.
April9, 2019
29064
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. George. We appreciate your comments. Anyone
else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? I
don't see anyone else. Mr. Lee, we always like to give you the
last word.
Mr. Lee: Thank you. First, I would like to address the issue of the sewer.
I did meet with Mr. George after the last public hearing and
actually went to the Water and Sewer Department and
Engineering Department. They did come up with a plan, that Mr.
George referenced, to create a new sewer up Merriman Road.
We had a cost of $32,000. This would be a new sewer for all of
us on that corner. It would be for us and the. insurance company
next door and potentially for Mr. George's property if he wished
to tie into those as well. I am all for collectively sharing the cost
on that new sewer. That would be my preference. The last
meeting was honestly the first time I was made aware of this
private sewer issue. I absolutely agree it shouldn't be all on him
to maintain that sewer. So, whether that be all of us going in to
putting in that new sewer or us and the insurance company
helping to mitigate the cost or help with the cost of maintaining
his current line, I am absolutely all for that. After we both got the
estimates and plans from the Water Department, I did reach out
to Mr. George again last week to try and sit down and talk about
that sewer aspect of it, but I did not hear back from him. On the
parking, I am kind of confused. I see the lot is full in those pictures
that he took back in the winter. I can definitely tell you that they
weren't taken after hours because a bunch of my employees cars
. . . three or four of my employee's cars are in the lot in those
photos. It is taken at daytime in January. If it was before or after
hours in January, I can tell you that we get to work in the dark and
leave in the dark in January. Those were taken during the day, a
weekday while we were working. We move cars in and out.
Obviously, we take in a bunch of cars in everyday, we fix them,
and then we get them out. As I have said before, the purpose of
these additional bays is to allow us to do that faster. On the issue
of bay height, and allowing larger vehicles, that is true we will be
able to put in taller vehicles, but these bays are the same depth
as our current bays. Which is to say is very short. It is kind of
like having a garage that was built in the 20's or 30's. You can
barely squeeze a modern car into them. That is kind of how our
current bays are. That is what we are limited to due to the site
depth. The new bays are the exact same depth. We are not
going to be bringing in huge trucks. One of the things that is
difficult for us to pull in is a high top type transit van. It is actually
narrower than your traditional Econoline Van or whatever, but
they often have a high top. That means that when we pull them
April 9, 2019
29065
into our current space we can lift them up a foot off the ground
and having this additions height will allow us to go higher with
them, but they are no longer or wider than any of the other
vehicles we work on currently. We don't have space to build bays
any bigger than we already have. As far as the getting additional
parking off site, in order to find deeded parking within a
reasonable distance from that area, I think you can all agree that
that is going to be difficult for me to find. I also think the more
that I am moving and shuttling cars on and off and on and off the
lot if Mr. George is worried about more traffic coming in and out
of that parking lot, that is going to create more. A customer drops
off a car, I've got to shuttle it to the storage lot and then we have
to take time to get it in and we shuttle it back and then when we
are done we shuttle it back off the storage lot. That is not going
to alleviate any traffic issues. It is just going to make the worse.
can tell you that l . . . he asked you if you guys have been on
that corner and pulled in and out. I am on that corner everyday
and l pull in and out multiple times a day. Is it a congested corner,
yeah? It absolutely is, but we have never had an accident of
anyone pulling in and out of our lot. People drive poorly
everywhere, not just at the corner of Plymouth and Merriman. I
can't see how this is . . . it's not going to change that. If people
are obeying the traffic laws, it's going to be fine. I know from past
discussions with Mr. George, I did offer and I was trying to come
up with some options with him. Even the potential of buying one
of his properties that is adjacent to ours. Tearing it down and
using it as a parking lot or . . . he didn't just want to sell one, he
wanted to sell all of them together so he can do a potential
redevelopment on that site. If he is thinking about doing a
development on that site, that is going to add traffic as well. I am
having a hard time seeing that a being a genuine issue on his
part.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Lee. I think it is safe to assume that part of the
reasoning is that you want the additional bays so you can service
vehicles quicker and move them off the lot so you don't have as
many vehicles stored overnight. That is your goal.
Mr. Lee: That is correct.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any additional questions for Mr. Lee? I don't see
anything else. Mr. Caramagno.
Mr. Caramagno: At the study session, we talked about your signage.
Mr. Lee: Yes.
April9, 2019
29066
Mr. Caramagno: What did you decide with that pylon sign?
Mr. Lee: I am actually working right now with Right Signs to come up with
an option for that. The pylon sign has to come down. I am going
to attend the Plymouth Road Development Authority meeting
next week and bring some different options on signage. If you
saw on our updated renderings, we did put some quick things that
my architect was able to come up with. I know it is kind of hard to
see that, that is our logo that is on the building. That type of sign
would be a backlit LED type sign. Similar to what we have now
as far as it being individual letters, not a flat panel on a
background. I am working with Right Signs right now to come up
with some more concrete possibilities for both the building and
the monument sign.
Mr. Caramagno: But the pylon sign does come down?
Mr. Lee: Correct.
Mr. Wilshaw: The signage looks better on the print outs than it does on the
screen.
Mr. Lee: We got the color fixed, but it does look better in print.
Mr. Wilshaw: I do appreciate you at least giving us updated plans based on the
things we talked about at our study meeting. Any other
questions? We are all set then. We will ask now for a motion.
Thank you, Mr. Lee.
On a motion by McCue, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-32-2019 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on April 9, 2019, on Petition
2018-12-02-24 submitted by KAC Livonia, L.L.C. requesting
waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(m) of the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct an
addition, increase the number of service bays and renovate the
exterior of the existing automobile and truck repair facility (Kirk's
Auto Care) at 31390 Plymouth Road, located on the northeast
corner of Plymouth and Merriman Roads in the Southwest % of
Section 26, which property is Zoned C-2, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2018-12-02-24 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
April 9, 2019
29067
1. That the Site Plan identified as Sheet No. S1.0, dated March
1, 2019, prepared by Harmala Architecture, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on
to a nonconforming building and any conditions related
thereto;
3. That the Elevation Plan identified as Sheet No. A2.1, dated
March 1, 2019, prepared by Harmala Architecture, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
5. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of building materials that shall complement
that of the building. The enclosure gates shall be of solid
panel steel construction or durable, long-lasting solid panel
fiberglass. The trash dumpster area shall always be
maintained and when not in use closed;
6. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in
height and shall be aimed and shielded to minimize stray
light trespassing across property lines and glaring into
adjacent roadways;
7. Any vehicles left on the premises overnight must be stored
inside the building or parked in designated parking spaces
as shown on the approved site plan with a maximum of 14
vehicles located outside;
8. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts, tires,
equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products,
junked, unlicensed or inoperable vehicles, or other similar
items in connection with this operation, and the overhead
doors, when not in use for vehicles entering or exiting the
service facility, shall always be closed;
9. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including the
provision of barrier free parking with proper signage,
marking and configuration, and all regular customer spaces
shall be ten feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20') in length as
required;
April 9, 2019
29068
10. That the existing pylon sign shall be removed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition;
11. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
12. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or around
the windows;
13. That no overhead speakers will be used inside or outside
the building;
14. That unless approved by the proper local authority, any type
of exterior advertising, such as promotional flags, streamers
or sponsor vehicles designed to attract the attention of
passing motorists, shall be prohibited;
15. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for; and
16. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval by
City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any questions or comments on this motion?
Mr. Wilshaw: Do we need to have any specific wording in regards to the pylon
sign?
Mr. Taormina: I was going to suggest that an additional condition that would
require the removal of the pylon sign, and then also if the maker
of the motion would consider adding tires to the list of items that
would be prohibited without being stored outside in Condition #8.
Ms. McCue: Absolutely.
April 9, 2019
29069
Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. McCue, you agree to both of those conditions?
Ms. McCue: Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Smiley, you're okay with that?
Ms. Smiley: Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,139TH Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of
the Minutes of the 1,139th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on March 19, 2019.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-33-2019 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,139th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 19,
2019, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Smiley, Bongero, McCue, Long, Caramagno,
Wilshaw
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Ventura
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopte , e 1,140th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on April 9, 2019, was a rned at 8:29 p.m.
CITY PLA NG COMMISSION
Sa4 Cara agno, Secretary
ATTEST:
]an Wilshaw, Chairman