HomeMy WebLinkAbout1,155 - April 14, 2020MINUTES OF THE 1055th PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 14,
2020, the City Planning Commission of
the City
of Livonia
held its 1,155th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting via Zoom
Meeting
Software.
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 Peter Ventura
Ian Wilshaw
Members absent: None
Mr. Mark
Taormina,
Planning Director, Scott Miller, Planner
IV, Stephanie Reece,
Program
Supervisor,
and Debra Walter, Clerk -Typist II 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 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. Wilshaw made some comments regarding the minutes for the future. He stated
that this could be the first Public Meeting that could not be held in the City Hall due
to the COVID19 pandemic and the Governor's order to stay home and maintain
separation between people, this is our first voting meeting held online. For those
in attendance tonight on our Zoom platform, for those that are watching our
broadcast, it should flow the same as our regular meetings. Our Planning Director
will give a detailed background information and while that is going on, I would
please ask that any petitioners on that item or their representatives, use the raised
hand feature found on the Zoom application near the "Participants" area. By phone
you dial *9 to raise your hand and I will acknowledge you using the Zoom
application which will then allow you to unmute yourself and we will then ask you
to introduce yourself and tell us more about your petition after Mr. Taormina is
finished. To unmute there is also a button on Zoom which is near the raise hand
April 14, 2020
29544
button or you may dial *6 if you are connected by telephone. After the
Commissioners have had a chance to ask questions of the petitioner, I am also
going to ask if there is anyone in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
the item. At that time, any audience members may also use the raise hand
function. I will recognize you one at a time so that you can give your comments to
us and we can ask you any questions if we have any. After we have finished the
dialogue, I will look for a motion from the Commission and we will take our vote.
This is the normal process of our meeting and that is how we will go about things
tonight. Again, just want to reiterate, if you wish to participate during the meeting,
at the appropriate time use the raise hand button and then use the unmute button
once I have acknowledged you. If you are connected by phone, the commands
are *6 and *9 respectively for raise hand and unmute. With that being said, we are
going to dive into the first section of our agenda.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2020-01-01-01 PASTOR 4G LLC
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2020-
01-01-01 submitted by Pastor 4G L.L.C. pursuant to Section
23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended,
requesting to rezone the eastern 150 feet of the property at
16975-16991 Farmington Road, located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Oakdale Avenue and Six Mile Road
in the Northeast'/4 of Section 16, from OS, Office Services to C-
2, General Business.
Mr. Taormina: Thank you. As mentioned, this rezoning petition involves property
located on the west side of Farmington Road between Bloomfield
Drive and Six Mile Road. The subject property is just under an
acre in size with 140 feet of frontage along Farmington Road by
a depth of 300 feet. The westerly end of the site contains a one-
story 8,400 sq.ft. multi -tenant office building. Located between
the building and Farmington Road is a parking lot which contains
approximately 77 spaces. This rezoning petition affects only the
easterly half of the property. The west half of the lot, including
the office building, would remain under the current OS zoning
classification. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the
construction of a full -service fast food restaurant with drive -up
facilities. The C-2 zoning classification allows for full -service
drive -up restaurants, subject to waiver -use approval. Looking at
the location of the site in relationship to the surrounding uses and
zoning, immediately to the north is a Shell gas station zoned C-
2, General Business. In addition, there are two small single -story
office buildings under the OS zoning classification. Lying to the
south and the west are single-family homes that are part of the
Burton Hollow Estates Subdivision. To the east, across
Farmington is a Walgreens Pharmacy zoned C-1, as well as the
April 1432020
29545
Bell Creek Condominiums, zoned R-8. As previously mentioned,
the site presently has 77 off-street parking spaces. At a minimum
the office use requires 34 spaces based on a ratio of 1 space for
every 200 sq. ft. of usable floor area. Required parking for
restaurants is based on the number of customer seats, as well as
employees. The preliminary site plan contains no information as
to the amount of seating or the number of employees for the
restaurant. The layout, as you can see here, shows 46 shared
parking spaces available for both uses. With a minimum of 34
spaces needed for the office use, there would only be 12 spaces
for the restaurant. The site plan shows that the majority of the
parking is located adjacent to the restaurant with only 12 spaces
provided near the office building and with the drive-thru lane
separating the balance of the spaces needed to support of the
office use. The Livonia Vision 21 Future Land Use map shows
the subject site as Corridor Commercial.
Mr. Taormina: With that, I would be happy to read out the departmental
correspondence. We also have several letters.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February
14, 2020, 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
rezoning at this time. The parcel is assigned the address range
of #16975 to #16991 Farmington Road, with the address of
#16979 Farmington Road being assigned to the overall parcel.
The proposed building location is currently serviced by public
water main and sanitary sewer, as well as private storm sewer.
The submitted drawing does not indicate any utility connections,
so we do not have any knowledge of impacts to the existing
systems at this time. Per existing drawings, the existing medical
office building water service runs through the area of the
proposed building and will need to be relocated. Also, the
developer will need to cross Five Mile Road for any new water
service leads, as the existing main is located under the right turn
lane on the opposite side of the roadway. It should be noted that
should the project move forward the proposed construction will
be required to meet the Wayne County Stormwater Ordinance,
including detention requirements, and permits will need to be
obtained from the Wayne County Department of Public Services
for any work within the Farmington Road right-of-way. A full
review of the proposed development will be completed when
plans are submitted for permitting." The letter is signed by David
W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the
April 143 2020
29546
Finance Department, dated February 11, 2020, which reads as
follows: "I have reviewed the address 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 Connie Kumpula, Chief
Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department,
dated February 21, 2020, which reads as follows: "In accordance
with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the name
and addresses connected with the above noted petition. At this
time there are no taxes due, therefore I have no objections to the
proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The
next letter is from the Assessing Department, dated February 12,
2020, which reads as follows: "A lot split would be necessary in
order to rezone the eastern 150 feet of 16975-16991 Farmington
Rd., Parcel 061-02-0177-004 in the Northeast ''/a of Section 16. It
appears Petitioner has included a proposed lot split with legal
descriptions. This proposal should be submitted to the
Department of Assessment for processing. The application and
requirements for a Lot Split can be found on the City Website @
Livonia.gov." The letter is signed by Kathie Siterlet, Assessment
Department. Our first email is from Adrienne Floyd, 33686 Grove,
Livonia, MI. To whom it may concern: We have learned that
there is a proposed change for the zoning of the lot on Farmington
road, south of Six Mile. It is our understanding that a drive
through restaurant is proposed at that site. I am against the
change and the development of a fast food restaurant at this
location. It is very close to a residential neighborhood, and in fact,
me and my family ride our bikes or walk by there frequently. This
would increase the traffic and create a hazard. As well the
restaurant being open very late is a nuisance to our families and
children. It has been noted that there are other lots in Livonia that
are vacant. Other location should be rehabbed instead of
inflicting this type of business so close to a residential area.
Please do what is best for the families of Burton Hollow and
Livonia in general by standing by your motto of "families first" That
location is no place for a fast food restaurant. Thank you. The
next email is from Louise McGhie. Ladies and Gentlemen, Please
do not approve the request for rezoning to a drive through
restaurant. There already is so much traffic at that intersection
that at times it backs up several blocks just to make a turn. With
the traffic for the always busy SOS office, the two gas stations,
and high school traffic let alone all the cars driving down
Six Mile to get to the freeway, I can't imagine how difficult it would
be to get in and out of the restaurant. And the noise at
night! Everyone knows what it's like when the bar closes and
people want to eat. It will echo throughout the neighborhood. I
live on Farmington in the first block south of Six Mile in the Burton
April 14, 2020
29547
Hollow subdivision. Please keep it out of the
neighborhood. There are a ton of high school track runners, dog
walkers, joggers, bike riders, and baby strolling on my block, all
of whom would be placed in danger with cars trying to get out of
the parking lot/drive through and making turns. Thank you for
listening to your neighbors. Louise McGhie. The next email is
from Kevin Dolin, I am writing in my opposition to the rezoning
and lot split proposed at 16989 Farmington Rd.- This corner
property has already been split into three parcels.- The C2 zoning
is much higher intensity than OS and immediately adjacent to
existing residential properties.- The "split" property has been
offered for sale. What will become of it? Anything allowed by
C2... The proposed fast food restaurant will emit odors and
sounds well beyond its property lines and into the adjoining
residential area. An increase in turning traffic so near the
intersection will be a hazard. Traffic to an OS property is much
less intense, and generally speaking follows 9-5 hours and
appointment calendars. There have been other changes at this
corner in recent years.- The transition of the bank property into
the busy eye clinic.- The transition of Arbor Drugs to a busy
Secretary of State office.- The move by Ward Church out of
Livonia. The parsonage also left our sub. I recall the Pastor and
his wife on their regular walks through the neighborhood. The
condos and Walgreens are nice although the condo stairs
exclude many people from living there, and I can't say that these
buildings are a pillar of Livonia, as Ward church was. We have a
new "smoke" shop, displaying an automatic rifle hookah and a
large marijuana leaf in their front window. When I was a kid, the
corner store had penny candy and baseball cards, and not
paraphernalia. This is not an improvement. Is there an
overabundance of OS properties in Livonia, due to new
construction? There are many successful newer office buildings
along Farmington road. A zoning change to C2 is not an
improvement to this property, or for the neighborhood. Kevin
Dolin The next email is from Hasan Zayat, Hello. My wife and I
moved to Livonia from Dearborn Heights in September, we
currently live on Wood Street near Whitby. I've heard that there
are plans to rezone the Lot near 6 and Farmington to potentially
build a drive-thru, and I'd like to voice my opinion. Firstly, I think
it would be a horrible move ... It would bring in unwanted traffic
(literally and figuratively) to an already -busy intersection. High
schoolers will want to wander that area, throw their trash all over
the place. Drive thru's should be dedicated to areas east of
Merriman. We moved to this area specifically because there was
a sense of security; peace of mind. Please do not allow this lot to
be developed into a drive-thru... especially not a Burger King!
Thank you! Hassan, Zayat Zayat Construction, Inc. The next
April 147 2020
29548
letter is from Darci Merollis. Dear Planning Commission: I am a
resident of Burton Hollow and am opposed to the proposal for a
drive through restaurant to be built at 6 Mile and Farmington. My
husband and I worked and saved for 15 years in order to be able
to purchase our home in Burton Hollow in 2015. We chose the
location because it was quiet and family oriented. We also
appreciated that there were not fast food restaurants and party
stores nearby — unlike our former neighborhood at 7 Mile and
Inkster. I have concerns that such a restaurant will cause an
increase in traffic at an already busy intersection. The current
amount of traffic during rush hour is enough. Drive through
restaurants also tend to be open late. The residents living in
nearby homes should not have to deal with the disruption of
listening to someone order a burger/taco at 2 am, not to mention
the added pollution from cars idling in line and discarded food
wrappers. I ask that you please consider rejecting the proposal.
There are other locations that would be more fitting for such a
business. Thank you for your consideration. Kindest regards,
Darci Merollis, 16060 Riverside Street. The next email is from
Laura O'Malley. Good afternoon, Please do not approve
the rezoning of the 6 mile and Farmington lot to a drive through
restaurant. I live in Burton Hollow and have several concerns: 1.
Traffic at the corner is already difficult during morning and
afternoon traffic, having a restaurant there would exacerbate the
issue 2. North Livonia has held its home values better than South.
Although I have no doubt the Plymouth and Middlebelt corridor
brings in revenue for the city the crime in that area has also
increased due to the nature of the businesses that have been built
there in the last 10 years. 3. Burton Hollow, Francavilla, and
nearby subs are still desirable places to live for prospective
buyers. With the impending recession that is almost certainly
guaranteed to occur due to COVID-19 the city and residents don't
need something like this to further drive home prices down in
these areas. Thank you for your time. Laura Omalley,16142
Fairlane Drive, Livonia, MI. The next email is from Becky Million.
Dear Planning Commissioners, Livonia has always prided itself
on planning that makes sense for a community — an industrial
corridor, shopping corridor (Middlebelt Road, Plymouth Road,
Seven Mile) and plenty of residential neighborhoods. A plan for
a drive -through restaurant on Farmington Road at Six Mile road
is unnecessary. We have plenty of drive -through restaurants
nearby (7 and Farmington, 5 and Merriman, Merriman and
Plymouth, 5 and Middlebelt). With restaurants come RATS. With
drive -through restaurants come increased traffic. These are
uncertain economic times. Opening a new restaurant seems
risky and can potentially leave Livonia with another vacant
building. Six Mile and Farmington is nicely residential and I for
April 14, 2020
29549
one would like to see it stay that way. Sincerely, Rebecca Million.
The next email is from Michael and Carolyn Chico. To: The
Livonia Planning Commission RE: Application by Pastor 4G's
LLC for a Rezoning and Lot Split of property located on
Farmington Road just south of 6 Mile for the purpose of a Drive
Thru restaurant. We are firmly against the approval of this
application for several reasons. 1) Traffic on that corner is
already congested especially at peak times (school dismissal,
rush hours) and this would only add to that plus increase
accidents. 2) The noise from this is not conducive to a
neighborhood, particularly if operating/drive-thru hours
are allowed well into the early morning or 24 hours. 3) Property
values could be effected with this type of establishment so close
to houses, impacting those adjacent to it most severely. 4) There
is already this type of business within 2 miles of this location so
there is no need for another. 5) Food establishments such as this
are a breeding ground for rats and other animals that we don't
need to attract any more of. In addition to these points, we feel
that this application is being rushed through the process. The
sign for the proposal was only recently put up, not giving residents
enough opportunity to learn of it much less have an opinion about
it or have that opinion heard. In these unprecedented times of a
city closure and stay at home order, the utmost should be done
to insure all those affected are heard and to avoid
any semblance of impropriety. With all this mind, please deny
the applicants request for the proposed changes. Thank you,
Michael & Carolyn Chico, 34653 Grove. That is the extent of the
correspondence. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: We do have one more piece of correspondence from one of our
audience members. It is from Robert Capeling, 16643 Whitby.
He says he highly opposes the change in the zoning of the
proposed drive-thru restaurant. Please consider the residents of
Burton Hollow. Sincerely, Robert Capeling. I wanted to make
sure that it got put into the record also. We will have an
opportunity for all of our audience members to speak here in just
a moment. Now that we have heard from Mr. Taormina, do we
have any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr, Caramagno: Mark, You mentioned Corridor Commercial earlier. Can you
explain what that means?
Mr. Taormina: Corridor Commercial is a
land use classification. It
is part of
Livonia Vision 21 and was
created
in the last couple of
years to
encompass, not only retail,
but also
restaurants, offices
and other
types commercial land uses. It is
a broader land use
category
April 14, 2020
29550
that includes a wide range of commercial, from office to retail to
restaurants.
Mr. Caramagno: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for the Planning staff?
Ms. Smiley: What is the occupancy of the office that is behind there?
Mr. Taormina: I do not know, Mr. Pastor, the petitioner, would have that I would
imagine.
Ms. Smiley: It is a medical office isn't it?
Mr. Taormina: I think traditionally it contained several medical uses. Whether it
is exclusively medical, I can't say. I am sure there have been
general office tenants within the building over the years.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions?
Ms. McCue: I may have missed this. This may have been part of our
discussion earlier but as far as the accessibility to the building
behind this lot or what the proposed lot is, how right now do they
access that building? Is there any other driveway other than the
ones on Farmington?
Mr. Taormina: So, hopefully you can see the drawing. I am going to go to the
aerial photo. It shows how access to this site is currently provided
with two driveways from Farmington Road. So, presently there is
no access to Six Mile Road from this site. It is strictly limited to
the two driveways on Farmington Road. Does that answer your
question?
Ms. McCue: It does. From a City standpoint would there be requirements
that something be developed for that other building in the back
prior to this being rezoned? Otherwise, they are going to drive
through Taco Bell to get to this office building, am I correct?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. You can seethe layout...
Ms. McCue: It is what it is.
Or.
Taormina: The access points would remain as shown on this preliminary
plan. There would be a circular movement of traffic behind the
building and then on the south side where the drive -up operation
April 14, 2020
29551
would be located. I am assuming that the order window would be
somewhere behind the building. To what extent it would pose a
conflict with the traffic moving to and from the office building, I
think is something worth discussing.
Ms. McCue: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. McCue. I think, Mr. Taormina, that it is safe to
assume that a cross -access agreement would have to be in place
to ensure that the building in the back would have access,
correct?
Mr. Taormina: Absolutely.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our Planning Director?
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Taormina, looking at the parking that you recited in your
disposition, we really don't know if adequate parking is being
provided for in this preliminary site plan? Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: Parking would be deficient. As I pointed out, the office use alone
would require at least 34 parking spaces. If this is a full -service
restaurant, meaning that it would have more than 30 seats, that
would require no less than 15 parking spaces, plus the number
of employees. For a restaurant like this, there is usually no less
than 5 employees at any given time. Add that to the 15 and you
are looking at 20. The shared 46 spaces between the two clearly
would not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you for clarifying that.
Mr. Wilshaw: Than you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions for our Planning
Director? If not, I did have one additional comment through our
Zoom platform from Robert Colbert of 34259 Grove Drive. He
strongly opposes this. I just wanted to get that into our record
also. With that, I believe we have all the comments on the record
now. Mr. Pastor is here with us. He can unmute himself when
he is ready to go. All we ask is that he start with his name and
address and then any additional information you may have on this
petition.
Mr. Wilshaw: Our petitioner seems to be having some technical difficulty
getting unmuted. We need our petitioner to answer some
questions on this petition. If Mr. Pastor can get unmuted or use
the *6 if connected by phone to unmute himself. I believe *9
unmutes. Mr. Pastor is unable to unmute himself for some
reason.
April 14, 2020
29552
Mr. Long: Mr. Chairman, is the host able to unmute someone?
Mr. Wilshaw: He has to unmute himself. I cannot force an unmute.
Mr. Long: What would be the proper procedure to perhaps to buy him some
time or call into the meeting? Can we move on to another item
and leave this one open? What are the procedural possibilities?
Mr. Wilshaw: We could treat this as a...like the petitioner is not here and go to
the audience for comments, but realistically the petitioner has
some questions to answer from us, so if the Commission is okay
we could move on to our next item and come back when Mr.
Pastor is able to speak. I think this is an important item that
deserves to have the petitioner fully represented, fully along with
our audience members.
Mr. Long: Agreed.
Mr. Wilshaw: Let me see. There is one person in our audience wishing to talk.
Let's see if it is Mr. Pastor? I am going to allow this person to
talk.
John Pastor, 34018 Beacon, Livonia, MI 48150, Hello. For some reason my
screen went blank. I am trying to log back on. So, I don't know
what is going on. The size of the actual building behind the
property is depending on what we are going to do with it, whether
we demo it or keep part of it. We are also trying to get a piece of
property as you know or as I said last time at the study meeting
with the medical office that is just north of our property that also
ties into our property here. We believe the parking will not be an
issue in time. I heard some of the complaints about the traffic.
This is a Taco Bell. It doesn't drive more traffic. It takes traffic
from the existing traffic. Studies have been like that... all fast
foods are not destination's. People only go two to three miles out
of their way to go to a restaurant. They aren't going to come three
or four miles to a restaurant. You are not going to get more
increased traffic. The approaches for getting in and out of that
property... actually, the exit approach will be farther away from Six
Mile than the Walgreen's is right now. We have gone further
away from that. If you remember, you just rezoned the gas
station there. which is a lot closer. You want to talk about traffic
turning left and right out of there ... you look at every gas station
and every gas station is similar to that. We have done these kind
of places all over the place where we have a building in front of
another building. Look at the Wendy's and the Tim Horton's on
Five Mile and Merriman where you have a gas station, a Tim
April 14, 2020
29553
Horton's and a Wendy all in front of a strip center, so...they are
really squeezed in there tight. It is not a 24-hour restaurant. I
want people to know that. Restaurants are... Taco Bell's that I
know, or any restaurant that I am aware of have rats. That is a
major violation of a Health Department code. The Health
Department would all over them if that happened. Again, I am
looking to improve that area. That building has been vacant for
quite a while. It does have three tenants that are actually on a
month to month. The building is in pretty bad repair. So, this is
a way to not only redevelop that building, if we can make this site
pIan work, we would like to keep it because we believe that
building is also a buffer for the noise. It's going to be a buffer for
the way it looks and for all of your "additional carbon stepping'.
So those are some of the items that I would bring up at this time.
I am also looking forward to answering any questions you might
have.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Pastor. Do we have questions for Mr. Pastor at
this time?
Mr. Bongero: Mr.
Pastor, I know you are
early
into this. Have you...what are
you
considering about your
storm
water retention?
Mr. Pastor: We would meet all of the local community detention systems. We
haven't gotten that far yet because we are waiting for the
temporary approval or at least going to Council for the next
meeting. We still have a couple meetings to go. We still have to
get site plan approval through you. This is just the first step.
Hopefully, we can present all of those things to you.
Mr. Bongero: I was there today and
I backed in at Walgreen's and
stayed there
for about 15 minutes.
It just
seems awkward in that
placement. I
guess I would ask is there
a
need for another Taco
Bell?
Mr. Pastor: Actually, the franchisee and Taco Bell corporate wanted this site.
Mr. Bongero: Okay.
Mr. Pastor: So, as you know, the closest Taco Bell right now is right on Eight
Mile just east of Farmington.
Mr. Bongero: Yeah.
Or.
Pastor: That is over 2 miles away.
Or.
Bongero: Thank you.
April 14, 2020
29554
Mr, Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner?
Ms. McCue: I am going to go back to my original question I had for Mr.
Taormina. I am curious as to the thought process on the access
to the building behind the Taco Bell. How are you going to set
that up where... it just seems that there are going to be a lot of
moving pieces between the people in the parking lot of the Taco
Bell drive-thru and people trying to access that business behind
it, regardless of what kind of business you have there. I just
doesn't seem like it would flow real well there.
Mr. Pastor: That is why we are still working on the site plan for that. With the
parking requirements and we believe we are really close with an
offer of getting the parcel next to us. That will relieve all parking
and all of that stuff for the building. What we would almost do at
that point is almost reposition that building so that basically the
doors would be more toward the Six Mile Road location so that
they can have parking of that and we would take out that little
building there. We would have more than enough parking, more
than enough immediate access, not only to Farmington Road, but
you would also have access to Six Mile Road as well.
Ms. McCue: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner from the Commission?
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Pastor, I will tell you very honestly that I am very much in
agreement with the comments made by the residents in area,
however, I would be guided I think very strongly by the desires of
the neighborhood and I think the neighborhood is at a significant
disadvantage during the COVID lockdown. I anticipate that were
people not confined to their homes pretty much, that we would
have a lot more people in the auditorium than we have had write
us and send emails and such. My question to you is, would you
be willing to defer and to table this issue this evening until after
the COVID lockdown is raised and the community has an
opportunity to come to the auditorium to speak for themselves?
Mr. Pastor: As you know, as a commercial real estate broker and stuff, I have
X amount of days to get this petition through before I lose my
rights to the property. I have no problem... you know as well as I
do, nine people... some of them aren't even ... I mean they are on
the other side of the river and stuff and I do know there are some
that are there. I would be more than happy to talk to any of those
folks and calm their fears. Again, this is not out of character, this
is not out of place... this is one of the reasons I thought the
building was so important to stay on the back side of that so it
April 14, 2020
29555
could buffer those people. So they could not see that. I think
going in and out of that property, I don't really think there is an
issue there. I mean people are doing it now. Remember, it still
goes to a Council Public Hearing. We have so many different site
plans that we go for. As you know, the people will have plenty of
time to go before the Planning Commission and I believe nine
people, I think it was nine people that commented on that. I think
that is a lot to a petition. Most of their concerns are basically the
traffic, which most people know that a Taco Bell, Burger King, or
Wendy's, they don't increase traffic. They take traffic away.
Because it is the local people that are going there. People from
Canton aren't going to go to Livonia at Six and Farmington to go
to a Taco Bell. I don't know. Time is on my side. It is just as
hard for me trying to get information to you guys and meet with
you and again, I would rather be up front with my drawings and
all of that stuff so we can at least show you what we are looking
at so everybody has a good fair sense, but I don't know how else
to say for the time frame. It has hurt me. The guy will not give us
extensions. We have asked for an extension and he won't give it
to us. Let me rephrase that. He gave us a 30-day extension,
which we are already at the 30 days because we were supposed
to be on last month's petition. The sign has been up there at least
two months. It has been up there for two months now because it
was up before our first meeting. It was up three weeks per the
ordinance until now. The sign has not come down. It is still there.
People have had plenty of time to look at this stuff, so they will
have more time, as you know, to express their concerns.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura, does that answer your question?
Mr. Ventura: It does. John, to your point about time limits , I am surprised your
seller won't give it to you. In the transaction that I am currently
involved in, they are making allowances for the unprecedented
condition.
Mr. Pastor: So am I.
I would
be more than
happy to send
you over the email
that the
guy said
that he would
not give me an
extension.
Mr. Ventura: John, I am taking you at your word, but 1 am just surprised.
Mr. Pastor: Okay. I am too.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions, Mr. Ventura?
Mr. Ventura: No, that will do it.
April 14, 2020
29556
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anyone else on the Commission that has questions for
Mr. Pastor?
Mr. Bongero: One last thing to Pete's point. With Mr. Pastor pursuing the
purchase of the parcel to the north, that might help with the
parking. We don't know. It kind of feels like this is a little... you
don't have it altogether, ya know? There are still some missing
pieces here.
Mr. Pastor: Remember, we are only talking here about the zoning first. I have
to come back for the site plan. By that time we should have
whether we are tearing the whole building down and now parking
isn't an issue or if we end up with the other piece of property,
again the parking will not be an issue. So we are just talking
about the zoning. In all fairness, we aren't even supposed to be
talking about the site plan because that is not what is before us.
So, we are just talking about changing the zoning and Council will
do this too. Council will hold the final zoning until they are happy
with the site plan and the way it looks and the way the cars move
around and all that stuff. There are ways of stopping and/or
moving forward so that we can continue going instead of ... this is
a crazy time as everybody knows, but there is plenty of time to
stop and/or get you more information.
Mr. Bongero: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Bongero. I believe I heard Ms. Smiley.
Ms. Smiley: It isn't so much a question...) don't find this comparable to Five
Mile and Merriman. I don't want to give you any false hope
because I am a hard knaw on this. I just think it is inappropriate.
It doesn't fit with what is going on. There is fast food at Seven
Mile and Farmington. That is a hard one in and out. I live in that
area and I just think it is a real bad idea.
Mr. Pastor: As you know, I live in the area as well. That is the Big Burger
which was approved through the Taco Bell and all that stuff. We
will actually have more distance between that and the light than
the Big Burger does.
As.
Smiley: Okay, and I also don't think that two miles is a hardship to drive
for a Taco Bell. So I think...(inaudible)
Mr. Pastor; Depends
on where
you are
at.
If
you
are at Five Mile and
Newburgh
now you
are talking
four
to
five
miles.
Ms. Smiley: I guess I just don't find it appropriate.
April 14, 2020
29557
Mr. Pastor: Okay.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Any other questions or comments for our
petitioner before we go to our audience members?
Mr. Caramagno: Through all these questions and comparisons and likenesses to
other locations I think what I found driving over there is yes this
has some opposition and I understanding it, but when I went over
there and really looked at what is really there now, you have a
dilapidated building, a dilapidated parking lot next to a Shell
station that is going to get remodeled, I think there is an
opportunity here for something. Without a final and good plan, I
don't know if no is the answer yet. There are opportunities to turn
this down, down the road. That is my opinion right now. It just
looks run down. This is a bad piece of property. That is just my
opinion right now.
Mr. Wilshaw: Alright. Thank you, Mr. Caramagno. As Mr. Pastor pointed out
just remind our Commission and our audience members that we
are looking at the rezoning at this point. The site plan and the
questions on the site plan are just conceptual and we really are
not looking at the site plan per se. Our concern right now is the
rezoning request of this parcel from Office Services to C-2,
General Business appropriate or not. That is what is on our mind
right now and that is what we are going to be making a decision
on moving forward with either for or against or tabling when we
get to that point. I just want to make that comment and if there is
no one else on the Commission wishing to speak to the petitioner,
I will go to our audience members. We do have a couple with
their hands up. Again I would ask, if anyone in our audience does
wish to speak for or against this item, please push the raise hand
button and we will acknowledge you and give you a chance to
speak. Mr. Pastor, if we can ask you to just stand by for a moment
while the audience speaks to us and I am going to start with Mr.
Colbert. He was patient and had his hand up for quite a while.
You are welcome to unmute himself and introduce himself with
your name and address.
Robert Colbert, 34259 Grove Drive, I understand what you were saying about the
rezoning but our biggest concern is that this really doesn't fit. Our
neighborhood absolutely is opposed to it. As you can look, there
hasn't been one statement for the development of this property in
this type of business. I would think as a Commission that this
would be something you would strongly look at because even if
the person wants to open it, Mr. Pastor, knows that he is driving
that you are going to get the business from the local community.
April 1432020
29558
We are not going to support it. So, you are going to have an
empty building quick and it is going to look ugly. We have an
empty strip -mall at Seven Mile and Farmington. So any
arguments that we should be re -doing it and putting it there, I
don't think really works.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, we appreciate the comments. Was there anything else you
wanted to mention?
Mr. Colbert: No, thank you for your
help in this and
I hope you make the
right
decision on this.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you and we do appreciate your comments. Thank you for
attending our meeting. We will see how the decision goes. We
also have one additional person in our audience... one moment
please. We are going to go to Mr. Capeling. There we. Please
unmute and again, start with your name and address for the
record.
Robert Capeling, 16643 Whitby St., I am in between the Six Mile and Five Mile in
the Burton Hollow sub. I strongly oppose this for several reasons.
A. The school kids that are walking to school, okay? That needs
to be taken in to consideration. I also ... did I hear it correctly when
the gentleman spoke saying that he was also interested in the
adjacent property just west of the Shell station?
Mr. Wilshaw: That is correct. He has indicated that he is working on acquiring
that property.
Mr. Capeling: What are his intentions on that property?
Mr. Wilshaw: We do not know at this time. That is not part of this particular
petition.
Mr. Capeling: I think this thing needs to be tabled until there can be an open
forum where the residents can come speak their mind. Not
through Skype or through Zoom meeting as proper
representation from the neighborhood. There are 625 homes in
this neighborhood and that type of building is going to increase
the traffic. Yes, it will draw some traffic from the local
neighborhood, but ultimately that is going to increase the
footprint, most specifically for the kids that are walking to school.
Walking to and from the school each and every day. Not to
mention that there are...I live right on Whitby and there are ... the
amount of traffic that comes out of Whitby right at that school
hour. It is crazy insane that kids have not been killed on that
street right there. Just the amount of traffic that comes out of
April 1452020
29559
there. People just don't pay attention. You can have the best of
intentions of putting a rock star Taco Bell there which is not a fit
for the neighborhood by any means, but most importantly you are
putting our kids at risk. If you put our kids at risk, that is a major
issue. I think the Commission needs to hear out the
neighborhood before any vote takes place. That is just my own
personal opinion. My kids are getting older, but we have had
such a huge amount of influx of young families moving into the
neighborhood that this needs to be properly addressed,
regardless if that transaction... he needs to get an extension or he
needs to get a new piece of property. Like Mr. Colbert said, there
is an enormous amount of property right down the street that
doesn't have a sub -division right next to it. So, that is all I have
to add. Thank you for hearing me out. Just out of curiosity, did
you read out Doug Couts information into the file as well?
Mr. Wilshaw: I would have to go back through the emails, we had a number of
emails.
Mr. Capeling: This wasn't an email. It was on the Zoom chat box.
Mr. Wilshaw: Oh,
no I did
not.
I will add his. I will read that out. I appreciate
you
pointing
that
out.
Mr. Capeling: Not a problem. Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Capeling. For what it is worth, there has been a
couple fatalities at the Whitby and Six Mile interchange in the
past.
Mr. Capeling: To be honest, I am shocked there hasn't been more. It is crazy
insane. You guys as a Planning Commission, you need to look
at that. I don't know if that is your responsibility, but there is
nowhere near the amount of...I will be honest with you. A lot of
it is residents. Since Stevenson has done that turn around there
it has gotten 100 times worse than it was previously. I have lived
here for five, almost six years now, maybe it is seven years, but
it has gotten tremendously bad. Someone is going to get hurt if
you guys don't do something about that. Maybe that is something
else we need to bring to the table. I can guarantee that anyone
that has kids under 18 year old, they will come to that meeting
and you will be astonished by the outpouring of support
of ... something needs to be done there. Someone is going to get
hurt there. That is all.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you,
Mr.
Capeling.
Let me
go to our
next
audience
member and
then
I will read
out those
comments
from
Mr. Couts.
April 14, 2020
29560
Our next audience
member is Andrew
McNeill. I am
going to
select him. He can
unmute himself and
he can introduce
himself.
Andrew McNeill, 16827 Surrey St., Livonia, MI, so I am right in the old Burton
Hollow sub -division. I am right behind where you can see on the
map where this is planned to be. I have two concerns about this.
The first one and maybe this is for a later point within this, but it
kind of corroborates what Commissioner Smiley was saying. Is
this really necessary to have a Taco Bell in this location? We
have two Taco Bell's within driving distance from our sub here.
One being the Eight and Farmington location and the other one
being at Five and Middlebelt. I mean the Five and Middlebelt one
is little bit further away, but they are both Taco Bell's, They are
both within driving distance, however often you want to get Taco
Bell. My second concern is based on this location itself and the
zoning. When you look at the map, a little bit further south of that
driveway there is the main exit off of...I believe it is call
Bloomfield. It is the main exit of our sub -division there. You will
see Bloomfield Drive. During the hours of four to six on Monday
through Friday, it is almost impossible to make a left turn out of
our sub -division at that location. When you add a Taco Bell there,
more people coming in and out, I just know that is going to add to
that. I will just have to forget making a left turn out of the sub-
division during those hours. To corroborate with that the
intersection of Six Mile and Farmington, I don't' know if it is
available, but you can look at the accident reports at that
intersection. We have accidents quite often at that intersection.
I just believe that this would add to that and add to the congestion
at that area.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. McNeill. We appreciate your comments. I did
want to read out the one comment that came from Mr. Couts in
our audience to the chat window. He said he is sorry that he is
having a hard time with his connection but please recognize my
input tonight that I am afraid that not all residents in Burton Hollow
sub -division may be able to place their concerns as this is a new
technology and the majority may not be able to voice their
concerns. I beg that you consider to table this until our residents
are able to participate in a better forum. That is Mr. Doug Couts.
I wanted to acknowledge his comments as well. Is there anyone
else in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? If
so, please click the raise hand button. If there is no one else, we
will go back to our petitioner and give him a chance to make a
final comment. I don't' see anyone else in the audience raising
their hand. So, we will got to Mr. Pastor and give you one last
shot as we always do.
April 14, 2020
29561
Mr. Pastor: Thank you, again if there are any questions that I can answer.
Just remember we are still in the beginning stages of this. This
is whether it gets rezoned from OS to C-2. That is all we are
talking about tonight. I understand that some people, in any
petition that is brought up before the Commission and Council,
nobody likes fast food and nobody likes changes. I get that, but
this does fit there. The zoning is proper being right next to C-2. I
know that I would like to get this done or postponed if I could. I
would be more than happy to do that, but the guy gave me a 30-
day extension and that is where I am at, unfortunately. If I could
meet with each one of the Commissioners I would, but we can't
do that even, to go over some of their concerns and stuff. Traffic
is always going to be there, whether this is going to be there or
not. The access will probably always be there. Remember, this
is not on Six Mile. The access they are talking about especially
from high school is coming from Six Mile. Yes, there are always
accidents at Five Mile, Six Mile, Seven Mile. There are accidents
on my street off of Seven Mile. I get that. The businesses get
that. People are already using this already turning left, as a
matter of fact they have two left turns out of that property and two
right turns out of that property. With this would then control it in
going in with one and one out. So, you would actually control the
traffic a lot better going into this site than is what is there now. I
appreciate the time, this is unprecedented times, the weird times.
I would appreciate at least a go forward with Council so we can
start working on some site plans to address most of the concerns
of the citizens and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Pastor. Are there any other questions or
comments for our petitioner from the Commission? I want to
make sure everyone has a chance to speak. I don't see anyone
wishing to speak to the petitioner, so with that I will... Mr. Pastor,
I am going to put you back into our audience. Thank you for
attending. I am going to go to the Commission to see if there is
a motion.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue, and adopted, it was
#04-16-2020 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on April 14, 2020, on Petition
2020-01-01-01 submitted by Pastor 4G L.L.C. pursuant to
Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, requesting to rezone the eastern 150 feet of the
property at 16975-16991 Farmington Road, located on the west
side of Farmington Road between Oakdale Avenue and Six Mile
Road in the Northeast % of Section 16, from OS, Office Services
to C-2, General Business, the Planning Commission does hereby
April 1422020
29562
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2020-01-01-01 be
denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed change of zoning and the intended use of the
property as a fast-food restaurant would be compatible to
and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area,
particularly with respect to the adjacent residential
neighborhood;
2. That the proposed zoning and intended use of the property,
and its relation to streets giving access to it, particularly with
respect to vehicular turning movements and routes of traffic
flow, would be hazardous and inconvenient to the
intersection and the neighborhood and would unduly conflict
with the normal traffic flow and circulation patterns in the
area;
3. That the proposed zoning and use is contrary to the
purposes, goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance,
which seek to insure compatibility and appropriateness of
uses so as to enhance property values and to create and
promote a more favorable environment for neighborhood
use and enjoyment;
4. That the petitioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate that
the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
5. That the proposal fails to conclusively deal with all the
concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of
the City and its residents.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, McCue
NAYS:
Caramagno
ABSENT:
None
A BSTAIN:
None
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
Long, Ventura, Bongero, Wilshaw
April 14, 2020
29563
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the
motion is
carried
and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City
Council
with a denying resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2020-02-01-02 BELLAGIO HOMES
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2020-
02-01-02 submitted by Belaggio Homes Inc. pursuant to Section
23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended,
requesting to rezone the northern 300.62 feet of the property at
31670 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of Seven Mile
Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the
Southeast '/4 of Section 3, from R-U-F, Rural Urban Farm -
Minimum'/2 Acre to R-1, One Family Residential - 60' x 120' Lots.
Mr. Taormina: This is a rezoning petition. It involves a portion of a property
located on Seven Mile Road between Canterbury Street and
Shrewsbury Street roughly 600 feet west of Merriman Road. The
request is to rezone the north 300 feet of the property from RUF,
Rural Urban Farm to R-1, One -Family Residential. A comparison
between the two zoning districts, the RUF requires a minimum lot
size of'/ acre or 21,780 sq. ft., whereas the R-1 zone allows for
a minimum lot size of 7,200 sq. ft. The overall parcel measures
approximately 2.3 acres. It has 123 feet of road frontage by a
depth of 880 feet. The parcel contains a single-family home that
is on the south half of the property and would remain. This is the
portion that would not be affected by the rezoning. The former
owners of the property once operated a dog kennel. The kennel
structure, which previously existed on the north portion of the
property, has been removed. Located at the north end of the
property, abutting both the east and west sides is Bridge Street.
Bridge Street serves the two adjoining condominium projects,
which are Livonia Manor I on the east side and Livonia Manor II
on the west side. Bridge Street is not presently a thru street. It
dead ends on both sides of the subject property, leaving a gap
equal to the width of the property, which —as previously
indicated —is about 123 feet. These streets were planned and
designed to align in a way that would allow an eventual
connection between the two developments, Livonia Manor I and
Livonia Manor II. The part being rezoned measures
approximately 37,126 sq. ft. which is about 0.8 acre. It measures
123.5 feet by 300.62 feet. If this zoning change is approved, the
petitioner intends to submit a site plan that would connect Bridge
Street and develop a four -unit single-family site condominium
project. Two units would be located on the south side of the
extended street and two units would be on the north side. All four
lots would meet the minimum lot size requirements of the R-1
April 14, 2020
29564
zoning district. The future land use plan shows the subject site
as low -density residential. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read
out the departmental correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February
25, 2020, 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
rezoning at this time. The legal description submitted by the
owner appears to be correct, and should be used for the rezoned
parcel should the request be approved. The parcel is assigned
the address of #31670 Seven Mile Road. The proposed
development is currently serviced by public water main, sanitary
and storm sewers, which will need to be extended to service any
new residences. The submitted drawing does not indicate any
utility connections, so we do not have any knowledge of impacts
to the existing systems at this time. The owner has been in
contact with this office regarding the project, and is aware of the
Engineering Department requirements. It should be noted that
should the project move forward the proposed construction will
be required to meet the Wayne County Stormwater Ordinance,
including detention requirements, and permits may be needed
from the Wayne County Department of Public Services for any
work within the Seven Mile Road right-of-way. A full review of the
proposed development will be completed when plans are
submitted for permitting." The letter is signed by David W. Lear,
P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the Finance
Department, dated February 25, 2020, which reads as follows: "
1 have reviewed the address connected with the above noted
petition. The following amounts are due to the City of Livonia:
Unpaid water and sewer charges (1/30/20): Total Due City of
Livonia $145.23' The letter is signed by Connie Kumpula, Chief
Accountant. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department,
dated February 24, 2020, 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 outstanding amounts receivable for taxes.
Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. Next are the email
correspondence that we received regarding this petition. April 13,
2020 Questions/Concerns/Vote Against: 1. What will be done,
allowed or requirements of the existing trees that are on the lots
being built that back the Shrewsbury drive side? a. We want
Builder to cut overhanging tree limbs back that hang in 19142
Shrewsbury yard. b. Also clean up existing brush and dead trees.
April 1432020
29565
2. What will be done or allowed on the existing chain link fencing?
a. We want the builder to install six foot white fencing to protect
our privacy for 19142 & 19146 Shrewsbury Dr. We selected this
location based on privacy and not having active homes behind
us. b. The current fence is an eyesore, it is bent and rusted. 3.
Will new homes be part of LM 1 or 2 or no association? a. My
understanding is that LM 1 no longer has an association or dues.
bI If not in HOA, what limits or restrictions will there be for sheds,
playscapes or other structures? LM II is unable to have those
and would not be right for new homes to have and we don't want
to look at them. 4. Will any of the 4 homes be on the LM 2 basin?
If yes they need to pay dues to LM2. 5. How will mailboxes work?
They s/not be allowed mailboxes in front of homes as LM 2 was
not allowed that. a. I believe there are only a couple open slots
so the builder or new owners would need to cover cost of slab
and new mail unit. 6. Will any new street lighting be required and
who is responsible for paying cost of lighting used? a. Concern
over lights shining in our windows. b. This concern also holds
true for exterior lights on the new homes, shinning in our
windows. 7. Will any new stop signs be installed or required? 8.
What will be the hours of construction/building? 9. We are
against the addition of new homes that will add more traffic and
noise in this quiet street. The dead end street and no homes
directly behind us was a purchase decision. Lisa and David
Mobus, 19142 Shrewsbury Dr. The next email states: April 11,
2020 We live at 19146 Shrewsbury. We are aware the property
will be approved for development. We have several concerns
which we want addressed before the city authorizes the
development. 1. Livonia manor 1 and Livonia manor 2 are two
separate condo associations we each have different expenses
and Manor 1 has greater expenses with landscaping and
signage. Can we keep these 2 associations separate? If we are
forced to combine, who is going to pay for the new amendments
to the bylaws? 2. We just paid for a new community mailboxs.
There are not 4 spaces available, we should not be required to
pay for a larger mailbox. 3. The lack of street lighting should be
addressed. I think 1 or 2 additional lights should be installed on
new lots. 4. Our property backyard will be the new side yard of
the homes. There are trees which are encroaching and some
falling on our property which I have requested for the past 5 years
to be removed. I also complained about the fencing which was
falling down and the remedy was to remove 1/4 of the fence which
they cut the post level to the ground and it looks awful. I want the
fence to be completely removed on my property, or a new fence
installed. Also, we have new sod, amy damage due to
construction needs to be repaired before completed C of O is
issued. Thank you, Henry and Amy Morelli. The next email
April 14, 2020
29566
states: April 14, 2020 As a concerned neighbor at 31580 Bridge
Street, I am extremely against the allowance of additional houses
at the property 012-99-0008-000 for the following reasons: My
final decision to purchase my home was due to the fact that it was
at the dead end. My concern is with the constant construction and
abruption on my brand new concrete patio, my whole house, and
landscaping foundation will be greatly disturbed or predominately
damaged. Who should pay for this? I have already seen a
preview of this with the constant trucks parked at the front of my
house and the construction work build on the garage/shed that
was built on the current property. Also, what will happen to the
fence that is currently there? Will my property line be respected?
The merge of two associations/who do these houses belong to?
The two very different association's dues and guidelines will only
cause more confusion to our quiet street and the community. We
have worked hard and taken pride in our little street and this will
only bring more problems. Once again I hope you vote against
the 2020-02-01-02 Petition. Thank you Joe Puranen The next
email reads: April 14, 2020 Concerning: 2020-02-01-02 Belaggio
Survey Petition As a concerned neighbor at 19134 Shrewsbury
Drive, I am adamantly against the allowance of additional houses
or condos at the property 012-99-0008-000 for the following
reasons: Currently, there are/were two home owner
associations, one for Livonia Manor and another at Livonia Manor
2. These associations have different association guidelines and
dues. By connecting the street, Livonia would be effectively
merging the two very different associations. Without extreme
mediation, these two very different associations would not
resolve their differences (different dues, mail delivery,
landscaping, fences, lighting, house designs, just to name a few).
Many of the even addresses homes on Shrewsbury Drive picked
these houses due to their relative seclusion in a very busy city of
Livonia. By adding more houses and connecting the streets you
are forcing our loss of this quiet and seclusion. Many of the
residents of Shrewsbury Drive chose their home on a dead end
street to allow their children the ability to play without fear of on
rushing traffic. By connecting the two streets, Livonia would be
removing this natural barrier and allowing additional traffic. For
the above reasons, I implore you to vote against the 2020-02-01-
02 Petition. Thank you Eric Wieber The next email reads: April
14, 2020 Hello, I am writing to go against the Petition 2020-02-
01-02 submitted by Belaggio Homes Inc. By building more
housing and removing trees is only reducing the legitimacy of
Tree City. Since Livonia identifies themselves as Tree City USA,
this is only diminishing the legacy. The first thing Community Tree
Ordinance in Livonia focuses on is protection which is decreasing
by moving forward with this. It is now time to save and embrace
April 1432020
29567
nature and the living things that live in it. Not too long ago a bald
eagle was spotted, we are losing potential opportunities for
observing nature at its finest. Construction traffic and
neighboring foundations are also a major concern with this future
construction. As well as existing fences being damaged and
pushed to the side. House, patio, and landscaping foundations
will be compromised with the amount of heavy and abrupt
construction. The traffic will impose on our children playing, space
in our streets, blocking driveways, the amount of noise, and the
chaotic traffic with heavy machinery. The problematic
Association logistics that will have to occur once four more
houses are added will be very problematic. The adding of more
mailboxes, the purchase of mailboxes, and the higher association
cost of adding multiple more houses to take care of another
subdivision. Sincerely a sad neighbor, Rachel Puranen That is
the extent of the correspondence. Let me see if I can get the
graphics going.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, while you are doing that, I just want to note that
there is one more additional comment we received through our
Zoom chat from Daryl and Laurie Zonica at 19138 Shrewsbury
Dr. They state that their concerns are the dead trees in their back
yard. We would like to request a vinyl privacy fence if this passes
as the current fence is falling apart. As our neighbors mailboxes
and association dues are a concern. There are young families
and traffic concerns. We do not agree with this proposal and ask
that you vote against it. I want to make sure that this is also noted
for our record. If you are able to get the plans to our screen to
show people, that would be great. If not, we can work with what
is in our packet. I do want to also ask that if the petitioner is here
or their representative that they would hit the raise their hand
button and we can recognize you. I see Mr. Soave thank you.
There we go. You got it Mark.
Mr. Taormina: It's working now, right?
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes.
Ms. Smiley: I have a question for Mr. Taormina. Originally they intended to
put Bridge Street all the way through, did they not?
Or.
Taormina: Yes. Both developments were designed to ultimately form a
connection via Bridge Street. If you go back and look at the
record of the site plans, it was with the intention of connecting
these streets. We normally do not have stub streets terminate
like that at the edge of a property without the intent being to
April 14, 2020
29568
extend the street sometime in the future. In this case, you can
see that the obvious design intention was to link the streets.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, is there any other information you would like to
present, or we will see if there are any questions for you?
Mr. Taormina: This is the aerial photograph showing the area that is the subject
of the rezoning petition highlighted in yellow. Looking at the next
graphic, this is the survey that provides the dimensional
information of the subject area. You will see the proposed zoning
to R-1 is the hatched area. That is the area that would be affected
by this petition. The balance of this site would remain zoned
RUF.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. As always we want to point out that we are looking
at, like our first petition, is a rezoning request tonight. To rezone
this property from RUF to R-1. There will probably be some
discussion about the intended use of the property and what will
be put on it, but we are not going to dive too deep into the details
of the actual site plan because we are looking at zoning tonight.
Are there any other questions from the Commission for Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Long: Thank you. Mr. Taormina, just a clerical thing. Looking at the
resolutions, I think we have the wrong address. I want to make
sure we have the correct resolution in front of us.
Mr. Taormina: I will take a look at that and see if we can make that correction.
Mr. Long: Obviously, if it is just an address it isn't a big deal. We can just
gloss over it. I just wanted to make sure all the rest of the
language is proper.
Mr. Taormina: I will look into that, thank you.
Mr. Long: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Long. That was a good observation. I see that
as well. Any other questions for our Planning Director? I don't'
hear any other questions or see any. So, Mr. Soave I believe is
joined to our meeting. He just needs to unmute himself and then
he can introduce himself and talk about his petition. Again, to
unmute you can do that through the controls on Zoom or I believe
you can dial `9 if you are connected by telephone. Mr. Soave, I
think you are unmuted. Mr. Soave? We cannot hear you.
April 1432020
29569
However, we see that you are unmuted. Is there anyone else in
our audience that is representing our petitioner tonight? If so,
please use the raised hand button. Mr. Baki. Hi Sam.
Sam Baki, 31670 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, MI, I got on just in case Mr. Soave
could not get on. Apparently he cannot. As Mr. Taormina
mentioned both of those developments on east and west of that
property were designed for that street to connect with the lots to
match the zoning of R-1 on the east and west of that property. I
hear some of the concerns. The dead trees will be cleaned once
the petition goes through and the site plan approved for the four
lots, two north of the extension of the street and two south of it.
When the tree company comes in, all these dead trees will be
removed. At this time, it wasn't an efficient time to have us do it.
So that will be done after the petition is approved. With respect
to fencing, the fencing will be repaired. That metal fencing for the
existing RUF property will be fully repaired. Other fencing on the
new development is going to come down and with brand new
fencing in the back of the new development will be backing to the
RUF. To install any other fencing for neighbors, we are not doing
that but we are repairing all the chain link fence that is existing as
we speak after we remove all the dead trees and whatever has
damaged the old fence. This property, I don't know if anyone is
aware, but this property, the reason it was never developed at the
beginning was the owner didn't want to sell it. In the last few
months the property went for sale and Belaggio Homes acquired
it. That is why we are proceeding with the cleanup and the repairs
right now and whatever we need to do to do this development.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank
you, Mr.
Baki.
There is
one other person in
the
audience that
has their
hand
raised. Mr.
Soave, are you with
us?
Enrico Soave, 37771 Seven Mile Road, Livonia, MI, I was having trouble unmuting
my microphone. Apparently my first time using Zoom so I am
new at this so bear with me.
Mr. Wilshaw: You are doing fine.
Mr. Soave: I had to log off and log back on, but I think I caught most of what
my proxy Sam Baki informed you guys with. Mark, had it
accurate. When we developed Livonia Manor I and Livonia
Manor II it was always planned with infrastructures there to
connect these two streets. I personally lived there on Bridge
Street right next to the dog kennel for seven years until he moved
out about four years ago. So I am very aware of what goes on
over there. Also, the Master Plan for R-1, so I think this is a
benefit to the community as a whole. Once the utilities are
April 14, 2020
29570
connected the water pressure should increase and the water
quality should increase with the looping of the water main
between the two communities. Also, this would be a standalone
site plan condominium. So, there would be no burdens to either
Livonia Manor I or Livonia Manor II. So, that should not be a
worry to any of the neighbors, especially Livonia Manor H.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Soave. I think you may have answered a number
of questions that have been asked. I am sure we are going to
have some more. Is there any questions for our petitioner from
the Commission?
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Soave, I know this is not a site plan review, but can assure us
that the structures that you build on these four lots are consistent
in character and size with that which is already there in I and II?
Mr. Soave: Absolutely. It would be exactly the same. The building
restrictions will actually comport to the current building
restrictions that we drafted for Livonia Manor I and Livonia Manor
II. So, it will be a mixture of ranches and colonials there with
comparable square footages and same building components.
Mr. Ventura: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Any other questions from the
Commission? If there are no other questions from the
Commission, we have some members of our audience who have
their hand raised and would like to speak as well. If Mr. Baki and
Mr. Soave can just stand by for a moment. We are going to let
you standby for a moment and we are going to go to some of our
audience members and then give them an opportunity to speak
to the Commission and give their comments for or against. The
first person doesn't have a name, they have a number listed here.
I am going to go to them and they can unmute themselves and
introduce themselves by name and address.
David Mobus, 19142 Shrewsbury, Livonia, MI, you had read a document from my
wife earlier, an email. As far as the street going all the way
through, we asked that when we purchased this lot to be built.
We were told at the time that it would not be going through. In
fact, they put up a railing at the end of the street so that it wouldn't
go through. So we are kind of confused at that point. Second, it
is going to be a standalone condo association. Where are their
mailboxes going to go? They can't go in front of their homes
anymore, it isn't allowed. Second, if it is a standalone association
what bylaws are they going to have? The Livonia Manor II type
of laws where they can't put up sheds and playscapes and stuff
April 143 2020
29571
like that? I am looking out my window right now where their yard
would be and I would be looking at that stuff. I don't want to see
it. That is why we bought this lot, is because of the wooded area
behind us. Another concern is the fencing. I know this is a zoning
request and it has nothing to do with this but for them to say they
won't cover putting up a privacy fence for us who have been here
a while, they have already set precedent with doing it with the
very first house they built off of Seven Mile. She was told there
wasn't going to be a house built next to them. The house was
built and they paid for their privacy fence.
Mr. Wilshaw: I see.
Mr. Mobus: I guess I am kind of confused on what they are saying. They are
saying one thing and doing another. The only reason the
building, the dog kennel, is torn down now is because they
wanted it gone to get a head start on getting these houses in.
They tore that down a month and a half ago. I guess I am kind of
confused here. Are they trying to get a head start on this? Again,
it was brought up by Rachel. Construction traffic, I don't want to
see it. We don't have kids, but there is a lot of little kids in this
neighborhood. Do you want construction trucks going through
your neighborhood when you have little kids playing in the
neighborhood? I don't. That are some of the neighbors'
concerns. We bought these houses based on having privacy
behind us. I am sure the Livonia Manor I houses that back up to
that lot thought the same thing. So that is just some of our
concerns. I hope you do the right thing and realistically don't
allow it.
Mr. Wilshaw: We appreciate your comments. We will ask some of those
questions of our petitioner that you addressed. We will go back
to him when we are finished with the audience. We will see if he
can answer some of those issues.
Mr. Mobus: I appreciate your time.
Or.
Wilshaw: Thank you. We will let you keep listening. We do have someone
else in the audience. Is there anyone else in the audience? I
don't see anyone with their hand raised. Is there anyone wishing
to speak either for or against this item? I see a number of the
people in the audience are those that wrote the emails that we
read earlier. We do want to thank them for sending their
comments in advance. I don't' see anyone else in audience
raising their hand. We will go back to the petitioner. Mr. Soave,
if you want to address anything that has been raised up to the
point.
April 14, 2020
29572
Mr. Soave: Yes, Mr. Chair. In regards to the condominium documents, By-
laws, Master Deed, etc., I think I previously stated that we are
going to use the same by-laws as Livonia Manor I and Livonia
Manor 11. You will have a lot of similarities and have congruency
with the adjacent sub -divisions. There will be no surprises and
no changes there. We just purchased this property less than a
year ago. Maybe in October of last year. There is no guarantee
that the property isn't going to come up for sale, but it did and we
purchased it we are going to complete the project as originally
planned. There is no misrepresentation there. As far as
mailboxes, that issue is not before us. Keep in mind that in
Livonia Manor I there are no cluster mailboxes. Every unit owner
has a mailbox at the curb, so that has not been determined at this
time. It is too premature. Any other questions, I would love to
entertain Mr. Chair.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, so you haven't decided at this point if you are going to do
a cluster mailbox for these units or individual ones?
Mr. Soave: Me, being a simple man, the easiest thing would be for each
house to have a mailbox at the curb. Just to reflect Livonia Manor
11. 1 can't imagine the Postmaster General would want a four unit
cluster box at the corner.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, that is something that we can address at the site plan.
Mr. Soave: That is something that the City of Livonia has no jurisdiction over.
That is something that is dictated by the Postmaster General for
Livonia.
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, Mr. Soave. Is there any other comments or questions from
the Commission for our petitioner? I don't see any other
questions or comments. 1 will close the public hearing and a
motion would be in order.
On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-17-2020 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on April 14, 2020, on Petition
2020-02-01-02 submitted by Belaggio Homes Inc. pursuant to
Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, requesting to rezone the northern 300.62 feet of the
property at 31670 Seven Mile Road, located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue
in the Southeast'/4 of Section 3, from R-U-F, Rural Urban Farm -
Minimum /2 Acre to R-1, One Family Residential - 60' x 120' Lots,
April 14, 2020
29573
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2020-02-01-02 be approved for the following
reasons:
That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts
in the area.
2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area.
3. That the R-1 zoning would provide for the development of
the subject property in a manner that is consistent with its
size and location.
4. The zoning change would warrant the extension of Bridge
Street through the property, forming a connection, and
enable the development of a four (4)-unit single-family site
condominium project that would meet the minimum lot width
and area requirements of the R-1 District. and
5. That the proposed change
Future Land Use Plan wh
Residential use in this area.
of zoning is supported by the
ch recommends Low Density
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
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 #3 PETITION 2020-01-02-01
WADE SHOWS
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2020-
01-02-01 submitted by Wade Shows, Inc. requests to withdrawal
the petition 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 14,
2020 through May 25, 2020, 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.
April 1432020
29574
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr, Taormina, I believe this petitioner has requested to withdraw
this petition. Is that correct?
Mr. I oarmina: That is correct. For obvious reasons, the carnival will not be held
next month and they are therefore requesting to withdraw.
Mr. Wilshaw: I believe, since they are requesting withdrawal on this petition and
there is really no need to discuss this further, by action of the
Chair, and if there is no objection from the Commission we will
take no further action on this petition. I don't hear any objections.
If the Secretary will note that we will take no further action on this
petition because it was requested to be withdrawn by the
petitioner.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2020-02-03-01 UNLEASHED PET CARE
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2020-
03-02-02 submitted by Unleashed Pet Care Real Estate L.L.C.
requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 10.03(f) of
the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
operate a veterinary clinic at 9300 Middlebelt Road, located on
the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and West
Chicago Avenue in the Southwest'% of Section 36,
Mr. Taormina: This is a request for awaiver-use for a veterinary clinic called
Unleased Pet Care. The site is the former TUroWSkl Funeral
Home located on the east side of Middlebelt one block south of
West Chicago Avenue between Minton and Hathaway Avenues.
The site is about % of an acre in size with 230 feet of frontage on
Middlebelt Road and 140 feet of frontage on Hathaway. The total
gross floor area of the building is 4,750 sq.ft. As shown on the
aerial photograph, the general position of the building is on the
north side of the property with parking on the north, east, and
south sides. The only appreciable amount of landscaping on the
property is located between the building and Middlebelt Road.
The subject property is in the process of being rezoned from OS,
Office Services, to C-1, Local Business in order to facilitate this
waiver -use request. First reading on the rezoning was given by
City Council on February 12, 2020. Second reading and roll call,
which are the final steps in the rezoning process, are on hold
pending a review of the site plan. The following review is based
on the C-1 zoning classification. Lying to the north and to the
south of the property, fronting on Middlebelt Road, are several
offices zoned OS, Office Services. Immediately to the east are
one -family residential homes that are part of the Earl Wilson sub-
April 14, 2020
29575
division. On the west side of Middlebelt are two-family homes
zoned R-6, as well as some offices, zoned OS. The proposed
veterinary clinic would occupy the entire building. This will require
some extensive remodeling. A submitted floor plan shows the
interior layout of the clinic which includes several exam rooms,
reception area, waiting room, surgery, dog wash, x-ray, receiving
and storage, and several other support rooms. There is an
existing garage in the southeast corner of the building. No
changes are proposed to the exterior of the building. The site
presently contains 54 parking spaces. Required parking for
veterinary clinics is based on a ratio of 1 space for each 150 sq.ft.
of usable floor area. Applying this standard to this location yields
a total requirement of 22 spaces. The site plan provides for 30
off-street spaces. Twenty-four spaces located along the north
and portions of the east sides of the property would be removed
in order to provide additional green space. A new grassy area is
shown on the north side of the property adjacent to Hathaway.
You will recall from our study meeting that a fence was proposed
around this lawn area, but that fence has been removed. This is
the latest site plan. The site is currently served by three
driveways on Middlebelt Road. The revised site plan shows the
elimination of the north driveway as discussed at the study
meeting. A screened trash enclosure is shown on the east side
of the property with details provided showing masonry walls.
Photographs provided by the Petitioner shows what the building
currently looks like. Under the sign regulations for a C-1 district,
the proposed vet clinic would be allowed one wall sign, not to
exceed 1 sq. ft. for each one foot of building frontage. No wall
sign is shown on the plans. It is the intent of the petitioner to
reface the monument sign that is in front of the building on
Middlebelt Road. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the
departmental correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 18,
2020, 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 parcel is assigned the address of #9300
Middlebelt Road. The existing parcel is currently serviced by
public water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. The
information submitted does not show proposed alterations for the
utility services, so it does not appear that there will be any impacts
to the existing systems. It should be noted that should the
developer need to do any work within the Seven Mile Road right-
of-way, permits will need to be obtained from the Wayne County
April 1432020
29576
Department or Public Services." The letter is signed by David W.
Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next letter is from the
Division of Police, dated March 20, 2020, 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 Scott
Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the
Fire Department, dated April 13, 2020, which reads as follows:
This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection
with a request to operate a veterinary clinic on property located
at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Greg Thomas, Fire Marshal.
The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated April 7,
2020, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request,
the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the names and addresses
connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are
no taxes due, therefore, I have no objections to the proposal."
The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The next letter
is from the Finance Department, dated March 30, 2020, which
reads as follows: "I 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 Connie Kumpula, Chief
Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any questions for our Planning Director? If there are no questios,
the petitioner I believe is here.
Erin Kopkowski, 21204 Pontiac Trail, #2, South Lyon, MI, 48178. Hello?
Mr. Wilshaw: Hello, we hear you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Ms.
Kopkowski,
is there anything
else
you
would like to add to
this
petition that
we haven't heard
from
Mr.
Taormina?
Ms. Kopkowski: I don't
think
so.
When
the
client took
the property it is more
parking
than
they
need.
I am
keeping the
existing parking spaces
that are to the side, those are already existing as you can see.
The grassy area we did want to fence but we understand is not
approvable. The grassy area is for dogs that they need to walk
that are rehabbing there. We thought that the grassy area on the
other area may be a bit more palatable to the neighborhood than
just all that concrete parking area.
Mr. Wilshaw: Sure. Understandable.
As.
Kopkowski: Then the ones I put in the back there are just for employees.
April 14, 2020
29577
Mr. Wilshaw: Okay, great. Are there any questions for our petitioners
representative tonight?
Mr. Long: It is my understanding that you are going to work with the County
in order to close the driveway to nowhere.
Ms. Kopkowski: Yeah, your planner recommended that I get approval from you
and then work with Wayne County. That there was another case
in your city that went very smooth that was done that way. We
don't want to overly involve with Wayne County, but it doesn't
seem to be that it is going to be that big of a deal and it would
seem silly to have the driveway there if it is all grass.
Mr. Long: You still have two driveways, correct?
Ms. Kopkowski: Exactly. They would go in a circle. People could come in one
way and go out the other way. The one driveway is easy for the
dumpster to be picked up.
Mr. Long. Yeah, I can see that on the site plan. Thank you. I am in favor
of this.
As. Kopkowski: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other Commissioners wishing to ask a question? No other
questions from the Commission, is there anyone from the
audience wishing to speak for or against this item? If so, please
click the raise hand button to get our attention so we can give you
a chance to speak. I don't see anyone raising their hand, but I
will give them just a moment to do that. Seeing that there is no
one raising their hand, we always give the petitioner to give them
the last word. Ms. Kopkowski, is there anything else you would
like to add before we make our decision.
Ms. Kopkowski: I think I am all set. Thank you.
Mr.Wilshaw: Thank
you for
attending and if
you would
wait just a moment, I
will go
back to
our Commission
if there is a
motion
On a motion by McCue, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-18-2020 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on April 14, 2020, on Petition
2020-03-02-02 submitted by Unleashed Pet Care Real Estate
L.L.C. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section
10.03(f) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to operate a veterinary clinic at 9300 Middlebelt Road,
April 14, 2020
29578
located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road
and West Chicago Avenue in the Southwest'/ of Section 36, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2020-03-02-02 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the site plan submitted by Unleashed Pet Care, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
2. That the parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and restriped
as necessary to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department. Parking spaces shall be doubled striped at ten
feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20) in length.
3. That all light fixtures shall not exceed twenty feet (20') in
height and shall be shielded to minimize glare trespassing
on adjacent properties and roadways.
4. That the operation of the subject use shall not include the
overnight boarding or care of animals.
5. That all animal remains, medical and animal waste shall be
properly disposed of.
6. That adequate soundproofing shall be installed to the extent
necessary to insure the elimination of all noise from the
building.
7. That the use of open or outdoor runways, kennels or pens
are prohibited.
8. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of decorative masonry units or a poured wall
with textures and colors to match 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.
9. 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.
10. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows.
April 14, 2020
29579
11. 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
12. 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
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
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 #5 PETITION 2020-02-03-01 SCHOOLCRAFT COLLEGE
Or. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2020-
02-03-01 submitted by Zeimet Wozniak & Associates, on behalf
of Schoolcraft College, pursuant to Council Resolution #319-19
and Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City
of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate a
section of the existing water main easement within the
Schoolcraft College campus at 18600 Haggerty Road and 17950
College Parkway, located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Six Mile and Seven Mile Roads in the Northwest'% and
Southwest''/a of Section 7.
Mr. Taormina: This is a request by Schoolcraft College to vacate a portion of a
water main easement that is no longer needed. The college is in
the process of building a sports center on its campus in
partnership with St. Joseph Health System. It is a 74,000 sq. ft.
facility that will be located next to the college's existing Physical
Education building. Construction commenced late last year and
is expected to be finished later this year. Because the new sports
center is located over a part of an existing water main easement,
that water main has been rerouted and the section of the
easement needs to be vacated. No objections have been
received by either the Engineering Department or other public or
private utilities with an interest in this matter. There are two items
April 14, 2020
29580
of correspondence. The first letter is from the Treasurer's
Department, dated February 21, 2020, 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, I have no objections
to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer.
The next letter is from the Finance Department, dated February
11, 2020, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses
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
Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Our Petitioner
is here I believe. John Wright, and Julian Wargo. You are
welcome to introduce yourselves, name and address, and then
you can add anything you want to.
John Wright, Executive Director of Facilites at Schoolcraft College, 18600
Haggerty, Livonia, MI. We are here are just a housecleaning
type of thing. We have rerouted the water main to allow for the
new sports center and this is to vacate the old easement for the
water main, and with that Julian can give any other explanation
or if you have any questions I would be glad to answer them.
Julian Wargo, Ziemet & Wozniak, 55800 Grand River Ave., Ste. 100, New
Hudson, MI, I really don't have anything else to add, but
available for questions.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you both for being here through this long meeting. Do we
have any questions for our petitioners? As you mentioned, this
is a typical housekeeping item. If there are no questions then, I
will look for a motion.
On a motion by Long, seconded by Bongero, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-19-2020 RESOLVED, Petition 2020-02-03-01 submitted by Zeimet
Wozniak & Associates, on behalf of Schoolcraft College,
pursuant to Council Resolution #319-19 and Section 12.08 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended,
to determine whether or not to vacate a section of the existing
water main easement within the Schoolcraft College campus at
18600 Haggerty Road and 17950 College Parkway, located on
the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile and Seven Mile
Roads in the Northwest 'Y4 and Southwest 'Y4 of Section 7, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
April 14, 2020
29581
Council that Petition 2020-02-03-01 be approved for the following
reasons:
1. That no objections have been received in connection with
this request.
2. That the
vacating of the
subject easement will
remedy a
potential
encumbrance on
the title; and
3. The easement
is
no
longer
needed to serve the
development, as
a
new
looped
water main has already
been installed in
its
place.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2020-02-03-02 WOODHAVEN RETIREMENT
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2020-
02-03-02 submitted by Woodhaven Retirement Community,
pursuant to Council Resolution #61-20 and Section 12.08 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City of Livonia, as amended,
to determine whether or not to vacate a section of the existing
water main easement at 29667 Wentworth Avenue, located on
the south side of Wentworth Avenue, west of Middlebelt Road in
the Southeast'/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Taormina: This item is very similar to the last one. It's a request to vacate a
portion of a water main easement. The location is the Woodhaven
Retirement Community, a continuing care facility on the south
side of Wentworth just west of Middlebelt Road. The site is
divided into two parts: Woodhaven Skilled Nursing Center and
Woodpointe Independent Living Apartments. Woodhaven
encompasses the northern 2.7 acre of the site. It is zoned OS,
Office Services and consists of a one-story building that is about
55,000 sq.ft. in size with approximately 91 beds. Woodpointe
occupies the adjoining property to the south. It is 2.7 acres and
is zoned R-9, Housing for the elderly. The apartment building is
two -stories in height and about 43,000 sq. ft. in size with 22
dwelling units. Collectively, the nursing center and the apartment
April 14, 2020
29582
building is known at Woodhaven Retirement Community. It was
in 2016 that the City approved the expansion of Woodhaven's
Nursing and Rehabilitation facilities. It was that expansion that
necessitated the relocation of a fire hydrant that was served by a
public water main located within the dedicated easement. A
portion of the 20-foot wide easement extending for about 125 feet
is being vacated. The City Engineering Department has reviewed
this petition and has no objection with the request. The ordinance
for vacating utility easements first requires a public hearing by the
Planning Commission with a recommendation to City Council. A
notice of the petition has been given to all utilities and
communication companies with interest in the property. We have
two pieces of correspondence from within the City. The first letter
is from the Treasurer's Department, dated March 10, 2020, 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 next letter is from the
Finance Department, dated March 12, 2020, which reads as
follows: 'I have reviewed the addresses 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 Connie Kumpula, Chief
Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any questions for our Planning Director? 1 don't see any. Is the
petitioner or their representative here this evening, or anyone in
the audience wishing to speak for or against this item?
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, this is basically a housekeeping item that was
forwarded from our Engineering Department to our City Council.
That is why the petitioner is not present. In effect, the City is
submitting this request on behalf of Woodhaven Retirement
Community.
Mr. Wilshaw: Understandable. Thank you for that information. If there is no
one wishing to speak on this item, I will close the public hearing
and will look to the Commission for a motion.
On a motion by Bongero, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-20-2020 RESOLVED, ,Petition 2020-02-03-02 submitted by Woodhaven
Retirement Community, pursuant to Council Resolution #61-20
and Section 12.08 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances of the City
of Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to vacate a
section of the existing water main easement at 29667 Wentworth
April 14, 2020
29583
Avenue, located on the south side of Wentworth Avenue, west of
Middlebelt Road in the Southeast'% of Section 14, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2020-02-03-02 be approved for the following reasons:
That the subject easement is no longer needed for public
purposes.
That due to past improvements to the property the existing
watermain easement needs to be abandoned and
rerouted.
That the rerouting allows the placement of a fire hydrant in
a more appropriate location and this vacating conveys the
fire hydrant's relocation. and
No reporting City department or public utility has objected
to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2020-02-08-01 WESTERN WAYNE
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2020-
02-08-01 submitted by Ventura &Associates, on behalf of
Western Wayne Physicians requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18,58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended, regarding a proposal to construct an addition
and remodel the front entrance of the existing building at 15160
Levan Road, located on the east side of Levan Road between
Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northeast %4 of Section
20,
Mr. Taormina: This is a site plan petition involving an existing medical office
building on the east side of Levan on the south side of Five Mile
Road and across from St. Mary Mercy Hospital. This site is about
A acre in size and has 110 feet of road frontage by a depth 165
feet. The site, as you see, has two zoning classifications. The
north 40 feet is zoned C-1, while the remaining southerly portion
April 14, 2020
29584
which is where the existing building is located, is zoned OS,
Office Services. The existing building is L-shaped and is one-
story in height. It is about 2,220 sq. ft. in size and as you can see
from the aerial photograph, its position is close to the south
property line with parking on the north, west, and east sides of
the property. Two additions are proposed to the building. The
larger of the two measures about 590 sq, ft. and is in the
southwest corner of the building where it would effectively square
off the building without encroaching any further into the west or
to east of the existing building. This addition is to increase the
number of exam rooms. The second addition involves a new
main entryway which is in the northwest corner of the building.
This new feature would project about ten feet from the building
while providing an enclosed airlock as well as a vestibule for
persons entering the facilities reception and waiting area. This
smaller addition is only about 53 sq. ft. in area. Upon completion
the two additions would raise the total square footage of the
building to about 2,866 sq. ft. The proposed additions do comply
with all the height, and area requirements of the OS, Office
Services zoning district. Additional landscaping is shown along
the foundation of the building as well as the north property line
where there is an existing paved opening between this property
and the office to the north that would be removed. The parking
layout and the other existing landscaped areas would remain as
they currently exist. The total amount of landscaping for the site
is about 20%. In terms of required parking for medical clinics it is
based on 1 for every 110 sq. ft. of usable floor area. A total of 21
parking spaces are needed to comply with the City's parking
rules. This site plan provides a total of 23 parking spaces. In
terms of the exterior of the building, the outside of the existing
building contains mostly face brick and a mansard roof along the
north and west elevations. The exterior finish of the main addition
in the southwest corner would consist of a synthetic stone veneer.
Showing the elevation prints, the existing mansard roof across
the front elevation facing Levan Road would be removed and
replaced with a new parapet wall. That would be this elevation in
the bottom part of the drawing. New planter boxes would be
installed in the new entryway and the rest of the building would
remain as is. The general height is measured from the grade to
the top of the peak roof line of the new entrance. That would be
about 22 feet 3 inches. That is well below the height restrictions
in the OS district, which is 35 feet. We do not have any
information regarding signage so we cannot address those
issues at this time. I will just point out the new data that was
submitted for your packets includes this rendering, which I think
addresses some of the aesthetic issues of what the building
would look like, at least from the north side. There may be
April 1432020
29585
additional questions regarding the treatment along the back side
of that mansard roof, the part that will remain facing north. With
that we have a few pieces of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated Jan 30, 2020, 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 overall parcel
is assigned the address of #15160 Levan Road. The existing
building is currently serviced by public water main and sanitary
sewer, as well as private storm sewer. The submitted drawings
do not indicate revisions to the building services, so we do not
believe there will be any impacts to the existing systems. It
should be noted that the developer may be required to provide
storm water treatment based on the proposed areas of
disturbance, but that determination will be made once final plans
are submitted for permitting. Also, a soil erosion control permit
from this Department will be required for the project due to it's
proximity to the wetland and floodplain areas." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The next
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February
20, 2020, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an
addition and remodel the front entrance of the existing building
on property located at the above referenced address. We have
no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Gregory
Thomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the Division of
Police, dated February 14, 2020, which reads as follows: "/ have
reviewed the plans in connection with the petitions. I have two
concerns in regard to the proposals. My first concern is the
availability of parking spaces for the patients. The parking lot is
already limited to a small number of spots. I am concerned
there will not be enough spaces available for visiting patients
after the staff and office employees have parked their vehicles for
work. My second concern is the placement of the two handicap
parking spaces. I believe having handicap patients walk across
the parking lot in order to gain access to the entrance could pose
as a possible safety risk for them." The letter is signed by Scott
Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated March 3, 2020, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above -referenced petition
has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of
Inspection. The next letter is from the Treasurer's Department,
dated February 21, 2020, 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 outstanding amounts receivable for taxes.
April 1432020
29586
Therefore, / have no objections to the proposal." The letter is
signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The next letter is from the
Finance Department, dated February 11, 2020, 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 Connie Kumpula, Chief
Accountant. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you. Any questions for our Planning Director?
Ms. Smiley: Did you say we have sufficient parking there?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. The requirement is for 21 parking spaces and this plan has
23. 1 will note the concern raised by the Sargent of the Traffic
Bureau regarding placement of the barrier -free parking spaces.
There is a good chance that once our Inspection Department
views these plans that it would be determined that those would
have to be moved closer to the entrance. I'm not sure the
distance. It would appear that the spaces that are immediately to
the west of the entry would be closer and those are probably
where those spaces would be located.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our Planning Director? If not, is the
petitioner here with us tonight? If so, please click your raise hand
button. Mr. Taormina, looking at the list of names, I don't see
anyone that looks familiar for this particular petition.
Mr. Taormina: I apologize. I do not see them either. I believe the
remaining...Oh, we do have one.
Mr. Wilshaw: Oh, Mr. Kritzman. Let me add him to our meeting here. Good
evening, Mr. Kritzman.
Brandon Kritzman, Good evening everyone. I certainly cannot say that I was
intending on speaking this evening. If there is nobody there from
Ventrua Associates I will raise my hand. I am Vice President of
Detroit Architectural Group and as of January 1, 2020 we
purchased Ventura & Associates.
Mr. Wilshaw: That puts you in the qualified status I believe.
Mr. Kritzman: So, like I
said,
I was not planning on speaking this evening
and in
fact I did
not even
wasn't even aware that this item was
on the
agenda.
I was
simply checking in out of curiosity of what is going
April 14, 2020
29587
on in my own community. If there are any questions I could
answer I would be more than happy to do so.
Mr. Wishaw: Thank you. I appreciate you being here and being able to speak
to this item to some extent. Again, Mr. Kritzman, for our record
can you give us your business address?
Mr. Kritzman: Detroit Architectural Group, 1644 Ford Ave., Wayndotte, MI
48192.
Mr. Wilshaw: Perfect. Thank you. Is there any questions for our petitioner's
unexpected representative?
Ms. Smiley: Did you do the work on this building, Mr. Kritzman?
Mr. Kritzman: No, I did not. By the time the merger of the two companies
happened, this project was already in the works. There have
been small changes made to it since the time, I would say since
the beginning of the year I believe this project has gone through
ZBA or maybe first round through the Planning Commission? In
any case, I did not have any direct work on the project.
Ms. Smiley: Thank you.
Mr: Wilshaw: Thank you. Any other questions? I don't see anyone else asking
any other questions. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
speak for or against this item? If so, please click the raise hand
button. I don't see anybody doing that. So, with that I will leave
this up to the Commission's preference if they would like to move
forward with this item. Typically, if the petitioner is not here we
tend to table items, but since we do have extenuating
circumstances give how this format of this meeting is, you have a
representative from the petitioner here, so it is the Commission's
prerogative. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Long, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-21-2020 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2020-02-08-01
submitted by Ventura & Associates, on behalf of Western Wayne
Physicians requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended,
regarding a proposal to construct an addition and remodel the
front entrance of the existing building at 15160 Levan Road,
located on the east side of Levan Road between Lyndon Avenue
and Five Mile Road in the Northeast %of Section 20, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
April 14, 2020
29588
1. The Site Plan identified as Sheet Number Al dated
February 5, 2020 prepared by Ventura & Associates
Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
2. All parking spaces, except the required barrier free
parking, shall be striped at ten feet (10') wide by twenty
feet (20') in length as required, and the number and
location of the barrier free parking space(s) shall be
provided at the direction of the Inspection Department,
3. The Landscape Plan identified as Sheet No. L-1 dated
February 3, 2020, as revised, prepared by Conroy and
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
4. All disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding.
5. Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas including the rights -of -way,
and all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
6. The Exterior Building Elevation Plan identified as Sheet
Number A3 dated February 5, 2020 prepared by Ventura
& Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
7. The Exterior Building Elevation Plan showing the north
and south elevations identified as A-3 dated January 21,
2020, as revised, prepared by N.C. Designers &
Contracting Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to.
8. 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.
9. Any new light fixtures shall not exceed a height of twenty
feet (20') from grade at the base of the light and shall be
aimed and shielded to minimize stray light trespassing
across property lines or on adjacent roadways.
10. That the three walls of
the trash
dumpster
area shall be
constructed out of
building
materials
that shall
April 143 2020
29589
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 be maintained and when not in use closed at all
times.
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. 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
13. 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.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Ventura: I would like the record to show that the petitioner has no relation
to me or my family now or any time in the past.
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #8 PETITION 2020-03-08-02
LINCOLN DENTAL
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2020-
03-08-02 submitted by Lincoln Dental requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, regarding a proposal to construct
an addition to the existing building at 28000 and 28024 Joy Road,
located on the north side of Joy Road between Inkster Road and
Harrison Avenue in the Southeast'/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Taormina: This petition involves the expansion of the existing office building
which is located at 28000 Joy Road, which is on the north side
between Floral and Deering Avenues. This site is comprised of
two parcels that together measure approximately 2,210 feet
along Joy Road by a depth of 175 feet along the abutting side
street, which is Deering Avenue. The total site area is about
36,800 sq. ft. It is approximately 0.8 acres. Both parcels are
April 14, 2020
29590
zoned C-2, General Business and in the C-2 districts, offices
including medical are treated as a permitted land use. The
existing one-story office building is about 3,470 sq. ft. It is
positioned on the west side of the property of what is the original
parcel 28000 Joy Road. The adjacent westerly parcel, which is
28024 Joy Road is vacant and was recently acquired by the
petitioner from the City. Parking, as you can see, is located on
the east, south, and north sides of the building. The principal use
in this case will be dentistry purposes. The addition would be on
the west side of the building. It is one-story in height and about
1250 sq. ft. in size. That would bring the total area of the building
up to approximately 4,700 sq. ft. The expanded building area
includes treatment rooms, as well as staff lounge, laundry room,
mechanical room, and lavatory. The addition does match the
front setback of the original building, which is in compliance with
the C-2 district regulations. The rear yard abuts the side yard of
two residential properties on the north side. That is where the
minimum required setback is 20 feet, and in this case the setback
would be 42 feet, which is also in compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. Along the west side of the property the setback would
be over 50 feet in length. Other than the addition, there would be
no other site improvements are proposed or planned. The
parking area, the landscaping areas, as well as the single
driveway out to Joy Road would all remain as it currently exists.
Required parking in this case is one space for every 110 sq. ft. of
usable floor area. As proposed, the use requires 35 parking
spaces, which the site plan shows. The revised site plan also
shows conforming 10 foot wide spaces. As you will recall from
our study meeting some of those spaces were shown as nine
feet. Those have been adjusted to meet that 10 foot requirement.
Where this site abuts to residential on the north, the ordinance
requires a five to seven foot high masonry wall. There is a six
foot high masonry wall along the north side of the property at
28000 Joy Road. The plan shows the continuation of this wall to
the west. Again, this would be a six foot high precast concrete
wall. It would match the existing wall and would be placed along
the north property line of 28024 Joy Road. There would be a
continuous wall along the north side of the property where it abuts
a residential district. The existing building contains face brick,
with an asphalt shingle peaked roof. The addition would be
constructed with a face brick that would match the existing
building. In addition, the roof of the expanded area would match
the building. The finished one-story structure would have a
general height of 21 feet. No information was provided on
signage so we really can't comment on that. With that, I can read
out the correspondence.
April 14, 2020
29591
Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please.
Mr. Taormina: The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 17,
2020, 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 submitted by the owner appears to be
correct, and should be used, should the petition be approved. The
parcels are assigned the addresses of #28000 and #28024 Joy
Road. The proposed development is currently serviced by public
water main, sanitary and storm sewers. The owner has been in
contact with this office regarding the project, and is aware of the
Engineering Department requirements. It should be noted that
the vacant lot on the west side of the site was once the location
of a pumping station for the Detroit Water and Sewer Authority.
Although the facility is no longer on the site, we do not have any
records of the demolition of the structure to know if there may still
be foundations in the ground. Also, permits may be required from
the Wayne County Department of Public Services for any work
within the Joy Road right-of-way. A full review of the proposed
development will be completed when plans are submitted for
permitting." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Assistant
City Engineer. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated March 17, 2020, which reads as follows: `This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to construct an addition to the existing building on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by
GregoryThomas, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from the
Division of Police, dated March 19, 2020, 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 Scott
Sczepanski, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the
Treasurer's Department, dated March 17, 2020, 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 next letter is from the Finance Department, dated
March 16, 2020, which reads as follows: "I 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
Connie Kumpula, Chief Accountant. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
April 14, 2020
29592
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Any questions for our Planning staffs
Not hearing any questions for Mr. Taormina, Mr. Kalabat is here
representing the petitioner. We will need your name and address
for the record please.
Jamal Kalabat, Kalabat Engineering, 31333 Southfield Rd, Ste. 250, Beverly Hills,
MI. Just to echo a few of the things that Mr. Taormina mentioned
in his introduction, the proposed building addition is at 1,250 sq.
ft. It was chosen because it would not have any additional
parking requirements imposed on the project, so therefore there
are no other site improvements that are proposed at this time. In
our discussion with the Engineering Department, they were
concerned with increasing impervious surfaces and the additional
storm water runoff that it would create. We do have in addition to
a roof sump coming from the proposed addition a yard drain
shown and also an oversize storm water pipe that would properly
detain that additional storm water. The necessary calculations
and documentation will be submitted during construction permits.
Also, the catch basin that it connects to will be replaced with a
pre-treatment structure in accordance with the Engineering
Department. This property is currently developed without any
treatment of any of its storm water, so that would help bring that
into compliance as well. We also do have one other item that I
don't think I heard was that we have relocated the gas and electric
services currently at the building because they are currently on
the west side of the building so they will have to relocate them to
the north in order to allow the proposed addition to be
constructed. Aside from the, I am here to answer any questions
that you have. I think there were a couple comments from the
study meeting which we revised and addressed here with the plan
you are looking at.
Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, and I appreciate your comments and being here. Are
there any questions from the Commissioners? Any questions or
comments on this petition? I don't' hear any. Is there anybody in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? They
are welcome to raise their hand. Seeing no one raising their hand,
and there are no questions for our petitioner, a motion would be
in order.
On a motion by Ventura, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was
#04-22-2020 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2020-03-08-02
submitted by Lincoln Dental requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended, regarding a proposal to construct an addition
April 14, 2020
29593
to the existing building at 28000 and 28024 Joy Road, located on
the north side of Joy Road between Inkster Road and Harrison
Avenue in the Southeast'/ of Section 36, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The Site Plan identified as Sheet Number C3.0 dated March
12, 2020 prepared by Kalabat Engineering, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
2. All parking spaces, except the required barrier free parking,
shall be striped at ten feet (10') wide by twenty feet (20') in
length as required, and the number and location of the
barrier free parking space(s) shall be provided at the
direction of the Inspection Department.
3. The Landscape Plan identified as Sheet Number C3.0 dated
March 12, 2020 prepared by Kalabat Engineering, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to.
4. All disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding.
5. Underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas including the rights -of -way,
and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
6. The Exterior Building Elevation Plan identified as Sheet
Number A-2 dated February 5, 2020 prepared by JSK
Design Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
7. That all electric and gas meters and any other exposed utility
services or meter boxes shall be properly screened with
deciduous type landscape material, subject to the approval
of the Planning and Inspection Departments.
8. Any new light fixtures shall not exceed a height of twenty
feet (20') from grade at the base of the light and shall be
aimed and shielded to minimize stray light trespassing
across property lines or on adjacent roadways.
9. 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
April 14, 2020
29594
fiberglass. The trash dumpster area shall be maintained
and when not in use closed at all times.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. If this site is not required to have an outdoor trash dumpster
area, all trash must be contained within the building except
on the day trash is scheduled for removal.
13. If the site is ever required to utilize an outdoor trash
dumpster, 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 and the trash dumpster area shall be
maintained and when not in use closed at all times.
14. 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 end of said period.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Caramagno: Was there a provision for a dumpster or dumpster
enclosure? Is it really on the plan? I thought they
were going to put there rubbish to the curb on
collection day?
Mr. Kalabat: In accordance with Mr. Caramagno's question at
the study meeting, we did add some notes to the
plan. The trash will be set out on trash pick-up
days. There is no need for a dumpster enclosure
or a dumpster to be located on the site. So, I think
to his question the motion could be revised to say
that is a dumpster is required at a future date, that
those requirements be met. As it is proposed now,
April 1432020
29595
there would not be a dumpster enclosure or a
permanent dumpster on the property.
Mr. Caramagno: That is fine.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura, did you want to make any changes to
the motion?
Mr. Ventura: I agree with the petitioner. Let's have the resolution
show that should a dumpster area be required on
the site, that it will conform.
Mr. Taormina: If I may add something,
Mr. Chairman. I think it is
important in this case
that the review by the
Planning Department as to its location and proper
screening. What I want
to avoid is that it be visible
from either Joy Road or
Deering Road to the extent
possible, but then if it is
going to be placed behind
the building then we
have the issue with the
residents. We have to
have the proper screening
around any structure
to meet all of those
requirements. We can
add that language to the
approving resolution if there
is no objection.
Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Ventura, you are okay with that?
Mr. Ventura: I certainly am. I think it is a good suggestion.
Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. McCue, you are alright with that?
Mr. McCue: Yes.
Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion on the motion?
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 #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,154th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
April 14, 2020
29596
Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of
the Minutes of the 1,154th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on January 28, 2020.
On a motion by Ventura, seconded by Caramagno, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#04-23-2020 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,154th Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January
28, 2020, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Long, McCue, Bongero, Caramagno, Wilshaw
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Smiley, Ventura
Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion
duly made, seconded
and unanimously
adopted, the 1,155'h
Public.
Hearings and
Regular Meeting held
on April 14, 2020,
was adjourned
at 8:50 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Sam Caramagno, Secretary
ATTEST:
Ian Wilshaw, Chairman