HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2001-10-3018905
MINUTES OF THE 830 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 30, 2001, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 830 Pudic Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine Linda Dolan
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Bill
Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Margie Roney, Secretary, were also present
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, 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 hasten days in which to appeal the decision, in writ ng, 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 fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2001-09-0140 AIIie Investment Co.
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
2001-09-01-10 by AIIie Investment Company requesting to rezone
property located on the east side of Fremont Avenue between
Norfolk Avenue and Bretton Road in the Northeast%of Section 2
from RUF-A to R-1.
18906
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under pefilion plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Taormina: There are no sanitary sewers available to this site. A similar
request was presented to the Planning Commission to split this
property in May of 2000 in order to establish a 70' wide building
site. That petition was denied by the Council.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any sanitary sewer north of Norfolk?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not sure precisely where the sewer is available to the north of
this site. Maybe that's something that the applicant could provide
additional information on.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are two items of correspondence. It first dem is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 28, 2001, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-referencedpetition. We have no objections
to the proposal or the legal descriptions contained therein at this
time. It should be noted that sanitary sewers are not available to
the parcel. Therefore if the developeris looking to split the lots in
the future, they would need to obtain permits from Wayne County
for septic systems, as well as determining where the existing
septic field and tank are located to determine if easements will be
necessary. Also, the developer will need to find alternate
methods of drainage as no storm sewers are available to the
parcel." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer.
Also, there was a letter of objection to the rezoning from Owen
and Betty Johnson, 29425 Norfolk Street. That is the extent of
the conespondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
John AIIie, 45955 Pickford, Northville Township, Michigan 48167.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. AIIie, could you tell us about your project and what you're
looking to do?
Mr. AIIie:
Basically, we're just planning on rezoning the property. We've
already petitioned to have a sewer put in.
Mr. McCann:
It is my understanding that you're going to build one addifional
home on that property?
18907
Mr. Allie: Yes.
Mr. McCann: You would not be removing the current home for any reason,
would you?
Mr. Allie:
None at all.
Mr. McCann:
So essentially, you wanllo splillhe lot off to build one single
family residence?
Mr. Allie:
Exactly.
Mr. McCann:
Would your plans change ifthe sewer permit does not go
through?
Mr. Allie:
Well, it's my understanding thatwe may not be able to build ifwe
do not have a sewer.
Mr. McCann:
Isee.
Mr. Shane:
Hello, John. Where would you be tapping into a sanitary sewer?
Mr. AIIie:
Presently we're pefitioning and talking to the Water and Sewer
Board to try and make some arrangements to make that
determination. I believe it runs along Norfolk just north of
Fremont, but I'm not 100% sum.
Mr. La Pine:
For some reason or another, I was underlhe impression that
there was a sanitary sewer north on Norfolk.
Mr. Taormina:
I have located the map identifying the closest available sanitary
sewer, and itis located along Norfolk Avenue to the north of this
property.
Mr. La Pine:
So he could hook onto that conceivably and bring it down the rest
of the way?
Mr. Taormina:
It is possible to bring that sewer further to the south in order to
service this particular site. Obviously, there would be some
expense to do that. Some of the figures that were provided by the
Public Service Division estimated that cost at about $40,000 but
that would have extended the sewer further to the south in order
to service all the remaining lots along Fremont that are not
presently served by sewer.
18908
Mr. LaPine:
My next question would be, assuming that a sewer line was put
through, would the people on septic tanks now be required to tap
into that sewer after a certain amount of time. Isn't that the way
our ordinance is set up?
Mr. Taormina:
There is an ordinance in place. As I understand it, the City does
have a requirement that where sanitary sewer is available, that
you are required within 18 months to lap into that. There may be
some provisions of the Water and Sewer Board to grant waivers
and, in fad, they have done that in the past. Whether or not
those waivers would be extended to the homeowners along
Fremont Avenue is something that I would not be able to answer
at this time.
Mr. LaPine:
My next question is for you, Mr. AIIie. Can you tap into the sewer
on your property along Middlebelt?
Mr. AIIie:
Truthfully, I have not investigated that. Normally, I come to the
City and I ask for advice, and they tell us what we can do and
what we can't do.
Mr. LaPine:
One more question. If everything goes through and you were
able to build this house, what type of home are you going to build
there? Do you know that at this point?
Mr. AIIie:
I would like to conform as much as possible with what's there.
Mr. Piercecchr
With the typical prevailing lots sizes in the area of 75' x 140',
which you are asking to be rezoned to 70'x 120', would you
object to an approval based on an R-2 zoning?
Mr. AIIie:
No, we wouldn't object.
Mr. Piercecchr
You would not object. Okay, thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Anything further, Mr. AIIie, before I go to the audience?
Mr. AIIie:
No. Thank you for your time.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition?
Carolyn O'Brien, 20214 Fremont. I currently have a farm zone status. I
understand that if this was approved, I would lose that status.
18909
Also, we were just before everybody a year ago. This was turned
down. Curentiy at the last meeting we attended, we were told
that we had to go before the Water and Sewer Board before this
could be approved. A year ago, the site owner at that time
approached it by trying to split the land. He was told he couldn't
do that without sewers. Most of the residents on that half of the
street do not want to connect or I should say all of them do not
want to conned to the sewer. And we're currently before the
Water Board. There's a meeting I think next week in which the
issue of the water and sewer is going to be raised again. We
were just here a year ago. This was voted down. I don't
understand why its been brought up again within a year's time.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina might be able to clarifythat issue foryou.
Mr. Taormina: In terms of why this petition is before you?
Mr. McCann: Maybe I can. I believe you were before the City Council and that
was for a lot split.
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. McCann:
This is a different situation. It is requesting that the property be
rezoned to an R-1 or, in this case, he's agreed to increase it to a
70' fool lot to make it R-2. This is a rezoning process. The
Planning Commission is not involved in lot splits so we really don't
know what happened
last year with the Council and the lot split.
The rezoning
is to see whether or not this zoning is appropriate
for the area and circumstances around the area and to hear the
residents concerns as to why it should or should not be rezoned.
Ms. O'Brian:
I guess my question is then at that point, what happens to my
zoning?
Mr. McCann:
Nothing. It remains the same. It does not affect you. The only
rezoning of property that Mr. Allie has brought before us is his
property.
Ms. O'Brien:
Okay. And then with regard to that, I was under the
understanding that nothing could be built on that lot unless there
were sewers.
Mr. McCann:
That maybe the case, ma'am. Really the zoning isn't conditioned
on there being sewers, but it is a topic that we are looking at
based on the notes that were presented by the Planning Director
and by the letter that we received from Mr. and Mrs. Johnson.
18910
Everybody received a copy of the letter and we are looking at
those concems.
Ms. O'Brien:
Okay. That was my major concem. It seems like every year I'm
back before some committee over the same property, the same
lot; and I'm just wondering why it's meeting after meeting after
meeting over the same issue every year. Thank you.
Cheryl Leverenz,
20249 Fremont, right across the street from the subject
property. I believe my property is not zoned farm. We moved in
there a year and a half ago. We like the feel, the openness, the
other neighbors. Several of the others neighbors, I understand,
do have a zone with farm in it.
Mr. McCann:
What's your address, ma'am?
Ms. Leverenz:
20249 Fremont.
Mr. McCann:
Would you be the second home north of Clarenceville?
Ms. Leverenz:
No, the third.
Mr. McCann:
Is there a home in that R-1? Okay, so you're designation is
actually smaller than ...
Ms. Leverenz:
Yes. However, we like the feel of the neighborhood and the
people. Our main concern then at our house, my husband and I,
is the sewer issue. And I understand how they're tied together.
Although you aren't tied in with that, that's a concem of ours. And
we have a septic that's working properly and was checked before
we moved in. We have had no issues with it. And my
understanding is that there was an ordinance passed in the spring
with Wayne County that says if there is sewer put in, we do not
have to be up with it. So many of my neighbors, five houses
worth, believe that's the underlying issue for us. However, we're
concerned with this as the first step and that as the second step.
Mr. McCann:
Isee.
Ms. Leverenz:
Thank you for your time.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you, maam.
Janet Rawson,
20237 Fremont, which is just south of Cheryl's house.
Mr. McCann:
Okay, that's an R-3 zone.
18911
Ms. Rawson: Yeah, I'm not zoned farm either. My concern here is again lot
size. And when you're talking aboutthe prevailing areas being
75'x 130', 1 don't believe thatthis property can be split at the 70'
orthe R-2 zoning because ofwhere the location ofthe current
residence is on that property. And that was one of the issues that
got turned down last time and that's why they couldn't do the split
that they wanted to do. There's not enough frontage or side or
whatever easement to do that. So it's an R-1 which is the 60'
which makes it a smaller lot and again. The houses in that area,
if you're saying you want to conform to the houses in that area,
they are unique homes. Theyre actually all older homes and very
different styles. It's not a typical subdivision. It would be hard to
state what that conformity might look like. Again, I've been in the
area 10 years and moved into that neighborhood because of the
way it looked and the way it felt. We just really hate to see all
these changes, the sewer, the rezoning, the lot size, the new
homes. It might cause me to move elsewhere. But please check
the sizing of the lot because I really believe...
Mr. McCann:
He would have to comply. If, in fad, an R-2 zoning went through,
he would have to have a 70' lot before he could proceed.
Ms. Rawson:
And where the current home is, I dont think you can do that. I
might be afraid that then we'd be talking about tearing down
current homes and really changing the feel of the neighborhood.
Mr. McCann:
All right. We'll look at that. Thank you.
Ms. Rawson:
Thank you for your consideration.
Robert German, 30611 Munger.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. German, you are actually a petitioner in this, are you not?
Mr. German:
I guess you could say I'm associated with the petitioner, yes. I
only wanllo clear up one item.
Mr. McCann:
Okay, that's fine. I'm going to ask for your comments after
anyway but if you want to give it now, that's okay.
Mr. German:
I think the lady is incorrect when she states there's not a 70' lot
there. There is a 70' lot which would not encroach on the existing
building that's there now. If I'm not mistaken, there would be a
12'side yard on the existing house, actually the garage, and then
there would be a 70' clear lot. And as you can see from the map,
18912
most of the properties in that area range from R-1, which is right
across the street which would be a 60' minimum, to an R3, which
would bean 80' minimum, and the properly directly....
Mr. McCann:
Mr. German, we're all provided with a complete map of all the
different zoning in the area where the homes sit, and we've
studied that pretty closely.
Mr. German:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or
againstthis petition? I'm going to close the public hearing seeing
no one. Do you have a last comment for us, Mr. Attie?
Mr. AIIie:
No, thank you.
Mr. McCann:
I have a question forthe staff. Mr. AIIie, I believe, owns the
building directly east of this lot. Is that corred?
Mr. Taormina:
Directly to the east is commercial zoned properly.
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not aware of exactly which parcels he owns with frontage
along Middlebelt Road.
Mr. McCann:
If in fact that were his property, would he be able to ... I'm sure
that has sewers, but I guess accessing them would be difficult. Is
that a possibility?
Mr. Taormina:
That's something we did not investigate. Its something that
certainly the Water and Sewer Board might want to take a look at
when they convene on November 8 to review this matter.
Mr. McCann:
It appears that the rest of the neighbors ...
Mr. Taormina:
I'm assuming that the sewer along Middlebelt would be along
Middlebelt Road itself and there's probably a lead that services
the commercial buildings there, so there would have to be
provisions for an easement that would extend all the way through
the lot to get to the rear of this property. Whether or not that's
feasible, given the location of the buildings, I'm not sure.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. AIIie, I have a question for you. Could you come forward
please? It appears that the sanitary sewer is a major concern to
18913
the neighbors, and from your comment earlier, you would not be
able to build a home unless you do have the sanitary sewers.
Mr. Allie:
That's my understanding at the moment.
Mr. McCann:
I guess what I'm thinking then is maybe this isjust slightly
premature until you find out whether or not in fad the sewer is
going to come down. If the sewer is coming down, then the
zoning may be appropriate. I'd hate to rezone the property if, in
fad, there's no sewerthere and there's not going to be any
building going on. Do you see what I'm saying?
Mr. AIIie:
Yes. I think we kind of simultaneously applied to do both, and
we're to appear I believe on November 8 "with the Water and
Sewer Board.
Mr. McCann:
And did you look althe possibility of connecting the sewers ...
you own the building directly...
Mr. AIIie:
Yes, yes.
Mr. McCann:
And there's just no way of putting the sewers through?
Mr. AIIie:
We'd be more than happy to investigate that. We have no
objection. We would like to have the least amount of grief with
anybody. We've been there for 30 years and never had any
problems. We would like to continue in that vein.
Mr. McCann:
I understand. Maybe it'd be appropriate just to table this for a
couple weeks and then take a look and see what happens with
the Sewer Board ifthal's okay.
Mr. AIIie:
Sounds okay wdh me.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order if there are no other comments.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, I think its the right move. I'll move to table it until
the next meeting.
Mr. McCann:
The 20" is the next meeting.
Mr. LaPine:
We only have four more meetings before the end ofthe year.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, I want to get it on the next available meeting. November 20"'
is the next meeting. Is that okay, Mr. Taormina?
18914
Mr. Taormina: Yes, much better than the December meetng.
On a moton by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-170-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on
Pefition 2001-09-01-10, submitted by Allie Investment Company,
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Fremont
Avenue between Norfolk Avenue and Bretton Road in the
Northeast%of Section 2 from RUF-A to R-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2001-09-01-10
be tabled until the next Regular Meeting of November 20, 2001.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. This will be tabled to the November 20"
meeting. There is no audience participation at that meeting unless
you have unanimous consent from the Planning Commission
because we've already looked at it three or four times. Hopefully,
some of the other issues that you're concerned about can be
resolved or we can have final answers by that meeting to determine
what to do.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2001-09-0247 Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Pefition
2001-09-02-17 by Enterprise Rent-A-Car requesting waiver use
approval to operate a rental car business at the intersection of
Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail between Newburgh and
Richland Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 31.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated Seplember28, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The following approximate legal
description should be usedin connection therewith." The letter is
signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is
from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 19, 2001,
which reads as follows: This office has reviewed the site plan
18915
submitted in connection with a request to operate an automobile
rental facility on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated September28, 2001, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans as submitted for
the proposed automobile rental facility. We have no objections to
the plans as submitted. One parking space will be needed that
must be signedpercity ordinance for handicap parking. Stop
signs will also need to be property posted at the exits." The letter
is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 10, 2001,
which reads as follows: "Pursuantto yourrequestof September
25, 2001, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This petition will need the following
variances from the Zoning Board ofAppeals: (a) his not clear
the exact square footage of the lot. 21,780 square feetis
required. As this site is approximately 12,000 square feet orless,
a variance for deficient area will be required. (b) Parking within
20 feet of the front and side setbacks, which is not allowed. (2)
The landscaping on this site needs maintenance and there is no
mention ofirrigation on the plan. (3) The asphalt needs
maintenance, resealing and double striping. (4) The plan shall
show vehicle storage and customerparking and numberof
vehicles. (5) The plan does not denote required parking blocks
near all sidewalks and should be rectified to reflect the blocks and
to ensure that no vehicles have to back over a sidewalk. (6) The
plan shows a fence around the dumpster area when itis a block
wall. 1 trust this provides the requested information." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Harvey Stewart, 8712 Via Riale, Boca Raton, Florida 33496. I'm the owner of the
property. The reason why I'm here basically is to backup what
Enterprise wants to doto the property, which is totally making it
more sightly, if you will. The reason why the property has been
vacant is because I would not rent it to another gasoline station,
which we could have done several times. But with what
Enterprise is planning to do, it would be a major improvement to
the property, and there is I believe plenty of parking available for
what they need to do. The question here is the setback. So
anything that we can do to make it more tenable for the
Commission, we're willing to do. Al this point, I'd like to tum it
over and let you see what they have in mind.
15916
Mr. McCann: Sir, name and address.
Jim Clem, 29301 Grand River, Farmington Hills, Michigan. That's our
administrative headquarters for Enterprise Rent -a -Car. What we
would like to do on this site, I don't know if you're familiar with our
site near Plymouth and Merriman, but in 1987 Enterprise opened
their first office in the State of Michigan that was in Livonia. And
what we'd like to do now is open oursecond office in the City of
Livonia and we noticed this piece of property. We think it would
work great. We have an office near Plymouth and Merriman. We
have an office over in Canton on Lilley Road. And we have an
office inside the Cadillac dealership. We're servicing the area
around Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail from primarily our
Livonia office. And this office would allow us to have a smaller
facility to service that area. You have a couple dealerships not
too far away from there. We primarily service people whose cars
are in the shop being repaired. So we see great potential to
renovate this site and operate a successful business in Livonia
out of there.
Mr. Alanskas
Sir, on your other satellites, him many cars do you average a day
renting ... on Merriman Road and Plymouth or any ofyour
satellites?
Mr. Olexa:
It depends on the size of the area that they service. The one at
Plymouth and Merriman is a pretty large facility. We own that
property. This one we would be renting and I would anticipate ten
cars a day being rented out of here.
Mr. Alanskas:
At this facility?
Mr. Olexa:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where do your cars come from? From the airport?
Mr. Olexa:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where do they come from?
Mr. Olexa:
We have over 100 offices throughout Metro Detroit, and we share
the cars amongst all ofthose facilities.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now if you rent len cars per day and you only have space to park
five cars, what would you do with the other five as they come in?
18917
Mr. Olexa: Typically, we'll rent cars right at 8:00 a.m. People need them to
go to work. And then we'll be out of cars. Around 4:00 p.m.
they'll return three or four cars. We'll get them ready and re -rent
them before we dose. So its a constant rotation of existing cars.
Mr. Alanskas:
How about the other six? You said four would come back and
you'd have six lett.
Mr. Olexa:
On an average, you could say len a day. Again, one day you
might do nine, the other day four. It fluctuates, but we share the
same pod of cars unlike other people that are in our industry,
other companies. We share the same pool of cars and move
them freely from one location to the other.
Mr. Alanskas:
So what you're saying is that you'd never have more than five
cars there at one time?
Mr. Olexa:
Al this locafion.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right, thank you.
Mr. Shane:
How many employees would you have?
Mr. Olexa:
Three employees.
Mr. Shane:
Three?
Mr. Olexa:
Yes. As far as the parking goes, one of the employees is the
branch manager and that person drives a company vehide home
every night. So they don't have a personal vehicle that they
would be parking atthe office.
Mr. Shane:
Are you aware of all the site deficiencies that were noted in the
letter?
Mr. Olexa:
Yes. Actually, I did not receive a copy of the letter but of the
deficiencies, based on what some of the prior uses were for this
piece of land, I feel confident thatwe could operate our business
successfully there. There's ample space for us to do so and we
would greatly enhance that piece of property for the City including
added landscaping and renovating the structure that's there now.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, according to our notes it says there's ten parking spaces.
The site plan that I have shows 13. What's the deficiency?
I :'
Mr. Taormina: That was our error. There are, in fad, 13 spaces provided on the
site, ten of which would be utilized for the rental vehicles and
three for the employees.
Mr. McCann:
What about customer parking, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
As I understand it, most of the vehicles are brought directly to the
customers. Maybe Mr. Olexa could clarify that.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Olexa, I've used your Merriman and Plymouth facility. I've
used the one at Lilley Road for the Lincoln Mercury dealership.
I've used it on multiple occasions. I've had my secretary drive
over and bring me. I've had different people drop me off, or I've
had you deliver cars. If you're averaging ten vehicles a day out of
this store, if you've got three or four on the lot, five or six people
bring them in, and you've got three employees. The math doesn't
add up. Have you talked at all to the business behind you about
leasing some space? I just don't think you have enough space.
Mr. Olexa:
That is an option. The owner of the business behind us is ... the
property is here as well ... again, its hard to explain what we do.
It's kind of like a stock exchange. The cars come and go, come
and go, and when one's coming in, we usually have the next
waiting customer lined up for that. If you've rented from us
before, perhaps you might have experienced that. Utilization
management is whalwe call it.
Mr. McCann:
Yeah, I know, but I've also been in line there waiting to be
serviced. And I'm there, theyre there, and we both have
someone waiting torus to pick us up or drop us off. If we're
dropping off a car, then you've got two more cars and you've got
three employee cars, you've gotten cars ... you're going to have
cars parked everywhere. Its just not going to fl.
Mr. Stewart:
Behind the existing building is the regular parking lot for the entire
development, the shopping center, which includes two stores,
which is a Mike's Markel and the Rite Aid drugstore. Directly
behind this building (this is the back side of the building) is a full
complement of parking spaces which is never used by anybody.
Mr. McCann:
Who owns the property?
Mr. Stewart:
I do. It's all part of this.
18919
Mr. McCann: What we're going to need to do then is to determine whether or
not there's ample parking for the mall behind you. Is there? Have
we looked at that?
Mr. Taormina: I did look at that. I do not have the numbers in front of me. There
may not be a sufficient number of parking spaces per the
ordinance to at low for the type of parking arrangement that you're
considering there. In fad, I visited the site today and there were a
number of cars parked along the back of that building. I'm not
sure that there are a number of free spaces available on the
adjacent site.
Mr. Stewart: I was at the site today also. I flew in from Florida today and
stopped at the shopping center to see what was going on there.
Primarily we had a light pole knocked down and I wanted to check
to make sure that was being repaired. But when I was there, I
went into the market and they had quite a few customers there.
There was no parking beyond the first row and the second now
across the facing of that shopping center. The third row, the
fourth row, all the way up to the back at this building was totally
empty. There wasn't one car there. On the side of the market,
there were parked maybe six cars. On that side you have two
handicap spaces. There was one handicap vehde in those.
There was nothing else parked on that side. There was maybe
25 or 30 cars parked there when I was there.
Mr. McCann: I dont mean to cul you off, but what we have to do is look at the
ordinance. And sometimes particular uses won't use all the
parking; others will. But uses change. And we try to keep with
the ordinance. And sometimes we can vary from the ordinance or
send it to the ZBA to vary from the ordinance. In this case, what I
was looking at is your easement. You have a 20' setback. If we
use the front parking for customers and employees, and then had
the car storage out behind, it might work but I think that's an issue
that needs more consideration. We would have to locate exactly
what the numbers are in order to determine whether or not the
shortage would be something the ZBA would consider.
Mr. Stewart: I have no idea what the ordinance is for providing parking. We've
owned that shopping center for 20 years and I have never ever
seen that parking lot full.
Mr. McCann: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, the regulation in the ordinance regarding rental
cars being parked at least 20 feet from the right -0f --way line ...
18920
are we talking about display of rental cars or anytime a rental car
parks there it has to be 20' back?
Mr. Taormina:
It is my understanding that any parking ofvehides that are being
used for rental purposes would have to be setback at least 20'.
Actually it says, "No vehicle shall be parked within 20' from the
front lot line or at the side lot line adjacent to a street." That would
apply to the use in general, so that could be interpreted to mean
both vehicles that are intended to be rented as well as any
customer parking spaces.
Mr. Shane:
So if you were to attempt to meet the building ordinance in that
respect, do you know how many car spaces you would lose?
Mr. Taormina:
You would lose most of the spaces. Just the way the parking lot
is oriented, there would be only a few spaces remaining on the
site if you were made to comply with that 20' setback requirement.
Mr. Alanskas:
What type of a lease are you getting on this property? How many
years?
Mr. Olexa:
We usually sign two or three in five year segments. We look fora
minimumoften. But the facility in Livonia at Plymouth and
Merriman started with a five-year lease and now we bought the
property, so we have no intention of renovating this, adding all the
landscaping and leaving any time soon. We would plan on
staying there ten years easily.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's a very strange piece of property, and it's been vacant for over
a year. As one of the Commissioners, I would like to make sure
we fill it up. But we have to make sure that it's conforming usage
also. You're not doing that much on the outside of the building.
You're doing a lot of painting. To me, that's very minor spruce up
of the property. I know you're putting in windows. When you say
repair of one garage door, what do you mean by repair?
Mr. Olexa:
The garage door would be replaced. One of them would be
totally removed and replaced with glass. Its on the second page
of the blueprint.
Mr. Alanskas:
I've got it right here. So you're replacing one new and repairing
one? You're taking one out.
Mr. Olexa:
When we say repair, we wouldn't be replacing the tracks,
pnmanly the door. So the image that this would give ... the
18921
backside of this building ... I have some polaroids as well. The
brick facade is falling off. We would remove that completely and
replace itwith a dryvitlype offnish. Again, as an international
company now, we have international standards for trade dress
that every facility has to meet.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or a gainst this petition? Mr.Taromina,
the dotted line on our drawings, is that the easement line or is that
the sidewalk?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, the sidewalk is shown just outside of that dashed line
that l believe you're referring to. My guess is that it represents
the approximate right-of-way line for both Ann Arbor Trail and Ann
Arbor Road.
Mr. Alanskas:
The dolled line?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, so if you lake the setback 20' from there, you'll see how
many parking spaces would be affected. Number one, number
two, numbers five, six, seven, eight as well as numbers 13 and 9.
If that accurately depicts the righlof-way line, you would have to
draw a line 20' from that and any parking spaces that fall within
that 20' buffer would require a variance from the Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm going to dose the public hearing seeing no one else wishing
to speak. Any last comments from the petitioner?
Mr. Olexa:
The amount of investment that we anticipate putting into the
building in interior and exterior renovations, primarily to the
structure of the facade, are in excess of $100,000. There are
otherlenants that might be able to rentthis facility, but not many
thalwould be able to investthal kind of capital in it in the image,
the landscaping and everything. And that's why we think we
would be a good tenant at this location. We're a part of Livonia.
We're a business; we're a landowner and we've been doing
business in Livonia since 1987. We would like to see this facility
working in tandem with the other ones.
Mr. Alanskas:
What are your hours at your facilities?
Mr. Olexa:
8 a.m. until 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, Saturdays 9 a.m. until
12 p.m. We're closed Sundays.
18922
Mr. Alanskas: Thankyou.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchr I'm going to offer a tabling motion until we can work out some
arrangement at least to limit the parking problem. We won't be
able to comply with the half acre, because it's only .24 acres, but
at least we may be able to resolve that problem and make this a
permitted operation. I move to table it Mr. Chairman.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on
Petition 2001-09-02-17 submitted by Enterprise Rent-A-Car
requesting waiver use approval to operate a rental car business at
the intersection of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail between
Newburgh and Richland Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 31,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition
2001-09-02-17 be tabled until the next Regular Meeting of
November 20, 2001.
Mr. McCann: The motion fails. Is there an alternative resolution?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, second by Mr. La Pine, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on
Petition 2001-09-02-17 submitted by Enterprise Rent-A-Car
requesting waiver use approval to operate a rental car business at
the intersection of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail between
Newburgh and Richland Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 31,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2001-09-02-17 be denied subject to the
following conditions:
1. Thallhe petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use requirements as set forth in Section
11.03 and 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed use violates the requirement of the
Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section 11.03(g)(2) pertaining
to this use that no vehicles shall be parked within twenty (20)
18923
feet from the front lot line or at the side lot line adjacent to a
street;
3. That the proposed use fails to comply with the Zoning
Ordinance standard set forth in Section 11.03(g)(1) that such
use shall be located on a parcel of land containing no less
than one-half (1/2) acre;
4. That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
5. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane:
I offered this resolution because the petition does not meet the
ABSENT:
zoning ordinance in several respects, and because of that, I would
not support it.
Ms. Dolan:
I guess I do not agree with the denying resolution. I know that he's
trying to work with us and I think if s important for us to try and
work with people who have been here and try to build their
strength here. I know he's not under the Zoning Ordinance right
now. Is there anything that we could do to offer some type of
approving resolution to allow him to go back to get it rezoned for
the parking or can he work with us somehow?
Mr. McCann:
That would have been the tabling motion that was presented. We
could possibly look at finding alternative areas to park. He'd lose
some spots in the front but he doesn't have requisite size acreage
area for rental car facility. Mr. Shane's concerns I believe are that
there are so many deficiencies it becomes insurmountable to
overcome them in a reasonable fashion. The only other thing
would be to table it and to look for altematives within that area.
Ms. Dolan:
If we tabled it, how long would it take?
Mr. McCann:
The next available meeting would be November 20.
Ms. Dolan:
Thank you.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Shane, LaPine
NAYS:
Alanskas, Pieroecchi, Dolan, McCann
ABSENT:
None
18924
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion failed. An alterative motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, it was
#10-171-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on
Pefition 2001-09-02-17 submitted by Enterprise Rent-A-Car
requesting waiver use approval to operate a rental car business at
the intersection of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail between
Newburgh and Richland Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 31,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition
2001-09-02-17 be tabled until the next Regular Meeting of
November 20, 2001.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: La Pine, Piercecchi, Dolan, McCann
NAYS: Shane
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. This has been tabled unfit the November 20
meeting. We will be meeting the week before to review the study
plan, so all changes have to come in by then. One of the things
that you certainly should have heard by the voting going on
tonight is that this is a really marginal plan. It has a tremendous
amount of deficiencies with it, but we are trying to work with you.
There are certain concerns we have that you're going to come in
and you're going to have six people dropping off cars, you're
going to have five already on the lot, and you're going to start
getting tickets because you don't have sufficient parking. Further,
you have to keep the cars back off the main road. There are
reasons for the setbacks in the ordinance. This is a critical
intersection. The line of sight is very important. I would get with
the staff and seriously work on trying to resolve these issues
before that meeting.
Mr. Olexa: I look forward to worlang with Mr. Taormina and Mr. Nowak before
the next deadline.
18925
ITEM#3 PETITION 2001-09-0248 Nextel Communications
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-09-02-18 by Nexlel Communications requesting waiver use
approval to co -locate a cellular antenna on an existing Detroit
Edison high tension utility tower and construct a 12'x 20'x 10'
prefabricated equipment shelter located on the north side of Ann
Arbor Trail between Levan Road and Angeline Circle in the
Northwest''/.of Section 32.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Taormina: The property under consideration is on the north side of Ann
Arbor Trail between Levan Road and Angeline Circle in the
Northwest %of Section 32. This parcel is zoned RUF. The
request this evening is to install an antenna on lop of an existing
Detroit Edison high tension utility lower. In addition to that, they
are proposing to construct an electronic equipment shelter
building which would measure 12'x 20'x 10'. The existing high
tension lower is approximately 114' in height; it is a lattice -type
structure. On lop of that would be added an antenna that would
be about 10' in height, bringing the total height of the structure to
124'. The equipment shelter building would be set back from the
future right -0f -way of Ann Arbor Trail, approximately 20'. It would
be setback from the western property line by about 6' at the
closest point. It would be constructed of brick and would contain
a low pitch gable roof. Access to the site would be provided by
means of a 12' wide gravel driveway with access to Ann Arbor
Trail. Landscaping shows that 17 new Austrian Pines would be
added to the south, west and east sides of the lower as well as
the equipment shelter building.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. It first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated September 28, 2001, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal or the legal descriptions contained therein at this
time. It should be noted that at the present time, the right -of my
along Ann Arbor Trail is deficient by 27 feet. We would request
that the developerprovide the City of Livonia with the additional
27 feet of right -0f -way to conform to the Master Thoroughfare
Plan, and move any parking areas outside of the future 60 foot
18926
rightof-ofThe letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated October 12, 2001, which reads as follows: Livonia
Fire & Rescue has no objections or concerns in regards to
Petition 2001-09-02-18." The letteris signed by Alan W.
Brandemihl, Jr., Fire Chief. The third letter is from the Livonia
Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 1, 2001, which reads as
follows: This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to co -locate a cellular antenna on an
existing Detroit Edison utility tower and construct a 12'x 20'x 10'
prefabricated equipment shelter on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 28,
2001, which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the site plan in
regards to a proposal to locate a cellular antenna north of Ann
Arbor Trail, east of Angeline Circle. We have no objections to the
plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 10, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to yourrequest of September -26, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) As this existing powerstructure is not in a right -of wayper
Section 28.42A(c) l.c, then it may only be permitted as a special
waiveruse under 18.41A(c)3. (2) This site proposes no
landscape screening from residential properties to the west. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bryan Monaghan, on behalf of Nextel, 255 S. Old Woodward, Suite 200,
Birmingham, Michigan 48009. 1 know that the Planning
Commission in Livonia has looked at a number of cell facility
issues so I won't bore you with the background of how we operate
and what our technical requirements are. Sutficeillosaythalwe
have a gap in our coverage in the Livonia area basically centered
just a tad bit east of Newburgh and Ann Arbor Trail. When we
came into that area knowing that we needed some type of a
facility to satisfy that gap, as well as to accommodate the ever
increasing capacity issues as more people use cell phones and
travel through the area, the very first thing we do obviously is look
at your zoning ordinance. Unfortunately, there is really no
permitted area within our gap coverage where we could go. So
the next thing we looked at is co -location which is a high priority
18927
cntena in your zoning ordinance. This Edison tower satisfies that
As a purely site plan related comment, there is an existing tower
there. We're going to be adding obviously the structure to the top,
but it really only adds 10 feet. We did get the comments
regarding landscaping and that's why I brought in this plan.
Mr. McCann:
You can put the plan up on the easel and there's a microphone so
you can explain what you've done.
Mr.Monaghan:
Essentially what we've done is just added the pines that you
heard of in the introductory comments. They would be on all
sides except for the north side of the site. This site plan is
actually wrong because the equipment shelter is underneath the
existing tower. Hopefully the site plan you have shows that. If
not, our corrected plans that were submitted last week do show
that the equipment shelter will be underneath the existing tower.
That's really a requirement of the landowner, Dan Hooker, who is
in fact here tonight. He requested that we go underneath the
lowerjust to minimize the use of the area next to his house.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, I'm looking at my plans dated October 26 and they
still have the equipment shelter to the south of the tower.
Mr. Taormina:
Maybe the applicant could describe that a little bit more because I
agree. The latest plans that were submitted to this office do show
the communication equipment building, not beneath the structure,
but in front of it between the south edge of the laver and Ann
ArborTreil.
Mr. Monaghan:
I was actually kind of concerned about that because at the last
minute when I was trying to arrange for an enlarged site plan for
purposes of the demonstration today, I ran into that problem. I
talked to their engineer. Heassuredmethalilwasbutwhenhe
dropped off the plans at my office it still wasn (there. Sowhat I
had him do is run off some smaller copies which I would like to
give you. This is essentially the same plan but a smallerversion
which shows the proposed equipment shelter underneath the
existing Detroit Edison lower.
Mr. McCann:
Your plan up on the board is still wrong then.
Mr. Monaghan:
Absolutely. The reason I decided to use that plan anyway was
just to show the landscaping.
Mr. Alanskas:
The way this cell phone business is going ... its getting bigger
and bigger. How long will the addition to this lower suffice before
you need something else?
18928
Mr. Monaghan: You're absolutely right. Because each cell facility has a finite
capacity for carrying cell phones, as the traffic increases more
and more, you have to keep dividing and subdividing your cells.
However, the more you do that, the smaller the cell becomes, the
lower the height you need. We're still addressing an actual gap in
our coverage and not just the capacity issue. Asyougettojust
capacity issues, which means we have coverage but there's too
many people using phones, you can get by with very short what
we call microcells. In fad, we're working right now with Ameritech
Michigan on a deal to be able to puljusl small wick antennas on
existing telephone poles which would be anywhere from 30' to 40'
tall that would satisfy that need.
Mr. Alanskas:
You mean you're thinking about putting a bunch of antennas all
over the city where there's telephone poles?
Mr. Monaghan:
Well, I don't want to use the phrase a bunch. We wouldn't be
looking at an antenna rack. What you would be looking at is one
single wood antenna, probably three feet tall, that would be
affixed to the lop of the existing telephone pole. But that's just
one solution. We also can affix panels to the lop of say a three
story building; that often suffices to fill that microcell need.
Mr. McCann:
Can Channel 8 zoom in on the new drawing so the neighbors can
see it on the television screen so they can get a little bit better
idea of the plan? We want to explain where the shrubbery will be
placed and the approach.
Mr. Monaghan:
Absolutely. Our approach would come off of Ann Arbor Trail up to
the existing facility that is there. We would have Austrian Pines,
seven to eight feet tall, all the way to the east, all the way to the
west and to the south. There would be a gale on the existing
fence enclosure area around the existing lower. We do not plan
for landscaping to the north, but that's certainly something that we
would be very happy to entertain.
Mr. McCann:
I'm looking at the second neighbor north on Angeline Circle. To a
certain extent, ilwould appear thatyou would need to put some. .
.. and I really haven't looked at it from that point of view other
than driving by from the street... you may have a line -of -sight
issue that you may need to come around to the southeast there.
Mr. Monaghan:
We'd be happy to do that. Our goal is to actually try to improve
the appearance of the existing lower as much as we can. And we
do that basically by landscaping. Our equipment shelter itself,
18929
rather than being your typical rather drab looking prefabricated
building, would be brick and gabled.
Mr. McCann: Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, I
will close the public hearing. I have a question for the staff. Is the
gravel drive a problem? Do you need to look at that as being
asphalt? It's traveled very little. I guess the owner of the property
isn't having a problem with it being gravel. I don't know what
standards we have with regard to the cell towers. This is the first
gravel one I've seen.
Mr. Taormina: I would suggest that, at a minimum, the approach up to the right-
of-way should be asphalt and then maybe beyond that gravel
would not present a problem. Butwe could take a doser look at
that and discuss that with our Public Service Division and see
what they would recommend.
Mr. McCann: Okay. We'll leave that recommendation as part of our approving
resolution open to the staffs direction to take it to Council after
giving advice. A motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchr I'm happy to make this approving resolution because I was
pleased when I received the plan that incorporated the Planning
Commission's suggestions. The revised plans now show the
equipment shelter will be constructed out of brick and a gable
roof. The equipment shelter had been moved slightly to the east
and additional landscaping has been provided for better screening
from the west, south and east. The turnaround for the access
drive which was to be located in a future right-of-way has been
eliminated and the barb wire shown on the original plan has been
omitted.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-172-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on
Petition 2001-09-02-18, submitted by Nextel Communications,
requesting waiver use approval to co -locale a cellular antenna on
an existing Detroit Edison high tension utility tower and construct
a 12'x 20' x 10' prefabricated equipment shelter located on the
north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Levan Road and Angeline
Circe in the Northwest%of Section 32, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-
09-02-18 be approved subject to the following conditions:
18930
1. Thatthe Enlarged Site PlarVElevalion Plan, marked SheetA-
2, prepared by Christopher Wzacny and Associates, Inc.,
with a revision date of October 30, 2001, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the equipmentshelter building shall be constructed of
full -face four (4") inch brick on all four sides and with an
asphalt shingled gable roof,
3. That the landscaping shown on the above -referenced site
plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
4. That barbed wire shall not be allowed anywhere on the
facility;
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at
the time the building permits are applied for.
6. That the drive approach from the traveled edge of the road
up to the fulure right -0f -way line shall be paved with asphalt
or as required by the City Engineering Division; and
7. Thatthree (3) additional Austrian Pines shall be planted
along the northwest comer so they will block the view of the
cellular tower from neighboring homes as directed by the
Planning Commission;
forlhe following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Sections 18.42A and 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
18931
Mr. McCann: Mr. Piercecchi, could you add a requirement that two to three,
ITEM #4 PETITION 2001-09-0249 Iron Tree d/b/a CAT Rental
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-09-02-19 by Joel House for Iron Tree, Inc. d/b/a the CAT
Rental store requesting waiver use to operate a light construction
equipment rental and sales facility with outdoor display and
storage on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast%of
Section 28.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
depending on the Planning Commission's recommendation,
Austnan Pines be planted along the northwest comer so that it
would block the view from the neighboring homes?
Mr. Taormina:
If we could amend the prepared resolution to reference a revision
dale of October 30, 2001, and I am going to ask that the petitioner
correct the dale on the plan because there seems to be some
discrepancy between Sheet Ti, which is a cover ortitle sheet,
and the Site Plan and the Enlarged Site Plan Elevation. Ifyou
could have the architect, Christopher Wzacny, make that change.
Mr. Monaghan:
No problem.
Mr. La Pine:
One other question. The point you brought up about the asphalt,
would that be included in the conditions?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, Mr. Pieroecohi put it in. That's regarding the gravel drive and
how much should be asphalt.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yes, thatwas included Mr. La Pine.
Mr. La Pine:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2001-09-0249 Iron Tree d/b/a CAT Rental
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
2001-09-02-19 by Joel House for Iron Tree, Inc. d/b/a the CAT
Rental store requesting waiver use to operate a light construction
equipment rental and sales facility with outdoor display and
storage on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast%of
Section 28.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
18932
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. It first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 3, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal or the legal description contained therein. It should
be noted that at the present time, the right-of-way along Plymouth
Roadis deficient by 27 feet. We would request that the developer
provide the City of Livonia with the additional 27 feet of right-of-
way to conform to the masterthoroughfare plan as part of the
petition approval." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated October 4, 2001, which reads as follows: 'This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to designate an outdoor display area for the rental and
sales of light construction products on property located at the
above-refemnced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
October 9, 2001, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
plans in connection with a proposal by Iron Tree, Inc. requesting
to designate an outdoor display area for the sales and rental of
light construction products. We have no objections to the plan
submitted. Handicap parking must be property signedper city
ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 12, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of October 1, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This parcel has a split zoning classification of C-2 and M-1.
The M-1 use requires a waiver for this usage. The C-2 allows
rental usage and is a waiver use under Section 11.03(k). (2) This
petition will eitherneed to provide the six (6) foot fence around
the display area or obtain a variance for said fence. (3) The
parking area and drives need maintenance, repair, resealing and
double striping. (4) The landscaping needs maintenance and the
new proposedlandscaping lacks detail andpossible irrigation. (5)
Areas of the buildings require repainting and an existing fence
needs repair and is tipped with barbed wire. (6) This Department
would recommend that the Planning Commission consider some
type oflimitation or description of what type, quantity and size of
equipment would be allowed on this site and in the display area.
This Department has no further objection to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the pelitioner here this evening?
18933
Joel House, President of Iron Tree, 24460 Novi Road, Novi, Michigan. We are
an affiliate of Michigan CAT, which is the Caterpillar dealer.
Tonight we're here to ask for your approval on zoning. Weare
currently in the process of purchasing the property from Mr.
Olson, who is present with us tonight. We've talked to the
planners and we've mel with the Plymouth Road Development
Authority. We've taken into consideration the fact that we needed
added green space. We putthat into our plans. We've taken into
consideration that its not a popular thing to see equipment out
close to the road and we've proposed rather than parking in front,
to park behind the facility, behind the fence, and we have limited
display area in the front of the building that would allow for six or
seven pieces of equipment. We think that image is real important
and quality. With the facility, we want to do some small
renovations to the outside.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to take the microphone by the easel and you can
explain as we go?
Mr. House: Sure. This is the Olson Oldsmobile facility. We've done some
renovations to the property on this drawing. We've shown across
here that we're going to put some paint on the facility. The CAT
Rental Store is a new venture for Caterpillar. All across the
country they're opening smaller stores to represent small
products. You're probably familiar with the heavy earth -moving
equipment and now they're going after small construction
products. This is their color theme with the red stripe and the
signs.
Mr. McCann: Are there retail sales inside?
Mr. House: There are retail sales. We sell about 50% of our product and we
rent about 50% of our product. And then, believe it or not, a lot of
sales are Caterpillar novelty items since Caterpillar is involved in
stock car racing and things like that. So the dealership lends a lot
to that. The next display is what we have as far as the property.
(Wally, would you hand these out?) I know there is a concern of
the types of products that we handle. Most of you are probably
familiar with the large Caterpillar equipment. This bookshows a
little clearer the products because I understand it's kind of a hard
concept. Inside the last page it says"Michigan CAT." Thalwould
be our parent company and that list is products that they handle.
I do not handle bulldozers, excavators, big articulated trucks,
scrapers. I'm not even capable of purchasing those. So the
types of products that we handle are the products that you see on
18934
the display board here and in the brochure. The second handout
that's going around is showing our intent on the property. I
identified in green two areas where we've added to the landscape
perthe recommendations when we came in. We're eliminafing
about eight parking spaces to do that and that would give us a
place for a monument sign. Also, the areas marked in yellow on
the two pages would be the exterior. The only product that we
would ask to display would be right up against the building on the
concrete so it would be just a small display, and then all the rest
of the product would be in the building. Inside we would have
possibly four or five small pieces of equipment. This is the
enlarged version. This would be the green space that we're
adding. This would be another green space we're adding for
trees and shrubs and we'd be open to what your suggestions
would be to take out concrete that's here. They have a car
display area now. Take out that concrete, add a place for a
monument sign, and then also display just a few products in front
up against the building. This goes with the brochure that I handed
out. These are the types of products that we do handle. The
largest Caterpillar piece of equipment that I handle, just so I can
have the name Caterpillar associated, is only six feet tall. It's
about the size of a pickup truck. It's the same as a Bobcat skid
steer loader, if you're familiar with that, using a competitors
name. And then we have lift equipment, welders, light lowers,
pumps, generators. There will be smaller product inside, tamping
equipment, saws. We're not a residential rental. It's not intended
for the neighborhood people to come in and rent. We rent to
licensed contractors for liability purposes. We do occasionally
rent to residential people but that's not our primary market. So
we're going after people with chippers and stump grinders, those
sorts of things. We're also aware, based on Michigan CAT having
locations around the state, eight or nine locations, that most cities
do not want product up near the front. They do not want lifts up in
the air and they like a dean image to put their facility in. We think
the Olson facility will help us accommodate that.
Mr. Alanskas: have a few quesfions for you. Sir, are you leasing this property
or buying it.
Mr. House: We are purchasing the property and the purchase is subject to, of
course, zoning approval.
Mr. Alanskas: How many mechanics will you be having in your repair facility?
Mr. House: We currently have about 18 and hope to expand that.
18935
Mr. Alanskas: I have really big concems because of the type of business that
you have ... in repairing this machinery. It's always muddy, wet.
When people come in and return a piece of equipment or a low
boy, how do you propose to keep that area dean?
Mr. House:
We have sweepers and equipment like that. We can actually use
some of our own equipment to help clean it. This product is
unlike the larger moving equipment. Their task is to get involved
in heavy dirt. They can come in somefimes with as much as 500
pounds of dirt on them. The products that we handle typically are
not as dirty as that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Excuse me. When people in construction frim come to your
facility to rent things, they dont come in slippers. They come in
boots and they're muddy. I'm in that business. I've been in your
facility on Novi Road for over 30 years and it's also small
equipment. And I know what happens with the facility. It
becomes a mud bath. I mean its very, very nasty. And I am very
concerned about someone being on Plymouth Road with this type
of a business having that kind of a problem because I know you
can (just sweep down that type of dirt and mud. It's thick. Il has
to be washed down to get rid of it. And I'm just wondering what
you propose to do besides taking a broom and sweeping your
area to keep it clean.
Mr. House:
Well, that's what we currently do. We have four facilities now on
Novi Road, two ofwhich are related to the smaller equipment and
that's what we do. We do use our parking lot cleaning equipment.
We do broom it. We have power washers.
Mr. Alanskas:
But see, where you are on Novi Road, that's more like an
industrial road. Its nolgoing down amain street of a city. And
that's one of my concerns. Thank you, sir.
Mr. La Pine:
I have a number of questions. You're going to use the emsfing
showroom that used to be Olson Oldsmobile for display. What
are you going to display inside the building. Are you actually
going to use inside the building for any display?
Mr. House:
Yes. There's a lot of small products that currently we're not able
to display. We dont have a showroom. We can do power saws,
small tampers, anything that we can fit in there that's appropriate
forsize.
18936
Mr. La Pine: The small buildingtothe east— the 10,000square foot building—
what are you going to be utilizing that for? According to our
notes, you made the statement at this point you dont know what
you're going to use that for.
Mr. House:
I'm not that familiar with the facility. I've been through it a few
fimes but probably it would just be light storage. Wedontintend
to work out of it. We dont intend to have any employees working
there.
Mr. LaPine:
My third question is, the display ofthe equipment in the front of
the building is showing a drawing of approximately seven
machines. One of the problems that I have is with high lifts. You
wont have any of those out there?
Mr. House:
If I would be allowed to have them out in the down position, but I
understand not have to it up.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you familiarwith Case Wolverine Equipment on Beech Daly
and Eight Mile Road? The front oflheir building is beautiful
because its all grass landscaping. To the west they got some
storage, but along Beech Dalylhey have allowed big equipment
in there. When I first heard of this, that's what I visualized that we
were going to have here. But I have to say that I have exactly the
same feeling that Mr. Alanskas has and that's every time we see
this equipment come in, I dont care if its small equipment or big
equipment, if it's on a flatbed, its always loaded with dirt. We
spent $35 million on Plymouth Road to beautify it and now to
have something like this come in, to me it's not the right location
for it. This belongs in an industrial belt. It doesn't belong along
the main dreg of Livonia which we're trying to make Plymouth
Road. I have a problem. You have to convince me that this is not
going to cause any undue hardship to the beautification we're
doing along there, and that there's not going to be trucks pulling
along Plymouth Road, pulling in and dropping dirt. I mean I don't
know how you can control that.
Mr. House:
I dont know what would satisfy you other than to say that we
currently have that situation in nine stores around the state and
they'll be loading and unloading behind the facility. So as theyre
driving down the road ....
Mr. LaPine:
Butthe point is, they have to come in off Plymouth Road.
Mr. House:
True.
18937
Mr. LaPine:
Ifyou had a way they could come off into the industrial area, M-1
behind you, then I probably wouldn't have that much concem if
you were coming in from the backside somehow or another. But
coming in off of Plymouth Road, that to me creates a problem for
me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Piercecchr
Is the Plymouth Road Development Authority going to extend the
wall down to your place, or are you going to extend it, or what?
Mr. House:
Idont know.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Its my understanding in talking about this issue with Mr. Nagy
that, in fad, some of the same fencing details used by the PRDA
would be placed along a portion of the frontage of this property
and that's something they want to work out in more detail with the
pefilioner. But, yes, itis their intention to add some of that.
Mr. Piercecchr
The second question I have is, can we tone down that big red?
Your colors are really yellow.
Mr. McCann:
How wide is the proposed red stripe?
Mr. House:
I can narrow that down.
Mr. McCann:
It looks like about six or eight feet wide maybe.
Mr. House:
Do you know how tall the lop of the building is?
Mr. McCann:
The drawing shows a 12' frontage there. Ilshows a 10' red stripe.
Mr. House:
Well, we did that to give you an idea of what it would be like. But I
can certainly narrow it down. do have to have red.
Mr. McCann:
I don't mind a red stripe. It looks like a 10' red stripe across the
entire length of the building.
Mr. House:
I'm sure we could work that out.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Piercecchi, anything else?
Mr. Piercecchr
No, that's it.
18938
Mr. McCann: I'm not in the business, but I've driven by Case at Eight Mile and
Beech on numerous occasions, and they've always done an
excellentjob of maintaining the front ofthe building. I drove by it
yesterday as a matter fact just to look. And I said, you know, it
can present a nice image. Now, I am concemed. I put great
credence in what Mr. Alanskas says because he's in the business
and he understands that. One ofthe things I'd hope is thatwhen
you come up to a construction site, if you're five miles away, most
of the mud is gone by the time you get there. But you would have
no problem limiting all loading and unloading of equipment to the
rear of the store?
Mr. House:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Now, one ofthe things that he talked about was 18 mechanics.
And that means that you're doing a lot of repair service there. My
next concem is, are you going to be repairing any other
equipment than what you're selling? I mean, is a guy going to
come in with a big CAT thing and say, "OK look, my axle's gone.
Fix it."?
Mr. House:
No. We are going to be handling our product line.
Mr. McCann:
Nothing bigger?
Mr. House:
No. That's our parent company and they feel it's theirs.
Mr. Piercecchr
You don't repair what you dont sell?
Mr. McCann:
Thats what he's saying. Theyjusl repair what they sell.
Mr. House:
I just repair what I sell. I don't sell large Caterpillar equipment.
The purpose of being associated with Caterpillar is the name
association, and its to go after the small contractors who are
landscapers and people who use smaller products.
Mr. McCann:
It looks like you have more than sufficient parking as you have it
laid out here. Is that correct?
Mr. House:
Yes, according to my understanding ofthe ordinance.
Mr. McCann:
Is that correct, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct.
18939
Mr. McCann: Does the staff have any further landscape improvements that they
would like to see in this area that would help to address Mr.
Alanskas' concerns regarding the traffic, and what's coming in
and what they're bringing in with them?
Mr. Taormina:
In terms of landscaping, because there is such a surplus of
parking, maybe there are areas we could look at in the front yard
for additional landscaping. The plan that he has presented this
evening does show one additional area of landscaping being
provided in the southeast corner of the property. That's where
pavemenlwould be removed, existing parking spaces. The area
in front of the main building is an area where apparently Olson
used to display some of their vehicles within that landscape bed
and that's a concrete area that would be removed and replaced
with landscaping and his signage. So, yes, there are probably
some additional areas for landscaping. With respect to the
offloading of storage vehicles, one thing that we may want to
consider is restricting the use of the existing one-story building to
the east, which is a 10,000 square fool building. There are, as I
recall, some overhead doors facing Plymouth Road which make it
awfully convenient for offloading of this type of equipment. So
one thing we may want to consider is some restriction in terms of
the use of that particular building for storage purposes only and
not for maintenance or repair and limit the maintenance activities
to the rear of the building. That's just a couple suggestions.
Mr. McCann:
I was looking at the parking to the east of the driveway to the new
landscape pod he put in. Sir, it appears to me in the type of
business you do, you've got a limited number of customers.
Those coming in with equipment or picking up equipment are
going to be going around back to where they pick it up. So that
you would have more than sufficient parking. Would you consider
doing some more landscaping along that eastern area?
Mr. House:
I will have 80 employees.
Mr. McCann:
Sixty?
Mr. House:
Sixty. And there's 18 ofwhich are service employees. Thatwas
the question, how many mechanics. So I have 80 employees to
do parking, and I'll do whatever....
Mr. McCann:
Ten acres in the back too.
Mr. House:
Yes, I understand. But I'd like to keep them out of the equipment
area if possible so that we can secure it and things like that.
18940
Mr. McCann: That's something we can look at. Thank you. Are there any other
questions? Mr. Alanskas?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, what did the PRDA say about this?
Mr. Taormina:
They have recommended approval of the plans as they were
submitted.
Mr. Shane:
It appears as if the driveway that they would be utilizing to come
in and out would be that center driveway right in front of the
building. Is that true?
Mr. House:
I believe there are two.
Mr. Shane:
There are two, but however you do it, you're going to end up in
front of the bulding pretty much. I dont think there's enough
room on the east side of the small building, and I know there's not
enough room on the west side of the big building so that Mr.
Alanskas' point about mud and so forth is going to end up right in
front of your building as they come in. I thinklhal's maybe one of
the problems. If there was a side entry or something, it might not
be so bad. I think that's why we're so concemed. Do you
understand what I'm saying? You come in right in front of your
building and leave a big mud trail.
Mr. House:
Well, I understand what you're saying. I don't know that that
would be a problem. I understand what you're saying.
Mr. Shane:
Its going to be unsightly, so ...
Mr. House:
I disagree. I think we have a pretty clean facility.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. I mean I'm only going by what Mr. Alanskas says; he's
been around awhile. So if your facility is different, that's good.
Other than that problem, I dont have a difficulty with this. I'm
listening to people who have had experience with this and that's
what concems me.
Mr. La Pine:
Can you give us a kind of an idea of how much equipmenlyou're
going to have? For instance, you've got these 5,000 and 9,000
pound capacity trailers. How many of those will you have? Or
how many compact wheel loaders will you have? Or how many
mini -hydraulic excavators will you have, or skid steer loaders?
How many of these different pieces of equipment will you have
there? Can you give me some idea?
18941
Mr. House: I have about 1,800 pieces of equipment butthe whole idea is that
they're out in rent. So typically, 80 percent of them are out and
they typically stay out for a month or longer. In the yard there
might be 200 pieces of equipment. I may own 35 or 40 skid steer
loaders, but hopefully all but a few are out. That's the whole
purpose of the rental business.
Mr. La Pine:
Soyou'retelling methal basicallyalany one timeyou wouldn't
have more than 200 or 250 pieces of equipment on the site?
Mr. House:
That's probably right. Like a lease car company, lheyre always
coming and going.
Mr. Shane:
What is the size of your largest piece of equipment?
Mr. House:
It's in that brochure. As far as the Caterpillar pieces of equipment
goes, I have this Bobcat and a handler which has forks on it to
mise plywood or drywall. And then on the other pieces, probably
the largest piece would be a lift, the ones that have booms, and I
don't really know how to put them down to size. It'd be a little bit
larger than a pickup truck when theyre in a down position.
Mr. Shane:
If we approve this, we're probably going to want to put a condition
in here that says no equipment shall be larger than whatever.
Mr. House:
I understand your concern about the large lifts, but I've worked
with Michigan CATfor28 years and they have tires that are taller
than I am. So I understand what you're saying about large
equipment.
Mr. McCann:
To follow up Mr. Shane's comments, I'd have no problem limiting
it to everything in this book as far as equipment goes except, of
course, the Michigan CAT equipment on the back page. But next
month you may have anew piece that's coming in. I guess you
could come back with a new piece or limit it to everything in this
book and nothing over 20,000 pounds, 15,000 pounds. I don't
know. What is the weight of a little Bobcat?
Mr. House:
I have to look that up myself. Backhoes are 21,000 pounds.
Mr. McCann:
Backhoes are 21,000 pounds?
Mr. House:
They're not like the large equipment which is 100,000 pounds.
Mr. McCann:
So a 25,000 pound limit would be all-indusive probably.
18942
Mr. House: would lhinkso. I'd certainly be willing to comeback because
Mr. McCann: These are my preconceptions ofwhat's going on here. But my
thought is that the Grand Rental Station is pretty much a
residential rental. I've gone up and rented stuff and my neighbors
this is a new business. I mean, it's only been within a year and a
half that Caterpillar has initiated the CAT Rental store concept.
We've already rented equipment, but to go with separate facilities
and separate businesses .... this is a separate business from
Michigan CAT. So they may extend it in the future, but it is
related only to compact construction equipment. Its intended to
reach a market that Michigan CAT does not currently reach,
which would be the smaller contractor.
Mr. LaPine:
On this page here it says, "Michigan CAT Rental Services
features a full line of Caterpillar
equipment, including: Track -Type
Tractors." Will you be renting any of this stuff?
Mr. House:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
None of this stuff you will be renting?
Mr. House:
No. That's rented by Michigan CAT Rental Services.
Mr. LaPine:
If someone were to come to your store and wanted a piece of this
equipment, you couldn't order it and have them pick 9 up at your
store or anything like that?
Mr. House:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any more questions? Is there anybody in the audience
that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Rick Sielky, 36083 Jamison, Livonia. I'm an owner -operator of Grand Rental
Station on Plymouth and Wayne. Going into the 2002 year, we'll
be going into our tenth year of spring service. just dont see the
necessity of having another rental facility of almost the same
stature as I am now -- light equipment, homeowner equipment
which he alluded to. Skid steers, I rent small loaders. I rent small
scissor lifts. I don't get into the big stuff obviously either. But the
necessity I just don't feel is there three-quarters of a mile away
from us. I can say that with a record of experience of being 24
years in the business that some areas don't dictate a saturation of
the rental industry as a whole. But that's really about it. I just
don't think its necessary to be close.
Mr. McCann: These are my preconceptions ofwhat's going on here. But my
thought is that the Grand Rental Station is pretty much a
residential rental. I've gone up and rented stuff and my neighbors
18943
do. We're the individual you're renling to. The impression we're
getting from the petifioner is that rarely does he ever rentto
residential; you've gotto be a licensed builder in orderto rent.
Mr. Sielky:
Well, there's really no such faction with a licensed builder to
necessitate a rental. He alluded to the landscapers which is 40%
to 50% of my customer base because landscapers aren't big in
this metropolitan area. We don't deal with Tome and Bruglio. We
deal with the mom and dad landscape operations which again
rent the compactors and rent the generators and the welders and
just about everything they rent, I rent. And again it's just my
opinion. I dont think it's necessary to be within eyeshot of each
other.
Mr. Piercecchr
Sir, I dont know ifwe're in a position to restrict trade.
Mr. Sielky:
Oh, no. I'm just going on record.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You know we've got an awful lot of car dealers. It's just like
restaurants.
Mr. Sielky:
My reference to car dealers ... you want to buy a Ford, you buy a
Ford. You want to buy a Chevy, you buy a Chevy. If you want to
rent equipment, you go to a rental equipment house. He will rent
the same thing excluding his skid steer, which mine will be a
Bobcat brand; his will obviously be a CAT brand. Everything else
in the rental market isn't that diversified. There's only three or
four companies that make almost everything as far as rental
equipment. What we rent and what you can buy are two different
things if you were to go to Home Depot versus renting at an
equipment house. We can't rent the quality you can purchase.
We have to rent better quality equipment so its not a matter of,
you know, like your reference to an automobile dealership where
someone's allegiance is to Fords or to a Chevy. The necessity is
to rent the equipment. You're going to go to maybe the best price
which creates competition which is more than fair, or you're going
to go to your favorite place that you've always gone to in the past.
But there is a certain allegiance in the rental industry that I like to
think I've obtained that to a degree. Obviously I've got
competition and competition has got me. But I just don't think,
you know, walk to the comer and 200 feet from my building and
look down, I can see that. That's less than three-quarters of a
mile, I'm sure.
18944
Mr. Piercecchi:
I just want to make a point, sir. We're not in a position to say how
many restaurants iftheyre zoned. As long as the property is
zoned, we can't put some restrictions on it.
Mr. Sielsky:
lwould almost seem to be helpful to him not to pick and choose,
bulwe got a business here that's already got its roots in the
market, in the neighborhood, to put in someone to create nothing
but....
Mr. Piercecchi:
I see your point but I wantto state our position thatwe're not one
to stop trade. We can't do it. Take us to court and we'd lose.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else in audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? I'll close the public hearing. Mr. Piercecohi,
you had a question?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, I'd like to resolve the stripe. I think its a little bit too wild
really for that facility. And I was wondering, if the other
Commissioners agree, if you could submit a revision to the
Planning Director and tone it down a Iiflle bit.
Mr. House:
What would qualify.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Well, that red up there.
Mr. House:
I know, but...
Mr. McCann:
Twelve foot long ... not three foot. Would that be a three foot
stripe?
Mr. House:
We'll do that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
And submit it to Mark and Mark will speak for us then.
Mr. McCann:
Sir, would you like to speak on this? We missed you earlier. We
closed the public hearing, but if I have no objection ...
Mr. Housholder.
I was standing up behind this gentlemen. But he didn't give me
quite enough time to gel here. You only got a second there.
Mr. McCann:
I apologize. I looked and didn't see you waiting to speak.
Mr. Housholder.
That's quite all right.
Mr. McCann:
No objection. Please go ahead.
18945
Richard Housholder, 33921 Beacon, Livonia. I'm on the piece of property here
Y1a3bl. I've been before the Commission many times here on
many different things. One thing we'd like to check into tonight is
greenbelt. You're abutting Wadsworth Subdivision and also
another part of residenfial, this Y1 a3b2. This gentleman, I believe
he mentioned some sort offence going up. According to
Wadsworth Subdivision, it has to be a block wall in there. I can
take you back 35 years when I got into it with Jarman Steel
Fabrication on this same thing -block wall against fence. They
ended up, they had to put a block wall between the subdivision off
of Stark Road and that industrial steel fabrication, which today is
now known as, if I remember, its been sold twice. Its no longer
steel fabrication. George Pastor and Sons bought it.
Construction. There's your mud pit. Heavy equipment. All of it.
Trucks, bulldozers, steamrollers. Got it all in front of my house. It
looks like the city dump that we had across Farmington Road
when I moved in here, which is now industrial today. Wallside
Windows was in there also. Then I find out tonight, Wee Care
Day Care is also involved in an industrial building which is light
manufacturing. What are we doing here? This whole thing is
going wild. Nobody is looking at anything. You're talking about
bringing this gentleman in here. He's coming right back against
our property, all of us. Is he putting a fence up or is he putting
block wall up? I haven't heard any discussion about this. Or a
greenbelt? What are we going to do with it? Questons. I'd like
some answers.
Mr. McCann: First, we will address the issue as to the border. Curently, there
is a fence along the southern line, is there not? Mr. Taormina, do
you know?
Mr. Taormina: I believe you're referring to the west property line. And yes,
there's fencing along that. There is a preexisfing, non-
conforming situation with respect to the lack of any masonry wall
where the M-1 zoned property abuts the residential property. I
believe I've noted the location of this gentleman's property on that
aerial photograph. In relationship to the Olson Olds property,
you'll see that it lies north of the Newman Wadsworth Subdivision.
Is that correct?
Mr. Housholder: Yes.
Mr. Taormina: Which is actually abutting a portion of the property that is
presently undeveloped. As you extend further to the south, you
will pick up the area of the parking lot and some areas where
there are curently some trucks being stored on the premises.
18946
Mr. Housholder. One last question. He is involved with the C-2 and an M-1. M-1
is light manufacturing and assembly according to what the
Council gave me previously. How are we putting a sales
operation and rental operation into an M-1?
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taomina, would you answer that?
Mr. Taormina:
The M-1 zone classification does, in fact, identify this particular
use as a waiver use within that district.
Mr. Housholder.
We passed a petition here about eight years ago when a
manufacturing assembly company was coming in there. I never
knew what happened to that. Everything changes and it changes
so fast. We put one thing in today, two years from now they could
change that whole business and put something else in there. And
if we allow them to get started, then Plymouth Road is going to
look very bad after awhile, very bad. We had it looking bad for a
long time. It's coming up now. Its looking much better. Well,
thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Did we answer the question on the wall?
Mr. McCann:
I wanted to go to Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina, the rear portion of
the property is undeveloped.
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. McCann:
And there is now a wire chain link fence. Correct?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe that fence runs along the entire property line although I
did not inspect it all the way back. This plan shows that it stops
about 386 feet north of the building which is where the woods
begin. I thought that it continued further to the north but
apparently it does not. So that area must be open and if there's
any fencing back there, maybe it's fencing maintained by the
residents.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, it appears that the aerial photograph you gave us shows the
fencing coming back just into the subdivision. Now, my next
question is, how does this change of use affect the pre-existing
nonconforming wall or lack of a wall? Is this something that's
going to have to go to ZBA to straighten out this issue?
18947
Mr. Taormina:
I would say yes. Under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, as it
relates to change of use, where a more intensive use or operation
is proposed then that would trigger the need for a greenbelt or to
go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. What we have in this
particular case is the back part of this
property that was being
utilized for the storage of automobiles
in connection with a
dealership. Now he's going to be utilizing that same area for
storage of his compact equipment. A decision would then have to
be made as to whether or not that intensifies the use and does
require him to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and seek a
continuance of that wall waiver. There is an additional use along
the rear of that property involving the storage of rental trucks
beyond that fence line which I do not believe was something that
we have recognized in any of our previous approvals.
Mr. McCann:
In looking at that on this aerial photograph, all these vehicles
stored to the northern portion behind the fence line.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, I'm not even sure that the aerial shays the extent of
vehide storage that is occurring beyond thatfence line. There
are vehicles in addition to what is shown on that photograph.
Mr. McCann:
Well, again, I'm closing the public hearing. Petitioner, you have a
last comment. Please come forward. Or Mr. Olson.
Richard Olson,
8730 Richardson Road, Commerce Township. Justin reference
to the Ryder Trucks that are parked there, about three years ago I
received a call from I believe it was John Nagy. They were
having a problem with the Ryder Truck Company. Ilwas a
storage problem. I believe it was Mr. Nagy who asked me if I
would renla part ofmy properlylolhem. And l said,"Well, at this
particular time, I've got about 300 to 400 cars, Oldsmobiles,
Nissans and Izuzu heavy duty trucks parked back them and I just
don't have room" And I do have a fence that runs from one side
of the property to the other side, from the right side to the left side.
What's behind there is virgin woods and I've never been back
there. It's too thick to walk back there. So, when the City said,
'Well, can you rent him some space at all?" and I said, "I can rent
him space behind my fence" I believe that somebody came out
from the City and looked at it and they said, "You know, if Ryder
Truck if willing to park back there, because the ground is hard, will
you rent it to him behind the dosed fence?" And I said, "Yes, I
have no problem." That would be the fence that runs all the way
18948
from east to west across the back of the property and in the back
is virgin property. There was a big area in there and they said. "If
we can park our trucks back there, we'll rent it from you" I said
fine and they've been parking their trucks back there for about two
or three years, and that was, I don't want to seem like a great guy,
for the benefit of the City of Livonia because they were having a
problem parking the Ryder Trucks where they're at right now on
Stark Road. So thafs the story behind that. And the rent is very,
very, very nominal. Thais all I have to say. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and lwas
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on
Petition 2001-09-02-19, submitted by Joel House, on behalf of
Iron Tree, Inc. d/b/a the CAT Rental Store, requesting waiver use
to operate a light construction equipment rental and sales facility
with outdoor display and storage on property located on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in
the Southeast%of Section 28, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-09-02-
19 be denied forlhe following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area;
3. That the petitioner has failed to affnnatvely show that the
site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
4. That the outdoor storage/parking of construction equipment
on the subject property will be detrimental to the continued
maintenance of the site in an orderly and satisfactory
condition and would be a deterrent to the long term stability
of this area; and
5. That the proposed use will adversely affect the surrounding
uses by means such as dust, noise, vibrations and lights.
Mr. McCann: Is there discussion?
18949
Mr. Alanskas: The City of Livonia has never had a downtown area and we've
been trying to simulate Plymouth Road to becoming something of
a downtown area. I have nothing against Caterpillar and I think
it's a good concept except for where they want to put it. Afirm
that has 80 employees and at least 18 mechanics - this is not a
small business. This is a large business. And I just don't think
that it belongs on Plymouth Road. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: I'd like to just echo what Mr. Alanskas said. My problem is
twofold. Number one, the gentleman stated that he has
approximately 1,800 pieces of equipment. Most of the time
they're leased out and he has only approximately 200— 250
pieces on that location at any one time. That may be true as long
as we have a viable construction program going on where homes
are being built, businesses are being built. If we have a
downturn, we may have as much as 800— 900 pieces of
equipment at that location at anyone time. Numbertwo, we
spent a lot of money on Plymouth Road to beautify it and I have a
problem with this type of operation on Plymouth Road. I believe it
should be in an industrial area and that's my reason for making a
motion to deny.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Any other comments? I have concems that have
been brought forth by Mr. Atanskas, but I'm going to vote against
the denying resolution. The fact is that we are talking about a
large parcel. I'm looking at a situation where we are experiencing
a downturn in the automobile industry. I think there's going to be
a limitation on the number of dealerships coming in. This is
something that could be suited to what the petitioner would like to
do if there were enough controls in effect. Again, we've cited the
Case example where the normal public drives by on a daily basis.
They see a very dean, very nice looking building with lots of
shrubbery. Now to increase the shrubbery in front of the building
and put in certain restrictions that would maintain the beauty
along Plymouth Road, I think it's a workable solution and I do
want to encourage the business. I think it's important for
Plymouth Road Development to continue to experience some
growth, especially in this downturn, rather than lose businesses.
So I'm going to vote against the denying resolution. Would the
Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Alanskas
NAYS: Shane, Dolan, McCann
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Pieroecchi
18950
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Is there an alternate motion?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and approved, it was
#10-173-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on
Petition 2001-09-02-19, submitted by Joel House, on behalf of
Iron Tree, Inc. c/bla the CAT Rental Store, requesting waiver use
to operate a light construction equipment rental and sales facility
with outdoor display and storage on property located on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in
the Southeast % of Section 28, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-09-02-
19 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA prepared by
Vantine/Guthrie Studio of Architecture, dated September 27,
2001, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That a fully detailed landscape plan, including additional
landscaping along the southeastern portion of the property,
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Planning Commission and City Council within 60 days of the
approval of this petition by the City Council;
3. That properly signed handicapped parking shall be provided
as per City ordinance;
4. That the following maintenance items as listed in the
correspondence dated October 12, 2001, from the
Inspection Department shall be accomplished to that
department's satisfaction;
- Maintenance, repair, resealing and double striping of the
parking area and drives;
- Repainting of portions of the buildings and repair of the
existing fence;
5. That outdoor display of construction equipment, other than in
the fenced storage area north of the rear wall of the
showroom/shop building, shall be strictly confined to the
concrete pad immediately in front of the easterly showroom
and a maximum of five (5) equipment units may be displayed
in this area;
18951
6. That the outdoor display area adjacent to the front of the
main building shall either be fenced as required or, in the
alternative, the petitioner shall seek a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals to eliminate the fence;
7. Thatthe construction equipmentto be stored or parked on
the subject property shall be limited in size to no more than
25,000 pounds gross vehicle weight;
8. That loading and unloading shall only be done in the back
portion of the building and that the building on the east side
of the property, where the doors are facing Plymouth Road,
shall not be used for loading or unloading;
9. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, am
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
10. 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
11. Thatthe red stripe across the front of the building shall be no
wider than three (3) feet;
forthe following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Shane, I was going to ask if you could add a couple
conditions I've been loolting at. (1) Thatthe red stripe across the
front of the building be no wider than 3feet. (2) That the
18952
equipment that would be used, rented or stored or worked on or
repaired would not be greater than 25,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight.
Mr. Shane: I think I said that already.
Mr. McCann: Did you? I missed that. I'm sorry. (3) That loading shall only be
done in the back portion ofthe building and thatthey not use the
east side of the building where the doors are located. (4) That
the petitioner provide to the Planning Department additional
landscaping along the southeastern portion of the property.
Mr. Shane: Condition (2) requires a fully developed landscape plan to come
back.
Mr. McCann: Well, what I was looking at was the Site Plan rather than just the
landscape plan that we'd get additional landscaping along the
southeast area there abutting Plymouth Road.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? If not, would the Secretary please call
the roll?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Dolan, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2001-09-02-20 Arbor Drugs d/b/a CVS
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the firm next on the agenda is Petition
2001-09-01-20 by Arbor Drugs, Inc. d/b/a CVS Pharmacy #8015
requesting waiver use approval to transfer SDM License #17038
currently at 29553 Five Mile Road to 29500 Five Mile Road on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Hidden Lane in the Southeast%of Section 14.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
18953
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 12, 2001,
which reads as follows: "The Livonia Fire & Rescue has no
objections orconcems with regard to thispetition." The letter is
signed by Alan Brandemihl, Fire Chief. The next item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 12, 2001, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The following legal description should
be used in connection therewith." The letter is signed by David
Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The next letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 10, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of October 10, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
This petition will need a waiver as there art= already two (2) other
businesses with S.D.M. licenses within 500 feet of this location.
This Department has no further objection to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there any additional
information Mr. Taormina that we should be aware of?
Mr. Taormina:
No, there isn't.
Mr. McCann:
All right, since this is just moving an SDM license across the
street for CVS, is there any discussion? If not, a motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-174-2001
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
by the City Planning Commission on October 30, 2001, on
Petition 2001-09-02-20 submitted by Arbor Drugs, Inc. d/b/a CVS
Pharmacy#8015 requesting waiver use approval to transfer SDM
License #17038 curremy at 29553 Five Mile Road to 29500 Five
Mile Road on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebett
Road and Hidden Lane in the Southeast%of Section 14, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2001-09-02-20 be approved subject to the
waiving of the 500 fool separation requirement relative to SDM
licenses as set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning
Ordinance #543 by the City Council for the following reasons:
18954
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth
in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area; and
4. Thalthe granting oflhis petition will not increase the number
of SDM licensed facilities in the general area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving
resolution. For those of you at home, you will notice that I forgot
to go to the audience for participation this evening. Butifyou
could see from my point of view, everybodys gone. We're the
only ones left so if anybody would like to speak, they're welcome
to come dawn. That concludes the public hearing for this
evening.
ITEM APPROVAL OF MINUTES 831st Regular Meeting
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of
the Minutes of the 831st Regular Meeting held on September 18,
2001.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-175-2001 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 831st Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on September 18, 2001, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Piercecchi, Shane, Alanskas, LaPine, Dolan and
McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
18955
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM APPROVAL OF MINUTES 832nd Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of
the Minutes of the 832nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
held on October2, 2001.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-176-2001 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 832"d Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October 2,
2001, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole was taken with the following result:
AYES:
Shane, Alanskas, LaPine, Dolan and McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Pieroecchi
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 834th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 30, 2001, was adjourned at 9:42
p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
nr
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary