HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-06-0419409
MINUTES OF THE 846"' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 846"' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann H G Shane Robert Alanskas
William LaPine John Walsh
Members absent: Dan Pieroecchi, John Pastor
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Scott Miller, Planner III; 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 turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council.
Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seem (7)
days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff
have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the
Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission
may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-05-02-09 JOE'S PRODUCE
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
05-02-09, submitted by Joseph Maiorana, Jr., on behalf of Joe's
Produce, requesting waiver use approval to permit open air sales of
nursery stock, fruits and vegetables at 33152 W. Seven Mile Road
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Shadyside
and Mayfield Avenues in the Southwest''/.of Section 3.
19410
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated May 13, 2002, 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 letter is signed by John P. Hill, Assistant
City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated May 13, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This office
has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request
for waiver use approval for open air sales of nursery stock, fruits
and vegetables 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 May 13, 2002, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans in connection with a waiver use
approval regarding open air sales. We have no objection to the
plan as proposed. There is no information on the site plan
regarding an awning4ent structure that is located on the east side
of the building just north of the entry door. This structure is taking
up three parking spaces north of the doors." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from
the Inspection Department, dated May 23, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 9, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted:
The next time the parking lot is resealed, the parking spaces should
be double striped. This Department has no further objections 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?
Clarence Charest, Jr., Clarence R. Charest, P.C., 32437 Five Mile Road, Livonia. I
am an attomey-al-law on behalf of Joe's Produce, Inc. We are
asking for waiver use approval under Section 10.03. I'm not sure if
the members of the Commission have had an opportunity to view
the site.
Mr. McCann: I think we've all gone out and taken a look at it.
Mr. Charest: I'll let the Commission members know, per Mr. Maiomna, that there
are two tents that are up. They are both 20' x 30'. They are next to
each together for an effect of a 20' x 60' area. I wish to correct the
19411
petition inasmuch as no edibles, fruits or vegetables, are being
displayed for sale under the tent. It's only flowers and annuals and
perennials, which are there and have been sold in such fashion for
many years at the continued request of my client's customers. I'd
like to note to the Commission that Joe's produce many years ago
started out as an open-air seasonal market. Although they built the
building in 1972, if I'm not mistaken, just about every year since
then, Joe's his conducted these open-air sales two times a year.
One is in the springtime for the outdoor plantings, and the other
time is during the Thanksgiving season when they sell gourds and
pumpkin. We really never had any problem. However, in the last
two years, every time that Joe's, right or wrong, proceeds to erect
the tent and to set up the displays without prior City approval, we've
incurred notice of violation from the Inspection Department.
Approximately two years ago, the concern we were told was the
quality of the tents, that we needed flame-retardant tents. As a
result, my client went ahead and purchased the tents that are being
used now, which are flame-retardant. I'm not exactly certain what
is within the Commission's authority or discretion in terns of the
time for which a waiver use can be granted, but I suggest to the
Commission that my client would like to avoid fling a petition and
having these hearings twice a year, every year in the future, in
order to continue this type of outdoor sales. Without grandstanding
or malting any grand legal arguments, I would say that there is
certainly some justificafion for saying that given the longevity of
Joe's produce at that location and its continued operations without
incident, that they could be grandfathered because they were doing
this long before some of the ordinance amendments were made.
Be that as it may, I would ask the Commission to consider that any
waiver that is approved be approved for a term of years. I would
ask respectfully for no less than five years, but my dient realizes
that the City has valid reasonable purposes to regulate and control
open-air sales. Open-air sales, however, are nothing unusual in
our City. Without naming names, there are several other fait and
vegetable markets which engage in this type of sales along
Middlebelt and further out on Seven Mile, and there's an old flowers
shop known as George's at Seven Mile and Merriman. My client
tells me that the one tent is going to be taken down, probably by the
end of this week. And the second tent will be down likely by the
end of next week inasmuch as this has been a rather strange
season weatherwise for yard plantings. In terms of the actual
location, as the members can see by the digital photography, the
tents are located on the south side of the building, actually in front
of the building. In terms of the front requirements from Seven Mile
to the building, on my inspection, I can tell the members that there
is no encroachment or impediment to the traffic. From the edge of
19412
the building to the end of the striped lines, where cars would
otherwise be parked, is the boundary for the tent. That is, the traffic
in front of the building can go both ways and there is no real
obstacle to the traffic flow. I do acknowledge be point that was
made in one of the letters that on the east side of the building just
north of the entrance, there's an area with an awning over it. Its
kind of a cubbyhole area which sometimes has been used for
shopping carts. That's another location where there are some
flowers and flats and plantings that are placed for sale. We ask for
waiver use. We believe its proper within the ordinance. We don't
see any down side to the public interests. There s no edibles or
foodstuffs being sold there. In the spirit of compliance, again my
essential request is that we have some dispensation for years to
come rather than having to appear before the Commission twice a
year, because this is how he would like to be able to sell these
materials in the future.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
I know you sell pumpkins and cornstalks and things at that nature
outside. How long past October 15 do you want this waiver for?
Mr. Charest:
What is the dale that Thanksgiving falls on?
Mr. McCann:
Third week of November.
Mr. La Pine:
The third Thursday of November.
Mr. Charest:
Yes, and I understand that's a problem in light of the dates
indicated in the ordinance - October 15.
Mr. LaPine:
I always thought that most of that stuff you sold - the pumpkins -
was for Halloween, not for Thanksgiving.
Mr. Charest:
Oh, I'm sorry. Halloween - that's October 31. Again, I can't tell you
because I really don't know.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm pretty sure that he's out of there by October 31. So basically, if
we wrote April 1 through October 15, its going to take him a couple
days or a week to clean the thing up, so I don't think anybodys
going to say anything for an extra week.
Mr. Charest:
I don't believe historically that his sales of pumpkin and cornstalks
go very far at all beyond Halloween.
19413
Mr. La Pine: Yes, I'm positive of that. The area on the east side of the building,
just north of the entrance ... he uses that primarily to store the
carts. When I was out there, in my inspection, there were a few
flowers, hanging pots, on the overhead rods. There were no flats of
flowers in there.
Mr. Charest:
Again, I was just trying to acknowledge what was indicated in one
of the letters that that is another location where there are some
things for sale.
Mr. La Pine:
If we grant this waiver, does the waiver continue on or does he
have to come back every year?
Mr. McCann:
No, what we are doing is amending a site plan to include the waiver
use for this. Is that correct, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
In granting the waiver use, it would in effect amend the site plan but
the ordinance does stipulate that these types of approvals, if
granted, would run with the land so he would not necessarily be
required to come back. It depends on how the resolution is worded
and whether or not there are any conditions that would limit or
modify that, but as long as there aren't, then he would be able to
continue the same use year after year subject to any and all
conditions that you impose.
Mr. McCann:
The reason I was saying the site plan because it designates a
certain area along with the waiver use which is in a sense
amending the plan.
Mr. Shane:
How many parking spaces does this operation take up? From the
picture it looks like six.
Mr. Taormina:
When I visited this site, the tent, because it's a total of 60' in length,
takes up a minimum of six spaces. I think there were some
additional spaces adjacent to that that really were not usable
because of either the wires holding the tent or some of the storage
immediately adjacent to it. Clearly, in terms of parking available on
the site, they are well within the requirement even by occupying 10
or so spaces. They are required to have with the total operation
occurring on the site 238 spaces; there are 290 spaces available
including all the parking that's at the rear of the site.
Mr. Charest:
Mr. Shane, according to my information, according to the drawings
submitted when the building addition was done in approximately
1984, that 209 spaces were required and at that time 299 spaces
were in existence.
19414
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I am going to close the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it
was
#06-75-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on June 4, 2002, on Petition 2002-
05-02-09, submitted by Joseph Maiorana, Jr., on behalf of Joe's
Produce, requesting waiver use approval to peril open air sales of
nursery stock, fruits and vegetables at 33152 W. Seven Mile Road
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Shadyside
and Mayfield Avenues in the Southwest I/ of Section 3, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-05-02-09 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the outdoor display shall be confined to the 60' x 20' lent
area as illustrated on the plan received by the Planning
Commission on May 7, 2002;
2. That all merchandise to be displayed outdoors shall be limited
to bedding plants, flowers and vegetables, and potted shrubs;
3. That the time period within which the outdoor display will take
place shall be limited to April 1 through October 15, inclusive;
and
4. That the location of the tent and outdoor display of
merchandise shall be conducted in a manner that will insure
that the walkway, parking stalls and aisles are sufficiently flee
of obstruction so as to maintain a clear space for pedestrian
and vehicular circulation;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
19415
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: For Item #3, should October 15" be changed to October 31s? Mr.
Taormina, is there any problem with that, or shall I leave it at
October 15?
Mr. McCann: They need to clean it up. My thought, too, was that he probably
sells just the straw through at least that time.
Mr. LaPine: So we will leave it April 1 through October 15? As I said, by the
time he deans it up, no one is going to say anything.
Mr. McCann: Before we have support on that, I'd like to make a clarification. Do
pumpkins and gourds count as vegetables?
Mr. LaPine: Let's leave'begetables' in llem2justin case.
Mr. McCann: I would like to make the comment for any of the viewers that know,
Mr. Charest and I are members of the same limited liability
company. However, we do not associate our practices and I have
no financial interest or any other type of interest with Joe's
Produce, so I will be voting on this item.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-04-03-05 (VACATING) MR. & MRS. STANTON
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
04-03-05, submitted by Donal and Claudia Stanton, requesting to
vacate a portion of the existing nghtof-way located adjacent to
19656 Melvin on the east side of Melvin Avenue between Fairfax
Avenue and St. Martins Avenue in the Southeast%of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine: Just one question, if I may, Mr. Taormina. The letter we got from
Consumer's Energy says that they want to maintain their easement.
How much would that cut of the area that is going to be vacated?
19416
Mr. McCann:
They want to maintain a utility easement. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
They would like to retain the rights of easement for any utilities that
are located within this shaded area. So if there is any need to go in
there and replace or maintain those lines, they have the right to do
so, even though with an approving petition this property would be
under the ownership of the Stanton's.
Mr. LaPine:
That's what l thought. I wasnt sure. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
If there is no objection, I think it world be little more clear if we did
Item #3 at the same time.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated May
9, 2002, 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 with this petition.
Should the City Council and/or the Planning Commission approve
the vacating of the right -0f -way, the petitioner will be required to
provide a legal description from a licensed land surveyor qualified
to do business in the State of Michigan. The legal description
provided is only for reference and should not be used in a
recordable instrument." The letter is signed by John P. Hill,
Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Claudia Stanton,
19658 Melvin. I apologize if I repeat anything that's already been
mentioned tonight, but I already had my notes written up. In July,
1974, we moved into our home which we purchased from my
husband's parents. Al the time, the upper branch to the Rouge
Creek was aboveground. It ran through our backyard, behind that
of our neighbors, at the time Mr. and Mrs. Dick Johnson, and the
area in between, now owned by Mr. and Mrs. Prysdale. In 1977,
the City decided that they were not going to continue Melvin
between Fairfax and Bretton. The City vacated this 30' portion to
the then owners, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. For some reason, the City
did not vacate the portion in front of our house or in front of theirs,
now owned by Mr. and Mrs. Gunn. I have talked with people in
Planning, Engineering, a former commissioner, and a council
member, past and present, and no one can figure out why these
areas in front of our homes were not vacated at the same time.
19417
Since it is the City's decision not to continue Melvin or Fairfax at
this time, it seems that it would have been logical to vacate the
remaining portions of the easement at the same time. As the
council member stated, he could only think that it was an oversight
on the part of the City and he was a member of the Council at that
time. I am sure that all of you have either been out to the area or
are familiar with it, but I have maps and pictures for each member
on the Commission, along with a petition from the neighbors who
are in support of the vacating. As Mr. Taormina staled earlier, this
was all platted and dedicated at the same time in 1962, and if it was
vacated, these portions would come to ourselves and the Gunns.
At this time, we would respectfully ask the City to vacate the portion
in front of our home to us so that we may incorporate this area into
our front yard and correct what may have been an oversight by the
City as stated by the council member. We have maintained this
area for the past 28 years and have made sure that we have kept it
in a way that complimented the surrounding neighborhood. Since
the City may not be continuing the roads to the best of our
knowledge, we see no reason why the City would not want to take
this action and be able to collect taxes on this portion. We
understand that this seems to put you in a Catch 22 as you haven't
heard the ruling from the Council on the Prysdale petition, but at the
same time we ask you if it is fair that we might have to wait for a
decision. We realize by talting this action that it would Iandlock the
rear of their property. But had this action been taken 25 years ago,
he would have been landlocked then and we wouldn't be here
today. It does not, however, result in the Prysdales not being able
to sell off any of their property. The Commission themselves gave
them several ideas on ways to split their land at the public meeting
on May 7, 2002, when their petition was before you. We
understand the Prysdales have asked for a postponement of our
petition until they have received the final decision from the Council.
I respectfully ask the Commission to set aside this request and let
our petition continue through the proper channels. I also
understand that he would like access from Fairfax and Melvin to the
back of his home, and we would like to know how he proposes to
do this if he sells off any portion of that land. Why is this necessary
if his home is on Bretton? There is a gate in the rear of his fence,
and they have already used this access to take care of several
things in their yard. We thank them for their concern in our having
to look at someone's backyard, but since we all do now, we don't
see that as a problem. We hope that you will understand why we
have taken this action, and we hope that they will. If the roles were
reversed, wouldn't they do the same? We truly appreciate the
years they have left the area open for the children to pass to school
19418
and play catch and for the seniors to take the shorter distance to
the mall. I thank the Commission for your time.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Shidey Prysdale, 29902 Bretton. I'm kind of nervous because I have never done
this before.
Mr. McCann: We understand.
Mrs. Prysdale: Unfortunately, in the last three years, my husband has developed
no hips. The property has gotten to the point where it's hard to take
care of. I work, I come home and I have to cut the grass. Which at
that time, I didn't mind because I figured it's beautiful; we have
people coming through. We never minded this. But at this point,
by you blocking off the access on both sides, that's going to give
me no access to my back property. I found out that I can have a
fans. I can have two horses, a pig, a cox, chickens. Now if you
block off that access, even if I somehow won the lottery, and
wanted to bring a QissCraff boat through there, I could not. Even
though I have a fence joining to the back of my property, it was to
get my riding lawn mower back there. We have kept this property
up for 26 years. We have talked to commissioners; we have sent
letters; we have gone down to the Engineering staff. We had
Engineering staff come out to determine about the water situation
that they felt was coming from us. And it was not. It was coming
from across the street from the people in back of Melvin on the
Bretton side. When Mr. Hill came out, and he went through some
things with us, and seeing the property and that, he did not say. He
said they would look into it and see what was causing the
problems. I just ask that you look at and consider the problem we
would have if you did block off the access from us to even having
any right-0iway. When we moved in there 26 years ago, when
they gave 30' to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, at first we thought we were
going to have 15' and they were going to have 15'. It never worked
that way. We always cut the lawn where the fence line ends and
everything like that to keep it up. Picked up the twigs. Kept the
property dean as far as when people walk through they don't pick
up their stuff. People play ball and don't pick up their ball.
Sometimes we had to dodge balls while we were cutfing the grass.
You're kind enough to say you don't mind because would you
rather see them out in the middle of the road playing ball, breaking
somebody's windows? I mean, if you've ever been out here and
seen it. Its a beautiful piece of properly. It's a great piece of
property to look at. And I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Gunn are
19419
selling. So this is an advantage to them to see an open piece of
property. The owners are going to come in, just like the people
next to us came in. I introduced myself to her last year or when she
moved in. I said, "Hi, I'm Shirley." She thought it was City property.
And I'm cutting the grass. "I know you have children. I don't mind if
you play ball or whatever they would like. We just ask that they
pick up their things afterwards so it wouldn't be so hard for us to
keep clean" So I'm just asking at this time for you to take into
consideration that if you do block this off, I'm not going to have any
access to do anything to bring anything in through my back
property. And I thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Mr. Gunn, I'm going to go to your petition in just a minute. I
assume some of these comments will be with regard to both
petitions and we will consider them for both petitions.
Renee Woods,
19631 Melvin. What she proposed, her access to the back of her
home . . but in the petition and in her wanting to build homes
there, she was asking to build a home on that Melvin curve. If she
did that, she wouldn't have access to her backyard anyway.
Mr. McCann:
I understand your point.
Ms. Woods:
You understand my point?
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Ms. Woods:
So either she's going to have the access to the backyard should
she get her boat or whatever or she'd have the access to build a
house there. It cant be both ways.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I'm going to close the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and approved, it was
#06-76-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on June 4, 2002, on Petition 2002-
04-03-05, submitted by Donal and Claudia Stanton, requesting b
vacate a portion of the existing right -0f -way located adjacent to
19650 Melvin on the east side of Melvin Avenue between Fairfax
Avenue and Sl. Marlins Avenue in the Southeast %of Section 2,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petilion 2002-04-03-05 be approved, subject to the
retention of an easement for public and private utilities as
19420
recommended by the Engineering Division and Consumers Energy,
forthe following reasons:
1. That the subject right-of-way is not needed for public access
purposes;
2. That the subject righlotway can be more advantageously
used in private ownership;
3. That vacating of the subject right-of-way will place the property
back on the City's tax rolls; and
4. That no reporting City department or public utility has objected
to the proposed vacating;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? I think this is a situation where I could go
either way. If I looked at this petition along Fairfax and Melvin, most
subdivisions build a home in the comer section there. If you drove
around, in most subdivisions in the City you would see a home right
there in the comer where he proposed to put this. It would not be
unusual and it would fit in. Once it was in, nobody would ever know
that it wasn't planned as part of the subdivision. However, my other
concern is that this is RUF property abutting RUF property and that
was what the purchaser bought. Within the City, we are attempting
to maintain as much of the RUF property as possible. It helps to mix
up the types and scopes of neighborhoods. This property can be
split into two homes. I think that might be the better use. Therefore,
I'm going to vote in favor of the petition. Would the Secretary please
call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Walsh, McCann
NAYS: La Pine, Shane
ABSENT: Pieroecchi, Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19421
ITEM #3 PETITION 2002-05-03-06 (VACATING) MR. & MRS. GUNN
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
05-03-06, submitted by Donald and Susan Gunn, requesting to
vacate a portion of the existing right -0f -way located adjacent to
30010 Fairfax Avenue on the north side of Fairfax Avenue between
Pudingbrook Avenue and Melvin Avenue in the Southeast I/ of
Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is correspondence from the Engineering Division, dated May
10, 2002, 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 with this petition. It
is recommended that the south 15 feet of the right-of-way vacation
retain full rights of access as easement for the existing storm line.
Should the City Council and/or the Planning Commission approve
the vacating of the rfght-0f-way, the petitioner will be required to
provide a legal description from a licensed land surveyor qualified
to do business in the State of Michigan. The legal description
provided is only for reference and should not be used in a
recordable instrument." The letter is signed by John P. Hill,
Assistant City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Donald Gunn, 30010 Fairfax. At this time I'd like to have everything handled by my
atiomey, Richelle Hall.
Richelle Hall, 33067 SchoolcraR, Livonia. The phone number is (734) 427-4505.
Some of the comments that I may say may, as you mentioned
before, also apply to the Stanton property. As you already know,
the Stantons own the properly on Lot 29. The Gunns own Lot 28.
Nine years ago, my clients purchased this property on Lot 28 and
they Teamed that the City vacated 30' for their access. My clients
assumed that the property in front of their house was also their
property just because this 30' adjacent to it lines up perfectly to the
street. A few years or more recently, they found out they do not
own this property. They've been maintaining it, watering it, keeping
it up very nicely for all these years. We also have a petition signed
by 29 neighbors living on Melvin, Fairfax and Sl. Martins and even
19422
Bretton who say that the Gunns have maintained this property
wonderfully for the past nine years. They are asking that the
Commission render a favorable posifion for the Gunn's petition in a
timely fashion. The Gunns always believed this was their property
to begin with and then to find out, we never owned this particular
piece of property. That actually was a very big disappointment for
them. We learned in 1977 that 30' was vacated to the Johnson's
properly, which is now owned by the Gunns. However, as Mrs.
Stanton mentioned, maybe it was an oversight that this additional
piece of property in front was overlooked, but for whatever reason,
it was not vacated to Lot 28 at that time. We are requesting that it
be vacated to Lot 28 as we believe it should have been back in
1977. We understand the position of the owners who own the
property now that's located on Bretton. We understand that area is
actually labeled RUFA, which is right now farm land. We
understand the owners position that if, in the future, because it is
farm land, if she wanted to bring in cows or any animals to take
advantage of the farm land, their position is that they would be
landlocked. Our posifion is that is not what is before us at this time.
They've never used it as farm land in the past from what I
understand. From what I understand, they've never used it up to
this point. I also understand they are petitioning to change the
zoning from farm land to residential. That would also present a
major problem for the Gunns and all adjoining properties also.
Whenever there is new construction in an area that was previously
farm land, there is always issues concerning grading. We don't
want to cause a future law suit or legal battle over water issues.
Whether the grading on their side will dramatically affect the Gunns
property because, as it has been mentioned, there is a creek that
was running through that farm land at a particular point. Well,
actually, I believe its still there now. But that water flowing in that
area, it will cause a construction problem if a house is built there.
You may have dealt with water concems before. There is always a
grading issue and whether that property is even fit for residential
use is also a concern. But as the facts stale, as of today, it is farm
land. This property has never been used by those owners in the
past and unless and until it does, we will have to consider those
issues at that time. We're just asking that the Gunns be allowed to
have ownership of this property that theyve already maintained for
the Iasi nine years and which has already been used by the
previous owners since 1977.
Mr. Alanskas: When the Gunns purchased the property ... you said nine years
ago?
Ms. Hall: Yes.
19423
Mr. Alanskas:
Usually there's always a land survey taken at the time of purchase
because to obtain an title, they have to have it. What did that
survey show as far as that piece of property for the easement?
Ms. Hall:
The actual survey shows this particular part on this particular
survey and I'm not certain ...
Mr. Gunn:
It's scaled way back. It shows a much smaller area than what it
actually is.
Mr. Alanskas:
Does it show it as the City's property or your property?
Ms. Hall
Its not very dear. It appears, and I can actually show you a copy.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's all right. There was a survey, though?
Ms. Hall
Yes. It appears on the survey. If a lay person such as Mr. Gunn
were to look at, he could assume that it was his.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Harvey Prysdale, 29901 Bretton. I just wanted to ask if you have received the letters
that I submitted concerning this situation? Do you have them in
your possession?
Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, did you receive a letter from Mr. Prysdale? It wasn't
in the correspondence in the beginning.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, I do have a letter dated May 19 signed by Harvey Prysdale.
Mr. McCann: Do you want to read it into the record?
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, I will read this into the record and I apologize.
Again, the letter is dated May 19, 2002, from Harvey and Shirley
Prysdale at 29901 Bretton, Livonia, Michigan 48152. This is
actually addressed to the City Council. It reads as follows: After
being initially rejected by the City Planning Commission conceming
Petition 2002-03-01-02 for a rezoning request on property we now
own, fora rezoning change from RUFA to R-0, we have some
19424
additional feelings which we would like to express at the Study
Meeting on May 28 and June 4, 2002. On that agenda, new
business items #4 and #5 would remove all my chances for my
original request to rezone and have the lot usable for residential
construction, for a home on my property which is in the Bretton
Gardens #2 Lot 28 and 29 Subdivision. As suggested by Mr.
Taormina to rezone to R3 would conic" to the neighborhood.
Should the petitions of Mr. Gunn and Mr. Stanton be accepted, we
would not have access to our property to allow us to further develop
it. Since Mr. Gunn is selling his home at this time and the original
owner was given 30 ft. of the easement, we would like your
consideration in allowing us access to the existing easement. We
feel the revenue, which would be received if a home were
constructed on the property, would be far more beneficial to the
City than vacating the parcel of land as the Stanton's have
petitioned. We can alter the original lot configuration to conform
with the land in question if needed. In the letter received by the
City Planning Commissioner, addressed to the City Council, the
piece of property would be far more valuable if you will allow me to
complete my request for rezoning. Although the petition #1343 and
Petition #2023, not to continue the road to Bretton is valid,
construction of a residential home is an item we feel should be
looked at completely."
Mr. Prysdale:
Basically, chats all I would have to say. I would like to add just one
thing. If these don't go through and a house is not allowed, the
property is not allowed to be rezoned, a home is not allowed to be
built on the back of that lot, I still have the okay to build a house by
splitting my property and running the lot straight back from Bretton
to Melvin and Fairfax, which would just do nothing more than be a
backyard facing that partiaalar subdivision, and I don't know if a
house doesn't conform to that area, what would a backyard look
like off that property facing Fairfax and Melvin? That's the only
other thing I have to add to that.
Mr. Gunn:
Just to clear the record, my house is not for sale.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I'm going to close the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
19425
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was
#06-77-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on June 4, 2002, on Petition 2002-
05-03-06, submitted by Donald and Susan Gunn, requesting to
vacate a portion of the existing right -0f -way located adjacent to
30010 Fairfax Avenue on the north side of Fairfax Avenue between
Puringbrook Avenue and Melvin Avenue in the Southeast I/ of
Section 2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2002-05-03-06 be approved, subject
to the retention of an easement for public and private utilities as
recommended by the Engineering Division and Consumers Energy,
forthe following reasons:
1. That the subject right-of-way is not needed for public access
purposes;
2. That the subject righlof way can be more advantageously
used in private ownership;
3. That vacating of the subject right-of-way will place the property
back on the City's tax rolls; and
4. That no reporting City department or public utility has objected
to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Walsh, McCann
NAYS: LaPine, Shane
ABSENT: Pieroecchi, Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
This conduces the Public Hearing section of our agenda. We will
now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans section of our agenda.
Members of the audience may speak in support or opposition to
these items. Will the Secretary please read the next item?
19426
ITEM #4 PETITION 2001-09-08-25 NATIONAL SPECIALTIES
(BP Gas Station)
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, revision to
Petition 2001-09-08-25, submitted by National Specialties, on
behalf of BP Gas Station, requesting to revise the plans approved
for the gas station located at 31301 Five Mile Road in the
Southeast %of Section 23.
Mr. McCann: For the record, I received a letter from National Spedalites, Inc.,
dated June 4, 2002, which reads as follows: "1 like to withdrawal
out of tonight meeting. Thank you." The letter is signed by Michael
Beydoun. I spoke with Mr. Miller, and he informed me that Mr.
Beydoun is intending to withdraw the petition to amend this site
plan. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#06-78-2002 RESOLVED, that having considered a letter dated June 4, 2002,
from Michael Beydoun, National Specialties, Inc., requesting that a
revision to Petition 2001-09-08-25 to revise the plans approved for
the gas station located at 31301 Five Mile Road in the Southeast''/.
of Section 23 be withdrawn, the Planning Commission does hereby
concur in that request and declares that the revision to Petition
2001-09-08-25 is hereby withdrawn.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-05-0844 AHMED V.ISMAIL
(Facchini Dental)
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
05-08-14, submitted by Ahmed V. Ismail, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a dentist office building on
properly located at 28046 Five Mile Road in the Southeast''/.of
Section 13.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile between Inkster
and Hanson. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a
new dentist office on a vacant piece of property located across the
19427
street from the Suburban Door facility. This property sets between
two occupied houses. The proposed building would be one-story in
height and 2,971 sq. R. in area. The Site Plan shays that the north
60 R. of the property would be utilized as a detention area. A note
on the plan indicates that this detention basin would be fenced and
gated. Because the rear or north property line abuts residential, a
masonry screen wall is required along this lot line. According to the
plans, there is already a partial section of a wall standing. A new
poured concrete wall, matching the existing, would be erected and
continued from the existing wall. Panting for the building would be
located both in front and behind the building. Parking is
summarized as follows: required parking is 12 spaces; provided
panting is 21 spaces. All parking spaces would measure 10 ft. wide
by 20 R. in length. An enclosed dumpster area is shown at the
northeast comer of the rear parking lot. A note on the plan states
that the dumpster area would be constructed out of 6 ft. high brick
embossed poured concrete walls with cyclone fence access gates.
The Landscape Plan shows that the majority of the decorative
landscaping would be located up next to the base of the building.
The only plant material proposed between the edge of the parking
lot and the sidewalk along Five Mile Road is sodded lawn. The
detention area would have a row of 24" high boxwoods between it
and the rear parking lot. The remaining portion of the basin would
be sodded lawn. Landscaping is summarized as follows: required
landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; provided
landscaping is 33% of the site. The Building Elevation Plans show
that the new building would be somewhat residential in appearance.
It world be constructed out of brick on all four sides with some peak
areas covered in horizontal vinyl siding. The roof would be asphalt
shingled.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of conespondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated May 28, 2002, 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 and see no problems with respect to traffic or
points of ingress and egress. The drive approach to Five Mile
Road will require a permit from Wayne County. It should be noted
that the developer will be required to meet the Wayne County
Storm Water Management Ordinance in connection with storm
water runoff. The site is located at a high point on Five Mile Road
and no developed storm facilities are available. It is our
understanding that the site will be developed with a detention basin
capable of storing two ten-year storms. Because of the small
19428
developed area on the site, we have no objection to this method of
detention. To avoid maintenance problems, we recommend that
the bottom of the basin be installed with a 12 -inch sand layer, one
inch of top soil and seed or sod. A small diameter storm outlet
should be installed to the low point along the North property line
with the invert at the basin set at the high water elevation." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May
30, 2002, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a dentist
office building on property located at the above -referenced address.
We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by
Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Inspector. The third letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated May 24, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 22, 2001, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
Parking lot striping must be double striped. (2) It is not clear that
underground irrigation will be provided for all lawn and landscaped
areas. (3) A detail should be provided of the proposed fence
around the detention basin. The poured concrete protection wall
should be listed as brick pattern or as otherwise acceptable to the
Commission. (5) No signage has been reviewed. (6) Then; is a
four -foot diameter tree that straddles the rear lot line. This should
be addressed as to its removal or to relocating the protective wall.
This Department has no further objections 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?
Franco Facchini, D.D.S., 28046 Five Mile Road. This is a proposed dental office.
My goal is to make it residential in character. I want to appeal to
my patients and give them a homey, comfortable feel. I've enlisted
the aid of a dental consultant in building dental buildings, and an
architect for designing dental buildings so that we can have a
building that patients would appreciate and that patients would feel
comfortable in. We spent a lot of time with landscaping and a
design to meet our criteria and the criteria of City ordinances.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: Are the three round poles in the front of the building wood or
fiberglass?
Dr. Facchini: Fiberglass.
19429
Mr. Alanskas:
It would be fiberglass so they wouldn't have to be painted. Okay.
How many dentists are you gang to have in the building?
Dr. Facchini:
One.
Mr. Alanskas:
Just one. And you'll have how many rooms?
Dr. Facchini:
Su.
Mr. Alanskas:
Su. You're going to be a busy man. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Just for informational purposes, are you willing to accept the
Engineering recommendation in their letter of May 28, 2002,
regarding the sand?
Dr. Facchini:
I see no problem with that.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Can you consider moving the building back so we can gel more
landscaping in the front?
Dr. Facchini:
I have, and the issue with that is the Detroit Edison lines that
transverse the property from the east border down to the west
border. We have the building as far back as they allow for
easement considerations. They want 27 feet in width.
Mr. Shane: Have you gone far enough to engineer the detention pond area to
know whether ifs large enough or it could be smaller?
Dr. Facchini: We have enlisted civil engineers, Basney and Smith, who are
familiar with Livonia requirements. I went to them today with that to
make sure that the calculations that he did were what John Hill
asked me to do, which was two to three times a ten-year flood, and
that s what he has.
Mr.Shane: So this represents that calculation?
Dr. Facchini: Yes. It sure does. As a matter of fad, I believe that calculation
appears on one of these sheets.
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, if I may be able to add some more to that? I did
have a conversation with John Hill, the Assistant City Engineer, this
afternoon. He indicated to me that because there is no storm outlet
available to this property, the basin has to be oversized. In order to
have sufficient capacity to handle the storm water, they actually
19430
have to accommodate for the fact that there is no outlet, so the
basin is made twice as large as it would normally be. They are still
investigating the possibility that there could be an outlet available
within a reasonable distance to this property, although they have
not secured any approvals from Wayne County to do that. In the
event that they are not able to, then it appears that the basin has
been sized appropriately under the standards and criteria. But if, in
fad, they can get an access point to a storm sewer, then it could be
made a the smaller although we are not aware yet of whether or
not that is feasible. Its going to take some further investigaton with
Wayne County.
Mr. Shane:
There is a handicap parking space as you enter the complex right
althe corner ofthe building.
Dr. Facchini:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
Would there be a problem in moving the handicap space and
landscape that particular area to get some more landscaping in the
front since apparently you can't move the building?
Frank S. Zychowski, AZD Associates, Architects, 700 East Maple, Suite 100,
Birmingham, Michigan. We've addressed that slightly. There is a
difference from the engineering plan to our landscape plan. You
can see the colored island that is here. We've relocated the
handicap parking space over in the center and provided an island
there to buffer and get a the bit of green space by the front door to
soften it. So I think we've addressed that. And that varies from the
engineering plan.
Mr. Shane:
You have a parking requirement of 12 spaces according to the
ordinance. You have 21 spaces provided. Is there a problem with
losing another space and expanding that landscape area just a
scratch?
Dr. Facchini:
The issue I had with removing parking spots in the front, which is
near the entrance of the building, is that I have elderly patients.
Now there is one for handicap, but I have many patients who are
not necessarily handicapped but may find it difficult to park in the
back and then walk up a incline toward the front. For them that
may be an inconvenience, so I want to provide as many parking
slots as I could althe front for my elderly patents and employees.
Mr. Shane:
You dont have a public entry in the rear, cored.
Dr. Facchini:
No.
19431
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, the letter from Alex Bishop talks about "a detail
should be provided for the proposed fence around the detention
basin" With this large basin, are we going to require a fence?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not aware that a fence would be needed in this particular case.
The ordinance does not require a fence where the side slopes of
the basin are maintained at a certain minimum slope. I think it is
one on six. So as long as they can comply with that requirement,
then there is no need to fence the basin.
Mr. McCann:
Do you have a proposed fence on the plan? Is that what we're
seeing at the rear of the property between the parking and the
detention area?
Mr. Zychowski:
Basney and Smith have been working with John Hill in trying to
define exactly the size of this basin. It was our understanding that,
as it is currently designed, that the slope would be steeper than City
requirements and a fence would be required. We're still trying to
massage that and gat the slope as minimum as possible. We'd
love to eliminate the fence and make it look nicer and less
restrictive, but it's a function of the engineering of the site, so I can't
commit right now that we would not have that fence.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Bishop also mentioned a poured concrete prolective wall. Is it
a brick pattern or what is the poured concrete wall? Can you
explain that?
Mr. Zychowski:
There would be a poured concrete wall along the north property
line. There already is a wall that extends onto the property, and it
slops at a very large tree that's right on the property line. We would
be extending that. It is our intent to preserve the tree and start the
wall on the other side of the tree and just let the tree remain there
instead of removi ng it.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, do you have a comment on that?
Mr. Taormina:
I think its possible to work with the Inspection Department to
somehow work around that tree. I would hope so. Its a rather
large diameter tree as was noted in the Inspection report. It is right
at the end of the property line, so we will work out a way of going
around it.
Mr. Zychowski:
I'd really like to save R.
19432
Mr. McCann: I'm listening to your concerns. I understand that you probably have
a pretty good staff if you're going to keep that many rooms going
with hygienists and patients, if you have six rooms full. These
Edison power lines are giving us some problems along the north
side of Five Mile. We've had other projects where we really aren't
getting the type of projects we want because they have to move the
buildings so far forward to avoid them. If anybody from Edison is
listening, maybe they want to bury the line. I don't know. I guess
I'm looking to you, if you can come up with suggestions on how we
can bring some of that landscaping . . . you're providing a
tremendous amount of landscaping to the rear of the properly, but
very little to the front. One of the things we have done before is to
use the detention basin in front of the building, orient the entrance
of your building to the rear of the building, and you get a really nice
effect of a lot of greenbelt sitting right in front of your building. Had
you looked at that? I guess my concern is whether you have
sufficient room for the detention basin.
Mr. Zychowslk: Believe me, we've looked at this building turned all different ways
on this site. One thing that was very important to the doctor in
purchasing this property and planning the building was that ... any
dentist that has been in an office that has operatories on the south
or the west side, pretty much despises it, and that's what usually
starts them in a search for property. So when he went to the north
side of Five Mile Road and obtained this piece, the goal was to gel
the operatories facing north. The ambient light is better. Healing
and cooling the operatories is easier. It's just a better design basic
to implement. So that's one of the things driving the orientation on
the property. Once you do that, the entrance has to be on the front
of the building. So that's why we split the parking. It certainly costs
more money to do a parlang area here and a parking area here, but
it's for patient satisfaction. It's the best utilized parking with the
constraints that we're working around. Now, we've looked at
everything we can do. We had a conversation with Scott, I believe,
and he mentioned trying to obtain the goal of more landscaping
between the sidewalk. I guess our question to you would be, what
does the City want to see there? Are we looking for a tree line?
How much room are you looking to obtain? We've done it in the
past where you have a foot and half or two feet of landscaping right
in front of the building, and that just doesn't allow enough room to
do nice healthy landscaping, so we allotted more room adjacent to
the building and have sacrificed at the front of the lot. We could
probably massage that a little bit, reduce some of the concrete, the
hard scape on the front here and maybe pick up two or two and half
feel to add in here. Now that would give us six and a half or seven
feel, but I don't know what your goal is.
19433
Mr. McCann:
Whatever we can gel. Two or three feet helps. I mean if it's less
concrete and more grass, that's the right goal.
Mr. Zychowski:
We certainly are willing to do whatever we can outside of going to
battle with Edison to push this building as tight as we can back to
that easement. We had looked at the building in the back, but that
just doesn't work. Somebody that bought this property to grow his
practice, setting the building on the back side of the lot doesn't give
him presence and engineering -wise its very difficult. If you walk
this site, it drops probably five to six feel to the back side of the
property. So if we were to locale the building back there, and then
get our detention basin in the front, engineering -wise it really
doesn't work. We've have to raise it so much back here to have it
drain naturally to a pond in front that it functionally doesn't make
any sense. So that's how we ended up here.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any other questions?
Mr. LaPine:
If your practice look off and you hired a couple more dentists, you
couldn't expand that building to the rear because of the overhead
wires unless you had the overhead wires moved, and that's very
expensive, I would assume. The other question I have is about
your dumpster. Is that going to be brick, the same as the building?
Mr. Zychowski:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. One question to Mark. The other night at the Council
meeting, it came up about a dumpsler ... about a new gate. Is that
feasible? It sounds like it was good to me.
Mr. Taormina:
We're still trying to pin down the exact details. Scott has contacted
the manufacturer, and we're hoping to get some more information
soon. Ifs a steel gate.
Mr. LaPine:
So just keep us abreast. It sounded good. It might be a better idea
instead of having those wood fences. From now on we could have
thattype.
Mr. Alanskas:
On your rendering, its a good looking building. Of course I Maw
tonight we don't have any signage proposed on this petition, but
what do you plan in the future to do so people will know that you
have a dentist office there?
Mr. Zychowski:
We would propose a ground sign in this location.
19434
Mr. Alanskas:
You're pointing where the landscaping is. It doesn't sound too
good. I'm mean we're trying to get more landscaping and now
you're saying you want to put a sign there. If you did, that would
take up that landscaping.
Mr. Zychowslk:
Well, your sign ordinance is kind of restrictive. Its not going to be a
big sign.
Mr. Alanskas:
Anything you put there is going to take away from the landscaping.
That's why I asked the question.
Mr. Zychowski:
It would. If you were to look on Basney and Smith's engineering
drawings, we had proposed signage over in this portion of the lot
originally. We went out there and looked at it in proximity to the
existing building, and there is just zero visibility. Take away the fact
that we have to get onto the property, we really don't have a lot of
options as far as the signage is concerned.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know its not before us tonight, but I as one commissioner would
be fighting very hard not to lose any landscaping that you have
there now for a sign. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is here anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. La Pine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#06-79-2002
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-05-08-14,
submitted by Ahmed V. Ismail, requesting approval of all pians
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection
with a proposal to construct a dentist office building on property
located at 28046 Five Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 13,
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 5/20/02 prepared by
Basney & Smith, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except for the fact that the development shall be shifted to the
north as much as possible or modified in such a manner so as
to increase the width of the greenbelt between the south edge
ofthe parking lot and the sidewalk along Five Mile Road;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated May 17,
2002, prepared by AZD Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the landscaping of
19435
the greenbelt between the parking lot and Five Mile Road, as
conditioned on the approved Site Plan, shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Sheet A-2.1
and A-2.2 both dated May 17, 2002, prepared by AZD
Associates, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four
(4") inch brick, no exception;
7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of
the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the
wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building
and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in
use closed at all times;
8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 ft. in height and shall
be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated May 24, 2002:
- That the parking lot shall be double striped and all
handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the
Michigan Barrer Free Code;
10. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; and
11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for.
19436
Mr. Walsh:
If I may, Mr. Chairman, ask a question of Mr. Taormina. The
requirement in Item 1, is that to be included? It sounds like an
impossible requirement.
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not going to say @'s impossible if you're referring to the
possibility of moving the building back a few feet. I'd still like to
discuss with the designer that possibility because I think two or
three feet is feasible given some of the dimensions I'm looking at
on this plan. That would give us a little bit wider greenbelt between
the sidewalk and the curb for the parking area, which I think would
make just enough space to do a little bit more landscaping in that
area. So I'd like to have the opportunity to work with them on that.
However, a 15 or 20 foot wide greenbelt is probably more than we
can expect.
Mr. Walsh:
Should we say two or three feet?
Mr. McCann:
Lel it read "as much as possible?"
Mr. Walsh:
Ok, 'to allow as much as possible in footage for a greenbelt
between the parking lot and Five Mile Road."
Mr. LaPine:
I have one question. Did I see you bring in a brick sample? I'd like
to see the brick color.
Mr. Zychowski:
Its very traditional.
Mr. Walsh:
I'd just like to point out that I'm a friend of Dr. Facchini, and I know
that for at least two years, he's been searching for property in
Livonia to open his practice. He had problems finding some
properly that interested him. I appreciate your being patient and
locating in Livonia.
Mr. McCann, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19437
ITEM #6 PETITION 2002-05-0845 ORIN J. MAZZONI
(Commercial Building)
Mr. Shane, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
05-08-15, submitted by Orin J. Mazzoni, Jr. requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on
property located at 37330 Six Mile Road in the Southwest''/.of
Section 8.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a commercial
retail building on the vacant piece of property that is located on the
northeast comer of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road. Just north
of this property is a small Detroit Edison substation and just east is
a Standard Federal Bank. Across the street to the west is the
Laurel Park Place Mall and across the street to the south is the
Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center. The proposed building would
be one-story in height and 3,898 sq. ft. in size. The building would
be positioned back in the northeast comer of the property and
would have parking in the front. Access to the site would be
achieved by a pair of two-way drives; one off Six Mile Road and the
other off Newburgh Road. Parking is summarized as follows:
required parking is 21 spaces for retail, 25 space for multiple retail;
provided parking is 21 spaces. Based on the provided parking, this
building would not be alloyed to have more than four tenants. All
parking spaces measure 10 R. wide by 20 R. in length and would be
doubled striped. An enclosed dumpsler area is shown straight in
from the drive off Newburgh Road, just off the northwest corner of
the proposed building. A note on the plan explains that the walls of
the enclosure would be six feel in height and constructed out of the
same materials as used for the building. The access gates would
be opaque and remain closed except when the dumpster is being
emptied. The light standard cutout illustrates that the parking lot
fixtures would have a two foot concrete base and a 15 R. high pole.
The Landscape Plan shows a planting scheme in the southwest
comer of the property near the intersection, with boulders, daylilies
and annual flowers. Landscaping is summarized as follows:
required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; provided
landscaping is 16% of the site. The Building Elevation Plan shows
that the building would be constructed out of brick on all four sides
with limestone accent bands. A canvas awning would wrap around
the west (Newburgh side) and south (Six Mile side) elevations. The
plan shows three separate doors along the front and rear of the
building, indicating three potential tenant spaces.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
19438
Mr. Taormina:
There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated May 27, 2002, 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 and see only a minor problem with respect to
traffic or points of ingress and egress. The location of the drives at
the extreme ends of the site is desirable. However, the northern
return of the Newburgh Road drive will encroach on the existing
concrete approach from the Detroit Edison building. The developer
should coordinate his plan with Detroit Edison to create a joint use
driveway incorporating the existing drive. It should be noted that
the developer will be required to meet the Wayne County Storm
Water Management Ordinance in connection with storm water
runoff and will be required to obtain a permit from the County for
the Six Mile Road approach." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia
Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 30, 2002, which reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to construct a retail building on property
located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections
to this proposal with bre following stipulation: Upon further review,
approval may require a fire hydrant located on the site." The letter
is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Inspector. The third letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated May 24, 2002, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request of May 22, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This petition has been reviewed as though it is a permitted retail
use (three tenants maximum). (2) No signage has been reviewed.
This Department has no further objections 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?
Joseph Obidzinski,
Joseph Philips Architect, L.L.C., 921 Wing Street, Plymouth,
Michigan. We were the ones that designed the building.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything addifional you need to tell us? I see that you have
amended the site plan after some discussion last week.
Mr. Obidzinski:
That's correct. We had no problem taking the parking spot that was
close to Six Mile and relocafing it over by the dumpster, and
transplanfing landscaping to that area. That works out functionally
just as well for us. Aside from that, Scott did a real good job of
represenfing our building. As he pointed out, the construction of
19439
Mr. Taormina: They are. The driveway on the Edison property appears to be right
on the shared properly line, so I think what the Engineering Division
is suggesting is that because of that arrangement and the fact that
they would be abutting one another, it may make sense if the
property owners consider some kind of a cross access agreement
whereby they could share a common drive and eliminate the need
for an additional curb cut onto Newburgh Road. It's possible. It
would obviously require the cooperation of the properly owners.
Mr. McCann: I guess that's my question. I think we're approving a drawing that
practically doesn't work from what I'm seeing out there, and that is
that this north drive on Newburgh, this idea of having a line coming
out here, doesn't really exist because currently it comes in and
there's a cut coming right in here right now.
Mr. Taormina: That's correct.
the building would be brick on all four sides. The building has great
visibility because of its prominent location at that comer. We're
going to intermix some Imestone accents. The aluminum flaming
that we use will have a warn champagne color to it so that will also
harmonize with the limestone. The trim that we use on the comice
on lop of the building will also be painted a color that will be very
harmonious with the limestone.
Mr. Shane:
Does the rendering representthe color on the canopies?
Mr. Zychowski:
Al this time, that will probably be the color. The sample that I have
here, although the owner hasn't made a final determination on it, is
probably the color that we anticipate using. The color was chosen
to be kind of like a patina copper color. There's a couple selections
in canvas, and he will make a final determination on that. But it will
be very much in that range.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, in the correspondence it talked about co -locating the
drive with the Edison entrance to the north. It has been done
before where if this petitioner were to move his drive slightly north
so that they had a shared entrance and did the improvements, he
would receive a permanent easement for access as part of the
drive. Is that what they're talking about doing? I'm not quite sure
how its recommended to work. It would provide additional
landscaping if we can move that island a little north and move the
drive a little north. However, the driveways are actually abutting
each other, are they not?
Mr. Taormina: They are. The driveway on the Edison property appears to be right
on the shared properly line, so I think what the Engineering Division
is suggesting is that because of that arrangement and the fact that
they would be abutting one another, it may make sense if the
property owners consider some kind of a cross access agreement
whereby they could share a common drive and eliminate the need
for an additional curb cut onto Newburgh Road. It's possible. It
would obviously require the cooperation of the properly owners.
Mr. McCann: I guess that's my question. I think we're approving a drawing that
practically doesn't work from what I'm seeing out there, and that is
that this north drive on Newburgh, this idea of having a line coming
out here, doesn't really exist because currently it comes in and
there's a cut coming right in here right now.
Mr. Taormina: That's correct.
19440
Mr. McCann:
So if cuts are already here for this and that's their drive, there would
be no way of tapering out to the road. I'm just not sure how it could
practically work at this standpoint.
Mr. Taormina:
The approaches would overap at that point. I agree. The way the
radius is shown on the north side of that approach, it would appear
to actually cross over the driveway approach leading to the Detroit
Edison property. But also, I would have to check. There may
actually be some utility poles in that location. I don't know if the
survey picked that up or not.
Mr. Obidzinski:
I dont believe that we made that determination ... whether or not
the utility poles are in that area. We would have to verify that.
Mr. McCann:
I just see that as a problem, but I think it's something we can pass
on to Council. Maybe the staff could do a little more research
between now and the time it goes to Council as to the possibility of
a shared driveway where half of it is on their property and half on
Edison or something to alleviate the problem. Anything we can do
to make the entrance farther north of Six Mile is beneficial to traffic I
would think. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak
for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it
was
#06-80-2002
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-05-08-15,
submitted by Orin J. Mazzoni, Jr., requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection
with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property
located at 37330 Six Mile Road in the Southwest %of Section 8, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SPA dated May 20, 2002,
prepared by Joseph Philips, Architect, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated May 7, 2002,
prepared by Mark J. Baldwin & Associates, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
19441
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet R2
dated May 20, 2002, prepared by Joseph Philips, Architect, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full -face four
(4") inch brick, no exception;
7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of
the building or, in the event a poured wall is substituted, the
wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building,
and the endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in
use closed at all times;
8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 ft. in height and shall
be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
9. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition; all such signage shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council; and
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.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh: This will be a great improvement to that comer. It's going to be an
absolutely beautiful building. As a politician who once had signs, I
must say there is some sadness that this last prime location for
signs is going to be gone. But in all seriousness, this will be a great
improvement to the corner lot.
Mr. McCann: As a campaign worker who hates putting signs up, I'm glad to see
that location go.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 846th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on June 4, 2002, was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
H G Shane, Acting Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
19442