HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-07-1619455
MINUTES OF THE 847" PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 16, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 847" 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 Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Pastor
John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller,
Planner III; Bill Poppenger, Planner I and Mrs. Robby Williams, Program Supervisor,
were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council.
Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7)
days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff
have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the
Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission
may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-06-01-07 SCHONSHECK
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petifion 2002-06-
01-07, submitted by Schonsheck, Inc., requesfing to rezone
property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Bethany Road and Vidor Parkway in the Southeast''/.of Section 6
from RUFC to OS.
19456
Mr. Taormina presented a map shoving the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated June 19, 2002, which reads as follows: `Pursuant to your
request the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -
referenced pefifion. We have no objection to the legal
description contained therein. Our records indicate that the
easterly 25 feet of Bethany Road is a
private road and not
public right -of --way as shown. The drive
approach to Seven
Mile Road will require a permit from Wayne County and the
site will be subject to the Wayne County Storm Water
Ordinance We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P. E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ian Schonschek,
Schonschek, Inc., 51331 W. Pontiac Trail, Wixom, MI 48393. The
intent is as the gentleman had staled is to construct a branch bank
on this site. We intend to keep the pond and the drainage course in
its natural stale. We won't disturb that as part of the development.
We understand that this properly was up for rezoning for a strip
center and at that time the Planning Commission actually
recommended that it could go to OS, but the petitioner didn't want
that. So we are hoping that the least intense use of the branch
bank would be suitable to the Planning Commission. I will be
happy to answer any questions.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Sir, I don't think we actually recommended OS. I think it was that
we thought that OS would be more compatible and more suitable
than what was being asked for.
Mr. Schonschek:
Thatwas what I had heard.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I have a question for you sir, if I may. You know the consent
judgment for that particular area allows for 5.65 acres south of the
drainage. Why cant you settle in there? Why ask for property that
is zoned RUF and change it to OS when just a little bit westerly is
OS zoned properly?
19457
Mr. Schonschek: We aren't sure what the plans are for that property under the
consent judgment but this property having 270 feet on Seven Mile
Road is really not suitable for residential because there is a lot of
traffic at that intersection. We think it is more appropriate for a low
intensity office type use and a branch bank being the thing.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I don't know how the homeowners feel about it and I'm not finding it
under those boundaries. All I know is that the consent judgment
allows for OS development on 5.65 acres of land located south of
the drainage ditch. I'm just saying, why not move over there and
have no hassles at all? You could just purchase the property.
Mr. Schonschek:
One of the other reasons is that this property was available for
sale. It is the perfect size for a branch bank and it is directly on
Seven Mile Road. If we took the frontage off of that 5.65 acre for a
branch bank it might limit the usability for some other use. The
other property was not for sale, as we understand it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We discussed this and the consensus was that it was the worst
type of use to put there because of the traffic
problems especially
on a Friday night and things of that nature, just
in minor discussion.
Nothing was cast in cement. But that was the consensus that I
gathered that my colleagues presented.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Taormina, just one clanfication. The Bethany Road, in the letter
we got from Engineering Department, the easterly 25 feet is private
road. Is Bethany 50 feet and the 25 feet is east of that?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I believe that is the case. If you look at the maps of Bethany
Road, really it is the westerly half of that road right -of way that is
under public domain, whereas the easterly half is still a private
easement that is part and parcel with the site to the east,
Fountainview Plaza.
Mr. LaPine:
That is owned by the plaza there?
Mr. Taormina:
That is my understanding.
Mr. LaPine:
I was just curious. I didn't know if that meant that the 25 feel had to
come off the 50. This is a branch bank. Is it a full service bank?
Mr. Schonschek:
It is a branch bank. It is actually going to be scaled down to 3000
sq. R. from the 3700 sq. R. which is whatwe originally proposed.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there a reason why you have to go back 140 feet before you
have a drive off of Bethany Road?
19458
Mr. Schonschek:
The dnve-thm traffic would stack behind the building and that is
the reason so it would be in alignment with that. It is my
understanding that it is good engineering to keep the intersections
further apart than closer together.
Mr. LaPine:
I understand that too, but you have to realize that this is a bank. If
this was just an office building where the people who worked there
came in in the morning and they were there until noon and they
went out to lunch, came back and there until five o dock, that is one
thing. But a bank on Bethany Road, which is a residential road and
there are residents behind there, you are going to have traffic
constantly going up Bethany Road and now that does not happen.
That creates a problem for me, at least as one member. If it was
just an office building, like I stated, they come in in the morning,
they are there all day and you don't have the traffic. But a bank;
traffic is in and out, in and out all day. That creates a problem for
me. I just wondered why you made the entrance so far back.
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Lets talk about the bank, regardless if it is here or even west. All
banks now have drive-thru windows. Would this bank have dnve-
thm windows?
Mr. Schonschek:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many?
Mr. Schonschek:
Itll have three dnve-thm bays as shown on the plans and possibly
a fourth atthe building.
Mr. Alanskas:
You also would have your money machines outside where people
can come after hours?
Mr. Schonschek:
That would be part of the drive-thru system.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just happen to work for a bank myself, in the evening when the
bank is dosed and there is traffic continuously from people pulling
up to use the teller machine after the bank is closed. I, as another
Commissioner, am concerned about traffic in that area and going
down that street. If you could show me how you could not do this, it
might change my decision.
Mr. Schonschek:
Not have traffic at all on Bethany?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
19459
Mr. Schonschek:
I think we could certainly move it closer to Seven Mile Road and
the approach so it is aligned with the front driveway.
Mr. Alanskas:
You still would have to cross to get to the bank with your approach
towards Seven Mile. To get to the bank you would still have to
cross that street.
Mr. Schonschek:
Cross Bethany?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Schonschek:
I think the general traffic pattern per the plan would be probably
that a fair amount of traffic
would enter on Bethany and exd on
Seven Mile.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have any idea how many transactions a bank does per
day?
Mr. Schonschek:
No. I don't have that information.
Mr. Alanskas:
Or what the volume of traffic is for a bank?
Mr.Schonschek:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
What bank is this, may I ask?
Mr. Schonschek:
National City.
Mr. Alanskas:
National City, that is a big bank and they do a big business. Thank
you.
Mr. Shane:
Since Mr. Piercecchi brought up the adjacent property, Mr.
Taormina, does that consent judgment have a time limit after which
time it would no longer be in effect? Sometimes they do.
Mr. Taormina:
M did have time restrictions relative to the Oakwood Heath Care
facility. But the terms of the consent are somewhat open ended
with respect to alternative office uses for that portion of the property
that would be entitled to office development, which is the 5.65 acres
that was referred to earlier.
Mr. Shane:
O.K. Thanks. Sir, do you think you could construct a site plan that
would utilize Seven Mile Road only? I have a problem with
traffic
as it has been mentioned before off from Bethany Road. I know we
went through this when the shopping center was constructed a few
19460
years ago. And there is a reason why there is no access to the
shopping center from Bethany Road. I am going to be quite
concerned about a bank if it could be serviced from Seven Mile
Road completely.
Mr. Schonschek:
The answer is, 'Yes" it can. Whether Nafional City would then
move forward with the project, I don't know the answer but if that is
going to be the requirement of the Planning Commission that we
have to come back for your special use approval anyway, it is nice
to know that we know that information if that is going to be a
requirement because it seems to be an issue here and we certainly
can take it back to them and we still would like the rezoning request
even if it is conditional.
Mr. Shane:
Is this the only prospect that you have for this site? Is a bank the
reason whyyou are looking for this site?
Mr. Schonschek:
National City wants this site for their branch bank. They won't go
away if this rezoning request is approved, they are going to
proceed forward and we will construct a branch bank.
Mr.Shane:
Thankyou.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Inasmuch as you seem reluctant to move westerly, there is a
perfect spot for your bank in that area. It is the southwest corner of
Seven Mile and Newburgh.
Mr. Schonschek:
We looked A that site and attempted to purchase it. It also has
some real serious wetland issues. That drainage area comes the
comer. You are talking right at the corner of Seven Mile and
Newburgh?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes.
Mr. Schonschek:
We looked at the site and made an attempt to purchase it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Was the cost loo high? Was that the problem?
Mr. Schonschek:
We didn't think it would even fit on there.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, is that true? You couldn't get a bank on that comer?
Mr. Taormina:
I really don't have enough information to answer that question at this
point. We know the site you're refering to is constrained by
wetlands along its westerly boundary. How much of the northeast
comer of that site is buildable is difficult to say, and whether or not
19461
it is equal to or greater than the area that they propose to develop
on this site, which is only about %of the one acre. It is difficult to
say. We could take a doser examination but it would probably
require some type of wetland evaluation on that site to really give
you a detailed answer.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I was under the impression that at one time somebody wanted to
put a large drug store on that comer and that is why I suggested it.
They take up a lot of square footage. Thank you.
Mr. Pastor:
I was just going to bring up the same thing. I believe it was a CVS
or Walgreens that was going to go on that comer. I am sure if they
could ft on that comer, I am pretty sure that a bank branch could fit
on there.
Mr. Schonschek:
I am sure that is the case if it would but it is not developed now so
there might be a reason for that.
Mr. Pastor:
Again, that is not an office zoning for Walgreens so that is the
biggest thing. The biggest issue I have is trying to rezone another
piece of property when we already have property zoned OS in the
area and trying to create more OS. If this was the only OS piece of
properly available there, then it is a little easier case saying, 'Yes, I
guess we do need more office space there." I know that this has
been a troubled spot and I know the owner wants to desperately
sell this piece of property, which I believe he should be able to.
When we were on Council, the biggest debate was should it be
office. We were all leaning toward office as the best possible
solution being that it was the least likely for traffic. A bank is able to
go in as OS as a special waiver use and that is where I have a
problem with zoning something OS. If the bank deal doesn't go
through and it is already changed to OS, then we don't have control
over what goes in there. I think you have heard from all the
Commissioners here too that they are all worried about the traffic.
Residents are very adamant; they don't want anybody down that
road and I agree with them. If this were to proceed, that would be
at least one of my requirements that there would be no entrances
on that street and just have a one in and out off of Seven Mile.
Again, I will go back. I think office would probably be the best if we
were to rezone this. If it switches into a type of residential, it is
possible but probably unlikely since the consent judgment next to it
is office. What I am saying again, I just cant be for this at this point
since there is already OS zoning on the west of you and east of
you. I guess I would like to see you explore those possibilities
before I would go ahead and rezone something OS, Office.
19462
Mr. Schonschek:
We did explore that southwest corner and we weren't even able to
get a purchase agreement.
Mr. Pastor:
Again, I do know it is for sale. I have talked to the owner. It may
not be in their price range.
Mr.Schonschek:
That could be.
Mr. Pastor:
But that is an issue, we just have to limit the amount of OS that we
have.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chair, I just want to echo some of the concerns. First, I was on
the Council when we considered this as a commercial rezoning. I
was opposed to it because of the traffic although I did indicate at
the time that I thought office was appropriate for that property. I did
not anticipate a bank. It is obvious a special waiver is required. A
bank does have more traffic than a normal office might. However, if
you were able at all to continue without traffic going down Bethany I
would have different opinion. I think for our vole for purposes of
tonight I think I will be voting for a denial simply because of the
proposed use. I do think office would be the appropriate use for
that properly. When you go to the Planning Commission, I am
going to guess a vole of denial but when you go to the Council, you
may take a different plan to them. They will have a record of our
comments regarding traffic and available office space to lake a look
at. You might take a plan that shows everything oft of Seven Mile.
Mr. Schonschek:
O.K.
Mr. McCann:
I will reserve my comments until after we have heard from the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or
against this petition?
Bret Phillips, 19235 Bethany, I reside directly next to the proposed property,
opposite next to Paul and Laura Sl. Henry's home. I brought a
visual aid. I have concerns and suggestions. I would like to start
oft with my concerns and obviously it is my property value, Paul
and Laura's home, itself, the view and the traffic. In May of 2000
when I purchased the property, I purchased it from my parents. I
have an appraisal in my hand that directly affected my parents'
value $21,000 and that was a result of this view here (this view
here — a picture from the appraisal) that is looking out of my front
porch and my living room. I had an appraisal recenfly done, July,
2002, reflecting the vacant land impact only. This is my view from
the backyard and this is vacant land. I have two parcels. The
home is on one lax I.D. and 1.23 acres is on another parcel. The
19463
appraisal came back with a negative impact of about $17,400 if this
was rezoned. My suggestions, I had an attorney meet with the
petitioner and my suggestions to you, as to him, if this was rezoned
that would help me to at least recoup some of my losses would be
a very large natural bene with mature trees. We also asked the
petitioner for the home, to sell it to us for one dollar and move it to
my property. That was where my other concern was. I think it is a
cute home. I love that home and it would be nice to then move it
over to my property on this vacant land which would offer an
additional buffer for my view. Those are my suggestions and
comments. This view here is driving out of Bethany looking east.
This Dearborn Federal Credit Union and this view is looking at Paul
and Laura St. Henry's home looking west pulling into Bethany.
Again, this is from my back porch and my front porch.
Mr. LaPine: Is your house as you come off of Seven Mile Road onto Bethany,
the first house, I talked to the gentleman out there, that house is
being torn down, is that right?
Mr. Phillips: Paul and Laura's house?
Mr. LaPine: Yes.
Mr. Phillips: Coned. That is their plan.
Mr. LaPine: You are trying to gel that home and move it on to your property?
Mr. Phillips: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: Did you know across the back, if a bank is built, a masonry wall, or
a brick wall, or we can waive that in lieu of that we can ask for
landscaping?
Mr. Phillips: Yes. If this is approved, a wall I think would be awful.
Mr. LaPine: Are you opposed to OS zoning here? Realistically spealang, this
properly is going to be rezoned. Something is going to go in. In my
opinion, it is probably not going to be another home or subdivision
or a couple of condos, but something is going to go in there. The
choices, in my opinion, are only OS or commercial, a strip mall. I
am against a strip mall. I think the only logical thing is an OS
zoning. I want to know your opinion. What are you in favor of?
Mr. Phillips: Ideally, I think my property and Paul and Laura's property would be
ideal for condos. That would maintain the residential environment
of that neighborhood. I think that it would be best suited there. I
19464
proposed that to the last developer, Marco Soave, and Paul and
Laura regarding that.
Mr. LaPine:
Then we gel into a situation depending upon what you are asking
for your land may not be feasible for condos.
Mr. Phillips:
I did a little research on the rezoning for condominiums and it would
be a limited amount of condos, higher end exclusive condos.
Another request I made also to the petitioner was to have a cul-de-
sac right down here, which would protect my value even more and
protect the neighborhood. Because right now currently during rush
hour we probably have ten (10) cars on the average, avoid the light,
they know the secret to come through Northland through Bethany
to avoid the traffic during the rush hour Monday through Friday and
a cul-de-sac would stop that and also add more value to our
neighborhood and make it safer.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Cathy Clockner,
37680 Northland Drive and I have some petitions here that our
neighbors have signed. The petition states: "We, the
undersigned, oppose the rezoning of the property located on
the comer of Seven Mile and Bethany in Livonia from
residential to office (OS). We feel the area is congested
enough already." There are 45 signatures. I have lived at
Northland for seven years. I have lived in Livonia my first 20 years,
then I moved away and then I came back with my children because
my family is originally from Livonia. My great grandparents settled
here. My grandparents were here. My father still lives here. He
was bom and mised at Newburgh and Seven Mile. Unfortunately,
my dad is in Ohio tonight and could not come. I have seen Livonia
change an awful lot. When I moved back I was so surprised to see
my neighborhood still fairly in tad. Unfortunately, in the last seven
years we have been bombarded by commercial development. The
strip malls on both sides of Newburgh, the gas station which
actually was there when I was a teenager, the condos down the
street. We have the hardware store. We have Brose Electric. The
comer is a nightmare, an absolute nightmare to try and gel out of. I
have actually gone down Bethany to tum right to tum on to Victor
Parkway to go to Pembroke to get to Newburgh. I can't get out at
Newburgh. Rush hour is horrible. My kids play in the street. They
ride their bikes, they rollerblade. There are no sidewalks in that
neighborhood. This is an old neighborhood. It is getting more
dangerous with all of this traffic. We have new people that are
moving in and totally shocked that these people want to develop
this corner. That is an entrance and exit to our neighborhood. It is
19465
ridiculous to add to the traffic. Bethany is a very narrow street.
You can barely get two cars through there. When they are passing
you have to move over and the road is in horrible shape. There are
many more cars than 10 are cutting through at rush hour. I sit at
the bus stop every single afternoon waiting for my kids to get off the
bus and we count many more than that just between 3:34 p.m. and
4:00 p.m. The bus has to actually pull into the intersection because
she has had so many people that go around the comer and almost
hit her. So, it is just ridiculous. It is a beautiful old home. We hate
to see it destroyed. If it is to be moved, that is fine but it doesn't
solve the traffic problem. It doesn't solve the fact that this is a
residential neighborhood and you are adding more traffic to that
area. I have friends on the other side of Seven Mile who just
cannot stand to come over at that time because they can't get
across. Last week I sal for over five minutes trying to right onto
Seven Mile onto Bethany. Between the gas station traffic,
Newburgh right tum and Newburgh left turn the straight through
traffic, I couldn't get anywhere and I was going across Seven Mile
to Caliburn Manor to drop my son off at his friends house. It has
really curtailed what we as residents can do during certain times of
the day. I have many friends that have left Livonia and moved to
Northville and why, because the traffic is so horrible, because we
are losing our greenspaces to developers. You are losing
residential land. The public schools are losing the enrollment of
children we need because people are getting sick of the constant
commercial development and not paying attention to what we, the
neighbors, want. It is our neighborhood. We should have a say in
this. These developers do not live in our neighborhood. They do
not have to deal with the traffic and trash that piles up. The strip
mall on, Founlainview strip mall on Newburgh, behind that on
Bethany it is a mess. I walk that street almost every night. There
is trash. There are dead trees. There are broken sprinklers. The
trash trucks part there. The big 18 wheels park there to go over
and gel lunch. It is a nightmare and they want to add to it. I am
sorry. We aren't going for it. We want that to stay residential.
Thank you.
Michelle Ficyk, 18824 Blue Skies. Briefly, a lot of the things I would like to talk
about have already been said so I am going to hit the major points.
I completely disapprove of this proposal. Rezoning this properly is
detrimental to the neighborhood and surrounding area. Traffic in
this area is already outrageous and to rezone the portal to the
neighborhood will only this problem. Cars cutting through the
neighborhood to get around the intersection is already an issue,
which makes the streets increasingly unsafe for the families who
live there. It should also be noted that this neighborhood has no
H.911 :
sidewalks and any commercial development at that location will
adversely impact the ability of children and adults to walk and play
safely. Rezoning this property is totally unnecessary. The property
is quite desirable as a residential home. It is a perfect example of
the kind of home many people would love to buy, a lovely brick
home on a large lot with mature trees. Many people who have
traveled to my home have actually commented on the property in
question and said how they would love to own it. In addition, to
rezone this property would further reduce the number of available
residential homes in Livonia, which is already a concem City wide.
There are copious examples of existing office and commercial
space sitting vacant within a one mile radius of the properly in
question. To tear down this home in order to build another
commercial properly would decrease the desirability of the existing
commercial properties in the immediate area making the likelihood
of these empty spaces will ever be occupied even more remote.
Rezoning this property is unethical. Fbmeowners rely on existing
zoning designations when malting a decision to purchase a home in
a given location. While everyone recognizes the fact that zoning
can and do change, Livonia taxpayers expect that any zoning
change will come as the result of some compelling need. There is
no such compelling need in this case. The rezoning stands to
benefit the wishes and pocket book of one single family at the
tangible expense of the property values and quality of life of so
many other families. The City also stands to lose if this properly is
rezoned because there will be no incentive on the part of
businesses to utilize the existing available spaces to set up shop.
This is spot zoning to benefit one at the expense of many others
and in the years that I have been a Livonia homeowner this home
has never been for sale residentially and there is absolutely no
evidence that it is not viable and yes, desirable, as a residential
property. I don't begrudge anyone their right to bring the proposal
but I do expect that the City officials will assess the case as a whole
and determine that once again, there is no good reason to permit
rezoning this properly. The City of Livonia has had recent concerns
over dwindling population and enrollment in schools and I can tell
you that this is exactly the kind of development that makes families
move elsewhere and when they move, they must sell their property
at the reduced value further impacting the tax base for the City.
protecting the interest of the voting taxpaying homeowner should
be paramount when making decisions such as these. I sincerely
hope that you will recognize that only one family stands to gain
while so many others stand to lose if this proposal where to go
through. Thank you for your consideration.
19467
Dr. Patrick Jary, 37573 Northland Drive. I am opposed to this rezoning. My fellow
neighbors have already raised several good issues that I don't need
to repeat. One gentleman who spoke a moment ago with his
displays suggested maybe a cul-de-sac to help the traffic situation.
As my neighbors stated, there are only two entrances into our
neighborhood. If you put a cul-de-sac there, we will have one
entrance and that will make it extremely difficult for residents to get
in and out. It is already hard enough with two. If you put in a cul-
de-sac it will make it very challenging. Again, the issue of the
safety of our children who do play in the streets because there are
no sidewalks, riding their bikes, rollerblading what have you, is a
paramount concern for myself, my wife and my children. I missed
the very beginning part of this so forgive me. I heard Mr. Pastor
say that once this has been zoned as OS, will it definitely be a bank
then?
Mr. McCann:
What he is saying is that OS provides certain services. A bank is a
waiver use and requires an additional waiver from the Planning
Commission and Council in order to be located there.
Dr. Jary:
So it could be turned into something else?
Mr. McCann:
If the change of zoning were successful, the petitioner would have
two steps; he would have to come back with a site plan and a
request for a waiver use authority to have a bank located there. He
would first have to have the zoning changed.
Dr. Jary:
Again, apart from it being a bank, that is one thing I am opposed to.
If it were anything else, it would bring up other issues in my mind.
Would there be any environmental hazards to the neighborhood
and homes, as far as the sewage? Would there be any type of
chemicals or gases stored on the premises that could be a hazard?
Mr. McCann:
Generally, office services allow for uses like dentists, business
offices and lawyers offices, that type of office.
Dr. Jary:
Would it make is easier for other property locations within the
immediate area to be rezoned as OS?
Mr. McCann:
Not necessarily. The concern with this property, as at the last
pudic hearing when they wanted to put the strip center in was that
R was between commercial property and according to the
agreement to would be OS to the west. On both sides of this
property are nonresidential uses. I think that this property, trying to
find something between the two that will buffer between the
residential and a break wall with a firewall trying to say, 'This is
ILL,fY:I
what we are to do. We are going to break it down as we go to less
intense use."
Dr. Jary: Again, my concems are the same as the previous two ladies who
were up here speaking, mainly, the traffic. Traffic comes in and
out of Bethany all the lime. They know how they can skirt about
that light. It is a challenge to get out during peak rush hour. Even if
you add just putting an entrance off of Seven Mile, even that is so,
people will still come from Northland to Bethany to get around that
light and then will just make a quick right into the bank. That is not
really going to be much of a help to us. I am opposed to this
rezoning. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Not seeing anyone wishing to speak, I am going to close the public
hearing. Mr. Schonschek, do you have a last comment.
Mr. Schonschek: Based on what I heard, traffic being one of the main issues, I think
we can certainly agree to put a single entrance off of Seven Mile so
that Bethany is not impacted, or at least minimally impacted.
Mr. McCann: Again, this is a zoning issue tonight not a site plan issue. A motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecohi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously
approved, it was
#7A1-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on July 16, 2002, on Petition 2002-
06-01-07, submitted by Schonsheck, Inc., requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Bethany Road and Vidor Parkway in the Southeast''/.of Section 6
from RUFC to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-06-01-07 be
denied for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to
and not in harmony with the adjacent uses in the area,
particularly with respect to the residential uses to the north;
2. That existing commercial and office zoning in the vicinity of the
Seven Mile Road and Newburgh Road intersection adequately
provides for uses such as are allowed in the OS district and
there is no demonstrated need for additional OS zoning in this
area;
19469
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which
will cause additional traffic congestion in the area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which
will erode the quality of life experienced by the adjoining
residential neighborhood; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of low-density residential
land use for the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, I have a comment. My
original thought was if this properlywere to be sold, maybe OS
would be appropriate. But I have concems about a bank going in
there because of the traffic. A small office building would be
something that would have someone come and leave one or two
times a day and maybe a few customers. A bank is something that
has continuous traffic, especially at peak times, and would be
inappropriate. I think if the home were to stay, which as the
neighbors say would be a nice entrance to their subdivision, that
would be preferable. But considering that the rear property is
vacant maybe RC would also be appropriate where we had families
living and would be a more appropriate buffer. Based on whatthe
residents have seen tonight looking at this solely not even as a
bank and but as OS, I think I am going to vote against a rezoning to
OS at this time. Would the secretary please call the roll.
AYES: Piercecchi, Pastor, Shane, LaPine, Alanskas, Walsh,
McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-06-01-08 ARDMORE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
06-01-06, submi8ed by Steven J. Schafer, on behalf of Ardmore
Development, L.L.C., requesting to rezone property located on the
east side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Fargo
19470
Avenue in the West % of Section 3, (known as the Ardmore
property) from OS to RC and R -3A.
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. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. One is from the
Engineering Division, dated June 20, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection
to the legal descriptions contained therein. The drive
approach and deceleration lane on Farmington Road will
require a permit from Wayne County. The project is subject to
the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance. Because of its
location, the proposed detention basin will require the
approval of both Wayne County and the Michigan Department
of environmental Quality. We trust that this will provide you
with the information requested" The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P. E., City Engineer. We received a copy of a letter by
certified mail which was written to the Livonia City Council, dated
July 10, 2002, and reads as follows: `This letterts concerning
the proposed development of the Ardmore property. Weare
property owners and residents at 19973 Mayfield, Lot #70. The
back one third of this property joins a wooded area on the
Ardmore property. We have lived here since 1974, when the
house was constructed. We cleared, graded and planted the
acre of land we call home sweet home. We are opposed to the
current plan, submitted by Phoenix Land Development for
your approval. We are opposed to the plan for the following
reasons: (1) The current entrance to JC -Park needs to be
closed. A new entrance should be constructed leading to
Farmington Road. (2) A landscaped barrierwith trees should
be constructed at the back ofourproperty line We do not
wish to view Condominiums where trees once stood. The
current plan shows Condominiums 37' from the back of our
property line (3) All of the buildings in the development
appear to have small lots and are close together. They may
not be in concert with this existing neighborhood. (4) We are
not opposed to the development of the Ardmore property. We
would like the concerns of the existing neighborhood
residents to influence your decisions. Thank you." The letter
is signed by Leonard and Catherine Graham. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
19471
Mr. McCann: Before I call up the petitioner, we did each receive a copy oflhat
letter and one ofthe issues that we did discuss is thatthis is a
rezoning petition tonight. It is not a site plan petition. As to the
number of feet between the condos and property lines, those
issues and the actual layout and design of the condominium project
will be brought up later, and I think the plans have been submitted.
We are looking at two weeks. I want everybody to know that they
are invited back for the site plan process when that site plan is
addressed before the Planning Commission. Tonight is a zoning
issue. Whether or not it should be reduced from OS to RC and
from OS to R -3A. Those are the two issues before us. However, I
am going to ask the petitioner if he has a copy of the proposed plan
with him tonight to kind of give an idea of his intent in how it will
look and layout. I think that is part of the planning consideration
with regard to the zoning change. However, the real issue tonight
is whether or not the zoning is appropriate to change regardless of
the site plan. Mr. Schafer, name and address for the record please.
Steven J. Schafer, Ardmore Acres L.L.C., 32000 Northwest Highway, Suite 220,
Farmington Hills, MI 48334. Fssenfially I laid out the new zoning
lines that we are looking at on the site. This is very much different
from our original proposal and we certainly heard a lot of concerns
and comments along the way. The plan has been modified to
hopefully bridge the gap of some of the concems that were voiced
by residents, Council members and Planning Commissioners. This
plan that you are currently looking at shows the zoning lines that
Mark Taormina was refering to on our zoning. This being the R3
area and this being the area that we are proposing for the RC
zoning. What we have been able to do here is do a new layout that
is very much different that the other layout where we had
condominiums in this area. The single family that you see here will
comply fully with the R-3 zoning of the City and also, this plan
addresses the detention basin. As some of you may recall, there
were some issues with the basin that was proposed over on the
City property. What we have done is size the basin accordingly to
the new Wayne County Storm Requirements to go into this area of
the site and this all being lined with single family lots. As we move
up to the northern part of the site we have come back with a unit
that is very senior friendly. All main floor master, bedroom and two
car garage. They are four-plex units. Some of the earlier units that
we had proposed had masters on the upper floors and we just felt
that the market here for this type of unit would be very good. What
we have done is we have laid these units at about six units per
acre. Under the RC zoning, I believe you can probably gel as
many as ten units per acre on the site. We are not seeking to gel
the maximum amount of density for this portion of the site. The
19472
area here will be conventional single family, probably two story type
homes, brick construction. Those will be done on more of a "build
to suit level". I have some elevations of the units. This is
essentially what we are looking at. Again, we will be having a
substantial amount of back and nice detail to the buildings. We
anticipate the units to sell in the mid 2's and the single-family
homes should sell for substantially more than that. Again, we are
looking for a total of about 104 units for the site where initially the
proposals could have allowed up to over 200 units. Our last
proposal was 180. So it has been substantially reduced and
brought into compliance with storm sewers, roads, lot sizes and
densities. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer
them.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners. Hearing none, I
have a couple. The storm water drainage, that was a concem. Is it
totally on your property?
Mr. Schafer:
Yes. We have done some preliminary soil borings as well and it
looks like this will be the area most suited for that basin. It is off the
creek so it will be outietting into the Tambusi. It will be built
according to the new Wayne County Requirements and it will also
have a forebay of some type or a pretreatment for the storm water.
Mr. McCann:
Will that be a dedicated road for the subdivision? These will be site
condominiums but they will be built to public road standards, 31
feet in width, back to back which will allow for parking, plenty of
parking.
Mr. McCann:
Anybody else? If there are no further questions from the
Commissioners, I will go to the audience. Is there anybody in the
audience wishing to speak for or against the petition? I see a large
number of people in the audience tonight. Again, I would like
comments as to the proposed development but if we could restrict it
as far as size and width, I think those issues will come up with the
site plan.
Kim Naccashian,
32750 Norfolk. We are getting there, but I am still going to
request that the zoning be denied for most of the same reasons.
Traffic is pretty important to us who live on Norfolk, Mayfield,
Hubbard and Shadyside because once you start putting in this
many units and homes they are all going to be driving down our
street to get to the school and soccer field. We already have quite
a huge problem with traffic. We have tried to address the traffic
issue by asking for a traffic study. I think we have asked three
limes and we still haven't had that request answered. We have
19473
quite a problem with traffic and I think that this is going to further
increase the traffic due to the one main entrance to that Tyler
Elementary School and the JC soccer field. That has been quite a
concern and that is why we had addressed putting that road
through. There was some discussion about that and then all of a
sudden the discussion ended. There is quite a problem with traffic.
That would be one reason. The second is to address the single
family housing issue. We have discussed many times about this
being housing for seniors but we have three developments
currently going up, attached condominiums at Seven and
Newburgh, across from Greenmead, Six Mile and Farmington and
Plymouth and Farmington. I think we need to stick to the school
attendance and we are having problems funding our schools and
we are having problems with our attendance in our schools. We
need some more single families. Let's balance it out a little. We've
got three new attached condominium complexes coming in. I
disagree a little bit with the issue that these are more for seniors
because I dont think a lot of seniors can afford the added expense
of a monthly association fee. They have limited incomes and I think
single family housing on this spot, we're half way there. I would
love to see the whole thing, what you have, the whole site. I don't
see why that could be problem. The last thing is, where would the
kids be picked up for school. Would they walk to school or would
this be a school bus pickup or would they be out on Farmington
Road?
Mr. McCann: That is entirely up to the school system, I believe.
Ms. Nacoashian: Would the road be dedicated? Is this going to be a private road for
the detached site units or is it going to be a public road? I saw one
entrance.
Mr. McCann: I asked that question and it is going to be the size of a road that
could be dedicated, but whether it will be or not, has that issue
been answered yet?
Ms. Nacoashian: Typically if there is just one entrance the attached condominiums
would be a private road.
Mr. Schafer: It was our intention to have it as a condo so the City wouldn't have
to maintain it, but it would be built to public standards. The entry
way and everything in the single family could be dedicated, but I
think you get into some issues when you gel into a more dense, or
multi -family portion as to making that a public road. I don't know
exactly what the issues are with the City but that will be worked out.
In terms of the width, we are not looking for anything narrower or
19474
Mark Brookman, 19538 Westmore. I have some pictures I would for you to see.
This is a picture of the 100 year flood plain. You can see Carl
Street, Westmore and Shadyside. You can see that the elevation is
174 feet as it comes under Farmington Road. My property is
located directly to the south and adjacent to the proposed rezoning.
It is in the blue "C shaped property there. I am opposed to the
current proposal for the following reasons: (1) The proposed
location for the retention basin is in an area that is known to food
and I also don't believe it is good practice to enter into projects of
with any lesser standards as could potentially be the case with a
private road.
Ms. Naccashian:
If that were to be dedicated, you would have to have two separate
entrances, wouldn't you? One to the detached site area and there
would be a separate entrance to the attached area.
Mr. McCann:
We are getting into site plan issues as opposed to general zoning
issues.
Ms. Nacoashian:
That's fine. I will save that question.
Mr. McCann:
Actually, that is gang to be more the Engineering Department
working it out with the City Council as opposed to he Planning
Department and site development.
Ms. Nacoashian:
O.K. I'll save that issue but basically I would just really like to see
single family housing for those reasons. Thanks! We are almost
there.
Mark Zagata, 19970
Mayfield. I would like to have the zoning denied on both
counts. One, the condominium, I think the comments are echoed
on Farmington being a condominium row and I really understand
the developer has money to lose out of his own pocket but if you
over build condominiums and they don't sell, then they are a City-
wide problem and a property problem in the future. The R -3A
zoning, 80' x 120', you are really destroying the rural feel of that
neighborhood. I targeted that neighborhood for two years before I
moved in, which was well over a decade ago. It seems like we are
getting variances and lots split up all over that area, on Pembroke
and Norfolk. The 110' x 435' lot that I have is a nice large rural
field. By allowing the 80' x 120' zoning on the R -3A you are
destroying the feel of it even further. So for both counts, I would
like to see single family homes there but I would like to see the
zoning increased to have larger lot sizes, perhaps a 100' x 200'
which is approximately a half acre lot. Thank you.
Mark Brookman, 19538 Westmore. I have some pictures I would for you to see.
This is a picture of the 100 year flood plain. You can see Carl
Street, Westmore and Shadyside. You can see that the elevation is
174 feet as it comes under Farmington Road. My property is
located directly to the south and adjacent to the proposed rezoning.
It is in the blue "C shaped property there. I am opposed to the
current proposal for the following reasons: (1) The proposed
location for the retention basin is in an area that is known to food
and I also don't believe it is good practice to enter into projects of
19475
this size with so many unanswered questions. As far as the
retention basin, the most recent flood plain maps found in the City
Engineering Department are many years old. With all the recent
development to the north, those of us who live along the creeks
know all too well that these maps are outdated. I have been to a
number of City of Livonia upper watershed advisory group
workshops aimed at improving the quality of the whole Rouge River
watershed and among the topics has been stream bank
stabilization. Although my house is not in danger at the present
time, a number of the houses of the people that I have met at these
workshops are in serious danger. Maybe you saw Sundays paper
front page about the erosion going on. Although it appears from
the outdated floodplain maps that the proposed project is out of the
100 year flood plain. The green lines that I have drawn up there
are the 674 lines. In my packet you will see pictures of my
backyard where the whole red area has been flooded. That whole
area is two feet above the 100 year floodplain and that has been
flooded.
Mr. Alanskas: What month?
Mr. Brookman: It was about 8 or 9 years ago that it was flooded. It was July.
Although it appears from the outdated maps that the proposed
location is out of the 100 year flood plain it would be irresponsible
to allow this area to be used for anything but flood plain. When the
City of Livonia, itself has acknowledged that there are serious
erosion and flooding problems. As far as the questions I have, if it
is approved, how is the City going to handle the increased flooding
and erosion problems? Will the City be liable for future property
damage if they are allowed to proceed knowing that the maps are
outdated? Who is going to handle the current overflow pipes that
are running through the back of the property that currently
discharge? Originally, there was going to be some combined basin
or something like that. I don't know. All I got was the flier that
came to the house. Should it be combined or a separate retention
basin? Who is going to pay for the construction of the retention
basin? Who is going to pay to maintain the basins? These are
only a few questions that I feel need to be answered before we can
approve any plans for the properly. Please don't make a quick,
irreversible decision that we will have to live with for many years.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Brookman, you mise a very good point. I actually had some
discussions with the Mayor about certain things that you brought
up. One of the concerns is about this flood plain. A developer,
under the new Wayne County standards has to retain so much
water on his land during these certain rainfalls. But he has to
19476
provide for his land, not other land. My understanding is that the
County is going to make requirements of the City of Livonia, maybe
south of here or north or here, somewhere near here, to start
building our own retention basins because of the water. But, to
make him store more water than he is required for his particular
piece of parcel under the Wayne County Standards, I don't think we
can do that. All we can do is say: 'You have to take care of yours"
There is a short fall. The City is going to have to start making it up
and the taxpayers, you and 1, are going to have to pay through our
tax dollars to build retention centers at some point. I see the
problems that you are bringing up but I don't know how we can go
into individual property owners and tell them that the City's problem
is their problem.
Mr. Brookman: That is not what my point is. The area that is proposed for the
retention basin is a depression in the ground that is not in the 100
year flood plain, according to the outdated maps. But it currently
does flood. What I am saying is that the flood plain maps are
outdated. No one in the Engineering Department would admit that
but they know they are old and they know with all the building up
north that the flood plains should be higher. The green line is the
100 year flood plain. The red line is where water has been.
Mr. McCann: I think we are agreeing, but along different lines. What I am saying
is that you can't arbitrarily start cutting across people's property that
they have bought, where they have had a certain flood plain and
say: 'You know what, this has been your backyard where you have
had your pool. We are moving the flood plain over it. This is no
longer your property to use as you please" What the City has the
responsibility to do is to start building detention basins so that we
are no longer invading people's property with these floods. That is
shifling the responsibility. This hasn't been worked out from what I
understand. These are issues that the County wants the
communities to start dealing with. I understand where you are
going with this but one of the other issues is that the Engineering
Department is the one who has to tell us. We are not engineers.
We know there is a problem. They have to tell us whether or not
they are going to hold all of their stone water and whether or not
their design will work. We have to depend on them as being
experts in the area.
Mr. Brookman: Here are also some pictures taken by my neighbor who lives in the
front house right on Farmington where the water is within one foot
of hitting the bottom of the bridge. This is this year. This happens
regularly.
19477
Mr. McCann: l understand
Mr.Brookman: Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: I just want to make clear a point. Regardless of this development, I
just want you to know that the City is taking action to develop
retention centers elsewhere. I hear your concern. The study did
about a two year storm water retention study and is implementing
plans to relieve it, regardless of this development. It was dear, Jim,
that we are talking about efforts that are underway to alleviate
some of the flooding and it is regardless of whether or not this goes
through. I just wanted you to know that.
Tom Buis, 20009 Mayfield. Is part of the plan here to correct the storm water drain
problem that goes dawn Mayfield. If you are not familiar with that I
know, In plumbing terms - surcharged, engineers call it that. That is
a fancy word which means it is full of water. The reason I know
that is about a year ago as part of my project of building house, I
went to have my sump tied into that drain. The plumbers told me
that it was surcharged and told me to call the City. They came right
out and they talked to people on the radio and said, "Oh yeah, that
line on Mayfield is surcharged and is collapsed somewhere down
stream into Ardmore and we can't do anything with it until we deal
with Ardmore" O.K. That was a little story to explain why I know
this. Now that we are looking at dealing with Ardmore, is part of
that project on Ardmore, going to take care of this storm drain that
has failed, because the people on Mayfield don't have storm water
drainage.
Mr. McCann: Mark, that isn't the drain that is coming from the condominiums to
the north. Is there another drain that he is referring to?
Mr. Taormina: That drainage district induces areas both to the north, including the
Woodlore Condominiums and areas in the abutting subdivision
along Mayfield and Shadyside, as well as to the east where some
areas drain from the park into line. It does extend across the
Ardmore property. The plans that were presented originally would
have completely replaced that storm line. This plan is not detailed
enough to show whether or not that line would be replaced. The
detention basin that was originally shown on City property is now
shown on the Ardmore property. That would have required the
relocation of the storm line. The question would have to go to the
petitioner as to whether or not it is still his intention to replace this
storm line. It does appear to conflict with a couple of the units on
the preliminary plan so I am going to assume from the detail we
19478
have right now that all of the portions of that storm line will have to
be relocated and replaced.
Mr. McCann:
The petitioner is indicating that, "Yes", that storm system will have
to be replaced and moved.
Mr. Buis:
O.K. Again, not knowing if this is the right place to ask this
question but is there going to be a road that goes from Farmington
Road to JC park?
Mr. McCann:
No. Not on the proposed plan. The site plan is coming up in two
weeks. This is just giving us an indication of what he is intending to
do and why the zoning is going to do it. He does not show a road
going through at this time. He has presented this plan, I believe, to
the City for a hearing in two weeks.
Mr. Buis:
Thank you sir. Based on some of the things the other taxpayers
have raised, I object to this proposal based on a concem that our
schools need more children to maintain our head counts and high
density senior housing is not going to help us in that regard.
Phoenix Development has a project going on down the street on
Farmington Road that is not sold out yet so I guess my thoughts
would be along the line of echoing some of the other people. We
need more single family homes to help our school system and help
our tax base. I think we need to protect the interest of the
taxpayers. That would be my request. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one wishing to speak, I am going to close the public
hearing. Mr. Schafer, do you have a last comment?
Mr. Schafer:
Again, I just want to remind everybody that this is the first stage of
the process. We are planning on having some type of an outside
study and discussion with the residents here shortly. We will be
contacting some of you. Any of you that do want to attend that
meeting I would encourage you to call my office and leave an
address and a contact. My office number is (248) 851-9900. If any
of you did not get that, please get me on the way out and I will be
happy to chat with you for a moment. It is our intention to do some
type of traffic but again, we are looking at a property that is
currently zoned over 14 acres of OS which I think just from a
standpoint if it was not rezoned and developed as it is, could
accommodate approximately a 140,000 sq. R. office building which
would provide a tremendous amount of traffic at peak hours of the
day. With residential traffic and the amount of units that we are
proposing I think it would show that it would be much less intense.
I think any traffic study, if we compared the zoning and what we are
19479
proposing, this would be a much better situation. I hear you loud
and dear on that. It is currenfly zoned and if there is a chance that
we could make it better. The individual on Mayfield and the
Grahams, I certainly would like to have some discussions. You do
have impact on the site and the site planning phases we would like
to have discussions with you. As far as the basins go, this is a
private basin. This basin complies with the new Wayne County
Standard. We don't see any real issues at this point although we
haven't gotten final approval to any hindrance of building this basin
in this area. It is allowed. It is done. But everybody needs to
understand, when you have a 100 year min or when you have more
than a 100 year min, all bets are off. There is no basin anywhere,
anyplace, that is going to stop flooding of that type. The 100 year,
the lesser storms, I think there are a Id of things going on.
Certainly, we are going to be doing what is required of us with the
new standards. The basins will be bigger than developments you
would have seen come on line 18 months ago. Certainly, this
should be an improvement over what our property is cur enfly
contributing to the Tambusi Creek. The pictures, you said eight
years ago, there was a flood there. Those are unusual times.
There are floods that are worse than 100 year floods and like I say,
all bets are off. There is really nothing that can be done to control
those. Certainly, with the City basins that are through the Rouge
that they are looking to build. That would ulflmately alleviate the
problem even more. Again, there were some issues about he
schools and the children and other projects. We have looked at a
lot of other products at Seven Mile and Newburgh etc., and I know
a lot of people see these projects going up but you would be
surprised anything that is just made for a master with a very limited
amount of stairs because there is a large aging population here and
we see it at Six Mile everyday. We get a number of people in,
residents in the community, that are looking for a place that can't
find a place to move into that is user friendly for them to live out the
rest of their years with something that has a turnkey and don't have
any maintenance and things like that. Our maintenance fees aren't
that exorbitant. I don't think it would prevent anybody from
affording these units. Again, we would be providing more children
to the school district with the R3 zoning than the current zoning
OS. We are taking some of the OS zoning and making it single
family as well. Those are some of the concems. I certainly would
like to answer all of your questions tonight. There are public
hearings and we'll go through this process and hopefully work
together to get a win-win for that property.
Mr. McCann: Thanks. A motion is in order.
Mr. Pastor:
I just want to let everybody know that I will not be voting on this
issue. I have been the contractor that has been boarding up that
place for the Iastfve or six years so I will be stepping aside.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, itwas
#7-82-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on July 16, 2002, on Petition 2002-
06-01-06, submitted by Steven J. Schafer, on behalf of Ardmore
Development, L.L.C., requesting to rezone properly located on the
east side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Fargo
Avenue in the West %rof Section 3, from OS to R -3A, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-06-01-08 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in
the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an
appropriate mix of residential housing types on the subject
property;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide a good
transition from multiple family residential land use to the north
and single-family residential homes to the south of the subject
property; and
4. That the increased population density which can result from a
proposed change of zoning to RC on a portion of the subject
property will be off -set by the existence of a major City park and
open space area which is adjacent to the east.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh:
I would just like to indicate to the people in the audience that I will
be voting in favor of this. I listened carefully to your thoughts and I
have studied this property for eight years since the boys home
almost went in there. have seen a number of plans. I believe that
this is the best plan that has come forward. We have been at a
continual battle with the warning owners of that property, even just
trying to get them to tear down the buildings. They are a hazard
19481
beyond being an eyesore. They are a hazard to our community.
This opportunity that is before us will allow for the development of
high quality homes and condominiums and removal of those
buildings. Phoenix has proven to have been a very good builder in
town. I have watched them with their developments and work very
closely with the neighbors and address their concerns to the best
that they can. There are some site planning issues that I do want
to hear more about. The road to JC Park for instance, I would like
to hear more from you and more from Mr. Schafer. It is not the
correct forum tonight. I listened to your comments on that and I
want to hear more about that at site planning. One comment that I
have on the building more single family homes, I think that is
preferable. Ifwe can get more ofthose out of the site plan, that's
great. I am not sure that we can but there is more than a theory, in
fact, it is being bom out in practice, that the condos that we are
building are attracting current residents that are empty nesters
thereby freeing up four bedroom homes for families to move into
and populate our schools, so there is a positive in that. Mr. Chair,
for those reasons I will be supporting this.
Mr. LaPine: I had an opportunity to look at the plans when the original came in
for this proposal and compared to what he originally wanted to put
in there, which was all condos, 186 units. We have come a long
way. There has been a lot of work behind the scenes. Mr. McCann
has been involved in a lot of meetings and I think we have come a
long way. A lot of us would like to see other things done here but
there is only so far you can go. Personally, I like to see the whole
project as single family homes. But realistically, whatyou are
paying forlhe property and ifyou put all single family homes in
there, you are talking about bringing in young families. It is not
going to bring young families to single family homes with the homes
running close to $400,000. Because there are only so many homes
and so many acres and he has to get the cost of his land, the cost
of his roads and sewers and everything so you are not going to get
the young couples that everyone would like to see come into the
City. By doing a combination where we have condos on one side
that will take care of the seniors, I am a senior and I think people
will say seniors are not interested in the type of condos that he is
building on Farmington and Six Mile, but this type he is building is
all on one floor. I have been looking for a ranch, where everything
is all on one floor and they are impossible to find. They will cost
you $300,000 to $350,000 because of the cost of the land and all
the other things. I think this is a good proposal. We are going to
fine tune it as much as we can when it comes back before us and I
would urge all of my members to vote for it.
19482
Mr. McCann: I think Bill and John said all that needs to be said. I do wantto
emphasize that l have talked to different people. Weareherefor
zoning tonight. We are getting more R -3A on this. The plan is not
calling for putting the reservoir on the City property. To the north is
firstfloor master bedrooms. There are things that we would like.
We can't require someone to put a road in for the City and the
neighbors. There is the other side ofthe coin and that is I thought
three months ago, literally, that this project was dead and that we
would be years away from getting anything. I never thoughlwe
would get anything like this. I think we are on the road to getting
something pretty good here. We will work with you and the
neighbors and the petitioner in two weeks on the site plan and
hopefully we can come upwith something to meet all of the
neighbors needs. But this will provide for families. I think this is a
real blessing. Will the secretary call the roll?
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: La Pine, Shane, Alanskas, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The petition will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. McCann: There have been discussions with the President ofthe Council
because they want to look at this as it is coming through. The
petitioner has requested a waiver of the seven day rule. Mr.
Engebretson has said that the Council can accommodate them if we
do it. Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and approved, itwas
#7-83-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article IV of the
Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven-
day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commissions
resolutions in connection with Petition 2002-06-01-08, submitted by
Steven J. Schafer, on behalf of Ardmore Development, L.L.C.,
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of
Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Fargo Avenue in
the West %rof Section 3 (known as the Ardmore property) from OS
to RC and R -3A.
19483
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Alanskas, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: 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.
ITEM #3
PETITION 2002-06-0240 TCF BANK
Mr. Pieroecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
06-02-10, submitted by Robert Griffore, on behalf of TCF Bank,
requesting wavier use approval to construct and operate a bank
with drive -up service facilities on property located at 13401
Middlebell Road on the west side of Middlebelt Road between
SchoolcmR Road and the CSX Railroad Right -of -Way in the
Northeast%of Section 26.
Mr. Taormina presented
a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area. As I understand the petitioner has
requested that this item be tabled this evening.
Mr. LaPine:
The 35 feel that they are talking about is that the portion behind the
building, west of it?
Mr. Taormina:
The 35 feelwould be immediately south ofthe property.
Mr. LaPine:
South along the road?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. It is the area that runs between Industrial Road and the south
property line of the Derby Bar properly.
Mr. LaPine:
That green area that is directly south of @, is that owned by the
bank or whoever wants to build there or is @ owned by the F & M or
Wal -Marl?
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, that 35 fool strip is part of the site where the Wal-Mart and
F & M drug store is located.
Mr. La Pine:
Itjust doesn't seem like there are 35 feet there. Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
fPL1:Ll
Mr. Nowak: We have three departmental letters. The first letter iffrom the Traffic
Bureau, dated June 12, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans regarding a proposal to construct a bank on
the northwest comerof Middlebeh Road and Industrial Road. his
our recommendation that the proposed location of the handicap
parking spaces be moved north so that handicap patrons can
take advantage of the sidewalk ramp located at the north end.
Each handicap space must be individually signed in accordance
with Livonia City ordinance. Stop signs are needed at each exit of
the parking lot" The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant.
The second letter is from the Engineering Division, dated June 18,
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 following legal description should be used in connection with
this petition: 'Part of the N.E. Y. of Section 26, T. 1S, R. 9E., City
of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more particularly described
as beginning at a point on the East line of Section 26, distant due
South 1056.9 feet from the Northeast comer of Section 26, and
proceeding thence due South 160.00 feet; thence, S. 89 %9' Wes;
310.00 feet; thence due North 160.00 feet; thence, N. 89 949' Eas4
310.00 feet to the point of beginning, except the East 60 feet
thereof deeded to the Board of County Road Commissioners of
the County of Wayne for road purposes, as recorded in Liber
19441, page 165 and Liber 20027, page 815, Wayne County
Records.' If the petitioner wishes to alter the drive approach
configuration to Middlebeh Road, he will have to obtain a permit
from Wayne County and may be subject to their current storm
waterordinance. Apermitforthe drive approach to Industrial
Drive will be required from the City. We trust that this will provide
you with the information requested." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P. E., City Engineer. The third letter is from the Building
Inspection Department, dated June 20, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 12, 2002, the above referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) This site
must resolve the issue of adjacent ownership to the South. We
could not issue a permit to build on property not owned by the
Petitioner. 02) The parking lot lights are listed as higher than 20
feet and should be adjusted. (3) The width of the sidewalk at the
front entrance canopy may not meet barrier free requirements and
the location of the accessible ramp from the parking lot should be
next to the accessible parking (on the shortest route to the
accessible entrance). These concerns and other
accessible/building issues will be addressed by this Departinent
19485
at construction plan review. (4) The required parking for this site
would be 32 spaces, not 36. The Petitionerhas provided 37
spaces at this time. By adding one (1) additional space (parallel)
to the South of the Drive-thru and then designating six (6) spaces
along the Northern property line as additional waiting (stacking)
space for the drive thru lanes, this Petition would be in
compliance with the Parking and Drive -up Window ordinances.
(5) There is no detail of how the proposed connection to Wal-Mart
will actually lay out. (6) Signage has not been reviewed as part of
this petition. This Department has no further objections to this
petition. 1 trust this provides the requested information." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, CBO, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the conespondence.
Mr. McCann: The petitioner has requested thatthis be tabled but this is a scheduled
public hearing and there has been publication forlhe public hearing
this evening. Is there anybody in the audience who would wish to
speak for or against this petition this evening?
Michael Rein, from the architectural fine Bowers & Rein, 2400 S. Huron Parkway,
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-5152. 1 offered the letter on TCFs
behalf asking the Planning Commission to table this. We have
worked the last several months with the owner of the subject property
with the understanding that we would have this 35 foot wide piece or
property which is integral to our site plan worked out in time for this
Planning Commission meeting. A week ago it became evident that
we would not and TCF wants to work with the Planning Commission
for somewhere in Livonia and rather than waste the Planning
Commission's time we thought it would be in everybody's best
interest to pull this until we have that property free and dear in terms
of how we are going to proceed with that.
Mr. McCann: Thal is fine. I think we will consider your request. Sincewe
published notification for the residents, we have to give them the
opportunity to speak.
Mr. Rein: That is why I wanted to come and try and explain above and beyond
the letter and Mr. Nowak was nice enough to pass that on. But we
didn't want to waste the Planning Commission's time.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. We appreciate that. Seeing no one, I am going to close
the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it
was
Well
7-84-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on July 16, 2002, on Petition 2002-
06-02-10, submitted by Robert Griffore, on behalf of TCF Bank,
requesting wavier use approval to construct and operate a bank
with drive -up service facilities on property located at 13401
Middlebelt Road on the west side of Middlebell Road between
SchoolcreR Road and the CSX Railroad Right -0f -Way in the
Northeast%of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-06-02-10 be
tabled to a dale uncertain.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2002-05-07-01 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
05-07-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission to determine
whether or not to Amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of
Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the land use
designation ofvarious properties located throughout the City.
Mr. Taormina gave a breakdown of all the areas that are proposed to be changed.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi: I have no questions but my compliments for such an effort. I think 8
is magnificent what you guys have done.
Mr. McCann: If there are noquestions, is there anybody in the audience wishing to
speak for or againstthe recommendations to change the Future Land
Use Plan? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. A motion is
in order.
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#7A5-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the
Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning
Commission of the City of Livonia having held a Public Hearing on
July 16, 2002, for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master
Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to
change the land use designation of various properties located
throughout the City, for the following reasons:
19487
1. That the amendments are necessary to bang the Future Land
Use Plan up to date so as to be consistent with recent zoning
changes and to reflect changes with respect to actual ancvor
proposed land uses;
2. That the proposed amendments will insure that the Future Land
Use Plan will be current in accordance with the Planning
Commission's policy; and
3. That the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan
are logical and reasonable.
AND, having given proper notice ofsuch hearing as required by act
285 of Public Acis of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City
Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part
ofthe Future Land Use Plan ofthe City of Livonia which is
incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted
by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments
thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City
Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a
certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for
the County of Wayne for recording.
A roll call vole was taken with the following result:
AYES: Pastor, LaPine, Shane, Pieroecchi, Alanskas, Walsh,
and McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
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 concludes 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?
ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-07-0846 PARI ASSOCIATES
Mr. Pier cecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
07-08-16, submitted by Parz Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an office addition to the
Plymouth Square Center located at 31153 Plymouth Road in the
Northwest''/.of Section 35.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an office addition
to the extreme south end of the Plymouth Square Center located on
the south side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Denne.
This center has a somewhat '12' shaped footprint, with part of the
building running along Plymouth Road and the other part extending
down along the side street of Denne Avenue. The part of building
that fronts on Plymouth Road is occupied by commercial type uses.
Along Denne Avenue part of the building is occupied by office type
uses and part of it is utilized as a warehouse. The proposed
addition would be one-story in height and 4,560 sq. R. in area. The
existing building is 26,310 sq. R. in size. If the addition were
permitted to be constructed as proposed, the expanded building
would become a combine total of 30,870 sq. R. in size. The
southern most part ofthe existing building facing Denne Avenue is
utilized as warehouse space. It is on the southern side of this
warehouse portion where the proposed addition would be
constructed. The petitioner has staled that one of the reasons for
the addition is so that the existing aisl may along the south property
line can be interrupted. It seems that vehicles use the parking lot
as a way to get around the intersection of Merriman and Plymouth.
The petitioner is hoping that by narrowing the aisleway next to the
building and making it only one-way off Denne Avenue a potential
safety hazarded can be circumvented. Presently access to this site
is achieved by multiple driveways. One ofthe driveways is in front
ofthe building of Plymouth Road, one is off Merriman Road and
three are available of Denne Avenue. Other than the addition and
the narrowing of the aisleway, most of the site would remain
untouched. A greenbelt would be installed along the south property
line directly across from the bulding. There is an existing
protective screen wall along this property line. From Denne
Avenue the greenbelt would con west and then flare outjust past
the building. It is this flared out area and the narrow aisleway that
the petitioner hopes will discourage drivers from cutting through.
Parking is summarized as follows: required parking is 145 spaces;
provided parking is 145 spaces. The plan shows eight parking
spaces out near the public sidewalk along Denne Avenue. These
spaces could present a safety hazard being that they are right up
against the sidewalk. It would make better sense to delete these
spaces and provide additional green space out near the road.
Landscaping is summarized as follows: required landscaping is not
less than 15% ofthe total site; provided landscaping is 18% of the
site. The Elevation Plan shoes thatthe three elevations ofthe new
addition would be constructed out of brick. An enlarge cutout of the
19489
east elevation shows a brick arch defining the main entranceway.
The roof would be covered in asphalt shingles. Due to water
problems the petitioner has had with the flat roof of the existing
building, the roof of the new addition would be sloped. An on-site
inspection shoved that the existing building has a contained
several types of architecture. The portion of the building that faces
Plymouth Road is constructed out of brick with a mansard roof.
The existing office component is mainly brick with large cutout roof
windows. The warehouse is constructed out of scored and flat
masonry blocks. The new addition's architecture does not seem to
correspond with any segment of the existing building.
Mr. Taormina: We have four letters of departmental correspondence. The first
letter is from the Department of Public Safety, dated June 3, 2002,
which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a
commercial building on property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objection to this proposal.
However, our approval is contingent on adequate hydrants
being provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300
feet between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1,500
FPM with a residual pressure of 20 PSI. Access around
buildings shall be provided for emergency vehicles with
fuming radius up to forty -Frye feet wall to wall and a minimum
vertical clearance of 13-112 feet" The letter is signed by James
E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated July 8, 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. If the petitioner intends
to make the drive south of the addition two way, we would
recommend that the drive be widened to 20 feet We have no
other concerns with ingress or egress. We trust that this will
provide you with the information requested." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated July 16, 2002, which reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the petition in reference to a
proposal to construct an addition to the commercfallofflce
building located at 31153 Plymouth Road. We submit the
following recommendations and observations for your
consideration: (1) There is no indication that any barriers are
planned to prevent vehicles parking on the east side of the
building from encroaching onto the sidewalk. (2) Although
there is no indication from the plans submitted, it does appear
that the main entrance into the proposed addition w ill be on
the east side of the building. If this is the case, then we
19490
recommend that the handicap parking space be moved to the
east side of the building. This would also allow the handicap
user to take advantage of the 10 -foot wide sidewalk located on
the east side. (3) There is no indication as to whether the
concrete walk on the west side of the building is ramped for
handicap access. If the handicap space is moved b the east
side, then ramping the concrete walk on the east side should
be considered. (4) All handicap pairing spaces must be
individually signed per city ordinance. (5) Security lighting is
not indicated on the plan. Proper lighting for security and
patron safety should be considered but lighting should be
shielded so as not to disturb adjoining residential property.
(6) There is no indication as to the height of the shrubs
proposed for the west side of the building. With crime
prevention in mind, the shrubs should be kept rimmed below
the windows so as not to block the windows nor to allow
concealment for patron safety. (7) Stop signs should be
installed at the driveway so that vehicles exiting will stop
before crossing the sidewalk." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated July 15, 200, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of July Z 2002, the above referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted., (1) The
parking lot needs maintenance, repair and resealing. (2) The
drive approaches off Denne are in disrepair. (3) The
landscaping beds need maintenance in the rear of the
building. (4) The center portion of the existing block
protective wall ranges in height from 3 feet 7 inches to 5 feet
with the average height being less than 4 feet 8 inches. (5)
The existing office building exterior needs painting. (6) The
existing landscaping is not as depicted on the plan. The south
property line (east end) depicts 5 maple trees where only 3
exist. (7) Post lights are depicted as 28 feet tall. This needs
to be clammed to the Commission's satisfaction. (8) The one-
way designation for the southern driveway has not been
indicated on /re plan. It is too narrow for a two-way driveway.
(9) The 8 pairing spaces on the east side of the property
depicted as 1040,41,140, 141, 14Z 143, 144 and 145 are poorly
designed. They adjoin a public sidewalk and vehicles will be
forced to back over said sidewalk in contravention of Zoning
Ordinance 543. With these redesigned, the plan will be at least
4 parking spaces short and therefore will require a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Department has no
further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
19491
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mr. Alanskas:
I will be stepping down due to a business association. I am
employed by Mr. Parz.
Ronald Parz,
31153 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. 1 apologize for not
being at the meeting last week, last Tuesday.
Mr. McCann:
You weren't expected to be there.
Mr. Parz:
We could have resolved some of these items. have a plan here.
Mr. McCann:
I assume this is an updated plan from the one thatwas presented?
Mr. Parz:
Absolutely. To address the first issue, the one-way driveway is
denoted on the plan. Two, the green area is so noted over here,
on the plan. The green area is approximately 2-1/2 to 4 feet
between the sidewalk and the parking. Four, I do believe we have
the handicap spaces located here. This whole sidewalk, when
originally installed, was a handicap accessible sidewalk. The item
that you have over here denotes an electrical, and we have one
located right here. Since it has been some reviewed 22 years ago
when I first built this center so the lighting is there and it is shielded
from the neighbors, across here going into the place. The
landscaping has been fixed up. I have not addressed the parking
issues over here simply because if I am fortunate enough to be
approved, we would have to tear this whole parking lot area apart
over here to do that. So what happens instead of simply going out
and simply fixing this at this point right here, doing it all at one time
and it is all taken care of.
Mr. McCann:
There is one thing, Mr. Parz, with regard to these spots right here, if
you look at your drawing, this is a one way road this way so if
someone parked in these spots they would have to back out over
the sidewalk and that is against the City Ordinance. The
recommendation is that that should be landscaped in there.
Mr. Parz:
These items, these two parking spots right here?
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That is eight spots, isn't it?
Mr. Parz:
Four. I don't have to landscape in four spots. I just have to
landscape in two spots because what happens is this car comes
out here and it can go out here. This is not a problem because it
19492
can just back up here and go out here. And this one you back out
here and go out here. This is the only parking lot that would be a
problem.
Mr. McCann: It would be up to the Traffic and Engineering or the Planning
Department whether or not those would qualify. We get a report
whether they qualify or not. Right now they dont qualify so those
issues would have to be corrected to meet the ordinance.
Mr. Parz:
O.K.
Mr. La Pine:
The parking spots just north there, they have to back over the
sidewalk there too.
Mr. Parz:
No they don't. They have approximately 25 feet to 35 feet. They
have a long way before they cross the sidewalk.
Mr. La Pine:
One of the issues I understand why this is happening is because
people are cutting through from Merriman Road and cutting to go
out Denne Avenue. Is that correct?
Mr. Parz:
Itis one ofthe issues. I think d is a safety feature.
Mr. La Pine:
My question is, if you are coming down Merriman going east, then
you gel to an area that is only eleven feet wide.
Mr. Parz:
You will have to point that out on the map. I don't know where that
is.
Mr. La Pine:
It is right here where it narrows out to eleven feel.
Mr. Parz:
I dont believe so.
Mr. La Pine:
It is not a straight shot all the way through?
Mr. Parz:
That is the way the plan was originally designed 22 years ago and
approved by this very Planning Commission.
Mr. La Pine:
I wasn't here 22 years ago. Quite frankly, I think it is loo narrow for
my estimation.
Mr. Parz:
This over here is approximately 22 feel. I haven't changed the
landscaping and it is as it is right now. Half of this is a double
barrel exit and entrance through as it is used today.
19493
Mr. LaPine: If you come off of Merriman and there is a road that goes out, yes,
right there. There is no way you can get to Plymouth Road from
there?
Mr. Parz:
Yes. You come through here, out through here and right on out
through here.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are you going to dose the current well you have there, the
tmckwell?
Mr. Parz:
Yes. That is all going to come down. You have to improve the
entire building over on the south side. That existing building will be
demolished and fill in the well.
Mr. Pieroecchi;
That is going to be additional space for you loo?
Mr. Parz:
It is already incorporated into the building right here. This truckwell
sits right out here.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I realize that you meet the minimum dimension going from the back
of that building to the residenfial property of 20 feet. Does it have
to be that much? That is really getting pretty close. It is only a
minimum. You know can make it bigger. And there is a wall there
loo, right?
Mr. Parz:
There is a wall there.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
And you are going to landscape in front of the wall.
Mr. Parz:
The wall is already landscaped; in front of the wall. I did that in
1982 when I developed this section right here.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It is fine to do that but it is really to benefit you than the aesthetics
ofthe area, which is fine.
Mr. Parz:
I don't understand the question.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Because the only ones that are going to see it are from that
building.
Mr. Parz:
It must have benefited someone because the Planning Commission
thought I should have put it in so at that particular point I did put it
in.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I was hoping that you would adjust that building to give to little more
space there. You only have 18 feet there or 20 feet?
19494
Mr. Parz:
I think @ is closer to 25 feel or 28 feet.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You know, I hale to say this but I had a hard time with your plans. I
really did. I would be very grateful if you would have us table this
and come in with a new set of plans showing 1" is equal to here
and there.
Mr. Parz:
It is right here.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Il was a hard plan forme to follow. It really was.
Mr. Shane:
In addition to the four parking spaces we already talked about east
of the new building. If you go north of the existing building there
are a couple there, a couple more handicap spaces that suffer from
the same thing and that is people would have to back over the
sidewalk.
Mr. Parz:
What happens is, Mr. Shane, if you would happen to look at the
plan, there is a greenbelt area that comes down some 30 feel.
People do not back over that location.
Mr. Shane:
Except I think that you will find that the Building Department won't
lel you use those because in their eyes, someone could back over
it.
Mr. Parz:
These parking spots are now in existence as they are today. They
have been approved in the original plan before the 1982 plan and
they have been in use for the past 21 years and this is the first time
it has been brought up as a point of discussion, either from the
police or anyone else and no one has been run over to date.
Mr. Shane:
If that is the case, that is the case. Did the Building Department
mention any other spaces besides what we talked about?
Mr. Taormina:
Only those that were on the east side of the properly, 10 through
40, 41, 140 through 145.
Mr. Shane:
That includes the two that I was talking about.
Mr. Parz:
Here is 41, 42, 43, 44 and I can't tell you where 145 is.
Mr. Shane:
If they are o.k. with that in the Building Department, that is fine. It
is the same thing as the other one. So I would be a little curious
why they wouldn't menton those.
19495
Mr. McCann:
I think in all defense, when plans are approved, the Planning
Commission and Council, we are not perfect. We miss things.
When people come in and revise site plans and expand the uses,
we try to correct plans we missed and as you try to correct
problems that you missed originally to make it easier for your
customers. All we are trying to do here tonight, is not trying to give
you a hard time, we are just trying to go through and see where the
problems are that we can correct with the petitioner to make a
better project.
Mr. Parz:
Al this point, I have been living with an existing condition for 22
years. They have not been a problem to dale. I have yet to hear
about anybody being run over or backed over and stuff like that. I
have heard repeatedly that if we dont address the problem of this,
people are going to get killed. They come through my parking lot at
40 miles an hour to bypass this over here and several times people
have just barely been missed. That is one of the problems of this
particular building people tell me because it is so dangerous
coming through here. People are just using this as a loop. Trying
to address a number of things over there. First of all, I am trying to
make some money off the building. The site allows me to expand
the building and to reach certain criteria and I and trying to do that.
Mr. McCann:
Are you going to make money off the building?
Mr. Parz:
I dont make enough. I want to do that. On top of that, by tatting
the building and moving it forward, there is a condition that is pre-
existing that I want to address. I can't take the front of this building
apart over here because it was built into the integral look of the
building but I am trying to shield it. I brought down the size of the
building. I'm doing it in all brick because you have a residential
housing complex over here and I am trying to shade that and bring
it down. Also, trying to lake care of a traffic problem here. That is
why I am doing it this way. I find now that the neighborhood has
since changed and is now more of a residential neighborhood from
what it was when warehouses were being built over there.
Mr. La Pine:
What is the overall height of the new building?
Mr. Parz:
I couldn't tell you. I think it is maybe 10, 15 or maybe 18 feel.
Mr. Shane:
Did you say what colorthe brick was going to be?
Mr. Parz:
The brick will be matching the building over here.
Mr. Shane:
Which is?
19496
Mr. Pam :
It is a rose colored brick.
Mr. Shane:
O.K.
Mr. Pam :
It will be brick all the way around and then at that particular point,
we originally thought we would be going all the way up and match
this particular roof line over here on the high part. What happened
it just didn't ft. I felt it was just loo overpowering and it would begin
to hurt the neighborhood so I brought the building down to scale,
put in a flat roof in order to bring this thing down to a more
reasonable scale so that this house over here is a more
predominant point. I do believe that this house is higher than my
roof line over here although the window line that you see is at 10
feet and then goes up probably another 8 feet after that, then you
have the flat roof.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there any windows on the south of the new building?
Mr. Pam :
There are all windows along there.
Mr. LaPine:
Is it solid brick oris it windows?
Mr. Pam :
I would say that 80% of this is brick.
Mr. LaPine:
How many additions have you put on this location?
Mr. Pam :
I only put on one addition and it is right here. This originally was
built by Bill Brown in 1968. It was a warehouse portion. We then in
1970 placed this on and in 1972 built this porton right here. I just
came across and redid the front and added this, reconfigured the
upstairs for an office and converted some of this warehouse over
here into office space.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the new building going to be used for office space or
warehousing?
Mr. Pam :
It is all going to be used for office space.
Mr. McCann:
I was looking at the plan and my question is raised by Mr. LaPine.
It appears, according to Sheet 3, that the existing building line, is
nine plus eleven plus two, which would be 22 feet. So you are
going to match the existing height with the new building?
Mr. Pam :
What you have over here is, this is the existing building line. We are
simply just matching this to that point. This is already existing at 22
19497
feet. We somehow have to be this in in order to prevent the
integrity of the roof.
Mr. McCann:
You have answered my question. I thought the addition was going
lobe taller. Itis not. It is going to slope up and match.
Mr. Parz:
What's happening is you are going to have a flat roof. The building
is 90 feet long. It is only going to raise eight feet in the air so you
are only going to have a soft shallow pitch and it is going to come
up like this. It is going to have a hip look to it meaning that it is
comes off and breaks off and leads off into a point. What happens
then is instead of dealing with a heavy gable over there, which
would make that look like a tunnel over there, that hip set will open
up that whole area over there and will soften the whole effect on the
south side.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Are there any other questions form the
Commissioners? Hearing none, I will go to the audience. Is there
anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and approved, twas
#7-86-2002
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-07-08-16,
submitted by Parz Associates requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with
a proposal to construct an office addition to the Plymouth Square
Center located at 31153 Plymouth Road in the Northwest%of
Section 35, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan dated 6/04/02 prepared by
Carlos Huerta, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
except for the fad that the parking spaces proposed in front of the
addition shall be removed and replaced with landscaping;
2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
3. 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;
4. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan as received by the
Planning Commission on July 1, 2002, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
5. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four (4")
inch brick, no exceptions;
6. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated
June 3,2002:
that adequate hydrants be provided and
located with a maximum spacing of 300 R.
between them
that remote hydrants shall flow 1,500 FPM with
a residual pressure of 20 PSI
that access around the building shall be
provided for emergency vehicles with a turning
radius up to 45 ft. wall to wall and a minimum
vertical clearance of 13TH.
7. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in
the correspondence dated July 15, 2002:
thatthatthe entire parlang lolshall be repaired,
resealed and double striped
that all handicap spaces shall be identified and
complywith the Michigan Barrier Free Code
that the drives approaches off Denne Ave.
shall be repaired
that the site's landscaping shall be cleaned up
and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition
that the existing protective wall shall be
brought up to code
that the existing office building exterior shall be
painted
that the southern driveway shall be designated
one-way
8. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient parking
and any conditions related thereto;
9. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved
with this petition;
19499
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;
11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Division's
satisfaction the items as stated in their correspondence dated
July 16, 2002; and
12. That the light posts shall be restricted to a height of 20 feet.
A roll call was taken with the following results:
AYES:
Pastor, Piercecchi, Shane, Walsh, McCann
NAYS:
La Pine
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Alanskas
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Keep up that good greenbelt area that you have.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2002 -06 -SN -01 FAMILY DENTISTRY
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
06 -SN -01, submitted by Marygrove Awning, on behalf of Family
Dentistry, requesting approval for an awning sign for the
commercial building located at 33512 Five Mile Road in the
Southeast%of Section 16.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Five Mile between Farmington
and Edington and zoned C-2, General Business. The petitioner is
requesting approval for an awning sign for the dentist office located
across the street from the Livonia Shopping Center and somewhat kitty -
comer from the Livonia Civic Center area. This site is located in the
"Civic Center" control zone and therefore requires Planning Commission
and City Council approval.
Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is one (1) wall sign
nollo exceed 30 sq. fl. in sign area. Proposed signage is one (1)
awning sign - south elevation:
"FAMILY & COSMETIC DENTISTRY" =20 sq. ft
M. LIPNICK MWLUSMN
The existing building has a zero front yard setback and the front of the
building is adjacent to the public sidewalk. The proposed awning would
19500
stretch along the front elevation of the building and extend 1'r11. over
the public walkway. The sign area would not be back -lit and no part of
the awning would be internally illuminated. The awning would be dark
maroon in color and the sign would be done in while lettering. Because
this building has less than a 20 ft. front yard setback, it is not entitled to a
ground sign.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one letter from the Inspection Department dated July 8,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June
28, 2002, the above referenced pefifion has been reviewed. (1)
The existing two (2) wall signs will need to be removed ora
variance will need to be obtained from the Zoning Board of
Appeals forthe awning and signage. (Excessive number and
amount of signage.) (2) The parking area needs maintenance
and double striping. This Department has no further objections
to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here?
Paula Lipnik, I own the building and my husband runs it for his dental practice. I
don't know if it would help to menton, but before we purchased this
building, we were in practice for 15 years at Five Mile and Levan in a
building owned by someone else. We subsequently had to move
when that building was sold for another use and we purchased this
building. Many of our patients are elderly and we also service most
of the elderly nuns that live over at the Felician Sisters. They have
had a lot of trouble finding our building because the existing signage
is very hard to see from the street. Because of where we are
located, you can only come into our parking lot if you are going
westward on Five Mile. So if you are coming eastward you have to
tum around and it is really hard to see. We have had several
patients, especially elderly ones, complain about the fact that they
have trouble finding our office and that the signage is not adequate.
We want to put up the awning so that we can have more visibility
from the street. We picked that color, which is really a burgundy
color. If you seethe actual fabric sample, it looks more burgundy
because it matched really nicely with the outside of our building and
there were tons of blue and green awnings in the area. We wanted a
color that we could say to the elderly people, "Look for the burgundy
awning" You know what I mean so that they could identify it more
easily. The existing sign on the building that is there now, we have
asked to be able to just put numbers instead of it having any actual
verbiage. It would just have the numbers of the building because
19501
where the numbers are right now you can't see them. Thereare
blocked by trees that are owned by the City. I actually have a
picture. I don't know if this will help at all or if you even want to see it.
If you want to see it, you can see the numbers are under there and
you can barely see them especially, obviously, in the months where
the leaves are on the trees, it is very hard to see the numbers. We
had spoken to a contractor and found out that taking the existing sign
completely off, rather than just putting the numbers on it, would
require re -facing most of the outside of the building because the
facade of the building is something that is really old and not made
anymore so we would have to pull a Iol of it off. In order to cul the
costa little because we had to put so much money into the building
already, we thought of putting the numbers in because nobody could
see the numbers on the top of the building anyway. Thatisbasically
it. If you have any questions, l would be happy to answer them. We
have looked into this extensively. I have a whole pile of pictures here
but I won't bother you with them if it is unnecessary.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: When I was out there looking at your building, I had no objection to
your request, except I wanted that existing sign to go. You talk about
putting numbers on there. That sign is quite large.
Mrs. Lipkin:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
You are going to have awful big numbers on it. If you are only going
to put small numbers on it, it makes no sense.
Mrs. Lipkin:
We had a sign guy out. I dont know if you can see the sign on the
picture that I gave you but he suggested just making the sign the
same color as the awning so it would blend in. Right now it is a blue
color and we are trying to match the outside of the building better and
he said that he is a professional that has been in the business so
many years and said that he would make it so that most of the sign
would actually just be the burgundy color with the numbers an
appropriate size, he said, for the area. He wouldn't make them
obviously the whole length. You are right. That would be just too
big.
Mr. McCann:
That is really nice but it is hard for us to picture exactly what we are
going to get. We have to have drawings. We would have to table
this to approve any other signage on the building. We would have to
have some type of drawing.
19502
Mrs. Lipkin: I'm sorry. I guess I understand what you are saying. What he was
trying to tell me was that the sign, whatever size it is, would just have
numbers, sort in the middle of it and just leave open the top and
bottom. If we have to take the sign down, we will take it down. I'm
not sure what we will fill the hole with.
Mr. McCann:
How big is the hole?
Mrs. Lipkin:
It's fairly large.
Mr. McCann:
My point it that signs are mounted on the building. What you have is
you've got number of holes going into the building, one a pi pe for
your electrical to come out and two the bolts that sink into the
building itself. Generally, it is the same material behind it.
Mrs. Lipkin:
No. Its not though. Supposedly underneath the sign there is a hole.
They built the facade around the sign. Do you see what I am saying.
So if we take the sign out there will actually be, to be honest, I don't
actually know what is under there. It could be some other building
material.
Mr. LaPine:
On the next case we have is just right up the street from you, an
awning loo. They have the address up here.
Mrs. Lipkin:
Right. But the thing is when we were going around the
neighborhood, my husband was trying to see what other people had
so he would know what was reasonable to request from the City
based on what other dentists in the area have. We found out through
much research that Livonia is a very densely populated area with
dentists compared to other cities per square mile. There are more
dentists in Livonia than a lot of other cities in the area other than
possibly Dearborn, being the exception. Within a half a mile from our
office, there are probably eight other dental facilities and some of
them have more signage than what we are asking for. We have
patients that are going into another office that is two doors down from
us because they can't find our office. This man has a huge sign in
the front. His name is in huge letters on the side of the building.
Mr. McCann:
Is he on a comer?
Mrs. Lipkin:
No. He has huge letters on one side of his building, a big sign that
he just put up on the front of the building.
Mr. Shane:
Are you talking about the one next to Bates?
19503
Mrs. Lipkin: Yes. He has a big picture of himself in the window. He's got signs
forthe entrance and exitthat has his name on them. We are really
looking to have our name in one location just so our patients can find
our office, especially the elderly ones. We have one woman who
came in shaking because she almost had an accident turning around.
Mr. McCann:
She went to the wrong denfisl?
Mrs. Lipkin:
No. I know whalyou are saying. I am serious. I work in the office
and we've had so many complaints since we moved that people are
having so much trouble finding us, especially the elderly people.
Mr. McCann:
I understand. I am not sure how we want to handle it. Mr. Taormina,
do you have a recommendation with regard to the other signage
problem that goes along with this. We could pass on the awning but
part of the resolution would be that the other signs have to come
back to us as part of it. Without having a drawing with regard to the
proposal on the other sign, we can't pass on that. So I guess we
would have to table it. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
The other option that you would have is because, as I understand it,
she is willing to modify that sign to include only information pertaining
to the address numbers. Is that correct?
Mrs. Lipkin:
It would just say 33512. That's right.
Mr. Taormina:
If that is the case, then we could just reference in the approving
resolution that change to the sign fully complies with 18.50 (d) of the
zoning ordinance which provides size limitation for address numbers
on commercial buildings.
Mr. McCann:
What would be the size?
Mr. Taormina:
It allows for a maximum of 12 inch numbers.
Mrs. Lipkin:
Each number being 12 inches?
Mr. Taormina:
Address numbers with a numerical height not greater than 12 inches
for businesses.
Mrs. Lipkin:
Does that mean 12 inches per number or 12 inches in total for all five
numbers?
Mr. Taormina:
I just read how the ordinance reads. We would have to let the
Building Department review the plans and verify whether it complies
with the ordinance.
19504
Mr. McCann: I think it would be a 12 inch number. Each number would be 12
inches tall.
Mrs. Lipkin:
That should be no problem. You are talking five feel and I think the
sign that exists is only about five or six feet right now. If I am allowed
12 inches per number plus space in between them, it would take up
most of the sign.
Mr. LaPine:
That sign that is up there now is a sign. They are putting up another
sign. They are putting up two signs.
Mr. Taormina:
This would be permitted in addition to what the ordinance allows for
other signage. This wouldn't be the only sign allowed on the site. If
she wanted to maintain the sign as it exists today together with what
she is proposing, the awning, then she would need to go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals. If she installs the awning and modifies the
existing sign to comply with this provision, I believe she would be in
full compliance with the ordinance.
Mrs. Lipkin:
I was told by Marygrove, I am only going by what he told me. So I
don't know whether this is fad or not. If it was just numbers, it is not
considered a sign. So it wouldn't be considered a second sign
because it was just numbers. Is that incorrect or correct?
Mr. McCann:
To the west ofthis building there is a street, isn'lthere?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Continuing just west of this building.
Mr. McCann:
Would this count as abutting two streets?
Mr. Taormina:
For the purpose of the address identification I'm not sure how the
Building Department would manage that. They may limit that to only
one address. I don't know if they would allow it on both sides of that
sign. I believe that sign is two sided, one facing west and one facing
north. They may just limit that to one sign.
Mr. McCann:
On a corner building they are allowed two wall signs, are they not?
Mr. Taormina:
That is only if it is on a major thoroughfare.
Mr. McCann:
You would want the address letters on the Five Mile side oflhe sign,
correct?
Mrs. Lipkin:
Yes, facing the street. The other side they said we could just leave
the burgundy color, just fill it in with the color and it would wrap
19505
around and have the numbers on the front of the building. We would
have it so that it would match the awning.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak on this?
Mr. Alanskas:
I think this should be tabled and have them come back to us with
exactly what they want to do. You know to say that they will do this
or will do that verbally. If it is not in writing, as far as I am concerned,
its not correct. I can't see where we will approve this part but we will
find out about the number part. I think it should be tabled until we
know exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Pastor:
I think what she is saying is that she wants a sign on top. She just
wants an address and if that is an address that is facing Five Mile
and that is allowable because that is not a sign. On the other side,
she was just going to put a blank burgundy patch. Sothatreally
addresses what she is asking for. That is my understanding.
Mrs. Lipkin:
That is exactly what we would like to do. Frankly, to be honest, the
man that I have been dealing with at Marygrove Awning, I told him,
"Should I have a drawing ofwhatthe sign will look like" and he said,
"No, that is not necessary. Justgo in and tell them you aregoing to
put the numbers up and that should be fine" I believed him.
Mr. Pastor:
I thinkwe know now that the Five Mile side of the sign is going to be
the address letters.
Mr. Alanskas:
We keep saying that it is a sign.
Mr. Pastor:
The existing sign is going to be changed to an address number. It is
going to be five numbers of the address and on the other side it is
just going to be a blank burgundy panel. So it is not going to be a
sign.
Mr. Alanskas:
What would you lens it as?
Mrs. Lipkin:
It will just be a decorative piece that will keep me from having a hole
on the side of the building.
Mr. Shane:
It will be an address.
Mr. Pastor:
Because on the backside of it, what she is saying is, that sign is
actually part of the building. If we are just putting a blank panel in
there, that is nota sign. Il is not anything. We are putfing an
addressinfront. We will have the awning up front that meets within
our ordinance and I think that is what she is looking for.
19506
Mr. LaPine:
You are telling me if someone has a free standing sign and theydon't
want to take it down and they just put a color panel in, that we don't
considerthat?
Mr. Pastor:
The freestanding is different. If is part ofthe wall and mounted into
the wall, that is something else.
Mr. McCann:
But the difference is that we do have a separate section in the
ordinance that allows for entrance markers, for addresses and for
these types oflhirigs beyond it. As Mark says, it calls for numbers up
to a foot and what you are putting it on now is what we are arguing
about and whether you put numbers on the concrete or you put them
on some piece of burgundy awning or whatever type of material it is.
Mrs. Lipkin:
It is whatever a sign is made up of, some type of plexiglass.
Mr. McCann:
It is going to be some type of informational designation forthat
building.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, the motion can include thatthe current sign facing
Five Mile can be modified to include the address only and thatwhich
faces west shall be blocked out with a panel.
Mrs. Lipkin:
That would be fine.
Mr. McCann:
That matches the awning.
Mr. Piercecchi:
If you put that in the motion, then it would be covered.
Mr. Alanskas:
I will withdraw the tabling motion.
Mr. McCann:
Are you making the motion?
Mr. Piercecchi:
If I can repeat that.
Mr. Walsh: I think this is a good plan. Mark, what happens if our assumption that
if it is 12 inch letters and it is really 12 inches all together? I can't
imagine that that is correct.
Mrs. Lipkin: That cant be.
Mr. Miller: If you look at Nitzl in's address and him huge it is, it is conforming.
Mr. Walsh: I just want to make sure that we are conforming.
19507
Mr. McCann: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane and approved, it was
#7-87-2002 RESOLVED, thatthe City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002 -06 -SN -01,
submitted by Marygrove Awning, on behalf of Family Dentistry,
requesting approval for an awning sign for the commercial building
located at 33512 Five Mile Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 16, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Marygrove Awning, as
received by the Planning Commission on June 20, 2002, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That no part of the awning or the sign area shall be illuminated or
backlit;
3. That the existing sign on the southwest comer of the building be
modified to include the address numbers only in accordance with
the ordinance, with the western portion of the sign blocked out
with a panel to match the awning;
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as ou0ined in the correspondence dated
July 8, 2002:
that the entire parking lot shall be repaired,
resealed and double striped
6. That the address be in full compliance with Section
18.50 of the zoning code.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mrs. Lipkin: We share the parking lot with the business next door to us. Am I only
responsible for my half of the parking lot? Is that correct or am I to
make sure that his half is improved? His part of the parking lot is just
as bad as mine.
Mr. McCann: Do you have an easement with him?
19508
Mrs. Lipkin: It is just one big parking lot. He has the spaces on one side and we
have the spaces on the other side.
Mr. Alanskas: When you bought the property where was the property line on the
parking lot?
Mrs. Lipkin: I think it is somewhere down in the middle. Ifyou look atthe parking
lot, it is really just one big parking lot although technically half of it is
ours and half of it is his.
Mr. Taormina: This only applies to the parking area that is on her property.
Mrs.Lipkin: So l can just repair half of the parking lot?
Mr. Taormina: I see what you are saying but that parking is on the property that you
don't own as far as the map that I am looking at.
Mr. McCann: Whatever property you own that is all we have control over so we will
go on from there. Will the secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole was taken with the following results:
AYES:
Piercecchi, Shane, LaPine, Pastor, Walsh,
McCann
NAYS:
Alanskas
ABSENT:
None
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 #7 PETITION 2002 -07 -SN -02 LAW OFFICES
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
07SN-02, submitted by Marygrove Awning, on behalf of Law
Offices, requesting approval for an awning sign for the commercial
building located at 33680 Five Mile Road in the Southeast''/.of
Section 16.
Mr. Miller: This site is located north side of Five Mile between Farmington and
Stamford. The zoning is C-2, General Business. The petitioner is
requesting approval for an awning sign for the law offices located
across the street from the Civic Center Plaza Shopping Center and the
Parkview Memorial Cemetery. This site is located in the "Civic Center'
control zone and therefore requires Planning Commission and City
Council approval.
19509
Signage permitted fort his site under Section 18.50H is one (1) wall
sign nollo exceed 80 sq. ft. in sign area. The proposed signage is one (1)
awning sign — south elevation — "LAW OFFICES" = 20 sq. ft.
Presently across the front of building is a box type structural canopy. It
would seem from the drawing that the proposed awning would fit over
and ceverthe existing bump out. The proposed awning would extend
out 3A. from the building. The sign area would not be back -lit and
the awning would not be internally illuminated. The awning would be
dark blue in color with while lettering. According to the Assessor's
records, this building has an address range from 33680 to 33684. The
petitioner has staled that the law offices would be occupying the entire
building. Based on this building's front yard setback being more than
20 ft. (app,mmarelyM rc.) this site would be permitted a ground sign.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is a letter from the Inspection Department dated July 8, 2002,
which reads as follows: `Pursuant to yourrequest of July 3, 2002,
the above referenced petition has een reviewed. The following
is noted., (1) The parking area needs maintenance, resealing
and double striping. (2) The front right-of-way landscaping is in
very poor condition and needs maintenance. (3) k is unclearif
the existing rotted wood facade is being removed and this issue
should he clammed. This Department has no further objection to
this petition. 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.
John Larkin, 33680 Five Mile Road.
Mr. McCann: Can you answer the Inspection Departments question?
Mr. Larkin: I believe so. What has happened is that the wood has pulled away
from where the screws which would be covered up by a sign. That
shall be repaired. If that cannot be repaired then a wood cap would
be put over it using it so itwill be invisible. The old wood will be
covered up and repaired to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. La Pine: So basically whats outthere is thatthis awning is going to be put
over it?
19510
Mr. Larkin: Essentially the awning is going to be covering up the wood section.
Mr. LaPine: The wood is in pretty bad shape.
Mr. Larkin: It looks like the building hasn't seen any maintenance on that part for
a number of years. It is one of the first things I plan on doing once I
get done painting on the inside and things like that.
Mr. LaPine:
Is this your building?
Mr. Larkin:
Yes, myself and my wife.
Mr. LaPine:
There are two entrances to the building but you are occupying the
whole building?
Mr. Larkin:
Right. I have one question. They recommend double striping on the
approval. That is, as you probably are aware, that area has very little
parking on it. If we double stripe that parking lot, it will probably take
up two or three spots and there are probably only 12 spots.
Mr. McCann:
There is no difference between double striping and single striping.
What it is you have a len foot spot it just widens the stripe area so
that the cars are more careful to park in their own lane.
Mr. Larkin:
Thanks for correcting for ignorance.
Mr. McCann:
That was a fair question. If there are no further questions from the
Commissioners, is there anybody in the audience who wishes to
speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in
order.
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it
was
#7-88-2002
RESOLVED, thatthe City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002 -06 -SN -02,
submitted by Marygrove Awning, on behalf of Law Offices, requesting
approval for an awning sign for the commercial building located at
33680 Five Mile Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 16, be approved
subject lolhe following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Marygrove Awning, as
received by the Planning Commission on July 1, 2002, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
19511
2. That no part of the awning or the sign area shall be illuminated or
backlit;
3. That all existing wall signs shall be removed;
4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
5. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated
July 8, 2002:
- that the entire parking lot shall be repaired,
resealed and double striped
- that the front right-of-way landscaping shall be
reestablished and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition
- that the rotted wood of the facade shall be
repaired, replaced and/or removed
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto the City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8W Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes of the 844" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on
May 7, 2002.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and approved, it was
#07-89-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 844" Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, are
hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, La Pine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi,
McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Pastor
19512
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #9 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 845'" Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the
Minutes oflhe 845P Regular Meeting held on May 21, 2002.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it
was
#07430-2002 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 845" Regular Meeting held by the
Planning Commission on May 21, 2002, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, La Pine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi,
McCann
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
None
ABSTAIN:
Pastor
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 847"' Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on July 16, 2002, was adjourned at 10:21 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
P.49