HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-08-2019551
MINUTES OF THE SW PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 849" 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 Ms. Margie Roney, Secretary, 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 of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-06-01-09 EDDI AYYASH
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
06-01-09, submitted by Eddi Ayyash, requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Wayne Road between Ann Arbor Trail
and Edward Hines Drive in the Southwest %of Section 33 from C-1
(Local Business) to RA (High Rise Multiple Family Residential).
19552
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petton 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 July 25, 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. We have no objection to the revised legal description,
which was provided. The drive approach to Wayne Road will
require Wayne County approval and the project will be subject to
Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. There is
no City storm sewer immediately adjacent to the site." 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?
Eddi Ayyash, 19747 Gary Lane, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anything additional you would like to tell us
about your pefifion?
Mr. Ayyash: Just that I've had this property for almost 20 years. I had an
adjacent business there and my hope was at one time to build a
strip mall in that area, but the whole area really has a lot of
vacancies and empty commercial buildings. We abut to Westland
and Plymouth Road, which again have a lot of vacancies. My
intention is to rezone this and to use it for apartments or
condominiums if I find a builder to go in with me on that
condominium basis. A couple of them have approached me about
it. I'm asking for the R8 not for the height but for the density. Its
not a large project, obviously. You can tell by what's being
submitted. The lhrushhold of profitability for these projects ... you
know under a certain amount ... and if the cost of maintaining
them and keeping them up becomes too great for the number of
units that are there ... so the reason I was submitting for an R-8
versus an R7 is that we were hoping to put 12 units on that and no
more than two stories. The idea is to have two bedroom, two bath
units that could be either condominiums or apartments with plenty
of yard area, green spaces. I dont know if Mr. Taormina showed
you the other layout we had of where the parking would be. There
would be plenty of parking for 12 units and guests. From Wayne
Road ... there would be enough barrier between the commercial
land. Its laid out pretty nicely at 12 units. Thank you.
19553
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane: Are these all two bedroom units that you want?
Mr. Ayyash: The way the gentleman that did the work for me set it out, there
would be ten two-bedroom and two one -bedroom units. The
planning says there can be 13 units. I don't know which one is
correct, but my intention is to put 12 units on the lot.
Mr. Shane: The point I was going to make is, there is only a two unit or so
difference between R7 and R-8 in terms of density depending on
your bedroom count. So I wonder why you wouldn't ask for R7
and then you wouldn't have to have any variances?
Mr. Ayyash: It's only two units, but it's almost 18%-19% percent of the total
space additional. So when we crunch the numbers financially, you
get 18% less revenue with about the same expense, so it becomes
more subslanfial on the financial end of it. I understand what you're
saying. On a larger project, a couple units is not a huge amount of
difference, but when you're only building 10 or 12 units, it's a little
bit more substantial.
Mr.Shane: Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine: Mark, haw many units could he gel under an R -C classificafion?
Mr. Taormina: If the site was developed with all two-bedroom units, which I believe
was the indication from the submitted concept plan, he can have a
maximum yield of nine units.
Mr. LaPine: With the configuration of the property, does it seem feasible to get
12 units in there?
Mr. Taormina: The plan that was provided to us does show a layout with a 12 -unit
building. However, that plan would rely on either a variance being
granted for some of the setbacks or approval under the Planned
Residential Development, which allows for the Planning
Commission and Council under certain circumstances to waive the
normal setback requirements for the R-8 District.
Mr. Pieroecchi: According to my notes here, you were going to ask for a Planned
Residential Development so you could have the different density of
a four-story building but yet build a two-story. Correct?
Mr. Ayyash: Absolutely.
Mr. Pieroecchi: What makes you think you're jusfified for doing that, sir? Not just to
gel a couple more units?
19554
Mr. Ayyash: No. The justification is that the area that I'm in and my store is in is
in bad shape. I've been a neighbor in that neighborhood for 20
some years now. We have a vacant bank building; we have a
vacant 7-11 building; we have vacant land. We abut a lot of
vacancies in Westland. I'm going to improve the neighborhood.
My plan is to make things better for all of us that are in that area.
Its not just to get two more units. It's to make it feasible for me to
invest $500,000 or $600,000 into this project in order that it lays
out. If it didn't work out as far as the parking or that there wasn't
going to be enough green areas, or if any of those things didn't
work out with the 12 units, I wouldn't be asking for it. But we have
more than the required parking and additional for guests, and there
are plenty of green areas in there. The apartments that are to the
north that I bought were built in the 50's. They're not modem
apartments. They're not attracting the type of people that live in the
rest of Livonia right now. I would like to build something that is
nicer and something that is going to improve the area.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I'm sure you do. Hopefully, you will, but you know, sir, your
property is really surrounded by R7. The north is R-7, and to the
west is R-7. And if its not just two units, I don't see why you
wouldn't consider R-7, as Mr. Shane pointed out. The PRD
requires special circumstances where we waive setbacks and
things of that nature. Can you justify that? I mean meeting the
setbacks?
Mr. Ayyash: I can't justify d in the sense that its something that's extenuating
circumstances, but it would be more feasible for the project to go
forward with the 12 units. Financially, there aren't a lot of places
where people are going to put up 10 units and maintain them
properly. By the time you put a manager in one of the units and
then you try to maintain it, you're dividing the costs up among 12
units versus 10 units. So it's a lot easier to go forward that way,
and it's a lot more feasible to afford that way. I'm not parting the
waters or anything like that if that's what you're asking me.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I understand the economics and the mathematics. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas: I don't want to belabor the issue, but you said that you had the
property for 27 years?
Mr. Ayyash: 20 years.
Mr. Alanskas: And you've paid 20 years of taxes on that property and had no
return at all. If you even had R7 and at least had 10 units, you'd
have a return. Something is betterthan nothing.
19555
Mr. Ayyash: You're right.
Mr. Alanskas: And you'd have no setback problems. You'd have nothing. With R-
7 you'd have a very easy time of putfing up those 10 units. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann: I just had a couple questions. You interchanged words and I'm not
sure whether you intended to or not. You stated "apartment' and
you staled "condominiums." My thought of condominiums is
something that you build and sell. Obviously with apartments you
would retain ownership.
Mr. Ayyash: That's correct.
Mr. McCann: Which is @you're intending to do?
Mr. Ayyash: My intention is that if I build them myself, to build them as
apartments. If I can find a builder to partner up with this project,
then I would build them as condominiums and we could sell them
as condominiums. Without the zoning, I cant make a commitment
to anybody. I don't know which way I'm going to go with it until I
actually gel whatever you're giving to me.
Mr. McCann: One of the problems we have is the size of the property for the
density. It's not a normal shaped piece of property to begin with.
You own the property going all the way up to Ann Arbor Road on
the west side?
Mr. Ayyash: Ann Arbor Trail. Yes.
Mr. McCann: That's pretty much vacant property at this point?
Mr. Ayyash: Yes.
Mr. McCann: Is there any way you could use that additional property to spread
out the apartments to make it a little less dense and use that
property with it?
Mr. Ayyash: Then you have to have a setback off of Ann Arbor Trail also. It
wouldn't make the project look any better or lay out any better. It
would be easier for the requirements of the R-7 zoning that I would
get more apartments that way, but it wouldn't lay out any better
because you're basically going to build one building. So what we
have now is feasible.
Mr. McCann: You couldn't do kind of an L-shaped building coming to the
northwest comer?
19556
Mr. Ayyash:
You could, but you're going to be close to the commercial building
then.
Mr. McCann:
Even if its only one or two units coming off, what I'm trying to do is
give you a little more room. I think what I'm seeing is that you want
to cul off that north piece of G7 and keep it for another commercial
building sometime down the road, and only want to use part of the
properly for the apartments. Is that what you're trying to tell us?
Mr. Ayyash:
Not necessarily a commercial building, but that was originally slated
for a parking lot for the building that I'm in. There's an additional 25
feet on the other side of my building, that if I needed to add on or
somebody needed to add on in the future, they could make an
addition to that building and have a nice parking lot on the side. I
dont see building on that property as a commercial piece at all.
Mr. McCann:
I just think we could use some of it to come within the R-7 to
accomplish what you're trying to do. I'm sure you've looked at the
plans. I'm not an architect so I can't redraw it. I guess what I'm
looking for is if you'd be interested in trying to come back with
something where if we look a little more of the property coming
around and complying with an R7 to accomplish your goals. The
problem is going to an RA and then getting a waiver use because
you're not using more than two-story buildings and setback
problems. It's just getting too gray, loo fuzzy. There are too many
variances and requests then. I realize what you're trying to do and
we want to work with you. I'm just exploring other possibilities.
Mr. LaPine:
The only reason why you are shying away from condos is because
you can't build these yourself? You have to gear up with somebody
before that would happen?
Mr. Ayyash:
The condominium thing has been successful down the road from
me where you approved the project. They built it by the
greenhouses, and they were done well. But they backed up right to
Edward Hines. I'm between two-story apartments and a
commercial, and I don't know if people would want to buy into a
condominium that's in that configuration. In an apartment setting, it
wouldn't be too bad. But as a condominium, I don't know if being
next to some older apartments and a commercial on the corner,
and my commercial ... I don't know if that would work out that way.
So I would have to have somebody who was more familiar with
that.
Mr. LaPine:
Have you tried to make a deal with some builder in town to look at
the condo? I would feel more comfortable with condos there than I
would with apartments. I have a problem with apartments. I have
19557
nothing against apartments. Like in your case, this may work out
beautiful because you have a business there and you're going to
see that the apartments are kept up and maintained. That's to your
benefit. In normal cases, when people own the piece of property
and have an actual financial stake in it, they take care of their
property and maintain it. Not everybody but probably 95%. And
that's always been a worry for me. Now in your case, I might say,
well, he lives there. Its going reflect on his business if he doesn't
maintain them. I never know what's down the line. You may sell
off the apartments. Who knows?
Mr. Shane: Do you know how wide the parcel is that fironts on Ann Arbor Trail?
Mr. Taormina:
Its roughly 130' of frontage altogether. That includes the
commercial properly and that portion of this L-shaped property
which I'm going to say contains roughly 75' of frontage.
Mr. Shane:
It would be a little difficult to get a building in that area, Jim.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, just to make the tum, I realize that.
Mr. Pastor:
Just an overall view ... I don't have a problem with the R7 zoning
on this because it makes it clean and easy and I think you can work
it out, kind of like what Mr. McCann was saying, to try and do that
L -shape. I believe with the amount of units that you have, I don't
think it would behoove you to have an on-site manager, especially
when you own the business right there. You can keep on eye on it
close enough so you wouldn't be losing that one unit. Also, I think
you have to take into consideration the Wayne County Drain
Commission's new requirements. I think that is going to play into
your hand as well, so I think you're probably going to be using
some of that area bat you have set aside for the G7 anyways. If
we can make that L to gel your 12 units or whatever you need, I
think that's the best way of going through it. And then you'll have a
little bit smoother sailing through Council and Planning. The other
way you're just going to gel loo many requirements asking for this
and that. I think its just a cleaner deal. I think you're better off
doing it the other way.
Mr. Ayyash:
Mr. Taormina, you said I could get how many units on an R-7?
Mr. Taormina:
Ten.
Mr. Pastor:
Ten the way its set up right now. But you also might be also to
sneak that ... I don't have the plan in front of me ... but that plan,
you came down a little bit towards that commercial. You can
extend that down and extend the building. Depending on how wide
you make the apartment building complex, too, you can always
19558
make them 30' wide and go from that point as well and sneak it
partially into that ... have the front door, you know, right at the
comer and the retention going more towards Ann Arbor Trail. I
think if you work that a little bit, I think you'll be able to get what
you're looking for. Then with R7, since everything else is there, it
just makes it easier for us to approve it. It would be more
consistent with the area. As one member of the Planning
Commission, I appreciate you even looking forward to doing
something like this to help spruce up the area.
Mr. Ayyash:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Ralph Barnes,
10998 Wayne Road, Livonia. He's a nice fellow. He's a
businessman. I'm a homeowner. There's too much traffic now.
Things have changed so fast. Wayne Road now takes three or four
lights to gel home. Flower King wants to make it worse. There's
loo much traffic. We were told it wouldn't go commercial. They
keep taking commercial up Plymouth and going down Wayne
Road.
Mr. McCann:
I think what he wants to do is take this from commercial and turn
into residential - parking or condominiums.
Mr. Barnes:
We were told by the City Council several years ago that Wayne
Road would never go commercial. A lot of people invest a lot of
money in their homes. A lot of new homes are built. It's unfair to
everybody. If they were going to do that, they should have done
like Westland and done it years ago. There was a lot of vacant
property at that time. Now there's a lot of new homes up there that
wasn't before. People like myself put a lot of money in their homes.
We live there. The business people live somewhere else, and we
have the traffic.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak for or against this
pefifion? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. A
mofion is in order.
Mr. Pastor:
I was going to make a moton on the R-7. Can we ask the
pefifioner if he is willing to accept the R-7?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, we're votng about whether we want R-8. That's what the
pefilion says. I'll read it: "requesting to rezone the property located
on the west side of Wayne Road between Ann Arbor Trail and
Edward Hines Drive in the Southwest corner of Section 33 from C-1
19559
to R-0," which is high rise multiple family residential. That is what
we're voting on.
Mr. McCann:
You can make a recommendation to Council in a lesser density if
you would like.
Mr. Pastor:
Okay, so in the denying resolution I'll do that.
Mr. McCann:
No, you would make an approving resolution for R-7.
Mr. Pastor:
We II do this one first and then do the R-7, or approving with the R-
7?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, you are correct.
Mr. Pastor:
Ok. I wanted to make sure that we could do that.
Mr. McCann:
Is that all right, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Its very similar to the resolution that we recently offered on a
petition off of Eight Mile and Gill where we recommended R4
instead of RC, which is what the applicant had requested. So I
would say that is acceptable.
On a motion by
Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Shane, and approved, ilwas
#08-07-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, on Petition
2002-06-01-09, submitted by Eddi Ayyash, requesting to rezone
properly located on the west side of Wayne Road between Ann
Arbor Trail and Edward Hines Drive in the Southwest %of Section
33 from C-1 to R-0, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-06-01-09, as
amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to I-7, forthe
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning would be consistent and
commensurate with the multiple family residential district that
adjoins the subject property to the north and west;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will allow for the
development of the subject properly in a residential mode;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more of a
variety of housing types in this area; and
19560
4. That the proposed change of zoning will remove unused C-1
zoning in an area already well served with a variety of
commercial uses.
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:
For discussion, a thought occurred to me that it may be better for
the petitioner ... and I know what you're saying, Mr. Shane, about
the width of the property to the east, the southeast there, the G1.
I'm just looking at the drawing we have here. If you just comer the
building more towards the northwest corner, maybe one or two
units coming down, not all he way to where the G7 building is, but
Teff enough room for drive and parking and so forth, just by lowering
the G7 to a R7, you might be able to get his 12 units in and be in
compliance. The only issue I have is that it would require another
public hearing in order to have that additional property put in with it.
I dont know whether the petitioner would be interested in having us
look at that before we go forward with this to Council, or if the
Planning Commission thinks it's a good idea that we at least look at
that before we send this on to Council and table this.
Mr. Ayyash:
I would prefer if you just go ahead and make the recommendation
for R7. Then if the architect comes up with it in a different way,
we'll golhrough the process again.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. I guess that settles our issue. Any other discussion?
Mr. La Pine:
Yes, I have one question, Mr. Chairman. If we approve it as R7,
that means he can either put in rental apartments or condos. Is
that correct?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But condos have a different density.
Mr. McCann:
You can put condominiums in our subs. Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Piercecchi:
But he loses a unit if he goes to condos.
Mr. Taormina:
The R7 classification only affects the density of the development.
It would allow for either condominiums or apartments to be
developed on the properly; whereas if it is rezoned to the R -C
classification, it would be limited only to condominiums.
19561
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, Pastor, Shane, Walsh, McCann
NAYES:
La Pine, Piercecchi
ABSENT:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution to rezone to R-7.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I'll tell you why I voted no on il. I didn't think our motion really was
proper. I dont think we included that R-8 was not acceptable; we
just made it R-7. That's the reason why I voted against it.
Mr. McCann: All right.
ITEM #2
PETfTION 2002-07-0140 STEIN AND SIMON
Mr. Pieroecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
07-01-10, submitted by Henry Mark Stein and Jacalyn Newman
Simon, requesting to rezone property located at 15552 Newburgh
on the east side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile and
Ladywood Roads in the Southwest''/.of Section 17 from R -2A (One
Family Residential 70'x 120' minimum lot) to OS (Office Services).
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly 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 July 19, 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. We have no objection to the proposal at this
time. A drive approach to Newburgh Road will require a permit
from the City. The project is subject to the Wayne County Storm
Water Management Ordinance. Use of the storm sewer in
Newburgh Road or the Country Homes Estates Subdivision will
require City approval of required detention facilities." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Are the petitioners here this evening?
19562
Henry Mark Stein, 6449 Rutledge Park Dnve, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322
own the property at 15552 Newburgh.
Jacalyn Newman Simon, 6870 Inkster Road, West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there something additional you'd like to tell us about
your project?
Mr. Stein:
I am requesting to change this to OS where I can construct an
office building.
Mr. McCann:
Do you have something in mind at this point?
Mr. Stein:
A one-story building which will have a gabled roof to fit in with the
condominiums, approximately 7,000 square feel.
Mr. McCann:
Do you have a tenant?
Mr. Stein:
I've had many people call in regard to this property. I've had
accountants and doctors, but at the present time I do not have a
tenant.
Ms. Simon:
That's because everybody is afraid that it wont gel rezoned. They
dont want to commit to buying it because theyve never had to go
through a rezoning, and they don't want to do it. They want us to
do it.
Mr. McCann:
I see. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, with the County storm water ordinance, how much would
they lose in regard to a retention basin as far as the size of the
building? I know it says between 5,800 and 6,000, but roughly how
much would they lose by having that?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, its difficult to say. There are certain circumstances where the
County would allow for underground storage of the site's storm
water, which obviously bears an additional expense. Normally, a
site this small would require at least 10% of its land area to be
devoted to storm water detention if, in fact, it was going to be a
surface -type system. An underground system wouldn't affect the
development density at all. I'd just like to point out, though, the
comment that it could be developed in part for medical office space.
A medical use would require more parking spaces and thus that
would reduce the size of the building.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. Sir, what size did you say you were looking for a
building?
19563
Mr. Stein:
Actually, I was thinking about 7,000 feel, but then this all depends
on you.
Mr. Alanskas:
And you said it would be a one-story building?
Mr. Stein:
Correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because I'm sure we have a lot of people in the audience that live
behind here. Because of the Ameritech situation, I want to make
sure that you are only going to put in a one-story building if this
goes through.
Mr. Stein:
Correct.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Stein, were you the owner of the property that sold to Hunters
Grove Condominiums? You didn't own that property?
Mr. Stein:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
They never tned to buy that one parcel that you own there?
Mr. Stein:
No, they didn't because he didn't feel that anybody would want to
build a house nexllo a 35'telephone building.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Eileen Beale,
15559 Liverpool, which is directly behind this lot. It is the only open lot
there. I don't see any need. I work in Livonia. Our office building
has had vacancies for a year and a half that they can't fill. Half the
office space there is empty. You drive up and down any street in
Livonia, you'll find vacant office space. It is the only piece of green
land lett on Newburgh Road or in our neighborhood. We now have
the lower of terror of Ameritech. We have these condominiums that
fortunately went in. They rezoned it for assisted living and the only
thing they did was turn around and sell it. So everything they
promised us, they never had any intentions of keeping because
they just sold the property. I live in Livonia now because I choose
to. For a long time, I had to live here as a requirement of my
husband's job. I cannot believe the way my neighborhood has
changed. Never in a million years would I dream that it would be in
the condition that it is now. And now he's talking about putting a
7,000 square foot office space on this little tiny piece of property?
Its ludicrous. Somewhere it has to stop. Oddly enough, the day I
received this letter, I opened up the Observer. There was a letter
from a former Planning Commissioner, Ray Tent. Did you read that
letter? Commit it to memory because he said very eloquently what
19564
we all feel. Livonia is turning into a cement city. Everyone has lost
sight of what it used to be. It was supposed to be residential in
residential and the businesses were on the industrial corridor. Now
theyre in your backyard. You cant even see Newburgh Road any
more because of this massive building, this covert action that
Ameritech took on us overnight. You know, I wasn't notified that
they were going to add another building on top of that building. It
just happened, and then it was, oh well, it happened. Somewhere
along the line people have to understand that this is our backyard.
This is where we, who have lived and contributed to this City for
many years, who would like to refire here, this is what we have to
face? It is not pleasant. So I strongly object. I see no need
whatsoever for office space.
Mark Weber, 15535 Liverpool. Much like her, I also back right up to the Ameritech
monstrosity. For what it's worth, I'm also an Ameritech employee. I
had nothing to do with it. In fact, I called my fellow manager to find
out why that went up so quickly, but we won't go there. The reason
we're here today is to talk about the proposed change to the
zoning. Mr. Stein made a comment. He said who would want to
buy a house next to a 35' Ameritech switching station. I would say
to those who are about to buy those condos, who would want to
buy a condo next to an office building? As she mentioned, this is
the only piece of green property we have left. The Ameritech
building is really an eyesore; we all know that. A one-story building,
a two-story building, a len-story building ... it doesn't matter. It's
already six feet higher than the houses behind it. So if you put a
one-story building, a nice beautiful gabled roof, it looks like the back
of a one-story building with a gabled roof. It doesn't matter if it's
one or ten. Another thing that we would have to deal with is
additional traffic. Anybody trying to get up and down Newburgh
outside of three in the morning is finding it increasingly difficult. It's
a two-lane road. They just fixed it, which is wonderful, but it doesn't
make it any better for traffic flow. With this office building proposal,
I can see more traffic going in there. A lot more cars stopping to
make right turns, trying to make lett turns out of it. I see a traffic
mess. I'm sure there's zoning and ways that they handle it, but the
street is not wide enough to lake that on. And then we as residents
have to deal with headlights and the engine noises and the cars
coming in and out of the parking lot, and the business owners
leaving their office at eleven at night and locking up, and lights that
are on the property for security purposes. The list goes on. This is
a residential neighborhood. We suffered enough. And then as we
all know, there is plenty of vacant office space. There's a new
office building going right up on Five Mile. There's plenty of vacant
office space. We don't need to add any more. I would like to have
seen houses go next to it; those condos extend down. Of course, it
didn't happen. But there's still an opportunity if we can sell that
19565
residential or leave it as it is and give us a little space to breathe in.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann:
I'm going to ask a question. One of the things that's confronting the
Planning Commission today is that we have to allow a petitioner
reasonable use of his land. And that's what I guess we have to
look at. We're residents of the City. I went to Holmes Junior High.
My aunt lives across the street behind the Newburgh Swim Club.
I've got my fourth child right now going through Holmes Junior
High. I'm extremely familiar with the area. But you've got a
commercial office whatever Ameritech is, I'm not sure exactly what
it is. And then you've got the residenfial. I thought that it was loo
intense. I voted against the apartment complex. I thought it was
loo much for that site. But you've guys have been paying property
taxes for that lot for probably 15 - 20 years, as long as I can
remember. He pays his taxes. He has to maintain it. If the grass
gets too tall, he has to cul it. He has to have a reasonable use. I
don't see that the Court would agree with us and say, ok you've got
to build a single family home there. What is it that the neighbors
think should go there and that he could reasonably put next to that?
Now obviously, a 7,000 square foot office building is probably way
too much for that site. I agree. But we have to come up with
something that would allow the person that's paying the taxes on
the land the use of his land.
Mr. Weber:
Absolutely. And with no sarcasm and with all due respect, a bad
investment does not ever and should never become the problem of
those here in the audience. What is he going to put there? I would
be remiss to stand here and answer that question. I'm not ready for
it. I'm not a developer. I don't have the investment money to do it.
I know what we don't want there as residents. And what we don't
want is an office building and all the things that we've mentioned.
And you're going to hear more people behind me.
Mr. McCann:
I undertand that.
Mr. Weber:
But what should be there? Al this point, to be honest with you,
nothing would be just fine. Or if we can carry more of those condos
over, if they could sell, if people think they can sell them, that would
be fine. Single family units would be fine as well. I dont know. I'm
not building a single family unit and then trying to sell it. I don't
know that I would want to. I would consider that a bad investment
at this point. Again, I dont know what should be there, but I know
what shouldn't be here. Thank you.
Donald Hoppe,
15547 Liverpool. This is like deja vu. I've been here four or five
times on the Ameritech building. I live right behind Mr. Stein's lot,
half there and half Ameritech. It is zoned R-2. He has the property.
19566
He can put a house on it. You guys approved the second story out
there behind our house. You guys did that. That's not our problem.
That land over there is unacceptable to anything. Probably not
acceptable for a house, but it is R-2. I'm dead set against it. I just
want to make a statement. Livonia is starting to look just like
Westland. I'm very upset. I go between Westland and Livonia.
I've been here 40 years in that same house. You got every comer
covered with something commercial. You've got office buildings
and vacancies everywhere. A vacancy right behind me. A vacancy
across the street. There's two of them in the building over there.
We do not need another commercial lot stuck in our neighborhood.
And you say, what should go there? The property is zoned R2.
Put a couple houses there. Thank you.
Virginia Montesa, 15546 Liverpool. We don't need any more of this kind of sluff that
they want to put up. I work at Sl. Mary's Hospital. We have a lot of
offices that are not even filled. The owners of this property don't
live in Livonia. They don't care how it looks. We live here. We
treasure our home. They say it's no longer like it iced to be. I
really would like to just slop doing this because I think, I remember
two years ago, they tried to do the same thing. They would like to
put up offices. Medical offices in every comer of Livonia. You have
a lot of spaces that's not being filled — right there at the comer of
Six Mile and Newburgh. There is no need. Thank you.
Kathleen Lipinski, 15523 Liverpool. I live behind the Ameritech monster. I have
really nothing to say other than I'm not for this. I think Liverpool is
troubled enough with parking lot sweepers, garbage trucks,
dumpslers, garbage in our yard when the wind blows. We have
empty vacant buildings in that complex right now at Five and
Newburgh. They've been empty maybe a couple years now. Why
do we need another complex to go empty? What's that going to do
to our properly values? Our main goal now is to make sure condos
keep their value so that we keep our value. Like my neighbors,
we're all against it. Another thing he said, what condo wants to be
up against a 35' building. Mr. Hoppe lives behind the 35' building.
Did anybody consider what he thought? Thank you.
Michael Farrell, 15595 Liverpool. You made a comment about what he could put
into that space. I think he probably made a speculative purchase a
number of years ago and it was R-2 when he bought it. That was
his investment. I don't know what his intent was in buying it, but the
fad that he's now kind of stuck in this spot with a piece of property
that's zoned R-2, that was his choice in the beginning. It is also my
understanding that he was made an offer to sell it to this here
condominium complex. I guess the price he was asking was too
high. But he made a choice not to sell it to them thinking that he
could rezone it commercial. The other point that you had made ...
19567
I was here in a meeting before wonderful Ameritech ever started
there, and it was a one-story building. He's asking to put up a one-
story building. Is there anything in the zoning that he's asking for
that would stop him five tears down the road from adding another
story to it?
Mr. McCann:
Well, he would have to get a new amended site plan. Once the site
plan is approved ...
Mr. Farrell:
Well, Ameritech accomplished it.
Mr. McCann:
Yes, it did. Obviously without the audience input that we have
tonight, but its a complying building. I want to apologize. I do not
mean to be facetious or try to shove something down anybody's
mouth or anything else. I am asking for honest comments. As I'm
listening to the concems of the neighbors and what could go in
there, what would be possibly a reasonable use, I'm thinking maybe
R -C like the condos next door. Maybe you could put two small
units in there, or three. That might be more of an appropriate use
than R-2. Those are just all the things that we're suppose to
consider. We really don't make a decision until we've heard from
all the audience. I don't know, but if we had the input, we may not
have made the recommendation we did on the Ameritech building.
I do appreciate your comments. I really do.
Mr. Farrell:
It seems like zoning it to Office Services would open the possibility
that...
Mr. McCann:
It absolutely does. You're correct.
Mr. Farrell:
And keeping it R2 would keep it set that way. You know what's
going to go in there. It was previously mentioned that three or four
years ago, before the assisted living, they were planning on trying
to rezone it for office space for all of it behind us. It was pointed out
to the Planning Commission and the Council that there was an
awful lot of empty spaces around for offices. And based on that
and the need and the traffic congestion and all that, it was knocked
down and decided not to go office. This is to let you know that I am
not in favor of rezoning that to office just to have another drive-in
spot right there, right behind that commercial. You have an awful
lot of traffic. The neighbors across Newburgh are extremely upset
even with the condominium complex coming in with the traffic.
Thank you for your time.
Tony Greco, 36008 Middleboro. I have purchased Unit #3 of Hunters Grove which
borders the property that's in question. I understand that Mr. Stein
needs to do something with the land, but I'm a little concerned with
the traffic that a paved lot is going to create in the sense that it
19568
doesn't stop a group of 18 year olds kids on a Saturday night from
hanging in the parking lot. It wasn't too many years ago that I used
to do that myself. I come here in front of you guys to talk about the
noise issue that a commercial building creates. I'm not schooled in
zoning laws. That's really my angle here. If we could come to a
compromise where he could find some sort of housing, whether
that be a single family house or additional small units, condos,
whatever. I think it would be a better ft than a commercial building,
especially considering the two-story monster that everyone's
referred to. Thank you.
Louise Weber, 15535 Liverpool. I understand one of your questions is, "What is he
supposed to do with the land?" One of my questions for you is, I
live directly behind the Ameritech building. We were never notified
that it was going to be a second story building. That's for him to
figure out as far as what investment he made. It's still a bad
investment. That's not our problem. It's zoned R-2. It should stay
residential - not a medical building. They have labs coming in and
out all the time. There's no way. The traffic ... you cant gel out
onto Newburgh Road. It's unbelievable. That's all I have to say.
Mr. Weber:
Again, one more time. I'm sifting back here listening and thinking,
and the question keeps coming up, what can you do with the
property? Its not a very big property. Nobody wants to put a home
there. Nobody wants an office building. Is there any way he could
sell it to the City, tum it into a little park and a play area for the
kids? That's something we can all agree on.
Mr. McCann:
You'd have to take that up with the City Council.
Mr. Weber:
I'd suggest it to the gentlemen who is sitting here watching his
money dwindle away. Maybe he could sell it to the City and tum it
into something we can all use it for.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
One way to gel a park is to get with the condos and all the adjoining
people and buy the property. Deed it to the City and they would
take care of it.
Mr. McCann:
I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas:
The way that we do things for a public hearing is really a great
thing. When I came here today, I was actually for this building until
I heard from you people. It's a small piece of property and he does
have rights to do something with it, but I too think it should stay as
R-2. So I'm going to give a denying resolution.
19569
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved,
it was
#08-08-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, on Petition
2002-07-01-10, submitted by Henry Mark Stein and Jacalyn
Newman Simon, requesting to rezone property located at 15552
Newburgh on the east side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile
and Ladywood Roads in the Southwest''/.of Section 17 from R -2A
to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2002-06-01-09 be denied for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning would represent a further
extension of nonresidential zoning along Newburgh Road and
would adversely affect the residential properties to the north
and east;
2. That there is no demonstrated need for additional office
services in this area; and
3. That the existing commercial and office zoning in the vicinity of
the Newburgh Road and Five Mile Road intersection
adequately provides for office uses in this 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:
Just food for thought, and I do it more as an attorney and to look
toward what possible outcomes there could be. But he's got RC to
the north and G7 to the south, with R -2A to the east. Would it be
more appropriate to do an R -C recommendation? If he can put one
or two units in there, it would mix with the neighborhood. Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Our concem is that recommending IRC instead of OS wouldn't be
viewed necessarily as a less intense use because you would be
modifying the dassification or use. We would advise, under that
circumstance, that it would have to go back for a rehearing or a
denial with the indication that the Planning Commission sees that a
possible change of zoning to one of the two classifications might be
more appropriate in the future.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. I agree with Mr. Alanskas. Is there any other discussion?
Mr. Pastor:
Just for the same reasons Mr Alanskas stated, I'm going to be
voting no. But I would be open to maybe possibly RC, but I think
19570
that's going to be tight. You only have 100' frontage. If you slick
with 1-2, the widest R-2 is a 60', so you're only going to be able to
gel one lot if he sticks with the existing zoning. I believe that when
we were on Council, we did hear that was supposed to be in
negotiations with that development. As a matter of fad, I thought
that it was part of that development at one time. So I'd be looking
at the denying now, but keeping an open mind to the RC to put a
little bit more residential in there if we can work it out.
Mr. Walsh: I will be supporting the denying resolution. But I would encourage
the owner. He may wish to speak with the condominium
development. I don't know if it's loo late to do something or not.
But that's another avenue that he could pursue is trying to add it on
to that property.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with a denying resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2002-07-0241 FLOWER KING
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2002-
07-02-11 submitted by Ralph Horowitz, on behalf of Flower King,
requesting waiver use approval to expand the previously approved
outdoor sales and display area for merchandise such as lawn
decorations, garden materials and accessories on property located
on the Southeast comer of Plymouth and Wayne Roads in the
Northwest''/.of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Inspection Department, dated August 5, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of July 22, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
The display area at the northwest comer of the property has not
been permitted or approved by our records. A previous approval
referenced 'live material' only. (2) The required fencing for the east
area display has not been detailed. (3) The dates proposed are not
in compliance with the ordinance. (4) The parking areas need
repair, resealing and double striping. It is unclear if the two dead
trees at the south property area are the responsibility of this site.
19571
(5) Therefore, this petition will need several zoning variances from
the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Department has no further
objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. The second letter is from the
Division of Police, dated August 2, 2002, which reads as follows:
"We have reviewed the plans in regards to a proposal for outdoor
sales and display of plant, lawn and garden materials and supplies.
We have no objections to the plan as proposed. It is important that
the proposed planting of plants and trees on the fight -of -way not
obstruct the view of drivers exiting the parking lot" The letter is
signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter
is from the Engineering Division, dated July 24, 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 description as submitted. A review of the description, our
files and those of the City Clerk indicates that the additional 27 feet
of fight -of -way for Plymouth Road has not been dedicated and we
would recommend that this be done at this time. We have no other
objections to the proposal as presented." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The next letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 3, 2002, which reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request for outdoor sales and displays on
property located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The next letter is from Fernon Feenstra, a
former City Council member, received by the Plannning
Commission on July 30, 2002, which reads as follows: "I'm writing
on behalf of Rocky Horowitz, owner of Flower King located on
Plymouth and Wayne Roads. Mr. Horowitz has been a Livonia
resident before we incorporated as a City. I have known 'Rocky"
for 25 years as a fellow citizen, when I was a member of the Zoning
Board, and when a member of Livonia Council. Even though we
sparred often, it was only in the best interest of the City. This I
have found to be true, when he gives his word it is contract. His
comer makes an entrance to Livonia a beautiful sight. His petition
for outdoor sales will be in good taste, compliant with commercial
zoning albeit a waiver use and enhance the viability of the
Plymouth Road corridor. Please give him every consideration."
The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority,
dated August 19, 2002, addressed to the pefitioner in regards to a
resolution from the PRDA, which reads as follows: "Resolved, that
the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve
and support the request by Ralph Horowitz, on behalf of Flower
King, to expand outdoor sales and display area for merchandise
such as lawn and garden decorations and accessories, live plant
materials and related organic landscape material on property
located on the southeast comer of Plymouth and Wayne Roads
19572
with the condition that the location is limited to that as shown on the
drawing made part of this application and that this proposal shall
fully comply with all other applicable rules, regulations and
ordinances of the City of Livonia." The letter is signed by John J.
Nagy, PRDA Director. The next letter is from George LaFomsl,
dated August 2, 2002, which reads as follows: "1 am writing
concerning Petition 2002-07-02-11 conceming the Flower King
store on Plymouth and Wayne. 1 support this petition because 1
believe the colorful and tasteful floral and landscape displays add a
positive note to the comer of Plymouth and Wayne Roads. This
letteris submitted on behalf of Grand Rental Station, RSI Appliance
and Multistate Transmissions." We have a letter from fonner Mayor
Robert Bennett, dated August 29, 2002, which is quite lengthy. I
believe you have this in your packets. I see that Mayor Bennett is
present so he may want to give his views verbally. Al any rale, the
letter is in support of this petition. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: The petitioner, Mr. Horowitz, is present this evening. Can you tell
us a little bit more about your waiver request?
Ralph Horowitz, Flower King, 34899 Plymouth Road. We do need a little bit more
room for outdoor sales and display. The competition today is a lot
different than it was 18 - 19 years ago. We have to display a few
more items like the windmills, lighthouses, and the flowers that we
have. And we're very limited in our space. That's why I'm here. If
you haw any questions, I'll be happy to try and answer them.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Horowitz, do you find that you're having problems with your
sales?
Mr. Horowitz:
We're having problems with our sales, but I dont relate it to ... I
relate it basically . if there's any problem . because our
business has expanded a little bit every year, but maybe the
economic times, 9/11. And I really think what it is, they closed
Wayne Road for over two months. I think that hurt every business
in the Wayne Road area.
Mr. Walsh:
You did touch on it, but is there an economic need that you're
pursuing with this request? You want to add some lighthouses and
some windmills.
Mr. Horowitz:
Let me put it this way. The windmills that we have there and the
lighthouses are the finest quality. Theyre built by the Amish up in
northern Michigan. Everybody seems to love them. We sell a lot of
them. We sell more of them for the Amish than anybody in the City.
19573
Mr. Walsh:
I'm not questioning the quality. I think its attractive. What's
enough?
Mr. Horowitz:
What is enough?
Mr. Walsh:
Right.
Mr. Horowitz:
Well, let me put it this way. For the first time in our history, as brief
as it is, I had to layoff a designer. A designer in the floral business
is very, very hard to come by. I laid off two sales gids. You tell me
whats enough. If you have a better solution, I'm willing to listen.
But we do need what we've applied for here today. I dont want to
be another empty building.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Horowitz, have you found that in the last two years because of
stores like Costco and Walmart selling flowers, that it has cut into
your business where you have more of a need to put more flowers
on display?
Mr. Horowitz:
We always put a lot of flowers on display. We have a very good
clientele that comes to us year after year. We're sort of unique in
the business. You take a place like English Gardens, who buys the
finest from the finest growers. We have an advantage over them
because when they buy, they have to buy by the semi -load. They
have like five stores, and they drop off at each store sort of like
Frank's. I know every grower just about in the State of Michigan.
They allow me to do things that they dortt allow English Gardens
and other places to do. I sort of cherry pick. By cherry pick, I mean
they allow me to go in and pick the best. So we have, I think, the
best (I'm giving a commercial now) flowers forthe best prices.
Mr. Alanskas:
I dont think you understood my question. The question I asked you
was, have you found that stores like Costco, Walmart and these big
stores that also sell greenery has made it tougher for you to sell
your product?
Mr. Horowitz:
I'll give you a quick answer. Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Of course, I go by there all the time. I believe your facility is one of
the cleanest in the City of Livonia and one ofthe best looking.
Mr. Horowitz:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Going over your site plan, where I know you used to have some
bushes on the east side of the building where the Burger King is, I
know those were taken out. Would you tell us why they were taken
out?
19574
Mr. Horowitz:
Well, for several reasons. One is security. Those burning bushes
get like a hedge. The second thing is every morning we'd have to
go dean stuff not only off the grass, like coffee cups, napkins,
strews, but out of the bushes. And the main reason is that we have
a person that comes in and cuts the grass every five days. They do
it by machinery. With bushes there, he's not going to do it. I think
we sodded it and made it look eye appealing. We gel nothing but
compliments day in and day out. The only thing I think I'm lax in is
that little piece in the back panting lot, which we were going to redo
this spring, and by some lapse of memory, we didn't. But I'll tell
you now that we'll put in these brick patio blocks along the sidewalk
in the back panting lot. We'll put in some brick chips and charcoal
chips to make it look very attractive.
Mr. Alanskas:
1, as one Commissioner, don't think you're lax at all. You've done a
great job. Thank you.
Mr. Horowitz:
Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Horowitz, I remember this site very, very fondly because Mr.
Bennett and I worked with you and Femon Feenstre to get this
whole parcel developed.
Mr. Horowitz:
That's true.
Mr. LaPine:
When you first started out there, you started selling flowers. Like
any business that anybody is in, year after year you have to expand
the different types of things to sell if you want to be successful.
Mr. Horowitz:
That's true.
Mr. LaPine: And as Mr. Alanskas has pointed out, I gel to the point here where
the small businessman is not getting a very good deal any more.
It's the big corporations that are gobbling up all the little guys, and
the little guy has to strive to live. It did my heart good when Rite
Aid went out of business at Merriman and Five Mile Road, and the
guy across the street survived because I think it's about time that
we give more support to the little guy and not always worry about
the big guy because he pays more taxes.
Mr. Horowitz: I used to shop althal little place.
Mr. LaPine: So I personally have nothing against what you're proposing here. I
think you've done a nice job on that corner. I think over the years
you've really been an asset. You've won awards with your fine
landscaping and 1, for one, will support your proposal.
19575
Mr. Horowitz:
Thank you very much. It's nice to hear. It makes all that work
Mr. Shane:
worthwhile. We pick up the cigarette butts from the curb.
Mr. McCann:
We've got kind of a cheerleading section, but I think this is the
question and answer section.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Horowitz, I think you have a wonderful site also.
Mr. Horowitz:
Thankyou.
Mr. Shane:
I have two concerns. One of them is the display of material at the
comer. I'm hoping that doesn't get to a point where there is a sight
distance problem with cars.
Mr. Horowitz:
We've already lowered some of the objects that were on the comer.
We did that yesterday.
Mr. Shane:
You're not going to add anything more, nothing higher?
Mr. Horowitz:
No. In fad, that elechical box on the comer in higher than what our
sluff is going to be displayed.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. The concern I have is when you display this material, that
you don't interrupt the flow of traffic somehow.
Mr. Horowitz:
We never have.
Mr. Shane:
I know you never have. I just want to make sure you don't.
Somebody gets in there and can't find a parking place. He needs
to be able to get in and out without loo much difficulty.
Mr. Horowitz:
If you see me in May and June, I'm out there yelling where they
should park. We try to keep it flowing.
Mr. Shane:
I know you do. A lot of places display like you do and they look a
lot worse that yours is, so I want to compliment you on that.
Mr. Horowitz:
Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Those are the only two concems I have.
Mr. Pastor:
Having higher items displayed atthe comer, making sure thatwe
just keep them to a low.
Mr. Horowitz:
We lowered them yesterday.
19576
Mr. Pastor: At least for the first 20 feet. After that, they can get a little bit higher
because it's not going to cut off the traffic view and such. So that's
my only concem.
Mr. McCann: Obviously you're a good cifizen in Livonia. You seem to have an
awful lot of friends around the City, inducing people within the City.
But there are some questions we ask a lot of petitioners that come
before us in the same situation as you, small business people.
They want to expand. They start out on a site. They push be
boundaries. We just went through this with Hunt's Hardware where
he bought a piece of property and then moved a home in order to
expand. We take a look at it and say, at what point does the
business outgrow the site? And as Mr. Tent was referenced here
earlier used to say, can you put five pounds of coffee in a three
pound can? According to my notes and my review of the site, you
were originally approved with 7.5% landscaping. Is that cored, Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: Mr. Nowak researched that and apparently 7.5% is accurate.
Mr. McCann: The requirement is 15% landscaping, so you only provided half the
amount of landscaping necessary. When we see that a business
has excess parking . we're saying you only need 19 spots.
You've only got 7.5% landscaping. We're spending all this money
on the Plymouth Road development, and you've got to come up to
15% and use your extra parking to do it. Part of the problem is that
you bordered over some of the original landscaping with the
product that was approved.
Mr. Horowitz: The only area is along the sidewalk.
Mr. McCann: Right.
Mr. Horowitz: But we have the parking spots.
Mr. McCann: I understand, but we're further reducing from 7.5% the amount of
landscaping that we have. And one of the things hal kind of works
in your instance is that you are a very good corporate citizen and
you keep a nice area. But you could sell the business tomorrow
and the next person that runs it may not be as good a citizen as
you are. We have to look at this site as a whole. Every one of the
Commissioners has asked this: "It's all right now, but what
happens to the City if you move out?" You've got a long history
with the City. I understand that. One of the discussions we had at
the study meeting was looking at alternatives to where the
placement is. You do have some extra space because of your
additional parking. I know in May and June you need that parking.
19577
Do you think it could be rearranged some way to give yourself a
little more of the permanent landscaping?
Mr. Horowitz:
The only area that I could see putting more permanent landscaping
in would be at the rear of the property and at the back parking lot
where I said we'd put in the patio blocks, brick chips and charcoal
to make it look attractive. We also do quite
a bit. I have pictures if
you want to see them if you're not familiar
with the piece, but we
put a Hover bed out there on Wayne Road. We maintain it every
year.
Mr. McCann:
Oh yeah. I'm saying you're doing a wonderful job.
Mr. Horowitz:
But I mean, I would consider that landscaping. We've flowered the
tree. We gel comments about how we get flowers growing out of
the tree. Wouldn't that be considered landscaping?
Mr. McCann:
It's not part of the site plan landscaping, and is not a requirement
for the next guy who moves in.
Mr. Horowitz:
Why do you say "next guy who moves in?' I started out on that
comer when I was 10 years old, and I'm 75 two weeks ago. I
intend to fully, hopefully, go another 10 years now.
Mr. McCann:
I'm talking 25 years from now.
Mr. Horowitz:
Well, hopefully I'll be here arguing with you then.
Mr. McCann:
Hopefully I won't be here, though.
Mr. Horowitz:
I did my share with Mr. Bennet and Feenstm and a lot of other
people.
Mr. McCann:
I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to express those
concems because they are the concems we have for every
business up and down there.
Mr. Horowitz:
Al this point in time I'll never say never, but at this point in time I
have no thoughts about selling. I like the work. I take great pride in
the corner. I take pride in our quality of merchandise, and I'm going
to be there and I'm going to work until I can't work. And that's it.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, has it ever been done that a waiver of this nature has been
time limited?
Mr. Taormina:
No. It's advised that the City not time condition any waiver use.
These are approvals that con with the land and typically do not have
any restrictions in terms of time.
19578
Mr. Pieroecchi: Never done been before? Because that would resolve some of the
changing of ownership problems.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, was there anything from the Plymouth Road
Development Authority?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I believe Mr. Nowak read into the record their supporting
resolution.
Mr. McCann:
Right. But there was no mention of going with the brick and
wrought iron fencing as we've done in other areas?
Mr. Taormina:
No, there was no indication at the meeting that this area was
scheduled for any improvements in the immediate future. Their
only concern was the issue of maintaining adequate sight line, as
Mr. Shane pointed out, that those be strictly adhered to for safety
purposes.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Betty Davis, 14122
Cavell. I have lived in Livonia for 35 - 40 years. I don't know Mr.
Horowitz at all. I have no stake in this question at all, except that
as a Livonia citizen, I am proud of Flower King. I think it makes a
good impression. Its the best around. You can go to these other
places, but they don't have the quality stuff. They don't maintain in
that way. And if Mr. Horowitz says that he's going to do what he's
going to do, based on his performance up to now, go for it.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou.
Robert Bennett,
32210 Myrna. That by the way was Betty Davis. If you haven't
heard her before, I know you have. She's always as dynamic as
that. I have one of your letters of correspondence that were alluded
to earlier by Mr. Nowak. I guess I'm here as a citizen but also a
friend of Rocky Horowitz, Ralph as you know him. I'm not going to
read my lengthy letter because it is that, but I made it long because
I thought it important to give you some background as to how
Rocky Horowitz got here, where he is today, and why what he is
proposing is an outgrowth of the problems he has faced in recent
times to stay the healthy business that he is. I'm disappointed that
John Walsh did not take the time to read my letter because that
would have answered his question. It does answer his question.
There is competition out there for the Iitfle guy brought by all these
new developers, these big shots from New York and elsewhere
who build the Walmarts and the Home Depots and even the
Kmarts, Krogers, any of the supermarkets. Theyre all in the flower
19579
business today where they were not 15 years ago. They all have,
or many of them have, outside displays. He's limited in his site.
And that's unfortunate, but it's also a fact. I wanted also to mention
at the outset, one of the reasons he is here is because I
recommended he come here. The uses that he has added to his
previously approved waiver use kind of crept in over time, and he
and the Building Department crossed sorts a bit. The Building
Department cited him. So Ralph is an old friend and I appreciate
that friendship. He called me and said, 'What should I do about
this? I cant give up this area of our business." I said, why don't
you straighten it out, shoot square as you always have and go the
City with the Planning Commission and see if you can get your
waiver use amended. I think you can make a good case to do that.
And that's why he's here. So I guess I'm the blame and therefore I
feel responsible to come up here and speak because I did cause
him to be here. So, he's got good reason for it. There is a
significant competitive element out there in this area of business.
And as it's been pointed out by so many people here already, he
has kept his word on everything that he has attempted to do there.
He has a reputation across the City. I'll tell you when my wife goes
there to buy flowers year after year, I know they're good because
she insists on quality stuff. His quality has never deviated even
though the compefition has become more intense. There's always
that pressure to say I'll lower my prices so I can keep my business.
So I think the fad that he is keeping it and may be growing a little
bit each year is proof that he's out there to compete with those big
guys and does it well because he sells a quality product. Years
ago, that's the first part of a little history I put in my letter when
Ralph came to Fernon Feenstre and 1, we were both City
Councilmen, he had had some failures on that property. Mr.
LaPine, you'll remember a couple restaurants. I think that was two.
Over time, they both failed. He came to us and said, 'What can I
do? Its a valuable piece of property and I want to keep it valuable,
but I want to do right." We conducted that since he'd been in the
business of flowers and plants years before and knew what he was
doing, we recommended to him that he go back into that business,
rearrange his site. He put a lot of investment into that property to
accomplish what he has there. But those restaurants, believe me,
were never a site as this has become and has remained since 1984
or thereabouts. I think that the questions that Mr. McCann raised
relative to your traditional approach of dealing with these problems
are very valid, Jim, but there are also those times when I think we
have to look over the rigidity of our positions, sometimes which are
valid Planning Commission concerns and say, we've got to help
those who have helped us.
Mr. Alanskas: I just have one question for Mayor Bennett. In the letter that you
wrote, it was fantastic. I still think it should be read out loud for
19580
everyone to hear what it says. But I really disagree on the top of
your letter. It says, "from Robert D. Bennett, Mayor retired" Is
there a chance that we could change that in two years?
Mayor Benneft
Some other time we'll talk about that.
Tania Salem,
I'm the owner operator of the Burger King right next door to Rocky. I
didn't know you were going to be here. I would just like to say that
he's been a great neighbor. He's running a fabulous business.
We're like family. Thank you for picking up the cups and the
napkins. But I remember when it was a restaurant I think it was
Three Frogs or something frogs. Nothing could ever make it there,
and then Rocky came in. He's a good man, good operator.
Mr. McCann:
I don tthink he knew we were going to honor him tonight.
Ralph Barnes,
10998 Wayne Road, Livonia. This isn't pertinent to this per se, but
directly across the street on the west side of Wayne Road is the
Grand Rental Station owned by Commercial lawn Mower. They
keep their equipment in the back because they were told they can't
leave it out front. They take it in every night. Wouldn't you think
this is going to open the door for this fellow directly across the
street to expand his way down to the homes? The fellow across
the street there, directly across, when he built that wanted to keep
his stuff outside. Wouldn't you imagine he's going to come to City
Council and wantto do the same thing?
Mr. Alanskas:
To answer your question, when Grand Iantal came to us, in our
approving resolution, they can show five pieces of equipment daily
and only five, so he could never put more out there. He would
never ask for any more.
Mr. Barnes:
But they do put them in at night, sir, or behind the place.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes. They're supposed to. That's in the approving resolution.
Mr. Barnes:
But the type of things the Flower King wants to put there, wont be
taken in. They'll be left there continuously.
Mr. Alanskas:
But it's different between a piece of equipment and a flower. Much
different.
Mr. Barnes:
Well, a bag of fertilizer. What's the difference?
Mr. Alanskas:
He doesn't sell fertilizer. Thank you.
Mr. Horowitz:
Can I clarify the fertilizer? A one pound box.
19581
Mr. McCann:
There is some difference. This is also seasonal display and would
be limited to certain time periods during the year. So there are
some limitations and we do allow it for this type of merchandise -
outdoor flower, gardening and that type of equipment. You'll see
that we allow it for many similar type businesses, and it's limited to
those types of businesses.
Mr. Barnes:
But he did say, sir, that he buys stuff by the semi -load. Wouldn't
you think there's a good enough chance for that stuff to remain out
there all winter?
Mr. McCann:
No. He competes with the people who buy it by the trailer load is
what he said. Okay.
Mr. Barnes:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
I'm going to close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and approved, it was
#08-09-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, on Petition
2002-07-02-11 submitted by Ralph Horowitz, on behalf of Flower
King, requesting waiver use approval to expand the previously
approved outdoor sales and display area for merchandise such as
lawn decorations, garden materials and accessories on property
located on the Southeast comer of Plymouth and Wayne Roads in
the Northwest % of Section 33, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-07-02-13
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the outdoor display shall be confined to the areas as
illustrated on the site plan received by the Planning
Commission on July 17, 2002;
2. That the merchandise to be displayed in the designated
outdoor sales and display area north of the building in the
easterly portion of the front parking lot shall be limited to
flowers, vegetables and other plants only;
3. That the merchandise to be displayed in the designated
outdoor areas adjacent to the Plymouth Road and Wayne
Road rights-of-way shall be limited to plant materials and
home and yard decorations (such as wooden lighthouses,
windmills, birdhouses, wishing wells and day flower pots and
other clay pottery items);
19582
4. That the time period within which the outdoor display will take
place shall be limited to April 1 through October 31,
inclusively, except under the circumstances that the petitioner
is granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for an
extension of the outdoor display season through December
26;
5. That the petitioner shall seek a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals with respect to the provision of Section
11.03(L) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that outdoor
sales and display areas shall be enclosed by a fence located
on the boundaries of such display areas;
6. That the parking areas shall be repaired, resealed and double
striped as detailed in the letter dated August 5, 2002 from the
Inspection Department;
7. That all merchandise and landscape material on display shall
be done in such a manner so as to not interfere with the sight
lines along Plymouth and Wayne Roads; and
8. That plant and landscape materials shall be added in the
landscape area adjacent to the Wayne Road right-of-way and
west of the parking area lying south of the building, subject to
the approval of the Planning and Inspection Departments;
forthe following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 11.03 and 19.06 oflhe Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to add a condition that the height restriction be
established on the corner display.
19583
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Pieroecchi, what do you mean by the "height shall be
established?"
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, there was some concern about traffic. We'll leave that up to
the City Council and the Inspection Department and Engineering
Department. I dont think we're prepared to make that judgment,
but that was a concern that was brought up and it should be
established.
Mr. McCann:
Maybe the Engineering or Police Department can make a
recommendation.
Mr. Pastor:
Maybe it should be rephrased that the sight line is to be maintained
on Wayne and Plymouth Roads.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The point is that we have to establish how high some of these
things can go. You can't have 20' material there.
Mr. Pastor:
Then the only other question I might add, we talked a little bit about
the landscape area that he said he'd change into landscaping
behind the building. Do we want to add that?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It's all right with me. I never object to landscaping.
Mr. Pastor:
That's exactly what he agreed to do.
Mr. McCann:
There is a motion to amend some of the landscaping to the rear of
the property. Is that agreed to?
Mr. La Pine:
Its agreed.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But I think that sight line is very important. That has to be
established in this approving resolution.
Mr. Walsh:
I have a number of comments to make. Mr. Horowitz may be a
great guy, and he may have a great business. I think you do have
an attractive business. But like all residents in all businesses in our
community, you have to live within our rules. I think our rules
should be malleable; they should be changeable; they should allow
reasonable exceptions. But the history on this site causes me
some concern. It was approved with 7.5% landscaping. You have
received two waiver uses already. You're exceeding waiver uses.
You answered my question about economic disadvantages and
said that you dont feel that it was attributable necessarily to your
competition, which contradicted your answer to Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Horowitz:
I can't hear you.
19584
Mr. Walsh: What I said is, when I asked you specifically about your economic
condition and whether you lost business or not, you didn't answer it.
Any losses that you did have were direcfiy attributable to your
competition, which contradicted your answer to Mr. Alanskas. You
also answered to Mr. Alanskas that you feel you have an
advantage over the larger competitors. So Mr. Bennett, I'm a little
disappointed that you didn't follow that discussion on that point.
You're also going to reduce your parking by three spaces and yet
you indicate in May and June, you're out in the parking lot directing
traffic, which indicates to me that you have a parking problem. I
could easily approve the extended use at the front of your properly,
but I do not think it is for the best interests of the City to expand
your use outside to the north of the property and lose three parking
spaces in the process. For those reasons, Mr. Chair, I will be
voting against this.
Mr. McCann: I find somebody who is doing a very nice job of making a site look
good, gets along well with the neighbors and citizens, but generally,
as Mr. Walsh says, is running against generally accepted planning
principles. Its a balancing act as Mayor Bennett said. And you
have to balance these things out and make a judgment call. I think
we will increase some landscaping to the rear. I would have liked
to have taken a look at that before we pass this on to Council. I'm
hoping it's something the Council can take a look at so that we
don't lose any landscaping by adding any variance here, that we
make up in the rear what we lose in the front. But I think overall I'm
going to be in favor of it, and hopefully the Council can work those
issues out if its not our desire to continue it at this point.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Pastor, Shane, Pieroecchi,
McCann
NAYES: Walsh
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 #4 PETITION 2002-07-0242 STATE FARM
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
07-02-12 submitted by Michael Bielfeldt, on behalf of State Farm
Insurance Company, requesting waiver use approval to construct
an addition onto an existing office building located on the west side
of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcratt Road and Benfiey Avenue
in the Southeast%of Section 23.
19585
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated July 23, 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
description contained therein except that the word `comer' should
be deleted from the first line of each description. There is no right-
of-way dedication required. We have no objection to the proposal
as submitted. The proposed project may be subject to the Wayne
County Storm Water Management Ordinance." The letter is signed
by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated June 3, 2002, which
reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted
in connection with a request to construct a 22,000 sq, ft. one-story
addition to an existing building on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with
the following stipulations: (1) If subject buildings are to be provided
with an automatic sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection.
(2) Fire hydrants shall be provided with spacing consistent with
commercial use group (less than or equal to 300). (3) Access
around building shall be provided for emergency vehicles with
turning radius up to 45 feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical
clearance of 13.5 feet." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran,
Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
August 2, 2002, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in regards to the above listed petition to construct a one-story
addition to an existing building. It is our recommendation that stop
signs be placed at each exit of the complex. Please remind the
petitioner that all handicap spaces must be individually signed per
city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated August 5, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of July 22, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Barbara Vader, TMP Associates, Inc., 470 West Centre, Portage, Michigan 49024.
Richard deJong, State Farts Insurance, 410 East Drive, Marshall, Michigan 49068.
MILE
Mr. McCann: Is there something additonal you'd like to tell us about your
project?
Ms. Vader: As Mark mentioned, the existing garage inspection bays are being
eliminated. State Farm has been in Livonia for a little over 10
years, and they are cencentrafing their efforts on expanding the
company in this area because they like the Livonia area. The
addition will generally be just general office space. Open office
space is what they're going to put in there.
Mr. McCann: Do we have some elevations? Mark, we're going to approve the
elevations as well tonight. Correct?
Mr. Taormina: Correct. I think Scott will put those up on the board.
Ms. Vader: This is the site plan as you see it. The existing two-story building,
the existing one-story building. The garage bays have been
demolished and we're coming out to the west as Mark mentioned.
This is an exterior perspective from the north. This is the existing
building. This is the line where the expansion begins. These were
the four elevations you were asking about as well as additional
perspectives from the road.
Mr. McCann: Is all the roof -top equipment going to be hidden?
Ms. Vader: There is no rooftop equipment.
Mr.
McCann:
Well that hides it.
Ms.
Vader:
Yes it does.
Mr.
McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr.
La Pine:
The service center where you have the overhead bay doors . .
you're not going to do any more work there where people bring
their cars in?
Ms.
Vader:
That's correct.
Mr.
La Pine:
Thatwill be eliminated.
Ms.
Vader:
Yes, that's eliminated.
Mr.
La Pine:
So the new addition will be office. Does that mean you're going to
be hiring new people or transferring people here from another
location?
19587
Ms. Vader:
Yes. Both.
Mr. La Pine:
That's very good. Glad to hear it. I'd just like to say one other
thing. I made two trips to that location. Your people do a fantastic
job of cleaning that property. It's just spotless. I cant say enough
about it and I'm really happy to see you expanding in Livonia.
Ms. Vader:
Good. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
The people who went there for a claim before, what are they going
to do now when they have a claim?
Mr. deJong:
I can answer that. We have a lot of different ways that we're
approaching that. There are some claim reps, for instance, that
would live at home and visit their first appointments of the day. We
make some calls on people in the area when required. We just
have a whole different approach that we use now in some cases to
get our policyholders to the shops. Also we do have other service
centers in the greater Detroit area as well. So it's a combination of
those three things. That's actually I guess the doses( I can get to
answering your question.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just wanted to make sure that our residents that have insurance
with you would not have to go 40 or 50 miles to put in a claim for
theircars. Thankyou.
Mr. deJong:
No, they wouldn't.
Mr. McCann:
A question regarding the site. Do you have a landscape plan
there?
Ms. Vader:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Now, this will not impact the residents.
Ms. Vader:
I was just going to point something out. This is the existing seven
fool high masonry fence that is there now that will remain. Any of
the trees that were removed we'd like to relocate, but they probably
won't. It will probably be a new tree but it would be of the same
size. They were filling in along here as well as along here to the
north with the landscaping.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, have you reviewed the landscape and do you think
that will give sufficient coverage for the type of plantings they put
there to assist the neighbors?
Mr. Taormina:
Part of it may require some field verification and changes because
some of the trees that will remain within that 33' greenbelt east of
19588
Mr. McCann: Right. They're going to lose some of it
the wall is read or dying and should be removed at the same time
they remove the other trees when they expand the parking lot. So
there may even be a need for some trees to replace some of the
dead trees that are in that area.
Mr. McCann:
Would this be something we'd want them to bring back ... the
landscape plan ata latertime?
Mr. Taormina:
No, I think they could probably address that with the Council. Its
probably only going to affect three or four trees altogether.
Mr. LaPine:
Along the west wall where your new addition is going in, you've got
vapor lights on that wall. Is that what those lights are?
Ms. Vader:
The wall pack? Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Do they shine in the parking lot at night?
Ms. Vader:
Not much. It's more for security. They like the perimeter to be lit;
they like the windows to be lit Its just from a security standpoint.
It doesn't amount to much IgM, no.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, I thought it was unique. Its the first time I've seen d and d
looks really nice. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is here anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Karen Firth, 14135
Beatrice. As they were saying, they were going to have 18 extra
parking spaces. Instead of going back into the greenbelt, couldn't
they make that parking spot back there just in half so you could
have more greenbelt back there and lose those 18 spots there?
Because you're really going to cut into the greenbelt. It's really
pretty back there now and its not going to be with all parking lot
back there. And I do not like where the dumpster
is going be. My
daughter lives across the street and it's going
to be right in her
backyard and its very noisy when they pick up trash. If its moved
directly behind her house, she's got kids. I'm not happy about that
I was wondering if they could take out some of the parking spots
and just leave more green.
Mr. McCann:
Take out some of the greenbelt in other areas is what your
suggestion is?
Ms. Firth:
There's a very large greenbelt back there now.
Mr. McCann: Right. They're going to lose some of it
19589
Ms. Firth:
They're going to lose most of it.
Mr. Shane:
Mark, did you say there was extra parking on the site?
Mr. Taormina:
Based on the calculators submitted, we estimate that there is a
surplus of 18 parking spaces overall. That's the total count from
both sites.
Mr. Shane:
Do you need all of the extra parking that you're showing?
Mr. deJong:
Yes, we did some very careful calculating on the number of parking
spaces we need and we felt we needed what we asked for.
Mr. Shane:
According to the City ordinance, you have 18 spaces more than
you need.
Ms. Vader:
That's correct.
Mr. Shane:
The most westerly line of parking spaces happens to be 18 spaces.
So I guess I'm asking if you could take a few of those out and
replace them with landscaping even if it's not all of them. Even if
R's some of them.
Ms. Vader:
And exceed the 21% of landscaping we're providing now, to go
even higher?
Mr. Shane:
I think there's a pretty good greenbelt back there, but in hying to
address this Iadys concems, I was just asking a question. If you
can give her some spaces, fine. If you can't, perhaps they could be
moved somewhere. I dont know. Probably the answer to it is the
quality of landscaping that's put in there.
Ms. Vader:
It is beautiful back there right now.
Mr. Shane:
If they're going to do what I think they're going to do, it's going to be
a little less, but it's going to be also nice because there is at least
probably 18' or 20' of landscaping lett from the wall to the parking
lot. If they put in the right kind of material, I dont think there's going
to be an appreciable amount of additional cars there. There's a
seven foot wall, plus the evergreens. Are those evergreens?
Ms. Vader:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
That's going to do the trick.
Ms. Vader:
Well, the trash bins are now located in the center away from the
homes.
19590
Mr.Shane:
Where's your trash container now?
Ms. Vader:
Theyre located right here. They are non -accessible because of the
addifion. So theyve been relocated to the comer up here, and they
will have a masonry brick enclosure, seven foot high, to match the
brick wall as well.
Ms. Firth:
Yes, but they are loud when they pick them up. And the backyard
is right there.
Mr. La Pine:
What time do they pick them up?
Ms. Firth:
Sometimes four o'clock in the morning.
Mr. McCann:
They can't do that by City ordinance before seven.
Ms. Firth:
Yeah, they do.
Mr. Shane:
Is it possible to change the pickup time?
Ms. Vader:
We can look into that. I can't answer that.
Mr. McCann:
I think if you check with the company...
Mr. deJong:
We'd be happy to write our contracting firm a letter and ask them to
be out during business hours.
Mr. McCann:
I know. I represent one of the commercial companies and by
ordinances through all the communities, they can't pick up before
seven. They have trucks out any time between six and seven
o'clock at night if theyre running late, and they don't lel them out
before seven in the morning to start the routes.
Mr. deJong:
That's something we can monitor and we can find out what's been
going on there. We can address that.
Gerald Showiak, 14132 Beatrice. I'm right behind the development. I just want to
reiterate Ms. Firth's comment about the parking. If there's anything
you can do to save all or any of what they're taking, I'd appreciate
that. I also have a petition signed by seven residential neighbors in
the proximity of the proposed construction, which addresses two
issues: the trash dumpster and the landscaping. When the original
State Farm Insurance building plans were proposed, the trash
dumpster was to go to the back of the property, the site closest to
the residential neighbors. We requested then as we are requesting
now, that the planned twin trash dunpsters be moved to the middle
or front of the site, as for instance, in the area where there is one
currently now, or as with the American House dumpster, which is in
19591
the front of its site. We are familiar with and dislike the noise
involved in filling and particularly emptying these dumpsters and
their potential for odor and vermin. Also, State Farm Insurance can
have a big impact on the acceptability of this project by making
some purposeful landscaping changes in order to provide a year
long winter and summer visual and sound barrier between their
parking lot and building and the residential neighbors. What is
needed is a dense barrler of conifer trees that keep their needles in
the winter as well as summer, for example, spruce, fir, cedar and
pine. I would like to see some 60 blue spruces strung out along the
entire length of the State Farm side of the wall. Atter a few years,
they would grow above the height of the wall providing mutual
benefit. As they matured, the lower six feet of the branches could
be cul from them if that became necessary for security purposes.
So those three issues, gentlemen. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou.
Angela Kavach,
14144 Beatrice, which is directly west of the proposed addition. I'd
like to also reiterate the Wo concems - the dumpsters. I have two
small children. I have one severely asthmatic son, and I just worry
about what threat having the dumpster that close with the rodent
population and any chemicals that would be used to treat that
would pose for him. That's my first concern. My second concern is
the sound barrler that the trees provide. As it is right now, behind
our back yards, we can't grow trees that they can grow on the other
side of wall. So to produce a sound barrler with trees in our own
backyards is impossible because of the utility lights. So those are
just my two concems. The sound barrier from the trees and the
garbage dumpsters. And that's it.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, the dumpsters are at the farthest north point of the
site plan, cored?
Mr. Taormina:
Al the northwest comer of the site.
Mr. McCann:
My map is showing that Beatrice only goes to Buckingham there. It
doesn't go all the way up to that area. No I guess Beatrice goes all
the way up to that point. Okay. I'm just seeing that. Is there
another position that the staff sees that those dumpsters could go?
Mr. Pastor has a pointer and an idea.
Mr. Taormina:
Well, where he's pointing on the site plan is one location that could
be considered because the further south you go on the site, the
greenbelt widens. The improvements to this building are going to
extend a little bit further west with the present condition on the site
to the south. The other option might be somewhere along the north
portion of the property where they are adding the parking spaces.
19592
You'll see that there is an entry drive coming in off Middlebell Road
that goes in the east west direction just north of the building.
Maybe they could locate the dumpsters along the north side of that
aisleway. If there's not enough maneuvering room, they might be
able to angle them slightly so that it would make it more convenient
for the pickup of the trash. That's another suggestion. I wouldn't
advise anything on the front of the site. It would be better to
consider either the north orwest sides.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing.
Are there any more questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. La Pine:
As Mr. Shane recommended, is there any way you can remove
those 18 parking spots?
Ms. Vader:
To allow 18 more feet of green space?
Mr. La Pine:
Do you have any problem with that?
Ms. Vader:
Just if they get congested with the amount of employees. We meet
your satisfaction.
Mr. La Pine:
It will meet our satisfaction because you're over and 9 will satisfy
one of the problems that the residents have. Now, I don't know ...
you know how many employees you have there. I cant believe that
every employee that comes there, each drives a car. There s
probably some that would drive two in a car, so I can't believe 18
spots would make that much difference to you.
Mr. McCann:
Just on that thought, is there someway we could land bank them
and just have them come back?
Mr. La Pine:
OK. That's fine with me too.
Mr. Taormina:
That's possible. If they're removed from the plan or if they just
show future parking, we would want to stipulate that if there is a
parking shortage in the future that we would have an opportunity to
look ala revised plan.
Mr. McCann:
What I would recommend is that they are land banked, that would
save the existing trees. If they find that based on their use of the
building, that they do need to put them in, we would just revise the
landscaping back there. This way they wouldn't have to tear as
much out. It's a suggestion. I'm not sure that its an economically
viable one to go back after you've put the curb in. That's something
I guess we would have to ask the petitioner. But we're saying that
19593
if you land bank them and they decided you need them, we would
re -address the landscaping.
Mr. deJong:
We'lllookit. Ican't stand here and say that they won't ever need
the spaces. I can't make that commitment, but I'd like to say that
we'll be flexible and we'll consider that.
Mr. McCann:
I think that's something we can pass on to Council.
Mr. La Pine:
I've been by your location many times, and it never looks like your
parking Iotis 100% filled.
Mr. deJong:
And that is true.
Mr. La Pine:
Now if we can just find a place to put the dumpster.
Mr. deJong:
We looked at this a number of times as we were doing the site
layout ourselves. You always try to figure out where that will work
the best. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to put them where
they're easily accessible because of the size of the trucks. If you
get them too dose to the front of the property, we do gel objections
at times.
Mr. La Pine:
I nofice when I inspected the property that you had one dumpster in
the center of one of the parking lots.
Mr. deJong:
That is the one that we are going to take out because of the
addition.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there anywhere else in that parking lot where we could put it?
Mr. deJong:
We've looked. There might be some of you folks that have some
ideas. We'll be flexible again. I mean the location of the dumpster
is not a critical business issue with us, so we will be flexible on it.
But we just need to know where it will work.
Mr. LaPine:
I have one other question. What basically do you put in your
dumpster? Most of your stuff is paper.
Mr. deJong:
Much of itis paper. Almost all of it is paper.
Mr. Pastor:
The only thing with the land banking is to make sure that if we do
that going up through here, that you wouldn't do much of adding in
here. Al lead I wouldn't make you add it since you're considering
land banking it and just whatever sod would be required to go in
here if you have to touch anything or any dead trees. I guess that's
what I would consider the land banking. But we could stick the
dumpster right in this area. The dump truck could come in here, go
19594
through there and then pick it up that way. It gets it a little bit
further away and gets it into this area so they have a straight in
shot. So that's one possibility.
Ms. Vader:
Are you pointing to the parking spaces? Because if you eat up my
parking spaces, now I've got a ...
Mr. Pastor:
I understand that. If we look two there, then you could leave those
two over there or something like that.
Mr. McCann:
If we dd take these spots out right here, then the truck could come
right around like this, then you put them right in there, they'd have a
straight shot in there, back up and right out.
Ms. Vader:
Are we any further from that brick wall? I'm not sure where the
residents ...
Mr. McCann:
Right not, theyre right here. And they are about 30 feet away. If
you put them right here, theyll be about 50 feet away.
Ms. Vader:
Okay. So straight in here?
Mr. McCann:
Right. And then we would make this all landscaping straight
across. That way it would be fair to everybody. You'd have just
landscaping straight right there. Everybody gets the same amount.
Put your dumpster right in there, come around, boom, back up and
straight out.
Ms. Vader:
Okay.
Mr. Pastor:
You're talking about there as well. Again, you're just adding extra
feet. I mean I'm sure they can reconfigure some of these areas to
grab a spot a two or something like that.
Ms. Vader:
That's an entrance. We have to be careful.
Mr. Pastor:
Is it? Okay.
Ms. Vader:
Maybe we could come this way a little.
Mr. Pastor:
Exactly, to add the two spots and then you're set that way. Again,
the further away you can pull from the residents, the better I think.
Mr. deJong:
We'll be flexible to ...
Mr. McCann:
We know you are. We appreciate your cooperation and the cifizens
concerns and hopefully together we can make it a better project.
19595
Mr. deJong: We're going to try.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. I don'tsee anybody else. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#08-100-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, on Petition
2002-07-02-12 submitted by Michael Bielfeldt, on behalf of State
Farm Insurance Company, requesting waiver use approval to
construct an addition onto an existing office building located on the
west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and
Bentley Avenue in the Southeast '/. of Section 23, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-07-02-12 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C1.1 prepared by TMP
Associates, Inc., dated July 18, 2002, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to except as modified below;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 prepared by TMP
Associates, Inc., dated July 18, 2002, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
3. That the landscaping shown on the above -referenced
Landscape Plan shall be installed to the satisfaction of the
Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained
in a healthy condition;
4. That all sodded and landscaped areas shall be fully irtigated;
5. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet A101
prepared by TMP Associates, Inc., dated July 18, 2002, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be
full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions;
7. That the dumpster endosure shall be constructed with seven
(7) foot high masonry walls faced with brick to match the
building and with steel gates in accordance with the detail
shown on the Site Details Plan marked Sheet C1.3 prepared
by TMP Associates, Inc., dated July 18, 2002;
19596
8. That all pole -mounted light fixtures as depicted in the detail on
the above -referenced Site Plan shall be shielded and shall not
exceed a maximum overall height of twenty (20) feet above
grade;
9. That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double
striped;
10. That stop signs be placed at each exit of the complex in
accordance with the recommendation of the Traffic Bureau;
11. That this approval shall incorporate the following comments
listed in the correspondence dated June 3, 2002, from the Fire
and Rescue Division:
a. If subject buildings are to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, a hydrant shall be located between 50
feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection;
b. Fire hydrants shall be provided with spacing consistent
with commercial use group (equal to or less than 300
feet);
c. Access around building shall be provided for emergency
vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall to
wall and a minimum vertical dearance of 131rfeet;
12. 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;
13. That there shall be no trash pickup earlier than 7:00 a.m.;
14. That the westerly most now of parking spaces located behind
the proposed building addition totaling 18 shall be removed
and replaced with landscaping; these spaces shall be
Iandbanked and, if needed in the future due to a shortage of
parking, shall be reconsidered by the Planning Commission
and City Council prior to being constructed; and
15. That the dumpster enclosure shall be moved approximately
180 feet to the south from its location shown on the plan and
positioned as far east as possible in order to increase the
separation from the adjoining residential district;
forlhe following reasons:
19597
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 9.03 and 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Walsh:
I'd like to indicate that they will move the dumpster. Can we modify
this so that they will move the dumpster as indicated in our
discussion?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I will work on some language and we will add that.
Mr. Walsh:
Just so that Council is clear that we'd like it moved, and we'd like
the parking spaces land banked.
Mr. LaPine:
I'd like to have Item 13 read, "No dumpster pickup earlier than 7:00
a.m." Even moving the dumpslers, I think it would be a good thing
to have.
Mr. Pastor:
Maybe we can add Item 14: "Land bank 18 spots on the west side
behind the new addition. Item 15 would be: 'The dumpster
relocated in the southwest corner of the site of the first row of
parking' so they gel the general idea that explains where we're
looking at.
Mr. LaPine:
The walls are incorporated in there?
Mr. Pastor:
The petitioner is willing to do that. I think this gives Council
direction at what we're looking at as well. And it addresses the
citizens' concerns.
Mr.Shane:
Mark, is that sufficient?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. We'll refine the language for the Council letter
19598
Mr. Shane: It would also be prudent, Mark, for you not to release this plan until
its revised. They could revise it to show the land bank and revise it
showing the dumpster in the new location.
Mr. Taormina: We'll request that the petitioners revise the plan that they submit to
the Council addressing each of the items that were modified this
evening.
Mr. Walsh: Could you alert the Inspection Department to the citizens' concern
that there is garbage being picked up at 4 a.m.? I would appreciate
It if that could be inspected.
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 #5 PETITION 2002-07-0243 DAVIS LANDSCAPING
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
07-02-13 submitted by Gregory W. Davis, on behalf of Greg Davis
Landscaping, requesting waiver use approval to permit outside
storage of trucks, trailers and equipment in connection with a
landscaping maintenance business located on the west side of
Fremont Avenue between Eight Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in
the Northeast%of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Inspection Department, dated August 5, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request of July 22, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
This building and site is in poor repair with poor housekeeping. The
building needs repainting, and windows repaired and replaced.
The landscaping is wild. There is trash, debris and old equipment
outside. (2) The hedge detailed along the south property line is
nonrexistent. There are some trees but it is not a sight -obscuring
hedge. (3) The ordinance requires, in addition to a protective wall,
a greenbelt along the south property line, 20 feet in width, with at
least two rows of plantings to provide continuous screening. (4)
This site does not appear to be in compliance with ZBA Grant
8707-131, which required the front to be 50% landscaped and
19599
parking areas and drives to be hard surfaced. (5) This site is
problematic and will require several zoning variances and
modification of the previous grant to be allowed as proposed. This
department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The next
letter is from the Division of Police, dated August 2, 2002, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in regards to a
proposal for outside stooge of trucks, trailers, and equipment. We
have no objections to the plan as submitted. We would strongly
recommend installation of lighting in the storage area for crime
prevention purposes." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The next letter is from the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated June 3, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request to store trucks, trailers and equipment on property located
at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire
Marshal. The next letter is from the Engineering Division, dated
July 23, 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 description contained
therein, and there is no right -0f -way dedication required. We
recommend that the proposed storage areas as a minimum be
paved with an asphalt surface for maintenance purposes. We have
no other objection to the proposal as submitted." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The next letter is
from a resident in the area, received by the Planning Commission
on August 9, 2002, which reads as follows: "1 regret strongly that 1
cant attend the meeting as 1 will be out of town. Please 1 beg you
not to issue a permit to Mr. G. Davis for outdoor stooge." The
remaining portion of the letter deals with issues they have with
other businesses located in the 91 district that is located south of
Eight Mile Road and not necessarily perfinent to this petition. But
this letter is in opposition to the proposed waiver use. The letter is
signed by Sandy DeWaler whose residence is at 20335 Fremont.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Gregory W. Davis, 471 Renaud, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan48236.
Mr. McCann: What would you like to address first?
Mr. Davis: I just want to start off by saying that before I came to this meeting
tonight, I walked up and down the street that this building is located
on and I talked to at least six or seven neighbors. I reviewed with
them the advice that Mr. Miller told us about from the different
agencies in the City, and what the City wanted me to do. I wanted
19600
to get their input on what I should do. I just want to work with all
these people involved, but I think the residents wanted some things
and the City wanted other things, and I just want to reach a happy
medium here. A lot of these problems were existing before I
bought this piece of property, and I just think they had gone on
ignored. They are just now coming to a head again because of this
application. I think that the problem is that a lot of the neighbors on
the street are unhappy with the way other businesses on the street
abuse their properties, and they felt like they didn't want to have to
worry about having to battle somebody else. I have a small
business, and I just want to make this work.
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas: How long have you owned the property?
Mr. Davis:
A little over a year.
Mr. Alanskas:
In that years time, have you tried to clean up the property or paint
the building or make it look like a valuable business instead of like a
shack?
Mr. Davis:
When I first got that building, the whole back was a forest. You
couldn't do anything with the back of the building. I removed all the
brush out of there and carted it away. The neighbors in back of me
and the neighbors next to me felt that was a significant
improvement. I just got this building basically, but I want to make it
a valuable piece of property. I want to be able to bring my
commercial clients to my office and have something respectable to
show them. But things take time, I guess.
Mr. Alanskas:
I was there Sunday. Of course it was all locked up so I couldn't go
in the back of the gates. I didn't want to go there when no one was
there, but looking at these pictures that were supplied to us, you've
got so much refuse there in the back and the side of the building.
Mr. Davis:
The pictures I think that you have ... I dont know if I could see
them or not, but I think ... can I see it?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, sure.
Mr. Davis:
This picture that I'm looking at here is of a truck. All this has been
removed. And this is a very long time ago that this picture was
taken, probably three months ago? What happened here is that
this vehicle was stolen from me. I was in the process of figuring out
what to do with it. I put it inside the building so as not to create a
negative appearance.
19601
Mr. McCann:
Sir, we have to kind of Trove on, but if you look at some of the other
ones. You've owned the building for nine months and the
Inspection Department finally came and took pictures and said you
were in violation, but there are miscellaneous items everywhere.
The gates are off the hinges. How much is five gallons of paint?
That wasn't done.
Mr. Davis:
All these pictures that you're showing me cannot be seen from the
street. They can't be seen from the street. And I put this gate up
so that they couldn't be seen. All these pictures of things that
you've showed me is clean, you know. All this stuff in the back of
the building is gone. All that exists in the back of this building is on
the second page, two trailers and a tractor. The other remaining
sluff that I have are two trucks and two trailers that all ft neatly in
the back. None of this clutter exists or will exist. I didn't realize that
this was a significant problem, but its all gone.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, when you said "I put up this gate,' do you realize that you can't
have a gate that high? The wooden gate you have in front so
people can't see the mess you've got back there.
Mr. Davis:
You know I'm aware of that and I since cut R.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's still loo high.
Mr. Davis:
Well, I bought the building and you guys all approved the building
permit to have this building built, and I didn't change the height of
the gate. That gate was already there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you aware that you're supposed to have at least 50%
landscaping on the properly in an M-1 district?
Mr. Davis:
You know, when I bought the property I checked it out with my
realtor to see if everything was in compliance. I did not know that
the previous owner of this property just ignored this. And this isn't a
problem for me. I want to make it look good. I have no landscape
plan orwhat is desired of me to do, but I can make changes.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have more questions, but I'll yield the floor. I'll take my pictures
back.
Mr. La Pine:
I was out there a week ago. This trailer is still there. There's two
trailers. One trailer back there has got no tires on it whatsoever.
Thatwas there a week ago. Is it still there?
Mr. Davis:
Yes.
19602
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Then there was another trailer in front of that that has fires
on it, but it don't look like it's usable. You had some sod back
there. There's still a lot of stuff. But the one question I have,
you've been there a year. Couldn't you replace the windows in a
year's time in the rear on that overhead door? You've got them
boarded up. You've got windows boarded up. What was the
problem with doing anything there?
Mr. Davis: The one window that you see that was boarded up hasn't been that
way for more than month. Okay. I've been in contact with a guy to
come out and put a new one in. To replace all the windows in the
building, I guess I just dont have $5,000 to throw right off the bat. I
just purchased a building. I'm not just renting. Its not just
something that I can do overnight
Mr. La Pine: Lel me ask you this. We're willing to work with you. What can you
tell us you can do within the next 90 days to dean up the mess?
Mr. Davis: Within the next 90 days, I can comply with any landscaping
requirements. Within the next 90 days, I can reseal my parking lot
to make it look more appealing. Those trailers that you saw there, I
can repair them and have them licensed and road ready or move
them somewhere else. I can paint the building. I could put another
gale on the other side of the building. I mean just change the
facing on it so you can't see the back.
Mr. La Pine: You've got to look at this from the neighbor's point of view, too.
They go by there and they see trucks. You say you live in Grosse
Pointe?
Mr. Davis: Right.
Mr. La Pine: I assume that if you lived in a neighborhood and you went by this
everyday, you'd be upset too. Wouldn't you?
Mr. Davis: I can't see all this sluff from the street. I can't see any of the sluff
you have a picture of from the street.
Mr. LaPine: Butyou're saying, whatyou can't see just forget about.
Mr. Davis: I can't see three trailers in the back. If that's a sticking point for
you, I can get rid of that. How can I put it? This building has
looked like it has for a long time. And because I've come here to
ask for this variance, I don't know how you can expect me to make
R look like a model of architectural wonder overnight, and own a
landscaping business and make money.
19603
Mr. McCann: Well, sir, I think what we're not asking you to do is make a saw's
ear into a silk glove. What you're asking us to do is expand the
use. We've already got a problem site next to a residential area.
You're asking us to expand that use to make it even more
disturbing by putting trucks and trailers on the property. As you
heard tonight, we do have concerns. We do bend the rules for
good corporate neighbors. People that have come in and said,
"Hey, look it." The Flower King comes in and says he does
everything. He plants flowers; he puts up things. It's part of his
business. You're in the landscaping business. You don't have
flower boxes out in front of your windows for the neighbors to see.
You don't have a beautiful painted building and all this stuff. So
that's why we're saying you're not in compliance with the use as it
is right now, and you say, 'Well, let me expand it even though I'm
not in compliance with the use that's allowed"
Mr. Davis:
How am I expanding the use?
Mr. McCann:
By outdoor storage of trucks and equipment and outdoor storage of
materials for your business. That's all expanding the use.
Mr. Davis:
I dont propose to store vast quantities of ... I don't want to be like
Angelo Supply on the other side of Eight Mile and have a brick yard
or be like Clippers and sell salt at all hours of the night. All I want to
do is put two trailers and two trucks in the back of this building
where nobody can see it from the front. I've talked to my neighbors
that are directly next to me. And they say, "You know we think
you've improved the property a lot." And I said well, some of the
other neighbors don't think so. And I said, what would you say to
me putting a cedar fence up so that in the winter you can't see
anything. You cant look at my trucks or anything. And they said,
"Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. We'll show Wu where to get
the lumber cheaply." I'm trying to make this a nice property and
look as good as all my neighbors. I'm just saying it takes a little
time.
Mr. McCann:
All right. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cul in front of anybody. Do you
have other questions?
Mr. Piercecchi:
How about the screen to the south of your site. Would you go
along with a wall there? It seems like there's only scrub bushes
there now. I know it's been grandfathered in. I think its been
grandfathered in.
Mr. Davis:
I think that the property next to me is also the same zoning as mine.
I believe its M-1, isn't it?
Mr. Piercecchi:
R-2 isn't it? Isn't it R-1?
19604
Mr. McCann:
Tothesouth?
Mr.Shane:
R-2.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Its R-2. That's residential. Normally we have a masonry wall
between a business and a residential property. Whether that's
grandfathered in ... because I guess at one time that property was
R-1 or R-2. Correct? Is that right, Al?
Mr. Nowak:
Priorlo 1989, the properties to the south and westwere zoned M-1.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It was what?
Mr. McCann:
It was M-1. It was changed back to R-2.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So when ilwas M-1, they didn t have to have a wall?
Mr. Nowak:
That's correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But if it's an R-3, you need a wall.
Mr. Davis:
I've talked to the neighbors. I've showed them the reports from the
City. And they told me, you may think that group of bushes is a
bunch of scrub, but that guy likes his lilac bushes. And he told me
he fell that he would be like in a prison if he had a big cement wall.
And my business is a pretty laid-back business. There's not very
much activity. So he's like, I like the lilac in the front but it would be
better if you put a nice cedar fence in the back so that I wouldn't
see it in the winter, but I really like what I have in the front.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
We'd like to accommodate you. At least I can only speak for
myself. But you make it very difficult. When we go and look at this
property, if we had the worst looking site in Livonia prize, you'd win
it.
Mr. Davis:
I'm sorry to hear that, but I think that I've come a long way since
those pictures were taken.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That's very possible. I looked at it last week. I didn't look at it prior
to that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Before you bought this property, were you in this business?
Mr. Davis:
Yes. I've been in the business about 15 years.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where did you store your vehicles before you bought this properly?
19605
Mr. Davis:
There is a place on the north side of Eight Mile. It's between
Middlebelt and Merman. They sell hoses there. You can gel
hoses made. And the whole back lot is all rented out to
landscapers like myself.
Mr. Alanskas:
In your business, don't you start out early in the morning for
landscaping, like six orseven o dock in the morning?
Mr. Davis:
Not at all. The way I ran my business, I move my equipment from
job to job to job. So I have a crew that cuts grass. It starts at 8:00
a.m. And then the landscaping starts at the house because I do
jobs as far south as Grosse Ile, as north as Flint and as far west as
Howell. And we just go to the site. So I try to just move the
equipment from site to site and only now, during the slow month of
August, is my truck or any equipment related to landscaping there.
Most of the time its on the job site.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many pieces of equipment do you have roughly?
Mr. Davis:
Lets say six.
Mr. Alanskas:
Six. So in the winter months when you're not working, you'd want
to store those vehicles on your properly?
Mr. Davis:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
The ones that you have now that you can't even operate ... what
are you going to do with those?
Mr. Davis:
Either repairthem or get rid oflhem.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann:
Before we go to the audience, is this something you'd like 90 days
just to table this and work to get some stuff done to make the
building and ...
Mr. Davis:
I can make some substantial improvements to make it look better
and maybe have a more positive response from yourself to show I
have good faith in doing what I say I can do.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Evan Karrynow, 20515 Fremont. I live two homes from his property. The issue that
is bothering us the most is ... true, his landscaping is an issue but
Chats something we can live with. We can deal with it. That's a
work in progress. But the waiver he's looking for is for the outside
W1111
storage. The outside storage is what our main concern is. Initially,
we had talked. He had mentioned that it was just for the side. Well,
as we come here, we learn it's not just for the side, but all around
the building which means it's in the front. The last thing we want to
see in our neighborhood is a couple trucks and trailers full of lawn
mower equipment sitting in front of his building.
Mr. McCann:
No. He did provide a site plan to the City and there's designated
areas where he would be allowed to store them. The designated
areas on his drawing are behind the gates. And he would only be
allowed to store it in the designated areas.
Mr. Karzynow:
Okay. But it's one of those things where as time progresses, if we
give into this, what guarantee do we have that it won't grow?
Mr. McCann:
As we talked to Flower King, the fad that he's been with the City for
25 years and you know the type of business, can give you a
comfort level. A guy that's been here for a year and hasn't made
much improvement ...
Mr. Karzynov:
Right. I mean he has made an improvement. He got a lot of
garbage out of there. There's no question.
Mr. McCann:
Good. I'm glad to hear that.
Mr. Karzynov:
Well, there again. We don't know what he's going to be storing
back there. You know, he could be storing gas back there or
hazardous materials. We don't know. We're concerned with the
front of it and the possibility of him putfing things up front. That's
what we're cencemed about. You can stretch your limits. If you
say, well you can't park vehicles up front during non -working hours.
I can understand if you have a vehicle sitting during the day, that's
fine, and then leaves at night. It's the overnight parking that we're
concerned with. That's basically our position.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you.
Sharon Wagner,
20417 Fremont. I've been here many, many limes over our
neighborhood, our particular street. The genfieman said that his
neighbors were really not willing to cooperate. We've cooperated
an awful lot over the years, especially Marsh Tools for example has
been wonderful. We've made so many improvements in our
neighborhood. If you drive down our street today and compared to
what it was five years ago, you'd be amazed. But it's because the
neighborhood and the people that live in the neighborhood have
really worked hard to get it there. This gentleman has trucks that
come in and out of this street and they pull in here at 11:00 at night.
He has employees who make terrible remarks to the neighbors, to
19607
the women in the neighborhood who are just out watering their
lawn. We don't need that in our neighborhood. I want the property
cleaned up. I want the area cleaned up. If you go from where the
M-1 slops back toward Modock, you dont see all this trash laying
around. When you're in my next door neighbor's family room and
they look out their window, they can see right into this man's
backyard. That front gate means nothing. If you block it off from
the front, what difference does it make to someone who's driving
down the street? But the neighbor that's next door to him or two
doors down that looks out the side window, they see that. And
when the foliage is gone in the wintertime, it's ridiculous. Why
should we have to keep our property up, pay taxes on our land, and
the City expects us to have our land improved and kept in a decent
way, and then have to put up with this? I give the man credit. He
wants his own small business. We have to keep our properly up.
He should too whether he's there a month or whether he's there 50
years from now. We want it improved. He came knocking on our
door, and he wanted us to agree with him. I'm willing to work with
him if he wants to keep his property up as well as I do mine.
Mr. McCann: Thank you
Brian Silvernail, 20404 Fremont. This gentleman says he cares about the
neighborhood but as you gentlemen have seen last week ... his
gate with the 12 fool or 16 foot, however tall they were, stuck up
there. It looked like some backwoods man or something did it. It
made the neighborhood look really bad. And that truck sal out
there for three or four months. He could have put that in the back
so we didn't have to see that. Twice I've come home from work
and maybe not him, it's probably not him, it's probably his crew,
and they are silting on the road waiting to back in and they sit there
and just look at me for five minutes. So I end up driving through
Marsh Power Tool and his yard to get around them. They block the
road. They don't care. Maybe he cares. Maybe he's a nice guy.
But the City, not you gentleman necessarily, but the City never
backs us up there. We fought Kettering for 15 years. Finally the
City did get on board with us and they got him to dean up his
equipment, his machines in the back. He had trees 30 feet tall
growing through the equipment. That's how long it was back there.
Now, the City let him sell his front driveway, his Eight Mile address,
to Marsh Power Tool for their parking lot. So they gave him a
Fremont address and that's got to be five or six years ago. And the
man was going to put a driveway in. He knocked down part of his
fence, he drives his semi in there, and in the springtime we have six
inches of mud all the way down our road because of his semi. I
mean the City said he doesn't have any money. Well, that's not our
fault. I've lived here 45 years.
19608
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, is that something we can look at? I think as part of
the site plan wouldn't that had to have been paved - the entrance or
exit?
Mr. Taormina:
I'm not familiar with the situation that he's talking about.
Mr. McCann:
We'll take a look at that. That's not really a topic for this individual.
Mr. Silvemail:
But it is for our neighborhood though.
Mr. McCann:
That's why I'm going to have the staff look into it to see if he has
proper access there.
Mr. Silvemail:
He does. I know he does because they moved his mailbox from
Eight Mile to Fremont.
Mr. McCann:
But then that should have been paved.
Mr. Silvemail:
I understand that.
Mr. McCann:
I'm trying to help you.
Mr. Silvemail:
Our concern is that the City doesn't follow through. Its like K&J,
the automobile repair place. They were supposed to be allowed so
many cars. You go there right now and they are double parked.
They're parked on the grass. Sometimes we can't drive up
Fremont because they've got their tow truck and two o three cars
parked on the side of the road. So if a car is going north on
Fremont, and I'm coming home and tum south on Fremont, the
back end of my car is stuck on Eight Mile because I have to wait for
the car going northbound because K&J is blocking our road. Call
the police, they come out and have them move it. I mean we've
been fighting with the commercial for a long time. We all take care
of our places. Like Sharon said, if you come out and look at our
neighborhood, its one of the oldest neighborhoods in Livonia. My
house was built in 1924.
Mr. McCann:
Is it that you're asking us to deny this petition? Is that where we're
going?
Mr. Silvemail:
Yes, because he has not shown us anything until he put this
petition before you. He did nothing m that lot at all. It doesn't
show me he cares about my neighborhood at all. It's more like he's
doing a show right now to try to gel you guys to go along with him
saying he's going to do this and this. He's been there for nine
months and he did not do nothing. In fad, he pulled junk in there -
thal truck it set there all winter long.
(9609
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak? I'm going to
close the public hearing. Mr. Davis, you have a last comment if you
wish.
Mr. Davis:
I guess I'd just like to have the opportunity, like you said, 90 days or
so and maybe some recommendations from you for things you
think I should or could do that would ... you know, besides putting
all the windows in my building, make my building and property
acceptable to yourselves.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just want you to be aware that when you ask for another 90 days,
there are so many things that you must do to comply with the City,
such as the parking lots that are now gravel, they've got to be
paved either wth asphalt or concrete. You need a separation of a
wall between you and the residents. We're talking a lot of things
that you must do to comply with the City. It's going to cost x
number of dollars. I want you to be aware of that.
Mr. Davis:
The wall, whether you give me the variance or not, my
understanding was the wall was grandfathered in.
Mr. Alanskas:
It was a long time ago, but things can change. Am I correct, Mr.
Taormina, or am I not correct?
Mr. Taormina:
The situation is that it does not presently comply with the ordinance
standards relative to screening between residential and non-
residential uses. Typically, when we have petitions involving either
a change of use or an expansions of use, that provides the
opportunity for the City to get these items brought into conformity.
But I'd like to address another issue, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Back to the question of outdoor storage within the front yard.
Notwithstanding the fact that the plan that was presented to you
does not indicate any storage within the front parking lot, there is a
note on the petition that indicates that "storage of trucks, trailers
and equipment, trailers and trucks stored 'in front back and sides' of
building" I think it's a question that needs to be clarified by the
petitioner this evening as to whether or not it is his intention to have
overnight storage of vehicles.
Mr. McCann:
If I'm reading the Planning Commission right, there would be no
outside storage in front of the building if we considered this at all,
but that's something I think we can vote on. At lead from one
Commissioners point of view, there would never be any storage in
front Do you understand that or would you agree to that?
19610
Mr. Davis: I would agree to that. h order to get this exception or waiver, I
cannot afford or be expected to afford to erect a masonry wall, pave
my backyard and all these things overnight. I mean, if I had to do
these things, I don't know how I could exist. I would think that the
people here would want to give somebody a chance to make this
building into a viable property and not try to crush him with a mallot
saying go spend 30 or 40 grand or you cant operate or exist there.
Mr. McCann: Well, there are exceptions where we give them up to two years to
pave and those things can be done. But I think we have a larger
question which is the problem, the type of business and the real
issue tonight is the waiver use to do the type of business you're
running out of there. Are there any other questions? The public
hearing is overso a motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: I would really like to go along with this young man but I know what's
going to be involved to bring this building up to code. And we need
that before he could possibly even haw this business. So I'm
going to give a denying resolution.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved,
it was
#08-101-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, on Petition
2002-07-02-13 submitted by Gregory W. Davis, on behalf of Greg
Davis Landscaping, requesting waiver use approval to permit
outside storage of trucks, trailers and equipment in connection with
a landscaping maintenance business located on the west side of
Fremont Avenue between Eight Mile Road and Modock Avenue in
the Northeast % of Section 2, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-07-02-13
be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively shoe that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance relative to the requirements for a
protective wall as well as a greenbelt where the subject
property abuts residential zoning to the south and west;
3. That the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance relative to the requirement for
landscaping in the front yard;
19611
4. That the petitioner does not indicate that other site problems
and deficiencies identified in a letter dated August 5, 2002,
from the Inspection Departmentwill be rectified;
5. That the proposed parking/storage of contractors vehicles,
equipment and materials will be detrimental to the
maintenance of the site in an orderly and satisfactory condition
and would be a deterrent to the long -tern stability of this area;
and
6. That the residential properties in the immediate proximity of
the subject property will be adversely affected by the outdoor
storage.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Alanskas, I would like to add Item 7 that the Inspection report
and these photographs all be part ofthe denying resolution.
Mr. Alanskas:
It is automatic. That's no problem.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I don't know if it is automatic.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes. Whatever comes before us is a public record.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
No, no, no. I want this to go to the Council. I want them to get the
photographs.
Mr. Alanskas:
They'll get it. Don't worry.
Mr. Pastor:
One of the reasons why I'm going to be supporting the denying
resolution is because I believe that the petitioner, if he's so
steadfast on fixing this and taking the 90 days . . . here's an
opportunity to take the 90 days, come back before us, show us
what you can do. You have a lot of items before the Inspection
Department that if you meet that, at least we know that you're going
in the right direction. Take 90 days, get the residents behind you
and in support or your petition and take care of it at that point if you
so desire. That's the way I look at it, then come back. If you have
the residents behind you, if you dean up your building to their
satisfaction and to the Inspection Department's satisfaction, then
I'm more than willing to re -look at this. But from where I'm silting
19612
now and today, it doesn't look like you're willing to do that, so that's
the reason why I'll be supporting the denying resolution.
Mr. LaPine: I recommended the 90 days. I still feel that might have been an
alternative. Quite frankly, there are so many things you have to do,
I don't see how you can even do half of them within 90 days.
You've got so many things wrong there that have to be fixed. It's
going to cost you lots of money, and I don't mean $5,000 or
$10,000 or $20,000. We're talking big money. I just have one
question. Did you know anything about this properly before you
purchased it?
Mr. Davis: My realtor went to the City, okay. And all these things that these
people are talking about are recommendations. The wall was
grandfathered in. The asphalt parking in the back is a
recommendation. Is it not a recommendation? Its not something
that is required by the City.
Mr. La Pine: No, you don't have to go along
Mr.
Davis:
All the properties that are around me, they have grass in the back
of their buildings.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis:
You guys are all happy with these buildings but they have grass in
the back of their buildings.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay.
Mr.
Davis:
And you're asking me to put asphalt in the back of my building. It
doesn't make sense.
Mr.
McCann:
Our time for argument is over. I really shouldn't have gone back to
you but I allowed Mr. LaPine. I understand your concerns but what
we're voting on is to increase the use at this point.
Mr.
McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. The
petitioner has ten days to appeal the decision to the City Council in
writing.
19613
Y1�Ai » I Y Y[e]: VJJDYZ1iII1YA5E Aj[e] 71_1 Ti L1 ml fit\ 4F.A*1 I:
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
07-02-14, submitted by Mohamad EI Fassih requesting waiver use
approval to construct a gas station and carry -out restaurant with
drive -up window service on property located on the north side of
Schoolcraft Road between Inkster Road and Cardwell Avenue in
the Southeast%of Section 24.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated June 24, 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
description contained therein. However, we recommend that it be
expanded to reflect the petitioner's surveyor's boundary survey.
There are no additional right -0f -way requirements for this site, and
we have no other objection to the plan. The site will be subject to
the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
June 3, 2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the
site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a gas
station and caryout restaurant with drive -up window service on
property located at the above -referenced location. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated August 2, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewed the plans in regards to a proposal to construct a gas
station and caryout restaurant. We recommend adequate lighting
over the parking areas that are away from the canopy lights for
customer safety. There is no indication as to the number of
employees that will be working in order to calculate the correct
parking requirement. Three handicap spaces property marked and
sized are needed. In addition, a handicap ramp for access to the
building from the lot will also be necessary. It is also recommended
that a sign indicating the height of the gas pump canopy be
installed in several conspicuous locations to reduce the frequency
of trucks driving into the canopy. Stop signs for each exit of the
property along with a Right Tum Only sign for the Schoolcraft exit
will be necessary." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated August 5, 2002, which reads as follows:
19614
"Pursuant to your request of July 22, 2002, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This
petition does not show the split of the property to create an out lot
for the gas station. (2) This petition is lacking information. Will the
existing building used as office remain the same, and what is the
empty space in the gas station building? Therefore, the parking
calculations cannot be done without further information. At this
time, it appears there is not enough parking for this use. (3) This
area is poorly cleaned and needs maintenance. (4) We would
recommend that the Petitioner provide the needed additional
information and resubmit revised plans for further review. This
Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mohamad EI Fassih, Elite Design & Development, Two Hampton Court, Dearborn,
Michigan 48124.
Mr. McCann: Are there some site plans you would like to show us?
Mr. EI Fassih: Yes. Our first design was as shown on the first submittal for a
5,000 square foot building, a gas station with eight pumps in front of
it facing SchoolcraR and keeping the existing building for AAA as is.
Since going back and forth with Mr. Nowak and the Planning
Department, and part of the notes that came back to us ... we
want to work with the City and plan to make the area look better
than it does right now. The whole parking lot has no landscaping
nghl now. It is outdated and needs a lot of remodeling for that site.
Since we talked to Mr. Nowak, we plan to do whatever the City
wants which is to cul the building down to 75 feet in depth and that
will make it 9,000 square feel instead of 13,500 square feet. And
that will create also more parking spots in front of the building as
part of changing the look of that building, which is eliminating all of
the bays on that side of the building and putting a new front facade
for whatever new store is going to be in that building. We don't
know yet who's going to lease it. We don't know yet what it's going
to be. Maybe they will take the whole 9,000 square feel or it might
be divided into three or four different shops. We don't know yet.
But that's part of the design to give it a new look, a new facade, and
cul down the building to create more parking spots to create more
landscaping for that area. Regarding the gas station area, before
we proposed 10' of landscaping on the east side of Inkster and
Schoolcraft. We increased that to 15' in order to come up with 15%
of the landscaping on that site. We got circulation on the side. We
kept the existing driveways as our ingress and egress from that
property to minimize the traffic, to keep the circulation more safer
19615
and try to minimize in and out from that site, so we kept the same
driveways. Regarding parking spots, now we increased our spots
by six parking spots, but also we decreased the size of the building.
So if you add them all together would be almost right there for the
number of parking spots. Regarding lighting for the sight, we will
propose all the lighting according to what the City requires and the
downlighting from the canopy is going to be down lighting.
Regarding elevations on the canopy, we're going to provide that.
Mr. McCann:
Weil, obviously, the staff hasjust gotten this plan today.
Mr. EI Fassih:
I understand. My proposal is we'd like to table the meeting tonight.
I'm not going to ask you for any decision, but I'd like to know what's
your opinion about our project and what's your feedback. So when
we submit drawings for revised everything we will know exactly
what needs to be done.
Mr. McCann:
It will come back at a study between now and then as well. But I'm
looking at it and I'm seeing great improvements.
Mr. EI Fassih:
Part of our submittal is to find out what the City wants from us in
order to improve that property, improve the Iocafion and improve
the parking. So any feedback from the board we will be glad to
take.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
When I look at your plan, i seems like you have a lot of building
there. Do you ultimately plan on having a restaurant with tables
and chairs in there?
Mr. EI Fassih:
There is going to be about ... we dont know what restaurant will
be in, but there will be about 12 to 15 seats in there, yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Twelve to 15 seats?
Mr. EI Fassih:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay, so is going to be more than just a drive through then. It's
going to be whalwe call a limited service restaurant.
Mr. El Fassih:
Yes, very limited.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, the property where you want to put the gas stafion ... do you
own the property?
Mr. EI Fassih:
My client owns it. Well, he is in the process of buying it now. He
has a contract with the original owners.
19616
Mr. Alanskas:
Now in regards to tie AAA building, are you buying that building
also?
Mr. EI Fassih:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you would have both properties.
Mr. EI Fassih:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Do you have any other gas stations besides this one?
Mr. EI Fassih:
My client does not. I don't think so. You do?
Mr. Alanskas:
How many does he have?
Ray Salem, 31484 Orchard Creek, Farmington Hills, Michigan. Two.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay, so this is not a new venture for you?
Mr. Salem:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you know what type of station you are proposing to put up?
Mr. Salem:
Well, it's under debate right now between BP or Sunoco. I know
one of the questions was what color will the canopy be.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's a minute question right now. I just want to know if you had
one specific company.
Mr. Salem:
Probably BP.
Mr. Alanskas:
Let's see, we have one on the corner of Merriman and Five Mile
and then there's going to be one on the corner of Levan and Five.
Didn't BP buy out all the Standard gas stations?
Mr. Salem:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
That is correct. So all the Standard stations we have now in the
City will become BPs?
Mr. Salem:
Right.
Mr. Alanskas:
That you're aware of?
Mr. Salem:
Right.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you want to put another existing BP on that comer, which is only
a mile from... all right. Thank you very much.
19617
Mr. Walsh:
I just want to tell the petitioner I think what you've done is an
improvement over the original plan that was submitted. We are
going to need some time to digest it. A suggestion, Mr. Chairman,
was that he spend time with our Planning staff. We will see this, as
you said, at another study session. But I did see some people in
the meantime that wanted to comment, so while theyre here ...
Mr. McCann:
Yes, I have to go through the public fearing process tonight and I
will go to the audience before we're done.
Mr. Walsh:
But I just wanted to give you that I think it's an improvement, but
until we hear what the people have to say and until we get some
more input from our staff, it's difficult for us to respond tonight. But
if you work with our staff, and then at the study session you will
have an opportunity to flesh this out before there's ultimately a vote.
Mr. Salem:
Okay.
Mr. Pastor:
Though it is an improvement, there is still a lot of questions that
remain. A lot of it is on the existing site with the existing wall that is
running along the backside of this whole entire property. The
parking lot, parking questions, what kind of building it is, what kind
of restaurant is going in there. I don't know if I really want a
restaurant in a gas station. I know that they have them out there.
The dumpster location ... those are the questions that I have. This
is an idea we kind of looked at. I'm looking for more landscaping
requirements. If we have a chance to revitalize this corner, this is
what we need to do. Contrarily, I want to make sure that all these
neighbors ... I see that you have signatures of neighbors ... but
we need to know to make sure they are in the that 400 foot radius
to make sure ... those are the concerns that I'm going to have.
But the biggest concern is to make sure that whole entire center is
also updated ... the parking lot and the wall being some of the
main cencems. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
John MacKenzie, 15730 Harrison. My mother lives in the neighborhood. I used to
live in the neighborhood. I've been a resident of Livonia ... I'm 36 1
think, so 33 years roughly. I used to run up and down the alleyway
behind these buildings before it was AAA, when it was A&P or
Fanner Jacks, and Drug and Party Fair was there, which is now
also a vacant building. I really wanted to and I was not able to
within the last week go through and find out how many vacant
buildings or shops there are. Unfortunately I wasn't able to do that
and I do apologize. I will do it though for the next meeting. If I'm
19618
not mistaken, if you go one mile as a crow flies in any direction
there are 10 gas stations. Beech Daly and Five Mile to Five Mile
and Middlebelt to ... I'm sorry ... Middlebelt and Plymouth Road,
which unfortunately there isn't any, but there is one a half mile
down, so that's 11. All the way down to Beech and Plymouth which
if I'm not mistaken there's one there. Restaurants ... I'm sure we
have plenty of them. If you want to open a restaurant, you got a
13,000 square foot building - open a restaurant. They just split the
Fanner Jack's if I'm not mistaken that was at Five Mile and
Middlebelt, which is five -eights of a mile away from my home, into a
Chinese restaurant and a Dollar Store. The Chinese restaurant is
good. The Dollar Store didn't thrill me but I'll live with it. Its
producing money and it cleaned up the area and it filled the
building. Mr. Pastor, I believe you're on the Plymouth Road
commission? We have plenty of vacant buildings down there, and I
bet we could tum a half dozen into restaurants. If I'm not mistaken,
we have plenty of good restaurants already. I'm not trying to tell
this gentleman what to do. I do not want to do that. I see no
reason for a gas station. I see no reason for a restaurant. I see
another reason to cover up something that is behind it that's been
empty and is going to stay empty. And now that you took the party
store out, that's just one less reason for them to come in there.
And if you block that off, its one less reason for someone to rent it.
That's it. Thanks.
Mr. Salem: Can I respond to that?
Mr. McCann: No, you can't. I want to hear the audience first.
Mr. MacKenzie: That's my mom.
Ruth MacKenzie: That's my little boy. I live in Buckingham Village. I have for 37
years. I hope I continue living there for awhile. But I'm very much
against opening a gas station on the comer. We have four
restaurants in that shopping area. We don't need no more
restaurants and we don't need a gas station.
Mr. McCann: Can we get your name for the record? We only have "Mom' right
now for the record.
Mrs. MacKenzie: Oh, Ruth MacKenzie.
Mr. McCann: Thankyou.
Dennis Cooper, 27541 Buckingham. Pretty close to 400 feet but it isn't often that we
gel a chance to look over this shopping mall as they call it there on
the comer. I did have the pleasure of talking to the gentleman on
my front porch one day. He had a lot of good answers, but I guess
19619
I wonder what enforcement we would have to see that he comes
through with everything he's got or he's saying. I'm not in favor of a
gas station on the comer, and we certainly don't need a drive-
through restaurant on that comer. But what we do need, and I
understand that your customer has purchased the entire mall?
Mr. McCann: I think he said he's in the process. Your questions have to come to
us.
Mr. Cooper: Okay, I'm sorry.
Mr. McCann: Just the AAA building and that corner, not the mall. That would be
the Canvasser brothers, I believe, that own the other property.
Mr. Cooper: Well, then I guess I can't complain loo much about him deaning up
the mall. But if you gentlemen don't have garbage picked up at
4:00 in the morning, you're not living in the right area. I think you
mentioned that you had people that you represent in the garbage
industry or trash industry. Lel me tell you what. They're picking up
garbage a14:00 in the morning.
Mr. McCann: I know our company doesn't.
Mr. Cooper: But that's my concern is to dean that place up and stop all that sort
of stuff. Now if he can do that with a gas station, fine. I see a lot of
great gas stations with great landscaping . .. Middlebelt and Five
Mile, for one, the Mobil station ... excellent landscaping. But I just
don't picture that at that corner.
Mr. McCann: Okay. Thank you.
Beverly Cross, 27407 Buckingham. I'm the house directly behind this open area on
the side of AAA. There's a wall there, but part of my side yard is
fence. I cannot see a gas station. They do need to do something
with the AAA building. The windows are never washed. There's
salt along the front of the sidewalks all the time. Its never swept
up. The parking lot is never hardly deaned. I dean all the trash
from off my side boulevard. So I really ... its loo much of a high
traffic area anyways. That comer ... sit in my driveway and see
how many people come around the comers there. Its terrible
traffic.
Mr. McCann: Do you remember how long the AAA building has been vacant?
Mr.
Pastor:
Fouryears.
Mrs.
Cross:
Is it only four years?
Its been a while.
19620
Mr. McCann: Seems like a lot longer to me. We've had the mall before us trying
to get them to work to dean it up. We're just concerned from a
planning standpoint what it's going to take. What type of business.
New businesses do help bring tenants in and that helps dean
things up. They're talking about now maybe tearing down half of
the AAA building or a portion of it, putting a new facade on it,
cleaning it up, putting in new businesses there. So I understand
everybodys concems but we're also wondering what's it going to
take? What is it that we can do there to gel this comer going
again?
Mrs. Cross:
It does need fixing up. I will grant you that. It's terrible and that's
coming into Livonia actually.
Mr. McCann:
Its just something though if you agree that we all want to take a
closer look at before we make a decision.
Mr. Alanskas:
Have you found that during all hours of the day, do you find that
these big tractor trailers are parking in the parking lot by the AAA
building?
Mrs. Cross:
Yes, they are.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody else?
Dean Vitale, 27630 Buckingham. These are my neighbors. This is my son, Tyler. I
figured I'd give him a lesson in government.
Mr. McCann:
Hey Tyler.
Tyler Vitale:
Hi.
Mr. Vitale:
I loo am concerned about a gas station being there. He said a
Sunoco. There's a Sunoco at Five and Inkster. There's a Sunoco
that's on Beech and 96 there. You can go to Plymouth Road.
There's three gas stations there. There's plenty of gas stations.
The traffic there at that corner is just ridiculous. People coming out
of that mall, constantly they go into the tum lane. I mean I live ...
I've got to turn behind there. Buckingham runs behind there. And
people are using that turn lane to pull out onto Inkster and it's real
terrible. I can't see that having a gas station and restaurant there is
going to improve that all. One of the suggestions, and I don't know
if this is a great suggestion ... I wouldn't mind seeing like a video
store go in there that would bring people from our neighborhood
there, not just any, you know, whoever is coming off the freeway to
get gas and cigarettes or whatever.
19621
Mr. McCann:
Are you interested in that business?
Mr. Vitale:
I have other issues that I'm working on still. Anyways, I just wanted
to voice my opinion that I really don't want to see a gas station
there. The traffic is already horrendous. I would like to see it get
cleaned up, but a gas station and another restaurant there just isn't
going to do. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one else wishing to speak, I'm going to close the public
hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. LaPine:
I'll make a motion that we table this until our next study session.
Mr. McCann:
How's the agenda looking?
Mr. LaPine:
I wont be here on the 27th.
Mr. Taormina:
I would advise against putting it on the September 24 meeting
because we will probably have a full agenda that night. It would
have to be either the next regular meeting or the one after the 20.
Mr. McCann:
The September 10 meeting?
Mr. LaPine:
I wont be here on the 271h or the 10"'.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do it in October. When this gentlemen came before us, right on the
onset of it, he stated that he would really like to have it tabled for
awhile. Isn't that correct?
Mr. EI Fassih:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Whalkind offime did you wanlillabled lo?
Mr. El Fassih:
To the next meeting. Whenever the next meeting is.
Mr. Piercecchi:
If I may, Mr. Chairman. We've had problems with this site before.
You don't know what we went through just to get rid the facade
upgraded in half of that mall. What we really want here is a
comprehensive plan of this area. It seems like we just can't get it. I
don't know exactly how much you own, but maybe you could get
with the people that own the rest of that. We've got to have a
comprehensive plan there. do anyway.
Mr. McCann:
What's that 20 meeting look like?
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Chairman, do you have a second yet?
19622
Mr. McCann:
No.
Mr. Shane:
Then we can discuss it.
Mr. McCann:
What?
Mr. Shane:
I can make a statement then.
Mr. McCann:
yes.
Mr. Shane:
I don't have any problem with tabling, but I don't want this petitioner
to go away with the idea that I'm totally in favor of what he's
proposing.
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. Shane:
I have some problems with a gas station and restaurant. I just don't
want him to go away with a feeling that he's on the right track.
Mr. McCann:
Well, I think we all have issues. I have concerns about a restaurant
and gas station together, but I'm not so sure that I don't think a gas
station might help revitalize the mall with a couple new things. But
there are issues. I want to hear from the neighbors and from him
again.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Has a date been established?
Mr. McCann:
I'm asking Mark - the 24"?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't see where we have a choice, so yes, September 24.
Mr. McCann:
September 24". We'll have the study meeting before then and you
can gel with the staff.
Mr. EI Fassih:
I have a question. Regarding the restaurant, it's not going to be a
full blown restaurant. We're talking about a Dunkin Donuts, for
example, donuts, coffee and some sandwiches like Subway. That's
all. It's not going to be like Ram's Horn or Big Boy. No.
Mr. McCann:
That's something we can discuss. We're going to have time. We
have a long agenda yet to go tonight.
19623
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#08-102-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-07-02-14 submitted by Mohamad EI
Fassih requesting waiver use approval to construct a gas station
and carryLout restaurant with drive -up window service on property
located on the north side of Schoolcrett Road between Inkster
Road and Cardwell Avenue in the Southeast %of Section 24, be
tabled until the Regular Meeting of September24, 2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. 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 #7 PETITION 98 -12 -PL -01 MERRIMAN FOREST
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 98 -12 -
PL -01, submitted by Merriman Forest LLC, on behalf of Merriman
Forest Subdivision, requesting approval to revise the entrance
marker previously approved for the subdivision located on the east
side of Merriman Road between Seven Mile Road and Mayville
Drive in the Northwest%of Section 11.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Merriman between Seven
Mile Road and Mayville Drive. On April 19, 2000, this subdivision
received final plat approval. An entrance marker was also
approved on that dale. The dimensions of the entrance marker as
shown on the approved plan are 3'9" in height by 54" in width. All
four sides of the sign were to be constructed out of brick and
include a concrete cap. The sign was to have brass lettering with
the words "MERRIMAN FOREST' on each side. This item is back
before the Planning Commission because the entrance marker that
was constructed differs from the one specified in the approving
resolution. The petitioner is requesting to retain the existing
entrance marker. According to the petitioner, Victory Building
Company, the subdivision was acquired from the original developer
without the knowledge that an entrance marker had been
previously approved. The City is holding bond money for the
entrance marker until such time that either the sign is made to
conform to Council Resolution #294-00 or the existing marker is
19624
approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The
exisfing sign is constructed of wood and measures 13 square feet
in area. The wood portion of the sign is mounted between two
square brick pillars, each of which are five feet in height and lopped
by a decorative ball cap. The sign contains the words "MERRIMAN
FOREST' and is located on the south side of the entranceway of
the subdivision, in the same general location as the original location
of the approved sign.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated August 13, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objection to
the proposal at this time since sign style is not an engineering
issue. It should be noted that the existing sign encroaches on a 15 -
foot wide easement for sanitary sewer and public utilities by
approximately 4.33 feet The sign is approximately 7.66 feet from
the sanitary sewer. To correct this situation, the owner should
request that a portion of the easement be vacated. We would favor
this vacation with the stipulation that the City not be responsible for
replacement if the sign had to be removed to do a sewer repair.
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Inspection Department, dated August 7,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August
6, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
landscaping berm directly south of this sign needs attention and
repair. This Department has no further objection to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Joe Rossi, 8130 Fox Lane, Plymouth, Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Do you want to tell us about this?
Mr. Rossi:
Yes. I made a very expensive mistake. It's a blatant mistake,
actually. When I purchased this property from Mr. DeFlavis a
couple years back, I saw this portion of the site plan and all I
noticed was final design to be submitted prior to permit issuance. I
didn't do that. I just put up a bigger, nicer sign assuming that
wouldn't create a problem just not having experience in this
particular aspect of building. So without ignorance being a valid
excuse, that's my only excuse. I spent a lot more money on that
sign than I probably would have had to based on what was
19625
approved initially. I'm just hoping that I can keep this one there
because it looks a lot better, and I'd hate to have to tear down what
I already have up.
Mr. McCann:
Do you want to address the easement issue?
Mr. Rossi:
I wasn't aware of the easement issue because I initially put a
foundation in for that sign in the wrong spot, and Livonia brought it
to my aflention that it was in the wrong spot. So I moved it where
Livonia told me to move it.
Mr. McCann:
Oh, really?
Mr. Rossi:
Yes. Because there's another foundation covered up there with
grass that I failed my prior inspection on. So they said to move it to
this location, so I did. But if I have to propose something, I have
no problem doing that. I don't know how it happened. But
whatever it takes, I have no objection to doing that.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Mr. Alanskas?
Mr. Alanskas:
I just have one question. On your original one, you were going to
have brick with brass letters. Now, of course, its a wooden fence.
Who is going to maintain it when it gets dull?
Mr. Rossi:
According to all the bylaws and whatnot, it does meet all the
requirements that it be made of natural materials and whatnot.
Thalwould be something the Association would take care of.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. Rossi:
You're welcome.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that Wshes to speak for or against
this petition? No objections. Mr. Taormina, how do we deal with
the easement or that's just not an issue we need to deal with
tonight?
Mr. Taormina:
Hopefully, the approving resolution that is provided to you this
evening addresses that situation in Items 2 and 3.
Mr. McCann:
All right. l see that it does. Thank you.
19626
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#08-103-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 98 -12 -PL -01 submitted
by Merriman Forest, L.L.C., on behalf of Merriman Forest
Subdivision, requesting approval to revise the entrance marker
previously approved for the subdivision located on the east side of
Merriman Road between Seven Mile Road and Mayville Drive in
the Northwest % of Section 11, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Entrance Marker Plan date-stamped Received by the
City of Livonia Planning Commission on July 22, 2002, as
submitted by Victory Building Company, Inc., is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That all repairs and maintenance to the sign shall be the
responsibility of the Developer and/or Subdivision Association;
3. The Developer and Subdivision Association shall hold the City
of Livonia harmless for any damage to the sign that may occur
as a result of work needed within the 15 R. private easement
for public utilities and sanitary sewer, and that such agreement
shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Law
Department; and
4. That the landscape berm directly south of this sign shall be
repaired to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department.
Mr.
McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr.
McCann:
No problem.
Mr.
Pastor:
I want to make a quick comment to Mr. Rossi. This is on another
Mr.
Pastor:
If we could add just one
item
to
fix
the
landscaping
per
the
Inspection Department.
Mr.
McCann:
No problem.
Mr.
Pastor:
I want to make a quick comment to Mr. Rossi. This is on another
issue. This is off of Seven Mile. I appreciate you guys taking care
of some of the issues that some of the residents have brought up. I
just want to thank you in public.
Mr.
Rossi:
Which one on Seven Mile?
Mr.
Pastor:
Fox Creek, I think.
Mr.
Rossi:
Oh. You're very welcome.
19627
Mr. Pastor: If you can continue wonting with the residents over there, I much
appreciate you doing that. I just want to make sure that everybody
knows that you are working on it, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Rossi: Thankyou, Mr. Pastor.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question for Mark. We say in the
third item, the developer and Subdivision will hold the City of
Livonia harmless. The people living there now, they didn't know the
sign was put in the wrong location so it's not in their bylaws. Now if
anything happens to that sanitary sewer and the sign has to be
replaced, do they have any recourse? They didn't know the sign
was put in the wrong place.
Mr. Taormina: That's why we're suggesting that this be reviewed and approved by
the Law Department because he's probably going to have to
transfer some of those responsibilities on to the Association when
they lake control. I dont know if that's been done yet.
Mr. LaPine: I didn't hear you say that. So the Law Department is going to look
at this.
Mr. Taormina: That's our suggestion.
Mr. LaPine: That makes me happy.
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 #8 PETITION 2002-02-02-04 CHINESE GOSPEL CHURCH
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
02-02-04, submitted by Brivar Construction Company, on behalf of
the Chinese Gospel Church, requesting approval of a landscape
plan in connection with an addition onto the existing church located
at 35301 Five Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 21.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Five Mile between Gary and
Yale. On April 24, 2002, this site received waiver use approval to
construct an addition to the existing church, inducing a new
sanctuary with increased seating capacity. As part of that approval,
it was conditioned that a fully detailed Landscape Plan, as well as a
Lighting Plan, come back before the City. In accordance with this
19628
requirement, the petitioner has submitted a detailed landscape plan
that includes the location, type, quantity, and size of all proposed
plant material. As requested, the plan also shows the locaton of all
proposed parking lot light poles. The plan has been reviewed and
has been found to be in compliance with all applicable standards
and requirements. Overall, the plan would provide a significant
landscape treatment for the development and the surrounding
neighborhood. A total at ten spruce trees and four red pines would
be planted along the west side at the property where the parking lot
abuts the single-family residential district. On the east side of the
parking lot, the plan shows twelve red pines and four sugar maples.
However, it does not induce any plantings along the perimeter of
the storm water detention pond. The sides of the basin have been
designed with a maximum slope of 1 on 6; thus, a fence is not
required. However, the slope is gentle enough to allow for
plantings. Additional plant material should be provided around the
detention pond, especially in light of the fad that several exisfing
trees will be removed as part of the grading necessary for
construction oflhe basin.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: We have one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated August 7, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of August 6, 2002, the above -referenced
petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to
this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Joseph R. Hammond, Vice President, Brivar Construction Company, 7258 S.
Kensington Road, Brighton, Michigan. I have no comments to offer
other than I had correspondence and communication with Mark
prior to your work study meeting and subsequent to that meeting.
On Mark's recommendation, we have added another grouping of
pines along the north and east side of the retention basin.
Gentlemen, I don't know if you remember or not, but in the original
site plan submission, we had another bank of parking right here,
which we had eliminated on the request at the neighbors along this
side of the site. One at the neighbors attended a meeting and
asked if we could provide some screening. That's why these trees
were done here. The neighbor to the north had requested some
additional screening, so we bermed and we planted some real
closely placed pines on the berth here. And lastly, in an effort to
buffer some at the height to the building along this side, we planted
17 columnar arborvitaes. Theyll start out 10 feet high; I dont know
what the ultimate height of them will be, but it was done closely
19629
spaced. They'll grow fight. We think we've met with your
requirements with the site plan.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou.
Mr. Hammond:
Oh, one thing, excuse me if I can. I did notice that when we
indicated the height of the pole as 20 feel, I think I'm hearing
comments all night tonight that the site lighting is a maximum of 20
feet above finished grade, so we will revise the pole height.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
The arborvitaes you're putting in at 10 feet in height. That's a good
sized arborvitae to start outwith. But the trees on the west side,
what is going to be the size of those that you're putting in?
Mr. Hammond:
The pines are all six to seven feet high.
Mr. Alanskas:
Two to four inches in circumference?
Mr. Hammond:
I couldn't tell you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Starting at seven feet, they're probably about three inches. Okay.
Thank you. That's fine.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? I see we have a lot of members of the congregation
out tonight. Thank you for coming. I think we lost a few because of
the late hour. A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#08-104-2002
RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-02-02-04,
submitted by Brivar Construction Company, on behalf of the
Chinese Gospel Church, requesting landscape approval in
connection with an addition onto the existing church located at
35301 Five Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 21, be
approved subjecttothe following conditions:
1. That the Landscape Plan dated July 17, 2002, as revised,
prepared by Albert Y.Y. Wu, AIA, Architect, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That additional evergreen and deciduous trees shall be
planted along the east and north sides of the storm water
detention pond to replace the existing trees that are being
19630
removed; all new trees shall be of similar species and size to
the plantings shown in the southeast comer of the property;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That all light poles shall include full cutoff, shoe -box style
fixtures limited to a height of 20 feet measured from the finish
grade and inducing the concrete footing, and shall induce
shields along the perimeter of the parking lot;
6. The owner and their successors shall maintain the storm water
detention system, which is part of the development, including
removal of debris, removal of silt on a maximum six (6) month
interval, and replacement of any dead, dying or diseased
vegetation; the owner shall be responsible for reimbursing the
City of Livonia for any maintenance costs due to failure on the
part of the owner to maintain the storm water detention
facilities; and
7. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shaving the required changes shall be submitted to the
Inspection Department at the time the building permits are
applied for.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2002-08-0847 BURGER KING
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
08-08-17, submitted by Tania Salem, on behalf of Burger King,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an
addition to the restaurant located at 28203 Plymouth Road in the
Northeast%of Section 36.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Inkster
and Harrison. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an
19631
addition and renovate the exterior of an existing Burger King
restaurant, located between Chin's Chinese Restaurant and the
Penalty Box Bar on the south side of Plymouth Road. The addition
would be at the rear of the existing building and would measure 400
square feet in size. Its main purpose is to provide for a walk-in
freezer and allow for changes to the interior layout of the restaurant
without adding any customer seats. The kitchen would become
slightly larger and an additional drive-thru window would be
installed on the east side of the building. The floor plan also shows
the restrooms would be reconfigured and made larger. The
Elevation Plan shows that the three sides of the addition would be
constructed out of painted brick to match the existing building. A
note on the plan indicates that the addition would be painted a
'tinsmith" color. The plan also states that the existing building
would be re -painted with the same 'tinsmith" color. The new dnve-
thm window would be defined by red tile, similar to what surrounds
the existing drive-thm window. As part of the renovation, the
existing shingles on the building's mansard roof would be replaced
by a standing seam metal system. A note on the plan indicates that
the metal roofwould be painted "Burger King Blue."
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Inspection Department, dated August 7, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 6, 2002, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1)
The site plan, TG -02730, dated July 15, 2002, had many conditions
and notes that answered many issues that would have been noted
as possible conditions of approval. As long as the plan follows
these, there are no objections except as will be further noted. (2)
There was no landscape plan provided. There are a number of
dead shrubs on the east property line that need to be addressed.
(3) There is a red parapet light detailed on the exterior that does not
appear to be previously approved that would not be a permitted
item. Further clarification is needed. This Department has no
further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The second letter is from
the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated August 19, 2002,
which reads as follows: "Resolved, that the Plymouth Road
Development Authority does hereby approve and support the
request by Burger King to construct an addition to the restaurant
located at 28203 Plymouth Road and that there shall be provided
additional landscaping in the front yard to capture the theme of the
streetscape elements as adopted by the P.R.D.A. such as
screening by live plant material of the front yard parking and
landscaping of the area between the rows of parking and that this
proposal shall fully comply with all other applicable roles,
19632
regulations and ordinances of the City of Livonia." The letter is
signed by John J. Nagy, P.R.D.A. Director. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Pastor: Most of you do know that I do build for Burger King though I have
no business on this job, so I will be voting on this issue because I'm
not part of this Burger King restaurant. With that being said, I have
a couple questions for Mrs. Salem. Is this a successor?
Mrs. Salem: Yes, it is
Mr. Pastor: Because with a successor, according to Burger King, just because I
know it, you have that 2x8 band that goes around the building
which isn't shown on here. The other thing, are you making the
bathrooms ADA compliant?
Mrs. Salem: I am.
Mr. Pastor: Okay. So that's just not noted and it wasn't clear. I just wanted to
make sure that was taken care of. The issue of the red band ... I
guess this is a general question. It now has a red band. All Burger
Kings have red bands, so I dont know what the question from Mr.
Bishop would be on not allowing it.
Mr. McCann: Internal lighting, whether it comes under the sign ordinance. Is that
correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct. I'm not sure what exists on that building today and
whether or not it can just be maintained.
Mr. Pastor: It's a lit red band.
Mr. Taormina: IF that's the case, then maybe the Inspection Department will
consider that unless there is a condition modifying that would allow
it to remain. Otherwise, it has to be reviewed as part of the sign
proposal. Any type of light band, whether its neon or sirrilar, is
typically reviewed as part of our sign package. So if it doesn't
comply with all other restrictions pertaining to signage, then it may
require Zoning Board of Appeals approval.
Mr. Pieroecchi: That band isn't going to be illuminated, is it?
Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure. The plans indicate a light band on the roof. No real
details were provided relative to that light band. We indicate in our
resolution for you to consider this evening that any exposed neon
not be permitted as part of the project.
Mr. Pastor: The new lights aren't exposed, butthey are backlit.
19633
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But we don't want that all lit up, do we?
Mr. Pastor:
Then again, I guess I'm answering for the peflfloner.
Mr. McCann:
Let's go back to the beginning. Are you the petitioner? Can you
introduce yourself and give us your address?
Tania Salem,
Burger King, 20793 Farmington Road, Suite 5, Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48336. I'm the franchisee of the restaurant.
Mr. McCann:
And your guest with you this evening?
Ms. Salem:
This is Mr. Paul Moretz, Venture Contracting and Development,
L.L.C., 4893 Rochester Road, Suite E, Troy, Michigan 48098.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Now, Mr. Pieroecchi has requested the floor.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If I recall, there's a row of evergreens between your properly and
the adjacent property. And I understand that is not yours?
Ms. Salem:
That's correct. It is not.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is there any way that you can eliminate that? Half of them are dead
if I remember right.
Ms. Salem:
The gentlemen that owns the bar ... you are talking about the bar
next door?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Yes, that's what I'm talking about.
Ms. Salem:
He just had those planted I think about maybe two seasons ago,
and he had some type of an irigation system, that's an
underground system that's obviously not working. He indicated that
he was going to take them out, but he hasn't. They are on his
property.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'm sure your site is going to be very neat and trim, and its a shame
to have that on your eastern boundary.
Ms. Salem:
I know.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Maybe you can take that over? Ask him.
Ms. Salem:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Mark, would those bushes be part of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority?
19634
Mr. Taormina: No, they are not. In fad I think there was some work done on
them very recently, possibly in the last couple of days. Some of
them have been removed or replaced.
Mr. Alanskas:
During your busy time, which I'm presuming is at lunch time, do you
ever have any problem with cars staclang up ... as far as stacking
cars where they don't go out on Plymouth Road?
Ms. Salem:
Oh no. We don't. Our service is rather quick. I've never had them
extend anywhere near Plymouth Road.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
A question to Mark. Mr. Nagy talked about removing the parking
spaces and adding landscaping per the recommendation of the
PRDA. Will the PRDA put that landscaping in? Is that part of their
responsibilities?
Mr. Taormina:
Let me clarify this. At our study meeting, because there is a
surplus of parking on the site, we talked about the possibility of
removing some of the parking spaces adjacent to the Plymouth
Road right-of-way and converting those areas to landscaping.
While, in fad, the PRDA has already improved about a five or six
foot wide landscape area just back of the sidewalk. So that
landscaping exists, at least to some degree. What we would offer
as an alternative, and possibly something that can come back to
the Planning Commission for a more detailed review as far as a
landscape plan is concemed, is some improvement to the center
area inducing the signage, and possibly along the rear wall of the
property where it abuts the residential. The plan that was
presented shows numerous trees along that wall when, in fad,
there are none.
Mr. LaPine:
Thankyou.
Mr. Pastor:
Just a recap on the parking lot. You're going to be redoing the
parking lot?
Ms. Salem:
I am.
Mr. McCann:
Is there an internally lit band presently on the building?
Mr. Moritz
Yes, there is.
Mr. McCann:
Currently. And that's part of the original site plan?
Mr. Moritz
Yes.
19635
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? The neighbors aren't here. Are there any other
questions from the Commissioners or from the petitioner? A motion
is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#08-105-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-08-08-17
submitted by Tania Salem, on behalf of Burger King, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to
the restaurant located at 28203 Plymouth Road in the Northeast''/.
of Section 36, be approved subject lolhe following conditions:
1. That the Proposed Site Plan marked Sheet C-1 dated July 15,
2002, prepared by Technical Group, Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated July
15, 2002, prepared by Technical Group, Inc, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except as modified below;
3. That the Floor Plan marked Sheet Al dated July 15, 2002,
prepared by Technical Group, Inc, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
4. That a detailed landscape plan that adds landscaping to the
front and rear of the properties and addresses the signage
issues shall come back to the Planning Commission and City
Council for review within 60 days following the action of the
City Council on the site plan;
5. That no addifional customer seats are approved with this
petition;
6. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be
full face, 4 -inch brick, no exceptions;
7. That the trash enclosure shall be enlarged as shown on the
Proposed Site Plan with seven (7) foot high walls and gates
which shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all
times;
19636
8. That all exterior lightng equipment shall be shielded from view
from the adjacent residents, and any new pole -mounted
lighting shall not exceed a height of twenty (20) feet;
9. That all mechanical rooftop mounted equipment shall be totally
screened from view;
10. That all parking spaces provided in connection with this
restaurant shall have dimensions of 10' x 20' and shall be
double striped;
11. That no exposed neon tubing shall be permitted anywhere on
the exterior of the building;
12. That all new landscaped areas shall be irrigated;
13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permit is applied for;
14. That a 2"x8" wood band, painted red, be added to the exterior
of the building in accordance with Burger King's specifications;
and
15. That the entire parking lot be repaired or resurfaced to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pastor: If we could add to re -submit the landscaping plan for the front
portion, what Mark was asking for. And, in addition, something that
isn't on the plans, would be adding that 2"x8" wood band around
the building, which is part of Burger King's specifications, and is
painted red.
Mr. McCann: That's fine.
Mr. Pastor: I know thalshe had said it, but its notreally on here, is repairing of
the parking lot.
19637
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canied and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda.
We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda.
These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings;
therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience
participation will require unanimous consent tom the Commission.
Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM #10
PETITION 2002-04-02-08 ROGVOY ARCHITECTS
Mr. Pieroecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
04-02-08, submitted by Rogvoy Architects, requesting waiver use
approval to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy with drive-through
service facilities on property located on the northeast comer of
Plymouth and Middlebell Roads in the Southwest%of Section 25.
On a motion
by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#08-106-2002
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2002-04-02-08, submitted by Rogvoy
Architects, requesting waiver use approval to construct a
Walgreens Pharmacy with drive-through service facilities on
property located on the Northeast comer of Plymouth and
Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest %of Section 25, be removed
from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Drane, Rogvoy Architects, 32500 Telegraph Road, Bingham Fauns, Michigan.
Tonight I'm here to ask for an approving resolution to City Council
for our Walgreens and integrated shopping center design. We've
worked long and hard. We've been to a couple study sessions.
We've worked with the property owner. We've worked with the
Plymouth Road Development Authority and the Planning
Commission staff. I think we've come up with a solution. We've
added landscaping in the shopping center parking lot. We added
plantings in the islands. We added irrigation and dumpster screens
with metal gates. We're committed to make repairs to the walls and
cleaning up the back of the shopping center and double stuping the
parking lot. For the Walgreens, we've eliminated a monument sign.
19638
We have extended the PRDA walls across the frontage of the
property. We changed the landscaping to match the PRDA
landscape scheme. We've layered the building height, the main
masting of the corner of building to give it a better scale to the
intersection. With that, I know we still have to go to City Council
and the Zoning Board of Appeals for a parking waiver, but I think
we have a product here that's been thought out. I appreciate
everybody's input, and I look forward to an approving resolution.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Walsh:
First, I'd like to commend the pettioner. I think you've gone
through a great effort to make this work and we appreciate your
cooperation. Mr. Drane, there is one item that came to my attention
tonight from a citizen. He is not here. He had to leave. He had
brought in some pictures of cars that, because of the spacing of the
blocks.. This is not a big deal, I don't think. But where the
parking blocks are near the wall on the east side of the property, I
believe, trucks are backing into the wall and damaging it. What I
would like you to do is, if you would, take a look at that. You're
going to be putfing money into the wall to repair it. You might want
to consider ... if somebody has the pictures still we could share
them with ...
Mr. McCann:
The trucks are all the Salvaton Army trucks that are backed up
there.
Mr. Walsh:
They have a very lengthy gate, so if you move the parking blocks
forward a bit, you might alleviate that. I don't think it's a big deal
but if you could look into that, I'd appreciate it. And just to confirm
for that citzen, he did leave. I think he stayed as long as he could.
If he's watching at home, I just want to reiterate that you are going
to irrigate the planting areas.
Mr. Drane:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
We had agreed to that which I indicated to him. He also had some
concern about long haul trucks parking in the parking lot. What I'm
going to do with that is something that I don't think you need to do.
I will confer with the Mayor or the Chief of Police and determine
whether or not that's something we need to look into. I just wanted
to let him know that we'll do that as well. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
A moton is in order.
19639
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#08-107-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on May 7, 2002, on Petition 2002-
04-02-08, submitted by Rogvoy Architects, requesting waiver use
approval to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy with drive-through
service facilities on property located on the northeast comer of
Plymouth and Middlebell Roads in the Southwest''/. of Sedan 25,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2002-04-02-08 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Overall Site Plan marked Sheet SPA -1 prepared by
Rogvoy Architects, dated August 13, 2002, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Site Plan (Walgreens site) marked Sheet SPA -2
prepared by Rogvoy Architects, dated August 13, 2002, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Landscape Plan (Walgreens site) marked Sheet
SPA -4 prepared by Rogvoy Architects, dated August 8, 2002,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That the Landscape Plan (Shopping Center site) marked SPA -
4.1 prepared by SSOE, Inc., dated August 9, 2002, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
5. That all plant materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of
the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
6. That all sodded and landscaped areas shall be fully irrigated
with underground sprinkler systems, including the shopping
center site;
7. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet SPA -5
prepared by Rogvoy Architects, dated May 2, 2002, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
8. That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be
full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions;
9. That all rooftop -mounted mechanical equipment shall be
screened from view;
19640
10. That the trash compactor endosures shall be seven (T) feet in
height and shall be constructed of brick as shown on the
Building Elevations Plan (SPA -5) referenced above and shall
have full steel gates;
11. That all dumpsters on the shopping center site shall be
screened by means of masonry enclosures a minimum of
seven (T) feet in height with full steel gates;
12. That the lighting equipment shall be shielded and shall not
exceed 20 feel in height in accordance with the Lighting Plan
marked Sheet SPA -7 prepared by Rogvoy Architects, dated
April23, 2002;
13. That the two (2) "Walgreens' signs portrayed on the Building
Elevations Plan (SPA -5) referenced above are approved with
a total combined sign area not to exceed 130 square feel,
subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals granting a variance for
one (1) excess wall sign and any additional wall signage;
14. That this site shall not be permitted an additional ground sign;
15. That all parking spaces within the total overall site area shall
be double striped;
16. That all handicapped parking spaces shall be individually
signed as required;
17. 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;
18. That the petitioner shall seek variances from the Zoning Board
of Appeals for parking deficiencies with respect to both be
Walgreens site and the shopping center site;
19. That the bumper blocks adjacent to the PRDA landscaped
area shall be removed and the curbing contained in this area;
20. That the prolective wall along the east property line of the
shopping center site shall be capped and painted as specified
on the shopping center landscape plan (SPA 4.1); and
21. That the rear exterior wall of the shopping center shall be
repainted to match the building;
22. That the bumper blocks be moved further from the protective
screen wall to prevent vehides from hitting and damaging the
wall;
19641
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06
of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane:
I just wanted to say that in all the years that I've been with the City
in one capacity or another, this is the first time that this shopping
center ownership has come forward and cooperated with us and
proposed some significant improvements. I'd like to compliment
them for that. And I hope this is a chance to get better acquainted
in the future with this site.
Mr. Pastor:
I'd like to echo those comments and hope that Walgreens will pony
up and do what they also agreed to. But I wanted to possibly add
Item 22, just move the bumper blocks away from the wall so that
the trucks and cars don't hit it. If we can just put that in there. And
on conditions 10 and 11, just make sure they are seven feet high
dumpsters, just to make sure that they cover up one of the bigger
dumpsters. That was the only other thing. I dont know if they are
on the plan. I don't have my plans in front of me so that would be
the only other things I would want to amend. I believe the
Walgreens are rated seven fool high anyways. I just want to make
sure that it's spelled out in there.
Mr. LaPine:
I'd just like to echo what everybody else has said. I'm real happy
we finally got here. It look us a long time to gel it done. I know Mr.
Sanderson is not going to be loo happy with spending his money,
but I think its going to be an improvement of the shopping center. I
think Walgreens is going to generale some business for that center.
And I think in the long run we're all going to be happy and the City
is going to be better served by it. Thank you.
19642
Mr. Alanskas: Just when you say it took a long time . we had one public
hearing, three studies and four regular meetings. So it did take a
long time but when you lake a long time, good things can happen.
Thank you.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #11 PETITION 2001-01-08-09 ARDMORE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001-
01-08-09, submitted by Ardmore Development, requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a mixed condominium
development on properly located at 19730 Farmington Road in the
West Ybf Section 3.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#08-108-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001-01-08-09, submitted by Ardmore
Development, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
construct a mixed condominium development on property located
at 19730 Farmington Road in the West Mbf Section 3, be removed
from the table.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Piercecohi, McCann
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Pastor
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Pastor?
Mr. Pastor: I will be abstaining from voting on this issue like I have for the past
five years. I've been the contractor that has been boarding and
19643
Mr. LaPine: Oh yes. Isee it now. Okay. Very good
maintaining this place. So for the last five years I have not voted on
this issue. So I will be stepping off.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Perkoski,
Ardmore Development, L.L.C., 32000 Northwestern Highway, Suite
220, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334. I'm here with Steve
Schafer. In response to the Iasi couple sessions and comments
from the various departments, we revised our site plan. They're
relatively minor changes. I'd like to submit those today. There are
eight copies, and I have the rest of them still rolled up. I can walk
you though real quickly with the changes.
Mr. McCann:
Would you please do that. Can we try and gel them on a board so
the audience at home can gel an idea of the changes?
Mr. Perkoski:
I'll go from memory if you dont mind, and I'll walk you through the
changes that did take place pursuant to that work session. Starting
at the entrance, we added the acceleration lane. I think that was
from a report from the Traffic Safety Department. Pulling into the
intersection, we've also added the sign requirements - the 'yield"
and "slop" signs, also the "keep right' signs at the islands. As we
go around the site, Building 12 was actually shifted. One of the
comments was trying to create more separation between Building 2
and Building 12. We've now increased that by five feet and that
was accomplished by condensing some of the setbacks in between
Buildings 8 through 11. Continuing around the site, there was a
discrepancy between our site plan and the landscaping plan. The
orientation of Building 11 was incorrect so that's been corrected on
the site plan. As we mentioned before, the buildings were shifted
slightly along this orientation just to accomplish the greater setback
here. We've also moved Buildings 13 and 14 down approximately
20 to 25 feel farther south. That was a recommendation to create
more of a buffer up in the lop corner. I think we're almost 50 feet of
a side yard setback row between the north property line and the
edge of that building. Coming back around the site, nothing much
has happened on the single family side other than we've added a
sidewalk on both sides of the street, and throughout the entire
development we added street lights.
Mr. La Pine:
I also noticed that you added some visitors parking between
Buildings 2 and 3.
Mr. Perkoski:
Correct. Oh, yes. Thank you very much. Yes, we did. We added
two bays between Buildings 2 and 3, and also we've added similar
visitors parking between Buildings 7 and 8.
Mr. LaPine: Oh yes. Isee it now. Okay. Very good
19644
Mr. McCann:
And the 30 feet setback on Farmington Road?
Mr. Perkoski:
Correct. Yes, we created an additional setback there. It wasn't
labeled as such, but it was intended to be a landscape easement,
so there's an increased setback there. I believe that was it for the
site plan. For the landscape plan, the revisions included showing
the trees, to the extent that we could save them, in the comer
between Buildings 14 and 15 even though theyre shifted farther
south. We tried to save as much as possible. The only note Ithink
I have to add is that when we do our storm design, we have to bring
storm sewer around from WOodlore through our site and then
outletting to the Tarabusi Creek, so that would be the only impact
that we can anticipate now. We've also added some deciduous
trees in between Buildings 4 through 7 and 8 through 9.
Mr. La Pine:
Has anything changed on the detention basin? Is everything about
the same.
Mr. Perkoski:
Correct. We left it the same. And as Steve has said before, we'll
submit this to the appropriate governing bodies. If there's any
questions or comments regarding that, we can certainly
compensate the storage there with underground storage on the
site.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know last night you received a six-month extension on the George
Bums site. If you get these approvals from us and the Council,
which will you be doing first -Ardmore or the George Bums site?
Steve Schafer:
I think you'll see activity happening at the George Burns site
sooner, but they probably will be both started simultaneously.
Mr. Alanskas:
When you do think you'll be starting? After you gel your approvals
on this project as far as the building coming down?
Mr. Schafer:
We'll get the approvals from the City, then the trustees have to lake
this through the court to get the title issues straightened out. As
soon as those are straightened out ... actually the amount of time
it will take to do that . . . simultaneously we will apply for our
permits. So when they have all their title issues resolved, we'll be
starting this project. Also, I just wanted to let you know there were
a couple ladies here tonight; they kind of got worn out. But I did
have the opportunity to speak with them and address some of their
concems. They still would like to see single family go in there but I
think they understand that we've come a long way, and we're going
to be having some additional discussions with them between now
and the time of our Council meeting just to make sure that .. .
[inaudible].
19645
Mr. McCann: Thank you. A mofion is in order.
On a mofion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously
approved, it was
#08-109-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-01-08-09,
submitted by Ardmore Development, requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a mixed condominium
development on properly located at 19730 Farmington Road in the
West % of Section 3, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Preliminary Site Plan, marked Job No. 200058 as
prepared by Boss Engineering, dated August 20, 2002, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the two (2) Concept Building Elevabon Plans, marked
Sheets A3 and A4, prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc.
Architects, dated March 11, 2002 (A3) and July 8, 2002 (A4),
are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the
fad that the chimneys shall be constructed using full face, 4 -
inch brick, no exceptions;
3. That the final unit designs shall be substantially similar with
the Schematic Floor Plans, marked Sheets Al and A2, as
prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. Architects, with a
revision date of January 22, 2002, provided that all units be
built with the master bedroom located on the first floor or the
main living area;
4. That the first story of each condominium unit shall be brick, on
all four sides, and the amount of brick on the first story shall
not be less than 80% and the combined amount of brick on the
first and second stories shall not be less than 65%;
5. That all brick used in the construction of the homes and
buiklings shall be full face 4 -inch brick, no exceptions;
6. That detailed plans for landscaping and identification signage,
as well as the Master Deeds for both the detached and
attached condominium developments, shall be submitted to
the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval;
19646
7. The Petitioner shall obtain the necessary permits from both
Wayne County and the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality for construction of the storm water management
system, and that any changes to the design of this system
which substantially modifies the layout of the project shall
come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for
their review and approval;
8. That the Petitioner obtain variances from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for any deficiencies in yard setbacks and/or lot depth
requirements;
9. That all electrical/gas meters for the attached condominium
buildings shall be installed on the side or rear of the buildings
and shall be shielded with the landscaping; and
10. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be
submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the
building permits are applied for.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: I'd like to make a comment here. I'm happy to see that the new
plans cover all but one. In the original motion made by Mr. LaPine,
he refers to the chimneys on A3 and A4. Those are the condos,
right? I'd like to add that the R3 units also have all brick chimneys
because I think that really adds a lot to the bulding. No problem
with that? Is that all right with you, Mr. LaPine?
Mr. LaPine: No problem. I thought there were not going to be brick chimneys
on the condos because they're going to come out from the side.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Pastor
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.
19647
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 849" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on August 20, 2002, was adjourned at 1145
p.m.
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary