HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-09-2419672
MINUTES OF THE 851'' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 851s' 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 recommendafion 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 delerminafion 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 pefifions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the
Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission
may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-07-0244 MOHAMAD EI FASSIH
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-07-
02-14, submitted by Mohamad EI Fassih requesting waiver use
approval to construct a gas station and carryout 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.
19673
Mr. McCann: We have a letter dated September 20, 2002, from Elite Design and
Development regarding the proposed gas station, which reads as
follows: "Elite Design & Development is requesting from the
members of the Planning Commission to table the public hearing of
September 24 to October 8, so we can complete our work
according to the City requirements. If you have any questions
please call." The letter is signed by Mohamad EI Fassih, President,
Elite Design & Development. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Chairman, I think the tabling motion does not have to be
brought up to the table. Just change the date of it.
Mr. McCann: I think we changed it to a date certain the last time. Let's hear from
the audience.
Beverly Cross, 27407 Buckingham. Mr. Salem, the one that is going to build the
station, came over and he talked with me for quite a while. He
showed me the landscaping. We went out in the parking lot. He
showed me that. I'm quite thrilled about the landscaping. I'm not
100 percent thrilled about the gas station, but I also know I'm not
going to be able to stop it. He did mention maybe where I have a
fence in the back, confinuing the wall, because there is a wall there,
but its not the length of the fence to the sidewalk. And I've been
thinking about that, and I think I would prefer that because I get a
lot of trash from that parking lot over my fence, and that would stop
a lot of that. If everything is done like he said it would be done,
then I'm sure it would look nice. But like I've said, I'm not 100
percent happy about a gas stafion going in there, although the
landscaping is a big improvement. I've been going around like on
Plymouth Road when it enters into Livonia, that is beautiful; all
down Plymouth Road is beautiful. I've been going down other
sections. They are all nice and neat. Schoolcmft looks terrible. Its
disgusting. For all the entrances into Livonia, that one stands out
like a sore thumb. It's terrible. Even along the guardrail around the
expressway, there are all kinds of weed growing through cement.
It's a mess. So something really has to be done with that comer.
That's all I have to say.
Mr. McCann:
All right.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you the properly owner directly behind on the north side?
Ms. Cross:
Directly behind, north of it, the first house.
Mr. La Pine:
Behind the AAA building?
19674
Ms. Cross: Right. Right on the corner.
Mr. LaPine: We have to agree to some extent. Something has to be done in
that area. We don't know if this is the right thing, but at least this is
the first proposal that we've had.
Ms. Cross: I guess most people want it. I think I'm one that said no. There
might have been one other person that I don't know. But I know
everybody else that lives further down the block, they wouldn't
really be affected by R. So its going to be October 8?
Mr. McCann: Well, as Mr. Piercecchi said, there's a motion to leave it on the
table until October 8. That would be fine. Is there anybody else
who had any comments? I don't know if you can be back on
October 8, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to speak since
you came tonight. I don't see anyone else wishing to speak.
Mr. Pastor: I'll make a motion totable this until October 8, 2002.
Mr. McCann: If there is no objection, we will leave this on the table until October
8,2002.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-07-0141 TIME WARNER
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
07-01-11, submitted by John Camey, on behalf of Time Warner
Entertainment/Advance/Newhouse L.P., requesting to rezone
property located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Five Mile Road and Lyndon in the Northeast''/.of Section 21 from
R-2 to OS.
Mr. McCann: It just so happens that my cousin, Bob McCann, is the General
Supervisor and District Head for Michigan for Time Warner, so I am
going to step down and turn the gavel over to Mr. LaPine, Vice
Chairman.
Mr. LaPine: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under pefifion plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine: Mark, could you point out the lot that was in for rezoning to OS that
we denied? Which parcel was that where the photographic studio
was going logo in?
19675
Mr. Taormina:
The case that you're talking about involved a request to rezone the
two parcels that lie immediately north of this lot. Those two are
owned in common. I believe it was two years ago that there was a
request to rezone both parcels from R2, One Family Residential,
which is the current zoning dassificafion, to C-1.
Mr. La Pine:
So that was Lot 4a and Lot 5a?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't have those legal descriptions in front of me, but it would be
these two properties.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you. Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
Mr. Camey:
dated August 23, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your
request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -
Mr. Pieroecchi:
referenced petition. We have no objection to the legal description
contained therein. There are no additional rightof--way dedications
required. The site will be subject to the Wayne County Storm
Water Management Ordinance when development occurs. We
trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is
the extent ofthe correspondence.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
John Camey,
John R. Camey, P.C., 13407 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan
48150. 1 am representing Time Warner. The General Manager,
Mr. McCann, is here. We're basically doing the same thing they did
in 1995. We bought a lot. We want to rezone it basically for
parking but we don't have a site plan yet because the General
Manager needs to get approval before he adds to the building. We
anticipate adding 4,000 square feet to the building. Basically this
lot would be used as parking.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So I understand you want the subject property for future land
development? Its not for expansion?
Mr. Camey:
Since we started this, the expansion would be done to the existing
building, and this would basically be used as a parking lot.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'm sure that yodre aware that the Planning Commission and
others studied this area. In fact, we conducted a public hearing and
the Commission adopted a resolution on February 13, 2001, to
amend the Future Land Use Plan "by changing the designation of
the land area consisting of the westerly undeveloped portions of the
two most northerly parcels comprising the Time Warner site (zoned
19676
P) and all the next five consecutive parcels to the north (zoned R-2)
from Office to Medium Density Residential."
Mr. Camey:
I understand that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
We just went through that.
Mr. Camey:
Well, we were not party to that. I dont know the reasoning behind
that change of classification to the zoning map.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Do you think there ever comes a time when Time Warner may get
too large for this area and should be looking elsewhere for another
piece of property? We cant just keep going all the way up to the
cemetery. Is that your intention?
Mr. Camey:
No, it is not our intention, nor it is meant to be. I read the file in
1998 or 1999 when he wanted to make a G7 out of it. I couldn't
see C-1 there in any event. This use that we're asking for is
consistent with the use that's already there.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have a question for you. You've only got 66 feel in width on
Farmington Road and you have 585 feel in depth, but you say you
want to add onto the building.
Mr. Camey:
If you add a site plan and building, I dont know what planning adds
here. Maybe Mr. McCann can explain it. But basically the building
is L-shaped and the addition is going to go on the property that
we've already purchased.
Mr. Alanskas:
The question I have is, if you want it for parking only, why wouldn't
it be zoned P for Parking and not OS for Office Services?
Mr. Camey:
I can't say that it's going to be for parking only. We're trying to
keep our options open. The front part that would be parking, we
have no objection to that. It's just that we have to keep some
options open.
Mr. Alanskas:
Like Mr. Pieroecchi said, are there any thoughts in the future for
you if this zoning goes through, to get more property going north?
Mr. Camey:
I think this will do them.
Mr. Alanskas:
Can you guarantee us that?
Mr. Camey:
I can't guarantee you anything. I can't guarantee that we're going
to be here tomorrow, but there are no plans in any event to further
expand this facility.
19677
Mr. Alanskas: We hate to keep losing the residenlial and turn it over to office
services. This is the only concem that I have. Is this a start of
possibly more land going north that you want to eat up and use for
OS instead of residential?
Mr. Camey: With the depth of the lot and the way this property is configured, I
think it would be very difficult to have residential there. We have a
use for our own property, which is what we're trying to do. I've tried
to contact the owners of the other lots. They were suppose to
come with us to make a proposal, but they didn't seem to want to
do it. I didn't press the matter.
Mr. Alanskas: The land where Time Warner is now, is that owned by Time
Warner?
Mr. Camey:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Taormina, I believe the petitioner has stated that they were
going to add plus or minus 4,000 square feet to the building. How
many parking spaces would that require?
Mr. Taormina:
Just the addition itself, is that correct?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Sixteen additional parking spaces would be required for just the
addition of 4,000 square feet if, in fact, there is no surplus parking
available on the site as it exists today.
Mr. Shane:
That was going to be my next question. Is the site which you're
operating under now, is that entirely taken up with building and
parking oris there some additional portion of land left on that?
Mr. Camey:
I think basically it's taken up by building and parking.
Mr. Shane:
Well, ifyou only need another 16 parking spaces, I justwonder...
Mr. Camey:
If we do the building the way it's contemplated, we'll lose three.
Mr. Shane:
I was just wondering if the lot now is entirely taken up. If there is no
breathing room for additional parking spaces so you wouldn't have
to go into that additional lot you're asking for.
Mr. Camey:
I'm sorry, Mr. Shane, I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Shane:
My question was, and I'm not sure you know the answer, is there
any space lett over on your existing lot to accommodate
approximately 16 more spaces with a little rearranging?
19678
Mr. Camey: I don't think so.
Mr. Shane: It might be worth exploring as opposed to adding another whole lot
You can get a whole lot more than 16 parking spaces on that lot
you're proposing to rezone.
Mr. Camey:
If you've seen the site, I think there's a three and half fool drop from
the site to the parking lot and that's going to have to be
accommodated somehow. We're willing to put a bene in that area
so that lot entirely wont be used just for parking, including water
retention. The water has to gosomeplace.
Mr. Shane:
I understand that. The question I'm asking here is ... the reason
why I would have loved to have seen at least a schematic site plan
of some sort so I knew what you had in mind ... for you to do a
little bit more workto see if it couldn't be accommodated already.
Mr. Camey:
I'll give you the schematic as soon as I get it. That's all I can
promise you there.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Are there anyquestionsfromthe Commissioners?
Mr. Pastor:
Mr. Carney, normally when we get the rezoning for a piece of
property, we usually get a site plan so we kind of have a feel for
what's going on with that thing. Its kind of hard for me to be able to
say, "Yeah go ahead and do this" Does this make sense and all
that good stuff without being able to see exactly what you're doing.
Mr. Camey:
I understand that.
Mr. Pastor:
So that's what I would be looking for. I dont know if it would make
sense to just table this to see if you can come up with a site plan. or
depending on what you're looking for. Do you need an answer
tonight?
Mr. Camey:
No, I dont need an answer tonight.
Mr. Pastor:
As one Planning Commissioner, I would want to see the addition, to
see where the landscaping is going to be needed, and see how its
going to affect the neighbors.
Mr. Camey:
I knew for awhile that we couldn't be prepared tonight with a
schematic, but I thought we could gel the public hearing out of the
way to see if any of the neighbors had any objection.
19679
Mr. Alanskas: Usually on a rezoning, you dont have a site plan. The question is,
is it proper to go from R2 to OS? That's the question this
evening.
If I had a site plan or not, I think that's irrelevant. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
A comment to Mr. Alanskas. I don't care if we have a site plan. I
would like them to look at their own site and see whether or not
they can accommodate this addition with the land they already
have.
Mr. Camey:
We've already purchased this property.
Mr. Shane:
But that doesn't accommodate me to rezone it.
Mr. Camey:
I understand that. I didn't know if you were under the impression or
not.
Mr. Shane:
No. I don't care whether you bought it or not from a zoning
standpoint. I would just like you to go to the drawing board and see
if there is an alternative. That's what I'm suggesting rather than
using that site.
Mr. Camey:
Mr. McCann will address that.
Bob McCann,
Vice President and General Manager of Time Warner Cable. To
answer your question
as best I can, parking in our lot is a premium
right now. It
is employee parking and customer parking. There is
some available space in the back of our lot but that is the green
space we keep between ourselves and Silver Village. I think when
we originally purchased that property, we made an commitment to
keep that green space there. So this offers the only opportunity for
us to expand our building, to put an addition onto our building and
then have adequate parking for our employees and our customers.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many square feet do you have at your present location?
Mr. McCann:
About 17,000 square feet.
Mr. Alanskas:
Have you considered the thought of going up instead of going north
on the present building, just raising it higher and putting on your
4,000 or more square feel?
Mr. McCann:
It's simply cost prohibitive to do that. Our initial projections are
$125 per square foot for the addition to begin with. Its more than
$200 to go north. To go north meaning to go up.
Mr. Alanskas:
All you have is a roof. Why is it more costly?
Mr. McCann:
I'm not the architect, sir. That's what they're telling me.
IFIHBf
Mr. LaPine:
How long has Time Warner owned that parcel that you're asking to
be rezoned tonight?
Mr. McCann:
We purchased that property just under a year ago.
Mr. LaPine:
Have you talked to the two neighbors on Lots 4a and 5a to
purchase those two lots?
Mr. McCann:
He called me about three or four weeks ago and asked if we would
be interested. I asked him what his price was just out of curiosity
and I laughed at him. We really have no interest in going beyond
the property that we're looking at now.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
Diane Smith:
I represent the property at 14821 Farmington Road. That would be
three lots north of the proposed rezoning. I guess my question
would be, the two lots next door ... the vacant house and the
vacant lot ... do have a sign out proposed office space" You
know, theyre for sell. Future office space. And I guess my
concern was did Time Warner plan on purchasing these or have
they been sold? I was told they were sold and a Social Security
building was going up there. Those are owned by Mr. Lee.
Mr. LaPine:
Unless Mr. Taormina has some information, those lots are still
zoned R2. They have to be rezoned to OS to put an office there.
Al this point, to the best of my knowledge, we haven't heard
anything. Is that right, Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct. There has not been any change to the zoning of
those properties. If I could just ask Mrs. Smith, you said you
represented an interest in property that is three parcels to the
north?
Mrs. Smith:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Is that Lot 6a, m'am? Do you know?
Mrs. Smith:
Yes. I wondered because the sign has been up for quite a while on
the other two lots. The one that was petitioned to have the
photographer studio, it does say future office space.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, we denied the photographic studio. The City Council denied
it. So to the best of my knowledge, nothing has happened since.
19681
Mrs. Smith:
Okay. Because the driveway going back to the nursing home is
also OS and that would put my property and one other house right
in the middle if theywere all office space atthis point.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. We thank you for your comments.
Mr. Pastor:
I'm sorry. I might have missed it. Ma'am, were you for or against
this? I wasn't totally sure what you had said.
Mrs. Smith:
I guess I would not be against it. You know, like I say, it would
depend on the lots also directly south of my property. That would
be Time Warner moving all the way up.
Mr. Pastor:
Time Warner is only doing the first lot next to them. The other two
lots are not part of it.
Mrs. Smith:
Right. Well, the man said he had spoken to the owner three weeks
ago, and I didn't know if they were planning a purchase on that.
Mr. Pastor:
Right. He had said that he had talked to him and he said he was
not going to buy the property, at least at this time. So if the matter
at hand is the one piece of property, would you be for or against it if
it is that one piece?
Mrs. Smith:
Well, at this point, you know, it would be nice to see the site plan,
but most likely I would not be against it.
Mr. Pastor:
Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
Ma'am, I just want to tell you one thing. If this parcel is rezoned OS
and the other two parcels, the people who own those two parcels,
it's one or two people, have made some ... came to Time Warner
and said we're willing to sell at our price, but they don't want to pay
their price. The odds are, and this may never happen, but the odds
are, if this goes to OS, somebody else may want to pay that price
for those parcels. They'd have to come in an ask for rezoning, and
once this is rezoned, as far as I can see, how can you deny those
two people for the same zoning? So eventually, OS is going to
creep right up on top of you.
Mrs. Smith:
Well, I guess that would be my concern, depending on the plan for
the entire area.
Mr. La Pine:
Right. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Camey, did you want to add
something?
Mr. Camey:
I got a call from Shaw Electric. Some of their people were going to
put together a plan to develop this property. That was almost a tear
19682
ago after we purchased the property. I haven't heard from them
since. I called them and got no answer. We certainly have not
expressed an interest in that other property. They did. I thought
we would come in together if they wanted to develop it, but I
haven't heard from them.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience? Any
more questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
My thought is that we want to make sure that you don't expand
further north. And the fact that you have parking as a premium, I
would think that if we zoned that to P for parking only and not OS, it
would solve a lot of problems. If that is what your intentions are.
You said it was for parking.
Mr. McCann:
Our original intention, sir, was to put another building on the
property and use the rest of it for parking. Our further
conversations with the architects that we have working on this plan,
although ifs a little bit more costly to put an addition on the building,
it will probably serve our purposes better in the long run to put an
addition on the building and simply use that lot for parking. As Mr.
Camey refened to earlier, the additional funds for that ... I don't
write the checks; I just run the business. And I need to get
approvals for the additional funds, so we're trying to leave that
option open. It is my intention and my hope that we will just put an
addition on the building and simply use the adjacent lot for parking.
Mr. Alanskas:
So if that was zoned P for parking, that wouldn't be a problem any
more?
Mr. McCann:
No, I don't believe it would be a problem.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. McCann, I know we dont have a schematic, but can you tell us
whatyou intend to use the additional space for?
Mr. McCann:
To expand our call center inside the office. Its difficult to explain
having not been in the office or without a drawing, I understand
that, but primarily to expand our call center and a large lunchroom
and to move some office space and conference room, and some
other interior changes.
Mr. LaPine:
A motion is in order, gentlemen.
Mr. Walsh:
I want to confirm again. Mr. McCann, you're okay if its Parking as
opposed to OS.
Mr. McCann:
I don't have an issue with that, Mr. Walsh.
19683
Mr. Walsh:
I'll offer a resolution for Parking for this parcel. If I do that, Mark, we
have a prepared approving resolution. Can I just substitute Parking
for OS under Item 3?
Mr. Taormina:
For the most part, I think the conditions could, in fad, be used for
that. Before making the motion, if I might make a suggestion.
Mr. La Pine:
Wouldn't we be better off denying this petition and then making a
recommendation to the Council that in our judgment the best
zoning forthis parcel, because they only need itfor parking, is P?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, we have done that in two recent cases and, in fad, the
Council has acted upon those recommendations favorable to the
Planning Commission's action. It really doesn't matter. I would just
make the suggestion that, at least for discussion purposes at this
point, if it's possible, to just consider rezoning the easterly half of
the property in question to be consistent with the pattern of zoning
that has been established for the two southerly parcels, which are
zoned OS. Actually, the parking district could extend all tie way to
the western limits, but I'm not sure if it was indicated this evening
whether or not development all the way to the west property line is
anticipated as part of this next expansion project for Time Warner.
Mr. La Pine:
Which way do you think is the best?
Mr. Taormina:
I would suggest if all that's needed to accommodate their
expansion plans is parking, then we should consider rezoning the
easterly half of the property to the parking designation and retain
the R2 one family residential zoning classifcaton along the west
half of the property.
Mr. Piercecchi:
In other words, on Farmington Road it would stay R2? Is that what
you're saying?
Mr. Taormina:
No. The Farmington Road frontage would ... the easterly half of
the parcel would be the area considered for the rezoning to P.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That's a long lot.
Mr. Taormina:
If I can just descibe the zoning pattern that exists out here. The
OS classification exists on the property where the building is
located, which is right at the northwest corner of Lyndon and
Farmington Roads. To the north of that, you have two parcels that
extend for a depth of about 600 feet. The easterly half of those
parcels are zoned OS, while the westerly half of those properties
are zoned P, Parking. We're looking at the next parcel to the north
of that and considering whether or not to rezone it in its entirety to
either OS or P. What I'm suggesting is that maybe we only look at
a change of zoning dassificaton affecting the easterly half of that
property.
f
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Chairman, I think that there is too much confusion here, at least
for me. Without a site plan, I don't think we're getting what's best
with parking, etc., and other angles on this thing. So, with your
permission I'd like to offer a motion to table this thing.
Mr. La Pine: You have to wait a minute, Mr. Pieroecchi. Mr. Walsh has made a
motion. It never was seconded. I'm waiting for Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Pieroecchi: What was the motion? didn't record il.
Mr. Walsh: I was seeking clarification. I was going to make a motion for
rezoning to Parking. However, I find what Mr. Taormina has said
compelling. I'd like the opportunity to make sure that the petitioner
is in agreement, but I'm not certain procedurally if I'm able to do
thatnow.
Mr. La Pine: Let's firslgel a second.
Mr.Shane: I'll second it.
Mr. LaPine: Seconded by Mr. Shane.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. McCann, when I had offered for purposes of discussion, we
have now on the table a rezoning of this parcel for Parking.
Mr. McCann: Correct.
Mr. Walsh: What Mr. Taormina has suggested is that the easterly half of that
property be rezoned to OS consistent with the other two P parcels,
and that the rear be Parking. So if you look at the map as it stands.
.. do you have a map handy? Mark, I think the argument you
made is a good one. I just want to make sure I'm explaining it
correctly. You want to keep the front OS, consistent with the prior
rezonings, and the rear, the westerly portion of that property, as
Parking.
Mr. Taormina: Actually, it would be Parking for the easterly half and maintain the
residential on the west half.
Mr. Walsh: I did misunderstand.
Mr. Pastor: That doesn't get the Parking.
Mr. Taormina: It provides for all the land area, including the 66 feet, for a distance
of about 300 feet back to accommodate an expanded parking lot on
the property.
Mr. Pastor: Yes, but I believe what he said is that the back half of that property,
50 feet or so, is used as a buffer for Silver Village, so he's not going
to have 300 feet. So I think what he's asking is that it all be P,
which I think he's saying is okay because he's gang to need that
because he's going to be creating a big buffer in the back half of it.
Mr. McCann: If I can just cul to the chase. The new parcel, if it's zoned for
Parking, is fine. We're not talking about any part of anything that
we already own prior to the addition of this - anything that we
currently use.
Mr. LaPine: Do you understand exactly what were talking about here? If you
come here and look at this map, I'll try to give you an idea. Right
now you have Panting. This is OS. He's proposing that this all
become P and we'll make this OS. So we'll have P and OS.
Mr. McCann: This could be used for Office Services and for Parking?
Mr. LaPine: Yes, I guess it could. If you wanted to build a building there, you
could put the parking for that building behind here. That's what he
is proposing now. What you're saying, you want P for the whole
thing?
Mr. McCann: I thoughtthat was what you were saying.
Mr. Alanskas: If you can go along with that, it would be a lot easier.
Mr. McCann: I can go along with that.
Mr. LaPine: Do you understand what we're proposing? Right now, there's P, P
and this would be OS. Mark is saying we'll make this P, P, P and
this will stay OS, OS, OS.
Mr. Walsh: No, that wasn't what Mark has suggested.
Mr. Alanskas: We can change to make zoning from R-2 to OS and R-2 to P for
the whole parcel. Correct?
Mr. LaPine: Okay, I misunderstood. There's a motion on the floor. It has been
seconded.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Who supported it?
Mr. LaPine: It was supported by Mr. Shane, made by Mr. Walsh. You'll get the
right verbiage in there, right Mark? Any discussion?
ff rW.r
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#09-116-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, on Petition
2002-07-01-11, submitted by John Carney, on behalf of Time
Warner Entertainment/Advance/Newhouse L.P., requesting to
rezone properly located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Five Mile Road and Lyndon in the Northeast''/.of Section
21 from R-2 to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-07-01-11, be
approved, as amended, so as to rezone this properly to P (Parking)
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning represents a minor
extension of nonresidential zoning along Farmington Road in
this area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is complementary to the
adjacent OS zoning district in the area; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developed character of the Farmington Road frontage
properties on the west side of Farmington Road south of the
subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walsh, Shane, Alanskas, La Pine, Pastor
NAYES: Pieroecchi
ABSTAIN: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Vice Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. Mr. McCann, Chairman, is stepping back up.
19687
k 1=I Ai Ei$=9=k IY I[e]: DADYdr]:ErYbl•� zleIN X&J *Y11 N
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
08-02-15 submitted by Rocky Zebad, on behalf of Cooper Tires,
requesting waiver use approval to expand the use (floor area
utilized for automotive repair within the existing building) of an
existing automotive repair facility on property located on the south
side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Beatrice
Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 2.
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 September 3, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed he above -referenced petition. We have no objections to
the proposal at this time. It should be noted that the landscaping
area at the northeast comer of the site does not exist at this time
and that the drive approach at this location occupies the area to the
east line of the parcel. A portion of the approach should be
removed to conform to the site plan. 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
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 expand the use of an existing
automotive repair facility on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The
letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 5, 2002,
which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans regarding the
proposal to expand the use of an existing automotive repair facility
and have no recommendations for the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 9,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August
27, 2002 and August 23, 2002, the above -referenced Petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site did not follow
their previously approved plans, constructed and used the building
in contravention of their previous planning approval, and was
subject to a stop work order by this Department Currently they are
utilizing the newly constructed section as the revised plans show.
(2) There are cars in the parking area which have been there for
days in a storage condition. (3) Some noted conditions that were
fF iY:il
existing in October 2001 are still not corrected as follows: (a) The
landscaping is poorly maintained especially along the east property
line. (b) The parking lot still slopes toward the building at the south,
is generally in less than average condition, and has not been
double striped. (c) The dumpster gates are still in disrepair with
trash strewn about. (d) No evidence of complete landscaping
irrigation has been presented. (4) Number 6 condition of C.R. 743-
01 is not completed. This Department has no further objections to
this Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the pefitioner here this evening?
Rocky Zeban,
37731 Stableview, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I own the property on
Eight Mile Road. All the violations Mr. Novak mentioned have
been corrected except for the sealing and striping of the parking lot
which he couldn't meet. And I have a letter over here to confirm
that. He will do it as soon as possible.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
I was there last week. Where you put all the red radar ... first of
all, it was all weeded area. Now you did not take out the weeds.
You just dumped the wood chips on lop of the weeds, and already
the weeds are coming through the wood chips. How did that
correct the situation?
Mr. Zeban:
You mean in the front ofthe building?
Mr. Alanskas:
On the west side of the building where you put all the red cedar
chips, you have a lot of weeds that were there originally. Instead of
pulling out the weeds, and putting in a weed barter and then
pulling on the wood chips, you just dumped the wood chips on top
of the weeds. That's not solving the problem.
Mr. Zeban:
There were no weeds there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Oh yes, there was. I was there last week with Mr. Kim.
Mr. Zeban:
I just sent someone there last week.
Mr. Alanskas:
The weeds are sticking through that high through the wood chips
already.
Mr. Zeban:
Sir, every week I send a man over there to clean up the weeds on
the site.
f@IY�]
Mr. Alanskas:
Lel me tell you this: they are not being done. All you did was put
the wood chips on top of the weeds. You did not pull the weeds
first. Did you?
Mr. Zeban:
Sir, there were no weeds, and I don't want to argue with you.
There were no weeds. And we continue to clean it up even after
because the weeds keep coming up and we keep pulling them up.
Mr. Alanskas:
If you would like to go with me tomorrow to that facility, I would be
glad to show you what I'm talking about.
Mr. Zeban:
The weeds keep coming up.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. Pastor:
Rocky, the weeds are there. I was just there today. I just wanted
to see if a lot of this stuff was done. Your dumpster gates are not
fixed. The site isn't striped. The landscaping is in a horrible
condition. I mean, the chips that were in the landscaping boxes,
some of the them are on the sidewalk and the street. You have a
sprinkler line coming up, but the sprinkler system isn't in. There is
concrete and debris in the wood chips on the front where the door
is at. I think the City has been very lenient with you especially the
times when I was on Council. We asked you to keep maintaining
this and keep it up. We continue to approve items, but they are not
done. I mean you have ballards that are by the doors that are all
different heights. They are not painted. They are not taken care of.
You have concrete splashed on the overhead garage doors. They
are not trimmed out. There are a lot of things not done on this
place. I've heard that you're going to take care of this, but I haven't
seen it being done. And you've been doing this project for two or
three years. I'm sorry to say that I just cant at this time look at
approving anything. You say that you're going to do it. If you're
sending people over there to pick out the weeds, I'm telling you,
just like Mr. Alanskas is telling you, theyre not doing it. Then your
paying somebody for something that they are not doing, or maybe
you needed to put the weed barrier down first and that would have
solved some of the problems. But it looked like someone just con
over there and threw some chips down. And that's not what we
asked for. We asked for you to properly maintain that building and
that site. Instead of using two bays, it looks like you're using all six
bays. So there are a lot of issues here that should have been
addressed a while ago. You say here's a letter that this guy's going
to do this and this guy's going to do that. We've heard it before,
and I guess I'm tired of the same old story. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I won't expound on what's been said, but I was out there last week.
I was out there Monday of this week. What Mr. Pastor just staled,
19690
was mostly the same thing I had. What I want to gel at is, this
petition was submitted by you on behalf on Cooper Tire. What
does Cooper Tire have to do with this? Are we going to have a tine
store in there?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
We are. Now where is the lire store going in? The front of the
building?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes, around the side.
Mr. LaPine:
How much of the building is the tire store going to take up?
Mr. Zeban:
Approximately about 4,000 square feet.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you going to just sell tires here, or are they going to install
them?
Mr. Zeban:
Install them.
Mr. LaPine:
Where is that going to take place?
Mr. Zeban:
In the new section.
Mr. LaPine:
In the new section on the east side where the three bays are?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. The next question I have is, I assume now you're going to
want a sign for Cooper Tires?
Mr. Zeban:
We already have a sign.
Mr. LaPine:
Does it say Cooper Tires on d? I didn't notice that.
Mr. Zeban:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
It does?
Mr. Zeban:
It has a little logo.
Mr. LaPine:
You're not going to have any of these tires displayed outside or
anything like that?
Mr. Zeban:
No.
19691
Mr. La Pine:
I have very mixed feelings on your proposal. This thing goes back
so long and I was so emphatic when the motion was made
originally that I didn't want any more appeals or anything until you
cleaned up the place. In my opinion, it still isn't done. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Zebari:
You mentioned a few things. There are weeds; there are concrete.
You mentioned all the negative things. But have you mentioned
anything positive that I've done over the two years? Do you
remember what the building looked like? None of that you take into
account?
Mr. LaPine:
I don't want to get into that. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Zebari, we understand that you're making improvements. Most
of the improvements we see are improvements so that you can do
business, such as putting in new bays. We see a new big
alignment machine in there. We see a lot of improvements along
that way so that the building will be structurally sound for your
business. But one of the things that I remember trying to gel from
you was a Iitlle greenbelt along Eight Mile. We were going to take
that corner out and do it. This is a couple years ago. The concrete
is broken up and just put in a big pile where the greenbelt is
supposed to be.
Mr. Zebari:
Where?
Mr. McCann:
On the northeast comer.
Mr. Zebari:
I replaced that sod. Okay. In front the building has always been
wood chips and rocks. The reason you saw what you saw over
there, concrete, because it rained from the roof. Its not installed
properly. As a matter of fad, the plumbing inspector was there
today. The water comes strong to the wood chips. That's why they
were going down the driveway. When they put in those new
bushes over there, that's why you saw some dirt and concrete.
This all will be clean. If you want to table it and wail another two
weeks for me to clean it up, I have no objection, but I'm not trying to
get away with nothing. If there is anything else you gentlemen want
me to do, I'll do.
Mr. McCann:
I'm glad to hear about that. One other concem I had is that there
were 13 cars parked in the rear of Kim's Garage. Now, one of them
had the wheels blocked. We had concems about over -night
parlang of cars.
Mr. Zebari:
I have the same concerns, sir. I'm the landlord. I'm not there all
the time. I cant be there everyday and tell the tenant what to do. I
19692
mentioned it to him. As a matter at fad, I asked Mr. At Nowak to
send an inspector over there to ticket him.
Mr. McCann:
I have lolickelyou because you're the landlord.
Mr. Zeban:
So, I suppose you go there everyday and make sure the cars are
nolthere?
Mr. McCann:
That should be part of your lease agreement that he's not allowed
to park cars overnight. If he violates it, you evict him. That's why
the landlord is held responsible for his properly.
Mr. Zeban:
Okay. I have no problem with that.
Mr. McCann:
I'm not trying to do that. I'm just saying that you can't pass the
buck and say, 'Well, its the tenant" It's the landlord's responsibility
to make sure thatthe compliance is there.
Mr. Alanskas:
You say its going to be a tire store. You said they'll be installing
the tires onto vehicles. What are you going to do with the old tires?
Where are you going to put them?
Mr. Zeban
We'll keep them inside. There is a company that will pick them up.
We pay $2.00 for each fire to dispose of them.
Mr. Alanskas:
How often are they going to be picking these up?
Mr. Zeban:
As often as needed.
Mr. Alanskas:
Usually, like Belle Tire and March Tire, they sell tires also. But
when they take the wheels off, they also do brake service. Are you
going to be doing that?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you're going to be doing brake service also. Through the Chair,
Mark, wouldn't that be auto repair? Brake service?
Mr. Taormina:
That's correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, that's not a permitted use there.
Mr. Taormina:
He's fled the required paperwork, and the petition this evening is to
expand the automotive repair services to induce that portion of the
building. That's really what we're considering this evening. He can
operate the tire store today with the customer service area that was
approved previously. It was with that wavier use approval that we
stipulated that no automotive repair could take place within this part
19693
of the building, so that's why he's coming back before you to
amend the petition.
Mr. Alanskas: I was there last week. Dont you have Mr. Kim already using that
front office?
Mr. Zeban: Yes, sir. His old office was tom down and we run the trailer
outside. The City objected to the trailer. They don't want no trailer
outside. So he's using that office temporarily.
Mr. Alanskas: When you say temporarily, when is he not going to use it'?
Mr. Zeban: He will use it permanently until we get our occupancy permit.
Mr. Alanskas: When you have approval, where is he going to go for an office?
Mr. Zeban: He is going to share the office with me.
Mr. Alanskas: So he's going to be in the front also?
Mr. Zeban: Yes, sir.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Mr. Zaban, do you have any last comments before I
close the public hearing?
Mr. Zeban: I will correct all the things that you are concerned about as far as
cleaning and taking care of the weeds. The irrigation is already
done. On the west side there is a pipe busted. I already requested
a sprinkler man to go under there. He was supposed to go
yesterday, but apparently he didn't go. I have no objection to taking
care of all the things that you mention. And I'll take care of the
cars. I'll make sure no cars are left there.
Mr. McCann: The public hearing is closed. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to table this item until all the things that
Mr. Zabari said should be done will be done. That includes
repairing the dumpster door that is still not repaired. Half of the
door is tom off in the front, the wooden door. Did you notice that?
Mr. Zeban: I noticed that there was a panel missing and Mr. Kim put it up.
Mr. Alanskas: It wasn't up last week. I'd like to table this to an uncertain dale until
all that is corrected.
Mr. Alanskas: Well, I think we need to give him a date. Are you going to have it
all done in 30 days?
19694
Mr. Zeban:
I will have it done in one week.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there a second for the tabling motion?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
I appreciate Mr. Alanskas' thought, and I think it appropriate. But I
think we also have to have some kind of date. I'm looking at
October 22 or November 12. Mr. Taormina, I'll look to you for
direction.
Mr. Taormina:
Both schedules are wide open at this time.
Mr. Alanskas:
Why dont we use November 12 to give him ample time to get it all
done?
Mr. McCann:
Okay. We'll all be out to see you. Is November 12 okay with you,
Mr.Shane?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
We're going to give you a month to get everything done. I think
every one of us has been out there to look at it because it is a
concem. I think you'll see us all out there during this time. If you
stay in contact with Mark, we will stay in contact with him as well to
make sure that when we come back, everybody can just applaud
your efforts and send you on to Council and get this thing over with.
All right?
Mr. Zeban:
I have no problem. I will correct all these things. So can I come
back in two weeks?
Mr. McCann:
November 12.
Mr. Zeban:
Okay. November 12. Can I come any sooner than that?
Mr. McCann:
I'll tell you what. If you get everything done in a week, I'll entertain
a motion to bring it back sooner and bring it before the Planning
Commission iftheyll agree to it.
Mr. Zeban:
I'll have it done in one week, and he can send anyone to inspect R.
Mr. McCann:
All right. We'll take a look at d then. Right now it's set for
November 12.
19695
Mr. Pastor: Mr. Chair, also the parking blocks around the south end of the
property ...some are there, some aren't. Some are broken, some
aren't.
Mr. Zeban: Parking blocks ... I'm waiting for them to stripe and finish, and I'll
put in brand new parking blocks.
Mr. Pastor: I'm just banging it up. You need to look not just at some of the
things that we've talked about, but you need to look at the whole
site overall and gel it taken care of. Rocky, I'll say this one more
time, you've said this before. And every time you come before us
you say the same thing. I will say to you one more time, gel it
done.
Mr. Zeban: I will get it done.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#09-117-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Heating having been held by
the City Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, on Petition
2002-08-02-15 submitted by Rocky Zeban, on behalf of Cooper
Tires, requesting waiver use approval to expand the use (floor area
utilized for automotive repair within the existing building) of an
existing automotive repair facility on property located on the south
side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Beatrice
Avenue in the Northeast %of Section 2, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-08-02-15 be tabled to
the Regular Meeting of November 12, 2002.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2002-04-03-04 WESTERN WATERPPROOFING
Mr. Piercecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
04-03-04, submitted by Western Waterproofing Company
requesting to vacate a thirty-three (33) fool wide easement retained
over a portion of vacated SchoolcmR Road nghtof-way located
east of Eckles Road in the Southwest %of Section 19.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
19696
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated August 29, 2002, revised August 30, 2002, which reads as
follows: We are in receipt of the petitioner's revised legal
description for the vacation of the south portion of Schoolcraft
Road. The revised sketch of the vacation area is correct.
However, the dimension of 625.33 in the fourth line of the body of
the description is not correct and should be changed to 456.10.
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. I
would like to add that the latest plan you have received does have
the correction made so the text is correct. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
John Brent, on
behalf of Western Waterproofing, 13800 Eddes Road, Livonia,
Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us?
Mr. Brent:
No.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. La Pine:
I have a question 6r Mark. I understand the vacating, but on the
comer of Eckles Road, there is a small building. Do you see it on
this map here?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
How come the vacating isn't going all the way up to Eccles Road
there, behind that building. Is that not needed? There is no
easement that goes all the way across there?
Mr. Nowak:
When they did the site inspection of the petitioner's property, I
noted that property on the comer. There are poles and overhead
lines on that property, but only on the comer property. It does
extend easterly from there onto the Western Waterproofing
property.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. That answers my question.
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.
A motion is in order.
19697
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#09-118-2002 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, on Petition
2002-04-03-04 submitted by Western Waterproofing Company
requesting to vacate a thirty-three (33) fool wide easement retained
over a portion of vacated Schoolcmfl Road nghtof-way located
east of Eckles Road in the Southwest'''/at Section 19, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2002-04-03-04 be approved forthe following reasons:
1. That the easement area proposed to be vacated is not needed
to protect any public utilities;
2. That the subject easement is in conflict with the location of the
existing building on the affected property;
3. That the land area covered by the subject easement can be
more advantageously utilized by the property owner if
unencumbered by the easement; and
4. That no reporting City department or public utility company
has objected to the proposed vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carted and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-07-03-07 JEFF & NATALIE KWIECINSKI
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
07-03-07, submitted by Jeff and Natalie Kwiednski, requesting to
vacate the southerly five (5) feet of an existing 15 fool wide utility
easement on their property located at 37720 Northfield Avenue on
the north side of Northfield between Newburgh Road and
Stonehouse Avenue in the Southeast%of Section 31.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
IEixr•I
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated August 27, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Please be aware
that the petitioner wishes to vacate the southerly 5 feet of the
existing easement, not the easterly 5 feet as reflected in the record
to date. Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
prepared the following legal description for the easement to be
vacated. The storm sewer located on the lot will not be influenced
by this vacation. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Natalie Kwiecinski, 37720 Northfield Avenue, Livonia.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any additional information that we need to know about?
Ms. Kwiecinski:
Not really.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? If not, I'll close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#09-119-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, on Petition
2002-07-03-07, submitted by Jeff and Natalie Kwiecinski,
requesting to vacate the southerly five (5) feet of an existing 15 foot
wide utility easement on their property located at 37720 Northfield
Avenue on the north side of Northfield between Newburgh Road
and Stonehouse Avenue in the Southeast % of Section 31, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-07-03-07 be approved, contingent upon and
subject to the relocating of the affected public utility equipment
presently occurring within the subject easement area, for the
following reasons:
1. That the portion of the easement area proposed to be vacated
can be more advantageously utilized by the property owner if
unencumbered bythe easement;
2. That the portion of the easement area proposed to be vacated
will no longer be needed once the existing utility equipment
19699
that extends through the subject easement area has been re-
routed and moved further north into the easement area that is
to be retained;
3. That the Engineering Division has no objection to the vacating
of the southerly five (5) feet of the existing fifteen (15) foot
wide easement; and
4. That no public utility company has objected to the proposed
vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I would just like to thank the petitioner. Usually on an easement
you don't get this detailed information and schematic. You did a
greatjob.
Ms. Kwiecinski: Thank you.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2002-07-03-08 JEFF &JULIE LOCKLEAR
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2002-
07-03-08 submitted by Jeff and Julie Locklear requesting to vacate
the southerly five (5) feet of an existing 15 fool wide utility
easement on their property located at 37676 Northfield Avenue on
the north side of Northfield between Newburgh Road and
Stonehouse Avenue in the Southeast 114 of Section 31.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated August 27, 2002, which reads as follows: "Please be aware
that the petitioner wishes to vacate the southerly 5 feet of the
existing easement, not the easterly 5 feet as reflected in the record
19700
to date. Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
prepared the following legal description for the easement to be
vacated. The storm sewer located on the lot will not be influenced
by this vacation. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Julie Locklear, 37676 Northfield Avenue, Livonia.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any additional information that we need to know about?
Julie Locklear:
Not really. We've contacted the utilities and they don't seem to
have a problem.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? If not, I'll close the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas:
I would just like to thank the petitioner. Usually on an easement
you don't get this detailed information and schematic. You did a
greatjob.
Ms. Locklear:
Thank you.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#09-120-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, on Petition
2002-07-03-08 submitted by Jeff and Julie Locklear requesting to
vacate the southerly five (5) feet of an existing 15 fool wide utility
easement on their property located at 37676 Northfield Avenue on
the north side of Northfield between Newburgh Road and
Stonehouse Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-07-03-08 be approved contingent upon and
subject to the relocating of the affected public utility equipment
presently occurring within the subject easement area, for the
following reasons:
1. That the portion of the easement area proposed to be vacated
can be more advantageously utilized by the property owner if
unencumbered bythe easement;
2. That the portion of the easement area proposed to be vacated
will no longer be needed once the existing utility equipment
19701
that extends through the subject easement area has been re-
routed and moved further north into the easement area that is
to be retained;
3. That the Engineenng Division has no objection to the vacating
of the southerly five (5) feet of the existing fifteen (15) foot
wide easement; and
4. That no public utility company has objected to the proposed
vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canted and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2002-06-06-02 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(Athletic Schools)
Mr. Rercecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
06-06-02 submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Council Resolution #361-02, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article XVI,
Section 16.11, and Article XVII, Section 17.02, of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow the operation of athletic schools and similar
facilities as a waiver use in the M7, Light Manufadunng District,
and as a permitted use in the M-2, General Manufactunng District.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, could you tell us the history on this request?
Mr. Taormina:
Council Resolution #361-02 requested the Planning Commission to
study the question of whether or not the zoning ordinance should
be amended to allow for various types of athletic schools and
similar facilities as permitted or waiver uses within industrial zoning
districts. This matter was brought to the attention of the Council by
the Zoning Board of Appeals which in the past 2-1/2 years has
considered at least three different requests for use variances to
locate athletic training facilities within industrial buildings inducing a
martial arts school, a gymnastics training center and a dieerleading
school. More proposals similar to this are inevitable since industrial
spaces tend to be well suited for these types of uses. The Planning
19702
staff has prepared a draft version of a proposed amendment that
would add a new paragraph f under Section 16.11, Waiver Uses in
the 91 Distad, in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed language
would allow the operation of various indoor recreational facilities
and athletic training schools as waiver uses in the M-1 District.
Examples include gymnastic training facilities, martial arts,
cheedeading schools, soccer facilities, tennis courts, racket ball
and handball courts, baseball and softball practice areas, and
archery ranges. Certain other types of indoor recreational facilities
that would be inappropriate br an industrial setting such as bowling
alleys and billiard parlors are expressly excluded. Our primary
concem is that such uses not interfere with nearby industrial
operations and, in particular, the need to avoid potential conflicts
between industrial truck traffic and traffic generated by the school
or athletic facility. Since all waiver uses in an M-1 District are
permitted uses in the 92 District, the uses provided for under this
language amendmentwould be permitted within the M-2 Districts.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, why not a waiver in the M-2 District also?
Mr. Taormina:
As a waiver use within the K41 District, it would automatically be
considered a permitted use in the 92. 1 guess we would have to
differentiate for that particular use the fad that it would be
considered a waiver in both districts or just predude it altogether
within the M-2 District, which would be a reasonable option. I don't
know that we should have to open up both the M-1 and the 92
Districts for these types of uses. The M-1 would be the district that
will provide sufficient space if, in fact, we were going to consider an
amendment similar to this.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So could we just stop at M-1?
Mr. Taormina:
We could and make it a prohibited use in the M-2 District or some
other language that would limit it only to the M-1 District.
Otherwise, it would be a permitted use as I indicated in the 92
District, or you would have to provide separate language in the M-2
District making it a waiver use.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'm not inferring it should be just M-1. My question was, make it
waiver use for both of them. Can that be done?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we can do that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'd like to hear what my colleagues feel about that, Mr. Chairman.
19703
Mr. La Pine: Mark, right now if they want to get a use permit, they can go to the
ZBA for this. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. In fad, we've had three such cases recently.
Mr. La Pine: What's the overwhelming reason? Why should we change the
ordinance when they've got a vehicle they can go through to get the
variance? I dont think there's any reason to do this. Just leave it
with the ZBA. We've got three requests. In the history of Livonia. I
don't know how many times someone has come in and asked for
this. But I don't see any reason to change the ordinance just to
accommodate these things if they come in. If they come in, let the
ZBA look at them and they can give a use permit.
Mr. Taormina: I don't fink there is any justification necessarily to keep it that way
just because there is such a few number of requests. The Zoning
Board of Appeals must apply its criteria in each case. It makes it
awfully difficult for them to approve them. They simply are not
reviewing this and determining whether or not it's a compatible use
within the district. There are other tests that have to be applied in
the case of use variances, and I think that is the issue that they
have here. Although they have approved two cases recently, they
denied the third with very similar circumstances involved. I think it's
because of that concern they have drafted their resolution to the
Council aslang them to consider this language amendment.
Mr. McCann: I think Mr. Pieroecchi has a point. I don't know that M-2 would be
appropriate necessarily for these types of activities, and certainly a
change of zoning from M2 to M-1, if we felt the zoning was near
enough to a main road that it would be appropriate, would not be
unreasonable. So I would agree with Mr. Pieroecohi that maybe
just the M-1 zoning waiver use would be appropriate. The other
question you had was that bowling and billiards would not be
appropriate in this type of zoning. I guess it raises the old question
in my mind, is bowling and billiards a sport, but I won't go there
tonight. It does bring up the thought to me though that both those
are associated with liquor licenses and some type of activity along
there that I agree may not be appropriate. Rather than identifying
through sports, would we'd be better off identifying it as anything
thatwould require a restauranlora liquorlicense use?
Mr. Pastor: If you do a restaurant use, like indoor soccer places have little hot
dog stands and stuff like that, so you're looking at all those uses
having the same thing. It wouldn'tjust be for the billiards place that
would have a restaurant, although they probably wouldn't be asking
for a liquor license like the billiards and bowling alley.
Mr. McCann: Liquor license appears to be the key.
19704
Mr. Pastor: That might be more of a key, though we have to look at the whole
thing anyway.
Mr. McCann:
Any other comments? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? Are there any other
questions or comments from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I would like to get an opinion, Mr. Chairman, from the remainder,
whether they think that's a logical thing to make it a wavier use in
both, and then I will make such a motion, so be it.
Mr. McCann:
He is asking for a recommendation from the Staff as to whether or
not we should have it a waiver use in both or ...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Our people ... that loo .. they can be a part of it,.
Mr. McCann:
My recommendation would be not in 92, just a waiver use in M-1
alone.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I can buy that loo. As long as everything is waiver use. That's my
concern. I make a motion to restrict it to the M1 District as a
waiver use.
On a motion by
Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved,
it was
#09-121-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, on Petition
2002-06-06-02, submitted by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to Council Resolution 361-02, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Zoning
Ordinance #543 to allow various types of athletic schools and
similar facilities as permitted or waiver uses in industrial zoning
districts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2002-06-06-02, as amended, be approved
so as to amend Section 16.11 of Article XVI of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow the subject use as a waiver use in the M-1, Light
Manufacturing District, and that Section 17.02, of Article XVII, of the
Zoning Ordinance be amended to exclude the subject use as a
permitted or waiver use in the k42, General Manufacturing District,
for following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendment will provide for more
flexibility in determining proper locations for athletic schools
and similar facilities;
19705
2. That the proposed language amendment will provide for
adequate regulation and control over the location and nature
of the subject use;
3. That the proposed language amendment provides for the
subject facilities as a waiver use necessitating compliance with
all general waiver requirements and general standards of the
Zoning Ordinance; and
4. That the proposed language amendment will provide more
opportunities to accommodate the subject use in settings that
are consistent with the latest Vends in land uses.
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'm going to support this because in these days of intense
competition between communities to locate uses in industrial
districts, I think the more diversified we can be the better off we're
going to be. As long as we're confining this to the facilities
mentioned, I don't think that's going to be a disruption to the
general industrial climate in the industrial district. So I will support
it.
Mr. La Pine: I'm going to vote against it because I have two problems. I don't
think its really necessary for us to do this. I think the ZBA can
handle it. The other problem I have is some of these facilities that
are going to go in here, like for instance, soccer facilities, tennis
court, racket ball and handball courts, the YMCA has these at the
present time. The Y is going to lose a certain about of business
when our City recreation center goes in. Therefore, if these things
go into the industrial area and they can rent them out for a cheaper
rale than the Y, then the Y is going to gel hit twice. The Y has been
with us for many, many years and I dont think I want to take that
chance
Mr. McCann: Any other discussion? Hearing none, will the Secretary please call
the roll?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Pastor, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYES: Alanskas, LaPine
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
19706
ITEM #8 PETITION 2002-08-06-03 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(Self -Storage Facilities)
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
08-06-03, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #408-02 and pursuant to Section 23.01 (a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article XI, Section
11.03, of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for self -storage facilities
as waiver uses in the C-2, General Business District.
Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment would provide for self -storage
facilities as waiver uses in the G2, General Business District. This
item was referred to the Planning Commission by the City Council
at the request of WLW Partners, L.L.C., a company that owns and
operates self -storage facilities. Their desire is to construct a new
facility in Livonia on the undeveloped site located adjacent to the
Northridge Commons Shopping Center on the south side of Eight
Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads. This site is zoned
C-2 and was originally approved as a second phase of the
shopping center, which induced a free-standing 20,000 square foot
multi -tenant retail building that would have been occupied, at least
in part, for automotive repair services including a Good Year Tire
Store. This building was never completed and the building's
foundation remains on the property. The C-2 District regulations do
not allow for self -storage facilities either as a permitted or as a
waiver use. These types of facilities are allowed only as a
permitted use in either M -L (Manufacturing Limited), M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) or M-2 (General Manufacturing) zoning districts.
On the basis that there is little or no likelihood that this site could be
rezoned to an industrial classification that would allow for the
intended use, the attorneys representing WLW Partners submitted
a letter requesting that the City Council give consideration to
amending the zoning ordinance to allow self -storage facilities as
waiver uses in the C-2 District. The proposed language
amendment includes a number of standards and conditions which
are intended to insure that the use is only placed at suitable
locations and is compatible to surrounding properties. The
provisions induce restricting access to major roads only, prohibiting
outdoor storage or storage of any hazardous or volatile substances,
limits on the hours of operation, and provisions for screening and
landscaping of the buildings, HVAC units, and trash containers. I'd
just like to point out that any action this evening by the Planning
Commission serves only as a recommendation to the City Council
which has the final approving authority on all matters involving
changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
19707
Mr. McCann: The Planning Commission is the petitioner. Are there any
questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Norman Hyman, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, L.L.P., 32270 Telegraph
Road, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025-2457. With me are Rob
Lee of WLW Partners, and Mike Parks, our real estate man. Mike
would like to hand out to each of you, as I make my presentation,
an article that I think supports the point I made to you in the study
session a week ago about the fact that we're dealing with a new
animal here. Not only the City of Livonia, but municipalities all over
the country are wrestling with the fact that this is a new animal that
has evolved after most zoning ordinances were enacted, and
zoning ordinances have not anticipated this kind of use. This
article, which appeared in the "American Planning Association
Journal," explains how different these can go by dealing with the
situation and we fit within that kind of an approach. The
presentation we made at the study session I think fully informed
you, unless there are people in audience who would like to be
heard on this matter or would Ike to hear more about it. I don't
think I have to add anything to what I presented then. But I do want
to make this suggestion to you. We got a message at the study
session that there were concems about the fact that there might be
an open door to a proliferation of these uses at too many other
locations in the City. And I had suggested that there were ways to
look at that. I've given that some thought and I would like to
propose that you consider several additional standards in the
wavier use provision which would be acceptable to us. Standard
number one would be that the use must not abut single family
residential. Standard number two would be that the use be on
boundary roads only, so it would be only the boundary roads in the
City of Livonia that would permit these uses. Standard number
three would be a minimum site area of at least three acres. I think
with those three standards added to the standards we've already
proposed, you would have an assurance that, in addition to
standards relating to aesthetic control and screening of the
property, there would not be a proliferation of the uses throughout
the City. We're open to any questions you might have and also, of
course, to any suggestions you may have about additional
standards.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you for this article but it's four or five pages long and to try to
read in depth right now, you can't absorb it. Too bad we didn't
have it early. Number two, you're saying this is a retail operation.
You're still renting out spaces where they can store furniture and
appliances. If they pull up with a trailer to unload this to put into the
facility they are renting, and there's refuse that goes on the ground
19708
Mr. Hyman: I'd like to try to answer that. With respect to control, the standards
that we gave you last week have significant controls, inducing the
requirement of screening, fencing, really isolating this use so that it
wouldn't be part of the mall. We could even consider or agree to
adding a provision as a standard that it must be a free-standing
use, that it can't be integrated into any other buildings. That would
help to deal with your situaton, but I think we've already dealt with
that providing that the use has to be fenced and screened. Now
with respect to the other point, Mr. Pieroecchi, that you made about
the ability to locate in M districts, I think I gave you an arfide last
week, from which I read, which pointed out that this use is a retail
use. This arlide gave advice to people in the business that they
must consider this to be a retail use in site selection. They have to
be near their customers. And as I pointed out to you last week, you
and so on and so forth, who takes care of maintaining and deaning
this facility?
Mr. Hyman:
There's a resident manager.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's his job? In other words, every time someone pulls in to do
something, if there's refuse, he has to clean it?
Mr. Hyman:
He has to police the site.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Did I understand you say boundaryroads, like Eight Mile Road?
Mr. Hyman:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I thought you were really pushing for Seven Mile Road the other
night?
Mr. Hyman:
Somebody else suggested that. I wasn't pushing for Seven Mile.
Somebody had suggested that there might be some suitable sites
on Seven Mile. I don't remember who that was, but I think it was
one of your colleagues, Mr. Piercecchi. I take no responsibility for
that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
In the study, I think I could have made the point on the proliferation
of these things in C-2 areas which are plazas. If we had these
things in our plazas, I just don't think they mix. In fad, I think it's
outrageous to even consider putfing that type of facility in a mall.
To me its just not compatible. You talked about control. How can
you really control these things? As far as the setting it concerned,
we only have so many limits. If we make permitted uses, we
probably wouldn't have any argument in that. I think we're stepping
in very dangerous territory to opening up this C-2 to this facility.
Plus, there's all kind of M properly. Its not needed.
Mr. Hyman: I'd like to try to answer that. With respect to control, the standards
that we gave you last week have significant controls, inducing the
requirement of screening, fencing, really isolating this use so that it
wouldn't be part of the mall. We could even consider or agree to
adding a provision as a standard that it must be a free-standing
use, that it can't be integrated into any other buildings. That would
help to deal with your situaton, but I think we've already dealt with
that providing that the use has to be fenced and screened. Now
with respect to the other point, Mr. Pieroecchi, that you made about
the ability to locate in M districts, I think I gave you an arfide last
week, from which I read, which pointed out that this use is a retail
use. This arlide gave advice to people in the business that they
must consider this to be a retail use in site selection. They have to
be near their customers. And as I pointed out to you last week, you
19709
can divide the customer or tenant base 50-50 roughly. Half of the
people who will be using this are householders, a substantial
portion of whom will be housewives who aren't particularly
interested in going into an industrial district. The other half will be
professional people - lawyers, doctors, etc., who find that rather
than pay the additional rent in office buildings for file rooms, that
they can store their files much less expensively in these types of
facilities. And once again, you want to be near your customers.
The M Districts just don't work. They are not retail sites, and this is
a retail use.
Mr. Pieroecchi: You, sir, call this retail. I look at it as warehousing. It's a matter of
semantics here. Retail is when you go in and you buy something
and you take it out of there. This is strictly storage because I have
no use for this particular product for a given period of time and I'm
storing it.
Mr. Hyman:
I think I also said last week that we were prisoners of semantics.
We were prisoners of the word "warehouse' which evolved when a
different type of storage was being used in the market. The type of
storage we have now is not warehousing. It's totally different from
warehousing. And I'm not the only person who categorizes this as
a retail use. The article I read to you last week, which was an
article in a real estate journal telling the business where they ought
to be looking for sites. I can pull out the article again. It said the
ideal place for you to locate would be where MacDonald's is or
where Home Depot is. That's the ideal. We know that's not likely
to happen. But you must understand the article goes on to finish
and says you must understand this is a retail use and you have to
look for a retail site. This is the advice to the industry. It's not a
warehouse use. It's a retail use. The people who deal with this are
not industrial users - the typical old fashioned warehousing people.
These are housewives; they aredoclors; they are lawyers.
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou. Anybodyelse?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, what is the size of this parcel?
Mr. Taormina:
Its roughly 3.5 acres.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. LaPine, did you ask the size of the mall? That one site that
they mentioned?
Mr. LaPine:
No, I just wanted to know the parcel they want to put this on behind
the Northridge Shopping Center. It says it covers two to three
acres and I wanted to know what the size of that was.
19710
Mr. Hyman:
I might point out by the way that the arlide I gave you tonight also
points out that these uses have been painted, if you will, with the
word 'Warehouse' when, in fad, the modem use you're talking
about is not really a warehousing operation at all.
Mr. La Pine:
At the end of the article here, it says 'Toward that end, Part 2 of this
report examines standards used by communities that regulate
SSSFs as separate developments from warehouses. It will focus
on the most common problems communities must deal with -
appearance, location, and parking." Can we gel a copy of what that
was?
Mr. Hyman:
I can get you that. That canvasses a number of different
ordinances around the country.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? The public hearing is closed. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously approved, it
was
#09-122-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, on Petition
2002-08-06-03, submitted by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution #408-02 and pursuant to Section
23.01 (a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article
XI, Section 11.03, of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for self -
storage facilities as waiver uses in the C-2, General Business
District, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2002-08-06-03 be denied for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendment is not needed to
accommodate the subject land use in the City;
2. That the Zoning Ordinance currently contains sufficient
language to adequately provide for self -storage facilities in
proper locations other than C-2 districts;
3. That the proposed language amendment will promote self -
storage facilities in a zoning district intended to accommodate
retail sales and commercial services; and
4. That there is no compelling reason to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow for the subject use within the C-2 District.
19711
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. Walsh: I would just like to say for the record to my colleagues and also to
the petitioner that I have really struggled with this since we
reviewed it last week. And No", I think you have made the best
argument you can and its well done. My bottom line is, I just have
not found when we discussed it, and doing some review myself
over the last week, and then our discussion tonight, a compelling
reason for the City to amend the zoning ordinance to accommodate
this use. And for that reason, I support Mr. Shane's resolution.
Mr. McCann: That was exactly what I was going to say. You stole my notes.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Chairman, I think the denying resolution is very good. It just
about covers everything that I feel about it. I also agree with our
very capable colleague, Lt. Walsh. There is no compelling reason
to do it.
Mr. Shane: The basic reason for my objection to this particular amendment is
because I feel that we're making it for a particular petition. And
generally speaking, I dont think its a good idea. If I was convinced
that every petitioner would put up a facility such as this one
appears to be, then I might feel differently, but I don't think it's a
good idea to change the zoning ordinance to accommodate a
narrow list of petitioners, in this case one.
Mr. Alanskas: I just think this is really a tough issue. In regards to storage, I really
don't agree to the fact that people will not go to the M districts
where there are now current storage facilities. We have one on
Plymouth Road that is used very heavily by women. I went there
and visited the facility. We have one on Stark Road which is very
nice. We have one on Merriman Road which is very nice. They
are accessible for anybody to go there. Al this time, I just don't
think it's proper to put this in a C-2 district because of the fad, like
Mr. Hyman said, this is a new animal. You can't show me where
there is a lot of these anywhere in our City or any other city. It's a
starting point and at this time I don't think we should do this. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will go on to the Council with a denying resolution.
Thank you for your assistance, Mr. Hyman.
19712
Mr. Hyman: We really do appreciate the obvious wrestling you've done with the
issue. Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh: I think I speak on all of our behalf. We think the product and the
petitioner is meaningful, and there's quality to it. I think its just
changing the zoning ordinance that has caused us the most
heartburn. Its not what your client wishes to do; it was simply
where they wished to do it.
Mr. Hyman: Thank you very much.
Mr. McCann: 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 #9 PETITION 2002 -08 -SN -03 BAHAMA BREEZE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
08Sh403, submitted by Pentagon Center Condominium
Association, on behalf of Bahama Breeze, requesting approval for
additional wall signage for the restaurant located at 19600 Haggerty
Road in the Southwest%of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Haggerty between Seven
Mile and Eight Mile. Bahama Breeze is requesting approval for an
additional wall sign for the restaurant located in the Pentagon
Entertainment Center. This restaurant presently has two wall signs.
The propose sign would face south and out towards the main
boulevard drive, which runs between this restaurant and the
Champps Americana Restaurant. The petitioner has stated the
sign is needed to best utilize visibility from northbound traffic on
Haggerty Road. The existing signs on the building face to the north
or toward Eight Mile Road and to the west or out toward Haggerty
Road. City Council approved these signs back on May 3, 2000.
Because the existing two signs were in excess of what is permitted
by the ordinance, Bahama Breeze was required to gel a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals. A variance (case #2000-03-28)
was granted for two wall signs on March 28, 2000. Signage is
summarized as follows: Existing Signage: two wall signs totaling
100 sq. R. in sign area, one on the north elevation ("Bahama
Breeze') which is 40 sq. R. and one on the west elevation
("Bahama Breeze') which is 60 sq. R. Signage Permitted br this
site under Section 18.50H is one wall sign not to exceed 140 sq. R.
19713
in sign area. The Proposed Additional Signage is one wall sign on
the south elevation ('Bahama Breeze") at 106 sq. R. Excess
Signage is two wall signs at 66 sq. ft. in wall sign area. Because
the new sign in effect nullifies the existing variance from the ZBA,
the petitioner would need a new variance for excessive signage.
The proposed sign is also nonconforming because it would be
located on the roof. Part of the Sign Package (page 3 of 4) shows
an illustration of what the sign would look like on the building. It
looks to be, and the note on the page specifies, a roof mounted
sign. The ordinance specifies, "no portion of the sign may project
above the roof or parapet line." A roof mounted sign requires a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated September 5, 2002, revised on September 12,
2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August
28, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) This Petition does note the presence of
several unauthorized wall signs at the west entrance. There is a
2.5 square foot sign with their hours and a two square foot sign
about job opportunities. There are also two signs about drinking
and driving of two to three square feet each. They have some
allowed window signage in place also. In addition, it appears they
have portable signage they put out in the evening of the `sandwich -
board" type. The Petitioner may wish to revise their Petition to
include these unauthorized signs. (2) This Petition must go to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for a third sign, which is a prohibited roof
sign to modify Zoning Appeal Case No. 2000-03-28, where they
were granted two wall signs at their current size. (3) This site has a
tree that has been removed in an island near the southeast comer
of the building, which needs to be replaced. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tim Schaffer,
Allied Signs, Inc., 33650 Gifios Drive, Clinton Township, Michigan
48035.
Mr. McCann:
You are the sign company?
Mr. Schaffer:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
Do we have a representative from Bahama Breeze?
19714
Mr. Schaffer:
Yes, we do.
Hobert Witworth, 26440 Berg Road, Southfield, Michigan.
Mr. McCann:
Do you want to tell us the need for the additional signs and why
you're here tonight?
Mr. Wtworth:
We feel that we're not getting enough visibility from the south side,
from Haggerty from Seven Mile to Eight Mile. There is just a need
for additional signage. The slope of Haggerty almost blocks the
view of our sign that is facing Haggerty Road.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
How many people do you serve in a evening, roughly, on an
average?
Mr. Wtworth:
Roughly? Quite a few, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
200? 300? 400?
Mr. Wtworlh:
400 to 500 people.
Mr. Alanskas:
I've been to your facility at least ten times, and I have found that if
you dont gel there before 6:00, you have at least an hour to two
hour wail to gel in your facility to eat. You are that busy. So people
are finding your restaurant. If you are feeding 500 people an
evening, people are finding your restaurant. Secondly, you are two
signs over what you are already permitted. Now you're asking for a
huge sign on your roof. Why do you need it? I mean I have friends
that I say, "Have you been to Bahama Breeze yell "No, I haven't."
I say, "It's excellent food" "Where's it at?" Here's how you gel
there. I mean I'm a walking advertisement for you. I tell them how
to gel there. People have no problem finding it without a big sign
on the roof. If you're that busy, what is the need?
Mr. Schaffer:
That would be for visibility for the northbound traffic on Haggerty
Road.
Mr. Alanskas:
But what I'm saying, sir, is without the sign, people are still finding
your restaurant.
Mr. Schaffer:
We feel that not enough people are finding the restaurant. We'd
like to be afforded the same opportunity with the advertising as our
neighbors are.
Mr. Pastor:
You have extra wall signs so you are getting more than the other
people or most of the people. Restaurants are usually allowed one
19715
wall sign. You have two. When I was on Council, I know I surely
voted against having the extra signage at that point. You say two
hours. Sometimes it's three and four hours. You have enough
people out there. I believe this is one of your best restaurants in
the country?
Mr. Witworth: Yes, sir.
Mr. Pastor: I appreciate that you always want to get more and more business.
That goes to advertising and all that stuff. People know where you
are. People know your building. Part of your signage is the way
your building is built. I just find it really hard to believe that you
really need this sign to get more people in there. I'll just limit my
comments to that.
Mr. LaPine: I just want to agree with everything that's been said here. When
this restaurant originally came up, I kind of thought when you had
an opportunity to get two signs, you should have put one on the
north and one on the south. I thought the one on the west sign was
kind of redundant because once you gel in front of the building, you
can tell that's the restaurant. I think you figured you made a
mistake so now you want a third sign. Secondly, I drove out there
coming from the south going north and really you gel a grade that
goes up there even when this sign is up there. Because of the
engineering building there, that round building, you're going to have
some visibility probably with that building. So here, again, I think
you're doing a good business there. We're glad to have you in
town. But at this point, with the business you're doing, I dont think
you need a third sign. Once the people find it, even if they go by it,
they're going to see it and then they're going to tum around and
came back. And I found from my own experience, when I miss a
restaurant, and I find it and come back, I never miss it again. And
you probably get a lot of repeat business. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McCann: What we have as a rule is that if you can show us a real hardship
for exceeding the sign ordinance, that you'd want a variance, you'd
have to go to the ZBA. The standard is hardship. That is the real
problem. I don't think with the current business climate that you
have a hardship. I guess my only thought in visiting the site is the
directional sign from the theatre because there's no real indication
which restaurant is which. But I dont think that's a real problem.
You know what a Champps looks like or you know what a Bahama
Breeze looks like. You kind of got your choice. What about the
tree that was removed. Are you familiar with that? Can you tell us
aboutthat?
19716
Mr. Witworth:
Yes, sir. As part of about a $30,000 fix up/renovafion, we're going
to fix that landscaping issue. All of them ... within the next three
weeks, if not sooner.
Mr. Shane:
If you had to choose between the sign on the porlecochere and the
sign on the north side, which one would you choose?
Mr. Witworlh:
You know I'm not really authorized to make that choice.
Mr. Shane:
Which one gives you the best advertisement, the one on the north
or the one that faces west?
Mr. Witworth:
I think its the one on the north.
Mr. Shane:
Why don't you take the one off the front and put it on the south
side? Take one sign down and replace it someplace on the south
side if that's what you want to do.
Mr. Witworlh:
Would that be acceptable if we got rid of one of the other signs?
Mr. Shane:
It would be to me.
Mr. McCann:
Do you want us to table it and review that possibility?
Mr. Schaffer:
Ifwe go through tonight and say we are denied, we could then go
to the ZBA?
Mr. McCann:
You could appeal our decision to the City Council.
Mr. Schaffer:
We could not go to the ZBA from this point?
Mr. McCann:
No.
Mr. Pastor:
It would go to the City Council and then to the ZBA.
Mr. McCann:
Only if the City Council approves ...
Mr. Pastor:
Right, or denies it.
Mr. Schaffer:
I think we will stand for a vole tonight.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
19717
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously approved,
it was
#09-123-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-08Sh403,
submitted by Pentagon Center Condominium Association, on
behalf of Bahama Breeze, requesting approval for additional wall
signage for the restaurant located at 19600 Haggerty Road in the
Southwest%of Section 6, be denied for the following reasons
1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the
requirements outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. That the applicant has not justified the need for any additional
signage for this location over what already exists on the
building;
3. That additional signage is not necessary due to the fad that
this restaurant has great visibility from Haggerty Road, has a
unique architecture that attracts attention to it and is part of a
very busy entertainment campus;
4. That approving a roof mounted sign would set an undesirable
precedent for the area;
5. That the Petitioner comply with the Building Department's
request for the trees and the signs to be brought back into
compliance; and
6. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the
City's best interest.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pieroecchi: I would just like to commentthal I think Section 18.50h has been
stretched far enough now by allowing the second sign, and then to
go again and then be 66' square feel in wall sign area over and
above what's allowed in Section 18.50h is really stretching it.
Mr. McCann: I would like to say I think you're a good corporate neighbor. We're
very proud to have you in our City. We're glad that you're doing
extremely well. But we have to be fair to all business. We try to
limit the number of signs. But you understand where we're coming
from. We think you're doing a great job over there and I applaud
you on that. But l dont think its appropriate.
19718
Mr. LaPine: Before the vote, can I askjust one question of Mr. Shane? I agree
withyourplan. My understanding is that if they should go that route
somewhere along the line, the sign that's on the west side would be
moved to the north, not the 106 square foot sign that they're asking
for.
Mr. Shane: That's right.
Mr. Alanskas: Not on the roof.
Mr. Pastor: I wasn't approving the original sign package. Like all corporate
cifizens, they need to be on the same competing field, one wall sign
deserves one wall sign for every building in there. So, again, if they
were to do that, I would still be against it like I always have about
signs in the city.
Mr. La Pine: Doesn't Champp's have two signs?
Mr. McCann: Champp's has three signs.
Mr. Pastor: I was against Champp's and the same for Alexander's.
Mr. McCann: Champp's got there before you. I think it also has to do with the
size of the signs. The Bahama Breeze sign you have there is quite
large out front.
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.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 851st Regular
Meeting held on September 24, 2002, was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman