HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-03-1120149
MINUTES OF THE 861"PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 861s' 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 Walsh
Carol Smiley
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; Bill
Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Marge Roney, Secretary, were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2003-01-01-04 OPEN DOOR CHRISTIAN
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
01-01-04, submitted by Pastor Mark Freer, on behalf of Open
Door Christian Church, requesting to rezone property at 16751
Middlebell Road located on the West side of Middlebelt between
Munger Avenue and Su Mile Road in the Northeast '/. of
Section 14 from OS to RIF.
20150
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?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated February 10, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. No further right -0f -way dedication is
required. The following legal description should be used in
conjunction with this petition. 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?
Pastor Mark James Freer, Open Door Christian Church, 29520 Munger, Livonia,
Michigan 48154.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about the petition
this evening?
Pastor Freer: The purpose is to join the whole property as one. When we
purchased it a year ago, we tore down an old home that was in
pretty sad condition. We've deared the area, planted grass and
cleared out a lot of dead trees. We want to make something
nice visually to the church from Middlebelt. There are no plans
to build anything on that property. The only thing we want to do
is put a sign on the property on Middlebelt Road. That was our
main reason for purchasing it.
Mr. McCann: All right. Thank you. Are there any questions from the
Commissioners? No? Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Steven Band, Band Commercial Real Estate, 30600 Telegraph, Suite 2250,
Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025. I'm one of the members of
the Kings Row Shopping Center. I'm speaking on behalf of
Kings Row. I talked to Mr. Nowak regarding this. I guess part
of the question on his land is, there is no plan at this point to do
anything with that parcel. Our concern is, due to the nature of
the center, there is someone in there that does sell wine. We
are under the impression that if any kind of building or structure
is on there, there may be an issue with the licensing, and what
can go in the center, because there are certain uses that can go
20151
in next to a building that may be next to a church facility. I
guess apparently this may be under State control?
Mr. McCann: There are state and local controls, and it has to do with the sale
of beer, wine or liquor within a certain distance of a church.
However, if you're the preexisting condition, you'd be
grandfathered in, I believe. Is that true, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: That would be the case. As I understand it, the Wine Source is
the tenant that you're referring to at that plaza?
Mr. Band: Right, but we may end up changing units for them, or someone
else may come in. Originally, when we did the addition, they
were supposed to go in where the current suntan salon is. We
came before this Board and the Council. That was the one that
was there. I think we're within, I'm not sure if its a 200 fool rule,
400 foot or yards, however it applies. And I understand an
issue may come in with grandfathering, but we were told that
the State may be the overseer on this. If theyre saying, "Look,
there is going to be no building on this," that's another issue, but
if a couple years down the way, they decide to build on there,
we may have a limitation. The question is how to grant them
what they want and not tie our hands. And l cant answer that.
Mr. Taormina: Well, I dont think it's something that can be answered at this
point in time. It may be that a portion of the existing building
already is within 400 feet, which is our requirement as far as the
minimum distance between this type of licensed establishment
and a church. But I think as Pastor Freer indicated earlier, they
have no planned expansion at this point in time, and it's likely
that any future expansion may actually be on the existing
building to the north. Maybe he can clarify that. Idontknow.
Mr. Band: We know plans can change. Is there anyway to grant what they
want and give us a permanent variance in case we need it?
Mr. McCann: I dont think it would be good public policy to do that: to plan to
limit a church's right to expand based on a developer saying
someday in the future I may want to put a liquor license there,
so I dont want a church there. So at this point, we have this
before us to change the land into an RUF zone. That is the
issue before us tonight. Further, if you have a current license,
you're entitled to keep it. If there is a problem and you need to
move them within the mall, and it may be even closer to the
church, that's something that can be taken up with the Zoning
Board of Appeals. We've had this happen before where the
liquor license at Showernan's moved actually closer to the
church. But because it was an existing license, that was
20152
something that was granted a variance. But it's not something
that we can condition with any type of zoning. We don't even
have that rightto condition the zoning.
Mr. Bands:
We just dont know how to deal with it. The problem could come
up, and we're trying to see what may happen in the future.
Paster Freer:
I could add that when we were in Northville, they put a bar in
right next door with an 4oining wall to our church downtown.
The Slate Liquor Control Commission said, 'We have no
problem with that." Even if we had an objection, the Liquor
Control Commission said that it was an existing license in
another part at the town, but they put it there.
Mr. McCann:
We're getting pretty far adrift. The question is whether RUF is
the proper zoning there. That's the issue before us tonight.
Obviously, that's something we have to deal with, not regarding
the liquor license laws. Is there anything further?
Mr. Bands:
I don't know if there's anything else to ask. Those are our
concems.
Mr. McCann:
I understand. Is there anybody else wishing to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to dose the
public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. La Pine:
First, I'd like to say I was out to the diuroh, and the Pastor was
very congenial to me and Mr. Piercecchi. He gave us a tour of
the church, and he really did a nice job on that sanctuary. It
used to be gym. He basically wants this parcel just so he can
get a sign. He told us what he paid for it, which was a lot of
money. I give him a lot of creditfor doing that.
On a motion by
Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#0333-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003,
Petition 2003-01-01-04, submitted by Pastor Mark Freer, on
behalf of Open Door Christian Church, requesting to rezone
property at 16751 Middlebelt Road located on the west side of
Middlebell between Munger Avenue and Six Mile Road in the
Northeast % of Section 14 from OS to RUF, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2003-01-01-04 be approved forthe following reasons:
20153
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in
the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
entire site owned by the church to be similarly zoned;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the use
of the subject property for churclrrelaled purposes; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will remove unused
nonresidential zoning in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. Itwill goon to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-01-01-05 K P BUILDERS
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-01-01-05, submitted by Ronald Parz, on behalf of K P
Builders, requesting to rezone properly at 35300 Joy Road,
located on the north side of Joy Road between Wayne Road
and Harvey Avenue in the Southwest''/. of Section 33 from RUF
to R-1.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCann: Yes, Mr. Alanskas?
Mr. Alanskas: Due to a conflict of interest, I will not be participating in this
petition.
Mr. McCann: Lelthe record reflect that Mr. Alanskas is stepping down.
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?
Mr. Nowak: There are two items of correspondence. The first letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 12, 2003, which reads
20154
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
objections to the legal description and the proposed layout
contained in the submittal. The legal description has a closure
error of 1.21 feet, which is unacceptable in a 1,356 foot circuit.
The error appears to be clerical and if the bearing that reads,
'01 degrees 59 minutes 10 seconds' was changed to '01
degrees 50 minutes 10 seconds,' then the legal would match
that which is in the City's system and have an acceptable error
of closure. The following items are problems or concems the
Engineering Division has with the site layout. (1) The right-of-
way is only 50 feet wide with no apparent hardship as to why it
could not be made a standard 60 feet wide. The problem with a
50 foot right-of-way that includes a 28 foot wide roadway and 5
foot wide sidewalks is that t doesnY allow for adequate room
between the sidewalk and back of curb for the placement of
trees in the public right -0f -way (only a 5 foot wide strip of green
space). (2) The mad is more than 300 feet long and does not
provide for a cul-de-sac tum around at the end. This is
unacceptable to the Fire Department. Attached is an
acceptable alternative that makes the mad less than 300 feet
long and gives the developer the same number of lots. (3) The
Engineering Division will not allow for the placement of a 5 foot
wide greenbelt area along the west property line that is not part
of the public right-of-way. These are general referred as buffer
strips and are considered anti -development in nature. It should
be noted that the developer would be required to meet the
requirements of the Wayne County Storm Water Management
Ordinance for the proposed development." The letter is signed
by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is
from Darwin and Linda Glass, 35380 Joy Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48150, dated February 6, 2003, which reads as
follows: "We are wiling this letter to express our views on the
request you are looking into for rezoning the property at 35300
Joy Road from RUF to R-1 residential. We have lived here for
30 years and enjoyed the open space and not Irving in a
subdivision. If the property next door is rezoned to R-1
residential, our house will now become part of a subdivision
even though it will be RUF zoning. The developer has made it a
point to come to our house and tell us all the negative things
that this project will impact our property. He then offered to buy
our property at well below market value. Needless to say, we
refused his offer. The developer went over his layout of the
project with us pointing out that he was going to surround the
new public road with a five foot strip of land which he would put
in trust in his name, which means he would be the only one that
could develop our property with access to the so-called public
road. Looks to us like a private road that will be plowed and
20155
maintained with Livonia tax dollars if he is allowed to do this. If
the City of Livonia approves this project, we would ask that the
developer not be allowed to seal off the new public mad for his
private gain by putting a strip of land in trust that would seal off
the road. We would also request that the developer be made to
put up a fence between the project and our property for the
following masons: (1) There is an existing fence the full length
of the property now. (2) We keep our whole yard neatly
maintained and without a fence. We feel this nice open space
will be an invitation for the children in the subdivision to use it for
a playground. Also, the people from the subdivision will think it
would be a great place b walk their dogs to take care of their
potty needs. We do not need these hassles created by this
project. We really think it should be a privacy fence. Nothing
less than a four foot cyclone fence should be considered if you
approve this pmject. We thank you for your consideration and
would like to extend an invitation to all Council and Board
members to stop by our home and see how this proposed
project will impact the area." That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the pefitioner here this evening?
Ronald Parz, KP Builders, 31153 Plymouth Road, Suite 104, Livonia, Michigan
48150.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about your
petition?
Mr. Parz: I withdraw the subdivision plan. I'm here to talk about if this is
the right piece of properly to rezone R-1. Does it ft with the City
of Livonia's overall plan for l-1 zoning, and is it a benefit to the
City of Livonia that R-1 zoning proceed?
Mr. McCann: All right.
Mr. Parz: That's the question before the Planning Commission.
Mr. McCann: I assume that your position is that R1 is a proper zoning. Do
you want to tell us why?
Mr. Parz: I would think that R-1 is the proper zoning for that particular site
considering that my neighbors to the east of me all live in R1
zoning. Most of the houses in that particular area, within a
quarter of mile either which way of me, sit on R-1 zoning homes
- a zoning that was put in place 60 and 70 years ago, being
RUF, in order to control such things as water quality and septic
because there are no sewers over there. We wanted to insure
20156
that people had one acre lots, etc., etc., is maybe not apropo
today, 60 years later in a highly urbanized area and considering
that you have now sewer and water, which are both a public
use. So therefore, in going with the City of Livonia's principle . .
. I just drove into the City today, there's a little sign 'Where
families comes first,' ... one house on two acres, I would think
is one thing, but to have six or seven houses on 60 fool lots ...
as a matter of the fad, the lots would be a little larger than 60' x
120'. It would be a larger lot, would probably be better for the
City of Livonia from the standpoint of taxes, from the standpoint
of school revenue, of which I understand that the City is going to
be suffering from both and its school system. All of this helps to
do this. So it fits the philosophy of the City of Livonia: families
are first, that we encourage family development, that we
encourage single-family development. I'm here to work with the
City.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Parz, how long have you owned the property?
Mr. Parz:
I've owned the properly since May, 2002.
Mr. Shane:
Is there a current resident on the property?
Mr. Parz:
Yes, there is.
Mr. Shane:
Renting the property?
Mr. Parz:
Yes, there is, and d is so filed with the City of Livonia that its a
rental property.
Mr.Shane:
Thank you. Thats all for now.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Parz, I agree with you. The parcel to the east is all R-1 and
there are some parcels to the west that are R-2. But there are
also some parcels in the rear that are RUF. You don't feel that
this can be developed with two lots or three lots?
Mr. Parz:
You know something? I had a long discussion with the Berean
Bible Church. Is that what you're speaking to, the property to
the north?
Mr. LaPine:
Right.
Mr. Parz:
They had indicated after I had provided them with a series of
plans and worked with both the Pastor and, I guess, the elders,
they felt that their original intent of purchasing that property
20157
some 50 years ago is sell what they wished to do in the way of
God's work. Their idea is to continue with the Berean Baptist
Church there and one day to develop a senior citizen facility for
their denomination. Now understand, when I did work with them
closely in developing this site, that was with the intent of going
in and doing something in the way of a senior citizen
development there.
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. Assuming that it was rezoned to R7, the Engineering
Department stated that there is "no apparent hardship" not to
put in a standard 60 foot wide road. Would you be willing to put
in the 60 foot wide road?
Mr. Parz:
I'd be willing to put in either a 60 foot road or a private road,
whatever the case may be to accommodate the City.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Lel me back up and tell you a little bit of our discussion. Al the
study session last week, we believe that you may be able to gel
three lots in there in with its current zoning. Have you
considered that as a possibility?
Mr. Parz:
No.
Mr. Walsh:
So in order to develop it in your manner, you must have R-1?
Mr. Parz:
Well, you know something? My question for the City is: Is this
the highest and best use of the property, Mr. Walsh? When an
investor looks at the property, when you look at it, do you say
that three lots versus seven lots is the highest and best use of
the property? Will somebody come in and pay me for houses
that come in maybe at about $185,000 to $220,000? Will
somebody come in and pay a much higher figure than that? So,
I would think that in looking at the property, I should be entitled
to the highest and best use of the property, given the
surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Walsh:
All right Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Parz.
Mr. McCann:
I guess, Mr. Parz, just to play a little of the devil's advocate, I
don't believe people should pay property taxes for the benefit of
all the neighbors. But on the other hand, I believe that its
appropriate and good city planning to have mixed uses. We
have commercial; we have R7; we have R-2; we have R3; we
have R4.
Mr. Parz:
Correct.
20158
Mr. McCann:
And we don't say, okay, this end of the City or this portion of the
City only gets R-1. We have R-1 in the north and we have R4
in the north. I think as the City has been developed, there has
been an effort to try and retain larger parcels of land. Obviously
two acres is a little bit much, but is there someplace in between
that could provide ...
Mr. Parz:
Well, Mr. McCann, lel me explain to you that I agree that some
parts of the City have 1A and 4A, whatever you discussed
about. But I'm using a future plan use for the City of Livonia that
you people have approved, that the Council approved. They
have indicated to me on this plan, where my property is located
at, that they said low density residential housing from one to five
acres. I have two acres over there, and I'm only proposing
seven houses where this plan that you have approved allows
me to put in ten.
Mr. McCann:
It also allows you to maintain it in RUF status loo.
Mr. Parz:
You know something? You're absolutely correct. I don't want to
maintain it that way. That's why I'm coming over here to talk to
you about changing that.
Mr. McCann:
I'm just seeing if there was any in between. Thank you.
Mr. Parz:
Thankyou.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Parz, you mentioned seven homes in this area. Have you
looked at how many homes you could put in there by retaining
the RUF?
Mr. Parz:
I have no idea. If you can give me seven, I'll retain this RUF in
there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I would assume ...
Mr. Parz:
Two?
Mr. Piercecchi:
According to my information, a two bedroom home, you should
be able to gel two of them in there per RUF acre, that would be
about four. I don't know if you could actually get four by the
time you get a road in there.
Mr. Parz:
That would be very tough. By the time you put the sewer, the
water, the road, etc. and etc., the costs become prohibitive
because what happens is by the time you do the approach and
you figure out that you have to do what the Engineering
20159
Department says over here, that I've got to comply with the new
Wayne County sewer and water and this and that, it becomes
cost prohibitive. So every time it would seem that we come over
here and they say, give us less and less and less, there is a
government agency someplace in America saying you've got to
spend more, more, more. And at one point, you begin to break
down or you simply say gve us more zoning or give us more
lots to cover this cost. You're asking me to put a 60 fool road
in? I elected to put a 50 fool road in. You said that's not good
enough. So you ask me to put in an approach and make it
smaller. Wayne County asked me to put some more sewer,
more this, more that in. These costs become prohibitive. And
all I do is pass these costs onto the taxpayer or the homeowner
of the City of Livonia. Eventually, they say we can't afford to
buy here the type of homes that I build.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That letter, sir, that was passed on about the road and things of
that nature, that would be phase two of this operation. Right
now, our only concern is whether the RUF zoning should be
retained or should it be changed to R-1. That's what we're
discussing here.
Mr. Parz:
That's true.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But it doesn't hurl your cause to let us know exactly what your
basic plans are.
Mr. Parz:
My basic plan is that the subdivision that I built on Plymouth
Road west of Newburgh at Jughandle, I intend to develop the
same type of product over here on bigger lots.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But it looks like its a very difficult piece of property to develop.
Mr. Parz:
Pardon?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It looks like It's a very difficult ... actually, I don't know if you're
aware of it ... the Engineering Department gave us an alternate
type of plan. Did you see that?
Mr. Parz:
You know something? I will tell you this: I would not, under
good conscious, develop that piece of property that way in
which the Engineering Department showed me.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'm not a developer.
Mr. Parz:
It was done as an aid to me. But if you look at what that
property
has over there, that property has some unique features
on
it. Okay. And unique features are really the trees that are on
20160
there. There are some very nice stands of trees. So I teed the
buffer belt, I tried to talk to homeowners which you people
always encourage me to do before coming over here, etc., etc.
Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't work. Okay. See
what happens? I engaged who I thought was the best planner
in the City that I knew of, that's Mr. Nagy that came up with this
idea. It didn't work. The City Engineer Vied to help me out.
The Engineering Department tried to help me out and put
something over there, but it doesn't work either. So something
else has to come up, something I'm thinking about. But you
want to know something? Al this particular time, we're talking
about the R1 zoning and that of RUF zoning, and we're getting
oft focus over there. But I appreciate you're helping me, though.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Seeing no one else, I'm going to go to the
audience. You'll have an opportunity after the audience. You
can come down to either podium and please give us your name
and address.
Donald DeVore, 8853 Russell. My house backs up directly to this piece of
property. The petition, signed by almost 100% of the people
surrounding this piece of properly, opposes this rezoning. Our
reasons are many. First oft, on two-thirds of the sides of this
property is still, as you mentioned, zoned RUF. I realize there's
a lot of R7 around there, but two-thirds of this border is zoned
RUF at this point. Safety issues, we're including school bus
issues as far as the school bus having to possibly back up into
this or around this dead end street. Along the same lines, you
have garbage pickup, street cleaning and snow removal. All of
that is going to be kind of difficult on a dead end street. Also,
the green space he's talking about, this five foot green space
and saving these trees. These trees are 40 - 50 - 60 feet tall.
Five feet of green space is not going to contain that. On the
east end of the property, directly behind me, his plan calls for a
retention pond. I don't know about you, but I dont know if we
need anymore standing water silting around, especially after
last years mosquito problem. And you're just talking about the
general destruction of the woods and open space that
everybody in this neighborhood enjoys at this particular time.
One more thing is, this is a copy of the January 29"' minutes
from the City Council meeting. The resolutions unanimously
passed as to save RUF and R5 zoning. This goes along with
House Bill 5029. And the last piece of information, Mr. Parz
claims he owns this property since last May. As of today in
public records, the name on this piece of property is that of
Peggy Schron, who is the wife of the City Engineer. So I just
wondered if the Planning Commission could maybe look into
that and dear that up for us.
20161
Mr. McCann:
That's not something that the Planning Commission looks at.
They have to provide ownership as far as when they file the
abutting documents. That's something the Planning
Department would look at. The petitioner has a right to petition
to change the zoning on the property. If it hasn't caught up to
the City's Assessors Office, then that may be a case between
registering ....
Mr. Devore:
I understand Wayne County is pretty slow at this stuff, but from
May, I mean we're talking nine months. That's a long time.
Mr. McCann:
Being in the field, I understand that does happen, though.
Mr. DeVore:
Do I hand this petition in?
Mr. McCann:
Is that a petition?
Mr. DeVore:
It's a pettion. Like I say, its almost 100% all the way around.
Mr. McCann:
All right. We will put that in the file and make it part of the
record and it will go on with our report to the City Council.
Mr. DeVore:
Okay.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, is there anything additional you'd like to add?
Mr. Taormina:
No.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, if that protest petition goes to Council, do they have to get
six votes?
Mr. Taormina:
If it is determined that it meets the criteria of the ordinance and
constitutes a valid protest petition, then, yes, at the time of the
Council vole, ilwould require a three-fourths majority vote.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Sir, name and address please.
Jim Richardson, 35460 Joy Road. That's about four lots down from where this
rezoning petition is from. My problem with it, I'm dead set
against it. My problem with it is I live on this 1.2 acres there.
It's rural to me. I bought it because it was rural. Improvements
or changes to R1 just add more people in the area. I'm not
against more people in the area, but I am against it in this
location. Joy Road is a two-lane road. I think more traffic would
be encountered because of it. I also have right-of-way for
elechical, cable and telephone lines on my properly. I assume
the improvements for the change here to R-1 would require new
20182
electrical service, cable service and phone lines through my
property. I like it the way it is. I dont need any additional power
lines or anything running through there. Also, I assume that on
the front part of the properly they'd give 18 feet to the City for
right-of-way. Is that correct?
Mr. McCann:
That's something that would have to go before the Engineering
Department and City Council. Today, we are just looking at
whether or not it is appropriate to change the zoning from RUF
to R-1.
Mr. Richardson:
As it stands, RUF, that 18 feet belongs to the current property
owner. There are four lots that own that 18 feet. I just view this
as if they expand Joy Road in the future to a four lane road or a
five lane road, they'll be coming after 18 fe et of my property.
Mr. McCann:
Probably.
Mr. Richardson:
I'm dead set against that. And I assume the two property
owners due west of this piece of property would not care for that
either.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. After this gentleman, if there is no me ready to
speak, I'm going to dose the public hearing. If there is
someone, please come forward and be ready to speak. Sir,
name and address please.
Tom Hamman,
35335 Joy Road, Westland, Michigan. I'm the one you're going
to pay the least attention to. I live in Westland. But his street is
going to dump right into my driveway. I'm right across the street
from this property. The reason I bought my property is so I
wouldn't be living in a subdivision. Now you guys and gals are
telling me you want to put a sub in?
Mr. McCann:
We're not telling you anything. We're here to listen to the
arguments for and against the rezoning, and then we will make
a decision and recommendation to the City Council. That's all.
Mr. Harriman:
Then I plead with you, don't do it. It's a great area. The
neighbors across the street, that's a quiet area. I grew up in
Detroit. You guys have no idea how good you have it out here.
I can't believe Livonia needs the taxes that lheyre going to get
from these six small homes that this guy is going to put up.
Theyre just like down the street. Fill up a couple of these strip
malls and you'll get more than enough lax money. Give the
homeowner a break for a change. These people all bought over
there because it's rural. They're not looking for a whole bunch
of neighbors. I can't believe, for starts, that getting out of my
20163
driveway is going to be easy. You're going to have a street
dumping into my driveway. Where there's one home, now
there's going to be seven. I believe their detached condos, is
what they really are.
Mr. McCann:
They would be individual homes.
Mr. Hamman:
Individual homes. Okay. Even individual homes, two cars to a
house. What do you got? You've got 12 more cars coming out
this little drive and dumping into my driveway. I'm not happy
about it. Don't do it, please. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr.
Parz, you have an opportunity to speak before we vote.
Mr. Parz:
Yes, as I said, the type of housing I'll build over there will be the
type of housing I have erected on Plymouth Road west of
Newburgh. The houses sell for approximately $275,000 -
$300,000. The size of the lots I'm proposing to put up over
there will be approximately 62' wide. The lots will be 140' deep.
I will end up changing the configuration of the entranceway. We
will make an honest effort to save those large trees over there.
As you've heard the gentleman say, he doesn't want any more
mosquitoes over there, but you know something? I've got to
comply with the Wayne Counlys new rules in doing certain
things. And to accommodate all those particular costs that will
be added in over here, I need to spread those costs across that.
In addition to that, the City of Livonia's policy is that it's families.
I'm willing to build single-family houses similar to the style that I
said I built at Joy Road. Now as for taxes, those seven little
houses will generale probably about $30,000 a year just in
property taxes alone, let alone school taxes. So, with the
budget constraints, I've tried to help the City out, tried to help
myself out, and tried to do the right things. I hope this Planning
Commission sees the value of going with single-family homes
over that of RUF, which is an old zoning, no longer needed in an
urban and intense area that we have today. Thank you.
On a motion by
Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and adopted, it was
#03-34-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003,
Petition 2003-01-01-05, submitted by Ronald Parz, on behalf of
K P Builders, requesting to rezone property at 35300 Joy Road,
located on the north side of Joy Road between Wayne Road
and Harvey Avenue in the Southwest''/. of Section 33 from RUF
to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
20164
the City Council that Petition 2003-01-01-05 be denied for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning will adversely alter the
character of the subject area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for
development that will increase traffic in the area;
3. That the current zoning classification adequately provides
for the ulilization of the subject property;
4. That the current zoning classification of the subject
property is consistent with the zoning of other similarly
situated properties fronting on Joy Road and on Ann Arbor
Trail in the areas to the west and north; and
5. That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for the
development of he subject properly in a manner that will
be compatible with other properties in this general area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann:
Is there any discussion? Mr. Walsh?
Mr. Walsh:
I'd like to indicate that Mr. Parz has done some fine work in our
City, both residential and commercial. I would like to work with
him on this, but I really do believe that RUF is appropriate and
can continue in that manner. That's the reason why I offered
the denying resolution.
Mr. Shane:
I echo your sentiment with regard to Mr. Parz, and I appreciate
his position on highest and best use for the property. It's a real
estate term. But from a planning standpoint, highest is not
necessarly the best, and I don't think it is the best in this
particular case to rezone it to R-1. I might be convinced to
rezone it to something between R1 and RUF, but that is not
what is before us. I think that I might be more comfortable if his
property were attached to, or in conjunction with, some more
property in the area so you'd have a more comprehensive plan.
And I don't want to interrupt the quality of life that these folks
have down there either. That's why I'm going to vote for the
denying resolution.
Mr. McCann:
I was going to say something, but you look the words out of my
mouth, Mr. Shane. Please call the roll.
20165
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
La Pine, Smiley, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi,
McCann
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Alanskas
ABSENT:
None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying
resolution. Lel the record show that Mr. Alanskas returned to
the podium at 8:15 p.m.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2003-02-01-07 LEO SOAVE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-02-01-07, submitted by Leo Soave requesting to rezone
properties at 32415 and 32421 Seven Mile Road located on the
south side of Seven Mile Road between Brookfield Avenue and
Canterbury Drive in the Northwest''/.of Section 10 from RUFC
to R-3.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated February 13, 2003, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. No further right -0f -way dedication is
required. The legal descriptions as contained in the petition
should be changed to include the following phrase, 'also
excluding the North 60 feet thereof taken for mad purposes.'
The areas should be changed to 0.317 acres (West Parcel) and
0.440 (East Parcell. Our records indicate that the 60 feet for
Seven Mile Road has been previously dedicated for mad
purposes. 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?
Leo Soave, Leo Soave Building Company, Inc., 20592 Chestnut Circle, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. I'll be glad to answer your questions. Thank
you.
20166
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners? None? It is
my understanding that this petition is not for any new
development. These properties will now simply be conforming
to R-3 zoning. Is that correct?
Mr. Soave:
Yes, sir. Its more or less a housecleaning petition. We made a
mistake on the original petition, so we are trying to fix it with this
second petition.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Wasn't there a few feet of property here that was discussed in
the study session?
Mr. McCann:
Yes. Mr. Taormina brought that up. That will be reflected on
the other petition before Council so that this rear piece could be
attached to the condominium association at some point,
although it is not before us tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But then every lot will be conforming, correct?
Mr. Soave:
Are you talking about the three feet that is deficient? Is that
what you're talking about, Mr. Piercecchi?
Mr. McCann:
Yes.
Mr. Soave:
Right. That's already part of the contract. We are going to give
him three feet to make his frontage 80 feet on Seven Mile Road.
It's in the works already, sir.
Mr. McCann:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have any other plans to rezone other property on Seven
Mile from RUF to R-3?
Mr. Soave:
No, sir. Just what's been filed so far.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Richard Lahay, 19000 Mayfield. Roughly, its a short quarter mile west. When
we moved here, which was 22 years ago, this was a nice rural
area. It's changing, but it's changing in such a way that the
Nature Preserve is going to become a swamp. There is
insufficient water retention planned for the overall area that Mr.
Soave has worked on. In the sad state of Seven Mile Road,
there's nothing but runoff that's going to go to the Nature
20167
Preserve. With our West Nile scare of last year, we dont need
that extra water. Plus, its going to create a problem on Seven
Mile Road. Now, you had a petition before you a month ago for
a combination towards the rear of these properties. This is
towards the front. If you change it to the R-1 zoning, you're
going to completely change the aspect of this property, and I
live there. I would hope you won't do that.
Mr. McCann: Sir, I may be able to alleviate a little of your concem. The two
paroels in question will not create any new residences. Theres
two homes on these paroels.
Mr. Lahay: Yes, there are.
Mr. McCann: Right. This petition will not change that situation. All this
petition is doing is making the property conforming based on the
prior change of zoning. They are in RUF. They don't meet RUF
anymore. They meet R3 because of the change in the rear of
the parcels. So what they're doing is trying to make it
conforming zoning for the homes. That is what this petition is
requesting.
Mr. Lahay: The houses there will not be taken down?
Mr. McCann: No. This has nothing to do with new construction or new
buildings. This is just to make the existing parcels conforming.
Mr. Lahay: That being the case, it may be. But I do think some extra
thought has to be put into the water retention.
Mr. McCann: We are working on that very seriously throughout the City. Will
this meet the new Wayne County standards, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: Yes, it will have to.
Mr. McCann: Okay. Under the new Wayne County standards, all new
construction for the past year and a half now has to meet a
certain flood level, and they have to retain the water on site. So
this will actually dear up some of the flooding problems because
this property can no longer be allowed to drain into the Nature
Preserve.
Mr. Lahay: Okay. Great.
Mr. McCann: Thankyou.
Richard Lorenzetfi, 32425 W. Seven Mile Road. If you change it to R-3 though,
you will allow him, at a certain pant and certain time, to change
20168
his plan, and then to tear these houses down and add more.
You have to admit that now. On that property, you could put
two more houses on each of those lots the way you want to
redo them now to R-3.
Mr. McCann:
No. Actually, my understanding is that the house on the west
side will only allow for one home under R3. Mr. Taormina can
correct me if I'm wrong. The east parcel may be divided so that
a house could go to the rear.
Mr. Lorenzetti:
There you go. You could put in another house under R3.
There is no guarantee that if you go to R3, that he's going to
leave those houses there and not build another house there.
Mr. McCann:
Well, I don't think he would have to remove the two houses to
put another house there.
Mr. Lorenzelli:
That's a matter of the mathematics involved. I dont know
exactly how that breaks down to meeting R3. But the reason I
came here anyways was, first of all, there is no sign on 32415
that says anything about any rezoning. There's no public sign.
Isn't that required?
Mr. McCann:
Is there a sign on one of the properties?
Mr. Lorenzetti:
There is a sign at 32421 that only refers to that one piece of
property, but not on 32415. There is no sign.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
It would be a matter of interpretation. Since this is being
handled under a single petition, I would think that one sign
would suffice for that.
Mr. McCann:
This is one petition before us. I think that was the intent to give
people notice that the area ....
Mr. Lorenzetfi:
I think there should be a sign at each address. Don't you think?
So that people know that this house and this house and this
house are all supposed to be under the rezoning? I would think
that's a good idea if you really want people to know. Okay.
Anyways, I've talked to Mr. Candlish about this. He's the
resident there. He's lived there longer than I have, which is
longer than 25 years. He says he owns this property and he's
not rezoning anything. Is his name on any of these petitions?
Mr. Candlish?
20189
Mr. McCann:
I believe this is an amendment to the original petition and part of
the original agreement to purchase the rear property. As part of
the sale, I was told that he wanted his property to be conforming
before the sale is finalized. It was one of the agreements that
Mr. Soave made with him, that his property would be
conforming. Partly for mortgage purposes, sale purposes, or
whatever, you want the property to be conforming.
Mr. Taormina:
If I can answer this gentleman's question, which was whether or
not Robert Candlish is the owner of one of these parcels. His
name does appear on this petition and, in fact, he does provide
his consent on the application for the rezoning.
Mr. Lorenzetti:
So Mr. Candlish has that in writing? He has told me directly that
he never ... and there's no sign on the front of his house. And
Mr. Candlish is 85 years old, and I'm not sure he really knows
what's going on. I'd like to make sure that he is aware that his
property is being rezoned.
Mr. McCann:
Well, sir, he is not here, but we do have a signature from him
and an application. We have to presume that it was his intent to
go forward on this.
Mr. Lorenzetti:
I heard you earlier talk about who owns the property and who is
allowed to ask for the rezoning. I dont understand because like
I heard before, the Assessors Office says that Mr. Candlish
owns the property. The County Clerk's Office says that Mr.
Candlish owns the property. There are no deeds of any kind
that have been altered at all. It seems now there is no sign to
even warn Mr. Candlish. I wonder really if he understands
what's going on.
Mr. McCann:
Well, sir, if you'd like to come back during normal business
hours of the City, they can provide you a photocopy of the
application which provides his signature.
Mr. Lorenzetti:
Well, yeah, I know I can get that. I can come back tomorrow if I
have the time to come in during the day. I'm just concemed
about that. Who can come here and what proof does Mr. Soave
offer that he actually owns the property? If the County Clerk
says that he doesn't own, the Assessor across the hall says he
doesn't own it, Mr. Candlish has told me he doesn't own it.
There's no sign here that says there's any rezoning. On what
basis does he have the right?
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Candlish signed the petition.
20170
Mr. Lorenzetti:
Okay. The property at 32421 is owned by some renters, okay?
I mean they live there. They are the residents, the renters. If
you go across the hallway, by the way, to the Assessors Office,
theyll tell you that Mr. and Mrs. MacDonald own the property.
Those people died four years ago. Of course they can't be
here. If you go to the County Clerk, theyll tell you that Mr.
Soave filed a warranty deed in '99 on this properly, and I
wonder just why the tax assessor doesn't know this. And why
the proper tax that should come to the City of Livonia is still
being sent in the name and in the price that the person would
pay that died four years ago?
Mr. McCann:
We're trying to deal with zoning. That's really the issue.
Mr. Lorenzetti:
I realize that.
Mr. McCann:
Sir, we have to rely on the professional staff who tell us that
these are property fled. The Clerk's Office reviews them. The
City Attorney's office and Mr. Taormina reviews them. By the
time they gel to us, all the experts in the field have reviewed
them, and we have to rely on that.
Mr. Lorenzetti:
Well, two years ago when they did the original zoning on the
other piece of property, the City Council went as far as a
resolution to put a sewer through the park. Someone didn't do
their homework then either, and that turned out to be illegal. It
was a big embarrassment to the City Council, as I recall. I
would think that this is the time to do your homework and decide
does this gentleman own this property? And if he does, why
hasn't he paid the property taxes on the piece of property at
32421 over the last fours years? I've discussed this with the
Assessors Office, and they said all he has to do is come and
tell us. It doesn't have to come from the County - any backlog
of paperwork that you mentioned before. All Mr. Soave has to
do is come and tell him that he owns the property, and they'll
change the tax records. That's all he has to do. So I wonder if
Mr. Soave has been completely honest with everybody in the
City of Livonia about this. That's what I wonder. And I'd like to
ask him, right now.
Mr. McCann:
No. You have to address your questions to the Planning
Commission. This is not a debate.
Mr. Lorenzetti:
Okay. Well, I'm sorry.
Mr. McCann:
Really, it comes to whether or not the zoning is proper. I will
ask Mr. Soave to make sure that he gets the tax records deared
up with the City's Assessors Office, but as evidently you found,
20171
he is the owner according to the deeds in Wayne County. The
staff has checked it. The City Attorney believes it to be proper.
We have to go by their recommendation. If there is an issue
there, if you find something different, please present it to Mr.
Taormina during proper hours, but tonight is really a zoning
issue.
Mr. Lorenzetfi:
All right, then. I guess I'm through then. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Seeing nobody else in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition, I'll close the public hearing. Mr. Soave, you
have the last word if you'd like it.
Mr. Soave:
Thank you very much. If I can answer the gentleman's
questions? About a year ago, we mel in Mr. Taormina's office
with my lawyer and Mr. Candlish's lawyer about the rezoning
petition. He was deficient three feet in his property. If this
transaction was completed, I would deed to him three feet of the
adjacent property, which I owned for about four or five years.
Also, as far as owning the properly, I closed on that about four
or five years ago. I did file a property transfer affidavit back
then. I dont know what happened, but all the taxes are current.
I dont pay taxes on somebody else's property. I've owned the
property about four or five years. That's all I got to say. Thank
you.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. If there is nothing further, a motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#0335-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003-02-01-07 submitted by Leo Soave requesting to
rezone properties at 32415 and 32421 Seven Mile Road located
on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Brookfield
Avenue and Canterbury Drive in the Northwest''/.of Section 10
from RUFC to R-3, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Pefifion 2003-02-01-07 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
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 is consistent with the
developing character of the area;
20172
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of Low Density
Residential land uses in this general area;
That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning distad occurring on
adjacent property to the east; and
That a previous zoning change that has occurred in the
area to the east has set a precedent for rezoning to the R3
classification;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. It
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-02-01-08 NEW CAR ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-02-01-08, submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of New Car
Alternative, Inc., requesting to rezone property located south of
Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the
Northwest''/.of Section 33 from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 21, 2003, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The legal
description as presented is connect. We have no objections to
the proposal at this time. No additional right-of-way dedication
is required at this time since this portion of the development is
not adjacent to Plymouth Road. As we noted under Petition
2003-02-02-02, the storm sewer outlet shown is not to a City of
Livonia storm sewer and would require a permit from the
Michigan Department of Transportation. As alternates, the
proprietor could use the existing City sewer in Laurel Avenue or
20173
could cross Plymouth Road to a City 72" sewer. The project
should also be reviewed with Wayne County under their storm
water management ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. We also have several letters
from residents in the area. The second letter is from James and
Nancy Arnold, 11205 Laurel, dated March 3, 2003, which reads
as follows: We wish to submit this letter regarding the following
petitions for improvements and additions at Mitsubishi Motors
on Plymouth Road. Our names are James and Nancy Arnold.
Our residence is 11205 Laurel, and we live south of the
proposed sites. We feel our first priority is not to let ourpreperty
value go down because we have a commercial business next to
us. Therefore, we would like to address the following.
Commercial Wall. The wall between us and the commercial
land is four feet two inches (42) tall and the code is five to
seven feet (5'-7). 1 propose the owner start by tearing down the
old wall and erecting a new one which is up to code. The
brickwork should match the building or be poured cement with a
brick finish. We suggest a height of six feet (6). We are
concemed about our privacy and therefore need a higher wall
that extends the length of our property line. Also, we would like
the wall to connect with the Burger King wall, having one solid
wall. Men demolishing the existing wall, we need to save all
our trees, bushes, etc., from damage, as much as possible.
The new wall needs to be maintained by the owner for any
damage which occurs to the new wall. Easement or Greenbelt
What is proposed on the plans is maple and pine trees to be
planted on the 10 ft. easement. There are overhead powerlines
which the trees will grow into. We propose that the owner plant
Pyramidalis Arborvitae starting at a height of 5 feet, which will
grow to a height of 15 to 20 feet, to screen out any noises like
air impacts, radios and people. This will also give us a higher,
more natural screening. Grade: The grade from commercial to
residential is a three foot drop, so a drainage plan should be in
place so our yard does not flood. A wall should prevent con -off
of any water that comes from snow or min. Lighting: We
request that any lights on the south side of the addition to either
be removed or put on poles facing north, so as to not shine in
our house or our yard. Off-loading Cars: The off-loading of cars
is now being done in the middle of Laurel Street. There are
usually cars parked on both skies of the street, making it
impossible to use our street and causing high accident potential.
We have asked the drivers to unload somewhere else and were
told there is nowhere to park while unloading cars. This takes
from 40 minutes to an hour. Our concern is if we ever need an
ambulance, they wouldn't be able to get down the street. It is
very important to us that the dealership have a designated area
to unload cars. When we were looking at plans, it looked like he
20174
could relocate the handicapped parking, making it easier access
for a car hauler. Dumpster. The location for the dumpster is
very good - 160 feel off Laurel on the south wall, but 1 would
question the size of the area in which to put it. If the dealership
will be doing bodywork, they will need more dumpster room or
more frequent pick-ups. Our concern is seeing fresh piling up
over and around the dumpster from our house or yard. Public
Address System: We are totally against a public address
system such as the one which is now being used. It is very loud
and can be heard quite well sitting in any part of our house or
yard. We propose the owner use a golf cart or phone system to
page people. While there may not be an ordinance against
having a p.a. system, we would appreciate it if the owner would
find another way to communicate as a courtesy to his
neighbors. Access Door. It is now proposed to be on the south
side of the building. Because of the noise level, we request it be
located on the west side of the building so the noise would be
directed toward the commercial area, rather than the residential
area. We will make available a copy of these requests to be
initialed and signed by the owner prior to the work beginning.
We appreciate your consideration in these matters." The third
letter is from Bill and Edna Proctor, 11100 Laurel Street, dated
March 3, 2003, which reads as follows: "We are concemed
about the very loud speakers. We can hear them with our
windom closed. Also, there needs to be a place for their car
hauling trucks to load and unload on the dealership lot and not
in the middle of our street" The fourth letter is from James and
Sunday Dupuie, 11196 Laurel Street, dated March 3, 2003,
which reads as follows: "Regarding Petitions 2003-02-01-08
and 2003-02-02-02, we wish to submit the following concems
and/or requests. (a) We have experienced numerous and
ongoing problems with the outdoor speaker system currently in
place. As a condition of the final resolution approving the
expansion, we request you prohibit outdoor loud speakers
entirely and require the removal of any existing speakers. (b)
The site plan does not show an area for car hauler
loading/unloading. This ahvays occurs on Laurel Street and
often in front of our homes at various hours of the day or night.
(c) Per the site plan, we request the existing driveway approach
entering off Laurel Street remain 'as4s' and a change be made
with regard to the location of the 'handicapped parking'spaces
to allow access for car hauler entry. (d) Per the site plan, we
request the rear overhead door on the addition be relocated to
the west side of the building and not facing south. (e) There are
two exterior lights mounted on the south side of the building
which are intrusive. We request that any exterior lighting be
mounted on poles along the southern lot line with illumination
pointing north toward the building. (f) We continue to be
20175
concerned with the volume of traffic on our residential street.
The potential fora significant increase appears eminent. Thank
you for your consideration in this regard." That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Bryan L. Amann, with the law firm of Brashear, Tangora, Gallagher, Creighton
and Amann, LLP, 355 N. Canton Center Road, Canton,
Michigan 48187. As I indicated, it is a privilege to be here
really to address concerns from the Planning Commission.
First, let me state that we appreciate the time and effort Mr.
Taormina and the staff has put into this. Obviously, the
comments in the letters had to deal with the first and the
second item that are up regarding this matter tonight. As it
relates to the rezoning, we believe it is in the best interests of
all those involved to allay us, as Mr. Taormina said, to rezone
this parcel of property to allow us to expand the business. I
certainly appreciate that explanation. The more accurate
explanation would be to expand the premises so that we can
make the business fit within the premises so we can deal with
those off-loading issues. We can deal with all those things,
and give us the ground and the property to do that. We think it
makes sense in light of that, parficulady in light of the
surrounding zoning all being C-2 in terms of the way this is
situated. So beyond that, I'll be glad to answer questions
regarding the site issues on the next petition if you'd like. If
you want to discuss them now, I'd be glad to do that in order to
try to keep the issues in context of your analysis.
Mr. McCann: We'll probably tackle a little of both of them, but I'll go ahead
and start. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? I
have a couple questions. Taking notes from the neighbors,
first off, I think business has been good for Mr. Tanski. He's
grown there quite a bit. It looks good. I like what he's done. I
bought a car from him. But as Mr. Tent, who used to be a
Planning Commissioner years ago, used to say, he's got five
pounds of coffee in a three pound can. And the neighbors are
nghl. The lights are bnghl coming onto Plymouth Road, but
they are also bnght going back into the neighborhood. So we
need to address the lights. We have to come up with a
solution on the wall, and the expansion is going b provide,
hopefully, some type of access for these trucks to unload
vehicles without doing it on the street. I'd be very upset if I had
a public address system in my backyard. Its not that they're
prohibited, but he's growing into the neighborhood. He's
expanding the use, and there are certain things and conditions
you've got to work with the neighbors on when you're going to
20176
expand into their area. I think we're going to address those
fourthings, right?
Mr. Amann:
Let me respond to those first four things for you because it's
summarily good news.
Mr. McCann:
Please.
Mr. Amann:
There is not an item or concern that was raised in those letters
that we don't intend to deal with on the site issues. We've
already had a conversation with Mr. Taormina about it. For
example, the lighting concerns that were expressed can all be
done. The wall concerns can all be done. Regarding the
issue of the PA system, you can simply add a condition that
there will not be a public address system on that building.
We've effectively removed the PA from that other part. There
is the other building across the road we have to deal with still,
but we don't mind as a condition that we would stipulate and
agree that there's just not going to be a PA system on this side
of Laurel Road. So all those items, yes, we intend to deal with,
and I think to the satisfaction of the residents through the kind
services of Mr. Taor mina's office.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Piercecchi brings up a point that we're kind of dealing with
Item #6 here too, which is the waiver use to construct an
addition. To me, though, I wouldn't want to change the zoning
unless I knew I was going to address the issues there.
Mr. Amann:
Absolutely.
Mr. McCann:
I guess ifs up to the Planning Commission whether we want to
go into the site plan now or not.
Mr. Amann:
We're glad to entertain them jointly if you'd like.
Mr. McCann:
The people are going to want to speak on this issue of
rezoning, but they're not going to be feeling comfortable unless
we address the issues of the site plan as well.
Mr. Amann:
Mr. Chairman, we would agree also for the sake of the
efficiency of any residents here. They wouldn't have to get up
and speak twice. We could just consolidate the two items at
once. We're certainly glad to do that.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any objections from the Commissioners? Why don't
we do go into the site plan because I had some concerns
about that. I think in faimess to the people who have come to
tom
speak on this, that they need to get the whole picture before
they can pass on the change of zoning.
Mr. Amann:
That's fine.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What we do then, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. McCann:
Why don't you go ahead and call Item #6?
Mr. Piercecchi:
We will vote these separately then. Number 6 is the waiver
use and the other one is the rezoning.
Mr. McCann:
Right.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mark a question? The road that
comes off of Wayne Road behind the Burger King, is that a
private road?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe that is actually part of the land owned by Burger King.
Burger King has frontage on both Wayne and Plymouth
Roads.
Mr. LaPine:
I thought maybe those trucks could come in through that road
and into this parcel and unload in there instead of unloading on
Laurel Avenue. I dont know if that is possible. If it's a private
road, it cant be done. But the next question I have is, the
parcel to be rezoned to C-2, is that going to be strictly for
storage and new vehides?
Mr. Taormina:
As I understand it, this area here, which is the shaded area on
the plan, would be used exclusively for parking purposes and
would be for just the display vehicles. All the customer parking
and employee parking would occur in this area.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there anyway they can get into that parcel with these haul
away trucks unloading vehides back there and go out any
otherway? Is them any possible way that can be done?
Mr. Taormina:
We're still investigating that with the owner of the property. I'll
let him express what his concerns are. The first thing that
would have to change here is the layout of some of the parking
spaces adjacent to the southeast comer of the building. This
plan presently shows some of the handicapped spaces located
in an area that really wouldn't accommodate the truck haulers
from being able to make this type of movement from Laurel
Avenue along the rear portion of the site. But assuming that
these could be relocated, then the next concern is whether
there is sufficient turning radius in back of this portion of the
zona
property. Obviously, the only way trucks of that size would be
able to exit the site would be to come out this easement. So
we are investigating that. There is some concern about these
turning radiuses. I'll let Mr. Tanski or Mr. Amann respond
further to that.
Mr. La Pine:
Are they going to actually do service in the five new service
bays they are putting in because when they originally moved
here, all they were going to do was prep vehides. Is this going
to be a service area where they are going to do tune-ups and
things of that nature? Doyouknov?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe that is the purpose of those service bays. Mr. Tanski,
again, can elaborate further. One item related to that, though,
is these plans were modified. Once they realized that they
would have to go through the rezoning of this property first,
they had to make this site conform to the ordinance standards
and not rely on the rezoning of this property. The overhead
doors that were shown along the westerly portion of the
building were relocated to the south part of the building. It was
my understanding that, if successful in rezoning this property
and including it with the overall development plan, those doors
would once again be relocated to the west side of the building
in order to better service the bays that you're referring to,
which are within this portion of the building. It would allow for
much easier access of those vehicles to come in on the east
side of the building and exit without any Tums and with much
less disruption to the neighborhood to the south.
Mr. La Pine:
On the east side of Laurel Avenue, what is that other building
for? What do they use that for?
Mr. Taormina:
Once again, I think it is for certain servicing of vehicles
presently, some of the detail work. But I think some of that
operation is now going to move to this side of the building, but
again, I'll lel Mr. Tanski describe that.
Mr. LaPine:
Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I don't think that the trucks should ever come down Laurel
Avenue. I think they should exit on Laurel, at least then if
there is a hang-up someplace in that system, it won't be on
Laurel and have to take the cars off there. I think they should
have it cast in cement before I can accept this waiver use on
loading and unloading. I don't see why they can't come in
through the donut shop.
20179
Mr. McCann:
Dan, why dont we wail and see what the petitioner says he
wants to do? We haven't heard from him yet. Mr. Amann or
Mr. Tanski, one of you can start handling some of these
issues.
Mr. Amann:
On the issue of the service, we currently perform service on
the east side of the road, and this would be the same type of
service on the west side. So it would be identical to what is
occurring across the street.
Mr. La Pine:
Are you going to keep the one on the east side?
Mr. Amann:
Yes. Mr. Tanski has heard the constant concerns of the
residents and the City about cars being stacked up in places,
so having the better facilities to deal with it, will hopefully allow
really for the better operation of the site to minimize those
kinds of impacts. As part of the service, let me point out there
is no body work that occurs. There will be no body work that
occurs in these bays at all. So concerns regarding noxious
odors and those kinds of things and banging, that will not
occur in this service area. As to the loading and unloading of
vehicles, I'm going to bring Mr. Tanski up to explain that to
you. I do have with me, if anyone cares to see it, the issue of
the easement through the donut shop parking lot. It was, in
fact, once granted and then litigated, and there was a Circuit
Court Declaratory Judgment entered in 1996 which makes it
as plain as day that this is a usable easement for all purposes.
So I have that as well. But as to the loading and unloading of
vehicles, Mr. Tanski will ...
At Tanski, New Car Altemative, Inc., 34715 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
I'm happy to be here. Thank you. I dont know how to answer
the questions that you guys have, but if you notice in our
community, up and down Plymouth Road, there are six
automobile dealerships. Al any time of the day, they're
unloading on Plymouth Road. I would like to come up with a
plan to eliminate that and be as safe as I can for the people who
are bringing me the cars, for the people that are checking in the
cars, and for the people that are buying the cars. Liability is a
great concern in our business. First off, I have only been a new
car dealer accepting deliveries by truck haulers since July. I
have been plagued by the neighborhood about cars being
loaded and unloaded on the street for seven years. For the first
six years and a half years, my cars come 95% by their wheels.
They are driven there. Tow trucks do bring cars in that are not
running and things of that nature. I share that street with
another business, which is Livonia Mazda. The owner of that
dealership has since bought property down the street next to the
20180
old Nissan building, and he is trying diligenfly with me to have
his cars that he gets unloaded on the street. We have called
the transportation companies. We've given them maps. We
have tried in every possible way, fashion and form to get these
people to drive these car haulers to different locations, but
there's always a new driver. The guy that dispatches didn't give
him the thing, so it happens, but that problem has been reduced
drastically in the last, you know, three or four months. What I
would like to try to propose is, if you noticed, there isn't a piece
of property big enough to drive a 90 foot semi -truck through and
eliminate the liability of that truck running over cars. They lake
a big turning radius that would be impossible to accommodate
and to up my parking spaces so I don't have as many cars on
such a small parcel, like you acknowledged that I have five
pounds of coffee in a three pound can. If I was to come up with
a plan to have the cars come in and come out, I would be
eliminating 43% of the parking spots that I'm spending almost
$900,000 to create. It's virtually impossible, but the car haulers
can come in on this easement because Bryan has worked
diligently to ... in our purchase agreement that the easement is
legitimate, it is real, it is there, and it can be used by me. Before
these plans were drawn, we weren't quite sure of that
easement, but we were trying not to put that as part of our plan,
because if it was a conflict with the business that's already
there, we didn't want to have bad feelings with that business
owner. But as we have concluded, we can use that. So, we
have had experiments. When we have brought cars in, we
asked them to pull up there. There's ample room to pull in
through that easement into the parking lot, but there would not
be ample room to go around the building and cut two Teff Tums,
and then a right tum and another left tum to get onto Laurel
Avenue without maximizing the liability of collisions. We do not
let the car haulers unload cars and then drive through the
neighborhood. We stop traffic. They only come once or twice a
week, and the truck backs out on the road, or backs into Laurel
Avenue and then backs out. To eliminate that problem, we
could use our easement, I'm quite confident, to keep the cars off
the street. But I've been getting blamed solely for two
businesses running there.
Mr. Amann: Let me give you the short answer of what I just heard of the long
version. The short answer is...
Mr. Tanski: I'm not a lawyer.
Mr. Amann: That's all right. I normally get paid by the words, not tonight, so
he look the discount plan. The short answer then is, we're
looking at the plan to have the trucks pull in off of Plymouth
20181
Road onto the site, and then backup, or back into the site or
whatever, then use that same access point off of Plymouth
Road. That's the intent of the design of the plan. Mr. Taormina
is right. We have to work to make sure we have at least enough
of our parking spaces and turning radiuses worked out. It is not
the intention to have the truck maneuver around through the site
and then go out to Laurel or to go out to the other Plymouth
Road exit. It is intended to go out that every same entrance it
came it. So its either going to have to back in, or pull in, and
then back out, which is essentially the same function of every
other dealership along Plymouth Road in terms of that. Its not
the best scenario in the word, but its the one that seems to be
operating.
Mr. McCann:
One question and then Mr. Piercecchi has the floor.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Do I understand you correctly that now you can load and unload
without even touching Laurel?
Mr. Amann:
Absolutely. With this expansion, yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That would be fine. I'm sure the people on Laurel have had
enough loading and unloading to last them a lifetime.
Mr. Amann:
And let me just offer this one piece of solace to the residents.
Obviously, as Mr. Tanski pointed out, we are still going to work
hard in educating our delivering companies and our drivers.
Hopefully, if it's a problem early on, we'll get it fixed very quickly.
If we have any difficulty with that, we will probably make the
same number we have to call available to the residents so they
can echo our concems. But generally, we're going to be very
diligent about trying to prevent that. And by design, having it
available now, I think the drivers, presuming they're like water
and elechidly, will go to the easiest and most convenient
location once they figure it out and we explain to them our new
setup. They will adhere to it because it will make sense to
them.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Were you planning on submitting a revised portion of that so we
can actually see it?
Mr. Amann:
Yes. In the conversation I had with Mr. Taormina, when we get
the detailed site plan issues on that, it was our intention to do
that for purposes of review.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Are your plans also going to show where that donut shop is? In
fact, I don't know why you don't buy that area.
20182
Mr. Amann: Well, it's been tried. There's a lot of dough in donuts.
Mr. Pieroecchi: It seems like your landscaping is very sparse where you're
going to be hiding a lot of cars, unless you want them to be
seen there. I would think you wouldn't want them to be seen
there. Another question on that access road: will people who
want to see your vehicles come in on that same road?
Mr. Amann: Absolutely, it's for ingress and egress to that site for anybody.
Mr. Pieroecchi: How will they exit the site?
Mr. Amann:
Cars can maneuver all the way around through the site.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
No problem with cars?
Mr. Amann:
They can take a full tour without any problem, unless they hit
something, of course. But it should be fine and functional for
them.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But you will submit a plan showing exactly how you're going to
dolhal?
Mr. Amann:
Yes. The architect is here tonight hearing everything we say.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Alanskas:
I've been there various times and he does an outstanding job on
landscaping in regards to making sure the grass is cul weekly.
It's always watered. He always has beautiful flowers out there -
not by me, by somebody else - but it really looks like nice. I do
have a question in regards to the PA. Bryan, you made a
remark earlier that you are willing to not have a PA system on
the west side of the building, but what about the east side of the
building?
Mr. Amann:
On the building on the eastside ofthe road?
Mr. Tanski:
The PA has been removed.
Mr. Amann:
He's talking about the east side.
Mr. Tanski:
Both are gone.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you will have no PA system whatsoever?
20183
Mr. Tanski: I have no problem with no PA system. We went to Nextel
phones about five or eight months ago, and they have walkie
talkie capabilities, so that's really helped us out.
Mr. Alanskas: I know because about a year ago, there was a garage sale
down at the very end of Laurel, about three homes that I went to
to buy something, and I could hear the PA that far down the
road. So I can see the neighbors' concern about that being a
problem. Being that you're going to remove that, that's a big
Plus.
Mr. Tanski:
Yep.
Mr. Amann:
That will be in writing that they are gone.
Mr. Tanski:
They are gone.
Mr. McCann:
I have a question for you. I have a hard time believing these 90'
trucks full of cars pull up and just start unloading on Laurel and
don't tell anybody at the business. Oh here, they just start
unloading.
Mr. Amann:
Right now they do. Right now they're viewing a choice between
unloading on Plymouth Road or Laurel. And so they are turning
onto Laurel to do that, and theyre backing in and doing that.
Mr. McCann:
They don't come into the dealership and say, "Hey, I've got 15
cars out here for you. Where do you want them?"
Mr. Amann:
Typically, they will pull on Laurel and come in from there. They
don't stop out on Plymouth, and that's not uncommon to every
dealership around as well. Your instincts are right about that.
That's how that happens currently.
Mr. Tanski: Bascially, we don't gel 15 cars in a load. Sometimes one,
sometimes eight. But the guy will unload the car and then bring
you what they Gall a manuscript so that when he has the car off
the truck, he's not responsible for it any more. Any damage that
happens after you sign your name to it, that company is of the
hook. He doesn't look at a car on the truck. He takes it off and
then hands you a page, so he's off the hook.
Mr. McCann: My concern is, you said there were some off -sites where you
can have them loaded and unloaded. There's someone there
seeing the trucks pull onto Laurel. You can say, "Hey, you can't
unload here. You've got to move"
20184
Mr. Amann: Currenfiy, we just don't have the off sites. The new cars that
started coming into the Mifisubsi operation, came in just at the
end of last summer in July. So that was a new phenomena in
terms of that. The only thing you had before then was maybe a
two or three truck hauler as part of a fifth wheel on a truck or
something. So this was a new phenomena that really started in
July, and we've tried to figure out since then him to deal with it.
As a result of that, they have pulled onto Laurel as opposed to
just slopping right on Plymouth Road, even though at a lot of
other dealerships they do both. They use a side street and/or
Plymouth Road; they just find it easier. They sometimes just
stop right on Plymouth Road and take them off right there
holding up traffic in the right lane. With this rezoning and
approved use, we will be able to have the truck hauler pull off of
Plymouth Road onto the site, deliver the vehicle onto the site
through that easement area we have, and then go back out onto
Plymouth Road. There will be some interupfion on Plymouth
Road if he has to back out onto Plymouth Road, but they stand
out there and stop traffic to do that.
Mr. Tanski:
The reference that I made to other sites was the VW store; it
has bought property down the street. So in the last five months
or so, he has taken 80% of the cars that I was getfing blamed
for. Because he is a new car dealer for Mazda, VW ... he has
six lines there, which was a lot of traffic. But he has since
bought a pece of property, fenced it, and his trucks are going
down there. But every once in a while, somebody doesn't know
the program and ends up on Laurel Avenue. Consequently, I'm
the one that gets blamed for it, even though its not my car
hauler. But we are working together with the gentleman next
door, and he's out there writing letters because we use the
same transport companies. He has designated unloading
areas, which I dont at this point, but I'm proposing to have.
Mr. Amann:
We're going to try and follow the example he's created by
providing that so it's on the premises of the site that the
unloading will occur as opposed to out in the roadway.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Taormina, is there a limited number of cars that New Car
Alternative can have on site for display?
Mr. Taormina:
I believe the approvals granted with the original waiver use
petition did stipulate the number of vehicles that were permitted.
One of the things that we would do ultimately with one or both of
these petitions is establish a general count on vehicle display
spaces.
20185
Mr. Alanskas: A lot of times I'll stop by the building. You'll have cars at an
angle parked in the front of the existing building, but then you'll
also have them parked in the driveway. You can hardly walk
through the cars. If this proposal is approved, will this mitigate
this problem?
Mr. Amann: Absolutely.
Mr. Tanski: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: So you will not be putting in more cars and having them stacked
like that in the future? I know the more cars that you can have
there, the better chance you'll have to sell more vehides. I'm
just concerned that when you do this, they won't be jammed in
there.
Mr. Amann: Your instincts are exactly what our concern is, that a customer
would feel that there is so much friction in getting on site, they'd
just as soon go to a site where they can pull right through and
work right through. This new plan ought to allow this site to
function properly so people can easily pull in and walk around
and view the cars and do what they need to do.
Mr. Alanskas: And with a good salesman, you can sell them a lot faster.
Mr. Amann: Well, that's always a problem.
Mr. LaPine: Hindsight is always good, but what you should have done is
bought the Olsen Oldsmobile dealership when it went out of
business. They had a big parcel there. You would have had
more than enough room to handle everything.
Mr. Amann: I actually was involved with a diem who was looking at that site.
There were several other issues involved in that site, other than
just price, that made it very difficult to deal with it. But you're
right, that would have been a great answer to this.
Mr. LaPine: Quite frankly, when I was out there, I drove in and I had to
maneuver back up because I couldn't get out of there. There's
just too much there for the small site you have. Hopefully, we're
going to be able to eliminate this with all these new plans you're
going to come in with.
Mr. Amann: No question. And we're asking you to rely on good faith on Mr.
Tanski's representation that we're going to try to have a five
pound coffee can for this five pounds of coffee, as opposed to a
three pound can like we have now.
20186
Mr. Walsh: I've just listened to all the questions and the comments, and I'm
pleased that you've addressed many of the concems that we've
mised amongst ourselves. We still have yet to hear from
neighbors and the audience. They may have things we haven't
thought of, but I think that we really have addressed a number
of things. I have a couple of specific thoughts that I'm going to
hold until we hear from the neighbors in terms of how we might
handle this procedurally.
Mr. McCann:
The neighbors' letters addressed certain things. We talked
about the parking in the street and the public address system.
The lights, Mr. Taormina explained, would be down turned. I'd
like their answer on what theyre going to do about the wall.
Mr. Walsh:
That was the one that we haven't addressed yet.
Mr. Amann:
We're going to extend the wall as requested by the residents.
Mr. McCann:
Is there an issue, Mr. Taormina, regarding the neighbors letter
al4'2" - whether it is in compliance?
Mr. Taormina:
We haven't verified that with all the snow condifions, but the wall
is pre-existing. It was there, I think, even before the automobile
dealership came into existence. So if there is a portion of the
wall that is deficient in height, then we have to look at how that
might be corrected. Its the type of wall that you cannot just
simply add on to. We looked at that briefly during an on-site
inspection. Its a poured concrete wall, and it would be rather
difficult to try to modify that wall in any way. So, it's a good
question. But he will be obligated to extend the wall to the west
across the new parcel, and the Planning Commission in
reviewing that can recommend anything up to seven feel in
height per the ordinance.
Mr. McCann:
I'm going to take Mr. Walsh's recommendation now, if there's no
objection, and go to the audience. Bob, you have a question?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes. f this proposal goes through, are you going to be looking
for more signage on the new portion of the building?
Mr. Amman:
Just what would be offered to us or required.
Mr. Alanskas:
The question is, you have a Mitsubishi sign. Do you have a
permit for that? How did you get that to go on the monument
sign?
Mr. Tanski:
The sign that's there has a permit. We just changed the glass in
the sign.
20187
Mr. Alanskas: Not the one on west side, the one on the east side. That's a
new monument sign.
Mr. Tanski: No, that sign has always been there. Are we on the east side or
the west side?
Mr. Alanskas: No, I'm talking about the east side.
Mr. Tanski:
There is a permit pulled for that sign.
Mr. Alanskas:
Through the chair, Al, is that sign in compliance?
Mr. Nowak:
We have a letter from Alex Bishop of the Inspection Department
On a net basis, what you're
indicating that it was in compliance.
Mr. Alanskas:
I thought at our study meeting we discussed it. You had some
lefler that said the sign was not in compliance?
Mr. Nowak:
Ilwas the violation notice from Inspection.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, I did pose this question to the Building Director, and he
did indicate that permits were issued for the sign.
Mr. Alanskas:
So the sign is in compliance?
Mr. Amann:
On a net basis, what you're
going
to
see is the other existing
party store building and that stuff coming down. There will be
an elimination of signage overall. Clearly on the building that
will service the cars, something to denote service over there. It
will be compliant with ordinance requirements.
Mr. Alanskas: But nothing like a monument sign, another addition? Okay.
Thankyou.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Walsh, do you have anything before I go the audience?
Mr. Wash: No.
Mr. McCann: Then I'm going to the audience. Is there anybody in the
audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Bill,
can you grab that board?
James Dupuie: Is there a way I can refer to that board, by chance?
Mr. McCann: I'll tell you what. Bill, please put the board back up. He's
going to use the hand-held mike. Please stand by those
footmarks.
Y
James Dupius, 11196 Laurel Street. One of the letters that was read to you
tonight was from my wife and myself. In an effort to try to kind
of preempt some future problems that we see, we put the letter
together. I don't want to beat a dead horse on this thing, but the
car hauler problem is a problem for me and for my wife because
we have two diabetics in our home, a 24 year old and a 4 year
old. When an ambulance cant get down the street, we've got a
problem. The City has a problem. I spoke with Sgt. Wes
McKee one day for about half an hour. And his answer was real
simple. He just said, "Look, all it is is a parking ticket." That's
was it. That was my answer. So, I didn't like the answer. It's
not just as simple as having car haulers come down, although
they do and they do exit the street. Part of our other problem
with it is, there's no real office hours here. These guys will be
out there at five in the morning with their diesel trucks running.
These two gentlemen will disagree, but they don't live there. I
do. Those trucks are there all the time. I'd like that to be
addressed. The other thing that concems me and the reason
why I wanted to look at this board, right here, if you nofice, this
is the entrance here. Right now, it looks like this would be the
service door. I worked a dealership for four years. I'm going to
guarantee you cars will either come down the street or up the
street and wail until that service door opens. That's how
dealerships work. I'm certain that's going to happen. I'd like to
see some sort of situation where they know to come in a certain
way and around, maybe the service sign be over here off of
Plymouth Road. Because I'll guarantee you they'll come down
here, and theyll just line up. That's how that works. The other
part about the lighting we did address, and we addressed the
overhead door. And that was simply because if it's facing the
back ... I live across the street and two houses down behind
the other dealership. When their door is open, you always hear
the music going. So I talked to my neighbors about addressing
that because that would be an ongoing concem. So that would
be about all I have to say this evening. I appreciate your time.
Mr. McCann: Thank you, sir. Before we go to the petifioner, is there anyone
else in the audience wishing to speak? Ma'm, you can use that
podium.
Silka Chow, I'm speaking on behalf of my parents, Chi and Kon Chow. They are
the owners of the donut shop just north of the proposed rezoned
property. I just wanted the Commission to be aware that in the
past week, my parents have completed the purchase of that
land that the donut shop is on and registered with the Wayne
County Register of Deeds. As far as we're aware, the
easement that is going through our properly, its still under
20189
question in terms of the size of the easement. We haven't had
any contact with Mr. Tanski at all regarding negotiations of the
size of the easement. So as far as I'm aware of it, it still hasn't
been finalized. The reason why the easement was obtained
was actually through a law suit that the prior owner of the
landlocked property had made against the previous owners of
the property that we are on to obtain easement through our
property because it was a landlocked properly. The courts
initially ruled in our favor saying that there was no right to go
through our property to obtain an easement, but then there was
an appeal. I believe that the Court of Appeals had ruled in favor
of allowing for an easement. My parents were actually a part of
that lawsuit as a defendant because they were still making
payments to the previous landlord. I believe that there was a
Default Judgment against them because they had missed a
deposition for the appeals. So as far as they are aware, they
hadn't been contacted at all regarding the easement through our
property. We are just concerned with the chunk of land that is
going to be taken from our property for this easement and the
possible decreased business that would affect our business
because of this. So we just wanted the person to be aware of
that.
Mr. McCann:
The easement is a legal issue between you and Mr. Tanski.
Ms. Chow:
I understand that.
Mr. McCann:
If you would like to get Mr. Amann's business card, he'll provide
you with a copy of the Judgment. You can discuss it with your
attorney if you wish to determine whether or not they are in
compliance with that Judgment, but that's not really an issue
before us.
Ms. Chow:
Yes, l understand that.
Mr. McCann:
Other than the fact that if there is no easement, it would affect
our plans. But at this point, we're going to base it on that there
is an easement.
Ms. Chow.
Yeah.
Mr. McCann:
If there isn't, we'll find out before it goes to Council. We are a
recommending body; we are not the final word. It will go from
here to the City Council.
Ms. Chow:
Okay. I just wanted to voice our concems. We dont want to
interrupt Mr. Tanski's business either. We just haven't had any
contact with him at all.
20190
Mr. McCann:
Hopefully, his growth will be your growth.
Ms. Chow:
Right. Yep. Thank you.
James Arnold,
11205 Laurel. This is Nancy Arnold. We live to the south of the
proposed site. I'd like to get atthe plans if I could too?
Mr. McCann:
That's fine. Bill, do you wantto putthe plans backup?
Mr. Arnold:
My issue is the proposed site of the commercial wall. We live
here on this part on two parcels. Basically, we've measured
when there wasn't snow in the area, and it was 4'-2".
Mr. McCann:
Is it 4'-2" on both sides?
Mr. Arnold:
The code reads from the highest point, and I dont know who is
a higher point, him or us. But what we would like is for them to
rip it out because, like you're saying, you cannot add onto a
poured wall or poured blocks or anything like that. We are 288'
feel deep, and he's proposing he's got 107'. It's about over
300', way over what we have so, we would like one complete
wall so it matches. So it doesn't look like it's all cul up ... a 4'
wall and a 7' wall. And then we're asking that he lakes this
greenbelt area and there is basically 440 lines up in the lop that
Edison keeps cut. We're asking that he put pyramidal
arborvitaes along the whole line because we have a screening
here now in the summer and spring, but during the winter it's
totally bare. There are people running, people all over the
place, cars trying to start things. Big lift vehicles for like lights
and all the stuff are just parked here. Our next concern, the
greenbelt, the easement, the grade from here is basically about
this high. The commercial is on this high and the residential is
at ground level and goes down. I would hope that they would
have a drainage program with one continuous wall that will stop
a lot of runoff on both sides of water from rains and snow, and
that they would have a drainage program so that it would all go
their way. And basically, I guess the wall, once they scrape the
topsoil off, would go from whatever the highest point was.
Nancy Arnold:
I just want to say that we're concerned that our property value
doesn't go down. We want it to look good. We aren't against
him expanding his business, but we want it to look good. I
would like a six fool wall and trees growing up higher than the
wall, so I have nature to look at instead of this big wall. So that
was my reasoning for the six foot wall with the arborvitaes
planted along the easement.
20191
Mr. McCann:
Thankyou.
Mr. Tanski:
Do you want the trees on both side?
Mrs. Arnold:
No.
Mr. Arnold:
Just one side so that it's a screening.
Mrs. Arnold:
Yourside.
Mr. McCann:
I really would like you two to talk more extensively, but not
during the middle of meefing. Okay?
Mr. Arnold:
The gentleman here, Robert, was saying that At Tanski does
take care of the area very nicely. I'll agree with that, but you
know, 8:30 in the morning, Sunday morning, I know it's church
when that guy come around to cut the stuff. You know, I mean,
there's just little issues, like we live there.
Mr. McCann:
If you live next to him, you should have contact. I'm sure Mr.
Tanski will want your input before he gets to Council.
Mrs. Arnold:
And I'd like to address that. Not everything we have addressed
to him has been taken care of. He ignores our requests. So
that is our concern that these things do gel addressed.
Mr. McCann:
It's a good time to bring them forward and that's some of the
issues we'll work on right now.
Mr. Arnold:
We didn't ask anything about the wall the first time he put his
business in because we were right in the middle of adding on
900 feet onto a 600 fool house to try and make the area better,
make our home, you know. And that's why we didn't bring up
the wall issue the firslfime because we were in our own state.
Mr. McCann:
Obviously, you will have the right to speak to the City Council on
these issues, and I'm sure Mr. Tanski wants to correct these
issues before he gets to Council.
Mrs. Arnold:
Can we request that it's in writing?
Mr. McCann:
Many of these things will be in writing. Everything about the
wall will be a part of the site plan and have to be done. One of
my questions to you earlier was, is it 4'-2" on your side of the
wall or 4'-2" on his side?
20192
Mr. Arnold:
It's on both sides. From where the two commercial buildings
are, that's going to be higher than what mine is, that is 47' on
his side.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience that
wishes to speak for or against this petition? I'm going to dose
the public hearing. Mr. Tanski or Mr. Amann, you have the
opportunity to speak to these issues.
Mr. Amann:
I just struck a deal to get paid by the words, so I want to back
up. I think it was made dear earlier that the wall, in fad, pre-
existed the business itself. No doubt it was probably
constructed to whatever standards were in place at the time. It
seems to me, and Mr. Tanski has agreed, and we'll obviously
detail this in the plans, to provide that running linear addition to
the other extent ... the wall of arborvitaes. As a previous part
of my occupation as Assistant County Executive, I was dubbed
the noise enforcer for a short while involving airport noise. I
Teamed more about noise than I ever cared to at the time. One
of the things that I Teamed, though, is that green material, plant
material, is such a better product in terns of dealing with noise
concerns because it absorbs and doesn't cause reverberation.
Walls, in fact, create more noise because it creates another
noisy vent, so that addition of the arborvilaes along there should
be helpful. The arborvitaes are a good choice. There is an
issue there because Detroit Edison apparently recently came
through and just leveled everything that was getting dose to the
wires anyways. Arborvitaes ought to give us a good long time
of growth before Detroit Edison even becomes concerned about
them, so we should be all right in that regard. I'll be glad to
speak with Ms. Chow and get her phone number. Her parents
were defendants in that, and the easement is detailed with all
this other stuff on there. III be glad to show it to anybody and
talk about it with her, so we'll resolve that obviously before
Council. With that, I'm prepared to answer any other questions
you may have. We think the zoning is appropriate. We're
willing to deal and certainly work out all those site plan issues I
think not only to the betterment of the residents, but certainly to
the business as well, and we think for the community as well.
So we're certainly interested in undertaking those steps.
Mr. Shane:
Just some food for thought. I'm sitting here looking at this plan.
Now that you have the easement from Plymouth Road as well
as the existing entry from Plymouth Road, would you consider
not even using Laurel Avenue anymore, because now you have
a separate entrance you didn't have before. I'm trying to think
why would you need Laurel Avenue anymore, other than to be
more convenient.
20193
Mr. Amann:
What you're saying is, would we be willing to close off the Laurel
Road curb cut, essentially.
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Amann:
I think that would create all kinds of issues, not only from an
operational perspective but also from a safety perspective.
Mr. Shane:
Why.?
Mr. Amann:
Because as I'm sure you see in many planning proposals, its
preferable to have as much access to sites whether it's for
emergency vehicles or other vehicles. If for some reason
there's a problem, just as the gentleman indicated, he's
concerned about having some obstruction at a point on Laurel
Avenue. If we have two entrances to the site, one at Plymouth
and the other one via an easement there, we would technically
have only one entrance on this site. From a land division act
perspective and if we had some obstruction at that entrance at
some point, then we would have to rely on having a fire lmdc or
something else come in from the other direction. I dont know
that it could make all those turns or that it would be practical.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
If I remember correctly, on the last approval you received from
the Council, a lot of neighbors had complained about the testing
of cars up and down Laurel. I thought that at the time you had
agreed that you were going to put up a sign, a small sign, that
said "no righttum on Laurel" That was never done, was it?
Mr. Amann:
No, its in place. It's there.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's there? Okay. Has that helped you at all in regards to
slopping traffic somewhat?
Mr. Amann:
Well, certainly we've made every effort but it wouldn't surprise
me if you still have certain people who would prefer to pull out
onto Laurel. I mean the residents could speak to that better
probably. We try to enforce it. We try not to have them do it.
Typically, we try to have a salesperson in the car while ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Did you slop taking customers down Laurel fx test driving and
everything?
Mr. Amann:
Right.
20194
Mr. Alanskas:
Its strictly down Plymouth Road now?
Mr. Amann:
Right.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
Not to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, Mr. Amann, but
I'm going to ask Mr. Taormina, if they're expanding the use with
an addition to the south, would that wall, although it typically
would be grandfathered in on the original building, would that
have to be a complying wall now with the expansion to the cell?
Mr. Taormina:
Thaf s an issue that the Planning Commission would resolve at
the time of the site plan review as to whether or not to bring that
wall into compliance. I'm not sure that there's anything in the
ordinance that would absolutely trigger the removal of that wall
and its replacement with one that is conforming. I'd have to
discuss that with the Building Inspection Department, but I don't
think just by virtue of the fad that they are constructing an
addition onto the building that a site deficiency like that
automatically has to be corrected. However, it is something that
can be considered as a condition of approval of the waiver use if
you deem it to be reasonable and depending on the
circumstances.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Are there any other questions from the
Commissioners?
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Chair, just from a procedural matter on how to handle this, I
think we're formally inside of Item 6. To jump back and forth a
little bit, I for one would be able to support the rezoning tonight.
I think it may be advisable if we ...
Mr. McCann:
We're going to take separate votes.
Mr. Walsh:
That's fine. I just want to make sure. But we're on Item 6 now?
Mr. McCann:
We're on both right now. I will call Item 4 for a resolution, then
we will go to Item 6. I'm ready for a motion on Item 4.
On a motion
by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#0336-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003-02-01-08 submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of
New Car Alternative, Inc., requesting to rezone property located
south of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne
20195
Road in the Northwest ''/ of Section 33 from 01 to 02, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 2003-02-01-08 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in
the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an exisfing zoning district in the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning will allow for the
planned future use of the subject property in conjunction
with adjacent properties; and
4. That the proposed zoning classification is consistent with
the Future Land Use Plan designation of commercial land
use for the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-02-02-01 BUFFET GROUP
Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-02-02-01, submitted by Kui Sin Yim, on behalf of the
Buffet Group, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to utilize a
Class C Liquor License in connection with a full service
restaurant operating within an existing building on property
located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt
Road and Beatrice Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 23.
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 letter is from
the Engineering Division, dated February 10, 2003, which reads
20196
as follow: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No further rightofmy
dedication is required. The legal description is correct as
contained in the petition." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second item is from the
Inspection Department, dated February 7, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 5, 2003, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) This site has a dumpster enclosure that was never
approved and, in fact, needs to be rebuilt with inspected
footings and proper gating. (2) The rear building wall that this
Petitioner is adjacent to, was never completed and is still open.
(3) On a site visit February 7, 2003, observed directly to the rear
of this Petitioner was debris and shopping carts strewn about at
the northwest end of the building. (3) The parking lot
immediately around this Petitioner needs repair, resealing and
redouble striping. The accessible parking spaces need to be
property sized, signed and striped. (5) There are two other
Class C liquorlicenses within the 1,000 foot separation distance
mandated by Ordinance. This may be waived by City Council.
This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
We have a letter from the owner of the shopping center, ANK
Enterprises, Inc., dated February 28, 2003, in response to the
letter from the Inspection Department, which reads as follows:
"1 am responding to the memorandum to your office dated
February 7, 2003 from Alex Bishop. As owner and property
manager of the above -referenced property, we are responsible
for the maintenance of the center and will address certain items
noted in the memorandum as follows. Item #2: Landlord will
require the adjacent tenant (Save -A -Lot) to complete the rear
building wall as required by their lease. Item #3. Landlord will
be responsible for the cleanup of debris and shopping carts at
the northwest end of the building. This will be completed on or
before March 14, 2003, weather permitting. Item #4: Landlord
will perform all repairs to the parking lot and redouble stripe
parking lot as soon as the weather permits. The parking lot will
not be resealed as this is prohibited by one or more of the
tenant leases. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
questions or additional concerns regarding maintenance issues
on the above -referenced petition." The letter is signed by Matt
Kornmeier, Director of Property Management. The next item is
from Fortune Buffet, dated February 28, 2003, and reads as
follows: "1 am responding to the memorandum to your office
dated February 7, 2003 from Alex Bishop. As owner of the
Fortune Buffet, we are responsible for the construction and
maintenance of the dumpster enclosure at the north end of the
20197
rear of the property behind our restaurant. Pursuant to tem #1
in the memorandum, we will be responsible for rebuilding the
dumpster enclosure per the code requirements which will
include proper footings and gating. Such construction work will
require warmer temperatures to thaw the ground soil and,
therefore, will be completed as soon as the weather permits.
We estimate the completion date to be no later than May 1,
2003." The letter is signed by Kul Sin Yim. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Kui Sin Yim, Buffet Group, Inc., 25590 Fountain Park W. #283, Novi, Michigan
48375.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about your
petition?
Sue Yim: I am Kui Sin's wife and one of the petitioners. The reason we
want to gel a liquor license is because so many customers ask
for and say, "Do you serve wine or beer?" Sometimes families
have some kind of special occasion to celebrate or champagne
or something. Then we find out there is a liquor license
available and think maybe we go apply for it. So that's the main
thing. We don't have a full liquor bar. We are just going to
serve on the bble when they have dinner or lunch or whatever.
We are a family restaurant. Most of the customers are family or
couples. Its nota lot of liquorto be served.
Mr. Alanskas: You say you're going to have it on the table. If someone wants
to order a mixed drink, how would you prepare it? Where would
you prepare it?
Mrs. Yim: When we are allowed to gel a license, we will prepare ... to gel
a bar, just serving bar, but not a food bar for the people.
Mr. Alanskas: I've been there many times. Where inside the restaurant would
you put the bar?
Mrs. Yim: The front, the counter.
Mr. Alanskas: As you go out of the building?
Mrs. Yim: No, the front, the counter.
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
20198
Mrs. Yim:
When you come in, they have counter. They have a place to
put the sink under the counter. Of course, we will make all the
code, whatever the company say.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you looking for a big increase in business if you have a
liquor license?
Mrs. Yim:
I think so. Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Actually, she's going to put the counter where the cash register
is right now, next to another area. She's going to combine
those two areas. The restaurant is a very nice restaurant. You
did an excellent job of fixing it up. I dont really know if its going
to increase your business, but I can understand people would
like a drink sometimes when theyre having their lunch or dinner.
I personally have no big objection to this.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Matt Commeier,
ANK Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 3013, Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48333. We are the landlords for the properly. Sue let
me know they were applying for a license. I just wanted to say
they've done a great job at fixing up the building. Their
business is going well. I think they've improved the center. The
traffic in the center has been good and has helped the other
tenants. She has explained to me that they are not open late.
They close at 10:00 every night. They aren't going to have a
bar where people sit and drink while they wait, so it's only going
to be served at their table. They're going to refigure part of the
restaurant so they have a place to make the drinks. It's really a
complement to their family business. I don't foresee any
problems in the shopping center late at night from people who
are intoxicated or anything like that. We're normally very
cautious about encouraging this, but in this case, I think its
warranted for her business.
Mr. McCann:
Can you tell me how many square feet the current restaurant is?
Mr. Cornmeier:
It's 7,700 square feet.
Mr. McCann:
What is the size of seating area?
Mr. Cornmeier:
The size of the seating area? I don't know. I think its about
two-thirds, one-third, so however that breaks down. Two-thirds
seafing area and one-third kitchen and stockroom.
20199
Mr. McCann:
So we've got about 4,000 square feet of seating area.
Mr. Cornmeier:
Approximately.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. I guess my concern is, I have no problem with this
current use in this restaurant. Should this tenant leave, though,
the building would be available to any Class C type restaurant
use or nightdub. The waiver use would ran with the land, and I
don't know if a 7,000 square fool bar in this area would be
appropriate. Mr. Taormina, there is no way of restricting it, is
there?
Mr. Taormina:
There could be a restriction if there were additional requests for
a dance permit or an entertainment permit in connection with
the Class C license. There is a restriction on the number of
seats, 248. As long as any other food establishment would not
exceed that seating capacity, then yes, you're correct, there
could be a change to another type of restaurant operation.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to speak? I'm going
to close the public hearing. Mr. or Mrs. Yim, you have the final
statement. Nothing further? A motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#0337-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003-02-02-01 submitted by Kui Sin Yim, on behalf of
the Buffet Group, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to utilize
a Class C Liquor License in connection with a full service
restaurant operating within an exisfing building on property
located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Middlebell
Road and Beatrice Avenue in the Northeast %of Section 23, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Pefifion 2003-02-02-01 be approved, subject to the
waiving of the 1,000 fool separation requirement as set forth in
Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Council
and also subject to the following additional conditions:
1. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated February 7, 2003 from the Inspection Department
shall be rectified to that department's satisfaction:
- That the dumpster endosure directly behind (west of)
the subject restaurant shall be rebuilt, after obtaining a
building permit, of brick or reinforced poured concrete
20200
walls with simulated brick pattern and with wood or
metal endosure gates which shall be property
maintained and, when not in use, closed at all limes;
That the rear wall of the adjacent tenant space shall be
completed;
That the debris at the northwest end of the building
shall be removed from the site;
That the parking lot shall be repaired and redouble
striped, inducing the provision of properly sized, signed
and striped accessible parking spaces;
2. That all other conditions and requirements set forth in
Council Resolution #744-01 granting waiver use approval
for the subject restaurant shall remain in effect and shall be
adhered to, except for any conditions which may be
superceded by this approval; and
3. That the area at the restaurant where alcoholic beverages
are permitted to be served and consumed shall be limited
to the current seating and dining area as provided for on
the approved Floor Plan on file with the Inspection
Department.
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. McCann: I have a question for Mr. Taormina. Can we restrict the use of
the liquor license to the current sealing area? I believe we can.
Mr. Taormina: Yes, I don't see why that would be prohibited. The use of the
liquor license can be restricted to the current seating as
20201
provided for in the floor plan on file with the Building Inspection
Department.
Mr. McCann: Right. So that any change to that floor plan would require
additional waiver uses or consideration. I think that might
tighten it down to this specific use; that is what I'm trying to do.
If the maker of the motion and Mr. Pieroecchi have no objection,
we could add that in there?
Mr. Pieroecchi: Very good.
Mr. McCann: Mr. Nowak, are you going to overrule me?
Mr. Nowak: No, I just mentioned to Mr. Taormina that was part of what I had
in mind under condition 2. We can add some wording to that.
Mr. McCann: I was looking at that, but I just wanted to make sure that we
focus this as tight as we can for this specific use.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 2003-02-02-02 NEW CAR ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003-02-02-02 submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of New Car
Alternative, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to construct an
addition onto an existing building and expand the vehicle display
area in connection with an existing automobile dealership,
located on the south of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue
and Wayne Road in the Northwest%of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina: If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I'll just provide the details on
this petition and just to summarize, the area we were
discussing under Petition 2003-02-01-08 was this site here
which is being requested to be rezoned from G7 to C-2. The
property that is the subject of this petition includes the two
parcels that lie immediately to the east of that. That includes
where New Car Altematives' existing business is located on
the southwest comer of Plymouth Road and Laurel Avenue as
well as the commercial business immediately to the west of
that, which is also proposed to be incorporated into the overall
site plan and expansion of this use. The expanded site area
under this petition would be 1.3 acres with a total of 173 feet of
20202
frontage along Plymouth Road, by a depth of roughly 328 feet.
The area would accommodate two new additions to the
building. There would be a 672 square foot addifion that would
be the showroom and sales area and that would square off the
northwest corner of the building. In addition, there would be a
7,018 square fool building addition for automobile service
purposes that would be at the south end of the rear portion of
the building. There would be zero setback along the west
property line abutting the commercial business and a 72 foot
setback from the south property line where it abuts the
residential property. Upon completion of these additions, the
total building area would be 16,140 square feet. In terms of
the parking, the required parking per the ordinance is the sum
of the parking requirements for the showroom and the sales
area, as well as the auto service shop. For the showroom and
sales area, that would be 8,000 square feet and would require
one parking space for every 500 square feet of floor space,
thereby requiring 16 parking spaces. The service shop facility
would require an additional 21 spaces, that would be five
service bays at two spaces per bay plus 11 employees. So
there would be a total of 37 parking spaces required for the
business. The site plan does provide for 37 panting spaces,
both along the east and the south sides of the building. This
would provide for customer panting, as well as employee
parking. The remaining parking spaces that would be
available would be used for display purposes. Once this is
incorporated into the site, the balance of the property to the
west would also be used for display purposes. There are a
number of issues that have been identified in the letters,
including lighting. The plan does show the location of the
proposed light poles and a note that all new lights would be a
maximum of 16 feet in height. In terms of the trash, there
would be a new trash dumpster enclosure in the southwest
corner of the property with six foot high walls that would be
constructed of split -face block to match the building. The
landscaping constitutes approximately 14.5% of the expanded
site area, which would be slightly less than the minimum 15%
requirement of the ordinance. And lastly, the exterior
materials, or the architecture of the building, have been
designed to match the design and architecture of the existing
structure which consists mainly of insulated glass windows,
scored block and efface, which is an exterior insulated finish
system, sometimes referred to as dryvit. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mark, do we have a set of the building plans to put
up for the audience? I think we're going to need that.
20203
Mr. Taormina:
Maybe I can just recap quickly. I'm going to tum this plan
sideways so that the orientation of Plymouth Road is at the lop.
This is the existing New Car Alternative's building. The first
addition, which is proposed here at the southerly portion of the
site, is shown here as hatched. The smaller addition, which is
only 672 square feet, would square off the building as shown
here on the existing building. There is a building presently right
here, which is where the party store and carryout restaurant
were located. This building would be completely removed, and
this area would be utilized exclusively for vehicle parking as part
of the display area for the dealership. There is no change to the
entrance from Laurel Avenue. The design would remain as is.
However, there would be designated parking for customers
along the east side of the building, as well as designated spaces
along the southerly portion of the site. The wall presently
extends along the southerly boundary where it abuts the
residential. This is back here where it runs east to west from
Laurel Avenue to the southwest comer of the business, which is
where the party store is located. The balance of the area, which
is part of the rezoning request, does not presently have a wall,
but one is shown on these conceptual plans as well as a 10 foot
greenbelt area that would be planted with trees. Some of the
issues include the type of trees that should be planted in this
area, as well as the lighting fixtures that are needed to illuminate
the vehicle display area and the area behind the building. Some
controls would have to be set there. To orient those of you
looking at these plans on the television, this ou8ined area does
show where the existing donut shop is located. If you look
closely, there is a line here that represents the outline of the
ingress and egress easement that exists across this property to
assure access to Plymouth Road for this parcel, which is the
site that is requested to be rezoned from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I am very much encouraged by what I've heard this evening, but
in my opinion, there are still a lot of questions that need to be
answered, such as additional landscaping, the wall, car loading
and unloading area, other access routes to and from the
property, and other issues that were brought up by the staff, city
departments and people here tonight. So I'm going to offer a
motion to table.
On a motion
by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
approved, it was
#0338-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003-02-02-02 submitted by Alan Tanski, on behalf of
New Car Allemative, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to
20204
construct an addition onto an existing building and expand the
vehicle display area in connection with an existing automobile
dealership, located on the south of Plymouth Road between
Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest''/.of Section
33, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
Petition 2003-02-02-02 be tabled to the next Regular Meeting of
March 25, 2003.
Mr. McCann: The next Regular Meeting is March 25. Is that available, Mr.
Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I would ask the petitioner what length of time they would need to
submit revised plans.
Mr. Amann: March 25 would be fine.
Mr. Taormina: Actually, we'd need revised plans by March 14 for our study
meeting on March 18.
Mr. Amann: I think that's feasible because the revisions we're talking about
are mainly notations and clarifications. I think that's feasible for
us. If we cant gel it to you, then we will submit a written request
to leave it on the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
ITEM #7 PETITION 2003 -01 -PL -01 PASTANA VILLA
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2003 -01 -PL -01, submitted by Basney & Smith, Inc., on behalf of
Rosati Land Development, LLC, requesting preliminary plat
approval to develop a 13 lot subdivision, known as "Pastana
Villa," located on the west side of Stark Road between Beacon
Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southwest%of Section 28.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated February 10, 2003, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
20205
no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-
way dedication is required and the right -of -my for the
development is shown on the plan. There appears to be a
typographical error in the seventh line of the legal description.
The call of 1187.90 appears to be in error and may be 187.90.
This should be verified by the surveyor. There is also a
typographical error in line eight (od should be oil. The designer
has noted that detention for the residential lots will be in the rear
yard areas. Detention calculations should be provided that
indicate the areas of detention and these areas must be shown
on the plan. The areas of detention must be within an
easement dedicated for that purpose and the restrictive
covenants for the subdivision must contain a provision that no
grading of these areas will be permitted after the subdivision is
complete. The developer will be required to grade and seed or
sod these areas prior to acceptance of the subdivision by the
City." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City
Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue
Division, dated January 20, 2003, which reads as follows: "This
office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a
request with to develop a 134ot subdivision located on the west
side of Stark Road between Capitol Road and the CSX
Railroad. We have no objections to this proposal with the
following stipulations. (1) Fire hydrants shall be provided on
Rosati Court with spacing consistent with residential use
groups. (2) Minimum diameter of cul-de-sac shall beat least 80
feet. (3) Any curves or comer of streets shall accommodate
emergency vehicles with a turning radius of 45 feet wall-to-wall."
The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 29,
2003, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
preliminary plat regarding the proposal to develop a 13 lot
subdivision. We are very pleased to see that sidewalks are
proposed for this development. We recommend that streetlights
be installed to enhance crime prevention and traffic safety within
this development Stop signs should be installed at Stark Road
and for Rita Court at Rosati Court. We would also encourage
the installation of lights along the public walkway from Boston
Post Road to Rosati Court." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated January 27, 2003, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of January 16, 2003, the
above-eferenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) There is a small gap in the required protective wall
along the west property line at the north end. Mr. Rosati has
verbally indicated he will infill this area. (2) Depending on how
the final grading is accomplished at the northwest comer, the
west 20 feet of the east -west protective wall may have to be
20206
raised to meet the height requirement of 6 feet above finish
grade. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. The next letter is from the Department of Parks
and Recreation, dated February 4, 2003, which reads as
follows: "The Department of Parks and Recreation has
reviewed the preliminary plat. At this time, 1 find no
discrepancies or problems that would be caused by the
development of this subdivision." The letter is signed by Ronald
R. Reinke, Superintendent. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. McCann:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
William Roskelly,
Basney & Smith, 33177 Schoolcratt, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
1 am representing Mr. Rosati. I think the plan is self-
explanatory. We've had this before us on several occasions. It
really was coupled along with the industrial sub that has been
approved contiguous to this piece of land. The one discussion
we had was the sidewalk. If you notice on this plat, we have
indicated a 10 fool right-of-way for the sidewalk for the children
to go to school; it would go from there to Boston Post. I believe
in your package you have a letter from the School Board that
recommended that the children be picked up in that subdivision
as opposed to Stark Road. In our former discussions, it was
brought up that this industrial road, 38 feel wide, was quite busy
with large trucks coming in and out. When the children would
walk that 900 feet, there's nowhere on Stark Road to wait for a
bus. So the school indicated they would much prefer to go to
Boston Post Road. As Mr. Nowak indicated, we'd be happy to
place lights or whatever is necessary for safety on that path,
and it would become a public right-of-way, not part of a lot. If
there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Alanskas:
On your site plan it says, "Note: Detention for the residential
lots will be within swales and areas in the rear of the lots" Is
that saying that on Lots 12, 11, 4 and 3 the drainage will be
going towards Alden Village on Lots 49, 50, 92 and 93?
Mr. Roskelly:
No. All storm water drainage will be contained in and on these
sites. When we speak of swales, if you bok at, for instance,
Lots 5 and 4, we certainly get the volume that's going to be
required on the sites. Certainly we are not going to be flooding
any of the adjoining lands. In fact, we have to meet their
existing elevations, and in some cases, we even drain some of
their water if it's coming ...
Mr. Alanskas:
Onto your properly?
20207
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Bill, are you planning a sign for this subdivision anyplace? Can
you identify where it might be? I know it will be offsite.
Mr. Roskelly:
As of this point, we have not planned on a sign for it. An
identification sign, you're speaking of?
Mr.Shane:
Yeah.
Mr. Roskelly:
I guess, perhaps, at a later date the owner may wish to do R.
Whether its only for the industrial or the residential ... to be
honest with you, we haven't discussed that matter.
Mr. Shane:
All right. The only other question I have is, I know when you did
the industrial subdivision, we talked about deed restrictions over
there.
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes.
Mr. Shane:
I'm hoping that those restrictions are going to be rather strict in
terms of outdoor storage and that kind of thing.
Mr. Roskelly:
In the industrial sub?
Mr.Shane:
Yes.
Mr. Roskelly:
Mr. Taormina has a copy, and we've been over those. I believe
we have those to a point now that they are acceptable to the
City.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, those restrictions will be presented to the Planning
Commission and the City Council at the time the final plat is
presented for the industrial park.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Great. Thanks.
Mr. La Pine:
Bill, are these homes going to be brick, 60% or 80%? You
know, what we normally have?
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes. In fact, because of the size of the lots and the number of
the lots, I'm sure they would aceed the contiguous ownership
at this time, and I would venture to say they're going to be in the
area of at lead 60% brick.
20208
Mr. La Pine:
Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas:
Dont we have 80% for ranches and...
Mr. McCann:
Well, on the site condos, we can do that. On a preliminary plat,
I dont believe we have control over the brick.
Mr. Alanskas:
We can stipulate the amount of brick in an approving resolution.
Can't we?
Mr. McCann:
On a preliminary plat, we can try R. We never used to be able to
doit. I don't know if we can do it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because we don't want a lot of siding on it.
Mr. McCann:
Well, we'll try it. Mr. Roskelly, what did you mean by a private
park for detenfion of roadway stormwaleR I realize it's probably
dual purpose, but it says, "private park for detenfion of roadway
slormwaler." When I looked at that on the plan, I was a little
confused. That's nexllolhe sidewalk?
Mr. Roskelly:
Where was this located?
Mr. McCann:
It would be the parcel that separates Lots 9 and 10.
Mr. Roskelly:
Oh, yes. That area in there ... you're question was ...
Mr. McCann:
Well, it says "private park for detention of roadway stornwater."
Mr. Roskelly:
Usually, under the plat act, it's designated that way in the final
plat.
Mr. McCann:
As a park area?
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes. As an open space, perhaps the choice of words is
incorrect. Its an open space area that's restricted, of course, by
the restrictions.
Mr. McCann:
Right. But the way you worded d, 'private park for detention of
roadway stormwater," to me it says, "Okay, we've got a park
over here where we're going to store water."
Mr. Roskelly:
That would be incorrect in my opinion. I would agree with you,
and I'll have that changed.
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Is there going to be storm detenfion on that parcel?
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes.
20209
Mr. McCann:
Okay. Is part of it going to be designated as park and part of it
designated as storm detention?
Mr. Roskelly:
I would suggest that it be a common area. What we are to do
with it as far as the final plat, either the county or the state will
come along and say, 'You can't call it that. You must call it a
detention basin and/or open space."
Mr. McCann:
Okay. My question is: Is that something we need to deal with
tonight, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
No. The actual wording of how that area will be set aside for
slormwaterwill be reflected on the final plat.
Mr. McCann:
It's open space right now. We know that. Whether it's going to
be a detention basin or whether it's going to be used for a
common area for a park, thatwill be determined.
Mr. Roskelly:
I suggest that, and perhaps a couple other areas in the larger
pie -shaped lots would be designated for stormwater detention.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Thank you. I'll go to the audience now.
Jacqueline Burns,
34682 Beacon. I'm Lot 92 on the thing. There are a few
things I'm worried about. When we bought our house 17 years
ago, we were pretty much guaranteed that was all landlocked.
We'd have those woods behind us forever. There's very few
woods there now. We gel so much more noise. I know with the
housing coming in, it will be all ripped down. Not only the noise
that we gel, plus 13 more homes going in, quite a few directly
behind me, but the railroad tracks, it sounds now like it's coming
through my bedroom half the time when the train goes by. I'm
worried about the noise and when theyre building, all of the dirt,
with the construction and everything else. Can we propose to
have trees or privacy fencing put up that will help not only for
the noise and everything, but even for our own privacy? Like I
said, for 17 years I guess I've been somewhat spoiled and
maybe I'm being selfish, but I like having the trees and
everything else. And like I said, it cuts down on the noise and
everything. I'm worried about people all of sudden now going to
be in my backyard and everything else. And I don't think that
that's right for the existing people who live in Alden Village to
have to put up with all of this. Basically, the way the lots look
and everything else, so far it's the best proposal that we have
seen, and I dont knock that at all. And I dont blame the people.
I wouldn't want my Idds going out onto Stark Road either, and
that does not bother me. But it's just that the people who abut
20210
up to it, I feel we should have some kind of say that something
goes up to kind of protect us. Like I said, we've had woods and
everything behind us for a long lime, and I really don't think that
we should have to be in jeopardy just because somebody
happened to buy it when we were told that nothing would ever
go in there. And another thing I was wondering loo, what type
of housing is going up? I know they are going to be single
homes. Will they be ranches, colonials? I haven't seen
anything proposed. Do they have any idea yet?
Mr. McCann: Part of the problem, ma'm, is this is a preliminary plat. Because
of the change in the laws, everybody has been coming forward
with site condominiums. Although they meet all the
requirements of single family housing, as a site condominium
we have ultimate control over the type of building, and we have
more ability to determine greenbelts and the type of
construction. On a preliminary plat, I don't ever remember
having a greenbelt plan go along with it. I know we've had
problems with this in the City before where we've required Mr.
Soave on the Farmington Road project to put in evergreens
behind the residences. Then the new residents came in and cut
them all down, and there was nothing we could do about it.
Mr. Taormina:
I believe that, in fact, you can conditionally approve a
preliminary plat, and I believe you have considered landscape
easements in the past. It was probably at the time the
preliminary plat was approved. But you're right, we don't
typically get into the landscaping details with a preliminary plat.
The plan presented this evening does conform in all respects to
the R-5 district regulations and that includes both the size of the
lots as well as the width and length of the roadway. Whether
you choose to impose additional conditions or approve the plat
as submitted, its up to you, but extra landscape buffers are
something that we've considered only in unique or very core
circumstances with preliminary plats.
Mr. McCann:
Part of the problem, ma'm, is, as you say, you've had the benefit
of this greenbelt area for a long time and now you feel like
you're being punished.
Ms. Bums:
When we bought, we were told nothing would ever go in there
because itwas landlocked.
Mr. McCann:
That's an awfully naive statement.
Ms. Bums:
Well, that's whatwe were told.
20211
Mr. McCann:
Let me finish my sentence, okay? What I'm saying is that the
property behind you was properly zoned all along. The owner
has been paying the taxes on that property for many, many
years for your enjoyment. That was the proper zoning at the
time that you bought your land. They had the right at any time
to build on the property, but you've had the benefit of the woods
at their expense. But I agree with you that we do try and do as
much as we can to protect the residents who are getting new
developments. As you will recall, there was a lot of effort put
into this when the industrial subdivision was created to make
sure we had the best buffer, and we felt residential was
appropriate.
Mr. Shane:
In the case where the ordinance requires a greenbelt, it ends up
on the preliminary plat and on the final plat as a easement for
greenbelt purposes or whatever. But I don't remember
establishing a landscape easement when the ordinance doesn't
require it. We probably could. I don't know, but I don't ever
recall doing that.
Mr. Taormina:
In those cases you're refening to, they may have been voluntary
as well.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just think that with these tomes going up, it's going to help
buffer noise. And usually people who buy homes do their own
landscaping. They may be putting in trees or high bushes in
their backyards, which will also help you with the noise problem.
Ms. Bums:
Yeah, I know that will help and everything, but at the same time,
while they're being built, I know the noise is going to be
tremendous and the amount of dirt. I have a pool in my
backyard. I can just see it every night, I'm going to be
vacuuming five inches of dirt out, and I have baseboard heat. I
can't even put central air in to buffer most ofthe noise.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, we all have that problem when new homes are being built.
We all have dirt and noise that we have to put up with.
Mr. McCann:
After this next lady speaks, Mr. Roskelly can address some of
these issues.
Tem Lemmon,
12101 Brewster. I have a letter I'd like to submit. I meant to tum
H in earlier, but I didn't get to it. I have a problem also with
having some kind of a buffer or a fence, and its all of the
reasons that my neighbor, Jackie, just said, and for the fad that
we are the house that lives right off the entrance from that
industrial road. We were told when they built it that they were
going to put a fence across it. They never did. Fid when I
20212
called about it, they said they still had time to do that. Now
theyre putling in this. Of course, theyre never gang to put up
the fence. We couldn't talk about the residential properly when
they we're doing the industrial. But this entrance, anybody
that's coming up the industrial road has a direct line into our
backyard. You know, I don't appreciate this at all. And I really
would like you to look at that because I think it's very unsafe for
our property. Anybody that wants to come up that industrial
road can come right into our backyard. Of course, they're going
to have some land of easement, so there won't be any
residential. There's an easement of industrial property by that
wall. They've got big cement sewer things sifting there row. I
think it is unsafe and there should be some kind of fencing. It's
unsafe.
Mr. McCann:
Which wall is not completed?
Ms. Lemmon:
Pardon me?
Mr. McCann:
Which wall are you tallang about?
Ms. Lemmon:
I'm talking about where they made the road for the residential.
They slopped the wall and then confinued it where the road is
going to go in for residential. So they come up the industrial
road and go into their residential. And that's fine for them and
for the people that are going to buy there, Ike they said, well
that's their prerogative if they want to buy in a place that they
come off industrial road. I did not buy into a place where people
come off an industrial road into my backyard, and that's exactly
what it is. Anybody can come up that industrial road and they're
in my backyard.
Mr. McCann:
I'm not sure which lot is yours.
Mrs. Lemmon:
The one that doesn't have a number next to ... its 99-0015-
001.
Mr. McCann:
Are you at the corner of Capitol and Brewster?
Mrs. Lemmon:
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
You'd be at the northwest comer?
Mrs. Lemmon:
Right.
Mr. McCann:
Is there a wall in your backyard that abuts the industrial road?
Mrs. Lemmon:
There's a wall. You can see where the entrance is.
20213
Mr. McCann: Right. The wall should you go all the way across your rear
propertyline. Correct?
Mrs. Lemmon:
Right. It does, and then it opens right there. Its open. There's
not going to be any trees there so anybody who comes up that
industrial road, all they have to do is go 20 feel and they're h
my backyard.
Mr. McCann:
This should be Lot 1. The new subdivision is going to be putting
a home in your direct backyard. Correct?
Mrs. Lemmon:
It shows that way, but what are the dotted lines? It shows
number one and it shows dotted lines around it Is there an
easement that goes around there?
Mr. McCann:
No, those dotted lines are the building envelope. That's where
the home can sit.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Okay. There's not going to be any sidewalks in this
subdivision?
Mr. McCann:
Yes, there will be sidewalks.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Okay. I'm just trying to figure out where the sidewalk will be.
Will @ be where the street area is?
Mr. McCann:
I believe it will start in the front of that house and go around.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Okay. So the wall that's in there now that goes along the side of
our property ...
Mr. McCann:
Lel me ask Mr. Roskelly. Is the wall completed all the way at
this point?
Mr. Roskelly:
I believe there is a break at the intersection point there which
would be in front of Lot 1.
Mr. McCann:
For the road.
Mr. Roskelly:
For the road.
Mr. McCann:
Right. We understand ....
Mr. Roskelly:
Other than that, the entre wall is in there.
Mr. McCann:
Right. And the wall extends down ... d makes the turn right
now?
20214
Mr. Roskelly:
No, it pcks up then at the other side of the new proposed road
and continues off in the westerly direction.
Mr. Shane:
I think what her concern right now is because there's no house
sifting there, it looks like it is open to anybody. You know, once
the wall stops? But once the house is there, then that becomes
somebodys private property and I think the problem goes away.
Mr. McCann:
Well, that too. And then as Mr. Pieroecchi points out, I believe
the wall goes down from Stark Road and then at the very end it
Tums.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Ilgoes southwest, right?
Mr. McCann:
Does it tum?
Mr. Shane:
No, it doesn't.
Mr. Roskelly:
The wall does not turn. It terminates at the point in the center of
Lot 1, ifyou will, at the angle point.
Mr. McCann:
At the angle point.
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes, then it picks up, if you go to the west, now, across the
street, diagonally.
Mr. McCann:
Exactly. All right.
Mr. Roskelly:
Then the wall picks up there and goes all the way to the
westerly boundary.
Mr. McCann:
I guess tie issue is going to be resolved once we have a home
built there. But I do remember in our preliminary discussions
that the area was going to be fenced off with a privacy fence of
some type, a winterfence.
Mr. Roskelly:
We discussed that and then the problem was a matter of safety.
If somebody is in this property, right
now, I think its open. But
we talked about a temporary gate. I don't know if that was ever
done. I don'lthink so.
Mrs. Lemmon:
It wasn't.
Mr. McCann:
No.
Mr. Roskelly:
No, ilwas not done. Is that a request atthis time?
20215
Mr. McCann:
I don't know what the final decision was on that at the Council
level. I think when it lett here, you were gang to do something
to keep the industrial and everybody else from using the
property by putting a temporary fence across there.
Mr. Roskelly:
Either a gate or something ...
Mr. McCann:
Something. Some type of accessibility. I don't know how that
was resolved at Council.
Mr. Taormina:
It was incorporated into the approving resolution. So, as far as I
know, that gate should be up there. We can look into that.
Mr. Roskelly:
I certainly will.
Mrs. Lemmon:
We're still going to get all that dirt, like Jackie was saying, when
they start clearing away everything. I have pictures of
sandstorms coming across before they built that wall for the
industrial. Our land is mainly sand. And when you clear away
the trees and the shrubs and all that, you have sand, and it
blows. I think the City Council saw the sandstorm that was
going across Stark Road from the industrial property when they
cleared it. It was bad. We had to power wash our house. Its a
sandstorm. I think that somehow he should put some kind of
blocker up for us. I dont know how long they're going to be
building back there. I can imagine all the noise and the dirt, and
people back there. Just people in our backyard is what its
going to be. There will be no blocker. It's coming off of
industrial road. I just feel very vulnerable having all that in my
backyard.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you talking about a fence? Are you talking about a cyclone
fence? If it's a cyclone fence, if it's six fool high or eight foot
high, that's not going to stop the sand or anything.
Mrs. Lemmon:
No. I'm talking about a blocker fence.
Mr. LaPine:
I dont think that we've ever discussed that.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Maybe a greenbelt, like Jackie was saying, trees would be
good. Anything that is going to block. I mean if he puts up
trees, I'll put up a fence on the other side to keep people out. If
we can keep out the dirt, if he'll agree to put up a blocker for dirt,
I'll do something on the other side to keep people out.
Mr. LaPine:
It seems to me that when we discussed this, you were
concemed about the wall stopping right there. I think Mr.
20216
Roskelly at the time said he'd put up a cyclone fence across
there to keep the tratficfrom coming back in there.
Mrs. Lemmon: Well, that's what he says.
Mr. La Pine: The cyclone fence is not going to take care of your problem as
far as the sand. He can put up a cyclone fence, but once this
construction is done and there's a house built on that one lot, I
would assume the cyclone fence would come down unless the
property owner wants it to stay there on that lot.
Mrs. Lemmon: Well, that would be something maybe we could negotiate with
the property owner. They may appreciate a cyclone fence there
also because there is going to be cutting through these yards
from Stark Road. No one is going to want to walk all the way
down to Beacon. You know, if you get a lot of kids in there and
sluff, theyre not going to want to walk all the way down to
Beacon and go down their little path. They're going to be
cutting from Stark Road across through our yard because its all
open. And I can see this happening. I can see people coming
off industrial road. I just feel like we're just there ... open ...
and some kind of an agreement should be reached. If he puts
up a cyclone fence, maybe we can put up the greenbelt, the
trees, to block the dirt. We should reach some kind of an
agreement. And I really do think that once a homeowner goes
in there, that they will probably want the same thing we're going
to want, either some kind of a greenbelt so they have privacy in
their own backyard.
Mr. McCann: I appreciate your comments. I think the staff has said it. We've
built in certain things in the ordinance that they have to comply
with. If its office abutting residential, some type of wall or
greenbelt has to be put in, but not with residential to residential.
I think it is part of the history of Livonia that with new
subdivisions, you get mud; you get dirt; that's part of it. I think,
as he said earlier, we really don't have a provision for a
requiring him to be putting up fences between residential
properties.
Mrs. Lemmon: This is a little bit different though. You also have an industrial
road coming onto residential. Yeah, you can say, okay, this
property is going to butt up to that wall, and then we wont have
that problem any more. We've seen so much variance. Like
I've said, the fence that was supposed to be put up was never
put up. We had people in the backyard writing on the wall. You
can say, oh yeah, it's going to be done, but then its never done.
And then we have to live with that. And I don't think that ve
should have to pay for all this when he's the one whos
20217
introduced a industrial road into our backyard. When we moved
there, they said, this is industrial and this is residential, and you
won't have to worry about it because this industrial will come off
of Stark Road and that will be industrial. This will be residential.
And it was like, okay, well, then that's fine if that's industrial.
Well, really, it hasn't been kept industrial because theyve got an
industrial road coming onto a subdivision right behind our
house. So they've connected the two as far as I'm concemed.
Theyve connected an industrial to our subdivision, a road into
our backyards from an industrial park where anybody can go,
not just residents, its anybody. But that's my saying. If you can
do something to reach an agreement to have him do part of
putting up the fence, and we'll put up the greenbelt. I don't
know. I just would like to see something done. I just feel very
vulnerable with everybody coming off that industrial road.
Mr. McCann:
All right. Thank you. Your letter is part of the comments, and it
will be put into the record.
Mr. Alanskas:
Ma'm, I would like to bring this up to date. If you recall, when
this pefition first came before us, I came out to your homes and I
had a meeting with all the owners. At first, it was a very
intrusive industrial site that was going to go up there. They
made it much, much smaller. They promised you people they
were going to put a subdivision of homes behind it to appease
you, and you said that would be great.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Butwe didn't know the industrial road would come into it.
Mr. Alanskas:
I understand, but lel me finish. I'm not sticking up for the
petitioner. I've got a fence in my backyard for privacy that I had
to put up to keep out either the other neighbor or keep out dogs.
We all want to have open space, but it doesn't work all the time.
So I don't think it's the burden of the developer to put more
screening up. If you want more privacy, you might have to
consider putting up trees yourself or a backyard fence. Thank
you.
Mrs. Lemmon:
Okay. Thank you.
Keith Lemmon,
12101 Brewster. That was my wife, previous. I just wanted to
stale that when we bought our house, they said that the back
was industrial and back behind us was residential. They didn't
say that the industrial was going to come into our backyard.
They never said that. I don't think it's right of them doing it that
way, and I think because of it, they do ave us some privacy.
Anyone who is working in those places are going to take
shortcuts to our backyard and stuff like that to get to the main
20218
drags. And I do believe that's going to happen. As far as the
wall that he put up there, he was supposed to plant trees there
by the wall. None of that has been done yet. We're hearing all
the noise from there, and we don't even have the trucks going
through. You said it was going to be small businesses back
there. There are no businesses back there. How do we know
its going to be small? I know its not heavy industry, but do you
know what's going back there? Does anyone know what's
going back there?
Mr. McCann:
We only know the type and the size. That's all we can tell you.
Mr. Lemmon:
Exactly. I had my boy's graduation party in the backyard.
There was sand in everyone's food and it was from that blowing
sand. I washed my house twice with a power washer. I had to
go out and buy one, and wash It twice with a power washer,
thus far and its dirty again. Nobody does that. Do you wash
your house twice a year? Does anyone wash their house twice
a year? Its expensive to have that done. We're going to run
into the same business when he mows those down and won't
build a house on the properly until the property is bought and
sold and people have to build their own house or whatever they
want built. It will be the same way with that as the industry.
When you buy the land, then theyll build the property. So that's
going to stay dusty back there for how long? Until somebody
buys the property, right?
Mr. McCann:
Sir, we knew ...
Mr. Lemmon:
We're going to have that dust stone for years or months or days
or whatever until it's sold. Right? Am I correct?
Mr. McCann:
Sir, the issue before us is the residential development and does
this plan or the traffic pattern work. That's the issue before us
tonight. The industrial sub is done; its completed; it was
passed by the City Council. Construction has begun. That was
industrial. Right now, we're trying to decide whether the layout
of these lots is appropriate or not. That's what we're here for
tonight.
Mr. Lemmon:
All right.
Mr. McCann:
Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to
speak? I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Roskelly, any
last comments?
Mr. Roskelly:
I keep hearing that people are going to be going across the
back of his property. There's a seven fool wall up there. When
20219
Lot 1 is built, and certainly it will be, a home will be there and
certain shrubs will be placed.
Mr. McCann:
Once the home is built. Right now, I'm sure the lights are
directing into their yard.
Mr. Roskelly:
In the 40 years of my developing land for myself, from Pulte
Home to all the builders in 40 different units in this tri -county
area, I have never ever heard of a contiguous properly owner
with the same zoning wanting a buffer. How can you buffer?
Why do you need a buffer from Rd to Rd? Why do you need a
buffer from R-1 to R-1? What would we have? A complete city
of greenbelts? I think its ridiculous. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0339-2003
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on March 11, 2003, on
Petition 2003 -01 -PL -01, submitted by Basney & Smith, Inc., on
behalf of Rosati Land Development, LLC, requesting preliminary
plat approval to develop a 13 lot subdivision known as "Pastana
Villa" located on the west side of Stark Road between Beacon
Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southwest %of Section 28,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that the Preliminary Plat for Pastana Villa Subdivision
be approved subject tothe following conditions:
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1A, dated
October 17, 2002, as revised, prepared by Basney &
Smith, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
and
2. That a plan for the required entrance marker shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to
the approval ofthe Final Plat;
forthe following reasons:
1. That the preliminary plat is drawn in compliance with all
applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations; and
2. That the preliminary plat represents a good land use
solution to development of the subject land.
20220
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution. This conduces the Public Hearing section
of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item
section of our agenda. This item has been discussed at length
in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion
tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent
from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next
item?
ITEM #8 PETITION 2001 -05 -PL -01 ROSATI INDUSTRIAL
Mr. Pieroecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition
2001 -05 -PL -01, submitted by Enrico Rosati requesting to revise
the conditions of approval for the Rosati Industrial Park located
on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcreft Road and
Plymouth Road in the South %nf Section 28.
On a motion
by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#03-40-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2001 -05 -PL -01, submitted by William
Roskelly, on behalf of Rosati Industrial Park, requesting to
revise the conditions of approval that was previously approved
by Council Resolution 228-02 on April 24, 2002, for the Rosati
Industrial Park located on the west side of Stark Road between
Schoolcrett and Plymouth Roads in the South %rof Section 28,
be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann,
Chairman, declared the motion is caned and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. McCann:
Is there anything new on this, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't believe there is any new information.
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Roskelly, is there any new information that we need to be
aware of?
Mr. Roskelly:
No, I believe this is regarding whether or not there is to be a
sidewalk.
Mr. McCann:
That is correct.
20221
Mr. Roskelly:
I have no other information other than the letter you have from
the school indicating they prefer to go to Boston Post.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Roskelly, I just have one question: Are we still going to gel
the trees along that wall as stated in Item 7. Is that correct?
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
And they're going to be spaced differently than originally
planned?
Mr. Roskelly:
Theywould be spaced 20 feet apart on the final plan.
Mr. LaPine:
I see in the approving resolution that it doesn't menfion anything
aboutthat. I want to make sure that we're still in agreement.
Mr. Roskelly:
Yes, it certainly is.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motion
by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#03-41-2003
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001 -05 -PL -01,
submitted by Wlilam Roskelly, on behalf of Rosati Industrial
Park, requesting to revise the conditions of approval previously
granted by Council Resolution 228-02 on April 24, 2002, for the
Rosati Industrial Park located on the west side of Stark Road
between Schoolcmft and Plymouth Roads in the South %of
Section 28, be approved for the following reasons:
1. That this application to modify condition #13 of Council
Resolution 228-02 requesting to delete the sidewalk along
the south side of the industrial drive from Stark Road west
to the residential Lot 1 is hereby approved;
2. That because of the type of vehicular traffic that will be
using the industrial drive, it would be unsafe for
pedestrians to walk next to the roadway;
3. That the proposed change will allow for a direct route
between this subdivision and the existing residential
subdivision to the south; and
20222
4. This modification will help discourage children from riding
their bikes orwalking along the industrial drive.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the
motion
is carried and the
foregoing
resolution adopted. It
will go
on to City Council
with an
approving resoluton.
On a moton duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 861st Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 11, 2003, was adjourned at 1045
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
James C. McCann, Chairman