HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-09-1421602
MINUTES OF THE 891st PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 89V Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; Ms. Debra Walter, Clerk I; and Ms. Marge Roney, Program
Supervisor, were also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the dale 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.
If there is no objection from my fellow commissioners, it is my intention to modify
the order of this evening's agenda. We will move Item 3, Petition 2004-08-02-29
on behalf of Michigan Heritage Bank, to Item 5. The petitioner has requested
that we put that just slightly later in the meeting. If there are no objections from
the Commission, we will do so. Seeing none, the agenda stands amended.
21603
ITEM #1 PETITION 200408-01-09 DAVID MOWETT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-08-
01-09, submitted by David Mowell requesting to rezone property
at 29001 and 29005 Five Mile Road, located on the south side
of Five Mile Road between Paderewski Avenue and Haller
Avenue in the Northwest''/. of Section 24 from R-1 to OS.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence for us to consider?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated August 19, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. The legal description for this
petition is shown below. Additional right -0f --way is not required
at this time. Any proposed drive approach to Five Mile Road will
require a permit from Wayne County and storm water detention
may be required in accordance with Wayne County's storm
water management ordinance when the parcel is developed as
an office site." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E.,
City Engineer. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Nowak. Are there any questions from the
commissioners for staff before we go to the petitioner? Seeing
none, is the petitioner here this evening?
David Mowell, 22529 Milner, Sl. Clair Shores, Michigan 48081. Good evening.
Mr. Walsh: Before we go to questions, is there anything you'd like to add to
the staffs description?
Mr. Mowell: No. It's a great overview as far as where the property is in
relation to other commercial properties in that area of Office
Services and C-2. I primarily feel that it's great main road
frontage being on Five Mile Road. We see a lot of potential with
it for being able to serve Livonia, especially that we border a lot
of commercial properties, including Charter One, which is
financial services. I work in real estate and financial services,
like financial planning. We see this as a good spot to have a
west side office, prime demographics. We favor that we have
Five Mile Road frontage and Haller Road frontage being a
corner lot, and the existing house has a concrete parking pad.
21604
We feel it could make a great office setting, still preserving the
residential look ofthe home to welcome clients. We anticipatea
fairly small staff, maybe three to five people working in the
house, providing we had appropriate handicap access and other
setback requirements mel for parking, etc.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Shane:
Sir, how long have you owned the property?
Mr. Mowell:
About four months.
Mr. Shane:
Is there an occupant in the house now?
Mr. Mowell:
No.
Mr. Shane:
There is not?
Mr. MowelC
No.
Mr. Shane:
Was there when you bought the properly?
Mr. Mowell:
No. There was not. We're pursuing options on it. That's one of
the reasons we haven't got an occupant in the house. We've
had numerous people approach us about wanting to rent the
property out, but we want to wail and see what happens with
this stage of the property as far as utilizing it as office. The
house is roughly about 1,400 to 1,500 square feet.
Mr. Shane:
Thank you.
Ms. Smiley:
Did you speak to the neighbor that owns the adjacent home?
Mr. Mowell:
Yes. I did speak to him briefly. His name is Mr. Chan. I'm not
sure if he's here tonight.
Mr. Walsh:
Is Mr. Chan in the audience? No, he is not.
Mr. Mowell:
I did speak to him. He said that home is utilized as a rental. At
one time, I did speak to those neighbors and they advised me it
was being rented. I spoke to them for about 15 minutes on the
phone a few days ago. He didn't state any objections to it but
he noticed the rezoning sign come up in front of the property.
He said he was glad that I gave him a call just to get his feel for
it. He said he had bought the properly about a little over a year
ago and that he realized when he bought it that there was quite
21605
the potential for somebody to rezone that property being a
corner lot with main road frontage, but really no specific
feedback or any objections was given by him in regards to it.
Ms. Smiley:
He is renting his house out right now?
Mr. Mowell:
Yes. That's the one house and next to @ is the rental place. I
forget the name of it.
Mr. LaPine:
You want to move in there and operate a financial services
business there. Is that correct?
Mr. Mowett:
Right. Real estate and financial services.
Mr. LaPine:
What are you going to do to the house? Are you going to do
any renovations? Are you going to do anything on the outside,
cosmetic things? Are you going to clean the situation up?
That's my first question. My second question is, if we allow this
to go in there, then we are stuck with that house next door to
you. Mark, what is the width of that lot for that little while house
there to the west? It's very small.
Mr. Taormina:
The properly immediately to the west, as I indicated, is 40' by
110'. It's 40 feel in width.
Mr. LaPine:
Which means we're stuck with a little 40 -foot lot. It doesn't
make sense in an OS business district. The only logical thing
that has to happen here is that 40 -foot lot has got to be
purchased by either you, or the guy that owns the 40 foot lot has
got to purchase your property. Then I might be able to consider
going OS and making one development there. The best thing
that could happen is that the rental shop goes, and we lake all
three parcels, rezone all into OS and then make a nice office
complex there. Al this point, I don't see any advantage to the
City to make this OS because we're just spot zoning. We've got
an OS, an R-1 and then a C-2. It just doesn't make good zoning
sense to me.
Mr. Morrow:
Had you given any thought to perhaps purchasing that property
to adjoin the one that you purchased?
Mr. Mowell:
I mentioned it to Mr. Chan about that. Say if this gets zoned to
OS for 29001 and 29005 Five Mile, would he consider maybe
an option if somebody wants to rezone that to OS in the future?
He said he would possibly keep that as an option. But as far as
the spot zoning, if you look at the map here, basically the house
21606
I own and that house are the only ones that are zoned R-1, all
the way from I believe Paderewski to Middlebelt. Everything
else is zoned C-2 and the Charter One is zoned O5. I see the
spot zoning as only the one house there. I know you talked
about acquiring all the property on that. I believe that rental
business has been in business for quite some time. I see
utilizing the house as a business. In regards to Mr. LaPine's
question about what we would do with the house, I understand
its one of the oldest houses around there. The city record
shows it was built h the mid -30's and it has kind of a vintage
arts and crafts look to d. I think a lot of that could be brought
back in the house with different trim, fascia board, decomtive
signs out front, a retaining wall - to preserve the residential feel
of the neighboring areas there as opposed to basically taking
the house down and trying to put a new building in at this point.
The house is fairly a generous size with two full baths. It has an
excellent basement for storage or files and records. I believe
the previous owner did utilize it as a home real estate office
because the way the house is partitioned inside. When you
walk in, you have like nine foot ceilings in the living room. Then
you go directly to the left and you have ten fool ceilings, which is
basically your master bedroom. That is partitioned kind of like
an office desk area and then a bedroom behind it and then the
walkin closet. And then you have the kitchen area right off
there. With a modest amount of modifications, it can make a
cozy office setting with what we have.
Mr. Walsh: We have a follow-up question
Mr. Morrow: Yes, I have a follow-up question regarding the zoning. I really
don't have a problem with the zoning, but one concern I have is
if that fellow is isolated with a 40 -fool lot, basically there is
nothing that he can do with that lot other than maintain a
residence. My question to you is, as time marches on and
maybe you decide that you want to bring down the current
home, if you gel permission to use it, and develop that site and
incorporate that 40 feel to give you a better site to work with.
From a planning standpoint, its always nice to work with as big
a parcel as you possibly can. My question is, would your
business have any interest in the future in acquiring that lot if it
could be worked out at a fair price with Mr. Chan?
Mr. Mowell: Yes. I could see that down the road
21607
Mr. Morrow:
Right. I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but what
I'm saying is, I'd like to pursue seeing if you two people can get
together to lie up that properly if it makes sense.
Mr. Mowett
Okay.
Mr. LaPine:
In that respect, the only problem I have with what Mr. Morrow
said, there would have to be a joint venture where either one
buys out the other or they've got to build a building together.
You cant build a very good OS building on a 40 -fool lot. It just
doesn't make sense, and I don't know how much
parking that
40 -fool lot would have if it was built as a single building.
How
would you have a driveway to gel to it? To me, it's not a very
viable solution.
Mr. Shane:
I think that what Mr. Morrow may have been leading to is that
he's comfortable with OS on this property, and he's probably
comfortable with OS on Mr. Chan's property, but I don't think
he's comfortable doing it one at a time. I would also
recommend that these two properties be consolidated prior to
any rezoning taking place. So if this gentleman can gel together
with Mr. Chan and make a deal, then I'd feel a lot better about it.
I think that might be where you're coming from.
Mr. Morrow: Yes. Basically, I want to kind of slick to zoning and not worry
about what's going to go in there subsequent to a zoning issue.
I just come from the standpoint that it's better to work with a
larger piece of property for perhaps future consideration.
Mr. LaPine: Just to clarify my position, I have no problem with zoning both
parcels OS, but I would have a problem if each of the individuals
built a separate building because I don't think its viable to
happen because that 40 -fool lot just doesn't have enough room.
You have to have a 20 fool driveway to gel to that one building.
What you have left is 20 feel to build a building on. I have no
problem zoning both parcels OS, but I'm only for building one
building on the two parcels. That's something they would have
to work out.
Mr. Alanskas: I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I think you're hearing that
what we want to do is rezone it to OS all at one time with both
parcels instead of just one now and one later possibly. That's
like doing an "if come" thing and that's a bad situation. I, as
another commissioner, would like to see it done at the same
time if we're going to rezone to OS. Thank you.
21608
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one and if there are no other
questions for Mr. Mowe0, I'll ask him to please proceed.
Mr. Mowell: The last comment I was going to make was in regards to the
property. It has 107' feel of frontage by 110' deep. Its plotted
as two addresses as it is - 29001 Five Mile and 29005 Five Mile
with two sidwells and tax id and separate lax bills on that. The
way it is plotted with the City is, as was mentioned earlier,
there's three lots. When you mentioned two lots, you're
mentioning going with the neighbor's lot next door in addition for
both accommodation of three pieces, I guess.
Mr. Walsh: If there are no more questions or comments, I'm going to close
the public hearing. A motion is in order.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to table this to an undetermined date to see if the
petitioner can gel together with Mr. Chan and possibly purchase
that other property.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#09-112-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 14, 2004,
on Petition 2004-08-01-09 submitted by David Mowett
requesting to rezone property at 29001 and 29005 Five Mile
Road, located on the south side of Five Mile Road between
Paderewski Avenue and Haller Avenue in the Northwest % of
Section 24 from R-1 to OS, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend that Petition 2004-08-01-09 be tabled to a
dale uncertain for further discussion, particularly with respect to
the possibility of the adjacent property to the west being
considered for rezoning to the OS classification so as to provide
for a more comprehensive development.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. What we've done is table this item to a date uncertain
giving you the opportunity to work with the neighbor and come
back with a plan for us to consider. When you're ready, contact
Mr. Taormina in the Planning Department and he will
reschedule this item. Thank you.
21609
ITEM #2 PETITION 200408-02-28 PANCHERO'S
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
08-02-28, submitted by Flyers Group, LLC, on behalf of
Panchero's Restaurant, requesting waiver use approval to
operate a full service restaurant at 17370 Haggerty Road,
located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six Mile
Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 7.
Mr. Walsh:
This development and the next item will occur on properly
owned by Schoolcraft College. Because I am an employee of
SchoolcraR College, I intend to step off the podium. I pass the
gavel to Mr. Alanskas who will chair the meeting for Items #2
and #3.
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, I'm confused here now. I have all the drawings. I thought
originally that the two end units were going to be solid blue and
the rest were going to be blue with while stripes. Now, what's
changed? This is no different than what I have here. This one
was dated January 3. Now all of a sudden we're getting green?
Mr. Taormina:
This has undergone two or three revisions. I think originally it
was a dark purple, then it was shown as a blue color, and now
the latest color is an Aspen Green. I do have a swatch to give
you an idea of the color. It is a rather dark material. This
rendering may not give you a good a sense of what the actual
color will be, so I'll hand out this sample of the material. By the
way, this is information provided as recently as today.
Mr. LaPine:
I thought when we gave site plan approval, we agreed on the
dark blue and light blue. I think if you look at the minutes, it
says that.
Mr. Taormina:
I'd have to check the minutes. I know that there were different
colors being discussed, and this is a fairly recent change to the
material that they wanted to bring to your attention.
Mr. LaPine:
This is green?
Mr. Taormina:
That's a very dark green.
21610
Mr. Alanskas:
Its a hunter's green. Mr. LaPine, what you're saying is true.
We did say that, but then when it went to City Council, they
approved it without any color.
Mr. LaPine:
Is that right?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman, that was my question. We definitely were looking
at a blue awning, and Mr. LaPine and I saw the awning they had
out at one of their other facilities. That was my question. Was
that blue awning part of the approval?
Mr. Taormina:
I recall it being shown that way on certain renderings. I don't
believe it was specified in any approving resolution that it had to
be blue, and I know there was discussion at the Council level
because it had changed colors at one point. There was still
some uncertainty relative to the final color selection.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess what we're saying is that what we're looking at is still up
for grabs. They could change it to purple dthey wanted to.
Mr. Alanskas:
If the Council approves it, yes.
Mr. Taormina:
I think we're at a point now in the process that these awnings
are being ordered. I've been told that this is the final selection.
Mr. Morrow:
And that will be part of our approval process?
Mr. Taormina:
It could be if you would like it to be.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated August 17, 2004, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. Additional right -0f --way is
not required at this time. The legal description to be used with
this waiver petition is attached." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 17, 2004, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a full service
21611
restaurant on property located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the
Southwest X of Section 7. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
August 24, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in regards to the proposal to construct a full service
restaurant on property located on Haggerty Road between Six
Mile and Seven Mile. We have no recommendations regarding
this proposal." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant,
Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated August 13, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of August 12, 2004, the above -
referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) This site will require 37 parking spaces forits usage. (2) No
signage has been reviewed. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ernie
Byerly,
Flyers Group, LLC, 23160 Halsted, #111, Farmington Hills,
Michigan 48335.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr.
Byedy:
No. They covered everything real well. The only thing I would
say is I believe we only have 60 seats, not 66 seats.
Mr.
Alanskas:
You have 60 instead of 66?
Mr.
Byedy:
Right.
Mr.
Alanksas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr.
LaPine:
What is the Flyers Group? Who are they?
Mr.
Byedy:
Its a corporation of five different people of which I am one.
Mr.
LaPine:
Are you going to be the owner of this restaurant?
Mr.
Byedy:
The group is. Its a franchise. We have the rights to the
franchise of Panchero's in the Detroit area.
Mr.
LaPine:
Okay. Thankyou.
21612
Mr. Shane:
Are you in agreement with the awning color of hunters green?
Mr. Byedy:
To be honest, I had never seen the awning colors prior to
tonight.
Mr. Shane:
That's one of the things that's bothering me a little bit. I hope
that now we have decided on a color. I don't care if its blue or
hunters green, but I'm a little disturbed by us not knowing and
now this gentleman doesn't know either. Like I said, I don't
have any trouble with the color of the awning that's presented. I
just hope that's the color, and that we're not going to come
down the road again and see its going to be some other color.
When we come to a resolution, if in fad it's approved, I would
like to tie that color down as part of the resolution. That's a little
bit aside from what you're here for but I just wanted to know if
you had been apprised of what color awning you're going to be
looking at.
Mr. Byedy:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, you do have any other Panchero's in the Detroit area?
Mr. Byedy:
Not currently. We're working on leases in other areas in the
Detroit area. Currently there are no other leases.
Mr. Alanskas:
And if you have something going on elsewhere, what color
awnings are you looking for?
Mr. Byedy:
Historically, we don't use awnings. In the places that we have,
they're a burnt orange.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, let me ask you a question. When you say the color has
been changed, who made this change?
Mr. Taormina:
The developer, which is the Walkon-Elkin Partnership. I believe
they are charged with making the final selection on the awnings.
Mr. Alanskas:
Did they gel together with Potbelly or any other lessee on the
colors?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know the answer to that question. I do know, however,
that I was contacted as recently as yesterday by the awning
manufacturer and they're set to go. So its my understanding
that they've made the decision relative to the color.
21613
Mr. Alanskas:
Did they say why they changed from the blue to the green?
Mr. Taormina:
I think its just one of those architectural/marketing decisions
that is ever evolving.
Mr. Alanskas:
Because you know with awnings, with a green from the blue, the
green will fade much quickerlhan the dark blue will from the sun
within a couple years. So that's something to think about. Are
there any otherquestions forlhe petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
I remember very distinctly the night Potbelly came in. We got
into a discussion about the awnings. I said solid blue. There
was a representative here that night from the developer. It
wasn't Mr. Walkon; it was one of his partners. He didn'lgive us
any objection that night that he was objecting to the blue. Now
all of a sudden, we're hearing that we're going to green. It
upsets me. I thought we were having blue and the other
awnings were going to be blue with the while strips.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, let's rephrase that. They want to go to green. That
doesn't mean that we're going to approve the green.
Mr. LaPine:
But the point is, originally they wanted purple, and we fell purple
was just outrageous. Al the Iasi minute here, now we get a
change, and I jusldon'lthink it's right.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any otherquestions?
Mr. Shane:
Would you inquire as to whether or not there is a representative
of the developer here tonight?
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody here from Elkin?
Mr. Taormina:
I had a discussion with Rob Wineman prior to tonight's meeting.
He couldn't make it. We did discuss this issue, and he assured
me that it was their decision to make relative to the color of the
awnings. He understands this is a late change, but he hoped
that the Commission would be understanding of going with the
alternate color selection at this time.
Mr. Alanskas:
Does he know that there was a possible chance that we may
not go with the green?
Mr. Taormina:
I think if that was the case, he would want to be present to
respond to your concerns and provide additional information,
seeing that this is their development.
21614
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any other questions about where the dumpster is or
anything like that from anybody? So we're going to have 60
seats instead of 66.
Mr. Byedy:
Correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
The color of the awning is undetermined. Nothing else you want
to say sir? Okay, I will now go to the audience. Is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Hearing none, I will go to the petitioner for any last
comments.
Mr. Byedy:
No. I think I've said everything I need.
Mr. Alanskas:
I will close the public hearing and a motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I will offer an approving resolution. If the awnings can be
worked into this resolution, that would be fine with me.
On a motion by
Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#09-113-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 14, 2004,
on Petition 2004-08-02-28 submitted by Flyers Group, LLC, on
behalf of Panchero's Restaurant, requesting waiver use
approval to operate a full service restaurant at 17370 Haggerty
Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six
Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section
7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2004-08-02-28 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Floor Plan marked Sheet A.1 prepared by
Swanson Design Studios, dated July 9, 2004, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no
more than 60 seats;
3. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject
restaurant and shall be emptied regularly as needed;
4. That all signage for the subject restaurant shall be
separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council;
21615
5. The color of awnings shall be blue; and
6. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
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. Alanskas: Is there support?
Mr. Shane: First a question. Mr. Piercecchi, did you want to deal with the
awings in this resolution?
Mr. Piercecchi: Well, I mentioned that. If the Commission wants to add
something in reference to the awings, I'd be happy to include
that.
Mr. Shane: I would be happy to support this if you do that.
Mr. Piercecchi: The awnings are to be blue. Isn't that what we agreed upon
earlier?
Mr. Shane: I don't have any problem with the green, but if the majority likes
the blue, I don't care.
Mr. Piercecchi: The point is, if the Commission wants anything specific in
reference to the awning, I'd be glad to add it to this resolution.
21616
Mr. Shane:
The only question I have is, are these awnings already under
construction?
Mr. Taormina:
Are they being fabricated? I don't know the answer to that. I
know that the contract is in place. Whether or not they've
actually begun fabrication, I don't know.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, what would you like to put in our resolution regarding the
awning? What would you recommend?
Mr. Taormina:
You can be specific relative to the color rendering and that the
color be as indicated in the letter by Etkin Equities. We can
reference the date of that letter as well as the color selection,
which is Aspen Green.
Mr. Morrow:
I have no problem with the green and while or whatever the
colors are stipulated there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Let go back to the maker of the motion. You can put in
whatever color you want, and then we'll vote on it and see what
happens.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It will get resolved by the City Council, which is the next step.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, we may say we want blue and Council may say they want
green.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Perhaps then it would be appropriate to say, "as previously
agreed upon, the Planning Commission requests solid blue on
the end and blue and while stripes in the center sections."
Mr. Alanskas:
You want blue. Is there support for blue from the supporter of
the motion?
Mr. Shane:
That's fine. I don't care.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That's what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman. The original
ones that we all agreed on, and they agreed to, was blue on the
ends and blue and while stripes in the center.
Mr. Alanskas:
So what you're pulling in your motion, you are supporting the
blue.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I would be happy to accommodate that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Will the Secretary please call the roll?
21617
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Piercecchi, Shane, LaPine, Morrow, Alankas
NAYES:
Smiley
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #3 PETITION 200408-02-30 CARIBOU COFFEE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
08-02-30, submitted by Caribou Coffee Co., Inc., requesting
waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant at 17370
Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road
between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest
''/ of Section 7.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated August 18, 2004, 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. Additional right -0f --way is
not required at this time. The legal description to be used with
this waiver petition is attached." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 19, 2004, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to construct a full service
restaurant on property located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the
Southwest''/. of Section 7. We have no objections and have no
concems with respect to traffic, points of ingress and egress,
site capacity to accommodate the proposed use as related to
off-street parking or any other safety matters." The letter is
signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
21618
from the Division of Police, dated August 24, 2004, which reads
as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the
proposal to construct a full service restaurant on property
located on Haggerty Road between Six Mile and Seven Mile.
We have no recommendations regarding this proposal." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
August 24, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of August 18, 2004, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) No signage was
reviewed. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Tom Wright, Caribou Coffee Co., Inc., 1554 Middle Road, Oneida, New York
13421. I'm the Regional Construction Manager for Caribou
Coffee.
Jim Reynolds, EMC Construction, 7563 Mistwood, While Lake, Michigan 48383.
Pal Slieber, Allied Signs, Inc., 33650 GiRos, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035.
1 am representing the sign issues.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation? Were
you contacted by Etkin in regard to any color for the awnings?
Mr. Wright: No.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I have a couple questions I want to ask Mark. I'm kind of
confused here. They are going to have a sign on the south side
and one on the west side. Is that right?
Mr. Taormina: That's correct.
Mr. LaPine: Then how aboutthis little sign down here in the corner? What is
that considered?
Mr. Taormina: Its identified on the plan as an internally illuminated sign cabinet
that is inside the window. Depending on whether its permanent
or temporary, we typically allow up to 10% to 20% of the total
window area to be occupied by signage. They are showing it on
their sign plan presented here this evening.
21619
Mr. LaPine:
How about this sign that says "open?" On here it says 24 foot
by 7 inches.
Mr. Taormina:
I don't have that.
Mr. Wright:
It may be a typo. Il should be 24 inches. It's a typical open sign
that's over the lop of the door in the transom. It
is 24 inches by
7 inches. We put them in all the time.
Mr. LaPine:
When you're closed, is there going to be a closed sign there or
just open?
Mr. Wright:
The sign is turned off at closure.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is it a neon sign?
Mr. Wright:
It is, sir.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm just curious. Why do you need that sign?
Mr. Wright:
Its part of our standard sign package. We feel that it still is an
important part to the sign package.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You are acquainted with our ordinance in reference to signage
which says that it must be on two major streets and half is
allowed on the side that is not facing the main street. You want
25 feel on the front and 12 feel on the south elevation. I see no
reason at all for one on the south elevation. Would you
consider dropping that request for the 12 footer and just slick
with our conforming signage?
Mr. Wright:
To slay within the conformity, we would. We obviously would
prefer to have as much a signage as possible, but if that's not
allowable by code, then we are in agreement to drop that
second sign.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You will drop the 12 footeR
Mr. Wright:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Piercecchi, in our approving resolution #4, it says we are
only giving them 25 feel.
21620
Mr. Piercecchi: I know. That's fine, but the point is, we don't have any
adversarial relationships over that 12 feet.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Hearing none, are there any last words
from the petitioners?
Mr. Sfieber: We would just like to ask in regards to that second sign on that
elevation, after we gel approval for this signage here, is there a
process that we can go forth with to gel a variance?
Mr. Alanskas: When you go to City Council for the final approval, they are the
ones that would approve it. We're just a recommending body.
You could ask at that time for the second sign. If the Council
doesn't give it to you, say a year down the road, if you feel you
have a hardship, you could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
and ask for a variance for another sign.
Mr. Sfieber: But that process can't happen...
Mr. Alanskas: Not right away, no.
Mr. Sfieber: We make the request then and present a hardship at that point.
Mr. Alanskas: No. How can you have a hardship when you're not even open
yet? It's impossible.
Mr. Stieber: Just asking.
Mr. Alanskas: Would someone care to tell us about Caribou Coffee?
Mr. Wright: I believe this is going to be our 16" store in the Detroit metro
area. We are currently in eight other markets around the
country. We're based in Minneapolis.
Mr. Alanskas: But tell us what you do. What do you specialize in? Iknow you
specialize in coffee, but what kind of coffee drinks do you have
there?
Mr. Wright: Our main focus obviously is drip brew coffee. Our second focus
would be expresso drinks such as lattes, mochas and the like.
But the main focus is drip brew coffee to be consumed at the
site or taken away. We also have blended cooler drinks that are
made on-site also.
21621
Mr. Morrow:
Is that all you're selling then, is just coffee? There's no type of
donuts or rolls?
Mr. Wright:
We do have pastries that are prepared off-site by third party
vendors that are delivered in the early morning and kept in
refrigerated cases, either in the display case in the frontline or
in the backroom. We also have bottled juices and bottled soda
drinks, and we also will have merchandise of travel mugs,
coffee grinders.
Mr. Alanskas:
See, you got a free plug.
Mr. Morrow:
Pastries and no sandwiches or anything of that nature?
Mr. Wright:
I'm sorry, yes. We do also have sandwiches that are also pre -
made by a third party off-site along with pastries such as cakes,
muffins, scones and the like. But there is no food prep on-site.
Everything is prepackaged and prepared off-site.
Mr. Morrow:
I understand. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
What are your hours?
Mr. Wright:
Typically in a selling such as this in a retail selling, it would
probably be 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you do any catering?
Mr. Wright: The stores are set up to do off-site caterings for businesses that
can come in and get what we refer to as a "Joe to go." It's
about a gallon of coffee, or we also have rolls that can be picked
up by customers for office meetings and whatnot.
Mr. LaPine: You open at 6:00 a.m. in the morning and you close at 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Wright: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: That could change if you get enough business at night? You
may stay open to 10:00 or 1100?
Mr. Wright: We could. Ina selling like this we probably wouldn't. Ina more
suburban selling, we probably would.
Mr. LaPine: But you have a college here and I assume, I'm not sure, that the
college has night classes and probably go until after 9:00 at
21622
night. People might want to slop for coffee. I just wondered if
that's possible.
Mr. Wright:
Typically, after aboullhree orfour months, the distract managers
would review that and adjust that accordingly.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many days a week are you open?
Mr. Wright:
Seven days aweek.
Mr. Alanskas:
Our notes say that you also have sofas inside the building?
That's unusual.
Mr. Wright:
We typically have what we refer to as a Ioveseat and that's just
for two people, and also soft seating for chairs.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you can site in a sofa or a Ioveseat and have your coffee and
donuts.
Mr. Wright:
And enjoy the brick fireplace also.
Mr. Reynolds:
Which is an electric fireplace. Also they have a children's area
where we have small chairs and tables so that the mothers
come in during the day, a box of toys, different games are
available, crayons, chalkboard and all that stuff that we actually
put usually in the back part. I haven't seen the plans for this
one, but the back part of the store so that the children have
something to do also.
Mr. Alanskas:
Very good. I will close the public hearing and a motion is in
order.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#09-114-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 14, 2004,
on Petition 2004-08-02-30, submitted by Caribou Coffee Co.,
Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant at 17370 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest''/. of Section 7, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-
08-02-30 be approved subject to the following conditions:
21623
1. That the Floor Plan marked Sheet a.1.01 prepared by
Architectural Alliance, dated June 3, 2004, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no
more than 37 seats;
3. That a dumpster shall be provided for the subject
restaurant and shall be emptied regularly as needed;
4. That the Sign Plans prepared by Sign Art Company,
marked Sheets sg 0.01 and sg 0.02, both dated May 11,
2004, and Sheet sg 0.03, dated May 3, 2004, are hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that
only one (1) wall sign shall be allowed, not to exceed
twenty-five (25) square feet in area on the west elevation,
in conformance with the sign regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance;
5. That the awnings of this unit shall not include any
identification signs and shall not be backlit; furthermore,
the awnings shall be compatible in colorwilh the rest of the
building unit, i.e., blue or blue and while;
6. That the wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business closes;
7. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site, including but not limited to the building or
around the windows;
8. That any additional signage shall come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council for their review and
approval; and
9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits and sign permits are
applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
21624
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
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. Alanskas: Is there any discussion? I'd like to say one thing. Its very
important that when these dumpslers are emptied that the gales
are kept closed at all times. That's very important. Will the
Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Shane, La Pine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Smiley,
Alanskas
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution with blue awnings. Will the Secretary
please note that Mr. Walsh returned to the podium at 8:25 p.m.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2004-07-06-03 MASSAGE THERAPISTS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
07-06-03, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #301-04, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Sections 2.08, 4.02, 5.02, 9.03, 10.03 and 11.03 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, to allow myomassologists
(massage therapists) to either open their own office, or to work
in health clubs, hair salons, day spas, for corporate chair
massages, or in a YMCA within the City limits.
21625
Mr. Taormina: Council Resolution #301-04 referred the question of whether or
notto amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow myomassologisls to
either open their own office, or to work in health clubs, hair
salons, day spas, for corporate chair massages, or in a YMCA
within the City limits. The Law Department has prepared
language, which, if adopted, would amend Sections 2.08, 9.03,
10.03, 11.03, 5.02 and 4.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for
the subject use. In addition, the Law Department has also
prepared an amendment to the applicable licensing ordinance,
Section 5.49 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, to set forth
certain certification requirements for massage therapists. The
definition portion of the Zoning Ordinance in Section 2.08
(paragraph 26) will provide a definition of a "massage parlor or
massage establishment" and will contain regulations and
requirements relating to the operation of this type of facility. In
addition, the Ordinance would expressly state that massage
parlors or establishments are prohibited from being classified as
a home occupation, business or professional service. The
proposed language for Sections 9.03, 10.03 and 11.03 will allow
massage parlors or massage establishments as a waiver use in
OS, G7 and C-2 districts, subject to four specified conditions.
The first requires that the facility shall conform to the provisions
set forth in Chapter 5.49 of the Code of Ordinances. The
second condition provides that no massage parlor or
establishment shall be located within 400 feet of any property
which is either occupied or approved for a massage parlor or
establishment. So that would be a separation requirement
between these similar establishments. The third condition
provides that no massage parlor or establishment shall be
located within 400 feel of a preexisting school, place of worship,
stale -licensed day care facility, public library, playground or
public park. Lastly, the fourth condition requires that the daily
hours of operation of any massage parlor or establishment shall
be limited to the period of time from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
The revised language prepared by the Law Department also
contains changes to Sections 4.02 and 5.02 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Sections 4.02 and 5.02 are the 'permitted uses'
sections of the R-1 through R-5 District Regulations and the
RIF District Regulations, respectively. The proposed changes
to Sections 4.02 and 5.02 would stale that massage
establishments, as defined in Section 2.08 of the Zoning
Ordinance, shall be strictly prohibited as home occupations,
either as permitted or waiver uses. Proposed Chapter 5.49 of
the Code of Ordinances sets forth procedures and standards for
licensing massage establishments as well as requirements for
obtaining a massage therapist permit. The proposed application
21626
process provides for, among other things, criminal background
checks of applicants, disclosure of any relevant criminal history,
as well as requires massage therapist applicants to furnish
medical proof that they are free from communicable dsease.
The last references to Chapter 5.49, are not the subject of this
evening's public hearing, but because there are several
references to that chapter of the ordinance, I thought I'd provide
a brief description of what those changes entail.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is no correspondence in connection with this petition
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from the
Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
I would just like to thank our staff and the legal staff for all the
hard work put forth because this was a tough issue. I think they
didaverygoodjob. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Any other questions or comments? Hearing none, is there
anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously approved, it
was
#09-115-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on September 14, 2004,
on Petition 2004-07-06-03 submitted by the City Planning
Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #301-04, and
pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 4.02, 5.02, 9.03, 10.03
and 11.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to allow
myomassologisls (massage therapists) to either open their own
office, or to work in health clubs, hair salons, day spas, for
corporate chair massages, or in a YMCA within the City limits,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 2004-07-06-03 be approved for the
following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendment will provide
reasonable standards with respect to facilities where
massages are administered;
21627
2. That the proposed language amendment contains
appropriate requirements to provide for adequate
regulation and control over the location and nature of the
subject use;
3. That the proposed language amendment provides for
massage establishments as a waiver use necessitating
compliance with all special waiver use requirements and
general standards of the Zoning Ordinance; and
4. That the proposed language amendment will provide for
massage facilities to be located so as to be more available
to and to better serve the residents of the City and
surrounding areas.
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. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #5 PETITION 200408-02-29 MICHIGAN HERITAGE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-
08-02-29, submitted by TMS 18770, LLC, on behalf of Michigan
Heritage Bank, requesting waiver use approval to operate a
bank with a drive-through teller window at 18770 Farmington
Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road between
Pickford Avenue and Clarita Avenue in the Northwest ''/ of
Section 10.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: There are several items of correspondence. The first dem is
from the Engineering Division, dated August 17, 2004, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have
no objections to the proposal at this time. The legal description
for this waiver use appears below. Additional right-of-way is not
required at this time." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire &
21628
Rescue Division, dated August 17, 2004, which reads as
follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to operate a bank with a drive-thru
window facility on property located on the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal and have no
concerns with respect to traffic, points of ingress and egress,
site capacity to accommodate the proposed use as related to
off-street parking or any other safety matters." The letter is
signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated August 24, 2004, which reads
as follows: We have reviewed the plans in connection with the
proposal to operate a bank with a drive-thru window facility on
the east side of Farmington Road between Pickford Avenue and
Clanta Avenue. We have the following concerns and
recommendations for your consideration: (1) There is not
enough room for stacking of vehicles for the drive-thru window,
so as vehicles line up they may block the sidewalk and
driveway. (2) The handicap parking space on the south side of
the parking lot requires a handicap customer to cross the
driveway. This driveway could be very busy during certain
hours of the day. (3) Consideration should be given to moving
the drive-thm window farther north. This would allow stacking of
vehicles along the east side of the building and would also allow
for parking along the south side of the building. This change
would reduce the pedestrian vehicular conflict that the current
plan creates by requiring pedestrians to park and walk across
the driveway to enterthe building. (4) Due to the angled parking
on the east side of the building, it is our recommendation that
there be one-way traffic through the parking lot. Entry should be
from the south driveway with the north Farmington Road
driveway an exit -only driveway. The north (Clarita) driveway
would be for two-way traffic. Appropriate signs should be
posted to indicate one-way entry and exit at the driveways and
'stop' signs at the exits." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the
Inspection Department, dated August 30, 2004, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 13, 2004, the
above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is
noted. (1) Due to the amount of renovation, a threshold may be
reached which would require this building to be fully barrier free
compliant. (2) The second floor use is not noted. If the building
is fully barrier free compliant, the second floor use would be
limited to the same first floor tenant with duplicated services
being used, as there is no barrier -free access. A unique
tenant(s) could not utilize the second floor. (3) All landscaped
areas should be property irrigated. (4) A property separation
21629
agreement is on file that waives the required protected wall from
July, 2001 thru July, 2006. At that time, the agreement must be
renewed or extended, or the wall must be built, or Zoning Board
of Appeals waiver would need to be obtained. (5) This site does
not meet the criteria for drive -up window facilities. Four waiting
spaces are required in addition to the space at the
window/service point. Therefore, a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals will be required unless the plan can be
reconfigured. 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 residents Suzanne and
Charles Krisher, dated September 3, 2004, which reads as
follows: `Simply put, the property at 18770 Farmington Road is
inadequate to support banking services, let alone banking
services with drive-through teller windows. There is insufficient
parking and no reasonable space behind the building for cars to
circle the structure. We are not aware of any other bank in
Livonia which has such a small section of land behind the bank
while backing up to single family residential property. The office
building at 18770 Farmington Road has only 35 feet of available
property (rear step of the building to existing green belt) with 16
feet of that total devoted to angled parking across the back of
the property. That leaves only 19 feet for a driving lane around
the mar of the building. The drivers circling the building will be
pretty much blind to any pedestrian traffic until they are right on
top of the people entering or exiting the building through the rear
door. Drive-in restaurants cannot be closer than 200 feet to
residential property according to Livonia City ordinances, 200
feet seems reasonable fora drive through banking service. The
north parking lot includes an exit on Clarita, which will
encourage increased traffic on the residential side streets as
customers to the bank try to avoid making a tum out of the bank
onto busy Farmington Road. Westmore Street is already a
popular street used by drivers trying to avoid the Seven Mile
and Farmington Road intersection. Banking services are more
closely related to retail activities than they are to a normal office
facility. The constant in and out of bank customers versus a
typical office where workers arrive in the morning and then head
home in the evening. Banking by its very nature depends on a
steady flow of customers throughout the entire work day. The
increased traffic, noise level and airpollution are not acceptable
when closely backing up to single family residential property.
As an industry trend, banking hours are continuing to expand.
In addition to Saturday hours, some banks are now open on
Sundays. In the Labor Day newspaper, there was a reminder
that TCF Bank would be open on Labor Day from 9.00 a.m. -
21630
3.00 p.m. There would be no relief week days, weekends or
holidays to the residences backing up to the building. The
constantly running engines of vehicles waiting in line for the
teller providing the neighbors with exhaust fumes and the ever
present sound of the 'music' coming from the high powered
sound systems in vehicles will make for a miserable backyard
experience not to mention just being in your home with the
windows open and being treated to the increased noise level.
Many of the vehicle sound systems can be heard hundreds of
feet from the vehicle when they are moving. Think about when
those vehicles are waiting in a bank teller line a few feet away
the noise will be terrible. Add in the increased noise from
vehicle car doors, teller speakers and engines starting up will
certainly min any outdoor activity. How many banking/financial
facilities do we need in the Six Mile to Seven Mile area of
Farmington Road? There is a full service banking facility on
Farmington Road just north of Six Mile. There is a full service
banking facility on Seven Mile just west of Farmington Road,
and there is a Credit Union Services facility on Seven Mile just
east of Farmington Road. The immediate neighborhood is well
served already by the banking industry. The property at 18770
Farmington Road already has an inadequate green belt. The
surrounding neighbors to the property requesting the waiver
have over the years had to complain to the Zoning Board
Authority (ZBA) in order to get previous owners to maintain the
green belt. Over the past 27 years that we have lived at 18747
Westmore Street, there has been a steady decline of green belt
maintenance over the years from owner to owner. The only
time any replacement of dead trees or vegetation has taken
place was right before the property owner at the time had to go
before the ZBA so that they would not have to invest in a wall.
There are many businesses that can back up to single family
residential property without degrading the residential owners
property. We ask that the City Planning Commission be
respectful of the single family home owners that would be
negatively impacted by approving Petition 2004-08-02-29.
Please deny the request submitted by the petitioner." The letter
is signed by Suzanne and Charles Krisher, 18747 Westmore,
Livonia, Michigan 48152. The next letter is from Tiseo
Architects, Inc., dated September 1, 2004, which reads as
follows: 9 would like to address No. 1 and No. 2 of Mr. Bishop's
concems from his letter to you, dated August 30, 2004,
regarding the Planning Commission study session held on
August 31,2004 for the project referenced above. Mr. Bishop's
concems are as follows: (1) Due to the amount of renovation a
threshold may be reached which would require this building to
21631
be fully barrier -free compliant. The area calculated on sheet P2,
submitted for Site Plan Approval on August 12, 2004 totaling
1639 square feet, is for the rentable area the tenant will be
charged for, this includes the common corridors, existing
mechanical moms, existing kitchen, and existing restroom
facilities. The first floor area of the TMS 18770 LLC building is
3200 square feet. Michigan Heritage Bank will be occupying
1207 square feet, this is 40.2°% of the total first floor area. The
balance of the first floor area will not be renovated. According
to 125.1352, Sec. 2,2(a.) of the Michigan Barrier Free Design
Law, 'If the change in use group or occupancy load, or
alteration, involves less than 50°% of the floor area of the public
facility or facility used by the public which can be used by the
public or employees, only the area affected, and areas
necessary to provide a continuous and unobstructed mute of
travel to and from the affected areas from and including the
nearest entrance, shall be required to meet the barrier free
design requirements of the state construction code.' The
renovation for Michigan Heritage Bank is less than 50°% of the
overall floor area. This proposed renovation area will meet
barrier free codes. (2) The second floor use is not noted. If the
building is fully barrier free compliant the second floor use
would be limited to the same first floor tenant with duplicated
services being used, as there is no barrier free access.' The
second floor will be occupied by the owner, Ron Merta, and his
advertising agency. This area is not being renovated, therefore
it will remain nonconforming according to the specified code
above. 1 am attaching a copy of the Michigan Barrier Free
Design Law as well as sheet PI and P2 showing the square
footage of the first floor and Michigan Heritage Bank for your
use. If you have any further questions please call." The letter is
signed by Benedetto Tiseo, President. Lastly, we have a letter
that was just received tonight, dated September 14, 2004, from
resident Suzanne Law, which reads as follows: "1 am the
homeowner of 18817 Westmore and would like some thoughts
on this proposal read into the minutes of this meeting. 1 was
unable to attend as 1 needed to be at an academic function at
my son's school. It is my understanding that the new
businesses to take residence of the former Lord Building, 18770
Farmington, will be Michigan Heritage Bank and The Marketing
Source, Inc. As a long-term resident, 1 do not have a problem
with either of these companies taking residence but do not want
the drive-through in that lot. Placement of a drive-through
window in the proposed area would place it essentially right in
my back yard. 1 am opposed to the drive-through because 1
think it will not only decrease my property value but could very
21632
possibly be an invasion of my children' privacy. It is one thing
to have business traffic in the lot 1 knew when we purchased
the home and decided to raise our family here that that is to be
expected. The addition of a drive-through window, 1 feel, adds
traffic that is unnecessary and intrusive. 1 did have the
opportunity to speak with one of the new owners, Mr. Douglas
Merta, about my concems. Mr. Merta was very willing to
provide me information about his company, The Marketing
Source, Inc., as well as the bank. The information is helpful and
eased some of my concems about the volume of business that
will be conducted in the building, but 1 cannot agree to the drive-
through. Mr. Merta and his staff have done a considerable
amount of work to improve the condition of the former Lord
Building, which was in terrible disrepair. 1 told Mr. Merta that as
a homeowner and therefore neighbor 1 am willing to work with
him toward a mutually beneficial agreement. In closing, 1 do not
have a problem with the proposal with the exception of the
drive-through. 1 also want to be sure as a homeowner that the
greenbelt in place will be maintained and/or improved on a
consistent basis. This was a problem with the former owner,
and Mr. Merta assured me he will keep it updated not only for
his employees and clients but for the neighbors. Thank you for
your time." The letter is signed by Suzanne Law, 18817
Westmore. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
I have a question. Mark, can you tell us how many banks in
Livonia that are in office buildings have drive-through windows?
Isn't it true that most, over 90% or maybe more, of the banks in
Livonia are freestanding banks?
Mr. Taormina:
I would be speculating by saying that. I would think that the vast
majority would be freestanding, although I can't answer your
question specifically. We can research that though.
Mr. LaPine:
The only bank I knowthal's in an office building that has a drive-
through is on Haggerty and Six Mile, the Blain Building.
Mr. Taormina:
Its National City.
Mr. LaPine:
That's the only one I can recall and I drove around the City over
the weekend. Most of them are freestanding banks.
Mr. Walsh:
Any other questions for the staff? Would the petitioner please
approach the podium?
21633
Eric Stempien, Stempien & Stempien, PLLC, 315 N. Center, Suite 200,
Northville, Michigan 48167. Good evening. I represent TMS
18770, LLC, the petitioner in this matter. Also with us tonight is
Ben Tiseo, who is the architect on the project, and Mr. Ron
Merta, who is one of the principals of the LLC. We have also
two representatives from the bank, Tony Albanese, who is the
president, and Gary Schlinkerl, who is the Vice President of
Branch Operations. If the Commission has any questions
specific to bank operations, which I suspect they might, we have
the bank here tonight to be able to answer those. I'd like to
address a couple matters and a couple of the concerns briefly,
and then Mr. Tiseo will have some comments as well with
regard to the architectural aspects oflhe particular project. With
regard to the issue of the stacking and the drive-through in
general, it was also at the study meeting, but we have
something a Iitfle bit more specific with regard to the use of
Michigan Heritage Bank, a little background. They are a small
bank in banking terms. To you and 1, 1 suppose its a lot of
money, but to NBD it doesn't look like a whole lot of money.
Their usage will be very low intense, a very low intensive use at
this particular site. They have three other branches: one is in
Novi, one in Farmington Hills and one in Troy. The one in Novi
is at Eight Mile and Haggerty, which is probably one of the
busiest intersections in at least the northwest metro Detroit
area. We have taken some numbers from that branch, which
also has a dnve-through, and we've used those to compare
what kind of use this branch would have, which of course at first
would probably have much less than that particular branch,
which has been there for seven years now. The numbers
they've come up with in weekly drive throughs, these are
averages, so some weeks may be a little higher, some a little
lower, but they're not going to be off by much. The weekly
cine -through customers were 34, which averages 6.8 per day.
The weekly walk-in customers were 63. So they're actually
bringing in about twice as many people as walk-ins as they are
drive-throughs, which averages about 12.6 per day. I mean it
breaks down to really less than one per hour given their banking
hours. Another concern I'm sure the neighbors and the
Commission might have with regard to the use is when it's going
to be used because, in particular, it's in an office building. Their
hours are Monday through Thursday, 9 to 4, and then Friday
from 9 to 6. They are closed every Saturday and Sunday. So
their hours will be probably less than what's going to be used by
the CPA in this building as well as Mr. Mena's business, which
is The Marketing Source, which you've heard some references
21634
to eadier. The way the building is going to be arranged, on the
south side of the first floor, we've got the bank. On the north
side is the CPA, which is already existing. The entire second
floor will be used by Mr. Merta for his business. I heard
mentioned earlier about renovations including about 1,600
square feet, but that, in fad, is not quite accurate. The bank
itself will only be using 1,200 square feet of this building. The
other 407 square feet are just common area. They've got a
lunch area where they have a refrigerator and a place to use
and that is actually not going to be renovated. That exists in the
building today. Now what is being renovated is the 1,200
square feet for the bank itself, just on the very southern portion
of it. As you can see from there, there's only two teller windows
and one drive-through. Again, we're not talking about a highly
intensive use. We're not going to see a lot of traffic in and out.
We're not talking about a Dearborn Federal Credit Union at
Seven Mile and Newburgh or even a Comerica or NBD or
anything along that nature. This is a bank that has a niche
customer base. They do cater to both consumers and
businesses, and I'll allow the experts in the banking to give you
more detail as to exactly what their customer base is. But they
have found a niche. Simply because they're a small business
doesn't mean that ... every business looks to grow, of course,
but it doesn't mean they can't be successful. We have small
businesses in every industry that are successful. They just find
their base. They work to that and they can make money that
way and, in fact, that's what they've done. They are looking to
expand into this area and bring business into Livonia, attempt to
expand their customer base in Livonia. The project itself will be
a large improvement for this particular building. As some ofthe
neighbors have noted, it fell into some disrepair in the last few
years. We've had an owner of this building that was absent
from the area. What we're going over to is, you're going to have
an owner/occupier and owner/tenant of this particular building,
which, of course, will in and of itself lead to higher maintenance
and better care. There's a sense of pride. Mr. Merta's business
is a marketing business. He has a lot of customers, a lot of
clients. As a marketing business, he would have a hard time
keeping his clients if he wasn't able to maintain his own building.
There's a certain aura; there's a certain atmosphere that he's
going to want to create for his own clients. One of the concerns
was with regard to the greenbelt. The greenbelt is overgrown to
some extent at this point, and there's probably some trees that
need to come out. He has, in fact, contracted with John Nagy to
come up with a new landscape plan. They've put something
together. They're going to clean out some of the overgrowth
21635
within the existing greenbelt and plant some new trees. Also, if
you've been out at the site, the greenbelt actually ends about
just south of the south building line and from there to the end of
the property line its open. There's one house there that
probably has a pretty good view of the back of this building,
which I'm sure they don't really appreciate too much. Mr.
Mena's plan is to put in eight to len relatively mature pine trees
to create a privacy screen from that particular house as well. So
the greenbelt not only will be maintained; it will be improved and
it will provide much more than a brick wall would for the
neighbors. With regard to the intrusiveness of the drive-through
customers as they're coming through, this greenbelt is very
thick. Even though we say it's overgrown and we're going to
lake some of that out, it's not going to create open space at all.
That greenbelt is very thick; it's very mature; its been there for
longer than I've been on the earth I'm sure. The likelihood that
any of the headlights or any of the noises or anything that goes
on through this parking lot is going to be so obtrusive as to
disruptthe use of their yards is very, very remote. Again, we're
talking about one car per hour on average. Not much more than
you're going to have in a large office building use. In fact, you
might have more with some office uses. Come April 12, 13 at
CPA offices, you're going to have more traffic than you are at
this particular bank.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have two questions for you. Number one, you mentioned the
Eight Mile and Haggerty Bank. I wish I had gone out there.
How many cars can they stack at the drive-through?
Gary Schlinkert:
I am with Michigan Heritage Bank. I'm its Vice -President.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have a dnve-through out there?
Mr. Schlinkert:
Al what location?
Mr. Alanskas:
Al Eight Mile and Haggerty?
Mr. Schlinkert:
Yes, we do.
Mr. Alanskas:
And how many cars can you stack out there?
Mr. Schlinkert:
We could stack an awful lot, probably 15 to 20.
Mr. Alanskas:
We keep talking about stacking cars. I work at a bank also in
the evening and day time, and a lot of times commercial people,
just for a scenario, a grass culler that has a small F150 truck.
21636
They'll have a 20 foot lowboy trailer in the back. They go to
your bank to cash their check. That takes care of three cars
right there. If that happened, and it does happen, you'd have
cars stacked out on Farmington Road. Number two, bad
weather. Summertime if it rains real hard, people say, "I don't
want to go in the bank. I'll go through the drive-through. I don't
want to walk in there." Wintertime you have snow, bad weather.
Same thing. I'm not going to walk into the bank. 111 just drive up
and go through the drive-through. I can't believe you'd only
have two or three cars at a time on different scenarios. That to
me is a big safely problem. I have no problem with the bank
going in there, but this drive-through window, where you have it,
I think ft's a big safety issue. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm sure Mr. Stempien answered this, but I'm going to ask him
again. As far as the daily walk-in trade versus the window?
Mr. Stempien:
Right. The daily walk-in average was 12.6; the daily drive-
through was 6.8.
Mr. Morrow:
12.6?
Mr. Stempien:
Right, with the walk-in.
Mr. Morrow:
We're talking 18 customers or so a day on average?
Mr. Stempien:
Correct, total, on average. That's the average per day, about 18
with 12 oflhem being walk-ins.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that the Novi branch?
Mr. Stempien:
Which is their busiest branch.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Stempien:
If I may just address one more matter that I overlooked just a
moment ago. With regard to the access on to Clarila, and I
know this is a concern of a lot of the neighbors, and
understandably, because we do have a driveway access that
takes you into the neighborhood if you wanted to come out there
and turn right. Two things. Al a minimum, one thing that we're
going to do for sure is put a "no right turn' sign out there to
discourage people, and hopefully the police department would
be helpful in enforcing that, especially at the beginning to
discourage people from doing that. The other option is to, and if
the engineering on the site would allow for it, we can't enter into
21637
Mr. Piercecchi: I can't believe that two miles would make a difference in your
traffic patterns. Sir, I'm going to be honest with you. I've given
an in-depth analysis and study on this particular waiver use and
I'm at a lost, frankly, to count the advantages to our City that
granting this waiver would yield. For all practical purposes,
nothing in reference to taxes. I'm not concerned by the
continued use of the greenbelt for the wall, landscaping and
building appearance. However, I am troubled by the potential
growth of this facility; namely, the effect the drive-in unit would
have on its surroundings, the noise and traffic generated by this
banking office, especially on the streets of Clarila and
Westmore. Hence, since there are an abundance of banks in
our city, I encourage my colleagues to approach this waiverwilh
extreme caution. Better we err on the side of caution than
create a potential future problem for our city. If you can
expound on some great advantages that your facility would
offer, especially with a drive-through, perhaps I could ...
a promise at this point because we haven't explored it fully, is
that we may be able to close that driveway off completely, which
would only allow the two driveway accesses onto Farmington
Road. It's certainly something we're willing to explore.
Mr. Walsh:
All right. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi has asked for the floor and
also Mr. Shane.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thank you. Sir, I'd like to ask a basic question. How can you
justify another site, which is roughly about two and half miles
away from your Novi Haggerty operations, when you only have
12 people a day walk in and six cars go through a drive-in?
How can you justify another site?
Mr. Slempien:
Mr. Schlinkert can address that with regard to their choice of
location.
Mr. Schlinkert:
A lot has to do with demographics. Our average deposit, when
someone opens up an account and makes a deposit into our
bank, the average size is over $20,000. We do business with a
niche customer base. We're not going to see a lot of
transactional type business. We're more towards cerfifcales of
deposit, money markets, higher interest types. Our
demographics for our customer base is 45 to the aged because
those are the people that have a lot of wealth and that's who
comes to our bank.
Mr. Piercecchi: I can't believe that two miles would make a difference in your
traffic patterns. Sir, I'm going to be honest with you. I've given
an in-depth analysis and study on this particular waiver use and
I'm at a lost, frankly, to count the advantages to our City that
granting this waiver would yield. For all practical purposes,
nothing in reference to taxes. I'm not concerned by the
continued use of the greenbelt for the wall, landscaping and
building appearance. However, I am troubled by the potential
growth of this facility; namely, the effect the drive-in unit would
have on its surroundings, the noise and traffic generated by this
banking office, especially on the streets of Clarila and
Westmore. Hence, since there are an abundance of banks in
our city, I encourage my colleagues to approach this waiverwilh
extreme caution. Better we err on the side of caution than
create a potential future problem for our city. If you can
expound on some great advantages that your facility would
offer, especially with a drive-through, perhaps I could ...
21638
Mr. Schlinkerl: Well, we currently have about $6 million in deposits at our Novi
location that are people that are living in Livonia. So we do
have somewhat of a customer base already established in
Livonia. A bank is not supported by one branch alone. A bank
that has maybe $30 million in deposits could be very successful
in this location. A branch of $30 million in this location could be
very successful for someone who operates at our economies of
scale. We do not aspire to have a branch like Comerica. We
do not need that type of operation. We can't support that type
of operation. We are more of a niche bank. We're a small
community bank. We are part of the community. The officers of
the bank are born and raised in metro Detroit. We have a
vested interested in the bank and in the communities that we
move into. We are not trying to take away from the community.
We are trying to give back to the community as well. We're
supporters of community reinvestments and maybe you'd like to
talk to our president on some of the other things that Michigan
Heritage Bank can do for you.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Shane has requested the floor. Let's go on to Mr. Shane.
Mr. Shane: My first question was answered but the other one that occurred
to me is, would you consider locating this particular building
without a drive-through window?
Tony Albanese: Good evening. I'm the President of the bank. Our Board has
requested that we try, whenever possible, to have a drive-
through. We have three branches at the present. The only
branch that has a suitable drive-through is the one in Novi that
we've been talking about. We think this would be a good
location for a dnve-through because of the minimal amount of
traffic that we do have. To answer your question directly, would
we consider it? Certainly, we would consider it.
Mr. Shane: The reason why I asked it was if I understand your business
correctly, it doesn't sound like its your normal go to the bank on
Friday and deposit some money. It sounds like it's something
that's done a little less frequently than that.
Mr. Albanese: That's correct.
Mr. Shane: And maybe a dnve-through wouldn't be appropriate.
Mr. Albanese: Well, we are the alternative bank, alternative to some of the
banks that are very, very large. It's a service to our customers
as well as to the community to have a drive-through.
21639
Mr. Shane: Thank you
Mr. Piercecchi: My question was going to be the same as Commissioner
Shane's about putting this package together minus the drive-in.
If you have so few people, I don't think they would mind driving,
for those limes that they need a drive-in, to drive two and half
miles to another site. I don'lsee where that's a problem for you.
But it is a problem for the residences in that area. As you can
see its quite obvious. We are hoping that you will lake that part
of your proposal away and lel us make a decision on the
remainder.
Mr. Albanese: I understand
Mr. LaPine: First let me say, one of my objections to this proposal is the
depth of the property. Its only 110 feel, which is very shallow
when you figure the building. Then you have your parking
spaces. Number two, I have no objections to the bank being
there as long as its not a drive-through operation. Number
three, one of the other problems I see here is in the wintertime
when you have to move snow. You've got parking on the south
side; you've got parking on the north side; you've got parking on
the west side. Where are you going to stack all your snow
because the area back there now where you've got the shrubs
or trees, your parking is right up to there. You sure can't pull
that snow up any doser. If you do and you did have a drive-tn,
that means you're pushing the cars out farther away from the 20
feet, maybe another two feel. You might be back out to 18 feet.
The overall width of the property is just too narrow in my
estimation for a drive-through bank there. I have no objection to
the bank being there as long as it's not a drive-through because
its hard for me to visualize only six people going to that bank a
day through the drive-in. That's just unbelievable to me. At the
study session, I asked a question. Any bank that moves in here
would wants to expand just like any other business. You want
to gel bigger. You want to get more customers. You gel more
customers, that's six a day if the drive-in was there. It could
increase to 10 or 15. Then we got the problem of a backup onto
Farmington Road. That's my concern. I think it's a safely
hazard. Take away the drive-through, and personally I have no
objection to the bank being there.
Mr. Albanese: May I comment on that point, and I think that's a valid point.
When we started our bank, we started in Novi. That's a full
service branch with a drive-through. We started with zero
21640
deposits on day one seven years ago. After seven years, our
total volume is what we're talking about in that location at 6.8
average cine -through customers a day. I worked out of that
location for about three years. I don't think I ever saw two cars
slacked up. Its just a very different kind of bank than you're all
used to, and I understand why you're saying what you're saying,
but you're thinking of Comenca, National City, TCF, open on
Sundays and Saturdays. Our bank is a much smaller bank with
a lot less traffic. We're very, very low on retail.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you have an ATM here?
Mr. Albanese:
Yes, we do have an ATM. In fad, we had positioned an ATM at
the rear, right next to the cinve-through. We have now
considered pulling it in the front. We think its a better solution.
Mr. LaPine:
In front of the building?
Mr. Albanese:
On the front, on the face of the building, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Will the ATM be opened 24 hours a day?
Mr. Albanese:
Yes, they're always opened 24 hours, and the Police
Department I believe made a comment on safety issues with
people going behind the building.
Mr. LaPine:
As one commissioner, I'd like to see you come to Livonia. We'd
love to have you, but the drive-through creates a problem for
me.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is it safe to say that most of your business is commercial?
Mr. Albanese:
Most of our lending side is commercial. Most of the deposit side
tends to be consumer.
Mr. Alanskas:
So what we're seeing is you don't have that many consumers
coming into your facility to go through the cinve-through or walk
in?
Mr. Albanese:
That's correct.
Mr. Alanskas:
That makes your cinve-through much less busy because its not
consumers; its mainly businesses. Correct?
Mr. Schlinkerl::
Most of the deposits that would come into a transactional type
account are now automatically deposited, paychecks and things
21641
of that nature. The volume going through most drive-throughs
has cul substantially since automatic deposit has been done.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Stempien, you had mentioned that Mr. Tiseo had some
comments. I'd like to accept those before we go to the
audience.
Mr. Stempien:
Can I just make one point with regard to what Mr. Piercecchi
was asking about what this project could add to the City of
Livonia? I understand it wasn't made disparagingly, but I think
there's a lot it adds to the City of Livonia. One of the things is,
sifting on the Commission, you understand that you gel a lot of
projects where you gel brand new buildings. Everybody wants
to put in a brand new building, brand new building, brand new
building. We want to start new. We want to start fresh. We
don't have enough people coming around and renovating and
refurbishing and making nice our older buildings within the City,
and our vacancy rates are loo high within the existing buildings.
Instead of having more office buildings going up, its nicer to
have somebody willing to invest their hard earned capital into an
older building that may need a little bit of TLC and bringing in
new vibrant businesses, locating his own business within the
City of Livonia. So I think it does add a lot to the City of Livonia.
And also one of the things that it's going to add is a community
bank. I understand the concern that we've got a lot of banks
here, but we've got a lot of Standard Federals, a lot of
Comericas. We've the Dearborn Federal Credit Union, which
they might say they're a community bank, but they probably do
more than any of those other banks combined within the City of
Livonia in terms of deposits. So we're adding a type of bank
that is not typical. It's not something that is normally found
within the City. So although it is a bank and we do have quite a
few, its probably a race to see if we have more drug stores or
banks, this is a different type of bank. So it would add
something. It would provide people within Livonia an option
because you go to the Bank Ones and the Comericas as an
individual depositor and you don't feel like ... you're just sort of
gelling squeezed. They don't really care that much about your
money. This is a different type of bank.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Stempien. Mr. Tiseo? Mr. Piercecchi?
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'd like to know what effort this banking operation has made to
locate potential sites in the City of Livonia, perhaps some that
21642
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Tiseo?
would be more residence friendly? What kind of effort have you
made? You made note and a good one about occupying space
that is empty. Everybody on this Board will concur with that.
That's good. Have much effort have you made to find a more
user friendly site?
Mr. Slempein:
Although we would state lhalwe lhinkthis is userfriendly based
on the type of bank this is, I would defer to the bank
representatives to address their specific efforts.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I find d hard to believe, sir, but I have no statistics on it, that
there cant be a better place for you.
Mr. Albanese:
I think one of the things that should be said about bank buildings
that are vacant, is that they lend not to be occupied by other
banks immediately. For instance, any bank building that we
would look at as a potential operation, whether it be a Comerica
Bank branch that's been closed or a Michigan National Bank
branch that's been closed, because of acquisitions, lends to be
greater in size than we need. We're looking at 1,200 to 1,500
square feel. Almost every bank branch that you see out there is
35,000 to 40,000 square feel, including our one facility in Novi,
which is 3,000. That would be one case. It is very difficult to
find a bank branch, and when you do find a vacant bank branch,
what you find is that bank will not lease that facility or sell that
facility to another bank for approximately four years. And why is
that? If they've closed that branch down, they want those
depositors to go to one of their other branches, not to continue
to go to the same location with your bank there. So they keep it
closed for four years. That's typically what we find.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But in reference to size, if you obtain vacancies of a larger size,
wouldn't that be advantageous in reference to growth? I find it
hard to believe that you're a business that doesn't intend on
growing.
Mr. Albanese:
We intend to grow by multiple branches, not by larger locations.
Our branch in Troy is 1,500 square feet. Our branch in
Farmington Hills is 1,250 square feet. That's the approximate
size, and we're a very different bank than what you're used to
seeing.
Mr. Piercecchi: Thank you
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Tiseo?
21643
Ben Tiseo, Tiseo Arohtects, 19815 Farmington Road. One of the primary types
of businesses in our practice is we do a lot of banks. In my 12
years of doing banks, I've probably done somewhere between
50 to 100 different banks. Charter One has been a major
account. Bank One, Comerica and the buildings that we have
been doing with them are the 3,500, 4,500 square feet that have
the four, five, six drive -up tellers and have the eight stacking
requirements. This is a totally different bank, and I think that's
the thing people have to look at. This is not your typical bank
that you're used to looking at. This is a different type of
operation. We've done a lot of banks. This is a very small
operation. Even our smallest operation lhalwe do, Charter One
Bank, is 2,200 square feel. That's 1,000 square feel more than
this, and the volume is very low. I urge you to consider that fad.
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: I'd like to ask a question to the President. Do you think that if
you did not have a drive-through, the bank could survive at this
location?
Mr. Albanese:
All banks survive.
Mr. Alanskas:
Not all. I've seen buildings close and go out of business.
Mr. Albanese:
I think that the bank would prosper with or without a drive-
through, but just like you're trying to service your residents,
we're trying to service our customers. It is a convenience for our
customers.
Mr. Alanskas:
I agree with that because what you want to do the building, I
think it looks very good, but just the drive-through is a big
problem. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? I will note that we did have two letters
read into the record. Clearly they had an impact on the
Planning Commissioners, so if you have written a letter, I would
appreciate you keeping it to new information.
Suzanne Krisher, 18747 Westmore. I did write a letter. We've lived there for 27
years and have 130 feel of our property. We would be looking
directly at that drive-through window and the ATM machine. We
have gone to the ZBA board numerous limes. We've also
signed the waiver for the greenbelt and on that waiver we put
conditions, which have not been kept up. But one thing is, the
overgrown trees are what we want, otherwise we would have no
21844
privacy at all. This is also summertime that you see how it
looks. In the wintertime, we look directly at that building.
There's no foliage at all. We don't want the bank at all. They
say they want to be a neighborhood bank. If you're going to be
a neighborhood bank, you go for growth. I can just see them
laking over that whole building one day. You people on the
Board may not be on it the next time they come up and may
want the drive-through window. This happened to us althe ZBA
board; every time we go up, there's a different Board and we
have problems every time with that. I'm worried about a
dumpsler. They dont have one now. Their garbage is piled up
right behind our fence. The previous owners have always put it
right where that drive-through window is going to be. Where is
their trash going to be held? Our property is also at least two
feel lower than their property. As it is now, in the wintertime
when the snow is plowed, when it melts it's all in our backyard.
I have photographs of our flooding every spring. That is another
concern. And then they talk about irrigation. It's going to be the
same problem with water in our backyard. We do not want a
bank, drive-through or not. It will be way too much traffic. And
even if they put a "no right turn' on Clarita. people will come out
of the north exit, turn right on Clarita, tum right on Westmore to
go out at the light at Curtis. This year we've already had a
rollover accident on Clarita and Westmore from the cars
traveling too fast. It is not acceptable to have a bank in that
building. Thankyou.
Charles Krisher, 18747 Westmore. My wife just spoke. The only thing I would
add is that we have had problems with the previous owners,
Harrison and Lord. I've almost had to lake care of the
greenbelt. They lel vines grow all over their evergreens. They'll
put an evergreen in and lel vines grow over it. It kills the
evergreen, and they say the property won't support an
evergreen. They dump their snow right up against our fence.
They have not been good neighbors. We've tried to work with
the ZBA. We had to sign our agreement outside of the ZBA.
We don't see an advantage. The bank looks like a problem. I
did go to the other two locations, and there were more than
three cars in line. Maybe that was a good day. Al the one
location in Farmington Hills, there's a "no right turn' exit to a
side street. I sat there for 15 minutes and watched six cars
make that turn. I dont see anything different at our location. Its
not suitable for a bank. There's nowhere near the space out
back. You're asking for trouble. Someone is going to walk out
the back of the building on a lunch break and get hit. You don't
21645
have two lanes of traffic coming in for a one-way entrance. It's
just not suitable, and we request that you deny it.
Mr. Morrow:
I have a question.
Mr. Walsh:
Sir, if you could step back, one of our Commissioners has a
question for you.
Mr. Morrow:
Yes, and it relates to the greenbelt versus the wall. Could you
tell me a little bit in the past if you folks have lobbied for a wall?
What was the history of the greenbelt versus the wall?
Mr. Krisher:
I don't know if any of you remember Gene Harris, the original
owner who built the building. He, up until the last couple years,
owned it and did a very good job with the greenbelt. There was
one big storm we had one year, and a bunch of the evergreens
came down. Some apple trees came down. And since that
time, there's never been what we consider an adequate
greenbelt. The greenbelt is on our side of the properly. I've
invested in evergreens, bushes that will grow up to about 10 to
12 feet high. Can't go too high because of the wires. We've
invested money in that. Our neighbors have invested. We
talked at one time when Mr. Harris' owned the building about
pushing for a wall in hopes of getting a better greenbelt. The
ZBA backed him and said he had an adequate greenbelt even
though half the trees were gone from when we moved in. When
Mr. Lord purchased the building, he immediately contacted all
the neighbors and made a little bit of effort to clean up the
greenbelt. He cut down the vines that would grow in the trees.
He put in a few evergreens. I know the people on the south
side of the property have had a problem also with a greenbelt.
All they now have is pretty much a stockade fence. They
haven't been successful supporting a greenbelt.
Mr. Morrow:
Did you folks ever request a wall in lieu of the greenbelt?
Mr. Knsher:
We have not requested specifically a wall.
Mr. Morrow:
So in other words, you were happy with the greenbelt if it was
maintained?
Mr. Knsher:
If its maintained.
Mr. Morrow:
And so as it relates to the noise or the traffic within the site, that
has not been a problem with the greenbelt?
21646
Mr. Krisher:
No, except for one occasion in the past two years. There was a
limousine service operating out of the building when Mr. Lord
owned it. The limousine service liked to park their limos behind
the building, leave the doors open, tum up the volume while the
chauffeur was wailing for a pickup or delivery. We had to call
on numerous occasions. Police would come by. I walk back
there. My neighbors walked back there and asked them if they
could turn down the radio at lead. Sometimes successful.
Sometimes we resorted to calling the police to cruise through.
That business disappeared, fortunately.
Mr. Morrow:
When this wall expires ...
Mr. Krisher:
I'm not sure a wall, from a sound standpoint, would be good.
However, if they refuse to maintain a greenbelt, Im sure we
could get all of the neighbors in agreement to push for what
would be a pretty costly wall because it's got to be a fairly nice
size wall in brick. It's got to be fairly expensive.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, one of my major concerns and the reason for my question
was the greenbelt in lieu of the wall. It sounds like the
neighbors agreed to the greenbelt as long as it's maintained and
fairly well built up.
Mr. Krisher:
In the past, we've been pretty much in agreement on that.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Shane:
Mark, don't we have a landscape plan submitted with this
proposal?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, there was as landscape plan. Hopefully, each of you have
a copy of that.
Mr.Shane:
Doesn't that augment that greenbelt?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. Essentially, the plan is to remove the trees and shrubs
that are not contributing to the effectiveness of the greenbelt
and then replacing those with additional species. For example,
there are some mulberry bushes and a crabapple tree that are
scheduled to be removed, according to this plan, and replaced
with several arborvitaes that would f11 in the gaps that exist
between some of the larger spruce trees, similar to what is
present along other portions of that east property line. So there
is a rather specific plan relative to enhancing that greenbelt
along that side of the property.
21647
Mr. Shane: Thank you. I just wanted to make that point
Chris Wolfe,
18557 Westmore. I'm in that same block but I'm not directly
affected by the proposed site plan. I'm three houses from
Pickford, but I was very concerned about the traffic. I think the
definitive word that one of the gentlemen used was to
"discourage" right hand turns. I think "discouraged" doesn't
work. I want you to be aware that there's a bus slop at Clarita
and Westmore. There are kids on that corner morning and
afternoon. Two houses from me a brand new baby; two houses
across from me, a brand new baby; a three-year old four houses
down. We have no sidewalks. Buggies are on the road. The
three-year old is learning how to ride her bike. I'm very
concerned about the traffic. I was also very concerned about
the ATM being in the back of the building. It's pretty deserted
back there because it fronts up to residences. With the
greenbelt, I walk my dog all the time through that location and
its dark and its scary back there. So I would be very
concerned about the ATM at the back of the building. I also
believe that there's just not enough room there to support a
bank. Being in the financial services industry myself, I can't
believe that a bank wouldn't want to grow. If the niche market
grows, the bank is going to service the niche market, and by
their own admission, two of their banks are 1,500 and 1,200
square feet, but the Novi branch is 3,000. So if they would
eventually take over this whole building, again, they'd be 50-50,
small and large. So I would ask you to consider those points.
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this petition? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the
public hearing and ask the petitioner to step forward for the final
word. Mr. Slempien?
Mr. Stempien:
With regard to the traffic into the neighborhood, as I staled
earlier, the minimum we would do is the "no right turn" sign with
the hope that the enforcement would come as well with that
from the Livonia Police Department. But that's not the only
thing we're relying on. We will explore the possibility of closing
that driveway. The engineering hasn't been totally explored in
that regard from my client's perspective. Closing that driveway
makes a lot of sense. He has two driveways out onto
Farmington Road. It's his preference to close that driveway and
certainly we're going to do that if we can. We don't want to
encourage traffic into the neighborhood in any way at all, so we
21648
will certainly lake a look at that. With regard to the greenbelt
issues, I think Mr. Taormina covered that with the landscape
plan. The intention is to put in all evergreens. I shouldn't say
all, but primarily evergreen trees to accent the ones that are
currently there. We already have spruce trees, which are
evergreens which have their needles all year long. We have
arborvitae interspersed with those, which also keep their foliage
all year long. And it will fill in those gaps where currently the
crab apple tree and the various other weed trees are going to
come down and will truly create a strong, very attractive
greenbelt here. With regard to the slacking, which appears to
be one of the major concerns as well as the noise issue, with
regard to the drive-through. Again, I encourage the Board to
considerlhe numbers that we're dealing with. I understand that
businesses grow. It does occur. What has occurred in the past
with this bank, and which will occur in the future, is they don't
grow by expanding at their current sites. They grow by moving
into other neighborhoods, other areas. They continue to keep
their niche. They know what they do, they know what they do
well, and that's the way they're going to continue to operate
because that's the way they've been successful. If they do
grow, they're going to move somewhere else or they're going to
keep this branch, and they're going to open up another branch
in some area that may be nearby. So there should not be much
concern. I also would like to point out that I personally would
not advocate a position whereby telling you, look there's going
to be this drive-through that backs up toward Farmington Road
and there's some concern that they'll go out onto Farmington
Road, if I weren't personally confdenl that, in fact, it's not going
to happen. I had specific discussions with the representatives
from the bank. They are fully aware of the safety issues that
can arise by blocking a sidewalk or blocking a major
thoroughfare such as Farmington Road. They also wouldn't
present such an issue if they ever even considered that would
become a problem in the future.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Slempien, we didn't even get into your ground sign. You
were allowed 30 square feel not to exceed 6 feet in height and 8
feel in length, and a setback of 10 feel. Your setback is not
specified on the plan.
Mr. Slempien: Its 10 feel. It may not be specified, but we're going to meet the
ordinance in everyway with regard to the sign.
Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou.
21649
Mr. LaPine: Mark, can you tell us where the ATM is going to be in front of
the building?
Mr. Taormina: I'll put up the site plan. Why don't we have the architect
describe where its going since its not shown on the present
plan?
Mr. Tiseo: It will be right in this area right here. Where we had the chairs,
the ATM and night deposit will now be here so that the
customers would come up this walk. It would be expanded to
accommodate that use.
Mr. LaPine: So if somebody is going to use the ATM, they have to park their
car and go over to the ATM. They cant drive up to it?
Mr. Tiseo: That is correct.
Mr. Shane: How do you handle your trash? I don't see a dumpster on the
plan.
Ron Menta, Marketing Source, 38777 W. Six Mile Road, Suite 205, Livonia,
Michigan 48152. The whole area does not have a dumpster per
se. Those businesses accumulate probably, according to the
cleanup guy, about three garbage bags a week, not enough to
accommodate a dumpster. He said if they put a dumpster
there, it would probably be empted twice a year. It's handled
with the regular trash pickup.
Mr. Shane: Okay.
Ms. Wolfe: Are we allowed another point here?
Mr. Walsh: I have closed the public hearing, but you've wailed long, and if
you'd like to add a comment, unless there's an objection, go
ahead.
Ms. Wolfe: I was just going to add the comment that Farmington Road
backs up past that building for the light from about 3 to 7 p.m.
When I come home from work, and if I'm trying to turn left onto
Pickford, it's an impossibility from 3 to 7 p.m. So that is a very
high traffic area. I'm not sure how ingress and egress would
work with bank traffic around that time. I just wanted to
mentioned that.
Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thankyou.
21650
Mr. Krisher: With regard to trash, since they've moved in, every week they
put trash by my fence. So they're not maintaining the trash now
in the building. When they have more tenants, I guess there will
be more trash bags somewhere. Right now, if you drive by
there tonight, there's trash bags back by fence in the greenbelt
that didn't gel put out Iasi week, so they added some more this
week. That's happened ever since the building has been under
renovation. So I don't know where the trash is going to be once
they occupy it.
Mr. Walsh: Just to give a couple comments as we move towards a motion.
I share the concerns on the drive-through with many of my
colleagues. I do accept your numbers and I do understand the
nature of your business. It is because of that I'm hopeful. I'm
not sure which way it's going to go, but should you be approved
without a drive-through, we'll still consider the site. I want to
thank Mr. Mena for his investments there, but I'm hopeful that
the numbers you described to me are accurate, and I think they
are and that it wont hurl your business going there. But I'm not
sure where its going to go this evening. We have some
questions regarding the drive-through, and you certainly
answered the ATM questions for us. I appreciate that, but I did
want to just throw out my two cents worth before we go into a
motion. With that, if there are no other questions or comments,
I am looking for a motion.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Piercecchi, it was
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning on September 14, 2004, on Petition
2004-08-02-29 submitted by TMS 18770, LLC, on behalf of
Michigan Heritage Bank, requesting waiver use approval to
operate a bank with a drive-through teller window at 18770
Farmington Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road
between Pickford Avenue and Clarita Avenue in the Northwest
% of Section 10, that the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-08-02-
29 be denied for the following reasons:
1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all the general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Section
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed use does not comply with the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the minimum number of
21651
waiting spaces required for the drive -up window traffic
lane;
3. That the petitioner has failed to sufficiently demonstrate
that the site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
4. That this area of the City is currently well served with
similar type uses as is being proposed;
5. That the proposed site layout and its relation to streets
giving access to it, particularly with respect to vehicular
turning movements in relation to routes of traffic flow and
location and access of off-street parking, will be hazardous
and detrimental to traffic flow and circulation patterns in the
neighboring area;
6. That the proposed drive -up window traffic lane would be
detrimental and disruptive to the normal function of the
subject parking lot on the site within which it is proposed to
be located;
7. That the proposed use would adversely affect the adjacent
residential properties; and
8. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other
things, are intended to insure compatibility and
appropriateness of uses.
Mr. Walsh: I'd like to just add onto the comment that I made, should this
motion pass, you do have the opportunity to appeal this to the
City Council within len days, and you might have an opportunity
to address some of the concerns that we brought up. Would the
Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
La Pine, Pieroecchi, Morrow
NAYES:
Alanskas, Shane, Smiley, Walsh
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion fails. Is there an alternate motion?
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and adopted, it was
21652
#09-116-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning on September 14, 2004, on Petition
2004-08-02-29 submitted by TMS 18770, LLC, on behalf of
Michigan Heritage Bank, requesting waiver use approval to
operate a bank with a drive-through teller window at 18770
Farmington Road, located on the east side of Farmington Road
between Pickford Avenue and Clarita Avenue in the Northwest
% of Section 10, that the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-08-02-
29 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet Pl prepared by Tiseo
Architects, Inc., with a revision dale of August 12, 2004, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except that (1)
the drive-through facility, as well as the exit onto Clarita,
shall be eliminated; and (2) the walk-up ATM shall be
relocated to the front of the building;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet LP -1 submitted by
Tiseo Architects, Inc., dated August 5, 2004, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers shall be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
5. That the Building Elevations Plan marked Sheet P3
prepared by Tiseo Architects, Inc., with a revision dale of
August 12, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
6. That any lighting equipment provided on the subject site
shall be shielded and shall not exceed 20 feel in height
above grade;
7. That appropriate signs shall be posted to indicate one-way
entry and exit at the driveways and "stop" signs at the exits
as recommended by the correspondence dated August 24,
2004 from the Traffic Bureau;
21653
8. That at the time the property separation agreement
terminates in July, 2006, the agreement must be renewed
or extended, or the wall must be built or a Zoning Board of
Appeals waiver will need to be obtained;
9. That all parking spaces on the site shall be double striped;
10 That the Monument Sign Plan prepared by The Marketing
Source, received by the Planning Commission on
September 2, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, subject to the requirement that the ground sign
shall have a minimum setback of len (10) feel from any
right -0f --way line; and
11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1 That the proposed use complies with all of the general
waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. Thal the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
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. Alanskas: Could we also put in there in regards to the ATM being put in
the front of the building?
Mr.Shane: Yes.
Mr. Walsh: We have a friendly amendment that's been accepted by the
maker and made by the supporter.
Mr. Morrow: As it relates to the drive-in window, has that been dropped?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes.
21654
Mr.
Walsh:
Yes. That was one of the provisos to the prepared resolution.
Mr.
Morrow:
I wasn't talking about four spaces, but I wanted to make sure.
Mr.
Walsh:
When Mr. Shane read it in, he did not read in Item 12.
Mr.
Morrow:
Right, but I didn't know if he was going to specifically indicate
that.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Hedid.
Mr.
Shane:
I did.
Mr.
Walsh:
He did. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none,
would the Secretary pleas call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYES:
LaPine
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
This concludes the Public Hearing section of our agenda. We will
now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda.
Members of the audience may speak in support or opposition to
these items. Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM #6 PETITION 2004-08-08-14 WIRELESS TOYZ
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 04-08-
08-14, submitted by Wireless Toyz requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located at 37950 Ann Arbor Road in the
Northeast % of Section 31.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is proposing to renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located on the southwest corner of Ann
Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail. Originally the subject property
21655
was utilized as a gas/service station. In the early 1990's, waiver
use approval (Pet. 91-07-02-21) was granted permitting the site
to operate strictly as a vehicle repair facility. The repair
business moved out sometime in the late 1990's. Mostrecently,
the site received wavier use approval (Pel. 01-09-02-17) to
operate as a rental car business. For whatever reason,
Enterprise Rent-A-Car never followed through with their plans
and the building has remained vacant. For the most part, the
exterior of the existing building is comprised of panel brick. This
material is deteriorating and is fracturing in places. Wireless
Toyz would like to replace the panel brick material with a
combination of Deco tile and dryvil. A wainscot of Deco tile,
each individual tile measuring 12' x 12', would wrap around and
adorn the bottom third of the entire building. Large showroom
windows would replace the glass overhead doors that were
necessary when this site operated as a service station. To
better exhibit the interior sales area to exterior traffic, large
display windows would be introduced and inaugurate along the
south, north and east elevations. The rest of the building, the
areas not glass or tile, would be covered with a dryvit material.
Vinyl siding would be installed in the peak areas of the roof and
trim the building just below the roof overhang. The roof would
remain asphalt shingled. The existing decorative cupola would
remain and be repainted. New 20' high light poles would
replace the old existing light standards that illuminate the site's
driveways. There is an existing enclosed dumpsler area located
near the northeast corner of the site. The existing parking lot
would be repaired, resealed and doubled striped. They will
meet the parking requirements of eight spaces. Even with the
site meeting the parking requirement outlined by the Zoning
Ordinance, if the need for additional parking should arise,
additional parking is available from the adjacent site to the west.
The property utilized by Rile Aid and Mike's Market has a
surplus of nine parking spaces over and above what they are
required to have. There is a row of parking spaces conveniently
located right behind the Wireless Toyz building that would be
easily accessible to its customers or employees. The submitted
site plan shows that three new landscaping areas would be
created near the two entrances of the site. The petitioner has
also stated that the existing landscape area out near the
intersection of Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail would be
reestablished and brought back to City standards. Proposed
landscaping equals 27% of the site which exceed the required
15%. Wireless Toyz is also requesting a ground sign. They are
allowed one at 30 square feel; they are proposing one at 20
square feet so this is conforming. Because this is a corner
21656
business, they are allowed two wall signs: one on the front
elevation at 50 square feel and a second at one-half the area, or
25 square feet. They show one on the east elevation at 49
square feet, so it's a conforming wall sign on the front elevation.
They also show two canopy signs, one on the north elevation
and one on the south elevation. The south elevation would be
24 square feet and the one on the north elevation would be 20
square feet. Because this is excessive signage than what is
allowed, they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for one of the awning signs. But as I staled, the ground sign is
conforming and would be located in the landscape triangle area
of the intersection.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 24, 2004,
which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior
of the commercial building located at the above referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal and have no
concerns with respect to traffic, points of ingress and egress,
site capacity to accommodate the proposed use as related to off
street parking or any other safety matters." The letter is signed
by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The second letter is from
the Division of Police, dated September 13, 2004, which reads
as follows: "We have reviewed the plans as submitted in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located at 37950 Ann Arbor Trail. Wehave
no objections to the plans as submitted. Please remind the
petitioner that the handicap parking space must be property
posted per City of Livonia ordinance." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated September 7, 2004,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest of August 20,
2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The parking lot lights are detailed at
approximately 22.5 feet above grade. This should be
rec nfigured to a maximum height of 20 feet. (2) The dumpster
enclosure detail appears to show block with a brick veneer
exterior. The enclosure is block only and approximately 5'7" tall.
(3) The landscape bed is in poor repair and most of the lawn
area is weeds. The Ginko tree on the south side, east end is
dead. All landscaped areas should have a permanent
underground irrigation system. (4) The west side of the building
at ground level is full of debris and trash. (5) The ground sign
21657
as proposed and located would be acceptable. No other
signage has been reviewed. (6) It appears from the scrape of
work that this building will be required to meet the current barrier
free code in its entirety. (7) A section of sidewalk just west of
the north drive needs to be replaced. (8) Double striping should
be noted on the plans for the parking lot. Bumper blocks are
noted as being in place for the 7 east spaces. (9) It appears
parking provided is 8 spaces, not the 14 spaces detailed on site
and building data. Eight spaces meet the requirements for this
use. This Department has no further objections to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff?
Mr. Piercecchi:
I have a question. Inasmuch as this facility here is adjacent to
what I consider two major streets, does not the front and the
end units qualify for half the signage that's allowed in the front?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Raad Samona,
Wireless Toyz, 4470 Cherry Hill Drive, Orchard Lake Village,
Michigan 48323.
Mr. Walsh:
Do you have anything you'd like to add to the Staffs
presentation?
Mr. Samona:
No. Everything is fine.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, on your site plan, on Ann Arbor Trail where it says "new
landscape area,' it doesn't say what you're going to put in there.
Mr. Samona:
On the plan, it shows a few trees in there. On Ann Arbor Trail
you're talking about?
Mr. Alanskas:
The area where you have the existing burning bush and lawn
area. I mean that's a disaster area. What are you going to do
with that?
Mr. Samona:
We're going to replace any dead bushes. We're going to
change some trees that need to be changed. We're going to
take care of all the lawn. We're going to add more lawn to the
21658
front because we're changing the parking lot. From the existing
right now is different than how it looks on the plan right now.
Mr. Alanskas:
You have to take all those out because they're dead.
Mr. Samona:
They're dead, yes. They need to be changed. We will change
them.
Mr. Alanskas:
You're going to change all those and put the same thing in, the
juniper and burning bush, all brand new?
Mr. Samona:
Yes, that we will do. If they're dead, we'll change them. If
they're not, we will just maintain them.
Mr. Alanskas:
There's nothing to maintain. They're all dead.
Mr. Samona:
If they're dead, we'll change them. Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
You will take those out?
Mr. Samona:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Would we gel a color striping or am I missing that in my packet
here? One of my concerns was, I wanted to get a feel for what
the colors might be and also what the particular tile is. There
was talk about substituting the Deco the with a light brown brick.
I dont really know what a Deco file is versus a light brown brick.
Mr. Miller:
He hasn't submitted the Deco tile.
Mr. Samona:
This is the brick color, right there.
Mr. Miller:
If it pleases the Planning Commission, he's going to replace the
tile with the brick of this color.
Mr. Morrow:
I'm always in favor of brick, but I have no idea what a Deco tile
would be versus a brick. I assume it's a regular four inch, not
the panel brick.
Mr. Miller:
Right. This is full four -inch brick. Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
It would be light brown versus the Coffee Kiss?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
21659
Mr. Shane:
Could you go back to the building elevations, Scott? The
wainscot is going to be dryvil. Is that correct? Did I hear you
right?
Mr. Miller:
Well, the wainscot right now is what he shows as Deco tile, but
he says he will replace it. Al the Study Meeting, you mentioned
that you'd rather have brick, and he has agreed to put brick in.
So the wainscot will be brick.
Mr.Shane:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh:
This is not a public hearing item, but on Miscellaneous Items
people in the audience are entitled to speak. Is there anybody
in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, 0
was
#09-117-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-08-08-14,
submitted by Wireless Toyz requesting approval
of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located at 37950 Ann Arbor Road in the
Northeast % of Section 31, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked S-1 dated
August 11, 2004, prepared by DiMattia Architects, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That if any of the plant materials identified on the plan as
..existing and to remain' are deemed dead or dying by the
Inspection Department, said landscaping shall be removed
and replaced with new live plant materials;
3. Thatthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
21660
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked A-2 dated
August 11, 2004 prepared by DiMattia Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that
the Deco Tile shall be replaced with light brown four inch
(4") brick;
7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
8. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the Stale of Michigan;
9. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
10. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated September 7, 2004:
That the debris and trash along the west side of the
building shall be cleaned up and removed;
That a section of the sidewalk just west of the north
drive shall be replaced;
Thalthe parking lotshall be doubled striped;
11. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
12. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
21661
13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas:
To the maker of the motion, could we include that all the existing
landscaping in the front of the building will be removed and
replaced with new per the site plan?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Of course.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any objection from the supporter? None? It will be so
amended.
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to be sure we have the light brown brick.
Mr. Walsh:
Do we need to say that specifically, Scott?
Mr. Miller:
Yes, because the conditions were written before you submitted
the brick.
Mr. Morrow:
To remove the Deco tile.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Do we need that? It was in your notes that he would have no
problem substituting the Deco Tile with the light brown brick. Do
you want that part of the motion?
Mr. Walsh:
Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thatthe light brown brick, standard eight inch...
Mr. Miller:
Four inch.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Four inch light brown brick shall be substituted for the Deco tile.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman,
declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
21662
Y Y=1 1i E')FM9=k 1 Y 1[a]C lKiDEDI.0111.036�a1 i! Y i Ua] i! 1■ Ja\1:710
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Peldion 2004-
08-08-15, submitted by Anthony Patric Inc. requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located at 19711 Middlebell Road in the
Southeast'''/ of Section 2.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is proposing to renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located on the west side of Middlebell Road
between Seven Mile Road and Bretton Road. This building is
presently being utilized as a Corey Home Dinette store. The
petitioner would like to modify the building in order to attract a
tenant. The proposed modifications to the existing building are
mainly in the form of surface or cosmetic changes. The facade
of the east elevation (front) would be completely redone in
dryvit. By stepping and adding relief areas to the storefront and
using different accent patterns in the dryvil, the building would
lake on a more modern or classical look. An ornamental
cornice along the lop edge of the roofline would help complete
the image. The architecture and building materials of the front
facade would wrap and continue slightly around the front edges
of the north and south elevations. The remaining portions of
these walls, which are currently painted block, would be striped
and repainted. The existing wood framing trim on these walls
would be removed. The elevation plan does not illustrate or
mention the rear or west elevation of the building. When
questioned, the petitioner explained that there are no plans to
do anything to the rear elevation of the building. To
accommodate the change of use from a furniture store to
general retail, additional parking is needed. Parking for furniture
stores are rather light compared to general retail because of the
large warehouse space typically associated with them. To
accommodate the additional parking that is required, the
existing parking lot would be expanded and extended around
behind the building. If this property becomes General Retail, 53
parking spaces would be required. The new site plan shows 44
spaces. Because the site would be deficient in parking by 9
spaces, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be
required. According to the site plan, the front and rear parking
areas of this site would connect and merge with the property to
the south. Currently the front parking lot of Corey Home
connects with the parking lot of the adjacent commercial
properly to the south. The enclosed dumpster area would be
located at the northwest corner of the rear parking lot. The
21663
landscaping of the site would consist of a variety of plant
materials, including both evergreen and deciduous type shrubs,
ornamental grasses, and small deciduous trees. To allow the
alignment of the shrubs along Middlebelt Road, some of the
existing plant material would be removed and relocated. They
are required to have 15% of the site landscaped; they show
13% so they are deficient by 2%. Other than the notation and a
rectangular figure illustrating a location of a new monument sign
on the site plan, no information pertaining to signage has been
submitted. Without any type of information or details relating to
dimensions or location, signage could not be evaluated. This
commercial building, if occupied by one tenant, would be
allowed one wall sign at 90 square feel and one ground sign at
30 square feet. If the building were subdivided into separate
units (no more than three based on parking), each tenant space
would be permitted a single wall sign based on their unit
frontage. There is an existing, nonconforming pole sign on the
site.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated August 31, 2004, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objection to the proposal. No additional right-of-way is required
at this lime. Removal of the existing approach and curb drop
will require a permit from Wayne County. Proof of rights of
ingress and egress across the parcel to the south should be
provided as a condition of approval." The letter is signed by
Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from
the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 24, 2004,
which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior
of the commercial building on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal
and have no concerns with respect to traffic, points of ingress
and egress, site capacity to accommodate the proposed use as
related to off street parking or any other safety matters." The
letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third
letter is from the Division of Police, dated September 13, 2004,
which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans as
submitted in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior
of the commercial building located at 19711 Middlebelt. The
proposed plan indicates 44 parking spaces but the site requires
52 parking spaces. We believe that there may not be adequate
21664
exterior lighting and request that consideration be given to
possibly adding additional parking lot lights so the site around
the whole building is property illuminated forsafety and security.
Please remind the petitioner that all handicap parking spaces
must by individually posted per Livonia City Ordinance." The
letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
September 7, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of August 20, 2004, the above -referenced petition has
been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site will need to
restore the protective wall issue along the west property line.
Either the wall must be installed, or a property separation
agreement signed, or a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals obtained. (2) This site was approved originally for a
furniture store and the parking was appropriate. As proposed
for general retail store(s), the parking is deficient by at least 9
spaces. Three barrier free spaces are required and must be
distributed according to entrance location, if there are multiple
tenants. Of the 3 spaces one must be van accessible and sized
with an 8 -foot wide space with an adjacent 8 -foot aisle.
Therefore a parking space(s) may be lost when the lot is
reconfigured. Once that has been accomplished, a
determination may be made as to exactly how many spaces
deficient the site is. A variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals will need to be obtained for said deficient parking
spaces. (3) It is unclearif the parking lot labeled as existing will
be able to be repaired to the standards required. (4) The plan
shows the existing pole sign removed and has been reviewed
that way. (5) All landscaping should have underground
irrigation and any existing lawn areas should be restored to a
weed free condition. (6) The landscaping appears to be
deficient by 2% (±) of the required 15%. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Pal Mannor, Anthony Patric Inc., 203 Church Street, Grand Blanc, Michigan
48439.
Mr. Walsh: Do you have anything you'd like to add to the Staffs
presentation?
Mr. Mannor: I would. This is a little easier to look at with the color on it. I'm
sorry @ didn't gel submitted in time for them to show you that on
21665
the screen. There's several items I'd just like to point out about
this project. It's currently occupied by Corey Home Dinettes.
Their lease is up. They had expressed that they weren't going
to renew their lease. The idea was to renovate the building so
that we could re -lease it and not limit it to a furniture store. We
are involved in the former Ethan Allen building as well. We've
been trying to lease that. I've been personally involved, as Mark
knows, with Furniture Express stores. He had two stores
around the comer. The furniture stores are really struggling
right now in that area. Our intentions were to add parking and
gel this site approved and renovate the facade so that we can
gel a more general use in the building and keep the vacancy as
short as possible. As of just this week, we've been informed
that Corey wants to meet with us about extending their lease.
We have no idea what that may amount to. However, we would
still like to go ahead with this at this time because the extra
parking is not going to hurt anything, and it just makes the
building more marketable in case they do not stay there for any
length of time. We'd rather get it out of the way now and make
the improvements to the building and make it a more
marketable building. It was expressed to us in the early
meetings with Scott and Mark that we might be better off trying
to meet the landscape requirements rather than trying to meet
the parking requirements. In other words, that was a priority.
So what we tried to do, even though we carved this out and we
are eliminating a driveway, we did try to inundate the front with
landscaping and we came very close to the 15%. Also like I
say, we wouldn't be opposed to adding lighting to the parking
lot. That was probably an oversight on our part. We'd be happy
to do that. We're open to any other suggestions that the
committee has and we'd just like to get this approved. We'd like
to make the improvements to the building. If you saw the
pictures, it's a very dated building. It would be very difficult to
re -lease this building. Our experience with buildings that are
dated, people can't envision it. I can even give them a color
rendering of the proposal and they still can't visualize it. What
our intentions are is to make a major improvement to this
existing building, and at the same time, add parking to make it a
more user-friendly building. If there are any questions, I'd be
happy to answer those.
Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, going through a renovation, do you have to have pretty
much a knowledge of how many tenants you expect to
accommodate?
Mr. Mannor: One tenant.
21666
Mr. Piercecchi:
Oh, its one tenant.
Mr. Mannor:
We don't intend to split the building. We're marketing the
building as a single tenant. We had experience trying to split
buildings, trying to reduce the size of buildings, like the former
Lasky building we worked on years ago. Mark remembers.
We're better off giving away the space than we are trying to split
the building with the cost of splitting utilities and everything else.
Giving away some extra space, gelling a graduated lease or
something like that. But that was a great question. We do not
intend to split the building. It doesn't make sense.
Mr. Piercecchi:
The elevations that you're showing us here ...
Mr. Mannor:
Those are just different examples. I'm glad you brought that up.
That may bring some confusion. We were just trying to show
from a marketing standpoint what could be the potential uses.
We don't have a Dollar Store. We don't have a music store and
whatever the other one is.
Mr. Alanskas:
Video Planet.
Mr. Mannor:
We don't have a video store either. The idea is trying to market
this building to give people ideas. I'm glad we picked blue,
though.
Mr. LaPine:
Basically, this is how the building will look?
Mr. Mannor:
Exactly. What we do is remove that mansard style roof that's
falling apart, and replace it with a dryvil facade with a dryvit
cornice. I've got some material samples. If anybody would like,
I can pass it around. There was also a queskon about the
material on the piers that come down in while. Typically what
we do is, we don't use dryvil. We use a synthetic plaster that
looks like dryvil on the outside but its on cement board. Its on
DuRock cement board. Its a product made by DuRock. If
anybody is familiar with DuRock, you can actually hit it with a
hammer. You can submerge it in water. But the coaling would
be the same. It would look similar. But you can create layers
as we have there. But we wouldn't be oppose to split -face
decorative block at the lower porkon of the building to meet
whatever requirements the City might have.
Mr. Piercecchi:
This is going to be put on top of the brick that's currently there.
21667
Mr. Mannor:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That's a most usual thing.
Mr. Mannor:
Well, when you put the facade on the building, you create a
certain thickness. Architecturally speaking, the columns should
look like they're supporting the facade. There's nothing wrong
with the brick. We would just want to make it look a little more
architecturally correct and add some architectural interest to the
front elevation.
Mr. Piercecchi:
We're generally very reluctant to allow dryvil on the lower
portion, but you're sure that this material can take a beating?
Mr. Mannor:
We will provide samples. I wasn't able to get the sample of the
DuRock and I don't know if anybody is familiar with it, but it is
applied on a cement board. It's just the veneer coating, the
same veneer plaster. It's as thick as the trowel that applies it.
Its more like cement plaster, I guess. It's based on a cement
board. We build grocery stores all the time, and they run carts
into R. Its a very, very sturdy product. Again, over the years we
have not put any typical dryvit with any foam system.
Mr. Piercecchi:
That's what I was going to ask you, if you can push a cart up
against?
Mr. Mannor:
You can push a cart up against it. You can take your keys and
gouge it. You can hit
it with a hammer. Its a very durable
product.
Mr. Piercecchi:
This is something new. Do you have a write-up of this product?
Mr. Mannor:
From the manufacturer, I can provide a spec sheet and I can
bring a sample. I wasn't able to get the actual sample of the
DuRock system in time for tonight's meeting but I have ordered
it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I would like it for my own use. Maybe we could substitute it for
dryvil on some other site.
Mr. Mannor:
Its a great idea. We've done it many times over and over
again.
Mr. LaPine:
See these windows over here?
Mr. Mannor:
Yes.
21668
Mr. LaPine:
Are they necessary? Why do you have these windows here?
Mr. Mannor:
Because they are there, and because for a furniture store, they
were absolutely necessary.
Mr. LaPine:
I can understand that. I agree with that.
Mr. Mannor:
And for certain retailers, they may be beneficial. Other retailers
will probably not want them. Our idea right now was to carry the
facade around to where the brick slops, and at that point, just
beyond the point of the brick ...
Mr. LaPine:
Are you going to go around the edge here?
Mr. Mannor:
Yes, we're going to go right around the corner, but we may, at
some point, choose to brick that in, but at this point I wouldn't do
that just because we don't want to limit any potential users.
Mr. LaPine:
The reason I ask that is the building south of you, the dance
studio, they don't have large windows, and they have a little
brick down here at the bottom. I was under the impression, like
some of the other members were, that there was going to be
more than one tenant in there, maybe three.
Mr. Mannor:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
If that was going to happen, I was going to say then we could
use that same type of brick that we used on the building next
door and make the windows a little shorter. But at this time, you
don't have a prospect to lease this.
Mr. Mannor:
Other than Tuesday we're meeting with the current tenant and
we put this out in the marketplace. We've contacted brokers.
We've sent them this rendering. And we just revised the
rendering for Tuesday's meeting to put Corey Home Dinette on
there as well. Again, I probably shouldn't have shown ilwith the
three different tenants. It was just an idea that we don't know
who's going in there.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to the pillars, now. In the wintertime with all the snow
buildup, moisture does not affect this new type of product that
you have?
Mr. Mannor:
No. It's half inch thick cement board, and it's layered to
whatever thickness we need to create.
21669
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm referring to salt.
Mr. Mannor:
Salt doesn't affect it. As a matter of fad, the manufacturer
displays the product at the supply houses. They have it
displayed in a clear container of water, a little piece of the
product to show that moisture cannot break it down. Its a great
product.
Mr. Alanskas:
But didn't you say that also if needed, you would put a cement
block around it instead of this at the base?
Mr. Mannor:
We certainly would put decorative split face block as a base.
We've done that on many projects. If that's preferred, we'll do
that and then we'll just carry the column up from there. There's
actually a transitional point on the column if you look at those
columns that would be an ideal place to ... it's right here on the
bottom where you see that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Well, I hope you gel Corey Dinette back.
Mr. Morrow:
The plain brick walls on the north and south, how are you going
to treat those?
Mr. Mannor:
The cement block walls . . . ft's suppose to be decorative
aluminum siding that has a pattern. If you look on the
architectural plans, you'll see it. Our intention was to remove
that. We didn't think of anything else other than we were going
to clean the wall and paint the wall with similar colors to match
the facade, but one of the suggestions I saw from the work
study was that it was just a plain block wall. So what we've
done in other cases, we've created like little architectural
pilasters, every so often on the side to just give it a little bit of
architecture. The other thing I noticed that we could do is where
they had those little, they're almost like a gambrel -style detail, if
you can see right here, I would rather see little arches. We
could probably create with the same product little architectural
arches on the side or at least pilasters, just something to give it
some architectural interest.
Mr. Morrow:
I was hoping you'd say something like that versus a plain block
wall.
Mr. Mannor:
I agree with you 100 percent. Il didn't come to my attention until
I read the work study report, and I think its a great idea. We'd
be open to that idea.
21670
Mr. Morrow: I appreciate that
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one in the audience and ifthere
are no additional questions from the Commissioners, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Alanskas, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-118-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-08-08-15,
submitted by Anthony Patric Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
commercial building located at 19711 Middlebell Road in the
Southeast'''/ of Section 2, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet S-1 dated August 9,
2004, prepared by Anthony Patric Inc., is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That based on the parking calculation for this building, this
commercial building shall be limited to no more than one
(1) tenant;
3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet S-2 dated August
9, 2004, prepared by Anthony Patric Inc., is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
4. Thalthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from
the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader;
5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
6. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a
healthy condition;
7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2
dated August 9, 2004, prepared by Anthony Patric Inc., is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
21671
8. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction
of the building, or in the event a poured wall is substituted,
the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the
building, and the enclosure gales shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
10. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water
management permits from Wayne County, the City of
Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan;
11. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and
shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
12. That the pefitioner shall correct to the Inspection
Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the
correspondence dated September 7, 2004:
That the site will need to restore the protective wall
issue along the west property line. Either the wall be
installed, or a property separation agreement signed, or
a permanent wall waiver is granted;
That the existing parking lot shall be repaired, resealed
and doubled striped;
13. That this approval is subject to the pefitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient
parking and any conditions related thereto;
14. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
15. That the existing large pole sign shall be taken down and
removed;
21672
16. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
17. That split face block be used at the base of the columns;
and
18. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow:
They were going to give some additional treatment to the block
wall and possibly substitute some of it around the pillars.
Mr. Mannor:
Right. So if you wanted to state that we would use decomtive
split -face block ... I can actually show that.
Mr. Walsh:
No. We understand. We're familiar with the product.
Mr. Mannor:
I have a sample of it here, but anyways, R's approximately two
feel above finished grade where the base of the column is,
where the base turns into a column, so we'd agree to that.
Mr. Taormina:
We'll put that in the language.
Mr. Morrow :
And the treatment of the brick walls.
Mr. Mannor:
And the treatment of the brick walls.
Mr. Alanskas:
On the side.
Mr. Mannor:
Yes. Pilasters on the brick walls.
Mr. Walsh:
Is that acceptable to the maker and supporter of the motion?
Ms. Smiley:
It sure is.
Mr. Alanskas:
Ilsure is. It's a nice improvement.
Mr. Mannor:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
21673
Y Y=1 1i U1.031111111111:2 =k 1 Y I[a]C 9:1-0111-010PA -97 I IN* -Y4]24 VLH] i! Ila1
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 98-08-
02-16, submitted by the Shires of Livonia Condominium
Association requesting approval to revise the landscape plan
approved by Council Resolution #76-01 for the condominium
development located on the north side of SchoolcraR Road
between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Southeast % of
Section 20.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner, Shires of Livonia Condominium Association, is
requesting to amend the landscape plan that was approved for
their condominium subdivision. Shires of Livonia was known
initially during its earliest development stage as Culver Custom
Homes. This condominium development is located on the north
side of Schoolcraft Road between Levan Road and Yale
Avenue. The landscape plan that was approved for Shires
showed a row of existing 20' to 30' high evergreen trees along
the southern portion of the development's west property line.
The tree line initialed at SchoolcraR Road and proceeded
northward for about 350' along the western edge of Katie Lane,
which is the private roadway of Shires. The mature evergreen
trees, along with a row of snowball viburnum bushes, were to
provide screening and help obscure Katie Lane from the
abutting neighbors. The proposed modification to the plan
consists of the removal of approximately 24 of the trees along
the west side of Katie Lane. One problem with this request is
that the homeowners association has already cul down and
removed these trees, so the requested modification already
exists. The trees were removed without any type of City
approval. Because the present landscaping does not conform
to the plan approved by the City, the homeowners association
was issued a Violation Notice from the City's Inspection
Department. Included in the submitted material is a letter dated
March 15, 2004 from the property owner that abuts Shires the
entire distance where the evergreen trees were removed. The
letter stales that the property owners are "completely in
agreement with the reasons for their removal and had no
objections to the project" The homeowners are "opposed to the
addition of any replacement trees" and that they "enjoy the
visual openness that was not possible with the former
landscaping." It should be pointed out that the row of trees is
only required because they were shown on the approved
landscape plan. There is no ordinance requirementfor any type
of greenbelt divider between two residential districts or
21674
properties. Shires of Livonia and the properties that abut it are
all zoned residential.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ralph Paschke,
14094 Katie Lane, Livonia, Michigan 48154. I'm a resident of
the Shires of Livonia. I'm an elected member of the Board of
Directors. I'm here this evening on behalf of the Association
members to request your favorable recommendation for our
request to amend the "Landscape Plan" as approved by the
Livonia Council on February 7, 2001. Our petition is 98-08-02-
15. We are requesting your favorable consideration in the hope
that it will ultimately lead to the dismissal of the civil suit for the
violation 04L035410M and Ordinance Enforcement File EN03-
2767 currently before the 16th Judicial District Court. Our
application to amend the approved "Landscape Plan" was
submitted to the Planning Commission on July 16, 2004, the
day after our 16" District Court arraignment hearing at which
time we pleaded "not guilty" to the court complaint as fled. We
could do this in all honesty because the removal of the trees did
not take place at the address described in the fled complaint.
We have had discussions with Mr. Scott Miller and Mr. Mark
Taormina of the Planning Department concerning a possible
resolution of the civil suit against the Shires of Livonia. We
agreed that the amended petition before you was a mutually
compatible resolution to the complaint. We would also request
the opportunity to meet with a committee of this commission
following resolution of the current issue to discuss the
application of ordinance Section 20.02A after the original
petitioner of the Landscape Plan is no longer involved in the
development. There are some serious flaws in the master plan
approved and the end result for which we are held responsible
at this fime. On August 5, 1 mel with the Prosecutor for a pre-
trial conference. He noted that we had fled an amended
landscape plan and postponed any action until after this
meeting. Then he staled, 'This is the first case that I have been
involved where the City has sued a condo association." I
replied, "I also hope that it's the last." We thank you for your
consideration of our concerns and the possible resolution of the
civil suit before the court.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Morrow:
The bushes or the plantings that you had in front of the trees
that were removed, what type of bush is that and what is the
height potential of that bush?
21675
Mr. Paschke:
They are viburnums and according to my agricultural book, they
could go, if they're not trimmed, as high as 10 feet.
Mr. Morrow:
Alwhal heightwould you maintain those al?
Mr. Paschke:
I think whatever was agreeable with the neighbors and our
association.
Mr. Morrow:
I was out there a couple times looking at it, and I have to
commend you on the condition you keep your condo
association.
Mr. Paschke:
Well, thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
Everything seems to be up to speed or maybe even a little
better than up to speed. I notice you're probably wailing to do a
little more work on that area until this is resolved. It looked like
it could use some work where those bushes are.
Mr. Paschke:
Well, we talked about planting gardens along there, planting
perennial gardens along that strip to enhance the entrance. But
we had a couple other projects and we've had everything in
abeyance until we've reached this conclusion with this because
of funding. We're only 10 houses you know. We're not loaded
with bucks.
Mr. Morrow:
I've seen enough the way you maintain the rest of the area that
whatever you come up with will look nice.
Mr. Paschke:
As I told you at the Planning meeting, we just spent about over
$4,000 in replacing some trees that had died that were originally
put in by the developer, plus the cost to remove these other
trees that were really a hazard to us. So we've tried to be proud
citizens of our City.
Mr. Morrow:
And I think you had indicated that the trees that were removed
were creating a nuisance to the area.
Mr. Paschke:
If they weren't, there would have been no reason for us to
remove them. We were just there a short time, and needle
showers were more than we could stand.
Mr. Morrow:
What was that again? Exactly what were they doing?
21676
Mr. Paschke:
The long while pine needles ... everytime we had any kind of a
wind storm, they were on our roofs, they were in our gutters,
they were in our driveways. They were blocking the sewers in
the street. Part of that was caused by the deterioration of the
root system, the whole substructure for the trees because the
roots had been covered over and the trees were just on their
way to ultimately die.
Mr. Morrow:
So it sounds like perhaps they were on their way out. You just
hastened it.
Mr. Paschke:
Ultimately, theywould have been gone.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you
Mr. LaPine:
I went out and visited your site along with Mr. Morrow. Once
again, I'd like to commend you. It's a beautiful condo
association. I'm just curious. It was the association's desire to
remove the trees, not the neighbor to the west?
Mr. Paschke:
That's correct. We did have a formal meeting of the
association. I believe all 10 members were present, and it was
a unanimous vote to remove the trees.
Mr. LaPine:
The trees were on the condo's property. Is that right?
Mr. Paschke:
That is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
I have no problem. I think the shrubs there, if they grow up 10
feet high, they're going to be beautiful.
Mr. Paschke:
We're trying to accommodate our neighbor. We have a very
good relationship with those folks, so we're getting along fine.
They seem to be in agreement with what we did, and they're
thankful we took them out.
Mr. Alanskas:
1, as one commissioner, was really disturbed when I heard you
took those trees down, but after visiting the site, especially
around the cul-de-sac where you have that park bench and the
rock area, it looks very nice. The only thing I'm a little
concerned about is the fact that when you look into that
neighbor's yard, he's got an old rubber tire half in the ground in
the backyard. There's a four by eight sheet of plywood standing
up. So it would be nice if somehow we could screen that so you
wouldn't even seen that.
21677
Mr. Paschke:
You mean along this area? Well, we've spoken to them about
that. As a matter of fact, I've offered to take ... you're talking
about that wooden backboard?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Paschke:
I can tell you why that's there. The Spaccarolella's had some
athletic children and it was a backboard for soccer practice.
They would use that to kick their soccer balls against. I offered
to lake it down for them if they were no longer using it, and Mr.
Spaccarolella said, 'We'd like to leave it a little longer just in
case some of my grandchildren would like to use that also."
Mr. Alanskas:
What about that old truck lire that's half in the ground?
Mr. Paschke:
Its not on our property.
Mr. Alanskas:
But if you could put something there to block it so you wouldn't
see it. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
We have a couple people in the audience. Are they with you?
Mr. Paschke:
They are residents, Mr. and Mrs. Geisler are also our residents
of the association.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Thank you for slaying with us tonight. I appreciate it. A
motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Smiley, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-119-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request to revise the
landscape plan, submitted by the Shires of Livonia
Condominium Association, in connection with Petition 98-08-02-
16, which previously received landscape plan approval by the
City Council on February 7, 2001 (Council Resolution #76-01)
for the condominium development located on the north side of
Schoolcraff Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the
Southeast % of Section 20, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Revised Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1 dated
July 28, 2004, as revised, prepared by Shires of Livonia
Condominium Association showing the removal of twenty-
four (24) evergreen trees along a portion of the west
21678
property line, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
and
2. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#76-01, which granted approval of the landscape plan for
the condominium development, shall remain in effectto the
extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing
conditions.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #9 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mr. Walsh, announced the next item on the agenda, the adoption of a resolution
requesting the City Council to authorize the Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing on proposed amendments
to the Future Land Use Plan
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously approved, It
was
#09-120-2004 RESOLVED, that in connection with Petition 2004-08-07-01,
submitted by the City Planning Commission, to amend Part VII
of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use
Plan, so as to change the future land use designation of 22
various locations throughout the City, the City Planning
Commission does hereby request City Council to approve the
distribution of the Plan to all required entities pursuant to Slate
law, and refer the proposed amendments to the Future Land
Use Plan back to the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
21879
ITEM #10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 889TH Regular Meeting
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 889" Regular Meeting held on July 20, 2004.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#09-121-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 889"' Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on July 20, 2004, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Smiiley, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 891st Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on September 14, 2004, was adjourned at
10:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary