HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-12-14MINUTES OF THE 8W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 897`h 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 Pieroecchi H. G. Shane John Walsh
Members absent: Carol Smiley
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller,
Planner III; Ms. Debra Walter, Clerk -Typist; 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 requeslfor 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 len days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2004-11-01-14 SARAH ESTATES
Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda,
Petition 2004-11-01-14 submitted by Sarah Estates, LLC,
requesting to rezone properly at 34745 and 34655 Eight Mile
Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill
Road and Ellen Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from
RUF to R4.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the properly under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated December 14, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed
the above-referencedpetition. We have no objections to the proposal
and see no discrepancies in the right-of-way or need for additional
right-of-way at this time. Should the re -zoning be approved, there are
overhead utility lines running through the property that would have to
be relocated underground at the developer's expense. Further, it
should be noted that the developer would be required to meet
the Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance in
connection detention and storm water runoff." The letter is
signed by John P. Hill, Assistant City Engineer. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Sam Baki, President, Sarah Estates, LLC, 20321 Shadyside, Livonia, Michigan
48154. Good evening. I'm here on behalf of Sarah Estates,
LLC. As Mr. Taormina mentioned, this properly is presently
zoned RUF. It's adjacent to the Sarah Estates Subdivision that
we previously got an approval on a few months ago. This is a
continuation of the design of that subdivision that we intended
on doing from the beginning. The adjacent property to the west
is R-4, on the south and east are RUF. We are in the process
of trying to acquire more land to go east toward almost Gill
Road to try to keep it all residential. So far this is what we're
successful with for these two parcels. As was mentioned, the
lot size is going to be a minimum of 90 by 130. The home price
range, just like the original Phase I, is going to be $500,000
plus. The home size - we're going to follow the same approval
we got on Sarah Estates, which I believe was 2,200 minimum
ranches, 2,800 capes and 3,200 colonials with 70% brick for two
stories and 90% brick on the ranches. So we're going to follow
the same scheme of work that we're going to do on the first
phase.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Baki?
Mr. Shane: Mr. Baki, you mentioned that you were attempting to purchase
the property to the east. Have you thought about how you might
3
re -design the subdivision if you were to pick that up? I mean,
have you done any studies?
Mr. Baki:
Yes, I did.
Mr. Shane:
Okay.
Mr. Baki:
I have several options to do that study. One option is to put
stub streets out from the cul-de-sac and the corner if needed to
accommodate for the properly to the east.
Mr. Shane:
Are you making any progress?
Mr. Baki:
Well, I've checked to see if the owner was willing to sell for the
last year, and she had no intention of selling. I started
communicating with her son. He said, "Maybe we'll sell. We'll
let you know." I wail for their calls. I was calling her a lot in the
beginning. I figured I was like a nuisance to her because she
wasn't responding to me at all. "I'll think about it. I'll think about
it." So I stopped calling her. So now I just wad for their call
back because I did a lot of calls in the beginning. Then I let it
go. That's why we're proceeding.
Mr. Shane:
Do they live in Livonia or somewhere else?
Mr. Baki:
They live in Livonia.
Mr. Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Baki, the lots that are off of Gill that are directly behind the
building on Gill and Eight Mile Road, do you own those parcels?
Mr. Baki:
We don't own them. We have options. We have some
contracts on them.
Mr. LaPine:
One has been up for sale off and on.
Mr. Baki:
We do have a contract on that one.
Mr. LaPine:
But you're not trying to buy any of the property south of there
where there's homes, right?
Mr. Baki:
Yes, I am.
Mr. LaPine:
You are?
4
Mr. Baki: Yes, I am.
Mr. LaPine: A couple of those houses are pretty nice homes, but you're
trying to buy all the homes from there all the way up to Norfolk?
Mr. Baki: Not all of them. Right now, we're in negotiations with two
people, two homes south of Eight Mile. The southern lot is Lot
17. That's where we're slopping because anymore south won't
do us any good.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Baki, if the zoning is approved subsequently at the City
Council level and approved here, are you prepared to move
forward with the plan you have in front of us?
Mr. Baki: Yes, Ido.
Mr. Morrow: It appears to me that picking up that extra property doesn't add
much to your current site plan as you have it up there on the
screen.
Mr. Baki: No, it doesn't.
Mr. Morrow: It looks like a pretty effective site plan to me, even though we're
talking about zoning. It looks like there's some nice lots in
there. Thankyou.
Mr. LaPine: If I may ask a question for Mark. One of my concerns that I
mentioned at the study session, I dont want that Lot 14 to go to
anything but residential. Is it possible at a later date that we can
bring that up on our own motion to rezone that to R4 so
whoever buys that knows that its going to be a residential lot?
Mr. Taormina: The Planning Commission does have that available as an
option, yes.
Mr. LaPine: I think we should look at that once we've approved this. I just
don't want any more encroachment. I want the office stopped
by Gill Road where we have the office building there now.
Anything west of that, I want to make sure it slays residential.
Mr. Alanskas: You just menfioned to Mr. Morrow that if this was approved by
us and the Council, you would go forward with this plan. How
would that affect the vacant lot to the east?
Mr. Baki: If the owner to the east decides to sell or agrees on selling and
we can come to terms, I can do a stub because I have two
designs. One of them to stub the northern site - to stub it right
off that cul-de-sac without changing the cul-de-sac location, just
adjust the last four lots on the north side to accommodate for
that stub to go out to the east to accommodate for that property
on the lop part, which is the 300 northern site of that comer.
Then on the south side, I have a layout that I was going to come
in with when I do the rezoning on the southern side, which is off
of Gill Road. I can accommodate the southern side from that
other side off of Gill Road.
Mr. Alanskas:
On the southern side, if you gel it, how many homes or lots
could you put up there?
Mr. Baki:
On this properly?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Baki:
You mean on that lot?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Baki:
A total of six, three on lop and three on the bottom, but that's
accommodating by putting the street on our properly next door.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Gary Nixon, 9826 Auburndale, Livonia. My mother owns the property to the east.
I've talked to Sam Baki and my mothers talked to him several
limes. Initially, he's right. She didn't want to sell the property.
We are thinking about selling it, and one of the ideas that Sam
had approached me on was to split the property at the 300 fool
line and rezone the north half to OS, laking the south half and
including it into his development. We have been talking. We
are willing to sell the property. We haven't been able to
negotiate an equitable price with him. We have had the
property appraised. I'm just saying, we're willing to work with
him. What he said about not being able to communicate, it's
false. He has talked to my mother several times, and I've talked
to him at least a couple times. We don't want to see the
property gel locked or gel into a situation where we can't do
anything with it, which is what would happen if he developed up
to that. The 155 fool width does not allow for further residential
development. However, if it were split, at the top and the
bottom, it is possible that we could do something with the north
half if it could be rezoned to OS. However, there was a
gentleman here tonight that had indicated that he does not want
to see that happen.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Nixon, we'll have to cross that badge when we come to it,
but I think that we're all of record, at one point in time or
another, close to it, that that's not likely. But again, we're just a
recommending body and best you be aware of it and Mr. Baki
be aware of that sentiment on our part.
Mr. Nixon:
Right. Well, I just want to lel you know that we are willing to
discuss it. We haven't had a sufficient amount of time to really
negotiate with Mr. Baki on it, but we don't want to hold up the
development of what he's trying to do. On the other hand, we
don't want to end up with a piece of property that's worthless
either. This was an investment that was made in the family
several years ago and with the development to the west, it really
does leave this property more or less useless. I would just urge
that the Council think about this prior to making a decision
because with a little more time, we might be able to work
something out.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, when was the Iasi time you or your mother spoke to Mr.
Baki? How long ago?
Mr. Nixon:
I spoke to Mr. Baki within the Iasi 30 days.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thirty days. All nghl. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
As long as you understand that all we're talking about is zoning
tonight. It's nice to see those lots of up there. But nghl now,
he's come forward with a rezoning request of R-4, which seems
to be compatible to the area, and we have to act on that tonight.
Now what happens in the future when you start to carve up land
as it relates to lots, we can only act on what we have before us
tonight, which looks to me, as one commissioner, a pretty viable
plan, a pretty viable zoning. So you understand, Tel's not gel
carried away with the lots. Let's just think about zoning. Thank
you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other questions or comments? Mr. Nixon,
anything else?
Mr. Nixon:
I'm not really quite sure what you were saying.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, let me repeat it. The site plan, for the ou0ine in red, is
strictly a rezoning request. Don't pay any attention to those
lines. If the zoning goes through, that's one scheme that could
be adapted to that zoning. So we're not here to plat the thing
tonight or establish lots. We're only to see if the zoning in that
area meets with the Master Plan, meets with the surrounding
area. Now, whatever happens after that, to the lot to the east,
we'll worry about that at the time. We're only concerned about
that zoning.
Mr. Walsh:
I think the missing piece is, Mr. Baki will have to return with a
site plan for another hearing and approval process.
Mr. Nixon:
Oh no, I understand that. I just want to lel you know that there
was been communications with Mr. Baki with regard to this
property. We haven't been unattainable. We do live in Livonia.
My mother lives in Livonia. I live in Livonia.
Mr. Morrow:
That will not impact what we do tonight.
Mr. Walsh:
But we appreciate you coming forward this evening.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak for
or against this pefition? Mr. Baki, do you have any final words?
Mr. Baki:
Like what he menfioned, he did talk to me about a month ago,
and that's when I explained to him that we were proceeding with
the development. We're submitting for it. And like I said, I've
been in communication with him for almost a year, and that's
why we're proceeding. The site plan could be adjusted if they
agree on selling. The time that they're looking - they're looking
for a few weeks, it's understandable. I can wail and before I
submit for my site plan approval, I can wail since it still has to go
to Council, but I just cant wail for another six months or a year,
because its interest and taxes that we're going to be paying on
properties and I can't do that, especially when I'm trying to
develop both sites at the same time, Phase 1 and 2.
Mr. Walsh:
I'm going to close the public hearing. Is there a motion to be
offered?
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by Shane, and adopted, it was
#12-159-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 14, 2004,
on Pefition 2004-11-01-14. submitted by Sarah Estates, LLC,
8
requesting to rezone properly at 34745 and 34655 Eight Mile
Road, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill
Road and Ellen Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from
RUF to R-4, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 2004-11-01-14 be approved for
the following reasons:
1. Thal the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character of the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of Low Density
Residential land use in this general area; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning represents an
extension of an existing zoning district occurring on
adjacent property to the west.
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: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be wise to incorporate as number
5, the material that came to us via the letter of John Hill, dated
12/14, which regarded utility lines and water detention. Could I
add that?
Mr. Morrow: Well, I have no objection, but inasmuch as we're talking about
rezoning, I'm not sure that impacts zoning. It would be
something we would need al the site plan level.
Mr. Walsh: We will use that, Mr. Piercecchi, in a site plan approval.
Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. I just thought I would bring it up just to make sure it was
incorporated.
Mr. Morrow: I appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: I stand corrected.
Mr. Alanskas: Listening to the people who own that property to the east, I was
prepared to go forward with this tonight. But from what the
gentleman said, they're not talking about six months or a year
later. It sounds like they could get together possibly very quickly
on that one piece of properly. I'd rather rezone it all at one time.
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine: In some ways I agree with Mr. Alanskas, but I guess I'm looking
at the fad that Mr. Baki wants to gel moving on this thing. In the
meantime, by the time he gels to the Council, gels his rezoning,
gets back to us with a new design on how he's going to have
the houses, and we approve the site plan, he may have
purchased the property. At that time, it could be incorporated all
at one time. It seems to make more sense instead of holding
him up now on this one.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any additional discussion? Seeing none, would the
Secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, Shane, LaPine, Piercecchi, Walsh
NAYES:
Alanskas
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Smiley
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
recommendation.
Y 0:4 kri E;bM9=k 1It01*] PA11rE51E118&��iI[97t<9:7=IQ Yi1101Is] �
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2004-11-01-15, submitted by Michigan Columbus
Federal Credit Union requesting to rezone property at 30445 Six
Mile Road, located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Oporto Street and Ryan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
14 from RUF to OS.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
ra
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated November 24, 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 or legal description provided at this time. The
dimension in the eighth line of the description is 413.37.
Additional right-of-way is not required at this time. Wayne
County will require detention on this site in accordance with the
Storm Water Management Ordinance. Any drive approaches to
Six Mile Road will also require County approval." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes. Mark, the parcel that you were talking about that has to
drain and it goes to 85 feet in the back, who owns that property?
Is that part of this parcel?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. This is a single parcel as it exists today. The area on the
overhead bounded in red and including the area immediately to
the south is all part of what is currently a developed single
family residential site.
Mr. LaPine:
So the lots to the west, do they have residences on them?
Mr. Taormina:
30503, the parcel immediately to the west, I believe does.
Mr. La Pine:
How about 30554?
Mr. Alanskas:
To the south.
Mr. LaPine:
To the south. Does that have a residence on it where the cul-
de-sac is there?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess my question is, if something was built on this parcel that
he's here for rezoning on, what happens to that parcel in the
back? It's landlocked, is it not? It could never use used for
anything.
Mr. Taormina:
The area of the parcel that you're referring to is not proposed to
be rezoned, but there is a structure located on the property that
would have to be demolished as part of any plans of the credit
union to expand its facility. And yes, that would effectively
eliminate any possibility of development on this site, at least in a
manner that would be conforming to the ordinance. The area
itself might be large enough to construct a home; however, it
would not have frontage on a public thoroughfare.
Mr. LaPine:
The problem I would have is that it goes loo deeply into the
residential neighborhood, in my opinion, if he ever wanted to
use that for something else. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening? Good evening.
Richard Daguanno,
34705 W. 12 Mile, Suite 311, Farmington Hills, Michigan
48331. Good evening. I'm the representative of the petitioner,
Michigan Columbus Federal Credit Union. I am an attorney,
and the President, David Busdeker, is here. He President of the
Michigan Columbus Federal Credit Union and is also available
to answer any questions that you may have. With regard to this
particular properly, I know the last focus that we had on this was
the portion of the parcel to the south. The Credit Union
proposes that will remain as a greenbelt area. When they do
expand, if and when they do expand, the intention is to leave
that area, as large as it is, a greenbelt and a buffer between the
residential
portions to the south. They will have no intention of
expanding
into that area in the future. Right now, the property is
available and the Credit Union doesn't have any immediate
plans of expansion, although the first thought that comes to
mind for the Credit Union for expansion would be something
along the lines of a drive-through kiosk. As far as any further
expansion of the building, there are no plans at this particular
time, although it is conceivable that they will need some
additional room, but there are no expected plans for a large
expansion of the building in the future. As I indicated, the
property is available. The Credit Union has some long range
plans and that's the reason why we're here and we asking for
the zoning change, so that they can then go forward and make
those plans and come to the City and present those future plans
at the appropriate time.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, on the current property where the Credit Union is located, is
that lot 173 feel along Six Mile Road and 286 feet in depth?
Mr. Daguanno: The property that the Credit Union is currently on?
12
Mr. Piercecchi:
Yes. I know it's 286 feet deep, and the last 100 feet was
retained as RUF because that was a split lot. My dimensions
here indicate it's 173 feet in width on Six Mile Road. I just
wanted that verified. And if those dimensions are correct, sir,
the size of the building that you currently have on there now is
5,500 square feel?
Mr. Daguanno:
Yes, I believe so.
David Busdeker,
President, Michigan Columbus Federal Credit Union, 30419 Six
Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Yes, that's correct. That's
very close to correct.
Mr. Piercecchi:
My notes here say 5,520 square feet. Doesn't that leave a lot of
room on that property? That's got to be roughly over an acre of
properly that you have there.
Mr. Busdeker:
The southern portion of that property is zoned RUF.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Only the bottom 100 feel?
Mr. Busdeker:
Yeah, the bottom 100 feet.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But you have 286 feet from that line up to Six Mile Road.
Mr. Busdeker:
Yeah, that's correct. The building itself sets back about .... I
don't really know how far it is, but in the front is where we park
cars. We have some parking in the back for the employees.
But right now, everything is pretty much parking lot. There's not
any room to really expand at this point. We couldn't do a drive-
through or we couldn't do a drive-through kiosk. There just
wouldn't be enough room for people to tum around and not
cause problems on Six Mile. Right now we have about 15 spots
and then maybe eight more spots for the employees. So we
probably have 25 parking spots, somewhere in that
neighborhood.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Twenty-five parking spots would be roughly 5,000 square feel.
And you've got 5,000 in the building. I don't know exactly how
much you have on each side of the building.
Mr. Busdeker:
Probably the other thing I should say is, we do have a
substanfial greenbelt to the west of the building between the
properly that we're proposing and the building itself. It's about a
30 fool greenbelt that runs the whole west side of the property.
Its kind of a small woods. We've kept that greenbelt there
13
thinking that was something we should do between the property
to our west and the Credit Union.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But sir, if worse came to worse, would that property be available
for expansion or parking orwhalever?
Mr. Busdeker:
I suppose some would, but there's just not very much there. I
think maybe if you could seethe building and the way it sets, it's
kind of set diagonally the way it was built.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I've driven into your parking lot.
Mr. Busdeker:
Okay.
Mr. Piercecchi:
But I didn't have guidelines on the right and that.
Mr. Busdeker:
Yeah, there's really not a lot of room. I wouldn't know what
direction to expand. If I expanded out the back, I would take all
my employee parking. All my employee parking would be gone
at that point because I could only expand about maybe 25 feet,
20 feel, because at that point, I'm coming up to the part that's
zoned RUF.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
One of my concerns here, based on what you said, it sounds
like you're going to have a minimal expansion to the west.
Mr. Busdeker:
Yeah. One of the reasons we were trying to purchase the
property and have it rezoned is because it came up for sale. It's
right next door to us, and I mean, as you grow, you need to
expand. I mean we don't need to expand tomorrow, but two or
three or four years from now possibly. I mean we're not talking
about tripling the building in size.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess that is my dilemma because we're trying to protect the
residential to the west. If we open up that whole parcel to OS,
what you're asking for, we could start what we perceive as a
domino effect. As one commissioner, I'd like to say that your
business is an asset to Livonia. You run a very good shop. And
I don't have a problem with your expanding a little bit to the
west, which would mean not to rezone the whole parcel.
Rezone the parcel that you need in an OS classification and
leave the balance in the current zoning. Here again, we can't
condition zoning. What you say tonight is you don't have any
intentions to do that property, but in two or three years,
14
somebody might come along with an attractive offer. Being in
the business of money, it might be pretty hard to refuse. What
you say tonight doesn't condition it because you can change
your mind in a couple years.
Mr. Busdeker:
There's a couple of things that come into play that you may not
be aware of that I probably should tell you about. We're
federally regulated and credit unions are a cooperative. The
people that belong to the credit union are actually owners of the
credit union, and federal regulation does not allow me to buy
land for speculation. Now that doesn't mean I couldn't buy it
and sell it two years from now, but I can't buy it with that in
mind. In other words, as I'm buying this property, if everything
works out, our federal examiner would come in and ask us, "Do
you intend to build on it?" And we would say yes because we
really do. We aren't buying it to built another structure to rent
out or keep it for 10 years and sell it at some kind of a great
profg. That's not really our intent, nor can that legally be our
intent.
Mr. Morrow:
I guess my question is what I just said, a viable alternative to the
whole lot being OS. I mean, I don't know what your plans are,
how much more space you need.
Mr. Busdeker:
Yeah, I would have to talk to my Board of Directors about that
and discuss that with them and see what they might be willing to
talk about.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, we dont want to develop that tonight. Those are just my
thoughts and l appreciate your input. Thankyou
Mr. LaPine:
I guess Mr. Morrow is basically coming from where I'm coming
from. Once we rezone it, you can sell it. Now I know federal
credit unions operate differently than the Michigan credit unions.
I understand that, but most credit unions, around here anyways,
are going to be drive-throughs. The Michigan Education Credit
Union just built a new facility, and everybody has to have a
drive-through because that's what the clientele wants. They
don't like to park their cars and run inside. They can just zip in
and out. I would assume if you were going to put in a drive-
through, you would probably add to the west of your building
and then have the drive-through come through there, because I
don't know how else you would do it. I can understand what
you're trying to do here, but on the other hand, I think as Mr.
Morrow pointed out, we're trying to protect the residential
homeowners to the west. I would have no problem if you came
15
in with a plan and said you need only 50 percent of that property
zoned. You buy the whole parcel, then you'd be stuck with the
back portion still as residential basically. But until I know exactly
what you're going to do with this, I would be reluctant to give
you a blanket office classification only because it always worries
me, like Mr. Morrow says, if somebody comes in and offers you
$1 million for the property.
Mr. Busdeker: I understand.
Mr. Shane: I am on the same wavelength as my colleagues. I'm having
trouble with expanding the rezoning in my mind anyway, and I'm
reticent to do it without knowing a little bit more about what your
plans are. I don't know how much of that property you need to
use. I dont know how much of that property would make sense
to rezone. There's loo many questions. If you're going to ask
me right now to make a decision, I'm going to make a denial
decision because I don't have any more information. This is a
residential area to the west, and I need to be convinced that
what you want to do there is compatible with the area, and right
now I'm not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas: It sounds basically like you would like to put a drive-through in
that facility. On credit unions when you have a drive-through,
how much does that increase your business roughly?
Mr. Busdeker:
Its reallyjusl a convenience. I'm nolsure it would increase our
business as such. Our Credit Union is a closed chartered credit
union. You can only belong to our Credit Union if you belong to
the Knights of Columbus in about six counfies - the Knights of
Columbus and their families. So someone who lives across the
street, for instance, couldn't join the credit union. So it wouldn't
be so much an expansion of the business as it would be a
convenience for the members we have now.
Mr. Alanskas:
How many members do you have?
Mr. Busdeker:
We have about 6,000.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason I ask is because earlier this year we approved a
credit union to go in on Middlebelt Road, and they put a drive-
through in. It's four lanes. That's a lot of traffic.
Mr. Busdeker:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
That means that they get a lot of customers.
16
Mr. Busdeker:
I know the credit union you're speaking of, and they have since
changed their charter to become an open charter.
Mr. Alanskas:
So I'm just wondering, if by chance this did go through and you
put a drive-through in, there is a possibility that it may still be loo
small for you. You may want to expand somewhere else.
Mr. Busdeker:
We had always thought if we wanted a drive-through, we would
probably have to have two lanes at least.
Mr. Alanskas:
At least two lanes.
Mr. Busdeker:
Yeah, I'd be kidding you if I didn't tell you that.
Mr. Alanskas:
As another commissioner, I just hale to see this properly go
from a residential to OS. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any other comments or questions for the petitioner?
Seeing none, at this point I'd like to go to the audience for the
public hearing. The petitioner will have an opportunity to make
final comments. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this petition?
Robert Davis, 30503 Six Mile Road, Livonia. I live adjacent to the property, the
proposed rezoning property, just west next door to 30445 Six
Mile. I've been in the building industry for 40 years myself, and I
know the situation that relates to the rezoning. I can appreciate
some of the dilemmas that people get involved in, but in this
particular case, it's more on a personal basis rather than on a
professional. I talked to the neighbor next door when we
originally bought the property from the neighbor next, the
suggested rezone person. He at that time told me he was
convinced that he would raise his family there, and that's one of
the reasons my wife and I wanted to buy the property and build
our own home there, basically our retirement home. I guess
there's a lot of reasons I could give you why I wouldn't want it to
be rezoned. I think we are all entitled to a little privacy, a little
longevity, and we don't want people just arbitrarily saying,' Well,
we got a good deal on this piece of property and we can move
in and gel it rezoned, and we're not really concerned about your
welfare" I guess I could make other comments, but that's
basically what it amounts to. We'd like to live the way we are
and leave it as it is.
17
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Davis, for coming this evening. Is there
anybody else in the audience wishing to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, before I close the public hearing,
the petitioner would have an opportunity to have some final
words if you desire.
Mr. Busdeker:
I think I would just like to address the Commission by saying the
Credit Union has been there for 25 years approximately. I have
been the President and CEO for about 12 years. We have
always been very respectful of the neighbors. That's one of the
reasons we have maintained the greenbelt that we do have.
We've never had any trouble with any neighbor on any sides.
We've always tried to keep our properly very, very nice, and we
always make sure that we have security and that people aren't
using the properly when they're not supposed to be. Things like
that. I can understand someone's concern, but I guess I would
just like to tell the group that we would continue in that vein and
be respectful of the neighborhood and try to be good neighbors.
Mr. Morrow:
Just kind of pursuing what I had said earlier, we can proceed
with this petition that is before us tonight, or tabling is always in
order if you want to go back and discuss the viability of perhaps
split zoning or at least splitting off a parcel that would
accomplish your purpose and come back to us. So I just want
to lel you know there is that option.
Mr. Busdeker:
Oh. Okay.
Mr. Daguanno:
We would request that you do table it and give us the
opportunity to come back.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, I will offer that motion. I don't know if I will gel any support
for it, but as long as I know you want to add that service to your
customers, if that's a viable option for you, we'll see how the
Commission feels about it.
Mr. Daguanno:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
I offer that tabling resolution to, let's say, after they have had a
chance to gel back to the staff and let them know when we can
bring it back to our agenda and remove it from the table so its
not a dale certain.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by LaPine, it was
ra
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 14, 2004,
on Petition 2004-11-01-15, submitted by Michigan Columbus
Federal Credit Union requesting to rezone properly at 30445 Six
Mile Road, located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Oporto Street and Ryan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
14 from RUF to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2004-11-01-15 be tabled.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, La Pine, Walsh
NAYES: Alanskas, Shane, Piercecchi
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Smiley
Mr. Walsh: We have a tie and the motion fails. I am seeking another motion.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-160-2004 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 14, 2004,
on Petition 2004-11-01-15, submitted by Michigan Columbus
Federal Credit Union requesting to rezone property at 30445 Six
Mile Road, located on the south side of Six Mile Road between
Oporto Street and Ryan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
14 from RUF to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-11-01-15 be
denied for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and
not in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses
in the area;
2. That the existing office zoning along Six Mile Road west of
Middlebell Road adequately provides for office uses in this
area;
3. That there is no demonstrated need for additional office
services in this area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with
the Future Land Use Plan designation of low density
residential land use for the subject area; and
19
5. That the proposed change of zoning would lend to
encourage future requests for similar zoning changes
along Six Mile Road in the area to the west of the subject
property.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: I have a comment. Between a mile and a half and two miles,
upscale properly is along Six Mile Road. It extends almost to
Farmington Road, and I'm concerned about the domino plan
here where once you start picking away at it, it could come
down the road where maybe a part of this land is another
ballgame. But I think right now that Six Mile Road in that area is
really an asset to our City, and I think it's worth leaving the area
as it is, especially as we have no demonstrated need for
additional office services. We don't know when this person will
expand or if it ever will happen. So I think at this stage of the
game a motion to deny is in order, and in the future, if
something comes up again, we'll take it when it arises.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Piercecchi makes some good points, but I'm looking at it
from the standpoint that here we have a business that's been in
operation for over 25 years. He's now at a point where he's
thinking about it, but he doesn't know exactly what he wants to
do. He wants to expand. He's been a good citizen there. The
property is well kept. I've been by that place in my 50 years of
Irving in Livonia many, many limes. All he is asking tonight is to
table this so he can go back to his Board of Directors and
maybe come back to us and give us an idea of exactly what he
wants to do. Ithink after 25 years of being a good business
here in Livonia, I think he's entitled to at least that consideration.
Mr. Morrow: I agree with everything that Mr. LaPine said, but I'm also going
to vote for the resolution as offered by Mr. Shane solely
because I don't want to have it held up with another lied vote,
and let him move on to the City Council where they can make
the final determination, either for the current zoning as
requested, or perhaps they'll bring forward an amendment to
that zoning request. I think they can do it if you're not
increasing the zoning. Thatsall l havetosay.
20
Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Morrow. Just for the record, I will be voting in
support of the resolution so it can move forward, but you will
have the benefit of our comments this evening, and an
opportunity perhaps to change your petition before you get to
the City Council because you have another step to go. So with
that, if there are no additional comments, would the Secretary
please call the roll.
Mr. Pieroecchi: Mr. Chairman, this will be a motion to deny?
Mr. Walsh: Coned.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go onto City Council with a denying resolution.
YY:4 k'iFF).9=kIIII I[a]i!IKiIi151ErY&klk'J I i! RZeLV IN4A0=61 fill h
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2004-11-02-34, submitted by Min Com Real Estate
requesting waiver use approval to operate a real estate
business at 35000 SchoolcraR, located on the north side of
SchoolcraR Road between Ellen Drive and Riverside Drive in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 24, 2004, which
reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The
Engineering Division has no objection to the proposal or the
approximate legal description." The letter is signed by John P.
Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated November 16, 2004,
which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a real estate
business 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
21
Division of Police, dated November 23, 2004, which reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the plans regarding a proposal to
operate a real estate business at 35000 Schoo/craft Road. We
submit the following recommendations for your consideration:
(1) The exterior lighting should be operable when the business
is open during the hours of darkness for safety and security
reasons. Lights should be aimed so as not to disturb the
neighbors. (2) The parking lot should be re -stripped and the
handicap parking spaces must be individually posted. (3) Install
a STOP sign for exiting vehicles." The letter is signed by
Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated November 24, 2004,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November
10, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following is noted. (1) The parking lot needs some repair,
resealing and double striping. (2) The landscaping needs
maintenance. (3) There is gmffff on the southeast wall of the
building, which needs to be removed. (4) There is wiring and
conduit in disrepair on the south face by the address. (5) The
building needs tuck pointing repair in several areas. 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?
Joseph Manuel, 36728 Seven Mile, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good afternoon. I
applied for this petition for waiver use for a real estate office.
I've been a real estate broker for approximately 18 years. I'm
from Canada. I've been in Michigan for approximately four
years. I have a lot of experience in managing and running a
real estate operation. Prior to my purchasing this building, I was
the President for Remerica Real Estate Commercial Division
with approximately 650 agents and brokers. We purchased this
building and we have a very, very good intention in running an
operation there. We have currently 40 real estate agents. It's a
wonderful building. It does need some cosmetic work and some
maintenance because it was vacant for some time. We will
follow the recommendation of the Inspection Department to
make sure the building is well maintained and well groomed.
We have absolutely no problem with that. I have put a lot of my
money in this building. I want to make sure it stays beautiful
and pride of ownership is very, very important to me. Real
estate agents and brokers play a very large role in any
community, especially neighborhood watching. We're open 9 to
6 on a daily basis, but during evening hours, we do have agents
22
come in from other communilies and have meetings, somefimes
board meetings, whatever the case is. They do keep eyes on
the communilies. So I do ask the Board to approve my pefifion
for waiver use. We will follow the recommendation to make
sure the building is cleaned up. We did already some of the
work. We did some landscaping. The graffiti was removed.
Resealing the parking lot and putting the lines there will be done
hopefully in the Spring. For the conduit, a sign permit will be
applied for, and we will be using that conduit. But currently, I
did ask my electrician to make sure these wires are safe and not
a danger to anyone. As stated, there are approximately 32
parking spaces, so I do believe there is enough parking for the
usage. And there is a wall separating the residential from the
commercial from our office, so we're not going to be a bother to
anybody, and we do intend to be quiet, safe and a respectable
neighbor. Regarding the light, I believe there was some
questions regarding the light. There are sufficient lights facing
the parking lot on the neighbors. I did inspect the lights and
there is a timer on the lights. They go on, I believe, 6:00 in the
evening; they go off at 9:00 a.m. in the morning. Other than
that, I am a Livonia resident. This is a great city. I just moved
here from Canada four years ago, and I have full intentions of
slaying in business here and doing business here. We are
already acquiring some other real estate offices in different
cities, but this particular office will be where my head office will
be. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine: I just have two questions. The floor plan that you submitted -
that must be from when it was a doctors office?
Mr. Manuel: Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine: I notice you have on here a chemical lab and working lab. You
mentioned something about having 40 agents. How many
employees will be working out of this site?
Mr. Manuel: Three people.
Mr. LaPine: Just three people. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, it says that we have graffiti on one of the walls, the
southeast wall. How would you take the graffiti off?
23
Mr. Manuel:
Well, I hired someone to take it off. They spent several hours
Mr. Morrow:
trying to remove it. There were partially successful. They used
Mr. Taormina:
some paintthinner, I believe.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason I ask is because a lot of times, they will just paint
over the graffiti, and then when it dries, where the new paint is it
looks worse. Can you scrape it down and possibly paint the
Mr. Manuel:
whole side of the wall?
Mr. Manuel:
No. It's really hard to paint because its all brick, natural colors,
Mr. Morrow:
and we tried to remove it. I think in the springtime we will try to
Mr. Manuel:
power wash it or maybe sandblast it. That's the only thing we
can do.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Morrow:
Just one question. Looking at your plan, it appears that you're
going to have all your trash internally stored.
Mr. Manuel:
No, sir. There is a container. We had leased a container. I
believe a four -yard container is in the rear, so it would be on the
northeast corner of the building. I don't think it's on the plan, but
we have a four -yard container. So its a small container. We
just want to keep R.
Mr. Morrow:
Is it currently onsite?
Mr. Manuel:
Yes, sir, and it can be picked up everytwo weeks.
Mr. Morrow:
But it's not on this plan?
Mr. Manuel:
No, its not, sir.
Mr. Morrow:
Does it conform with our dumpster regulations?
Mr. Taormina:
It will have to be screened from public view and that typically
means that they will have to provide some kind of wall, usually a
masonry enclosure around three sides of it with a gate opening
for access.
Mr. Manuel:
There is already a wall in the rear of the container, but there's
no walls on either side or the front.
Mr. Morrow:
You will conform to our ordinance as far as screening?
Mr. Manuel:
I have no problem with that.
24
Mr. Morrow:
The reason I ask is because you are close to a residence, and
that can create some sort of a noise problem with the neighbor,
so I would look forward to you having it picked up during normal
business hours so they're not coming at 3:00 in the morning and
dumping it out.
Mr. Manuel:
We made it very clear when we ordered the container, the only
time the trucks will come in is 9:00 in the morning or between
9:00 and 6:00.
Mr. Morrow:
Not outside your hours?
Mr. Manuel:
Absolutely.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one in the audience, I'll close
the public hearing and seek a motion.
On a motion by
Alanskas, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-161-2004
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 14, 2004,
on Petition 2004-11-02-34 submitted by Min Com Real Estate
requesting waiver use approval to operate a real estate
business at 35000 Schoolcraft, located on the north side of
SchoolcraR Road between Ellen Drive and Riverside Drive in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-11-02-
34 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the following issues as outlined in the correspondence
dated November 24, 2004, from the Inspection Department
shall be resolved to that department's satisfaction:
- Repair, resealing and double striping of the parking lot
as needed;
- Maintenance and/or restoration of the landscaping as
needed;
- Removal of graffiti on the southeast wall of the building;
- Wiring and conduit repair on the south face by the
address;
25
- Tuck pointing repair to the building as needed;
2. That this approval shall incorporate the following
recommendations listed in the correspondence dated
November 23, 2004, from the Traffic Bureau of the Division
of Police:
- Provision of properly marked and individually posted
handicapped accessible parking spaces;
- Installation of a STOP sign for exiling vehicles;
3. That all exterior lighting equipment provided on the site
shall be shielded so as to deflect light away from adjacent
residential properties and shall not exceed a maximum
height of 20 feet above grade; and
4. 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 gates shall be maintained and
when not in use closed at all times;
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 9.03 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. Shane: I will support this but I would ask the maker if he would add
condition 4 relative to the requirement for a dumpster enclosure.
Mr. Alanskas: Thatwould be no problem at all.
26
Mr. Walsh: We have a motion made and supported. Is there any
discussion on the motion? Seeing none, would the Secretary
please call the roll?
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 #4 PETITION 2004 -08 -SN -08 MITCHELL'S
Mr. Piercecchi,
Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda,
Petition 2004 -08 -SN -08 submitted by Mitchell's Fish Market
requesting approval to attach metal structures to the exterior
walls of the restaurant located at 17600 Haggerty Road in the
Southwest % of Section 6.
On a motion by
Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#12-162-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2004 -08 -SN -08, submitted by
Mitchell's Fish Market, requesting signage approval for the
restaurant located at 17600 Haggerty Road in the Southwest''/.
of Section 6, be removed from the table.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Walsh:
Before we move on to the consideration of this agenda item, as
an employee of SchoolcraR College, who is the owner of the
properly upon which this restaurant will sit, as I've done in the
past, I will remove myself from the discussions and vote and
turn the floor over to Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina:
Mitchell's Seafood Market is one of three freestanding full
service restaurants that will be located at College Park. On
October 27, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed and
approved the Sign Package for Mitchell's. It included a number
of wall and awning signs as well as modesty panels. Included
with that petition were two icons, a painted fish and painted
lobster graphics. Those two items were tabled for further
consideration. Mitchell's has replaced what was originally going
n
to be painted wall graphics with metal wall sculptures. The
lobster and the fish would be formed out of metal and mounted
to the restaurant's exterior walls. This illustration shows where
the fish icon will be placed on the north building elevation. This
is a detailed view of how that would appear. The lobster would
be placed on the west elevation of the building. The structures
as proposed would extend about five inches out from the wall.
They would be illuminated using ground mounted lighting. They
total approximately 60 square feel each in size. We did discuss
this issue with the petitioner and requested that they reduce the
size to something that was more closely aligned to the original
painted graphics, which were about 46 to 48 square feet in size.
We have not received any new information relative to any
changes in the size of those structures.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated December 6, 2004, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your undated request received December 1, 2004,
the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This
Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is
signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is
the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
At this time, are there anyquestions forthestaff before we goto
the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
You said we had no feedback from the petitioner relative to the
size reduction?
Mr. Taormina:
Scott Miller did have a conversation with the project architect.
Al least the initial indication was that it would not be a problem
for them to reduce the size of both graphics.
Mr. Morrow:
But it was verbal? It's not official?
Mr. Taormina:
We have not received anything to that effect other than a verbal
confirmation.
Mr. LaPine:
Did we ever find out about the configuration and the reason it
was larger because the length and the width didn't match?
Remember we talked about that at the study session?
Mr. Taormina:
In terms of what was originally submitted?
za
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, looking at the data more carefully, we realized that there
was some discrepancy between what the architect was showing
as the area where the two graphics would be placed and the
actual dimensions of the graphics. They were actually providing
two different dimensions, so when we looked at the actual size
of the graphic, it was somewhat smaller than what was initially
reported.
Mr. LaPine:
What is the final color going to be? Do we know that at this
point?
Mr. Taormina:
All I can say is that this would be a somewhat accurate
representation. It may have some bluish tint to it, possibly trying
to represent the metal, but I guess that would be a question for
the architects.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I just was curious. I've never seen a blue lobster.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would the petitioner please come forward and give us your
name and address please for the record?
Steve Singleton,
17600 Haggerty Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anything else you'd like to bring forward to the
Commission this evening?
Mr. Singleton:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. LaPine:
Where is this being fabricated al?
Mr. Singleton:
I believe it's going to be in Columbus, the Columbus Sign
Company.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you know exactly what the colors are going to be?
Mr. Singleton:
Honestly, I do not. I'd have to confer with the Knauer Group or
the architect.
Mr. Alanskas:
You are the Director?
Mr. Singleton:
General Manager.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Two questions for you. It's going to be five inches from the
wall?
Mr.
Singleton:
Yes.
Mr.
Alanskas:
And holds it's going to be Id?
Mr.
Singleton:
I believe the illumination ... if I can pass this over to you. I've
got the specs for the lighting.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Will there be lighting going onto the wall?
Mr.
Singleton:
I think its ground mounted and its a split light where it's going
to shine on the sculpture.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Because that's a question that we did have. While he's passing
that out, what are these going to weigh?
Mr.
Singleton:
Honestly, I do not know.
Mr.
Alanskas:
You don't know.
Mr.
Singleton:
I'd have to confer with the Knauer group. I couldn't imagine
they would be too heavy being that they're going to be mounted
on a brick wall. I think it's just going to be a shell. Its not going
to be like a complete structure. It's just going to be a steel
fabrication. Its very, very light.
Mr.
Alanskas:
It will be steel?
Mr.
Singleton:
I'm not sure.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Because steel can rust.
Mr.
Singleton:
Well, its stainless steel. We've erected a 25 foolslainless steel
fish in Newport, Kentucky, on a five fool concrete rock.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Do you have these mounted on any other facilities, restaurants?
Mr.
Singleton:
No, this is something new. This is the first one.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Most of them are painted on the wall?
Mr.
Singleton:
Yes.
30
Mr. Alanskas:
Of course, there's always the question, we are treating this
tonight as art and not as a sign because in our ordinance, a sign
is any type of device affixed to a building that directs attention a
business, and I'm sure that these will be drawing attention to the
restaurant.
Mr. Singleton:
Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas:
So the question is, again, is it a sign or is it art? We are treating
it this evening, Mark, as art?
Mr. Taormina:
That final determination will be made by the Inspection
Department. For our purposes, we are treating this more or less
as an amendment to the original approved building elevation
plans.
Mr. Alanskas:
If we do approve this, and it turns out it is considered signage,
then they would have to gel a variance from the ZBA?
Mr. Taormina:
That is correct, and that language has been placed in the
approving resolution.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? If not, a motion is in order.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Morrow, and adopted, it was
#12-163-2004
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the request to attach metal
structures to the exterior walls of the restaurant located at
17600 Haggerty Road in the Southwest I/ of Section 6, in
connection with Petition 2004 -08 -SN -08, submitted by Mitchell's
Fish Markel, which previously was approved by the City Council
on October 27, 2004 (Council Resolution 516-04), be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the metal wall art package submitted by Knauer
Incorporated, as received by the Planning Commission on
December 1, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, except for the following:
- That each metal sculpture shall not exceed an overall
area of 50 square feet;
2. That these metal sculptures shall not be illuminated
beyond one (1) hour after this business closes;
31
3. That if it is determined by the Inspection Department that
the proposed sculptures are considered signs, then this
approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the permits are applied for.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion? Hearing none, would the Secretary
please call the roll.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
LaPine, Morrow, Alanaskas, Shane, Piercecchi
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
Smiley
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. Mr. Walsh returned to the Board at 8:50 p.m.
ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 895' Public Hearings
and Regular Meeting
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 895th Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on November 16, 2004.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-164-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 895" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on
November 16, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Alanskas, LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi,
Morrow, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Smiley
32
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 897th Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 14, 2004, was adjourned at
8:52 p.m.
ATTEST:
John Walsh. Chairman
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Daniel Piercecchi, Acting Secretary