HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-12-1322833
MINUTES OF THE 9W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 13, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 9W Pudic Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City
Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Acting 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
Members absent: John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Ms. Marge
Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present.
Acting Chairman Alanskas informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs
agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation
to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the
final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only pudic hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 200540-0144 JOAN KETCHUM
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-10-
01-14, submitted by Joan Ketchum requesting to rezone the
property at 20280 Hugh Road, located on the southeast corner
of Hugh Avenue and Norfolk Avenue in the Northeast % of
Section 2 from RUF to R-1.
22834
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning
ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated October 19, 2005, 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 following legal description
should be used in connection with the rezoning." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, City Engineer. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Joan Ketchum,
3150 W. Bruno Road, Milford, Michigan.
Lou Nantais, 3150
W. Bruno Road, Milford, Michigan.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anything you'd like to add this evening?
Mr. Nantais:
Actually, a few things. Our goal is to take a curent non-
conforming or inefficient RIF lot and convert @ or rezone it to R-
1 which would be conforming at 60' x 130'. Actually, it would be
over that amount required. R7, I believe, is 60' x 120'. That
comer lot would be 60'x 130'.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. La Pine:
The houses on the lot to the south - that's going to stay, I
assume. Is that right?
Mr. Nantais:
That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
The problem we have here is, if both of these lots were empty or
vacant, I should say, then I would say that the comer lot could
be the 135' x 65' because on a corner lot, your setbacks from
the streets are larger than they are for an interior lot. When I
was out there looking, to be honest with you, I thought both lots
were empty because I looked right at the comer and it looks like
there's two lots there. Maybe it's just one lot. But you intend to
keep that one house that's there now. Is that correct?
Mr. Nantais:
That's correct. Ifyou can bang up the survey, I'd like to go a
little bit further in detail - the angle of the driveway.
22835
Mr. LaPine:
I see that. It comes in at an angle.
Mr. Nantais:
If you take that angle out and put a straight driveway in - in other
words, I believe the widest part of that driveway is towards the
rear, 60.2 inches.
Mr. LaPine:
Right.
Mr. Nantais:
And as you come up the side, an average of 16 inches.
Bringing that out to the street, if you look 5' and moved that lot
line over, there would be enough Dom to make it a 65' x 130'
and have plenty of room for the setbacks. That would bring the
driveway to approximately 11' wide, which is about 2' more than
you really need. So if you take that angle of that driveway and
just pretend that the driveway - the line is not there and look at
the straight line and make that the driveway, then you could
move that ideally over 5' without a problem at all. That would be
the exact same size as the lot that was just, kitty comer from
there, approved by the City Council and the Zoning Board.
Mr. LaPine:
I'll get back to you in a minute. Let me ask the City Planner.
Mark, is that feasible to do, to move that? Is there a concrete
apron in there now?
Mr. Nantais:
It's just a blacktop.
Mr. LaPine:
Just a blacktop.
Mr. Nantais:
The apron is just stone, and up the driveway, its gravel and
then part of it is blacktop.
Mr. LaPine:
What would be the side yard and the front yard setbacks on the
comer lot? Is it 25' on the side or 25' in front and 15' on the
side?
Mr. Taormina:
The required building setback would be 15' adjacent to Norfolk
Avenue and 5 adjacent to Parcel 2 as shown on this survey.
The interior side yard setback requirement would be 5'. So you
have 60' minus the 15' and the 5' for 20', and that would leave
you with a building envelope width of 40' from side to side.
Then from front to back, you would have a front setback
requirement of 25' and a rear setback requirement of 30', so
that would you leave with a depth of 75' for the building
envelope.
22836
Mr. LaPine:
Does that make sense?
Mr. Taormina:
I understand your question, you're saying make the comer lot 5
wider, make that 65', make the lot where the house would be
located on, or Parcel 2 as shown here, make that 60'.
Mr. LaPine:
Right.
Mr. Taormina:
As I understood this gentleman to say, that would necessitate
relocating the driveway in order to avoid there being an
encroachment of that driveway onto the proposed lot, and that
would be okay. A couple of things though. One, we should look
at this for the future provision of a garage, which it would appear
that there's sfil ample room at the rear of Parcel 2 to construct a
detached building in the future. There would be certain setback
requirements from both the side and rear yard obviously.
Secondly, we would want about 2' between the property line
and the edge of the driveway for drainage purposes, so that
should be taken into account when we shift this lot line.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess my question I'm asking you, as the expert is, can it be
done and meet all those requirements?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, looking at the survey, it's a Iitlle confusing. There's 16.2'
between the house and the property line. You subtract 5' from
that, and you're left with 11.2', an additional 2' for a swale. Now
you're down to 9.2' for the width of the driveway. I'd say it could
be done. It would be a little tight, but it's possible.
Mr. La Pine:
Thank you, Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Alanskas:
On that same light, are you planning on putting a garage in
there? Probably only in the rear house?
Mr. Nantais:
There are no plans to put a garage there. Just so I understand
it a little bit better, even at the current proposal at 60' with the
setback of 15' on one side, 5' on the other side, that would be a
40' wide house, which is actually wider than the house that's on
the next lot, Lot 2, right now. Ifs 37. - I can't quite read it. But if
you put a 40' house on there with the depth of the lot being
more or over the amount and possibly an attached garage and
even a possibility of going up with it, but if you take the square
footage, you could put well over a 2,000 square foot house and
accommodate all the setbacks at 60' without moving it over 5'.
Mr. Alanskas:
By making it very narrow and long. Mr. Taormina?
22837
Mr. Taormina: While he may be correct, when most new subdivisions are
created, we require the comer lots to be slightly wider because
of the increase in the setback. I think in this particular case an
attached garage would be something of necessity as part of any
new construction. It would be more likely than not to want to
build a new house with an attached garage. So the additional
five feet could mean quite a bit of difference when trying to plan
a house on that lot to include a two -car attached garage.
Mr. Nantais:
Well, I was loolking at going the other way with it - the attached
garage on the back of the house. In other words, possibly
having access off of Norfolk with the attached garage versus
facing Hugh. In any case, we were considering possibly looking
at 2.5 feet moving the lot line over and that would be basically
the same size as a lot of lots in the area at 82.5' x 130', if that
would be a possible compromise.
Mr. Shane:
The question is whether or not we should rezone the property to
R-1. I would only do that if I knew if was feasible that you could
gel two lots. I think after our discussion here, it may be tight but
its feasible. We would rely on you to go to the Council with a
plan that would work. From my perspective, I'm satisfied that
two lots could be created in an R-1, should we rezone it that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, I dont question that R-1 housing wouldn't be
compatible or fit into that area, but west and south of the subject
property, as noted, are seven lots which are dimensionally equal
to the lot in question. I'm apprehensive about approving the
petition on tonight's agenda. I have to be assured that there's
no mass requests for lot splits and new zoning would occur.
Perhaps this is why the Council, as stated by Mark Taormina
tonight, denied a lot split stating it would not be consistent with
good planning and zoning which could adversely alter the
character of the area. Really, I question the logic, though I'm
not opposed to R-1 housing even if in that particular area, even
R-1 housing, which is 80' x 130', fits the R-3 classification. So
they would be the smallest lots in that area between Norfolk and
public lands and Hugh and Fremont. I question the logic of
approving this petition to create two R-1 lots when Council
recently denied such a request for a lot split. They obviously
dont want a change there.
Mr. Nantais:
Could I address that?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, you certainly can.
22838
Mr. Nantais:
Actually, the main reason for the denial, because it is zoned
RUF, and it would be so deficient, okay, because we were not
trying to rezone it the first time. Splitting the lot to 60' would be
tremendously deficient at that time. That was the main reason
why it was denied. If you look just kitty comer, there is an R-1
lot. Not included in this map a couple streets over, actually it is.
Right off Beatrice, you can see the second lot in. There's a 45'
lot with a house and a garage. If you'll bring your attention to
the kitty corner lot, it shows on this map that its 62.14'. Back in
the middle of October, that lot line was moved over to 65 x 130.
The exact same size as that actually, and that's R-1 there,
which makes that particular lot deficient at 65' x 130', zoned R-
2. We're taking, in our proposal, the 60' x 130' R-1 and making
it actual Iy fl the zoning requirements.
Mr. Piemecchi:
That 45' lot, sir, that you're talking about, that's the one that's off
Beatrice?
Mr. Nantais:
Yes. Second one south of Norfolk.
Mr. Piemecchi:
Actually, there are roughly five zoning classifications in that
area.
Mr. Nantais:
There is.
Mr. Piemecchi:
I'm aware of that. But based on area alone, each lot is
dimensionally greater than the R-1 requirements. Even the
designated R1 in your quadrant there is 80' x 130', which is R-
3, but it's classification is R-1 for I don't know why.
Mr. Nantais:
Right. But if you look at the surrounding lots there, like due
north, there's a 62'x 130' directly across the street.
Mr. Piemecchi:
You're right. There are four lots that are classified as R-2.
Mr. Nantais:
R-2. Yep. All deficient.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, how long have you owned the property?
Ms. Ketchum:
Since 2001, but I lived there since 1999.
Mr. Nantais:
Even the lot on Fremont on the north side of Norfolk is 61.24' x
130'. All of the lots on R2 that recently were converted from
RUF to t-2 on Fremont, 62' frontage, are all deficient. All we're
22839
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land
uses in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with other existing properties in
the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character ofthe area; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of the subject property in a manner that is
consistent with its size and locabon.
intending to do is actually take again a deficient RUF and bring
it to R-1 and make it complywith the zoning requirements.
Mr. Morrow:
I'd like to pursue the line of questioning that Mr. La Pine
indicated. Would it be a hardship to add the 5' to the northerly
lot?
Mr. Nantais:
If you hog bed me and am wrestled me, it might not be. If I had
a choice, I'd rather do 62.5". But no, it would not be a hardship
because if you look again at the width of that ... we were at her
mother's place the other day and all the driveways were 9', 8.8'
wide. So ifyou take that 16', subtract 5', lhalgives you 11'.
Mr. Morrow:
There's not a garage in the future, and at lead as one
commissioner, I think it would give it a little more flexibility as it
relates to being a corner lot, gives you some more square
footage along that line. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing none, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-124-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 2005,
on Petition 2005-10-01-14, submitted by Joan Ketchum
requesting to rezone the property at 20280 Hugh Road, located
on the southeast comer of Hugh Avenue and Norfolk Avenue in
the Northeast % of Section 2 from RUF to R-1, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2005-10-01-14 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land
uses in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot
sizes which are consistent with other existing properties in
the area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
developing character ofthe area; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of the subject property in a manner that is
consistent with its size and locabon.
22640
FURTHER RESOLVED, that nofice of the above hearing was
given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of
Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: I just have one question for Mr. Taormina. Should we include in
there about the switching of the corner lot to be 65 wide?
Should that be in the mofion?
Mr. Taormina: I think the minutes will reflect the fad thats being requested.
Mr. LaPine: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolufion adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 96-07-02-22 ST. MICHAEL CHURCH
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 96-07-
02-22, submitted by Sl. Michael Church requesting to amend
site plan and conditions of waiver use in connection with the
1996 approvals for the construction of an addition to St. Michael
Catholic School at 11441 Hubbard, on property located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and Fairfield
Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 34.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 20, 2005, which reads
as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. It appears that this
request deals with parking lot lighting and the presence of the
existing basketball posts only. From that standpoint, the
Engineering Division has no jurisdiction in this mater. However,
the following points are noted. The southwesterly basketball
post appears to be in a driving lane and the northwest and
southeast basketball posts are located in parking spaces. The
22841
legal description is comect." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 14, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted by St Michael's Church with a request to amend site
plan and conditions of waiver use concerning the 1996
approvals for the construction of an addition to St. Michael's
Catholic School on property located at the above -referenced
address. The Fire Department sees no compelling reason to
modify the approved site plan." The letter is signed by Andrew
C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated November 7, 2005, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the amended plans in connection with St.
Michael School located at 11441 Hubbard Road. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated
October 27, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of October 12, 2005, 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. The next letter is from a resident on Fairfield
Avenue, dated August 19, 2005, which reads as follows: "1 am
making my best guess in sending this to you. If this should be
directed to another official, please forward or so advise me.
This is regarding an article 1 read in the local paper about the St.
Michael's Parochial School on Hubbard Street here in Livonia. 1
reside at 11034 Fairfield. My property is adjacent to St.
Michael's property on their southwest comer. The article stated
there were issues relating to their parking lot renovation from
some time ago that may need to be addressed. 1 would like to
go on record as an adjacent neighbor that if there is any leeway
to allow St. Michael to not have to install additional parking lot
lights, 1 would prefer they not be required to install them. 1 dont
know the legal requirements, but in my opinion as their
neighbor, the halogen lights on the southern wall of the school
are sufficient for security purposes. 1 have (infrequently)
observed a car or person in the parking lot in the middle of the
night. 1 have never seen or discovered in my yard evidence of
illegal activities. While we have had some nights of interrupted
sleep or days of listening to profanity or loud music by small
groups of basketball players, my wife and 1 had intended to
contact St. Michael's administration to thank them for taking the
hoops off of the basketball boards in the late spring. It has been
an extraordinarily quiet and peaceful summer. The capping of
the storm drain and the blacktopping of the lot had caused some
22842
Flooding of my backyard during periods of heavy rain or
snowmeft, especially after my neighbor to the east put in many
yards of fill dirt along the fences. After l lost a 25' fir tme back in
that comer due to standing water one spring a few years ago, 1,
too, added fill dirt and landscaped to retain rain water falling in
my yard, but blocking water from the other properties. Point 1
would like to make is St Michael's is a good neighbor. While
they am like an 800# gorilla, 1 dont think they intend any harm.
They try to be good neighbors. Having been a part of a (different
church) Properties Committee, 1 understand how decisions am
sometimes made or actions take longer than they should.
Please do hold them accountable to follow the law, as you
would any property owner in the city, but for my part - adding
parking stripes and additional lighting (1 dont need mom lights
shining in my bedroom at night) would actually be visually and
aesthetically distasteful and unnecessary. If 1 should see the
need for more security on my property, 1 will get a dog." The
letter is signed by Steve Robertson. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
I juslwanllo make sure he is adjacent to the school. He would
be at the end of the parking lot, right?
Mr. Nowak:
Yes, he is immediately south of the school property on Fairfield.
Ms. Smiley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Rev. William H.
Tindall, St. Michael Church, 11441 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan
48150.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about the project?
Rev. Tindall:
I think the one other thing that did not get mentioned tonight that
would be very crifical for us is the issue regarding the basketball
poles. Those basketball poles are there for our students'
physical activity during lunch break. That's all they are there for.
We don't attempt to slop neighborhood children from using it
during the summer. We do realize that there have been
problems in the past where older individuals, late teens and
young adults, come in late at night and they get their cars
around the poles and get the music going and the lights going.
But what we did, we removed the hoops during the summer
22843
months so they cannot be used. So we are attempting to make
sure that our neighbors are not disrupted in the evening. But
again, I do want to add or state again that my primary concern
here is that the poles not be removed because they are for the
activity of our children, school children at St. Michael's.
Mr. Morrow:
Father, as it relates to the basketball hoops, is there any traffic
flow problem generated by leaving those in the parking lot?
Rev. Tindall:
No.
Mr. Morrow:
You're able to work around them?
Rev. Tindall:
There's never been a problem with that.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thankyou.
Rev. Tindall:
There's always been sufficient parking and the pole, that I
believe is in question, is not directly in that path. It is near it, but
it is not directly in ...
Mr. Morrow:
Nobody has run into it?
Rev. Tindall:
No. They wouldn't. No.
Mr. Morrow:
Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
Father, I have a problem. In 1996 you came in. I was on the
Board. We approved your addition to the school. You agreed
to all the conditions that we set forth. It went to the Council.
The Council agreed with our recommendations and you agreed
to them. And nine years later we haven't had any compliance.
Now during that period of time, if you had a problem, a financial
problem or you couldn't abide by the conditions that we set
forth, you always had the option to go back to the Council. Not
us, but the Council, and say, look, we have a problem. We
cannot do this at this time. We need some additional time. We
don't think the lights are needed. Al the time we approved it,
you agreed to the lights. Now, why has it taken all this time for
you to come up now and say, we cant abide by these rules?
Rev. Tindall:
Well, let me answer your question. First of all, I'm not the pastor
that was here. That was Father Alberto Bondy, and so I had no
participation in any of those discussions whatsoever. I have
been stationed at Sl. Michael's since May of 2003, so I was not
a part of any of this discussion. So I cant answer directly your
22844
question, but what I can add to this statement is that back in
1998, Father Bondy went to the Project Manager, Bonnie Scott,
who was part of the architectural firm, who spoke to Mr. Nagy
about this amendment, about not having the lights, not removing
the basketball hoops, not striping the lot. They had this
conversation and your Planning Department has a letter in its
file to Mr. Nagy from Ms. Scott regarding this issue. It never
went beyond Mr. Nagy's office. I don't know why. And really at
this point, it's not the most germane part of this discussion. The
understanding that Father Bondy had was that it had been given
to the Planning Commission. He thought it was taken care of.
He thought this had all been waived and so he never pursued it.
Well, I'm the second pastor at Sl. Michael's since Father Bondy
lett. So none of us were even aware of any of this until it was
brought to our attention from a City Council meeting. So we are
pretty much caught off guard here. So it's not that, Mr. LaPine I
want to make it very clear, it isn't that no one was unwilling to do
this or ignoring it or pleading any particular situation. Its just
that Father Bondy thought it had been handled and then he left.
There was no one else there that really knew what was going
on. So I am just trying to get this taken care of.
Mr. LaPine:
Didn't you have a building committee? Some of those people
must still be with the parish. They must have known what these
conditions were.
Rev. Tindall:
There was no building committee at the time, Mr. LaPine. What
there was, was a finance committee that did the fund mising
end of that project. They were not necessarily involved in this
end of the building program. And to answer your question more
directly, because I was not there, I don't know who was on that
finance committee at that time. I only know one of the members
that was on it at that point in time. To the best of my knowledge
from my conversation with Mr. Meese, this subject did not come
up.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Father, Merry Christmas.
Rev. Tindall:
Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
There still is a question regarding lighting also. Are you in a
position to work with the Fire Marshal to develop an alternate
solution for providing adequate lighting in the area immediately
south of the school building, such as means of shielded light
22045
fixtures mounted on a building for strictly emergency situations?
Are you willing to work with the Fire Marshal to come up with a
solution?
Rev. Tindall:
We are willing to work with the Fire Department or this body to
come up with whatever solution you deem appropriate. I'm not
exactly sure about the lighting that you're talking about. Do you
mean the 10 poles that are suggested, or are you talking about
the lights that are already on the building?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That would be something that you and the Fire Marshal would
work out.
Rev. Tindall:
Okay.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
This concem about emergencies and we should have lighting
there to evacuate.
Rev. Tindall:
Right. And I do want to make this very clear that we are most
willing to work with this body or the City Council or the Fire or
the Police Department. We just want to bring resolution to
something we did not know existed.
Mr. Shane:
Father, I think what Mr. Pieroecchi was trying to explain there
was that it occurred to us that maybe there should be some
lighting there, but maybe not as much as what the plans show,
and that's what he was refening to. If you could work with a city
department to determine a solution ...
Rev. Tindall:
We would be very happy to do that.
Mr. Shane:
Okay. We wanted to make sure that your church area was
adequately lighted. If it can be done with less than 10 poles,
fine.
Mr. Morrow:
In going with what Mr. Shane said, as you heard, the Fire
Marshal has some concerns about the lighting. So we're not
going to sit here tonight and try to solve that problem. I think
that would be between you and the Fire Marshal to safisfy
whatever apprehension he has that relates, but I think it slops
short of lighting up the whole parking lot, which we heard tonight
that the neighbors would not be too festive about having them
completely lit up, although you can't control it at certain times.
Also, it is our understanding that the parking lot will be striped
and the bumper blocks installed.
22846
Rev. Tindall:
That's correct.
Mr. Morrow:
And working out the lighting, the bumper blocks and the striping.
So all you're really asking in addition to that is that the
basketball poles are allowed to remain.
Rev. Tindall:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
Anybody else? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to
speak for or against this pefition?
Christopher Martin, 11037 Hubbard, Livonia, Michigan 48150.
Mr. Alanskas:
Now I understand that you could not make our study session, so
I will alloy you to have a little more time for what you want to
say.
Mr. Martin:
I appreciate that At that particular meeting, I was in that
Committee of the Whole meeting in the Council chambers. I
was lucky to attend that early enough to get a seal. Boy, this is
.. you know. This is like deja vu because I was here in '96
when this plan was first brought forward. Al that time, the initial
print shaving the parking lot, and hopefully its in your package.
I didn't bring any of that stuff with me this evening but it does
exist. Showed no improvements on that parking lot whatsoever.
I attended a meeting back in '96 in front of this Planning
Commission and asked for lights, curb blocks, striping at that
particular time. That's what brought about a revision in the site
plan that showed all those items. Al that particular time, it then
went ... it was approved by the Planning Commission. It went
on to City Council and was approved. Council said that plan
shall be adhered to. It was signed by Adam Maida, who is
actually the owner of the property. That's the legal definition.
He is the owner. Anyone else on that property, pastor or
whatever, is merely a tenant. They have nothing to do with the
ownership of that properly. They are a tenant on that property.
So Adam Maida is the one that signed it, along with Jack
Kirskey who was Mayor at be time. Then what happened is
that it went on and John Nagy, for whatever reason, became the
fourth branch of government in the City of Livonia. We don't
only have the executive, legislative and judicial, but we have
John Nagy, and he said, well, you dont have to adhere to this
plan. And that's the way it basically stood until this particular
evening. But I'm going to talk about a few things about the
22847
lighting. We have an ordinance for lighting, and I realize the
concern of my neighbor that lives behind me who is on Fairfield.
We have an ordinance for this called overflow lighting. So in
certain instances when a pole is located close enough to a
residential property, it is shielded so light is only dispersed in
one particular area. So we have something for that. No one is
asking that this thing be turned into an airport runway. The
lighting would be beneficial for not only the safety of the
surrounding neighborhood, but it would be beneficial for
activities that take place in the evening when the people have to
park their car in the parking lot. They can see the stripes. They
can see where to park. Right now it's just chaos out there.
There's no designated area. There's no lanes. There's no
parking spots. About the ... well, lel me just go in this. I just
jotted down a few notes. Let me go on to the curb blocks. Curb
blocks - that's in our ordinance too on parking lots. And I had
asked for those in '96. Actually, I asked for all of these items
back in 1982 when I first moved into that particular house in
Livonia. But anyways, we have an ordinance for curb blocks.
Curb blocks are required to protect abutting residential property.
I had that snowplow put snow into my privacy fence that I had
put up there a number of years ago. It damaged it. Cars
backed into it, damaged it, because there's no curb blocks.
Curb blocks need to be four feel from that abutting residential
property. As far as the striping, I think its pretty evident that
they can see that the place needs to be striped. As far as
moving the basketball poles, that was something that they had
agreed to. I know that this particular gentleman is new to the
area here, but one of those poles was hit at night by a car and it
was removed because it was listing at somewhere between a
30 and 45 degrees after it was struck at night by a car that was
in there. Two other things that I would like to mention.
Drainage on that parking lot. We have an ordinance that really
says you can't build up a parking lot such as they have done
over the years. By that, I mean that maybe every four or five
years they would come in and put another overlay of asphalt on
the existing parking lot. Well, every time you do that it raises
the grade. It reises the elevation. That parking lot is
considerably higher than the sidewalks on Hubbard and
Fairfield. And what that means is that that's where the water
drains, onto the sidewalk. One of the things that brought about
a flooding problem on my particular property to the south. I
don't know if Mark wants to put that back up, but I'm the first
house to the south of that parking lot on Hubbard Street. There
used to be a drainage, a manhole cover that was there. Thanks
Mark. It would be ... I don't have a pointer, but anyway, d
PAVIU, 1
would be right at the rear lot lines between both those
properties. And that was blocked off by the DPW a number of
years ago because that's a 12 inch sanitary sewer line that
would ran north, and that was the only drain in that entire
parking lot. So when they came out, you cannot put storm
water in a sanitary sewer line any longer. Its been an
ordinance a number of years ago that was enacted. So
anyway, then they put that solid manhole cover on there, that
just, because of the grade of the parking lot, that flooded the
properties to the immediate south. Also, talking about the
flooding problem, I'm the guy that went in front of the Water and
Sewer Board Commission that meets across the street here and
the City took on the responsibility with an agreement with the
Archdiocese that they would have a 12 foot easement there,
and eventually they're going to put a drain in that will ran from
that parking lot and ran east paralleling my property line to the
north there and then tying into Hubbard Street. When I first
approached the Water and Sewer Board Commission, the figure
of $10,000 was kicked around. I realize that I don't like to see
taxpayers' money, and I weighed this decision before I went
there and asked for this to be done. I weight the decision of
having $10,000 of taxpayers' money help drain a private parking
lot. Not a city owned lot, but a private lot. It was approved.
Okay? The Archdiocese signed off on an easement there. That
will eventually be put in. But you know what? It wasn't 10
grand. It was 70 grand. I would never ever with the cutbacks
that we have in Livonia, the laying off, or really not laying off, but
not hiring any police officers or whatever, that 70 grand could
have been used for something else. And I know at the
upcoming City Council meeting when I mentioned this, that Bob
Schron will say that's a common practice. I don't think its all
that common to spend taxpayers' money to drain a private
parking lot.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, I'll give you three more minutes, okay?
Mr. Martin: I'm saving the big show for City Council. One other thing is that
as far as the lighting of those poles, cannot have overhead
wiring, so that would have to be, a trench would have to be put
in or whatever for the wires to be ran underground. That would
be the perfect time to redo that entire parking lot because it's
way loo high, and the first two-thirds of that parking lot is flat as
a pancake. It doesn't drain anywhere. Okay? I will mention at
the time that back in '96 that the northern parking lot was
completely tom up and re -drained, re -graded to drain properly
22849
and that is the one that is immediately south of the church and
immediately west of the rectory. One last thing here.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have one question for you.
Mr. Martin:
All right.
Mr. Atanskas:
How high do you think the grade is over what it should be?
Mr. Martin:
Well, I can tell you that ... you can come out there and look at
d. But its considerable. The picture that was put on the Livonia
Observer, the front page on that, I would say it's well over six
inches. That's nine inches there. So I mean, in that one
particular comer, the immediate southeast comer of that parking
lot, that grade has to be more than nine inches above the
sidewalk. So naturally when they push the snow, when
Apartment Services pushes the snow during the wintertime,
they move it out to the perimeter of that parking lot. When that
melts, there's no way that can drain into the parking lot at all.
So therefore it drains on the sidewalk, comes down in a
southerly direction, floods my sidewalk in front of my house, the
apron of my driveway, takes a left hand tum down the apron of
my driveway and goes out to the storm drain in the street. So
that parking lot, it has to be revamped. The last thing I want to
mention too, there's an ordinance for this loo. If they did the
whole thing, okay, it's also the time ... I mean as far as tearing
up the parking lot, putting more drains in it that would run into
that easement that we're all going to pay 70 grand for. Once
they correct the grade, it's the perfect time to put the wires in
underground for the lights. It would be the perfect time to
replace the fencing that's around there that's falling down too.
You should all come out and take a walk on the perimeter of
that property. Look at the grade, haw high it is, and then, you
know, go from there and make a decision.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
When I was out there and checked the property, I agree with
you that the parking lot drains from the north to the south,
towards your property. Its very, very evident if you go out there
and look at it. But I noticed at lead two other drains in the
parking lot.
Mr. Martin:
Theyre catch basins.
Mr. LaPine:
Catch basins. Where does that water flow out?
22850
Mr. Martin:
It doesn't go anywhere. It's a catch basin.
Mr. LaPine:
When it catches, if there's a lot of min, a heavy rainfall, or a
heavy melt of snow, does it overflow into the parking lot with
water?
Mr. Martin:
That catch basin is just a fancy term for a whole in the ground
with a cover on lop. It leads nowhere.
Mr. LaPine:
There's actually no drainage in the parking lot out to a storm
sewer.
Mr. Martin:
There is no drainage. As a matter of fact, when I went over to
the DPW, and I got into a conversation with them as to why they
put that solid cover on there, which increased the flooding on
those two southern properties, they just told me, that's just the
way it goes. It's loo bad.
Mr. LaPine:
Can I ask you just one more question? We've been on this
case quite a while.
Mr. Martin:
Well, its an interesting story.
Mr. LaPine:
When did the Council tell you that approximately a $70,000
sewer is going to go in there?
Mr. Martin:
I read that in the Livonia Observer when it was on the front
page.
Mr. LaPine:
You don't know for sure it's going in or when it's going in?
Mr. Martin:
Well, I know that Sean Kavanagh ... it was approved by City
Council, that easement, because that particular evening City
Attorney Sean Kavanagh handed me a copy of the agreement
between the Archdiocese and the City of Livonia that
established that easement.
Mr. Alanskas:
But when did you read that?
Mr. Martin:
Oh, when did I read it?
Mr. Alanskas: Six months ago? Ayear ago?
22851
Mr. Martin:
Well, I would have to say it's probably ... I was with Sean in
court that one day. I would say maybe it was seven months
ago.
Mr. La Pine:
Once that sewer is in, will they do some grading so that water is
going to flow down into this new drain?
Mr. Martin:
No, because, the parking lot, I mean, the parking lot is not ...
the first two-thirds of it are flat. There's no way to slope it down
to that easement where the drain is going to be put in. That's
the problem with this whole concept.
Mr. Morrow:
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you. Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
I was with Mr. LaPine when we checked the parking lot. I'm not
a drainage engineer, but I can see ...
Mr. Martin:
You don't have to be.
Mr. Morrow:
There's probably problems with the parking lot, but my dilemma
is that by introducing the drainage, its kind of opened up
Pandora's box. Our job here tonight is to deal specifically with
the four items that we've been talking about which you're aware.
Mr. Martin:
I believe they are all tied together.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, they probably are, but right now we have a site plan that
has not been adhered to and they're requesting that it be
adjusted. Now a brig -term solution might be tearing up the
whole
parking lot, but that would be a separate project, as least
in my view.
Mr. Martin:
If you want to do it correctly, that's what needs to be done.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Let's go to the other people in the audience if I may.
Theresa Robertson,
11034 Fairfield. Good evening. My husband, Steven, wrote
the letter that was read here this evening. Our main concern is
the lighting. Right now there are three large lights on the school
building, which shine south into the parking lot. We truly feel
they are adequate, and I wanted to come and let you know that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you for coming in.
22852
�G�:L!TRiTil!•'GSIYi-.-G.Ld-=
Rick Rainville,
9928 Hubbard. I am a neighbor of the school and I'm also a
parent of a young man who attends the school, St. Michael's
School. I have deep concerns and take great offense to what
Mr. Martin has just said to you tonight. I can speak to a number
of comments he's made that I believe are untrue. First off, the
parking situation there is not chaotic. You have to understand
that this is a school that is landlocked. It has a defined amount
of area that it can use for school and for church business. And
the area in question is as much a playground as it is a parking
area. During the day, its used as a playground. During the
evening and weekends when the children are absent from the
grounds, it is used as a parking lot. Now, the parking for the
most part takes place on weekends, and it's during the day.
Seldom will you see that parking lot being used at night because
the kids aren't in school. There's no one being picked up.
Church business can handle . it will take the parking
immediately in front of the church, and you'll seldom, seldom
see that lot being used at night as an overflow area. And that's
the only reason it would be used, as an overflow area in the
evening when church business is such that it would take up the
parking space along Hubbard and flow into the area in question.
So I dont believe any lights are needed there whatsoever. The
security lights off the building are more than adequate. I go by
the building every evening. I have noticed that we have not had
any security issues. And if you add lights at night, I suspect
most of the neighbors will be up in arms about that. I would be.
I don't want lights coming down during the night in our
neighborhood lighting up what is really not a ... well, what is a
seldom used parking area in the evening. It is not a chaotic
situation. The parking is very well under control. Staff works
diligently to make sure that there is a traffic flow in the morning
as kids are dropped off, and in the evening when they are
picked up. I believe the basketball hoop that Mr. Martin is
referencing is one that I am also aware of. It was hung on. Kids
would hang on it and it would bend and it would tilt. I've never
seen an issue such as that that he's make reference to, and I
live just a few more doors down from where he does. If Mr.
Martin were as diligent about his own property as he is on other
properties, I doubt we'd have this problem.
Mr. Alanskas:
We're not going to discuss his property.
Mr. Rainville:
It's pertinent because he wants to create problems for all of his
neighbors. I'm one of them. He digs up business and he's
22853
trying to create something where there really isn't anything. So
I'm going to ask that you check also into his other statement
about his front area flooding. It does not flood. We go down
that sidewalk. He's got a low area in his sidewalk that pools
water.
Mr. Alanskas:
Anybody that comes before the Commission has a right to
express their opinion.
Mr. Rainville:
I am doing that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. Mr. Morrow?
Mr. Morrow:
I just want to reinforce where you were coming from, Mr.
Chairman. We don't want to get into personal...
Mr. Rainville:
I'm just saying that the area in front of his house does not flood.
Mr. Morrow:
Whalyou were beginning to say ...
Mr. Rainville:
I'm staying away from that, sir. The area where they're pushing
snow is away from his home now. Snow is not being pushed in
that area, and there is no flooding in that area. I can attest to
that, and I wish you would look into it. Thank you.
Mr. Morrow:
I wanted to make a comment.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, he has a question for you.
Mr. Morrow:
It's more of a comment. As it relates to the lighting and I know
you're concerned about the lighting, but as I indicated to the
Father, one of the city departments, the Fire Marshal, has a
concern. So, we're lalling in your view, but we also have to be
mindful of what they say.
Mr. Rainville:
Oh, I finny agree. I think you've heard here that the church is
eager to work with the officials at hand. I'm just saying as a
neighbor I would like to see that it stay away.
Mr. Morrow:
Right. I want you to understand the reason we're talking about
this lighting is for the other reason.
Mr. Rainville:
Absolutely.
Robert Rooke,
11036 Hubbard. I am the comer house at Hubbard and Elmira.
I'm right across from the parking lot. In 1996 when the church
22854
wanted to do the expansion, I voiced support for it because I
think they fill a need in the neighborhood, and they've been a
good neighbor over the years, and I didn't have a problem with
it. I guess if I would have known then that they were going to
put the lights up all over the parking lot, I would have had a
different opinion, and I would have been against the expansion
because it's a residential neighborhood, and it should look like a
residential neighborhood. It should not look like Westland Mall
with the whole thing lit up. If we need some security lights on
the building for fire protection, for evacuation purposes, I think
that's one thing. If we're talking about putting lights all the way
back where the houses are, and I don't care if they're shining in
my bedroom window or not, that whole area is going to be lit up
and I'm opposed to that, and I think almost all the neighbors
would be. I've lived in my house for over 20 years, and I don't
think that those lights would solve any of the issues that have
been over there, and there's only been a handful. I just don't
think that all these issues for the last nine years should be
looked at like they're trying to get away with something. I think
situations happened. The lights didn't go up. I think we should
just take a look at it and make a rational decision for safety
purposes and just address that. That'sall I have. Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody else. Father, I'll give you the last closing
remarks.
Rev. Tindall: I think something came out here tonight that I was not aware of
and that is that in the original plan, your commission did not
recommend all of these things in that parking lot, that it was Mr.
Martin who started all of this many years ago. So obviously he
thinks that they are important. And so as this gentleman just
commented that if he would have thought that we were trying to
put up lights, we would have been opposed to us. I think its
clear now that it wasn't us to being with. This was Mr. Martin's
undertaking all along. The other thing that I want to bring to
your attention, I hope you will go do this loo, is that if you go out
and stand along that fence on that south line, you're going to
notice that the grade does come down that way and so it will
empty into any drains that they are going to put along that
fence. I think your Commission needs to look at that. I think Mr.
Martin, as he has done in the past, is just trying to stir
something up here. The drain that is in question that the City
went to the diocese, they didn't even come to us. I was totally
unaware as Pastor that this work was being undertaken. With
the City Attorney and whoever else is involved in this, they
came up with a solution to this problem. If you go out and you
22855
look for yourself, you're going to see that the drain from about
halfway from the lot begins to go down towards that fence line
and whatever drain that theyre going to put in there, should
work.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. Mr. Martin, now you already ... we're not going to
have a debate here. You already had your time.
Mr. Martin:
I'm not in a debate. I just want to say ...
Mr. Alanskas:
You already had your say, sir, and you're not going to respond
again. Okay.
Mr. Martin:
I'm not here to stir anything up. I was here to exercise my
freedom of speech.
Mr. Alanskas:
You already did that
Mr. Martin
Just as the priest has.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, you're out of order. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Father.
And thank the audience. Now we have tonight three different
resolutions before us, and a resolution is now in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously approved, it was
#12-125-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 2005,
on Petition 96-07-02-22, submitted by St. Michael Church,
requesting to amend the site plan and conditions of waiver use,
which previously received waiver use approval by the City
Council on October 16, 1996 (Council Resolution #955-96), in
connection with the construction of an addition to St. Michael
Catholic School at 11441 Hubbard, on property located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and Fairfield
Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 34, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 96-07-02-22, as amended, be approved so as to allow
the basketball stands and boards to remain but to require an
alternative method of site lighting, subject to the following
stipulations:
1. That the Site Plan approved in connection with Petition 96-
07-02-22, which granted approval for the construction of an
addition to Sl. Michael School (Council Resolution #955-
96), is amended with respect to the site lighting design,
22856
subject to the condition that the petitioner shall work with
the Fire Marshal to develop an altemative solution for
providing adequate lighting in the area immediately south
of the school building (such as by means of shielded light
fixtures mounted on the building) for emergency situations;
2. That the approved Site Plan is amended to delete the
requirement for the removal of the existing basketball
stands and boards so that this equipment may be allowed
to remain as it is currently positioned;
3. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution
#955-96 shall remain in effect to the extent that they are
not in conflict with the foregoing conditions, including the
following items, which shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department:
That bumper blocks shall be installed in the south
parking lot where parking spaces are adjacent to the
Hubbard Road right -0f -way line; and
That the south parking lot will be shiped in accordance
with the approved Site Plan.
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. 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 PETlTION200540-0249 TARGET
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-02-19, submitted by Target Corporation, requesting waiver
use approval to utilize an SDM (packaged beer and wine)
license in connection with a Target Store at 20100 Haggerty
Road, located on the east side of Haggerty Road between
Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of
Section 6.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
22857
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 24, 2005, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to bre proposal at this time. No additional right -of my
is required. The following legal description should be used in
connection with the waiver use." The letter is signed by Robert
J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 14, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to utilize SDD (packaged
liquor) and SDM (packaged beer and wine) licenses at the
Target store on property located at the above -referenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Division of Police, dated November 2, 2005, which
reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection
with Target located at 20100 Haggerty Road. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David Studt, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The
fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November
10, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
October 13, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site is less than 500
feet from an existing SDM establishment and less than 1,000
feet from an existing SDD establishment. This may be waived
by City Council. This Department has no further objections to
this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection. The next letter is from the Target
Corporation, dated October 25, 2005, which reads as follows:
`Per our conversation today, October 25, 2005, please amend
Target's Application for Waiver Use Approval to SDM beer and
wine license only. The application was originally for both SDM
and SDD for liquor. This is for retail package sales and not for
on -premises consumption. The store's address is 20100
Haggerty, Livonia, MI 48152. Thank your for your efforts to help
process Target's application. Please contact me with any
questions at (612) 761-2156." The letter is signed by Muthu
Periakaruppan, Manager, Sales Tax and Business Licensing,
Target Corporation. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
22858
David Carroll,
I'm the store manager at the Target store, and this is Tanya
Gordon. She is the Senior Executive of the Target store at
20100 Haggerty Road.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Carroll:
I think its very straightforward. We're just seelang the approval
to sell packaged beer and wine at that
location due to expansion
and the loyalty of all our Livonia residents, as well as Northville,
Farmington and Novi. Because of their loyalty, we have grown
in sales and become one of the larger Target stores in the
company, so we are seeking to expand our offerings to those
guests.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. LaPine:
How many Target stores throughout the metropolitan Detroit
area have beer and wine licenses?
Mr. Carroll:
You know, that is not information I have access to at this time. I
know that there are only about 150 company wide.
Mr. LaPine:
And it's all across the country?
Mr. Carroll:
Correct. Mostly our super Target stores. One of our iniUaUves
is to expand our food offerings to our guests. Actually, the
Livonia store is going to go through an upsizing project in May
when we will open up our grocery department and offer different
types of products.
Mr. LaPine:
The Target store now on Haggerty Road is not a super Target
store.
Mr. Carroll:
Correct. It is not a super store. Its just a general merchandise
Targetstore.
Mr. LaPine:
And are you going to make that a superstore?
Mr. Carroll:
No, we are not. We are just going to do some interior moving
around of products awl interior remodel to just expand our dry
grocery offerings that we would like packaged beer and wine to
be a part of that.
Mr. LaPine:
So I would assume a new store, if it's ever built at the
Wonderland shopping center, will be a super Target which will
be in asking for a beer and wine store too.
22859
Mr. Carroll:
You know, I don't have specific information on that. I only
represent the store on Haggerty Road and Eight Mile. I am not
aware or can confirm or deny any....
Mr. LaPine:
Lel me ask you this question. Does each store manager have
the authority to go to the home office and say we want to sell
beer and wine at this store? How do they determine which
stores sell beer and wine?
Mr. Carroll:
We're a company where all that activity is directed by our
corporate office. 1, as a store manager, do not have the
authority to go and say I would like to sell beer and wine at this
store. Obviously, I know my store better than anybody in
Minneapolis, but that is not our common practice. We use
analysts and buyers and planners and merchandisers like any
other corporation would to determine what products and
services we offer at our stores.
Mr. LaPine:
So you can't tell me why they determined this store should have
a beer and wine license? Because Costco has one next store,
does that make a reasonable ...
Mr. Carroll:
To be honest with you, I cannot intelligently comment on the
decisions thatwe make at the corporate level.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thankyou.
Mr. Carroll:
You're welcome.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Bill covered me like a blanket.
Mr. Morrow:
Perhaps this is something that the corporate is doing. In other
words, how long have they been requesting beer and wine
licenses? Is it something they've always done or is this just a
new marketing tool to service your customer base?
Mr. Carroll:
Good question. To my knowledge, the super Targets have
always had beer and wine. Thafs part of our base product
offering. But as we are a growth company, in our efforts to
expand our offerings to our guests, I believe that this is a very
new initiative for us, probably in the last 36 months.
Mr. Morrow:
For the stores that are not the super Targets?
22860
Mr. Carroll:
Correct, for stores that are not super Targets. In order to
compete in this market, its a very competitive market, retail, and
a lot of super centers and a lot of different types of businesses
like Costco wholesale. So we're just trying to expand our
offerings to our guests, and try to make more of a one slop shop
for our Target guests. This also comes in conjunction with
requests from our guests at multiple locations.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would you know what percentage of sales it increases for you
when you do have beer and wine in the other stores?
Mr. Carroll:
You know, I do not have access to that information.
Mr. Morrow:
You will though.
Mr. Carroll:
I will. Once you pass this, I will.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Joan Daniels, 48321 N. Tentorial, Plymouth, but I work in Livonia just around the
comer from you guys. I'm for R. I go into Target to pick up a lot
of things and if you're going to expand, you're going to have
milk and bread, I'm assuming. It would be nice to be able to
pick up beer and wine with the milk and bread. That's all I have
to say.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you for your comments.
Mr. Carroll:
We are one of the largest volume stores in the company. We're
in the top 200 out of about 1,500 stores, so we do a lot volume
from guests like yourself.
Mr. Alanskas:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by
La Pine, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#12-126-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 2005,
on Petition 2005-10-02-19, submitted by Target Corporation,
requesting waiver use approval
to utilize an SDM (packaged
beer and wine) license
in connection with a Target Store at
20100 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of Haggerty
Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road in the
Northwest % of Section 6, the Planning Commission does
22861
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-10-02-
19 be approved, subject to the waiving of the 500 fool
separation requirement between SDM licensed establishments
as set forth in Section 11.03(r)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance by
the City Council, for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Section 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area; and
4. That the utilization of a SDM license will complement the
existing use of the subject properly and will provide an
additional service to customers.
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?
Mr. Morrow:
Just a comment. I frequent that Target store on occasion and
I'm always amazed at the housekeeping within it, as far as
cleanliness, stock, everything seems to be in its place. There
always seems to be plenty of people there to service the
customer, and Ijust wanted to take this opportunity to tell you
what a fine operation you run over there.
Mr. Carroll:
I appreciate that. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. We
hope you frequent us more often.
Mr. Alanskas:
I can only say that, while we're discussing that, that I was at the
Plymouth Road store Sunday, and the floors are so clean you
can see your face in them. It's almost slippery, but it's a job well
done.
Mr. Carat
Thank you very much.
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.
22862
k 1 =1 ,7 1, =:J =k I I Ile] 7 K1111,15 110 x907 1419.1:1'1
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-02-20,
00510-02-20, submitted by U.S. Tire Company, Inc., requesting
waiver use approval to operate a retail lire and auto repair
facility at 33850 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in
the Southeast %of Section 28.
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 five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated October 24, 2005, 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. There is no additional
right-of-way required. The following legal description should be
used for this waiver use." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 31, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a retail fire
and auto repair facility on property located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in
the southeast X of Section 28. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulation: If subject building is to
be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an onaite
hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the
Fire Department connection." The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated November 2, 2005, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the plans in connection with U.S. Tire Company
located at 33850 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 16,
2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
October 25, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site is deficient in
parking and will require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The combined use requires a minimum of 74 parking
spaces with 50 plusrminus being provided. U.S. Tire requires
27 spaces and Yukon Coffee requires 47 spaces. (2) This
22863
petition is reviewed as though the entire parking lot and
driveway will be repaved and property striped. It is also
reviewed as the east building is to be demolished. It is unclear
if the petitioner has the authority to guarantee completion of the
above items. This should be clarified to the Commission and
Council's satisfaction. This Department has no further
objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Assistant Director of Inspection. In connection with this letter, I
should point out that in Item 1, under paragraph one, where they
talk about a parking deficiency, that was based on the previous
site plan, which has now been revised. It now requires a
smaller amount of parking and the number of parking spaces
provided on this site has been increased. So now they have a
surplus of parking rather than a deficiency. The next letter is
from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated
December 9, 2005, which reads as follows: At the 174th
Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority
of the City of Livonia held on December 8, 2005, the following
resolution was unanimously adopted. #2005,38 RESOLVED,
that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby
support in concept the proposedplans as submitted by U.S. Tire
Company, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a
retail fire and auto repair facility at 33850 Plymouth Road,
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast''/. of Section
28, subject to compliance with all City codes and ordinances, as
such may be modified by the action of the Planning Commission
and/or City Council." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy,
PRDA Director. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Morrow:
The deficiency as it relates to landscaping and the refurbishing,
they were mindful of that and so the approval includes that?
Mr. Taormina:
Are you referencing the PRDA's review?
Mr. Morrow:
Yes.
Mr. Taormina:
I think all those matters were considered as part of the review.
They did take a look at the landscape plan.
Mr. Morrow:
What I'm trying to do is just make sure it's a known deficiency
on their part, and they are in concert with what they intend to do
as far as refurbishing it.
22864
Mr. Taormina: It is. Thafs correct.
Mr. LaPine: Mark, three or four months ago, I attended a meeting upstairs.
The developer came in on this property. Is this the same
owner?
Mr. Taormina: They are still the same owners of the property. That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: Their proposal was for some condos, some other plans. But it is
the same property owner that came in before us and made a
presentation?
Mr. Taormina: This petitioner is the business owner. He is going to be leasing
the facility from the land owners. The owners will still retain the
property, the balance of the property, possibly with future
intention of development on that site.
Mr. LaPine: My second question is, when the PRDA looks at this, at this
point, why don't they insist that the landscaping that we're trying
to finish up along Plymouth Road be put in each time we have
one of these buildings that we're renovating, so that eventually
we're going to get all that landscaping done along Plymouth
Road?
Mr. Taormina: This plan substantially upgrades the landscaping, and it is very
consistent with the plant species the PRDA uses. The areas
that they propose b enhance will be very consistent with what
the PRDA streetscape improvements are. The question was
asked at the PRDA meeting whether this petitioner would be
willing to look at installing some of the hard scape areas, and for
financial reasons, this petitioner at this time is not in a position
to do that. He would like to do that someday, but at this point, it
is not within the scope of this project, and the PRDA recognized
that.
Mr. LaPine: It seems to me that the PRDA should insist upon R. If we can
get these things done as these properties are being
redeveloped, that would be the time to do it. Okay.
Mr. Alanskas: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Lary Howard, U.S. Tire Company, Inc., 1865 Lone Wolf Lane, Canton, Michigan
48188. Good evening.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anything you'd like to add?
22865
Mr. Howard :
Just that we're trying to take the building that has been vacant
for a while and upgrade the use. We're going to combine two
businesses into the one facility. A different concept of what
automotive repair facilities have been, tire facilities. There are
two drive in services bays that were put in when the building
was originally built, when it was an Olsen Oldsmobile
Dealership. So people won't have to get out of their cars to go
in. They can drive right into the facility. There's a hallway after
the service writer takes care of them, a hallway that takes them
right to where the coffee shop will be. We'll have wireless
internet connections. We'll have a business center where we'll
provide two or three computers with internet connections. We'll
have a copy machine and a fax machine that people can use.
They can sit down, have a comfortable time while they're
waiting for their automobile to be repaired, or if they just want to
come in and have coffee and gel some work done, they'll have
a pleasant atmosphere in which to do so.
Mr. Alanskas:
I have a couple questions for you. Number one, because you're
in the tire business, where will you be storing the old tires that
you take oft these cars?
Mr. Howard:
There's plenty of inside storage.
Mr. Alanskas:
It will not be outside at all?
Mr. Howard :
Oh, no. No.
Mr. Alanskas:
How often do you have pickup on these old tires?
Mr. Howard :
Oh, we would have those at least once a week. We can have
pickups more than that if need be.
Mr. Alanskas:
You say you're going to be doing repairs. What kind of repairs
will you be doing?
Mr. Howard:
Oh, if you need your brakes repaired, if you have problems with
your transmission, standard automotive repairs that you might
encounter anytime when you're driving your vehicle.
Mr. Alanskas:
But its very important in my mind to make sure you have
nothing on the outside of the building as far as old
transmissions, old motors.
Mr. Howard:
No.
22866
Mr. Alanskas:
Motor oil drums. Will you be doing oil changes there?
Mr. Howard:
We will be doing oil changes. We have a retaining tank that will
be inside the building. There won't be any cars stored outside
the building. There won't be any equipment outside. Everything
will be stored inside. Old transmissions, whatever it is will be
inside the building. There is plenty ofspace forstorege.
Mr. Alanskas:
In the summertime, when you remove tires and brakes, you use
these impact wrenches, which make a lot of noise. Will you be
having the doors open in the summertime?
Mr. Howard:
No. In fad, inside its all self-contained. You won't even see
the repair going on at the time because you have the front of the
building and the repair facility of the building is in the back.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mainly, I'm not talking about seeing. I'm lallang about hearing it.
Mr. Howard :
We wont have the doors open.
Mr. LaPine:
Do you have another one of these operations somewhere else?
Mr. Howard :
No, I dont.
Mr. LaPine:
This is the first time?
Mr. Howard :
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
You've been in this business before?
Mr. Howard :
In the repair business, we have a mobile repair business where
we have commercial clients. We go to their facilities and repair
their vehicles. We have certified mechanics that work for us.
We decided to go into the retail business.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm really curious about this operation. I've never seen a coffee
shop in conjunction with a dealership. Most people take their
cars in for repairs, they take them in the morning. And the
dealership or the garage have a service where they'll run the
person to work and come back in the evening. I guess I'm
curious. How is this Yukon Coffee going to be operating? Is it
sbictly for the people coming to the repair shop or people off the
street can come in? Do you sell anything besides coffee? Do
you sell donuts? Do you sell sweet rolls? Do you do anything
else?
22867
Mr. Howard:
It will be a destnaton coffee shop where people will want to
come and get coffee. The way the building is arranged, the
showroom for the tires and wheels is in the center. The ddve-
thru bays are located on the west side of the building. They set
back approximately 60 feet from the front. The right side, the
east side, there is another wing that sets backs about 50 feet
also that used to be the showroom when it was an Oldsmobile
dealership. So it looks like two separate facilities. The coffee
shop will have sandwiches, soups, some light types of things on
the menu, bagels and rolls and things.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you hoping the primarily clientele is going to be from the
shop or are you hopefully going to attract people from Plymouth
Road?
Mr. Howard:
Attract people from Plymouth Road.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Bill again covered me a the bit, but he lett a few spots for me
here. Are you going to be in charge of the Yukon?
Mr. Howard :
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That's not under your wing? That's another entirely different
organization?
Mr. Howard :
It is mine.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It is yours.
Mr. Howard :
It is mine, yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. I was very pleased how you managed the parking
because you were way behind when you started off, and now
you have six of them in the bank.
Mr. Howard: I have an interior designer that is working with me as far as the
coffee shop goes and setting up things on the retail side. I
guess I was a little ambitious in the number of seating that I had
because we'll have a couple couches in there with some
comfortable chairs. We'll have some round tables that are 36
inches in diameter and rectangular tables that are 30" x 54".
For maximum comfort, we reduced the number of seats that
would be in the coffee shop, because outside ...
Mr.Pieroecchi: Howabouthours?
ryilel
Mr.
Howard:
Pardon?
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
I know, Mr. Chairman, this is Item 5, but inasmuch as theyre
both in the same building, I've taken the liberty to ask a little bit
on Yukon if you dont mind.
Mr.
Alanskas:
Go right ahead.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
What are your hours going to be, sir?
Mr.
Howard:
For Yukon, the hours will probably be from 6:00 in the morning
to maybe 8:00 in the evening, 9:00 at the outside. I dont expect
to be open
Tale. People need to get home to their families. U.S.
Tire will
be open from 7:00 in the morning to 7:00 in the
evening.
Mr.
Morrow:
Just a little bit more. As it relates to U.S. Tire Company and
Yukon Coffee Company, are they known entities and you're a
franchisee or are they your companies?
Mr.
Howard:
Those are my companies.
Mr.
Morrow:
So in other words, this is the only Yukon Coffee Company that
exists.
Mr.
Howard:
Yes.
Mr.
Morrow:
And this is the only U.S. Tire Company that exists.
Mr.
Howard:
Yes.
Mr.
Morrow:
Okay. I just wanted to know if it was part of a larger corporation.
Mr.
Howard:
No.
Mr.
Shane:
I notice that in order to meet the parking requirements, you have
decreased the number of seats by quite a bit. I was just
wondering if you're satisfied that in the wintertime you'll have 29
seats inside.
Mr.
Howard:
Yes.
Mr.
Shane:
That's going to be enough?
Mr.
Howard:
Oh, I believe so, yes.
22869
Mr. Shane: You think you were ovedy ambitious with the original number?
Mr. Howard: Yes, I was.
Mr. Shane: I was just curious. I was just hoping that you wouldn't have
trouble doing business with almost half the seats that you had
before.
Mr. Howard: No. Traffic pattems and comfort were the main concerns. In
the wintertime, the patio won't even be open. The patio will
probably only be open six months out of the year.
Mr. Alanskas: In regards to Mr. Piercecchi's question, will the tire company be
open on Saturday and Sunday?
Mr. Howard : Saturday, no Sundays. We'll probably be open 9:00 to 5:00 on
Saturday.
Mr. Alanskas: How long is your lease for?
Mr. Howard: I have a five year lease with opfion to buy.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
William McEvoy, 33900 Wadsworth. It's one of the few residences in the area.
My concern was the development of this property, but I don't
see much problem. I understand that they're not going to
develop any more of the undeveloped property?
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, this gentlemen is not a developer. He's just leasing the
existing building.
Mr. McEvoy: Okay, so ...
Mr. Alanskas: He has nothing to do with the car wash to the east. There was
going to be a car wash there.
Mr. McEvoy: No. My concern was the wooded area in the back. I appreciate
the Commission's concern for the noise.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: I just want to make it clear that this petition only includes
occupancy of the existing building. The balance of the property,
22870
which is undeveloped, @ does not preclude future development
of that property. Iljust is not apart of this petition.
Mr. McEvoy: Okay. I understand. Thank you. And the only concem I would
have with the lighting that exists now, the temporary storage of
automobiles, are they going to remain there?
Mr. Howard: As far as I know, no.
Mr. Alanskas: Please address me.
Mr. McEvoy: I'm Sony.
Mr. Alanskas: You mean the parking lot?
Mr. McEvoy: There are cars that are stored in the back.
Mr. Alanskas: Will those be removed?
Mr. Howard: I only have 30 feet behind the building. Anything that is past
that is through the owners. Dick Scott is storing vehicles there.
I don't have anything to do with that at all.
Mr. Alanskas: Mark, were you aware that Dick Scott is parking cars back
there?
Mr. Taormina: We are aware that some cars are being stored back there. I
was not aware of which dealer was using that area. It is
consistent with the permitted use of that land area, but its
probably only a temporary circumstance.
Mr. Alanskas: Anything else, sir?
Mr. McEvoy: No, I think that covers it.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you for coming in. Anyone else? Seeing no one,
a motion is in order.
On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#12-127-2006 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 2005,
on Petition 2005-10-02-20, submitted by U.S. Tire Company,
Inc., requesting waiver use approval to operate a retail lire and
auto repair facility at 33850 Plymouth Road, located on the
22871
north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and
Stark Road in the Southeast % of Section 28, the Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2005-10-02-20 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan/Landscape Plan submitted by U.S. Tire
Company and Yukon Coffee Company, with a revision dale
of December 5, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, subject to the following stipulations:
That all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
That all landscaped and sodded areas shall be
provided with an automatic underground irrigation
system;
2. That the entire parking lot and driveway within the U.S.
TireNukon Coffee lease area shall be repaved and
propedy striped to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department;
3. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including
the provision of barrier free parking with proper signage,
marking and configuration, and all regular parking spaces
shall be 10'x 20' in size as required;
4. That there shall be no overnight outdoor parking or storage
of vehicles on the site, with all overnight parking or storage
of vehicles occurring only inside the building;
5. That the subject facility shall conduct automobile and light
truck repair work consisting of repairs such as motor and
electrical tune-up, replacement of tires, shock absorbers,
brakes, mufflers, exhaust and tailpipes and other similar
repairs;
6. That repair work conducted at this facility shall not include
collision repair;
22872
7. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts,
equipment, scrap material, debris, waste petroleum
products or other similar items generated by be subject
use;
8. That a dumpster endosure shall be constructed in the rear
yard with masonry walls and having metal gates which
shall be properly maintained and, when not in use, dosed
at all times;
9. That the overhead doors serving the auto repair facility
shall remain closed except when vehicles are entering or
exiting the building;
10. That this approval shall incorporate the following stipulation
contained in the letter dated October 31, 2005, from the
Livonia Fire and Rescue Division:
- If subject building is to be provided with an automatic
sprinkler system, an on-site hydrant shall be located
between 50 feet and 100 feel from the Fire Department
connection;
11. That the Wall Signage Design portrayed on the color
rendering prepared by Vital Sgns, depicting a 96 square
foot wall sign on the south elevation, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
12. That the Ground Signage Design portrayed on the color
rendering prepared by Vital Signs, depicting a 29.6 square
fool ground sign, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
to;
13. That any additional signage shall be separately submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
City Council;
14. That no LED Ilighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the window;
15. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of
application for the Building, Occupancy and Zoning
Compliance Permits.
22873
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 any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: I want to thank this gentleman for selecting Livonia to do
business.
Mr. Howard: Thankyou.
Mr. Alanskas: When would you expect to open?
Mr. Howard: As soon as I can. I have already ordered equipment. I'm going
to tryfor February or March if it's possible.
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 #5 PETITION 200540-02-21 YUKON COFFEE CO.
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-02-21,
oos10-02-21, submitted by Yukon Coffee Co., requesting waiver
use approval to operate a full service restaurant at 33850
Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast
of Section 28.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
22874
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 2, 2005, 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. There is no additional
right -0f -way required. The following legal description should be
used for this waiver use." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 31, 2005, which
reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan
submitted in connection with a request to operate a full service
restaurant on property located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the
southeast X of section 28. We have no objections to this
proposal with the following stipulation: If subject building is to
be provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on site
hydrant shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet from the
Fire Department connection." The letter is signed by Andrew C.
Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of
Police, dated November 2, 2005, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the plans in connection with Yukon Coffee Co.
located at 33850 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated November 16,
2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
October 23, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site is deficient in
parking and will require a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals. The combined use requires a minimum of 74 parking
spaces with 50 plusrminus being provided. U.S. Tire requires
27 spaces and Yukon Coffee requires 47 spaces. This petition
is reviewed as though the entire parking lot and driveway will be
repaved and property striped. It is also reviewed as the east
building is to be demolished. It is unclear if the petitioner has
the authority to guarantee completion of the above items. This
should be clarified to the Commission and Council's satisfaction.
This Department has no further objections to this petition." The
letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection.
The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development
Authority, dated December 9, 2005, which reads as follows: "At
the 174th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development
Authority of the City of Livonia held on December 8, 2005, the
22875
following resolution was unanimously adopted. #2005-39
RESOLVED, that he Plymouth Road Development Authority
does hereby support in concept the proposed plans as
submitted by Yukon Coffee Co. requesting waiver use approval
to operate a full service restaurant at 33850 Plymouth Road,
located on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Southeast X of Section
28, subject to compliance with all City codes and ordinances, as
such may be modified by the action of the Planning Commission
and/or City Council." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy,
PRDA Director. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, inasmuch as the seating inside this facility has been
reduced, would it be proper to change this petition to a limited
service because there are only 29 seats inside?
Mr. Taormina:
The total seating would be 56 including 29 interior and 27
outside patio seats. Typically, we would look at the sum total of
both the interior and the outside for a determination of whether
or not it constitutes a limited service restaurant, which is
anything under 30, or a full service restaurant, which is anything
over 30. Because we combined the two and its over 30.. .
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You want to count the outside patio?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. We'll still call it a full service restaurant.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. Just a question because I thought it came under 30
seats this time.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would the petitioner come forward again?
Lary Howard,
U.S. Tire Company, Inc., 1865 Lone Wolf Lane, Canton, Michigan
48188
Mr. Alanskas:
Why do you have to have so much outside seating?
Mr. Howard:
I'm planning on Yukon to be a destination that people aren't
necessarily going to come there because of auto repairs. As
you see on the plan, the landscaping is going to be significant
for the patio. All across the front of Yukon is all window. I
want people to be able to go out on the patio and sit down. It
sits back approximately 100 feet from the street. The
landscaping will be tom 10 to 16 feel wide, depending on the
22876
area. It will be built up so if you're sitting down on the patio,
even sitting inside, you won't see the street. And there are a lot
of different types of plants that will be there to create a sound
barrier. I dont know if everybody will be using the patio. I hope
so. We'll be adding some awning to the front of it to give it a
distinctive look. The sign will be one that looks like it's routed
out. It will be a three dimension sign. It won't be an interior lit
sign.
Mr. Alanskas:
Did you just say you want to put awnings on the outside of the
building?
Mr. Howard:
It will be like a fabric awning.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, doesn't he have to come before us for approval for that?
Mr. Taormina:
It depends on the extent of the modification and where it's
located on the building. I would reserve judgment until I see
exactly what he wants to do there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Another question is, how would you take care of people eating
outside as far as refuse?
Mr. Howard :
We would have covered trash containers outside. I don't know
how many people will be eating outside, but there would be
covered refuse containers.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would you be going outside to make sure refuse is picked up
and put in the containers?
Mr. Howard:
Oh, yeah. I have a lady that's going to be managing Yukon
Coffee. She opened up most of the Appleby stores that are in
Michigan right now. She's well versed in food service.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think you've been very thorough.
Mr. Morrow:
Will there be a wail staff or will it be self -serve with a counter?
Mr. Howard:
It would be self -serve.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. But there will be somebody responsible for policing the
area?
Mr. Howard:
Oh yes. I've already hired the lady to manage the coffee shop
because that's her expertise.
22877
Mr. LaPine:
Is there going to be like a coffee bar where people sit at a
counter?
Mr. Howard:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
Just strictly seats?
Mr. Howard :
Strictly tables, a couple couches.
Mr. LaPine:
No booths?
Mr. Howard:
No.
Mr. Atanskas:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by
Shane, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-128-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 2005,
on Petition 200570-02-21, submitted by Yukon Coffee Co.,
requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant at 33850 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in
the Southeast % of Section 28, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 200510-02-
21 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan/Landscape Plan submitted by U.S. Tire
Company and Yukon Coffee Company, with a revision date
of December 5, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, subject to the following stipulations:
- That all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
- That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
- That all landscaped and sodded areas shall be
provided with an automatic underground irrigation
system;
2. That the entire parking lot and driveway within the U.S.
TireNukon Coffee lease area shall be repaved and
22878
properly striped to the satisfaction of the Inspection
Department;
3. That all parking spaces shall be double striped, including
the provision of barrier free parking with proper signage,
marking and configuration, and all regular parking spaces
shall be 10'x20' in size as required;
4. That the Outdoor Patio Seating Plan submitted by Yukon
Coffee Company, as revised, received by the Planning
Commission on November 29, 2005, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to, with the outdoor seating being
confined to portions of the adjacent southeasterly patio
area directly in front of the subject restaurant unit as shown
on the plan;
5. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed 56 seats, including 29 seats inside the building and
27 outdoor seats;
6. That the outdoor dining shall be conducted in a manner
that will insure that sufficient clear space for pedestrian
circulation is maintained at all times;
7. That a trash receptade shall be provided for the outdoor
dining area and shall be emptied regularly as needed;
8. That a dumpster endosure shall be constructed in the rear
yard with masonry walls and having metal gates which
shall be properly maintained and, when not in use, shall be
closed at all times;
9. That no signage is approved for the subject restaurant use
in connection with this approving resolution; all such
signage shall be separately submitted for review and
approved bythe Planning Commission and City Council;
10. That no LED lighthand or exposed neon shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
11. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of
application for the Building, Occupancy and Zoning
Compliance permits.
22679
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 any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: Yes. I heard earlier tonight there were going to be 27 seats
inside and 27 seals outside, for a total of 54 seals. Condition 5
addresses 56 seals. Should that be modified to 27 seats inside
and 27 seals outside?
Mr. Howard: There will be 29 inside and 27 outside.
Mr. Morrow: Okay, so our surplus now becomes four parking spaces instead
of six, right?
Mr. Taormina: No, it's 27 and 27.
Mr. Morrow: So should we modify Condition 5?
Mr. Alanskas: To make it read 54 instead of 56.
Mr. Taormina: We'll straighten that out either way.
Mr. Morrow: It's a minor detail.
Mr. Taormina: The petitioner is saying 29, but I think the plans are showing 27.
Mr. Alanskas: Our notes say 29.
Mr. Taormina: It's 29 seats. The parking requirement is still 27, but you're
talking about the seats. Condition 5 is still correct. Twenty-nine
rrrrm
Mr. Piercecchi:
seats inside the building, 27 outdoor, and the parking
requirement is sell 27 for that.
Mr. Morrow:
And the surplus is four.
Mr. Taormina:
And the surplus is still six. No, the surplus is cored. We've got
building
it right.
Mr. Morrow:
I thoughlyou said there were 60 parking spaces.
Mr. Taormina:
There are 60 parking spaces, and there's a requirement for 54
spaces.
Mr. Morrow:
No, you said 56.
Mr. Taormina:
I apologize if I said 56.
Mr. LaPine:
Mr. Taormina, one question. I realize the question I'm going to
ask the petitioner has no control over, but the old car wash on
the east side of that building, is there anyway we can gel with
the owner of the properly to demolish that building?
Mr. Taormina:
The future plans for the development of that property would
include demolition of that building.
Mr. LaPine:
We can't get it...
Mr. Taormina:
That's something that we could talk to him about to see if t
could be done sooner rather than later.
Mr. LaPine:
I think it lakes away from the attraction of the new building with
that old auto wash there.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I thought it was coming down.
Mr. Alanskas:
I know at one time, on that
building
you're
refening
to, we
approved a beautiful car wash, but unfortunately it didn't come
about. You're really selling a precedent with this coffee shop for
a fire company. You're going to give Belle Tire and Marsh Tire
a ran for their money.
Mr. Howard: I hope so. I have a different vision of what it should look like
than all the other facilities.
22881
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #6 PETITION 200541-02-22 RALPH THAYER MAZDA
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
11-02-22,
00511-02-22, submitted by Architects & Planners, Inc., on behalf of
Ralph Thayer Automotive, requesting waiver use approval to
construct and operate a Mazda automotive dealership
showroom and service addition at 34601 Plymouth, located on
the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and
Laurel Avenue in the Northwest %of Section 33.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property 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 November 8, 2005, which reads
as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division
has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no
objections to the proposal at this time. No additional right -of my
is required and the legal description on the boundary survey is
correct. From the information provided, it is not possible to
determine if the storm sewer on the west side of the existing
building outlets to the south and will be under the proposed
addition. The designer should investigate this situation and
consider relocating the storm sewer if necessary." The letter is
signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
November 10, 2005, which reads as follows: `This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct a Mazda dealership showroom and service addition
on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Stark Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest X of
Section 33. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter
is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The third letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated November 16, 2005,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of November
7, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) The signage proposed for the site will
need to receive variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for
22882
excessive number of signs and excessive square footage of
monument sign. (2) It is unclear if cross parking
agreementsreasements are in place concerning this campus.
This should be clarified to the Commission and Council's
satisfaction. (3) All required and proposed customer parking
areas must be double striped. This will also differentiate it from
inventory parking and permanently serve as notice that
inventory does not get improperly stored or displayed. (4) This
site will also need a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals
for parking vehicles closer than 20 feet from the front lot line or
will need to obtain specific approval from a super majority of
Council by separate resolution. (5) As the use in the two story
building may be different than before, there may be
accessibili6obarrier free issues to be resolved which will be
completed at this Department's plan review should the project
move forward. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. The fourth letter is from the Plymouth Road
Development Authority, dated November 29, 2005, which reads
as follows: "At the 1W Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on November
22, 2005, the following resolution was unanimously adopted.
#2005-36 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development
Authority does hereby support the proposed plans as presented
by Architects 8 Planners, Inc., on behalf of Ralph Thayer
Automotive, to construct and operate a Mazda automotive
dealership showroom and service addition at 34601 Plymouth,
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark
Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest X of Section 33
(Petition 2005-11-02-22), subject to compliance with all City
codes and ordinances and the Plymouth Road Development
streetscape goals and objectives, as such may be modified by
the action of the Planning Commission and/or City Council."
The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, PRDA Director . That is
the extent ofthe correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions for the staff? Mark, I want to make sure
there will be no elevated ramps in the front of the property
displaying cars.
Mr. Taormina: Well, they're not showing any.
That's
something
that you'd
probably want to add as a
condition
with any
resolution
approving this item.
Mr. Alanskas: We can talk to the petitioner more when he comes forward. Is
the petitioner here this evening?
22883
Adam Thayer, AAT Property, 34501 Plymouth, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm the
general manager of Ralph Thayer Automotive.
Scott Sherman,
Architects & Planners, Inc., 9429 South Main, Plymouth,
Michigan 48170.
Mr. Alanskas:
What would you like to add to Mr. Taormina's presentation?
Mr. Sherman:
A couple points. First of all, one hot point issue that I've learned
so far tonight is the noise in the service areas. This project is
proposing an air conditioned service garage, in which case the
door obviously would be kept dosed during the summer to help
alleviate that problem. Another issue that was brought up was
the fad that the monument sign that is shown on the site plan is
in excess of what the ordinance allays area wise. I just want to
point out that the monument sign that's proposed is the exact
monument sign that already exists for the Mazda dealership.
That sign exists on the east side of the site. We're simply
relocating it from the east side of the site to the west side of the
site. I appreciate the fact that it isn't the concern of the
Commission, but the sign that is proposed is the smallest
standard Mazda sign that they make in the United Stales, and
that's why it is there. On the subject of signage, the overall
square footage of signage that we're proposing for this project is
actually less than the allowed amount because the wall signage
is less. I have the percentages here, but we have less wall
signage. We have more monument signage, but the overall
sum of those two numbers is less than what the ordinance
allays. I do understand that it really isn't relevant, but I just
wanted to make that point. Other than that, we're ready for
questions.
Mr. LaPine:
I have one question. Something that always bothers me
because we always get after gas stations that put covers over
their pumps. This canopy, what are these? Just steel poles?
Mr. Sherman:
Yes, steel poles. Structural support for the ...
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any way these can be brick instead of steel? We
always try to gel the gas stations to change those from steel
poles to brick.
Mr. Sherman:
There's a couple of issues with that. First of all, this is a
beautiful building, but Architects and Planners Inc. didn't design
R. The design of this building is set forth by Mazda with their
image program, and the actual designer is a firm in California
called Design Forum. That image element is what dictates to
us, as the architect, what we can shay on the outside of the
building, and that drive center canopy with that steel column is
what is dictated to us by the Mazda design people. If its
important to go back and suggest brick, I certainly would be
happy to do that, but I can tell tram the basic design here, which
is kind of the high tech look, that brick would not be consistent
with the rest of the design. The other issue is that surrounding
that steel column with brick is going to take some space. The
space on this site is pretty light. Those cars that you see under
there are actually poised for lest driving and not necessarily
display. So that prospective customers are going to come in,
get in those cars, and use them for their test driving. Frankly,
the owner would appreciate giving the prospective customers as
much space as possible to get in and out of the car and to get
the car out from underneath the canopy without substantial
damage to either the canopy or the car. So that's my response
to your question.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm not convinced but I understand your problem.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
You mentioned car testing. You're not going to use Laurel as a
racetrack?
Mr. Sherman:
Absolutely not. We're going to use Plymouth Road.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
We've always had problems with loading and unloading.
Mr. Sherman:
I understand, and I want to point out that the Thayer Automotive
Group is actually a new owner to this whole complex. And I
Teamed in a preliminary meeting with the city planners that there
were a number of issues with the previous owner with respect to
Laurel and the unloading of the car haulers and so on. And that
is not the practice of the new owner. In conjunction with this
site, the owner also has a car storage facility further west on
Plymouth Road, and its actually at that car storage facility
where the car haulers unload their cars and the cars are then
moved to this site.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
That would be a blessing to the area if you could stay off of
Laurel.
Mr. Sherman:
The other thing I want to point out, loo, in terms of using Laurel
as a test track, the only exit from the front of this dealership for
the test driving is onto Plymouth Road. They would have to
make a left hand tum out of the dealership onto Plymouth Road
22885
for their lest drive, and its not likely that they would do that. It's
more likely they're going to tum right and head east.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'll ask you the same question I asked Mr. Taormina. You will
not have any elevated ramps to display cars.
Mr. Sherman:
No.
Mr. Thayer:
It doesn't have to be there on the future plan.
Mr. Sherman:
The one that's there currently isn't on this site though.
Mr. Thayer:
Its on the northeast comer.
Mr. Sherman:
Okay. Its coming out.
Mr. Alanskas:
That, to me, is very important.
Mr. Sherman:
Yeah.
Mr. Alanskas:
Not to have an elevated ramp.
Mr. Sherman:
Right. There are no elevated ramps proposed on this site on
the exterior of the building.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right.
Mr. Sherman:
The jewel case display on the inside of the building ...
Mr. Alanskas:
I dont care about that.
Mr. Sherman:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
Question number two is, which Mr. Piercecohi talked about, a lot
of times on a Saturday morning you people will put your car
haulers on Plymouth Road and unload vehicles. That happens.
Mr. Thayer:
It happens periodically.
Mr. Alanskas:
And that's dangerous.
Mr. Thayer:
Absolutely. We direct all of our car haulers. There are
instructions that they get from us that has the address of our
storage lot. We're not there all the time necessarily to police
them. Our policy is to use the storage lot. We try to
communicate that as much as we can to the car haulers.
1�:1:1a
Mr. Alanskas:
I think it has to be policed better because a lot of times they are
on Plymouth Road obstructing traffic.
Mr. Thayer:
I've seen them out there, and I've asked them to move.
Mr. Alanskas:
How can we stop that?
Mr. Thayer:
That's a good question.
Mr. Alanskas:
Can you ask some of your people there when they unload to
make sure they dont go on Plymouth Road?
Mr. Thayer:
Absolutely.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think that's very important.
Mr. Morrow:
This jewel box and the car is on the second floor?
Mr. Sherman:
Actually, all that is, is a service car lift. So the car comes in on
the first floor, gets on this service lift, and that service lift just
pushes it up so that you can see it through a window on the
second floor. It isn't really all that fancy, but don't tell Mazda
that.
Mr. Morrow:
So there's nothing below it?
Mr. Sherman:
No, there isn't.
Mr. Moroi:
Okay, I was wondering how you were going to gel that car up.
Mr. LaPine:
I just have one other question. Under our ordinance, it has to
be set back from Plymouth Road 20 feel. You're proposing 10
feet. Nov, on that 10 feel, are you going to have cars out there
for display?
Mr. Sherman:
Yes. Just to the east of the drive, there are four spaces. Its
intended for those to be display spaces. But I want to point out
that the parking lot that you see is all existing. We're not
expanding any parking. Actually, we are taking away some of
the hard surface and adding some landscaping area, but we're
not adding any hard surface area to what's already there.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. I just have a problem because I know there's one
dealership in town, they seem to be pushing their cars closer
and closer to Plymouth Road.
22887
Mr. Alanskas: Right on the sidewalk
Mr. La Pine: And that bothers me.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition?
Jim Dupuie, 11196 Laurel Street. You've stolen some of my thunder already by
addressing the traffic on our street. Some of you might
remember when the New Car Allemafive went in, we had a lot
of problems with customers parking on Laurel and going over to
view vehicles. While, Mr. Taormina, I might agree with you that
the 10 customer parking spots might be sufficient to satisfy the
requirement, I can almost certainly guarantee you folks that cars
will be parking on Laurel Street to walk over to this dealer just
because of proximity. It's the closest spot between two points
and they're going to do it. I'm not sure how we can alleviate
that. I would like to see, specifically, the right -0f way that exits
onto Laurel Street . I realize and I've been told by the
petitioners that it looks like that would be used mostly by
mechanics, but I'd like to see, and I realize it would be an
unenforceable sign, but I'd like to see a "no left tum' sign
erected there. Mr. Tanski was kind enough when he
constructed the dealership on the other side to put a "no right
tum" sign. Now it is ignored often, but I know that some of the
customers that use that might actually take heed and give us a
little bit of a break. I suggest to you that while customers may
exit that area and go down Plymouth Road, they've got to come
back somehow. They're going to use Laurel Street to come
back. It's going to happen. There's not a lot I can do about it.
I'm certain there's not a lot the petitioner can do about it. But I
think its important that you folks know that's something we're
going to have to deal with. Any overhead door that faces the
residents, it can be air conditioned and it can be closed, but it's
got to be open sometime. There's already an overhead door on
the Volkswagen service facility Chats very often loud back there.
Another overhead door concems me. I'm not so certain it can
be changed at this point, and I think at this point that's probably
all I have to add. I'm not necessarily against it. However, Mr.
Nowak this last week was kind enough to make me a copy of
part of the proposal here. On mine, it reads, proposed one story
addition. The rendering shows two. It even reads one story
addition there. So now I'm a little bit confused as to why.
ry�:lrt
Mr. Alanskas: The one story addition is going on lop of the existing addition,
which will give it two stories.
Mr. Sherman: Can I respond to that?
Mr. Alanskas: Yes, you can
Mr. Sherman: It's a one story addition that's 24 feel high. What that means is
there isn't any additional second floor area proposed in that ...
Mr. Thayer: There is an existing second floor. The addition is all single
story.
Mr. Dupuie:
Okay. That's why it reads proposed one story addition. I was a
little bit confused. Okay. Anyway, that's what I would like to
see happen. I realize that maybe the "no lett tum" sign may not
be an issue for your group, but it's something that I think might
be important for us and it might help us.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think you'll agree that this new addition will really decrease the
traffic on Laurel though.
Mr. Dupuie:
The fad that they're laking out the right -0f -way will help, but
again, that may actually increase because there is no other way
to gel in there. I can now see cars saying, oh, there's the sign.
Go down here and turnaround in our driveway and come back.
I'm the only one on the street with a circular driveway, so on the
weekends it's kind of lough. They may like to hear that because
it increases their business, but the reality is, I mean, I don't have
a paved driveway for the citizens to use.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you for coming in.
Mr. Dupuie:
Okay. Thankyoufolks. MerryChnstmas.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there anybody else? Any last words you'd like to say?
Mr. Sherman:
I'd like to respond to some ofthis gentleman's comments.
Mr. Alanskas: Sure.
Mr. Sherman: First of all, the addition of the "no left hand turn" sign, certainly.
We can accommodate that. That's not an issue. The likelihood
of people parking on Laurel, although we can't control where
people drive and we cant control where people park when they
get in their car, the fad of the matter is, it would be more
ryilx1
convenient for people to park in the Volkswagen dealership and
go to the Mazda dealership than it would be for them to park on
Laurel. When you look at the parking for this whole campus,
and this is a campus. There will be one owner. We actually
have additional customer parking spaces when you take into
consideration the required parking spaces for all three
dealerships. We have more than what is necessary. Right now,
there is a change in grade between the Volkswagen dealership
and the Mazda dealership, and we are proposing to put some
steps in there to make it more convenient for people to actually
park in the Volkswagen area and access the Mazda area. So I
agree with the gentleman. People will do what they want to do,
but from a convenience point of view, I think its going to be
more convenient for people to park in the Volkswagen area if
they need additional parking.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. A motion in is order.
Mr. Taormina:
Mr. Chairman, just one point of clarification. A condition should
be added to include a "no left tum" sign. It is my understanding
that would be for the only remaining drive approach onto Laurel
Street. Is that cored, Jim?
Mr. Dupuie:
Yes, the rest will be closed.
Mr. Morrow:
Is that part of this resolution?
Mr. Taormina:
It is not part of the prepared resolution.
Mr. Morrow:
I'll ask you to add it after I finish up based on what you've said.
I've got enough to read here now.
On a motion by
Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-129-2005
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been
held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 2005,
on Petition 200571-02-22, submitted by Architects & Planners,
Inc., on behalf of Ralph Thayer Automotive, requesting waiver
use approval to construct and operate a Mazda automotive
dealership showroom and service addition at 34601 Plymouth,
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark
Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest % of Section 33, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 200511-02-22 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
22690
1. That the Ralph Thayer Automotive Overall Campus Site
Plan marked Sheet A-101 prepared by Architects and
Planners, Inc., dated November 4, 2005, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the Mazda Dealership Site Plan marked Sheet A-102
prepared by Architects and Planners, Inc., dated
November 4, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the Landscape Plan and Details Plan marked Sheet
A-104 prepared by Architects and Planners, Inc., dated
November 4, 2005, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to, subject to the following stipulations:
That all planted materials shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
That an automatic underground irrigation system shall
be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas;
4. That the Building Elevation Plans marked Sheets A-301
and X302 prepared by Architects and Planners, Inc., both
dated November 4, 2005, are hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
5. That the masonry/split face block precast unit system used
in the construction of the building shall meet ASTM 216
standards;
6. That the wall signage package as shown on the North
Building Elevation Plan, depicting four (4) separate wall
signs with a total area of 112 square feel, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to, subject to the granting
of a variance for excess numbers of wall signs by the
Zoning Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining
thereto;
7. That the ground sign shown on the above -referenced
Landscape Plan and Details Plan, with a sign area of 36
square feet, is hereby approved, provided that the sign is
placed at least ten (10) feet from the Plymouth Road and
22891
Laurel Avenue rights-of-way, subject to the granting of a
variance for excessive square footage for a ground sign by
the Zoning Board of Appeals and any conditions pertaining
thereto;
8. That the petitioner shall submit appropriate documentation
(reviewed by the Department of Law) indicating that cross
parking agreements/easements are in place concerning
the overall automotive campus;
9. That all required and proposed customer parking shall be
double striped to differentiate it from inventory parking and
permanently serve as notice that inventory does not get
improperly stored or displayed;
10. That this site will need a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for parking vehicles closer than 20 feet from the
front lot line or will need to obtain specific approval from a
super majority of City Council by separate resolution;
11. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
12. That all regular parking spaces shall be 10' x 20' in size
and the required handicapped space shall be properly
located, sized and signed;
13. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts,
equipment, scrap material, waste petroleum products or
other similar items in connection with the auto service
facility, and the overhead doors, when not in use for
vehides entering or exiting the service facility, shall be
closed at all times;
14. That the proposed site lighting fixtures to be mounted on
the building shall be shielded to control the light beyond the
property line;
15. 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;
22892
16. That no offloading of car haulers shall take place on the
automotive dealership campus, nor within the public right-
of-way;
17. That the elevated outdoor display of vehides on lifts,
ramps or other similar apparatus is prohibited;
18. That a "no left turn" sign shall be installed on the adjacent
body shop site at the drive approach onto Laurel Avenue;
19. That no outside loud speakers are allowed anywhere on
the site; and
20. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall
be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time of
application for the building permits.
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;
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?
Mr. Morrow :
Mark, you'll work in that condition that you made reference lo?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, that would read 'that a no left tum sign shall be installed on
the adjacent body shop site at the drive approach onto Laurel
Avenue" And if the maker of the motion would consider an
additional condition that would indicate "no outside loud
speakers are allowed anywhere on the site"
Mr. Morrow:
I would more than concur with that.
22893
Mr. Sherman:
Excuse me. Can I ask a question?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Sherman:
On one of the resolution points about the elevated display, I
didn't hear that was limited ...
Mr. Alanskas:
That's on the outside of the building.
Mr. Sherman:
Yes, it said exterior.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Sherman:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
When do you expect after your approval from Council that you
would start building this?
Mr. Sherman:
Our construction manager is silting in the audience, and he told
mein February. We're on a fast track.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #7 PETITION 200540-06-03 PARKING SPACES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
10-06-03,
00510-06-03, submitted by the City Planning Commission, 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 Section 2.09 of Article 11, Definitions, and Section 18.37
of Article XVIII, Supplementary Regulations, of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, so as to reduce the minimum
parking space size for designated employee parking spaces.
Mr. Alanskas: This petition is brought about by the City Planning Commission.
I'll let Mr. Taormina give us a dissertation on this agenda item.
Mr. Taormina: I'll try not to make it a dissertation. This proposed language
amendment, if adopted, would allow for a reduction in the size
of off-street parking spaces where such spaces are designated
for employee parking only. Currently, a single standard of 10' x
20' applies in the case of all non-residential off-street parking
22894
spaces. Parking space size is regulated under Section 2.09,
Definitions of Parking Terms, and Section 18.37, Off -Street
Parking Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance. The
established 10 foot width requirement has been in place since
1965. Prior to this, the minimum standard was nine feet. In
1980, the Planning Commission recommended amending the
ordinance to permit smaller parking space sizes. However,
rather than decrease the minimum parking stall width, the
Council instead reduced the minimum required area from 220
square feet to 200 square feel. The proposed amendment
differentiates employee parking, which lends to be on a long-
term regular basis, from that of customer parking, which
involves more frequent short-term stays. The revised language
would establish a separate standard of 9' x 20' for designated
employee parking spaces. For all other parking spaces, the 10'
x 20' standard would remain unchanged. At the pre -hearing
review, it was suggested that any amendment allowing for a
reduction in the width of parking stalls only apply to designated
employee parking for office and industrial land uses, and not
retail. Also, several commissioners are of the opinion that a cap
should be placed on the number of nine fool wide spaces that
are permitted on any given site, possibly as a percentage of the
total required parking for the use or building. Because
addifional study is still needed to properly address the Planning
Commission's concerns, we would recommend that the
Planning Commission table this item for further study.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Morrow: Mark, I think one of the reasons we were looking into this is
because some of our neighboring communities have such an
ordinance.
Mr. Taormina: Yes. Most communities in the area do allow for slightly
narrower parking spaces than what we allow for, between 9 and
9-1/2 feet as opposed to 10 feet. There are those communities
that do require 10 feet but they are few and far between.
Mr. Morrow: And do they differentiate between customer and employee
parking?
Mr. Taormina: Not that I'm aware of, no. Most of those standards apply to any
off-street parking for commercial land uses.
Mr. Morrow: I was going to say ifthere was any known, I'd like to take a look
attheir ordinances.
22895
Mr. Taormina:
We'll take a look but I'm not sure that we'll find any communities
that do.
Mr. Morrow:
Well, just ask them if they differentiate. If they dont, then its
not part of our deal. Because they are doing it, I just want to
know what they're doing, if it reflects ours, where we're going.
Thankyou.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The motion wasn'lsupporled so we can still discuss it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Not yet, no.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I believe we're embarking on a questionable nine foot space
territory, and I agree this should be tabled to answer some of
the quesfions, such as minimum number or percentage of
spaces which would be allowed, is it going to be a minimum of
10' x 20' inasmuch as the nine footers are supposedly to be for
the office staff because you don't have to worry loo much about
doors getting banged up, people going in and out of these
spaces because they'll sit there for nine hours. Also, I'd like to
comment that it might be better to make nine fool spaces
available if we could really define it and make it a waiver use.
That might be the best solution. Then we can control them one
at a time. All these questions I have. So I think tabling is an
excellentidea.
Mr. LaPine: I guess my position is, I don't want to give a blanket so
everybody gets the same thing. Say a developer comes in.
He's got a big parcel of land. He can build a building and he
can give us the 10' x 20'. As long as our ordinance now says he
can have 9' x 20, he's going to lake advantage of it, and
consequently what happens, we gel a larger building. I think we
have to look at each individual case. I'd like to see something
done - I don't know if this is possible - whereby as part of a site
plan approval, that the Planning Commission would, in
conjunction with the City Council, we can waive the parking
spaces for an individual if he can give us enough information or
proof that he needs the nine foot space because of the size of
his property. I think one of the problems that we've heard is
developers, when they have to go through the Zoning Board of
Appeals every time, (hats just another process that they have to
go through. If we can handle that process at this end, in
conjunction with the Council, and eliminate he Zoning Board of
Appeals, if we approve it as part of the site plan approval, and I
think we should look into that.
22896
Mr. Alanskas: I'm sure we will. Anybody else?
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-130-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 200570-06-03 submitted by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #137-05,
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 Section 2.09 of Article 11, Definitions,
and Section 18.37 of Arlide XVIII, Supplementary Regulations,
of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, so as to reduce the
minimum parking space size for designated employee parking
spaces, be tabled for further study.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. That conduces the public hearing portion of
ouragenda.
ITEM #8 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Capital
Improvements Programs for years 2006-2011, as amended.
Mr. Alanskas: Are there any questions for the staff regarding this document?
Mr. La Pine: I have a question. Maybe Mark can answer this for me. For the
Veterans Park Memorial Plaza, there's $300,000. 1 thought that
was being funded by donations?
Mr. Taormina: It is principally donations and potential grants.
Mr. LaPine: How does the City gel involved on a private operation here?
Mr. Taormina: This is a city project on city -owned property. We identify all
capital expenditures regardless of the funding source, including
those involving grants.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you want that adoption read, or we can just say it's
approved?
Mr. Taormina: I think you can just reference the resolution as prepared.
22897
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was
resolved that
#12-131-2005 WHEREAS, pursuant to state law, the City Planning
Commission is responsible for the preparation of a Capital
Improvements Program for the ensuing six years; and
WHEREAS, the 2006 - 2011 Capital Improvements Program,
prepared through a joint effort of several City departments, has
been submitted to the City Planning Commission for
consideration; and
WHEREAS, a duly -noticed City Planning Commission public
meeting was held on June 28, 2005 and December 13, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Program presents a
realistic program to aid in the determination of a complete fiscal
planning strategy for the City of Livonia; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission stands ready to do
all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and City
Council in maintaining a functioning program of capital
improvements and capital budgeting for the City of Livonia;
therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission hereby
adopts the 2006 - 2011 Capital Improvements Program; and
BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission
recommends the City Council adopt this Capital Improvements
Program and use it as a guide to funding priority capital projects
with the program.
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the mofion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an
approving resolution.
ITEM #9 PETITION 2001 -08 -PL -02 RAMBLING ACRES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2001-
08 -PL -02, submitted by Frank and Rosalie Tislerics requesting
Final Plat approval of Rambling Acres Subdivision, proposed to
be located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Plymouth Road and Hathaway Avenue in the Northeast 114 of
Section 33.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right, this is the petition that we gave preliminary plat
approval and now we're looking for final plat approval. A motion
is in order.
Mr. LaPine:
Do we have any plans or anything? That's t?
Mr. Taormina:
You may not have a plan in your packet, but this is the final plat.
I can address any questions that you have. I'll just indicate that
the final plat is in full compliance with the approved preliminary
plat. For those of you not familiar with this, this is property that
is located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Richland and Hathaway Avenues. The zoning on this is RUF.
We approved the preliminary plat in 2002. This petition seeks to
record the final plat in accordance with that preliminary plat
showing the development of four sites, three of which would
have frontage on Farmington Road, and one lot would have
frontage on Richland Avenue.
Mr. LaPine:
I remember it now.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Would you like to have this approving resolution read into the
record?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes. Mr. LaPine is going to give the approving resolution.
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#12-132-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
approve the Final Plat for Rambling Acres Subdivision
submitted by Frank and Rosalie Tislerics, proposed to be
located on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth
Road and Hathaway Avenue in the Northeast 114 of Section 33,
for the following reasons:
1. That the Final Plat is in full compliance with the Preliminary
Plat;
2. That no City Department has objected to the approval of
the Final Plat; and
3. That the City Clerk has indicated that no financial
assurances are required with respect to this subdivision.
Mr. Alanskas, Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
22899
ITEM #10 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 915TM Public Hearings
and Regular Meeting
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda,
Approval of the Minutes of the 915"' Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October
25, 2005.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was
#12-133-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 915" Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October
25, 2005, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following
AYES: Shane, LaPine, Piercecohi, Morrow, Smiley,
Alanskas
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Walsh
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a mofion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 917" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 13, 2005, was adjourned at
10:24 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
RobertAlanskas, Acting Chairman