HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1998-06-09 16148
MINUTES OF THE 765th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
,., LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 9, 1998 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
765th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with
approximately 25 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Robert Alanskas Daniel Piercecchi Michael Hale
Elaine Koons William LaPine
Members absent: James C. McCann
Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present.
Mr. MeC—ann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning or vacating request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver of use or site plan approval request and the request is denied,
't.• the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise
the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a
request for preliminary plat approval. Planning Commission resolutions become
effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has
reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with
approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them
depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-1-8
by Carl V. Creighton representing Ronald Borkowski requesting to rezone
property located on the southwest corner of Clarita and Brentwood Streets in the
NW 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division dated May 15, 1998
stating they have no objections to the proposed zoning change. We also
have a petition signed by 76 residents, the majority on Brentwood, which
reads as follows: Dear Planning Commission Members, Recently you
received a request for rezoning (petition #98-4-1-8) by a Mr. Ron
Barkowski. Mr. Barkowski would like to rezone his rental property
16149
located at 28505 Clarita, located on the southwest corner of Brentwood
and Clarita, south of Seven Mile Road and east of Middlebelt. If our
�• information is correct, the property is 120 feet wide by 120 feet deep,
making the property.42 acres. Mr. Barkowski would like to rezone so he
can split the property to 60 feet wide by 120 feet deep, which is the
minimum size for R-1 lots in Livonia. Mr. Barkowski indicated to four of
our neighbors that he intends to build two new rental properties on the
lots, if allowed by the city. We, as a whole, would like to point out to the
board the reasons why we feel this would not be in the best interest of our
community, as a whole. 1) Out of the 47 properties located on
Brentwood, Pickford and Clarita, only 12 are not larger than .40 of an
acre. That is less than 25%of the properties surrounding Mr.
Barkowski's property. 2) Our neighborhood has been experiencing a
revitalization of existing homes over the past five years and by allowing
two more rental properties in a neighborhood where there are too many
already would not help our property values. 3) If our information is
correct, Mr. Barkowski already has four rentals in our neighborhood, one
across the street from the petitioned property and two on Pickford.
Although these other homes are newer than the petitioned property it is
obvious, maintenance is Mr. Barkowski's lowest priority. 4) Several of us
attempted to talk with Mr. Barkowski and work out a compromise, but in
his words, he doesn't care what we think, he will build homes regardless.
5) We also asked him if he lives in the neighborhood and he said yes,
however, later we found out from one of his renters that he lives in
Farmington Hills at Ten Mile Road and Farmington Road. 6) As you are
already aware, our neighborhood has been adamant about maintaining
our larger lots and not building new homes or roads which would create
smaller lots. We feel any lot that is divided in our neighborhood, retracts
from our goal. It is a reflection of our community. We moved to this
subdivision because of the spacious lots and the pride that the
homeowners have in their homes. Please help us to keep our
neighborhood in the condition we have worked so hard to maintain. As a
bigger picture, Livonia is losing its larger lots faster than the home owner
can blink an eye. This is one of those bad deals that cries out for justice.
Our neighbors understand the codes governing the classification of land,
i.e. RUF = .5 acres or more etc. We also understand that the board has
the right to deny Mr. Barkowski's request based on it not being in the best
interest of the neighborhood. We hope that after reading this petition and
seeing the turnout at this petition meeting you, as the board, will rule in
favor of the majority. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Carl Creighton and Ron Borkowski: As is evident by our application, we are seeking the
rezoning of this parcel from RUF to R-1. The ultimate intent is to remove
all the existing improvements and split this parcel into two lots, not at the
minimum of 60'x120'; one of the proposed lots will be 71'x135' facing
16150
Brentwood, and another 64' width and 135' in depth, also facing onto
Brentwood. The removal of the existing improvements that are centered
'gift,, and are very close to Clarita and the splitting of the lot to create two
houses similar in nature of the neighborhood homes that face onto
Brentwood, as a matter of fact almost directly aligned with them, and the
two lots that are similar size directly across from them and continuing on
with the pattern that follows Brentwood from Seven Mile Road down to
Clarita. The homes that will be built will be approximately 1200 square
foot ranch homes with attached garages, equal to or exceeding the average
square foot and value of all of the homes in the neighborhood. In response
to some of the points in the petition, there were some facts in error. The
size of the lot is substantially larger than that referenced in the petition and
it would be to create a more homogeneous development consistent with
Brentwood and the surrounding R-1 areas immediately to the north and
less than 1/2 block away to the east.
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you aware that the prevailing lots in this particular quadrant,
Clarita, Pickford, Maplewood and Brentwood, are half acre lots? As a
matter of fact, the average of the 22 lots in that quadrant is .58 acres. You
are proposing here to build on this lot which is .42 acres, a split of.22 and
.20 acres. The smallest lot in that area is .3 acres which is 50% larger than
the sites that you propose facing Brentwood Avenue.
... Mr. Creighton: I don't know what your definition of a quadrant is.
Mr. Piercecchi: One square block essentially. It's between Clarita and Pickford,
north-south and east-west between Brentwood and Maplewood. The
smallest lot in there is .3 acres which is 50% larger then what you are
proposing here. It has always been the goal of the Planning Commission
and the Council and the residents to try and retain as much as we can,
larger lot sizes, and we do that in the majority of cases. You are asking for
quite a change in that area. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Creighton: I am looking at a map and I won't quibble with you that within the
block that is the case. Within equal distance from there, there are smaller
lots.
Mr. Piercecchi: There are no smaller lots; .3 acres is the smallest.
Mr. LaPine: If your client gets this rezoning, is he going to build two houses for
rentals?
Mr. Creighton: That hasn't been determined yet. They will be either for rental or
resale.
16151
Mr. LaPine: I am very interested in if they are going to be rental or be sold.
Mr. Creighton: It will depend on the market at the time and when they were built
and what is going on.
Mr. LaPine: Is your client a builder? Is he going to build these houses?
Mr. Creighton: My client is not a licensed builder.
Mr. LaPine: So you are going to have a licensed builder build these houses?
Mr. Creighton: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have other rental properties in the area?
Mr. Creighton: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Have you ever lived in that neighborhood at all?
Mr. Borkowski: Yes, I have.
Mr. LaPine: How long has it been since you have been gone?
�... Mr. Borkowski: 25 years.
Mr. LaPine: The parcel we are talking about right now is not in the best shape. The
whole property is not in the best shape and on the surface it looks like it
may be a good idea to demolish the house and the building and build two
houses on there, but I have a problem. I'm glad to hear you are going to
have a licensed builder build the houses, but what would be the difference
between selling the homes off to an individual home owner who is going
to be there living in the house and who will maintain the property. A
landlord who is not there has a tendency to only come out and take care of
the property when he gets complaints from the renters or people in the
neighborhood. I feel like I could be more sympathetic to your case if I
knew you were going to sell the homes to individual homeowners who
would go in and maintain the property and homes.
Mr. Borkowski: I can answer that by saying I have been in the landlord business for
35 years and maintaining my property in Livonia at least 25 years, and at
the market I will be selling these properties when I get them done or rent
them will be compatible to the neighborhood.
Robert Alanskas: Tonight is a zoning issue, whether you should go from RUF to R-
1. We are deviating, but I have no problem with that. When you rent
16152
these properties, do you check on these rentals with the people who are
renting these homes? Do you go back and see what the condition of these
'r► homes are?
Mr. Borkowski: I maintain my properties the same way Livonia maintains their
properties.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, I didn't ask you that. I asked you if when you buy a rental, do you go
by and see that these homes are being taken care of?
Mr. Creighton: Mr. Borkowski has a number of rental properties and he is in
compliance with the ordinance of the City of Livonia and does his best to
keep his tenants in conformance with the law, but when you rent a
property there is only so much control that you have. This particular
property will soon be vacated. This tenant that is in there will not be there.
At that point Mr. Borkowski will have dominion and control over the
property. When he leases the property, he can't disturb the quiet
enjoyment of the tenant. He can insist that they do certain things, but to a
certain extent, it is beyond his control.
Kurt Krupsky, 18620 Brentwood: I live approximately 4 houses down from Mr.
Borkowski's property. I am fairly new to Livonia, I have only lived here
six years. There was a three year stint where I worked in Detroit because I
�.. worked for the City of Detroit. Before that I lived at Five Mile and
Middlebelt. I love my neighborhood because of the large lots. If any of
you have had an opportunity to drive through there, you will notice how
large the lots are. All of my other neighbors feel the same way. I have
pictures to show you of Mr. Borkowski's property. I took the initiative to
go around and take signatures from our neighbors for a petition against
this. 100% of the people who were home signed the petitions. Everybody
is adamantly against it. Number 1, we want to maintain our large lots.
Number 2, Mr. Borkowski has a reputation. The tenant that lives there
now has lived there for nine years. He has not come around on a regular
basis. The renter has to put buckets around to keep the rainwater from
pouring into the house. He has animals living under the house, there are
wild cats everywhere. The tenant right now is the best individual we've
ever met. We all like him and help him out whenever we can. Mr.
Borkowski owns the house kitty-corner from the petitioned property. It's
a newer brick ranch, but if you look at it closely you will see there is no
maintenance being done on it. His rental houses on Pickford are the same
way. They are newer homes, but they are not being maintained. I have
owned rental properties myself. It is not an easy job, and I can appreciate
that fact. When you rent properties, especially in a community like
Livonia where our average property value in this particular area is
`,. $120,000, this is not doing us any good. As I said, I have lived there for
16153
six years and I have dumped approximately $40,000 worth of renovations
into the place. My neighbor next door has come close to that, if not
�.. exceeded it. There's a revitalization going on. We want to see people
move in and own the property. We are not opposed to rentals because the
neighbors across the street from me, the rent from our old neighbors who
were transferred out of town and they are excellent people, excellent
renters, and they do a beautiful job of taking care of homes. It's because
their son, who owns it, comes by on a weekly basis checking up on them.
We understand the laws governing this proposal. We understand that he
has only .42 of an acre and to qualify for RUF, we understand that you
have to be .5. He has a right to request R-1. If you allow it, we have
nothing to stop him. If you deny him, that's our barricade. We honestly
feel that now that Livonia has a new ordinance pertaining to rental
properties and once a renter leaves a property and your Inspection
Department takes a look at this place, we are convinced it will be
condemned. The place is not sound at all and he knows that. He knows
he will have to tear it down and that's is why he is doing this now. He
has no intentions of selling. He is going to rent. I hope you folks will
have the best interests of the community, and not one person.
Duane Drzazdzynski, 18882 Brentwood: I have lived there 21 years and in Livonia for
30 years. I first bought this house because of the large lot, everything
around it was country. We didn't have a road then. We do have a road
`44p. now. However, when I first moved in there was a little old lady lived in
the house in question and passed away in the house eight years ago. I
understand this man acquired the property. I was hoping a homeowner
would buy the place. The idea of taking that little lot and splitting it again
and trying to make a profit on it. I know he is not going to sell it, he will
rent it again. I would rather see him build a brand new house on the lot
and sell it and make some money, if that is what he is after. I don't want
to live in an apartment complex, or a condominium complex. I would like
to see homeowners there. I would like to see a family with kids there. We
do have a nice renter there, but I would like to see a homeowner there. I
am against splitting these lots into littler ones, so I would appreciate you
voting against this.
Daniel Ouilette, 18590 Brentwood: I have lived there twelve years. I have not seen any
maintenance or upgrade to that property since we have moved in. I don't
want to see another house put in there and forgotten about. A gentleman
came to my house and talked about this. The first thing he told me was
that he lived in Livonia. I found out later he lied. He also told me he
intends on putting rental properties in there. As Mr. Krupsky pointed out,
he has put a lot of money into his house and we are rebuilding our house,
putting a large addition on. We intend to stay there. I really don't want to
16154
see this. I realize it is your decision and I hope you think this out
thoroughly.
Bruce Davidson, 18914 Brentwood: I oppose this petition, using the strongest language I
can muster. I am against changing property that is RUF to R-1 for the
purpose of subdividing it, or for any purpose. Up and down the section of
Livonia that I live in, I wish it to remain RUF. I don't want a new house
put that close to my property. I don't want my property to be affected
even the most minuscule fashion by any new homes being constructed by
my house. I don't want my value increased for the purpose of taxation. I
want everything to be left status quo for as long as we can. For me that's
eternity plus one day. I don't know too much about this individual that is
petitioning the city, but the one thing I am privy to is the property he
owns, which is only a couple of blocks away from my house, is being used
by the local kids as a nice little pot haven. I am waiting for the cops to
come and bust a couple of kids and he is guilty by association. I know you
can't put lasers around every lot that you own, but this one particular lot is
loaded with trees and it makes for a nice little secretive place for these kids
to go. I have seen bongs, a home-made mechanism for introducing
marijuana smoke into your lungs. The kids are back in this lot owned by
this fella which incidentally doesn't have a fence around it, but this lot
definitely needs a fence around it. The kids are back there inhaling paint.
I don't want this fellow to get you fine people to change the status of this
Now house from RUF to R-1 so he can put another lot up there. However, I
would go along with it if that dude would saw down every tree on that lot
I'm referring to, or put a tall fence around it to keep those kids out. This
lot is so close to mine that these kids could shoot their pellet guns into my
yard, put out windows, take care of our leased pets. I'm against this.
Richard Martinez, 18531 Brentwood: I have only been here a year. We moved to this
neighborhood because we liked the size of the lots. This is where we want
to raise our kids. I just want to tell you no.
Jack McKay, 18530 Brentwood: I am against it also. I won't repeat what's just been
said.
Rob Favor, 18601 Brentwood. I have been there for 25 years and I have seen a cute
house go right down the drain because of renters and him not taking care
of it. I know with rentals you can go in there and maintain the property.
They can't stop you from going in and maintaining your own property. I
am opposed.
Lisa Ouilette, 18509 Brentwood: I also oppose it. This gentleman who wants to rezone
the property and build - since he does have a history of being less than
�... honest with people, and he does not keep up his property, I want you to
16155
know that I also oppose it. I also want to tell you that there would be
several more people here if it weren't for the Red Wings game tonight.
Katie Martinez, 18531 Brentwood: I have only been here a year. My husband and I were
looking for a large lot and it is very difficult to find that in the City. If this
gentleman was able to split his lot, others would come and split their lot,
and it would snowball. I am opposed to it.
Anthony Tomaselli, 28450 Pickford: The property in question is an eyesore. This
neighborhood is a treasure, and I think it should be left that way. The
property management is not there. I think it speaks for itself
Pat Davidson, 18914 Brentwood: We are like family and that's what Livonia is all about.
I have been here living right where I am on Brentwood. Davidson's built
the house in 1945 and I am still there. My son is going to be married and I
am going to die. Let's just keep our nice, big gardens, sweeping lawns,
flowers and trees. They are getting rid of all those trees. We need those
trees. I am against this.
John Adams, 18920 Brentwood: That fine lady is my neighbor. Our house has been
there since 1953 and we have been there for 35 years. As you can see
from all the responses, we are definitely opposed to this proposal and I
would like the lots to stay as they are.
There was no one else wishing to speak for or against this petition.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it
was
#6-84-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 9, 1998 on Petition 98-4-1-8 by Carl
Creighton o behalf of Ronald Borkowski requesting to rezone property
located on the Southwest corner of Clarita and Brentwood Streets in the
NW 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-1, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-4-1-8 be denied for
the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the
prevailing RUF zoning in the area;
2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes
which are inconsistent with the majority of the existing lots in this general
area;
16156
3) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the general character of the area;
4) That the proposed change of zoning is not necessary for the
continued use of the subject property for residential purposes; and
5) That the proposed change has a potential to open the neighboring
area to additional rezoning proposals and thereby downgrading the
neighborhood to lower housing classifications.
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, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hale: I've heard a number of comments this evening by various neighbors that
the properties are not maintained properly and the like. The petition that is
before the Planning Commission this evening relates to a zoning request
only. Having visited this particular area, I can also support this motion for
the reason that I firmly believe that this is not consistent with the
prevailing RUF zoning in this particular area.
Mrs. Koons: It is a unique and lovely little neighborhood, and they are to be
commended for the quality and the diversity there. My other comment -
Mr. Davidson's concern about substance abuse did not sway me at all in
my opinion here, but I want to remind Mr. Davidson and all of us that it is
all of our responsibility to look out for and take care of children, and the
proper place to voice that complaint would be with the police. The more
they know, the more they can do.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-6-2
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution#852-97 and
Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Subsections (b), (c), (d), and
(e) and (j) of Section 18.42A of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance with respect to
certain definitions and regulations pertaining to wireless communication facilities.
Mr. Nagy: As indicated, the Planning Commission has been directed by Council
Resolution to amend the text of the zoning ordinance with regard to
wireless communication facilities. Generally, with wireless
communications you think of cellular towers principally. When this
language was first drafted by the Law Department upon direction of the
Council's Legislative Committee, this has had Council committee review,
16157
as well as the Law Department. What it will do is essentially create new
sections and regulations of standards within the text of the zoning
ordinance with regard to the spacing of cellular towers, they can't be
closer than 300'; the licensing provision, the annual licensing fee for these
towers, as well as an annual inspection of the towers and will include the
identification of the owner; the colocation of the tower so as to minimize
the number of towers in the community to try and provide for three or
more on the tower. These standards will then become the rule by which
the City will henceforth regulate the wireless communication facilities in
Livonia.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#6-85-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June
9, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 98-4-6-2 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution 852-97 and Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Subsections (b), (c),
(d), (e) and (j) of Section 18.42A of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance with
respect to certain definitions and regulations pertaining to wireless
�., communication facilities, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-4-6-2 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) The proposed language amendment will require the submission of
more definitive information in connection with the application process for
wireless communication facilities in the City of Livonia; and
2) That the proposed language amendment will provide more
definitive standards and requirements relative to the location and operation
of wireless communication facilities inthe City of Livonia.
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, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-6-3
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to council Resolution#875-97, and
�,.,. Section 2101(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
16158
as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section 19.06(j) of the Livonia
Zoning Ordinance to provide flexibility for a property owner to alter or replace
plant material which blocks public view of commercial signs, interferes with
public utility equipment or otherwise becomes a nuisance or hazard to public
health.
Mr. Nagy: Again, we have been directed by a Council Resolution to amend the
ordinance. It provides us flexibility. It is self explanatory. When we
approve a site plan, there is always a landscape plan that specifies certain
plant materials, sizes, replacement, and as they grow and mature
sometimes they become out of scale with respect to the property signs and
some other features on the property and trying to create some flexibility
as to replacing those and approving those plant materials to keep the
landscaping in balance with the property. This will give the ordinance
more flexibility to achieve those objectives.
Mr. Alanskas: I have one question on that ordinance. That does mean it's mainly
commercial owners and not residential?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. It is those we would regulate pursuant to site plan approval. The
public properties such as public rights-of-way, parks, boulevards, those
would come under general public code of ordinances.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, I have a problem with this. I think what we are trying to do is
correct, but it leaves to the discretion, if they want to trim back how much
to trim back, to the owner. Before this is done, is there anybody from the
City who goes out and looks at it and says, yes we agree with you, go
ahead and do it, or do you just leave it to their discretion. Let's say you
have a tree and they chop the tree right in half because it was blocking
their sign, and they leave half a tree. I think that is going to create a
problem. I think it is not going to create a good-looking situation. I think
it is a good idea, but I think there has to be some input from the City that
we go out, look at it and say that yes we agree, it is obstructing the sign
and you can trim it down this much. Just give the property owner that
authority to go ahead and do it. What is to stop him from chopping the
whole tree down?
Mr. Nagy: It would still be largely handled the way it is today. The Inspection
Department has on file the landscape plans and they do try and enforce
them to the extent that they can. They go around on an annual basis and
inspect them to make sure they are up to speed. But to answer your
question, is there a provision in this proposal for a review to be called first
before they are altered, no. It is largely left to the discretion of the
property owner and the Inspection Department.
`sw.
16159
Mrs. Koons: Do we, the City, have any recourse if something happens the plantings, or
if someone had a tree there and thinks that the tree is too large, it would
*tow cost hundreds of dollars to replace it and perennial plants cost $30, do we
have any recourse?
Mr. Nagy: I think we do. When we approve a site plan, or a landscape plan, not
adhering to those plans is a violation of the city ordinance. To that extent,
we have a right to enforce their compliance. If there is an approved site
plan and an inspector goes out and sees that there is a deviation or
alteration to that, he can site a violation to the city ordinance and seek
compliance or replacement to those plant materials that have been
destroyed, altered or removed. There is enforcement built into it by virtue
of the zoning ordinance. To alter or change an approved plan requires the
owner to come back to the city for approval of the change.
Mrs. Koons: So once the plan is approved, we the City would expect the plan to be
adhered to until a new plan was approved.
Mr. Nagy: Absolutely.
Mrs. Koons: Do you feel that that language is reflected in this?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. There a compliance provision already standard within the
Num. appropriate section of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, how is it handled right now if there is plant material which
blocks public view? Let's say it is between the sidewalk and the curb, or
just inside the sidewalk in commercial property that hangs over the
sidewalk. Doesn't the City take care of that?
Mr. Nagy: If it is in the public right-of-way, or in the public easement, the city would,
or the utility company would if it is in one of their easement areas. We are
talking about planting materials outside on private property if they are
regulated by our zoning ordinance through the provisions of site plan
approval.
Mr. Piercecchi: Give me an example.
Mr. Nagy: How this came about, recently we have had some properties that have
come back to us where they have been expanded and we have gone back
to evaluate what was approved initially on the property and try to evaluate
with the changes that are being brought about and we notice trees or
shrubs that were altered or removed and to determine if they block the
identification sign, or some other object on the property. The way it was
,.. brought about was that the property owner just went ahead and removed
16160
them and the thought here was that there should be some provision for
allowing that to happen without being in violation of the ordinance,
... ordinary replacement, removing something that is overgrown bringing in
better balance with the new plant materials. It might be in everyone's best
interests not to allow properties to be overgrown.
Mr. Piercecchi: So the plant materials we are talking about are owned by this
commercial site?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. LaPine: John, I agree with you basically, but the problem is, and I will give you an
example, there is a Wine Castle at Seven Mile and Farmington. He has a
big sign out there and a big tree that has grown there for years and you
can't even see the sign any more. If over the years he had pruned that tree
the way he should have, now basically he would have to take that whole
tree down. I think the property owner has a responsibility to prune his
trees, his shrubbery, and not let them just run wild and then somewhere
down the line says,this is my place and I am going to take it out. It is
great to say that they have to replace it, but when someone takes a tree out
or takes a shrub, until he comes back before you for something in the
future, a lot of time people won't even know that something is missing. I
don't think there is any enforcement here to make sure that they do do
`,,,r, something like that to see that it is at least replaced.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
Mr. Piercecchi: I think, as always, Commissioner LaPine has his hands on the
pulse of the problem and we must have something in the system right now
via ordinance which handles public nuisances, and this could be classified
as a public nuisance if you have branches hanging all over, and I think we
should go through the ordinances and question the wiseness of putting
discretionary power to the property owner to make these replacement
decisions on the replacement of trees or other plant material, and I am
going to move that we table this.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it
was
#6-86-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June
9, 1998 on Petition 98-4-6-3 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Council Resolution#875-97, and 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 19.06(j) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance
16161
to provide flexibility for a property owner to alter or replace plant material
which blocks public view of commercial signs, interferes with public
utility equipment or other wise becomes a nuisance or hazard to public
health, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table
Petition 98-4-6-3 to date uncertain.
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, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-2-8
by Total Entertainment Restaurant Corp. requesting waiver use approval to utilize
a Class C license in connection with a full service restaurant within the 7-
Farmington Shopping Center located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Farmington and Gill Roads in the SE 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: The Inspection Department in their letter of May 15 indicates the have
reviewed the petition and no deficiencies were found, therefore they have
Now no objection to the petition. That is signed by David M. Woodcox, Sr.
Building Inspector. The Fire Marshal in his letter indicates that their
office has reviewed the site plan in connection with a request to approve a
SDM license for this restaurant and they have no objection to this
proposal. We have a letter addressed to the Planning Commission from
Joseph Ceru, 33895 Gable Dr., Lot#88, as follows: I oppose the waiver
for a Class C liquor license. This is a small strip mall which has
previously had small, family-type businesses which typically closed by
9:00 PM. I opposed the Major Magic restaurant which caused excessive
noise as workers and customers left late at night. For this reason, I also
oppose any establishment that serves beer and wine. I would have
presented my views in person, but I will be out of town on June 9. That is
the extent of our correspondence.
John Carlin, 505 North Woodward, Bloomfield Hills, on behalf of Total Entertainment:
We were here a couple of weeks ago and postponed it so we could bring
back to you tonight a waiver use for the liquor license at the same time we
have a waiver use for the restaurant. As stated, this will be a full service
restaurant. It will be known as Bailey's English Pub and Grill. It has a
full service menu. The interior is a nice looking restaurant. There are 18
of these in existence in the country today with another 10 under
16162
construction. The age of the customer of course would be well over 21.
There would be approximately 100 employees. We have never had any
�.,�. complaints or problems with noise in the neighborhood before. This is not
an entertainment place with music.
Mr. Alanskas: This petition is strictly for the liquor license?
Mr. Carlin: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Unfortunately, this is the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. At the
Pending Items portion we will hear about the restaurant. We should wait
until the second half to hear about the restaurant. Unfortunately, we have
the cart before the horse.
Mr. Carlin: I will wait for the next portion.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
Mr. LaPine: John, liquor licenses are issued through the state and based on population,
correct?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
v...
Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding that all the liquor licenses that Livonia is entitled to
have been used up. When bars and restaurants go out and buy a liquor
license from another community and bring it in, won't that increase our
liquor licenses that we have that we are not entitled to because of the
population? How does that work?
Mr. Nagy: I am not the expert, but the State does allow, in addition to your quota,
based upon your population, the flexibility to be able to attract additional
licenses where it will promote the industry of the State to tourism. The
legislature, through the Liquor Control Commission, has found that it is in
the State's best interest to allow certain number of licenses that will
promote that aspect of our economy. So to that extent, the licenses can be
issued where an investment in excess of$1 million is made to promote
tourism to allow liquor licenses to be used in that connection. Those that
have been initially issued in that area, and for whatever reason have not
been successful and are back in the marketplace, they can be transferred
from the initial location to a new area where they can then be put back into
use again to promote the economy to that extent. I would tell you that I
am not the expert, but I think the expert is standing there at the
microphone, Mr. Carlin.
16163
Mr. LaPine: I can understand that if you buy a liquor license from somebody within the
City and transfer it to another location because we are still under our
N... quota, I am saying that when they go outside the City and buy a license
from somewhere else and transfer it back in, and in this particular case, I
don't see how this restaurant is promoting tourism in the State of
Michigan.
Mr. Carlin: There is a license that is in escrow in this city; the old Jamie's license, that
is for sale. We are going to negotiate for that license. So we would if we
were successful in acquiring that one, stay in Livonia. The State does
allow licenses to be brought into communities. Basically, what the State
tries to boil it down to is a feeling that in addition to boosting tourism, it is
an additional factor to economic development. It is an amenity that is
successful in such things as shopping centers, community center areas.
They find that licenses are going where the public and the economy is
demanding that they should go. I guess it is fortunate when you look at
the license activity in the State that the City of Livonia does have a lot of
activity which only means that there is good economic fortune in Livonia
and those that are in the entertainment field want to be a part of this
community. To my knowledge, I haven't seen many close in the City of
Livonia. They are all doing well in one way or shape. The answer to your
question is we will hopefully get the one license.
__Nomo. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded buy Mrs. Koons and approved, it was
#6-87-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on June 9, 1998 on Petition 98-5-2-8 by Total
Entertainment Restaurant Corp. requesting waiver use approval to utilize a
Class C license in connection with a full service restaurant within the 7-
Farmington Shopping Center located on the north side of Seven Mile
Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the SE 1/4 of Section 4 be
denied for the following reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all the general waiver use standards
and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2) That the proposed use is an inappropriate use for a neighborhood
shopping center adjacent to a residential area;
3) That the proposed size, scale of operation and hours of operation of
this proposed use of a Class C liquor license are such that the use is
incompatible to the shopping center and to the adjoining neighborhood;
„. and
16164
4) That this area of the City is currently well served with Class C
licensed establishments.
Mr. Piercecchi: I agree that we have the cart before the horse here. If we deny this,
would the restaurant request be withdrawn, or do you want us to go
through with the restaurant which is a pending item because it came before
us once before?
Mr. Carlin: If you deny this, I would ask you to hear the restaurant application request
so that we can appeal this. We won't build the restaurant if we can't get a
liquor license.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, Koons, Alanskas, Piercecchi
NAYS: None
ABSENT: McCann
ABSTAIN: Hale
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
't.. Mr. Alanskas: The petition has been denied. That concludes the Public Hearing section
of our agenda and we will now proceed with the pending items of our
agenda. These items have been discussed at length at prior meetings, and
therefore there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience
participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-4-2-6
by Total Entertainment Restaurant Corporation requesting waiver use approval to
operate a full service restaurant within the 7-Farmington Shopping Center located
on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in
the SE 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This is located in the 7-Farmington Shopping Center. It will consist of a
8, 200 sq. ft. unit in the westerly building of the shopping center. It will
consist of 202 seats. It will have pool tables, dining area, darts, video
games. A sports bar kind of atmosphere.
Mr. Piercecchi: This Total Entertainment Restaurant Corp., what would the hours
of operation be?
Mr. Carlin: I would assume it would be the normal legal hours of operation, from
noon to dinner to closing.
16165
Mr. Piercecchi: Ending at 2:00 in the morning, closing time?
Mr. Carlin: Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi: They talk about games in this particular restaurant. What types of
games are they referring to?
Mr. Carlin: They have three video games and two dart games and then pool tables.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are aware that there are two Class C's right across Farmington
Road?
Mr. Carlin: Yes. I am aware that there was a Class C in this location before as well.
Mr. Piercecchi: You have outdoor walk-in coolers. Why?
Mr. Carlin: A lot of the restaurants have these coolers that are added to the exterior of
the building. They look like a part of the building, they don't look
dissimilar to the building itself It is easier to build it. You don't need a
structure with a heavy foundation. It makes it easier for deliveries. For
example, they can occur in the morning. The establishment doesn't have
to be open when the delivery truck comes. They put meat and produce
and things like that in this cooler. The delivery truck drivers can have
keys to these things and the restaurant doesn't have to be open. A lot of
the restaurants in town are doing that.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is also a reason for doing this the site size? This allows you more
room in the interior when you move all that stuff outside? Do you gain
additional square footage inside?
Mr. Carlin: I don't know if you gain anything. The back kitchen is a part of it.
Mr. Piercecchi: It seems that if you can house it within it, it would be easier than
having to leave the site.
Mr. Carlin: No, Mr. Piercecchi, it is attached to the building. You won't know that
that is a cooler when they are done building it. It is brick. It looks like a
part of the building. It is more efficient to have this outside with a
separate access than to have employees come in in the mornings to open
up for deliveries.
Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I ask that is that there could be a noise potential here.
Mr. Carlin: It would be just somebody coming up in a truck and opening a door.
16166
Mr. Piercecchi: Have you sought other locations? Where you are located here, you
are basically surrounded by homes. You have homes to the north of you
and you have homes west of you. If it were located down adjacent to the
C-1 zone, you would maybe have a little more credibility. I'm sure all
bars make noise.
Mr. Carlin: Any business makes noise that have customers leaving, starting up a car
and leaving. A funeral home makes noise. A church makes noise.
Mr. Piercecchi: This facility will be open until 2:00. I am thinking about the noise
that can be transmitted north and west.
Mr. Carlin: There is a wall there, landscaping, there is protection. We have indicated
to the residents that are immediately adjacent to it that we would work
with them to make sure that the landscaping would be there if it is
available. It is my understanding that there isn't a lot of room for a
landscaped area. Perhaps they would have to make some other
arrangement.
Mr. Piercecchi: There is another wall, but it is south of that particular site. A
partial walls that runs maybe two-thirds to the back of the building, but I
can't recall landscaping.
Mr. LaPine: You indicated there was a Class C license there. Is a beer and wine license
a Class C license?
Mr. Carlin: Yes. They just choose not to sell spirits.
Mr. LaPine: Just to show you how thick I am, I votes against that license too when
Major Magic was in there, so I am consistent with the way I am voting. I
didn't vote against the Major Magic, I voted against the beer and wine
license because Major Magic was basically for kids and I just can't see
people going in there and drinking beer and wine when they are having
parties for kids. You indicated when you talked about the Class C liquor
license that this was a family restaurant, a full service restaurant. My idea
of a full service restaurant is that when I go out with my wife, or you go
with your girlfriend, or whoever, you go to a restaurant and eat a meal and
have a couple of drinks and you leave. This is not that type of a restaurant.
You want people to stay here. According to the plan, there are 12 billiard
tables in here, there's shuffleboards, darts, and video games. To me that's
not a restaurant. To me, this is a sports bar and you will have a young
crowd come in there, stay, play these games and buy their beer. You are
saying this is going to be a restaurant, but to me it is not really a
,,` restaurant, it is a sports bar. When people come out of there at 2:00 in the
16167
morning, you have a real problem there. I was there twice this week when
the Sheldon Hall was holding their bingo's and there must have been 150
to 200 cars parked there. They are taking all of the parking spaces directly
to the north of your building and east of your building. The only places
your people are going to be able to park on the nights of bingo is behind
the old furniture store or next to Kmart. That means that when people
come out at 2:00 in the morning, they are going to have to walk not only
directly behind you but the homes to the east and north of you. It causes
people problems. Even when Major Magic was there, there were
problems. It is going to be noisy. I think it is the wrong location, that
close to residential property. I think that you are saying it is a full service
restaurant when in reality it is more of a bar where you want people to
come in there and spend a lot of hours playing these games.
Mr. Carlin: By a full service restaurant, at least in the industry, it means it has a full
menu and full service. It is not a cafeteria type of establishment. This
clearly has a full menu. It has full waiter and waitress service. It has a
large eating area. Yes, it provides sports-type entertainment and there are
a lot of people in the City of Livonia I am sure that like that kind of thing.
We are not all looking for high end restaurants with fancy menus and
fancy prices. The casual restaurant today that provides entertainment to
the person while they are waiting, while they are eating, with their kids, is
a life-style choice many people are enjoying.
Mr. LaPine: So you are telling me that families take their kids there and they are going
to play pool. You have to be 18 years old to play pool.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Carlin, don't you think that having an outside cooler is open for
possible vandalism?
Mr. Carlin: Not at all. Not any more than the building is. I think there is a
misconception here of what this outside cooler is. There is another door
from the inside of the restaurant. There are two doors into the cooler.
There is access from inside the establishment from the kitchen into the
cooler. That's one door. The second door is on the outside and that is for
the truck driver who comes in at 10:00 in the morning, delivers the
product inside. He can't get into the restaurant, but he can put the product
inside the cooler.
Mr. Alanskas: Have you people looked into trying to go into the Winkleman's site? How
would people see your facility from Seven Mile and from Farmington
Road? Are you going to be asking for signage out on Farmington Road?
Mr. Carlin: No, there won't be any other signage other than what is allowed.
16168
Mr. Piercecchi: John, they just can't build a structure building there in the back.
That would require ZBA approval on top of it, wouldn't it.
Mr. Nagy: All structures are subject to site plan approval. Unless it would violate
some setback requirement, it wouldn't go to ZBA. It would be regulated.
It is in a control area as well.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons and approved, it was
#6-88-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to a Public
Hearing having been held on May 5, 1998 on Petition 98-4-2-6 by Total
Entertainment Restaurant Corporation requesting waiver use approval to
operate a full service restaurant within the 7-Farmington Shopping Center
located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road
and Gill Road in the SE 1/4 of Section 4 be denied for the following
reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waive use standards
and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2) That this area of the City is currently well served with similar type
uses as is being proposed;
3) That the proposed use and its size, scale of operation and proposed
hours of operation are such that the use is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding uses inthe area, particularly with respect to
the residential neighborhood to the north and west; and
4) That the proposed use is contrary to the purposes, goals and
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, which seek to insure compatibility
and appropriateness of uses so as to enhance property values and to create
and promote a more favorable environment for neighborhood use and
enjoyment.
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
16169
AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Piercecchi, Koons
NAYS: None
saw- ABSENT: McCann
ABSTAIN: Hale
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Withdrawal
Letter from Jose and Stella Evangelista, MD for Petition 96-1-1-3 by Jose and
Stella Evangelista requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth Road in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Nagy: The letter we received from the petitioner, Jose and Stella Evangelista,
deals with a petition that was filed in 1996. After our initial hearing we
tabled the matter requesting additional information and try to develop
some additional property so as to make this development more compatible
to the neighborhood. They have been unable to work those matters out,
and it's been on the table ever since. We are now trying to clear our
records of this. They have submitted a letter requesting that the matter be
withdrawn for further consideration.
�.. On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. Hale and unanimously approved, It was
#6-89-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on
June 9, 1998 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-1-1-3, and
pursuant to a request dated May 7, 1998 from Jose and Stella Evangelista
MD, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal
of Petition 96-1-1-3 by Jose and Stella Evangelista MD requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Orangelawn Avenue and Plymouth Road in the NE 1/4 of Section 33 from
RUF to R-1.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8-
18 buy Sam Baki requesting approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and a site plan
required by Section 18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal
for a site condominium development on property located at 36700 Seven Mile
Road in the South 1/2 of Section 5.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it
was
16170
#6-90-98 RESOLVED that, Petition 98-5-8-18 by Sam Baki requesting approval of
the Master Deed, Bylaws and a site plan required by Section 18.62 of the
zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site condominium
development on property located at 36700 Seven Mile Road in the South 1/2
of Section 5 be taken from the table.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Miller: This was tabled at the Regular Meeting of May 19, 1998 to allow the
petitioner time to revise the site plan, and he has done that and it conforms
to the concerns of the Inspection Department. Lot#1 has been increased
to 110' in width, and he also has identified areas, a 30' greenbelt along
Seven Mile Road, as a common area.
Mr. Nagy: There has been no additional correspondence.
Mr. Baki, 36700 W. Seven Mile Road, Livonia: After the last meeting we went ahead
and revised the layout and adjusted the lines of these lots. We still have
the same quantity due to the fact that these lots are all oversized. The
*t.w zoning on this particular site is R-3 which is 80'x120', 9600 sq.ft. Our
average size on this site is 14,000 sq.ft. Due to that we shifted the lines
without having any loss of the lots to accommodate for that extra footage
that we needed for Lot#1. As you see in front of you, we did that and we
still have good size lots. We didn't make them smaller to accommodate
nice size homes going on this property.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, all the initial things we asked regarding the deeds have been
taken care of?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: And the one lot where there was a question about the berm, Lot#1, that
was all taken care of?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
16171
#6-91-98 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
r.. to the City Council that Petition 98-5-8-18 by Sam Baki requesting
approval of the Master Deed, Bylaws and a site plan required by Section
18.62 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal for a site
condominium development on property located at 36700 Seven Mile Road
in the South 1/2 of Section 5 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Master Deed complies with the requirements of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 16.04-16.40 of the
Livonia Code of Ordinance, and Article XX of Ordinance #543, Section
20.01.20.06 of the ordinance, except for the fact that the following shall be
incorporated:
- that the first floor of each condominium unit shall be brick, on all
four sides, and the total amount of brick on each unit shall not be
less than 55% on two-story and not less than 80% on one-story
homes;
2) That the brick used in the construction of each condominium unit
shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions;
3) That the Site Plan prepared by Landmark Engineering Company,
as received by the Planning Commission on May 27, 1998 is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That an entrance marker application and a fully detailed Landscape
Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for
their review and approval.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is a Letter from
Leo Soave requesting to further table Preliminary Plat approval for Merriman
Forest Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Merriman Road,
south of Seven Mile Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 11 until the Planning
Commission meeting of July 14, 1998.
Mr. Nagy: There is no additional correspondence other than Mr. Soave's letter. You
will recall that on May 5,1998 we had a public hearing and it was tabled to
this meeting. Upon receiving the letter asking for an additional delay to
the meeting of July 14, our office did contact those residents in the area
16172
that gave their address and spoke at the initial public hearing. We did put
it on this agenda because it was tabled to a date certain.
Mr. Alanskas: The letter requests that The purpose for this request is to allow us
additional time to address many of the issues that were brought up at the
public hearing such as additional buffering or landscape screening and
preservation of trees. This is why Mr. Soave wants more time to take care
of those problems.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons and unanimously approved, it was
#6-92-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May
5, 1998 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Merriman Forest Subdivision
proposed to be located on the east side of Merriman Road, south of Seven
Mile Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 11, at which time the request was
tabled to June 9, 1998, and pursuant to a letter from Leo Soave requesting
to further table Preliminary Plat for Merriman Forest Subdivision, the
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the Preliminary Plat
Approval until July 14, 1998.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
This concludes the Pending Items section and we will now go to the Miscellaneous Site
Plans section of our agenda. The audience may speak for or against these items if they so
desire.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-5-8-
19 by Gator Construction, Inc. on behalf of Alpha Baptist Church requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a recreational building on property located
at 28051 West Chicago Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Nagy: The petitioner would like to leave this on the table to give them additional
time to try and come up with a better design to overcome some of the
objections voiced by the Planning Commission.
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it
was
#6-93-98 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a request from Gator Construction &
Design, LLC. dated June 6, 1998 requesting to table Petition 98-5-8-19 by
Gator Construction, Inc. on behalf of Alpha Baptist Church, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct a recreational building on property
16173
located at 28051 West Chicago Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 98-
5-8-19 to date uncertain.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit
Application and Landscape Plan in connection with Petition 98-1-8-2 which
received site plan approval to construct two office buildings on property located at
19400 Victor Parkway in the North 1/2 of Section 6.
A letter was received just prior to this meeting from Catherine S. Recto, 38122 Vista
Drive North, Livonia: City of Livonia Commission & Mayor Kirksey: On June 9th 1
have family arriving in from out of town on a flight that is scheduled for arrival at 7:35
p.m. If I were made aware that the developer for the office structure on the south side
would be possibly be handling the landscaping I would have made other arrangements.
The concern of this developer's idea of landscaping so far lacks desire! The residents of
the Villas must be involved in the design. This developer has no idea on how to preserve
the environment. This is 1998! People cannot do this, it is unacceptable to our society
and is not how the people of Livonia will live.
ti Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven
Mile and Eight Mile Roads. On March 11, 1998 they received site plan
approval to construct two office buildings. As a part of the condition of
approval, it was conditioned that a fully detailed landscape plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review
and approval. They have complied with that requirement and a landscape
plan has been submitted that is well done. The plan shows landscaping
throughout the site and around the building. There are trees in the islands
around the parking lot. There is a buffer along Victor Parkway. The
existing woods to the north will be untouched. Also, they are requesting
approval for signage. They are allowed one wall sign for each building at
100 sq. ft. and that is what they proposing, so it is a conforming sign
package. They are also allowed two ground signs at 30 sq.ft. each. They
are permitted two ground signs because there is more than 400 ft. of
frontage along Victor Parkway. One sign would be erected next to the
north drive and the other would be by the south drive.
Mrs. Koons: Scott, the woods that would remain untouched, what is the width of that?
Mr. Miller: It is 100' and zoned RUF and therefore it cannot be developed.
Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence.
16174
Robert Yurk, Ghafari Associates, Inc. 17101 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn, architects and
engineers for this project. Also with me this is evening is Mr. Norman
Hyman of Honigan Miller representing the petitioner, Victor Parkway
Associates, and Mr. John Krueger of the Hanson Krueger Partnership
which is the landscape architect that is working with us on the landscape
plan. First, are there any questions with regard to the signage?
Mr. LaPine: I am curious to know why you are putting up the free standing signs at the
Victor Corporate Center when that is what the center is called and we
allow the large sign at Seven Mile Road that says Victor Corporate Center.
Why do we have to have those signs inside the complex?
Mr. Yurk: The business park is called Victor Corporate Park and that is the name that
is on the sign at Seven Mile Road, and the owner has decided to name the
complex which is multi-tenant, Victor Corporate Center.
Mr. LaPine: He is going to rename these two buildings?
Mr. Yurk: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. LaPine: So if someone else decided to build here and they wanted to call theirs
Victor Corporate something else, we will have three different names. To
me it looks like it is redundant. What's the problem with Victor Corporate
,%aw Park? That is what it is. I have no objection to the signs on top of the
building, whoever the big tenant in that building is and maybe even the
addresses up there. The Council just went through a big battle with Rio
Bravo for a free-standing sign and they were really adamant. They did
not want that boulevard littered with signs and they denied it. I agree with
them. I don't want to see every one of those buildings have a sign out
there like a commercial establishment. That's not what it is; it's a
corporate park. I just can't understand why you need those signs.
Mr. Yurk: The entire park which encompasses all of the businesses there, again is
called Victor Corporate Park. The owner feels it is necessary to place a
name on their individual development much like the rest of the
development whether it is Valassis or the Victor V building. We have 3-
M under construction, etc. Victor Corporate Park identifies the park and
then the name of the building would identify the individual buildings to
allow people to find the development.
Mr. LaPine: I go back to a letter dated July 27, 1990 from Kenneth Newman who was
the architect for Dave Johnson on that facility. The developer desires to
minimize the intensity and locate the exterior signs on either the building
or on the driveway entrance marker subject to municipality approval. The
tenant who proposes to not occupy less than 30,000 sq. ft. in this building,
16175
they could have the sign up above. Less than that, they were only going to
be allowed a sign inside the building. I think at that time when this whole
**.N. Victor Park development was developed, we had someone here and had a
long discussion. One of the things we were worried about was that people
wanted signs along the expressway and we are not going to have that. We
want one sign to identify the whole project and individual signs on the
building. If the corporate headquarters had a building, then he would get a
sign. We didn't want all these signs. There was discussion that along
Seven Mile Road in the berm there would be a free standing sign with the
different locations of the tenants in the building. I just don't want to see
this come along now and every building have a free standing sign just to
identify that particular building. What are you going to have on the top?
Mr. Yurk: If there is a major tenant that would take the majority of one of the
buildings, for example ABC Corporation would lease a significant part of
the building, the owners of the building requires them to put their name on
the building.
Mr. LaPine: And I have no objection to that. If he is taking 75,000-100,000 sq. ft. of
the building, he is entitled to it. My problem is with the free-standing
signs.
Mr. Alanskas: On your two free-standing signs, would the base be made out of brick and
,.tger would they be illuminated?
Mr. Yurk: The base of the sign would be brick to match the buildings. The sign itself
on top of the brick base will have an aluminum frame and then the faces
will be translucent and the sign will be internally illuminated after dusk.
Mr. Alanskas: Are they with fluorescent bulks going through the sign?
Mr. Yurk: To be honest, we have not gone into that much detail and we have not
retained a sign company to actually construct the signs. I believe that they
do use fluorescent lighting inside the signs, but I don't know that for a
fact.
Mr. Alanskas: Do you know what the coloring would be? White with black lettering, or
red lettering, or have you gotten to that point yet?
Mr. Yurk: No, we haven't. I would assume that we would use some muted or natural
colors. The building has a red brick if you will remember, and the
aluminum window and door frames on the exterior are a dark bronze,
anodized aluminum. I would think the frame would match that. Even
inside the building it is done with natural colors, earth tones, so I don't
anticipate any type of primary colors.
16176
Mr. Alanskas: I ask because a lot of times when you have a monument sign, the sign will
not be lit until they have flood lights hitting the sign. You will have one
or the other. It's safe to say you will have internal illumination?
Mr. Yurk: That's correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are going to list all the tenants then on the free-standing signs?
Mr. Yurk: No, Sir. By ordinance we are not allowed to do that. We can have the
name of the development and the street addresses, but it is our
understanding that the zoning ordinance did not allow individual tenant
names on the sign. The drawing that is there has the name of the building
and just the range of street addresses that have been assigned by the
Building Department.
Mr. Piercechi: John, there are a lot of monument signs that have more than one
name on it. Four or five businesses can be on one of them.
Mr. Miller: This is a business center sign. He is are allowed two business center signs.
Business center signs are like shopping center signs, it is not a free
standing sign.
"vi... Lee Miller, 38128 Vista Drive South, Livonia: I live just immediately north of this in the
Villas. Numerous times in the past members of our subdivision have
come down when new construction was going up, and we were always
vitally interested and wanted to maintain the beauty of our neighborhood.
This time it is literally in our backyard, so of course we are definitely
interested in what is going on. There are a few major concerns. We want
to naturally maintain our privacy and maintain the beauty of the
neighborhood. Obviously, steel and brick construction can never be as
beautiful as a fully wooded area that we had before. We realize that, but
we would still like to maintain our privacy and somehow not be subject to
a lot of noise. Obviously, by having new construction in there, there is
going to be some noise, but we want to be protected to the greatest extent
possible. We were really disappointed to see that every single tree that
was our shield immediately south of our subdivision, they were all taken
down. It was a great tragedy as far as we were concerned. I know they
will make an attempt to put some shrubs and other things there to make it
look nice, but of course it will never be the same. The concerns are these:
First of all we need to be protected during the construction phase for the
invasion of our privacy. Obviously, construction workers, without even
trying to, will be peering into our bedrooms and decks because of the
immediate location. We also want to be protected against direct contact
with construction noise if at all possible. Perhaps a berm or something
16177
could be put up there because as I say this is immediately in our
backyards.
Mr. Alanskas: Isn't there still a 100' buffer between you and the construction?
Mr. Miller: But there are no trees. They wiped out every single tree that was in that
buffer.
Mr. Alanskas: I haven't been by there in about two weeks.
Mr. Miller: I think you would be shocked. When we saw every single tree being taken
down, we couldn't believe it. Now what we have is a tremendous pile of
wood chips which obviously will be taken away and done away with. We
will have no insulation whatsoever there. It is wide open space.
Considering that the buildings will be four stories, we are going to be
subjected to the loss of our privacy from tenants of the building. It is
unfortunate that a tree line wasn't left there. The second item, as soon as
possible an attempt should be made to restore that natural beauty of our
area, and a method of restoring our privacy to which we are entitled living
in a residential area.
Mrs. Koons: When were the trees cut down?
Mr. Miller: Within the last week and a half.
Mr. LaPine: I thought we were assured that that was all going to stay in the natural
state.
Mr. Yurk: We do have a presentation regarding the landscaping that we would like to
make. The buffer has remained untouched. There is a portion in the east
end where there were no trees within the 100' line and we have tried to
address that in the new landscape plan.
Mr. Alanskas: We will go through the landscape plan completely.
Mr. Miller: We really applaud the efforts of Valassis. When they came in they made
every attempt to maintain somewhat natural and a secluded area and we
really appreciated their efforts, and we were disappointed that this new
construction didn't make an attempt to do the same thing.
Joanne LaFleu, 38132 Vista Drive South, Livonia: Shame on you for allowing such a
travesty to occur. Every one is astounded. No one can believe what has
happened. Have any of you driven by that site? Have you seen what
happened? I can't understand how he can say there were no trees because
there were trees. They were taken down. It is disgusting. Trees on the
16178
easement were taken down. I do agree that Valassis was a class act.
When you look at what has just occurred, the animals and everything
involved, it is just a travesty. If you look down the street a little further on
the other side of the hotel, there is a great big hole there. If you look
across the street, there is a frame where trees were taken down. People are
saying that the so-called Golden Corridor is a golden joke because people
are going in, they see a tree, and they tear it down. Who is accountable for
this? Is there anyone who is monitoring what is going on?
Mr. Alanskas: I think a lot of questions will be answered when we have the site plan
presented.
Mrs. LaFleur: I just can't see how they can replace what has been done. Also, is the EPA
monitoring the City at all?
Mr. Nagy: To the extent that the EPA has jurisdiction, they do monitor. They do not
have jurisdiction in the matter that is before us this evening.
Mrs. LaFleur: No one cares what is happening to the trees.
Mr. Alanskas: I don't think it is that no one cares, but every petitioner has a right to do
certain things and if they are done incorrectly, we will try and correct
them.
Mrs. LaFleur: If you haven't taken a ride by there, you really need to.
Mr. Alanskas: You betcha.
Gerald Roosen, 38116 Vista Drive in the Villas. I am president of the Association. I
understand, and I know that there is a 100' easement. The problem is that
the first four houses on the east side along Victor Parkway, there are no
trees. There is nothing. They have dust and now there's a big pile of
mulch stacked higher than anything in Livonia right now. They have cut
down every tree, every bush along Victor Parkway. When we bought
there we knew we were going to have buildings, but we figured that you
would not allow them to cut down the trees right along Victor Parkway,
that we would have a buffer as we drove in and still have the beauty of
Victor Parkway. It's a travesty what these people have done. As the
president, I have several questions. First, the signage that is going to be
lit, is this going to light up the Villas? Secondly, the parking lot lighting, I
am very concerned that this is going to give us a glow that is going to be
seen all over Livonia because of the size of the parking lots. I hope the
signage on the buildings will not be lit. To now try and replace that
landscaping to hide the first four or five houses from this travesty is going
to be earth-shattering. We will have to have a berm or something put in
16179
there or something to give us some buffer. The fountain or whatever I
assume is going to be along Victor Parkway which is behind the first four
'Nowhouses of the Villas with that 100' buffer where there is nothing there.
You have to go see it. It's a shame, it's a disgrace and we are very
concerned about property values. We are going to have trucks and a dust
bowl like next to the hotel, which is another mess. How long these
buildings are going to take to be built, with the openness, the dirt, we are
going to have one real mess on our hands. There just has been no
consideration for the property owners which happens to be the Villas in
their backyard.
Mr. Alanskas: I would like to say as one commissioner, I have not driven by there in the
last week and a half because looking at the site plan, and seeing all that
greenery back there, I did not think they would even be cut down. Those
were very tall trees there.
Mr. Miller: We are very concerned about the first four homes because there is no
protection there. We are just open to the noise, dirt and dust. We have a
major problem that has to be addressed. We need a commitment from this
builder that they will correct this situation.
Dave Pittman, 38142 Vista North, Livonia: They say timing is everything. I lived in
Ann Arbor for 56 years. About three weeks ago, I moved to Livonia. My
wife and I, when the Villas were first being built, fell in love with them
and the circumstances were such that we couldn't move in right away. At
that time we knew we were going to be sharing this community with a
commercial venture, and we had no problem with that. We drove by there
year after year and we saw what Valassis did and we thought that they did
a wonderful job. We just assumed that the next neighbor that would come
in would care about this beautiful, beautiful area and would do the same. I
was absolutely shocked. We live on the north side, so we don't have to
look at it. I work in Detroit and I don't even go past that site anymore
because it literally brings tears to your eyes. If they would have just left
30' of trees along Victor Parkway as a buffer, it probably would have been
wonderful. To me it shows a real disregard for the environment. The
damage is done; obviously they can't replace the trees. My neighbors on
the south side have to be concerned about their relationship. You really
have to go out and take a look.
Mr. Alanskas: How about the 100' buffer?
Mr. Pittman: It's barren. A lot of this area was barren to begin with. They did maintain
the trees about half way into the Villas back. It looks to me like it will just
be a flat parking lot with a bunch of buildings and they will put in a couple
16180
of trees. I am amused to see the trees on the plan. Why would they go to
the expense to put trees in there when they were already there.
Mr. Alanskas: You have to take them down to put the landscaping in.
Mr. Pittman: I think everyone here wants to work with them and get a site that does
Livonia proud.
Cynthia Luke, 38141 Vista Drive South, Livonia: I am the 8th home in and, yes, there is
a buffer. I don't know if it is 100'. When my husband and I bought there
over 6 years ago, we were one of the first people there and we knew it was
zoned for office buildings and of course we want Livonia to be prosperous
and we were happy to live in a nice area, but I was always wishing that
that piece of property would have some trees on it. Being the 8th home in,
that buffer really has more brush to it, the trees are very thin. I would just
like you to think about the property owners and the drawing looks
beautiful and if there were that many trees in it, I would be a happy
camper. If you do drive by there, you will be as shocked as all we home
owners are. Even today coming home, I was shocked to see how many
more came down closer to Valassis. Please think of us when you are
voting. We hope you people would consider us also. We want you to be
prosperous and to be excellent with your property, but we would like our
privacy and feel comfortable with where we live. I am afraid I am going
to be looking at the back of an office building. I am sure it is going to be
Sow
beautiful, but let us have a few trees there.
Ken LaFleur, 38132 Vista Drive, Livonia: My wife and I have been in the complex for
about three years now. I remember when we first bought into the
complex, one of the things we really enjoyed was the winding road that
went around Victor Parkway. All those beautiful trees that went around
the winding road, and one of the things that I thought the City was going
to make sure of, the reason I thought they had the 25 miles per hour speed
limit along that winding road was that they want to keep that road as close
in harmony as possible to nature. I was just appalled that the trees along
the winding road were completely wiped out. The other thing I was
concerned about was that this looks like right now like it's going to be a
big parking space like a Meijer's parking space. Valassis broke up the
parking a little bit and there are some islands of trees. I am concerned that
this place is going to be just one big parking lot. It is just a shame that we
would allow something like this in that beautiful area. I hope they break
up the parking lot and put some trees back in that they destroyed and make
it just as nice as it was before.
Bill Hoeft, 38125 Vista Drive, Livonia: I live on one of those bare pieces of property and
have to look at that wood chip pile every day. I had my condo painted this
16181
spring and it is full of dirt already. What it is is wood chips that are
blowing up because they put equipment 150' from my bedroom window.
Secondly, your roadway coming in, has no barrier whatsoever to my
existing condo aside from one Spruce tree. Does all that traffic come out
to that roadway from those parking lots?
Mr. Yurk: The egress is at the bottom of the property.
Mr. Hoeft: So I only get the ingress. Isn't there a way they could put an ingress and
egress in the center of that lot to service those parking lots?
Mr. Alanskas: Between the two buildings you have a berm because of the difference in
height.
Mr. Hoeft: Is it a four-story structure going up?
Mr. Yurk: Yes.
Mr. Hoeft: They are going to be looking into my bedroom window. There is no way
that the trees are high enough to accommodate any type of buffer
whatsoever.
Mr. Alanskas: How far will this be from your home? A couple hundred feet?
Mr. Hoeft: At best.
Mr. Alanskas: I think it would be hard to look into a bedroom window at 200'.
Mr. Hoeft: What about lighting at night? That's another thing that concerns me, the
building lighting. I am sure the offices are going to work some late nights.
Mr. Alanskas: We don't know what the hours will be now. We can check that.
Delores Verant, 38117 S. Vista Drive, Livonia: This is right in my backyard. Friday
night the Fire Department was out there because there was some smoke
coming from the wood chips. Two fire trucks came out. My neighbor is
here too. We are the first two houses there. The wood chips are so high,
we can't even sit on our deck because they blow in our face.
Mr. Alanskas: John, can we put a request into the Fire Department to check it out.
Mr. Nagy: Sure. It is a natural phenomenon that when you do pile wood chips that
high you do get heat and spontaneous combustion. They should move it
around.
16182
Mrs. Verant: It is getting higher and higher. You have to see it. You won't believe it.
It's really a shame. There were deer in there and everything.
�`"' Mr. Alanskas: We will see it and check it out.
Mr. Yurk: There are a few details I would like to point out related to the site plan that
was previously approved. I would like to have Mr. Krueger go through
the concept of the landscape plan and some of the details specifically on
that.
Mr. Alanskas: Mainly address the issues that the neighbors brought forth.
Mr. Yurk: If you remember, what has nominally been referred to as a 100' buffer
along the north side of the property, our understanding was that that was
dictated through the development of the overall corporate park and that
was long before our client purchased the property. That buffer is
approximately 100' at the east end and actually gets wider as you go to the
west and ends up about 136' deep at the west end.
Mr. Alanskas: Was any of that buffer taken down?
Mr. Yurk: No, Sir. This is the landscape concept plan that was used to develop the
whole concept. We submitted more detailed drawings and those are the
ones that you have in front of you. There is an area of the so-called 100',
restricted area, that did not have any trees. There was a clear area that was
cut back on an angle that went back 200' or more from Victor Parkway.
Again, that was there before work started. The only trees that have been
taken down are from outside of that buffer area. When the trees in this
area were taken out, it did expose this open area. As we develop the site,
we kept the road an additional 10' away from the buffer line trying to
maintain as much separation and trying to leave the remaining buffer as
untouched as possible. We were allowed to bring the road right up to the
buffer, but we elected not to do that. Relating to signage, any signage that
would be on the building would be either on the south side of the building,
or if they elect, possibly on the west side that would face away from the
adjoining properties. As far as the ground mounted signs, those signs are
approximately 7' in height including the base and the sign itself. They are
internally illuminated, therefore there is a softness to the light as opposed
to a ground mounted spotlight. As far as the parking lot lighting, the
lighting along the north drive, the light poles are shorter than they are in
the main parking lot. They are only 20' high. The poles were put on the
north side of the drive to direct the light to the south. They have a cutoff
reflector in them that cuts off the light and throw it forward. Again they
are lower in height along that north drive. Both drives accessing the site
are full width drives, in and out drives, so there is no one way in or one
16183
way out. There won't be a large influx of cars at a certain time of the day
when everyone arrives and a large group leaves at another location at the
end of the day.
Mr. Alanskas: Would it be safe to say that most of the traffic will be using the southern
drive instead of the northern drive coming off of Seven Mile Road?
Mr. Yurk: I would think that probably would be the case because it's more open that
way from Seven Mile. The sign for the park is down there. There is no
sign at Eight Mile identifying Victor Park. The other item I would like to
address before I get into some of the specifics of the landscaping itself is
the retention pond that we have here. That again was dictated by the
overall development of the corporate park. All the retention in the park,
except for this site, is done on the east side of the road so as the park
develops, the remainder of the storm water will be retained to the south on
the east side of the road. We were required to retain our storm water on
this side and that was dictated as part of the development of the project.
Mr. Piercecchi: Did I understand you to say that the buffer, which would be just
north of the roadway, nothing has been touched in there?
Mr. Yurk: That's correct.
Mr. Piercecchi: Everything that has been touched is south inside where your
buildings are located.
Mr. Yurk: That's correct. The contractor, when they did start work, was cautioned
on several occasions that it was necessary to stay outside of that line.
They indicated that they had surveyed that line and staked it so that they
would keep all of their operations outside of the required buffer area.
Mr. Piercecchi: It is hard for us to see that nothing has been touched in that buffer
zone.
Mr. Yurk: That's correct.
Mr. LaPine: The trees that the neighbors say were taken down are along the parkway,
where the pond is?
Mr. Yurk: That's correct.
Mr. LaPine: Why did those trees have to be removed?
Mr. Yurk: In order to place the retention pond here, we had to do significant
regrading to create the depression to retain the storm water. In order to do
16184
that grading we of course changed the elevation. Of course if you go
down on a tree, or up on a tree, the tree will not live. In order to do that
grading to create that pond, it was necessary to take the trees out.
`..
Mrs. Koons to Mr. Nagy: As a matter of procedure here, we approved the building on
March 11 and the condition was that a fully landscaped plan would be
submitted. Procedurally, should they have started?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. After you did approve this in March, your recommendation was
forwarded on to the City Council. You resolved to approve the site plan
subject to submittal of the landscape plan for your review. In turn the
Council concurred in your request, approved the site plan with the
condition that a landscape plan be brought back. It was then taken to the
Building Department and they issued a permit on the basis of the approved
site plan having been granted at the Council level.
Mr. Yurk: Also from the approved site plan that we presented before, you will
remember in including the buffer and the remaining green areas, the
islands, the separation between the parking lot, we have in access of 30%
of the site for landscaping which is more than twice what is required by
the zoning ordinance.
Mr. LaPine: The neighbors brought up a point, and I agree, the parking lot looks too
'trystark. It looks like a shopping center parking lot. Why don't you have any
islands in there with trees?
Mr. Yurk: You will see here in these areas we do have islands. When we were
developing the site plan and we had a preliminary meeting long before we
met with the Planning Commission the first time. We reviewed it with
Mr. Nagy and we added a single line of islands down through the middle
of the parking lot. As the development of the landscaping plan, we have
actually combined those islands to make larger islands. We have the same
area of landscaping, but rather than have individual small islands, we have
combined them to make them a little larger to allow us to cluster the trees
as opposed to just stringing them out in one long line.
Mr. Alanskas: On that same scenario, did you lose any parking spaces?
Mr. Yurk: We did not lose any parking spaces because we had a double island here
which is the equivalent of 10'x40'. We combined the islands to create a
20'x40' island. The two parking spaces that were taken here were put
back in this location and that allowed us to create the larger island.
Mrs. Koons: How many parking spaces were required and how many parking spaces
are there?
16185
Mr. Yurk: There were some 1500 parking spaces required and we have some 8 or 10
`..
more than what is required.
John Krueger, landscape architect: This is a conceptual plan but it is fairly true to what
the final drawings represent. Just as a point of clarification (pointing to
plan), this type of tree represents shade trees-Maples, Ash, Oak-type trees.
Mr. Alanskas: How high are those trees going to be?
Mr. Krueger: They are going to be probably 18' to 20' high. They are 3" caliber. It is
basically what is required by your ordinance. The darker trees,
particularly around the back, indicate evergreen trees- White Pine, Norway
Spruce, White Spruce. There's a concentration of them around the back
side of the retention pond. They will go a long way in screening the view
to the cars in the parking lot from Victor Parkway. The canopy trees in
front of the retention basin are basically what we call street trees. We put
in a staggered row of those. In concept we would like that row to continue
on through the parking lot. That is one of the reasons we combined some
of the smaller islands and bigger islands is that they will stand a better
chance of growing and thriving in the bigger space they have to grow in.
We probably gave up a few parking spaces from what was approved, but
we are still above what was required in order to give it a little more open
ti.. space than what we had before. There is a buffer between the two parking
areas. I have a section that will show you that. There is a great difference
in there with a earth berm that is planted with a mixture of evergreen trees,
canopy trees and then a third category of trees on the plan that is this
pinkish-type tree that is a flowering tree like a Hawthorn or crabapple.
Mr. Piercecchi: You are not planting anything in the buffer zone then?
Mr. Krueger: When we did this, that was just an indication that that was the buffer zone.
Mr. Piercecchi: How about a row of trees on the outer periphery adjacent to the
homes?
Mr. Krueger: I think our final landscape plan, which we have a copy of, this area is an
open area, but it was open to begin with.
Mr. Piercecchi: I am looking at this map that shows the abutting neighbors to that
buffer zone. Is there any relief that you can possibly do while you are
putting in that landscaping to give some relief to those people? I know
you didn't cut anything down in that buffer zone.
16186
Mr. Yurk: The area that Mr. Piercecchi is pointing to is at the west end of the site.
That is where the buffer is approximately 136' deep. There are trees
existing there now. It is in this area at the east end where in that one area
there were no trees, so Mr. Krueger is trying to show here that we have
actually gone into the buffer and planted trees in an effort to try and screen
that area.
Mr. Krueger: We are showing seven evergreens, five canopy trees, four flowering trees.
I would think that there would be an opportunity to do some berming in
that area if it is truly clear of valuable plants.
Mr. Alanskas: Evergreen trees and flowering trees do not get very high, do they?
Mr. Krueger: Evergreen trees get 30'-40' high. We have specified an average of 10'
high when they are planted. The flowering trees will get about 20' to 25'
high at maturity.
Mr. Piercecchi: If a berm were put along there with some evergreens of 10' and
you add a berm of essential size, that would give some privacy to those
people.
Mr. Krueger: I believe there are some existing trees that you are pointing at in that area
and a berm would kill the existing trees.
`.► Mrs. Koons: The area in front of the pond by the road, how wide is that area?
Mr. Krueger: About 60'.
Mrs. Koons: What you are proposing are some large Ash, Maple, Oak trees. I think
what the neighbors may have lost, and I won't be able to see it now
because it is gone, something that replicates a more natural growth which
would have some undergrowing trees in addition to those. Maybe some
Hemlock or something that in a natural wood or forest would have large
trees and then undergrowth. Is there room to have some undergrowth?
Mr. Krueger: I will show you this area in section. This is an area through Victor
Parkway down to the retention basin and at the far end is where the
parking lot starts. We could get more variety in there. I think that is a
possibility.
Mrs. Koons: Yes I think what they are going to have is just narrow trunks and the
greenery above. I think the lushness of the more mature area - if you
could replicate more of that.
16187
Mr. Krueger: I think something like that could be done. I will go through the sections.
ti This is the dividing berm and planting strip between the two parking areas,
and in between that we do have a mixture of evergreen trees, flowering
trees and shade trees. This is a section at the face of the building where
we are showing basically shade trees and ground planting at the building.
Between the building and the parking lot there is a row of fairly full
flowering trees that will soften the effect of the parking lot from the
building.
Mrs. Koons: The 20'x40' islands that go throughout the parking lot, what is that that is
connecting them?
Mr. Krueger: This is just a conceptual drawing. We wanted to carry a concentration of
canopy trees through the parking lot.
Mr. Alanskas: Because of the fact of these trees being taken down and we haven't seen
that, I think possibly tabling may be in order to go back and review the
site.
Mrs. Koons: I do have a request. That area that I just pointed out to you to enrich, think
botanical gardens; lush. That would be my request.
Mr. Piercecchi: John, have we heard anything from Livonia Hills Estates?
Mr. Nagy: No, we haven't.
Mr. LaPine: The landscaping that separates the two buildings, at one of our meetings I
made a recommendation to maybe putting some big boulders in there.
What actually are you going to put in there?
Mr. Yurk: As we indicated to you when we were here previously, we do have a grade
elevation change between the parking lots. We did elevate that above the
upper level to try and shield the upper level of parking from Victor
Parkway to create some visual separation. When we were here before, we
had not completed all the final engineering. We had just done some
preliminary grading. We thought we were going to have a larger
separation between those parking plateaus, but we were able to engineer in
such a way that there was not as much difference in elevation, but we did
keep the berm. What that meant is that we did not need a structural
retaining wall. We had discussed that. We discussed the possibility of
using boulders to stabilize the slope. From an engineering perspective
that wasn't necessary. It will remain stable on its own, so we didn't
incorporate anything like that. If the Commission chooses to table this
item to the next meeting, if it is possible after it has been viewed, if there
are some other things the Commission would like to see, if it is conveyed
16188
to us through the Planning Department so we could address it at the next
meeting so that we could expedite it.
�... Mr. Alanskas: The Planning Department would take care of that for us.
Mr. Hale: The neighbors of the Villas raised concerns that in my view warrant
tabling this item to June 23, 1998.
On a motion by Mr. Hale, supported by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#6-94-98 RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby determine to
table the Sign Permit Application and Landscape Plan in connection with
Petition 98-1-8-2 which received site plan approval to construct two office
buildings on property located at 19400 Victor Parkway in the North 1/2 of
Section 6 to June 23, 1998.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas: We will all go out and take a look at the site, give our recommendations to
the staff and they will get in touch in with you so that we can resolve this
on the 23rd.
Nits. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced that the last item on the agenda is a Request for a
One Year Extension of all plans in connection with Petition 96-3-8-4 which
received site plan approval to construct an Oncology Center on property located at
28425 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Nagy: There is no new correspondence on this petition. They are asking just for
a one year extension.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#6-95-98: RESOLVED, that the request for a one-year extension of Site Plan
Approval by Harley Ellington Design, on behalf of Botsford General
Hospital, in a letter dated May 5, 1998, is hereby approved and shall be
subject to all conditions and requirements set forth in Resolution#407-96.
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
16189
ti
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 765th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on June 9, 1998 was adjourned at 10:05 PM.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Daniel Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: �\,,
Robert Alanskas, Vice Chairman
/du