HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - 2019-03-04 - APPEAL - PET. 2018-12-08-09
CITY OF LIVONIA
PUBLIC HEARING
Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, March 4, 2019
______________________________________________________________________
A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall
Auditorium on Monday, March 4, 2019.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Toy, President
Jim Jolly, Vice President
Brandon Kritzman
Kathleen McIntyre (Arrived 7:02 p.m.)
Brian Meakin
Cathy White
MEMBERS ABSENT: Scott Bahr
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Economic Development
Paul Bernier, City Attorney
Todd Zilincik, City Engineer
Bonnie J. Murphy, CER-2300, Certified Electronic Recorder
The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Laura Toy presiding.
This is a Public Hearing relative to a request for an appeal of Condition #5 by the City
Planning Commission of Petition 2018-12-08-09 submitted by MIU Holdings, L.L.C.
requesting site plan approval to redevelop the office building, including the renovation of
the exterior of the existing building and substituting the required masonry screen wall
along the north and west sides of the property with a greenbelt and plantings located on
the north side of Five Mile Road between Hubbard and Farmington Roads in the
Southwest ¼ of Section 15.
The Public Hearing is now open. There were six people in the audience.
Toy: Mr. Taormina?
Taormina: Thank you, Madam President. This is an appeal of a condition of the
Planning Commission when they reviewed the site plan at the same time
Council considers the appeal itself. So, again, it’s a request to renovate
the office building at 33014 Five Mile Road, which is directly across the
street from City Hall. This property is about 4/10ths of an acre in size, has
115 feet of frontage on Five Mile Road and a depth of 174 feet along
Woodring Avenue. The south half of the site contains the existing
2
building, that part is zoned C-2, and then the north half of the property is
zoned P, Parking. As you can see from this aerial photograph there are
commercial businesses on both either side of the building, these are
zoned C-2 to the west, and then immediately to the north are residential
homes zoned R-1, One Family Residential.
MIU or Michigan Institute of Urology is proposing to move from its current
location which is at Farmington Road and Lyndon to this location which
was originally built as a Michigan National Bank. And interestingly in
1973, a section of Woodring Avenue directly north of Five Mile Road
adjacent to this site was vacated pursuant to Ordinance No. 1116. In your
notes, this small section of Woodring is privately owned, the area is
paved, and it presently functions as a public right-of-way allowing for thru
traffic. What you may not realize is that the section of Woodring abutting
the building running north from Five Mile for about 150 feet or so is
actually private property.
The existing building is two stories in height, it’s about 7,400 square feet in
gross floor area. Currently there are eight parking spaces on the east side
of the building and seven spaces behind the building and fourteen spaces
along the north property line for a total of roughly twenty-nine parking
spaces.
The first floor will be devoted primarily to procedure and exam rooms, with
a laboratory and other support services, there’s a waiting area, restrooms,
reception and check out area as well as doctor offices.
The upper level will be very limited in term of its usage. It will have a
break room, storage and office space. There will be no customers allowed
in the upper part of the building. So altogether the usable floor area of the
building is about 4,600 square feet.
In looking at how the building will change, and again, what I’m going
through right now are all the issues related to the site plan itself, we’ll get
into the issues and talk a little bit about them and get into the issue of the
appeal shortly.
The changes to the building include removal of the mansard roof and then
painting the existing brick, there will be cultured stone placed along the
base of the building as well as porcelain tile. There will be a wood fascia,
EIFS cornice, limestone sill and metal canopies.
The rendering shows what the building will look like from Five Mile Road,
quite a substantial transformation. And also, just to let you know, there’s a
canopy on the west side of the building that used to cover the original
taller window, that will be removed as part of the proposal.
3
The next rendering shows the front of the building looking in a northwest
direction, the rear of the building, and as you can see the second level is
visible, the additional space above and the canopy being installed includes
limestone, the tile as well as the cultured brick.
So, of the 4,600 square feet, about 1,200 square feet of that constitutes
exam rooms and procedure rooms which requires parking at a ratio of one
space for every 110 square feet of usable floor area. The remaining 3,400
square feet will be treated as general office and that parking ratio is one
space for 200 square feet of floor area. Altogether, no less than twenty-
eight parking spaces are required to satisfy the Zoning Ordinance. The
plan currently shows thirty-eight spaces. All of the spaces are required to
be 10 feet in width as the plan does show.
There is a dumpster enclosure shown in the northwest corner of the
property, it will be fully enclosed.
Now, with respect to the two protective walls on the property where it
adjoins residential as well requires a minimum 5 foot masonry screen wall.
The plans show the new fence or wall running along the west side of the
property where it abuts the property to the west adjacent to that parking
district.
Along the north side the Petitioner has proposed to the Planning
Commission a greenbelt in lieu of a wall. That greenbelt would be 10 feet
in width and it would be planted with a number of junipers as well as
burning bushes. The Petitioner is trying to get a waiver involved here as
there are several large trees, including a couple of oak trees that sit right
on the property line and he felt that would be a disruption to have to
remove those trees and that it would be equally as effective by planting
the greenbelt and the masonry wall. The owner of that property at 15341
Woodring objected to the wall waiver and the Planning Commission in its
final resolution required the wall. They allowed the Petitioner to cut back
on the greenbelt and make adjustments for the plantings but they wanted
to see the masonry wall built where it was required between the parking
district and the residential district and thus is the reason for the appeal this
evening. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Toy: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Questions for Mr. Taormina?
Taormina: And let me just point out, too, the minutes are confusing. As you go
through the minutes, the initial plans submitted by the Petitioner showed
closing off Woodring, so that’s on the original plan that was approved back
in 1973 when this street was vacated. However, through discussions with
the Planning Commission and careful review of the records, it was
decided that it would be better to maintain Woodring open, there is an
4
easement that allows for public use of that area so it is the desire of the
Planning Commission as well as the Petitioner to keep Woodring
functioning as it currently does.
Toy: Thank you. Councilman Meakin.
Meakin: Through the Chair to Mark, does the plan submitted provide adequate
screening of the houses to the north?
Taormina: Well, I guess that probably would be something that certainly with shrubs
planted and properly spaces and a little height would provide very
effective screening of that area. It would not be a solid screening such as
a masonry wall but over time as that vegetation matures, it would
certainly provide additional screening. I know the neighbors to the north
maintain a pool, there’s some concern about privacy there and the impact
of those trees back there, I’m not sure.
Meakin: Thank you.
Toy: Mr. Taormina, have they already started on this building?
Taormina: They’ve been working closely with Inspection and Engineering and
Planning and what we’ve allowed them to do. Part of they need to do in
order to design this, is tear some of the elements of the outside apart to
see what they have to work with. So we allowed the demolition to occur
as part of the design and also some interior work. The use that is
proposed for this is permitted use. But the work you see on the exterior
was more fact finding, the demolition, no final work will be done until those
plans get approved by you.
Toy: I’m trying to see the final vote of the Planning Commission and I can’t see
it, do you know the vote on it?
Taormina: I believe it was unanimous.
Toy: It was unanimous for it to have a wall, is that what it was?
Taormina: That’s correct.
Toy: May I ask, in that area, and I’m not remembering and I haven’t had a
chance to look at it, how do those buildings along Five Mile – I know I
went to a dentist and he got denied and I don’t think it was us as far as
this particular Council in lieu of a wall. There’s a lot of those buildings that
are older along there, right?
Taormina: Right.
5
Toy: Do most of them have walls or is there vegetation along there? I’m not
real certain of the inventory there.
Taormina: I think it’s mixed. I think you’ll find some walls along there, a combination
of walls, fences and landscaping depending on when the building was
constructed and the ordinances that were in effect at the time.
Toy: Sure. And as you mentioned that the property at Woodring there, is
private, does that go with the land of this building, is that what that is
about?
Taormina: Yes, they own the west half of the vacated portion of Woodring Avenue
from the north from Five Mile for a distance I believe it’s 150 feet.
Toy: So that’s going to be left open?
Taormina: Yes.
Toy: Okay. And there’s parking on the flip side there as well then, right, is that
their parking?
Taormina: Well, there’s parking immediately adjacent to this building on this side and
then across the street there’s parking for the adjacent office that is not for
use for this.
Toy: Oh, that’s not for use for this?
Taormina: It is not.
Toy: Okay. And then we’re going to get into the site plan a little bit, I guess,
we’re referring to. What I’ve seen, which is a beautiful building, a big
improvement, is plantings, and there’s flowers with plantings, I just
wondered, as I look at that, and the change of seasons in Michigan,
should that be shrubbery in there? I can’t tell what kind of flowers those
are. Does that change into some kind of shrubbery over there so it keeps
the beautiful appeal of this nice building?
Taormina: I think that’s just an artist’s rendering, I don’t think that’s the actual
landscape plans, what those are. It may appear to be some type of
perennial. And if I can correct something I said?
Toy: Sure.
Taormina: It’s not 150 feet, the vacated portion, it’s actually 105 feet.
6
Toy: Thank you so much. Did the Petitioner want to address anything that’s
been said or would you like to represent yourself in any way?
Alfonsi: Sure.
Toy: If we could have your name and address for the record, please.
Alfonsi: My name is Mark Alfonsi, I’m the architect.
Parks: I’m Jay Parks with M & B Construction.
Toy: Great.
Alfonsi: Mark did a really good job of presenting our case, he’s been working hard
on both cases, developing this, and trying to do something nice. We’re
not looking to shortfall anything. The landscaping in the back, we feel
that’s a pretty good option and more conducive with the environment and
we want to make sure they can have proper screening process, the back,
that would meet the zoning ordinance if not a little bit more and get proper
screening so that the neighbors have real good privacy.
Parks: Jay Parks.
Toy: What is your address?
Parks: 3155 W. Big Beaver Road, Troy.
Toy: Okay.
Parks: We’re here for MIU.
Toy: I’m sorry, you’re what?
Parks: We’re representing MIU, the owners.
Toy: Where are they at? I mean where are their representatives, are they here
this evening?
Parks: That’s us.
Toy: Okay. But are the actual owners here this evening?
Parks: No. It’s a corporation, I think they have eighteen locations, they have a lot
of facilities like this one here in southeast Michigan. There are trees right
on the property line, there’s no way to save them and do the wall. They
would have to be taken down.
7
Alfonsi: And they’re all caliber Oak trees.
White: Madam President?
Toy: Yes, go right ahead, Councilmember White.
White: I have a couple questions for the Petitioner. So, the fact that there’s a wall
planned on the western end of the property that’s because that’s the only
area where there aren’t these large trees, is that correct?
Parks: Yes, it’s an old fence that’s fallen down, there’s only I think five feet there,
so yes, we’re going to tear the fence out where there’s brush and put the
wall there.
White: Can you tell me, this medical facility, is it 9:00 to 5:00 Monday through
Friday; what are the hours?
Parks: The operation I believe is 9:00 to 5:00 but typically somebody is there at
8:00 o’clock.
White: Are they open on Saturday or the weekend at all?
Parks: Typically no.
White: Thank you.
Toy: Any other questions from the Council?
Zilincik: Madam Chair?
Toy: Yes, go right ahead, Mr. Zilincik.
Zilincik: I would like to add, too, we have an issue with Oak trees that will have to
be addressed, through the Oak wilt, we will have to take them down by the
end of March and I just wanted to make sure that you’re aware of that
potential issue where a house will have diseased trees due to Oak wilt, so
we have three trees on hillcrest that we’ll have to address with this issue
so whatever decision is made, please keep that in mind as far as they
should be removed by the end of March. Another issue, too, I want to
bring up is that the half width of Woodring obviously one of the key
concerns that I have is backing out if it comes back to us as far as liability
to the City, we want to be truly indemnified from the issues of potential
parking from that building. It’s a nice building and I just want to make sure
that we’re protected in that issue also as far as parking if allowed, want to
make sure the City is indemnified if any such issues occur from that
parking there. Thank you.
8
Toy: So what you’re saying is that the Oak trees have to come down, is that
what you’re saying?
Zilincik: Yes. Our Forestry Division has told us that if we have to remove Oak
trees, we have three Oaks on Hillcrest that should come down by the end
of March due to the Oak Wilt disease.
Kritzman: Madam Chair.
Toy: Councilman Kritzman, go ahead.
Kritzman: Through the Chair to Todd, have these trees been identified as having that
disease or are you just saying if they are going to come down they need to
be taken down by the end of March?
Zilincik: Correct.
Kritzman: They have not been identified at this point?
Zilincik: That’s correct. If they don’t have the Oak wilt disease it’s a matter of if we
have to take the trees down. We want to prevent additional disease of
Oak wilt.
Toy: Go ahead, sir.
Alfonsi: So you don’t know for sure if they have them?
Zilincik: No.
Alfonsi: Okay, thank you.
Toy: Thank you so much. Was there anything else the Council wanted?
Meakin: Let’s get back to the initial portion of this. Whose lot is the tree on? I want
a specific answer to that question.
Alfonsi: It’s right on the property line.
Parks: From our eyes it’s either the trees were planted on this property but
they’ve grown and encroached on the other one a couple of inches, six
inches at the most.
Meakin: So technically the tree is owned by both this property owner and the
resident, is that?
9
Kritzman: I don’t know how that works.
Meakin: Is there a legal description tonight, Mr. Bernier?
Audience: If I can say something?
Toy: Just a minute. Come on up to the podium.
Bernier: If it’s on the property line, this property has had a tortured history, Mark
and I went through and tried to figure this out because of the vacating the
street and the different things that have gone on, it’s a difficult property to
figure out to be honest with you. And quite frankly, if it’s on the property
line, typically it belongs to both. So I would say that that tree belongs to
both.
Meakin: Thank you.
Toy: Go right ahead. Your name and address for the record, please.
Bazzell: Susan Bazzell, 15316 Shadyside Street, and I am the west property line.
Those trees were not planted, they just grew naturally there. I’ve been
there since 1961 and the trees that are on my property, the people who
owned Michigan National Bank, they never trimmed them, they never ---
they grew up in my fence, the trees just grew naturally. We were there
before the houses were built there, even the two buildings next to us, our
home has been there since 1928, one of the oldest homes in Livonia.
Toy: Were you there when the fire station was there?
Bazzell: Yes.
Toy: Well, thank you for that information. Is there anything else you’d like to
say before we go to the Council?
Bazzell: Yes. I wanted to know what they’re going to do with the fence and the
trees that go around in the fence. My property – we have a garden every
year and my father truck loaded dirts, loads of dirt, so we are
approximately two feet taller than your property so is that going to be –
Toy: Just direct your comments this way, okay?
Bazzell: Okay. The 5 foot wall that they’re going to build which is what we do want
for privacy because we have animals and the people next door, the
dentist, and the customers and stuff they aggravate the dogs, they
poisoned my dad’s dog and we had to put her down. They spray – we
had to quit planting our garden there, they killed our blueberry bushes and
10
things that we had planted behind the garage. My dad’s dog was just
eaten up with the weed sprayer that they sprayed along that fence. So but
anyhow, the trees that are there, they block the sun coming in in the
garden area that we had and I just want to know if what they’re going to do
if there is a 2-3 foot difference in our level than theirs. So I’m curious what
they’re going to do there.
Toy: Right now what they’re saying is that those Oak trees are in the dead
center of that property line so that they would belong to you –
Kritzman: No, this is a different property.
Toy: Oh, I’m sorry, yes. This is the –
Bazzell: The back property.
Toy: Oh, the back property, okay, got it. I’m sorry.
Bazzell: The Oak trees, though, were not planted, they were just there naturally. I
grew up playing in that parking lot.
Toy: Yes, so did I. Yes, go right ahead.
McIntyre: Can you show us or maybe mark where the garden is? I’m trying to
understand which portion of the lot.
Taormina: You can see the shed right there and the garden.
McIntyre: The garden is in the upper, on your property line, the upper right hand
corner?
Taormina: Right behind the garage.
McIntyre: Which area is your garden?
Bazzell: Oh, the garden is in the center of the backyard, we have a large yard,
large lot. But it used to be behind, I used to have two areas and one was
behind the garage and it lined up with the fence on the south side.
Kritzman: There’s a better image on Google Maps.
McIntyre: Thank you.
Bazzell: But the elm trees there that are there, they do have elm disease and
we’ve done everything. Every year we normally cut them down but the
last couple years I haven’t been able to get out there and cut them down
11
and they’ve grown into the wires and stuff hat are there and we’ve called
DTE about them and the telephone company and stuff because it’s on the
easeway. So that’s my question, is the easeway there, or are they going
to remove them?
Taormina: Madam President, if I may?
Toy: Sure.
Taormina: In response to her question about to the extent they’re required to build a
wall at their property line, they will have to remove whatever is on their
property to facilitate construction of that wall which may or may not include
vegetation issues she’s referring to. For them to do any work on her
property, they would have to have an agreement in place between the
parties in order for them to remove additional vegetation on that property.
So that would have to be an arrangement that the private property would
have to make on themselves. All they’re obligated to do is build that wall,
that wall has to be a minimum of 5 feet in height, measured from the
highest point of the grade, so it would have to be 5 feet, the 5 feet would
have to be measured from her side of the property. And that’s all they’re
obligated to do and any vegetation beyond that that exists on her property,
that will be her responsibility and she has to make arrangements for them
to do that for her.
Toy: Thank you. Mr. Zilincik, go ahead.
Zilincik: I’ll add that, too, she said she brought in fill, so once he puts this wall in,
she’s responsible for the water on her side of the property, they’re
responsible for their water on their side of the property. I don’t know if with
the wooden fence, if the water drains through the fence to the back
property line and I just want to make sure that that’s clear, that when the
masonry wall is built, there may be some unknown issues that she may
have to address with the fill that was brought in years ago and now you
have two foot of fill, and I don’t know the soil conditions on her area or you
know the whole subdivision itself, so a lot of stuff drains out on the street.
As you can see from the condition of Woodring pavement, it’s in bad
condition, that’s why we haven’t patched it, because it is a vacated
alleyway between this business and the one to the east side. We just
want to bring that potential issue up. Once you put a solid wall there, she
may have to address on her own personal property some additional
landscaping or drainage to make sure that water does not sit back there
now.
Alfonsi: Can I ask a point of clarification?
Toy: Sure.
12
Alfonsi: You said the wall, the highest area would be 5 feet above the grade and I
was going to ask is that at where the wall is, 5 feet?
Taormina: I’m not sure I understand your question.
Kritzman: Some areas that don’t have any grading to where the fence will actually be
located, that 5-foot point is only at the grade right where the fence is, not
like within ten feet, the highest point within 10-feet.
Alfonsi: Thank you.
Toy: Anything else? Any questions? Any comments?
Bazzell: No. I just was worried about that 2-foot drop there because I have a
Rottweiler and she’s getting up there in her age and 3-foot is not --- you
know, 2-foot on their property will only give me 3-foot on my property. And
if someone comes by and aggravates the animals, okay, which they do. I
have a ---- I’m not sure how tall the fence is but when they built the
property to the next of me there, the dentist, there’s a fence that’s
probably over 6-foot, maybe 7-foot, I’m not sure, and then our fence, and
then snowplowers from the property there, they came and they pushed up
snow up against our fence and broke our fence. They pushed the snow
through our side so the fence has since gotten old. People jump the
fence, a couple run through the backyard and steal vegetables out of our
garden, they throw things over to aggravate the animals. I know it’s --- but
I’m just trying to make sure for my family and our pets and things that you
know it’s not doing things to harm them.
Toy: So what are you saying that you prefer, what do you prefer then? I mean
if they put a nice greenbelt there.
Bazzell: No, a greenbelt would not.
Kritzman: That’s not where the greenbelt would be.
Toy: Oh, that’s the wall, okay, that’s right, I’m sorry. It’s a confusing piece of
property. All right. So you’re voicing that fact. So they’re only going to
be able to put a wall there is what’s going to happen.
Bazzell: Yes, I am happy with that. I’m not sure where they’re going to put it
because like I told you there’s a 2-foot drop.
Toy: Right on the lot line.
Taormina: Right on the lot line.
13
Bazzell: The lot line, but there’s an easeway there, a 5-foot easeway for the 5-foot
utility poles.
Toy: Maybe we can have somebody from the City come out there and eyeball it
for you, how would that fly? Go ahead. Mr. Kritzman, go ahead.
Kritzman: Again –
Bazzell: Are they going to put it in the easeway just on their property line?
Kritzman: Madam Chair, I don’t believe the easement for the utilities prohibits
construction of a wall, from my belief. If you find yourself in a situation
where there is a pole, a utility pole, there may have to be some
accommodation around it or some adjustment made to the wall.
Toy: Okay.
Kritzman: We’ve got a lot of pieces and parts to cover, I just want to make sure that
your situation is understood. Your preference in that area is for a wall
being constructed?
Bazzell: Oh, definitely.
Kritzman: That is actually what is proposed in the drawings. So as far as I’m
concerned in here, that piece is not necessarily an issue. So you should
be all set.
Bazzell: Okay, thank you.
Toy: It should be fine.
Zilincik: Just real quick.
Toy: Sure.
Zilincik: Since there’s a grade elevation of 5-foot on the left side of the wall and 3-
foot on the other, she may want to put a fence on the back side of her
property to protect the animal or whatever she’s concerned about as far as
even though it’s 5-foot elevation wise on the piece of property, maybe an
additional fence behind that masonry wall?
Kritzman: No. I believe the way the ordinance read, and Mark, please clarify, that 5-
foot measurement is on the highest point of grade on either side of the
wall and so it is higher on her side, that’s where the measurement will be
taken. So on their side it will be a 7-foot wall.
14
Toy: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Kritzman, appreciate it. Okay, go ahead.
Meakin: I have a question regarding the landscaping because you’ve got a pool
next door, is there a fence? There’s no wall there currently.
Taormina: It’s a raised pool.
Meakin: It’s a raised pool. And why do you want the landscape instead of a wall
there?
Alfonsi: We have a yard full of trees and trying to be consistent with the
environment, we want to make sure we have a nice landscape and screen
instead of putting in a wall.
Meakin: Is there going to be irrigation for the landscaping?
Alfonsi: I don’t know.
Meakin: Is that a requirement, Mark?
Taormina: What is your question?
Meakin: Is irrigation required for the landscaping?
Taormina: Absolutely. That should have been a condition of the approval.
Toy: Mr. Kritzman. Councilman Kritzman, then I’ll go back to the audience.
Kritzman: Through the Chair to Mark, I guess the question I would be asking is if we
do ask them to build a wall there, I can’t find anywhere in here a version of
the site plan with a wall on the north side of the property, if we do end up
saying that we’re going to keep the wall in lieu of the buffer, what are the
landscape requirements for the property? Because it looks at this point,
there’s not 100% lot coverage.
Taormina: The percentage of landscaping, I’m not certain what that computes to.
With the wall, they can still keep some of that north area as greenspace.
They just wouldn’t have to call for as many shrubs along there as is shown
on this plan. The landscaping plan was intended to serve as the only
buffer but with the wall they can still keep the 10-feet of grass area but
they just don’t need to plant all those bushes and trees.
15
Alfonsi: I just have a comment if that’s okay. We actually did increase that a little
bit to make sure for us to put the wall there and with the shrubs being a
little bit newer.
Jolly: I just think it’s weird that we have this opportunity to talk about whether or
not to build a wall.
Taormina: It might be helpful for you Councilmembers, to view that area, really to see
and it’s close so if you want to consider a resolution for them and then visit
it it might give you a better understanding of it.
Toy: Sure.
Jolly: In terms of the public right of way through the parking lot which is
Woodring of sorts, what are the pros and cons of keeping it that way? I
mean this always seemed disjointed to me at best and if there’s such a
liability problem here in terms of people backing up, it is relatively
narrower there, is there really a true benefit for keeping this because I
question whether or not there is.
Taormina: Your packets include quite a bit of the history on this and it is quite
convoluted in that following an approval of the vacation, I mean it goes
beyond that, so it’s not just the part that is currently vacated, there was
one further to the north that was vacated as well, that was undedicated if
you will and those areas were rededicated back to the City as a right of
way. But this portion was not. It’s remaining privately owned since 1973.
There was an intent at one time to close that street off and the develop it
the way it was originally approved. And the residents of Woodring came
out and objected and that’s when the Council said no, let’s keep it open.
So because of those objections by people having an impacted ability to
access their homes directly from Five Mile and Woodring, that the City
decided to keep that open and Michigan National Bank at the time and the
other property owners involved agreed as well. And then there was the
question of the parking lot came up as well years later in the ‘90s you’ll
see. And it was through the advice of the Inspection Department that that
was a longstanding condition and that it was part of the approved plan and
that those park spaces should be allowed to remain as they currently are
located on the side of that building. All of that is documented in your
packet mostly through correspondence and some actions of the Council
and recorded easements, etc., there’s quite a lot.
Jolly: So I guess my question is this: You know they were at one time
grandfathered in, if we’re doing it --- we’re not really doing a site approval,
are we?
16
Taormina: There’s a site approval, they will tell you that they absolutely need those
parking spaces to meet their parking count, that they have to have 38
parking spaces to make this work.
Jolly: And what is their number?
Taormina: I think they have exactly 38, 39, maybe they can refresh, so this is the
number that they want to have. So the elimination of those ten spaces or
whatever alongside of the building would be problematic for the developer.
Jolly: I appreciate that and I understand there’s some history there.
Taormina: This is extremely unique and it’s private parking backing up on the private
property.
Jolly: The building looks great, I think it’s definitely an upgrade.
Parks: Practically speaking from a usage perspective, the idea is that those
would be employee spots, so it’s not going to be so much patient traffic.
Jolly: Is there a way to designate those as employee parking spots? Because if
they were employee parking spots there would not be as much coming
and going spots. Is there a way to designate those as employee parking
spots with a sign?
Taormina: We could.
Parks: Practically speaking, they’re the first ones there and the last ones to leave
so knowing that.
Alfonsi: Parking right in the front of the entrance seemed like a natural, a very
controlled access.
Jolly: Thank you.
Toy: Councilmember White.
White: I’m offering two resolutions, one approving the plan with a wall, and one
approving the plan without a wall.
Toy: Yes, Councilman Meakin.
Meakin: Just a clarification. Are we approving the appeal or are we actually
approving the site plan?
17
Taormina: Site plan. So it would be the full resolution, you’d have two resolutions,
one with and one without the wall but it also included approval of all the
other site elements.
Toy: Anyone else? Councilmember Kritzman.
Kritzman: If we’re going to go down that road I guess I’m going to ask the Petitioner
do you have a version of the site plan that shows the wall on the north
side?
Alfonsi: Do we have one?
Taormina: You’re asking me?
Kritzman: Yes.
Taormina: The answer is no. The one that shows is a new fence or a wall along the
west side but it does not show a wall on the north side.
Kritzman: So I guess from my perspective if we’re going to have it, I would ask that
that be submitted as part of this process so that if we’re approving a site
plan that we would actually have a copy of that document to look at.
Alfonsi: So you need it before the meeting? You’re voting in one week?
th
Toy: We’re voting on March the 11 of this year at 7:00 o’clock here in the
auditorium.
Alfonsi: So when would I have to have that to you by?
Toy: Twenty-four hours before. Well, that’s on a Monday, so by week end.
McIntyre: I’d like to offer a third resolution to refer it to Committee, because there are
a lot of moving pieces with this and it would be my hope that we can get
this resolved and voted on one way or the other next Monday. But given
that we’re now under a really tight time to get the data.
Parks: We can do that pretty easily.
McIntyre: Okay. I would like to offer that as an option in the event that we’re not
ready for whatever and I would hope that we’re ready to give an up or
down vote on Monday but there are a lot of pieces to this and so I would
offer this option.
Toy: I concur you’ve got to vote to decide this.
18
McIntyre: But even in looking at this project, this has a lot of pieces.
Toy: You’re right, you’re right.
Taormina: It would go to a regular for a vote.
Toy: Yes, it would, yes, sir. Anybody else? Go ahead, Mr. Zilincik.
Zilincik: I want to bring up one more point on the Woodring side of things for
safety. You know you guys talk about, you know they’re bringing up
employee parking on that side of the street, one thing you have to
consider, too, take a look at the area but also to back in their vehicles.
What are the vehicles that are being placed there, you know if they pull
out and back up, we don’t want somebody to get injured in there. So I just
want to make sure if that’s what’s required to back into parking or if it’s out
of ten spots there, five are employees, the other ones may have to back in
or whatever, I mean this is something to consider for the safety issue of
Woodring coming back to us for its right of way itself.
Jolly: I have one more question. Is the parking lot going to be resurfaced?
Parks: Yes.
Jolly: And will it include the part of Woodring there in question?
Parks: Yes.
Taormina: Yes. The resolution is that it only require the repairing of the west half
because the other east half is owned by somebody else and I believe the
City is talking about that once that’s done paving Woodring, or resurfacing
Woodring up to that point at the north end.
Zilincik: It is scheduled for the 2019 program, up to that vacated right of way. So it
is listed to get this done this year hopefully and I know that was one of
Bob Bennett’s, former Mayor, he was on the Road Committee, he always
wanted to try to get this piece done so it’s good to see it get developed
and get hopefully this last piece of the puzzle, the four streets that were
delayed from last year, do it this year.
th
Toy: That will be heard on March 11. Thank you very much.
As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared
closed at 7:45 p.m.
SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK