HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2001-07-2418658
MINUTES OF THE 828a PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAI
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, July 24, 2001, the City Planning Comnission oftbe City ofLivoma held its
828n Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan
Mr. James McCann, Chaimim, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm
Members present James C. McCann Dm Piemecchi H G. Shane
William LaPme Robert Alanskas
Members absent: Elaine Koros
Messrs. Mark Taomrina, Planning Director, AI Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller, Planner IQ,
Hill Poppenger, Planner I and Robby Williams, Program Supervisor, were also present
Chumnm McCann informed the audience that if a petition on nought's agenda involves a
rezoning request this Commission makes arecommendation to the City Council who, in tum,
will h:4d its own public hearing, make the final detemrinatior as to whether a petition is
approved or denied The Planning Cm cassim holds the only public hearing on a request for
prelinnnary plat and/or vacating petition. The Cora nissim's recommendation is brwoded to
the City Council for the foal delmormtion as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected If a
petition requesting a waiver of we or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has
Ica days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted
by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days atter the date of adoption
The Planning Conmission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions
upon them filing The staff has banished the Crmmissim with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the
proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2001-05-01-06 George & Lillian VitarelG
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the firs[ item on the agenda is Petition 2001-05-01-06
by George & Lillian Vitarelli proposing to rezone property located on the
West side of Newburgh Road between SchoolcraR and Pertb in the SE.1/4
of Section 19 from RUF to OS.
Mr. Tamu a presented a map sbowmg the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCam: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak There is me item ofcorrespondence. It is a letter firm the Engineering
Division, dated lane 25, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
18659
request, the EngineeringDivision has reviewed the above referenced petition.
The fallowing legal description should be used in connection therewith: Zot
27,ZimmermanandPorter's SchooLrmlEstates Sub&vmwo asrecorded
in Liber 68, Page 73 of Plats, Wayne County Records.' Although the
property has sanitary sewer andwater mains provided storm sewers are not
avadable. The developer wdl need to provide an alternate drmmge solution,
and may be required to provide storm water detention as specified in the
Wayne County Storm Water Management Ordinance. Other than the above
mentioned issue, ire have an objections to the proposal at this tine." The
letter is signed by David Lear, PE., Civil Engineer. That is the extent of die
correspondence.
Mr. McCain:
Is the petitioner herelhis evening!
George & Lillian Vito th, 33930 Lamoyne, Livonia
Mr. McCann:
Can you describe to us wby you are requesting the zoning change for this
propertSn
Mrs. Vlbffdh:
We want to inn a childcare center with not more than 20 children. In order to
do that it is considered a center. In fact, we have the rulebook here.
Mr. McCann:
We understood that you require an OS zoning in order to operate a childcare
center for the number of children you want to have. Do you want to tell us
about the remodeling you expect to do?
Mrs. Vitarelli:
It would remain just the way it is. We probably would add another bathroom
because we would need to for more than 15 children, finish the baserrr-nt and
probably make the garage ton, play space but we wouldnY change the outside
of the house many way.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Are you going to have 20 or 23 children?
Mrs. Vitarmeeth
Not more than 20.
Mr. Alanskas:
Of the 20 children that you would have, I am sure they would take a daptime
nap.
Mrs. ViYmeelli:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Where would they be sleeping in the home?
Mrs. Vitorelh:
I have been doing childcare for 20 some years in my home and the reason I
woof to do this is because I would really like to not live in a childcare center.
I enjoy what I do but I would like to come home to my oven home.
Mr. Alanskas:
So how do you sleep 20 children A one time?
18660
Mrs. VitareW:
With cots and cribs.
Mr. Alanskas:
Throughout all rooms of the house?
Mrs. Vitarelli:
Yes. RightnowIusemywholehouse. Iusemy Fmmlyroomwithcds and
have cribs in the bedrooms.
Mr. Alanekas:
How large of a play area do you have in the back for the children?
Mrs. Vitarelli:
It is an a half acre.
Mr. Alaaskas:
Ib you have swings and so forth?
Mrs. Vitaelli:
At my house right now I do, yes. I out licensed by the state.
Mr.Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. LaPme:
Ib you own this home now?
Mrs. Vitarelli:
Yes. We bought it
Mr. LaPine:
And you bought it with the idea that you were going to by to make it into
aootberhome. Was ityourongiml idea that when youboughtityouwere
going to move here?
Mrs. Vitarelh:
No. We were going to make it into a child care cent. The people who sold
us the house knew our intentions and this was not something that was done an
awhim. Wehavebeen locking for ayear and ahalf for ahousetouse.
Mr. LaPine:
Before you bought the home, did you know there were certain regulations that
you would have to get the waiver use and things of that nature?
Mrs. Vitardh:
If you look A that intesecnon. Ijust never thought we would have a problem
It is such a busy intersection I thought, "Wbo would care? Itis allsunrouoded
by trees." The people an Richfield can't even see the yard.
Mr. LaPlne:
The home you live in now, you operate a day care?
Mrs. Vitardh
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
How many children do you have at that day care?
Mrs. Vitareth
I am licensed for 12 because I can't have more than 12 in the neigbborhood.
Mr. LaPhre:
And you can't expand because of the ordinance, right?
Mrs. Vilarelli:
I need to expand to pay forthe house. Ibat is my main reason for needing to
expand Iwould like to be able to just have 12 children in this home.
18661
Mr. Alanskas:
Because Newburgh is such a busy sheet, how would the parents drop off the
children?
Mrs. Vlbffdh:
Thee is a tum around driveway but that, again, we looked at an office
building that was on a residential street that was already rezoned and we were
told it wouldn't work for chibicare because childcare etas need to be on
main roads.
Mr. Alanskas:
Butitwould be nolaoblemfor Poentodrop off their children?
Mrs. Vihmelli:
No. Not any moreof aproblenthan aigbody else getting outof adriveway.
Mr. Alanskas:
Would they have to back out?
Mrs. Vilatelli:
No.
Mr. Alacskas:
O.K Thank you
Mr. Shane:
We are talking about 20 children coming and going, once m the rooming and
onceintheaflanom Is that the way itwould work?
Mrs. Vitarelh:
Right and usually there is tame than one child per family so A wouldnt be 20
separate cars.
Mr. Shane:
I think I am having the same problem Mr. Alanskas is having mtrymg to
decide how 20 cars me going to function in and out
Mrs. Vitarelli:
They don't all come at the same time.
Mr. Shane:
How many do you think will come at the same time?
Mrs. Vitarelli:
The most I have ever had at my house at one time is tree out of 12 children.
Mr. McCain:
If there me no further questions from the Commissioners, you can have a seat
right now. We will go to the audience then give you the last comment
Mrs. Vitarelli:
This is a handout that we passed out to the neighbors on June 30, 2001
explaining wbat we were going to do. That was before we knew the rezoning
itself would be such a problem
Mr. McCain:
And this is just a letter to the neigbbors?
Mrs. Vitarelh
Yes.
Mr. McCann:
The audience may participate. You can come up and speak for or against this
petition. Before you speak, we would like you to be aware that we have read
the letter from Mr. Hass. We have read the petition wilh all the names on it
That is a part of the public record.
18662
Irene Nosakowski, 14003 Richfield I was given a handout I was not home at the time when
they came by and my concern was immediate when I saw this very
pmfessiamal brochure they attached to their little letter. I knew immediately
this was not going to be a few babysitting children. that it was going to loan
ima something else. And sure enough, two weeks later comes the Planting
Commission letter for the rezoning So I do object to the rezoning since it
goes against the master plan to begin with This is zoned RUF and the house
is in RUF rightnow. Parking available there is for a residential home only,
not a business and obviously 8uere is none available on the street since it is
Newburgh. The parking in the adjacent office parking Im should not be a
possibility of a drop off or pickup sight since there is a posted "No thin
Traffic" sign there aftezdy and an exit to Schoolcraft Road "closed" sign there
which I understand are ticketing offenses because the signs themselves are
posted between the public sidewalk and the street itself which makes them
enforceable to be ticketed. So if the people decide to go through there and
come out on Schoolcraft, if the police would see them they could get a ticket
for doing that. There would be a hazard created for anybody at those busiest
tivrs in the moaning and evening, especially coming north on Newburgh
through Schooknft wanting to make a left hand loan into their driveway or
the office driveway because the yellow double line for the ceter extends to
just the end of the office driveway. Anybody that wanted to make a left hand
man would have to stay in that left traffic ]ane. In the mornings and evenings
you are then backing up into the intersection of Schoolcraft, because it is not
that far of a distance fiom Schoolcraft. You would be causing somewhat of a
hazmd I have seen near misses to rear end collisions with people stopping all
of a sudden to make a left hand turn there and everybody behind them is not
prepared for that Also, about three years ago, my neighbor directly across
the street from me on Richfield, had vacant property that she petitioned to
split to sell it and she was denied that petition based solely on the fact that it
would not conform to the RUF zo mg for aur area It is a beautiful
residential hnue. It is one of the loveliest there along Newburgh. To become
a childcare center, making the backyard in essence a playground, because
how mach square footage do you need for each child? Someone mentioned
100 sq. R Is that correct?
Mr. Alaoskas: 150 sq. ft
Ms. Nosakowski: So you are looking at a lot ofplaygmund area taking away the beautiful
grassy area of the yard for the home and you can see that as you are driving
down Newburgh or walking or whatever. Obviously, you would be able to
hear the children playing even on Richfield at my house. I do ask you to deny
this petition.
Larry Gillelan, 14101 Newburgh I agree with everything the ladyjuA said and you guys are
tuallynghtabartheparking That driveway maybe holds far or five cars.
If they have 15 kids, the square footage of that driveway is not big enough.
The reason it is, is because it is not a horseshoe. You have to back out of the
18663
garage and back into a little space to pull out onto Newburgh and it holds
maybe five cars, tops So there would be a big parking problem there.
James Maedel,
13980 Richfield I live right behind the office building that is right there and
rightne wmeisavac=lotthatiszonedresidential When Iboghtand
built my house I was told this would stay residential and nowmy concern is
one, if we are changing on the other side of the office building where these
people want to put this day care cater, what are we going to do with the lot
that is next to me? Are we going to change mu minds? Ijustbuilt a year ago
and I came down here and checked out with the City how it was zoned and I
have meed feelings about changing that to a day care cater. Like the
people before me said, that driveway is for residential. If you get two, cars
coming out, you are not going to get anybody backing out It is not even wide
enough. I object to the change of the rezoning for this. Thank you
Mr. McCann:
Seeing no me, I am going to close the public hearing. Is there arty las[
comment from the petitioners before we close?
Mrs. Vitarelh
We knew we would have to add some parking space and there is mom to do
that along the side of the existing driveway.
Mr. McCann:
How deep is the home from the right-of-way?
Mr. Taormina:
About 55 fret
Mr. McCann:
About 55 feet from the right-of-way so that would be the area they would
have mom for creating a turnaround and parkin
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, its about 45 feet
Mrs. Vitmelli:
We defimhly were going kr check into that Our ment was not kr endanger
anyone.
Mr. McCann:
Have you closed an this house already?
Mrs. Vitarelh
Yes. We own it The people that sold it to us knew what we were going to
do with it
Mr. McCam:
Yes.Iiutitisnotthenjob. Itisymajobtolookandunderstandwhatthe
riles are.
Mrs. Vitmelh
We knew what the ndes were but we didnl think it would be aproblem. Mr.
Nowak knows. We've talked to him many times through this process.
Mr. LaPme:
Howmany employees will you have?
Mrs. Vitmelli:
Depending on the ages of the children, right now with my 12 children
usually have three helpers with me.
18664
Mr. LaPine: Lees assume you had five infants and all the rest were older children, what
would be the maxirnnm number of employees that you would have there at
any one time?
Mrs. Vitarelli:
Five.
Mr. LaPme:
Plus yomselP
Mrs. Vitarelli:
Yes.
Mr. LaPlne:
Iwouldassu fll ymu ddpmkyouremm[hegmage. Soifyou'vegot
five spaces, lees assume you can get four spots on the drive, how do people
driveup Poeretoletofftheldds? You've really got a prublemhae with the
parking-
arkingMrs.
Mrs.Vlbffdh:
No. We were going to add space along the side of the house.
Mr. LaPme:
How many additional spaces do you think you can put m?
Mrs. Vitarelli:
We didnY measure it but quite a few.
Mr. LaPine:
A car is about 18F to 20' long. With two additional cars, it is cutting it awful
close. Thank you
Mr. McCann:
A motion is in order.
On a motive by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPme and approved it was
#7-110-2001
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on July 24,2001, on Petition 2001-05-01-06 by
George & Lillian Vitarelli proposing to rezone property located on the Wes[
side of Newburgh Road between Schoolcraft and Penh in the S.E.1/4 of
Section 19 from RUF to OS, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-05-01-06 be denied for the
mflowingreasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning would provide for a further
encroachment of non-residential zoning and land uses into a
predominantly residential area;
2. That there is no demonstrated need in this area for additional uses such as
are permitted in the OS zoning district;
3. That the proposed change ofzonmg will be detrimental to and not m
barmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area;
4. That the proposed change of zoning is crummy to the Fmure Land Use
Plan which designates the area as low density residential; and
18665
5. That the proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage future
requests for similar zoning changes along the west side ofNewburgh
Road immediately north of the subject area
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 4543,
as amended.
Mr. McCann: Is Poere any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: I really know that we have a runabout need for day care caters because in
our day and age now, there are two people working, husband and wine, and
we need areas for children to go to but in this particular case on Newburgh
Road and the parking situation. I really think that it would be very
detrnnental to the people going there and possibly to the people driving by
and therefore, some accidents. Therefore, I will be supporting the denying
resolution. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: If there are no further commeNs, I have a couple. I am concerned about the
way the ordinance read. We do want it on main thoroughfares. We are now
requiring the day care to be in an OS district, but yet we want a day care to
be in more of a residential area An area like this, where yoube got a large
backyard where the claddren would be protected, in many ways this
particular home does provide a good opportunity to provide day care to our
citizens. There is a parking issue, especially if she is going to have fou or
five employees there and three to five people dropping off children at a tune.
Itjust doeml work out to park all of the cars and Into them around. There is
traffic because it is located so close to Schoolaaft Road, which aeales
tmfficcongesnom Iam concerned about moving the OS into the residential
area I think since it is m outside lot, I would have w agree. IfI wereto fmd
a ch ldcare cenderthatwould be a particularly good location, that is abutting
OS, and it is aborting residential and it has a deep area for the children to
play so I am going to vote against the denying resolution. Would the
secretary please call the roll?
A roll call vote was taken with the following result
AYES: Shave, LaPine, Almskas, PiemeceLi
NAYS: McCaw
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted
Thepetitionbasbeendemed. Since itisarezomngpetitiw,itwillgo
automatically go to the City Council.
ITEM#2 PETITION 2001-06-02-11 Rogvoy Architects, P.C.
(on behalf of Leo Stassinopoulous)
IF;LT.T.1
Mr. Piescecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2001-06-02-11
by Rogvoy Architects, P.C., on behalf of Leo Stassinopoulous requesting
waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant proposed to be located
on the south side of SchoolcraR Road between Middlebelt Road and Inkster
Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zorang
of the surrounding area
Mr. McCain: Is there any conespwdence?
Mr. Nowak We have four items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated June 26, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above
refsreacedpetition. We have no objections to the proposal at this tame. The
following legal description should be used in connection therewith: 'That
part ofthe N.W.114 of Section 25, T. IS., R 9R, City ofLivoMa, Wayne
County, Michigan, more particularly described as beginning at a point
distant South 01054'43"East, 362.59 feet; thence North 88005'17"Eas4
70.00 feet,; thence North 20 3479"East, 65.55 feet: thence North
65030 034 OF Eas4 6370 feet,; thence North 88000000"East,128.22 feet,'
thence North 84056042"Eas; 62696 feet,; thence North 84056'42"East,
438.11; thence North 84TO U2"East, 250. 00feet; thence South 02'08'09"
Eas4 201.00 feet from the Northwest comer ofSection 25 and proceeding
thence South 02"08'09"East, 35.00 ject; theme North 87051051"East,
100.00 feet; thence North 02'08'09" West, 35.00 feet: thence South
87051'51" Wes4100.00 feet to the polut of beginning.' We trust that this
will provide you with the information requested" The letter is signed by
David Lear, PE., Civil Engineer. The second letteris from the Division of
Police, dated June 29, 2001, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the
site plan in connection with the proposal to operate a restaurant We have
no objection to the ph n as submitted A stop sign should be installed in the
medians southeast of the restaurant for vehicles exiting the parking lot onto
the drive." The letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The thud item is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated July 3,
2001, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the sate ph n
submitted in connection with a request 0 operate a full service restaurant on
property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to
this proposal with the following stipulations. (1) Access around buildings
shall be proadedfor emergency vehicles with turning radlur up to fortyfrve
feet wall to wall anda minimum vertical clearance ofl3-112feet." The
letter is signed by James I- Corcoran, Fre Marshal The fourth itemis form
the Inspection Deparhn®t, dated July 9, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of June 25, 2001, the above referenced petition
has been reviewed This Department has no objections to this petition I
frust thisprovides the requested information." The letter is signed by Alm
Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection- That is the extent of the
correspondence.
18667
Mr. McCain: Is the petitioner here this evens
Leo Stassivopoulous, 154 S. Woodward, Birmingbam, Michigan.
Mr. McCann: You wart to open Leds Coney Island here at the Millennium Park, is that
correct?
Mr. Stassivopoulous: Yes.
Mr. McCain: How far along are you with regard to it?
Mr. Stassmoponlous: I am waiting for the approval.
Mr. McCann; Have you done any of the conshuctiw inside the brdld .
Mr. Stassinopodous: No.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything you would like to tall us aboiII your restaurant?
Mr. Stassinopailous: I have Greek salad, gyros and breakfast
Mr. McCain: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr.Alayskas: Whatwouldyourhoursbe?
Mr. Stassinopoulous: 7:00 am to 10:00 pm
Mr. Alanskas: And you would still have your world famous hot dogs and chili there that
you have at Laurel Park!
Mr. Stassmopoulous: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Mark, the rarnauung 6500 sq. &, that will be vacant Do wekvow what will
be going in that area?
Mr. Taorurina: Not A this time.
Mr. Alanskas: It want be another restaurant that you are aware of!
Mr. Taomtina: Not that I am aware of
Mr.Alanskas: Because webe got Pan= Bread and then we would have Leds. Dowehave
signage an this tonight?
Mr. McCann Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you
18668
Mr. McCann: Are there any other questions boom the Commissioners? Hearing none, is
there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this
petition?
Mark Alms, I am the attorney for Mr. Stassinopoulous. We understand that there was an
oversight on the filing of this and I was advised to seek a seven day waiver.
Mr. McCann: We menot at this poirdyet
Mr. Altas: Thank you
Mr. McCann: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing no one, do you have anything else Mr. Stassimpoulous?
Mr. Stassinopoulous: No.
Mr. Mccam: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Piemecchi, seconded by Mr. Alamkas and manor ously approved it was
#7-111-2001 RESOLVED that, purmantto a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on July 24, 2001, on Petition 2001-06-02-11 by
Rogvoy Architects, P.C., on behalf of Leo Stassinopoulous requesting
waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant proposed to be
located on the south side of Schoolaaft Road between Middlebelt Road and
Inkster Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-06-02-11 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the proposed reslaamt shall be Iimi xd to no more than 130
customer seats;
2. That the Elevations Plan marked Sheet SPA- l prepared by Rogvoy
Architects, as received by the Planning Commission on July 20, 2001, is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That the Sign Plan prepared by Cavell Sieg Co., Inc., as received by the
Planning Commission on July 12, 2001, depicting are (1) wall sign,
thirty-five (35) square feet in area on the west elevation, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
4. That my additional signage shall come back before the Plaming
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
5. Had a slop sign shall be installed in the median southeast of the reslaumrd
fin vehicles exiting the parking lot onto the drive, as recommended in the
correspondence dated June 29, 2001 from the Traffic Baeau of the
Division of Police-
18669
6. That all other conditions and requirements; set forth in the original
resolution granting site plan approval for the `Retail F' budding shall be
adhered to; and
7. That the plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted
to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied
for.
For the following reasws:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requrerams as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of
the Zoning Ordinance 4543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance 4543,
as amended.
Mr. McCaw, Charman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted-
It
doptedIt will go w to City Council with an approving resolution. Now petitioner,
you are requesting a seven day waiver in order to get started What is the
reason to move this ahead of the normal schedule?
Mr. Altas: Apparently there were some timing questions that didn't get resolved. I don't
know if there will be a problem getting the plans done promptly or not We
are seeking a waiver so that we can be consistent with the development of the
rest of the center.
Mr. McCaw: I did talk to Mr. Walkon this morning, who is the landlord He did inform me
that he did talk to Council President Mauream Brosnan and she has no
objection and if, in fact, there is a waiver of seven days, it will facilitate Poem
getting w the Council agenda quicker. Is there a motion?
On a motive by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved it was
#7-112-01 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commissim does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness
ofPlawing Commission resole turns in connection with Petition 2001-06-02-
11 by Rogvoy Architects, P.C., an behalf of Leo Stassinopoulcus requesting
waiver use approval to operate a fillI service restaurant proposed to be
located w the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Middlebelt Road and
Inkster Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 25.
18670
Mr. McCann, Charman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopt-&
ITEM#3 PETITION 2001-06-02-12 Andyaanoush(Pita Franchise Corp.)
Mr. Piercerchi, Secretary, announced the nextitem nn the agenda is Petition 2001-06-02-12
by Andy Hanoush (Pita Franchise Corporation) requesting waiver use
approval to operate a full service restaurant located on the South side of Six
Mile Road between Laurel Park Drive and Newburgh Road in the NE. 1/4 of
Section 18.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zing
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak There are five itmts ofconespovdence. The fast item is how the
Engineering Division, dated June 26, 2001, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request, the Engmeermg Division has reviewed the above
referencedpentiom We have an objections to the proposal at this time. The
following approximate legal description should be used in connection
therewith: 'Thatpart ofthe North east 1/4 of Section 18, T. IS, It 9E.,
City ofLivouiq Wayne County, Michigan, morepaNicularly described as
beginning at a point distant South 89'58'00" West, 645.73 feet,; thence
South 00.02'00"End, 90. 00feet,'theme South 89'58'00" West 327.00
feet and South 00.02'00"East, 175.00 feet from the Northeast Corner of
Section 18 and proceeding thence South 89'58'00" West, 65.00 feet,;
thence South 00002000Or East, 30. 00feet; thence North 89'58'00"East
,
65. 00feet,' thence North 00'02'00" West 30. 00feet to the point of
beginning.' We trust that this will provide you with the information
requested." The labor is signed by David Lear, FOR, Civil Bngineer. The
second itima is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated June 29, 2001, which
reads as follows: "This of%ree has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to operate a full service restaurant on property
located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal" The lister is signed by James E Cimarron, Fire Marsbal. The
third letter is from the Division of police, dated June 29, 2001, which reads
as follows: "We have reviewed theplans ion connection with o proposal by
the petitioner to operate a full service restaurant We have no ohohions to
the plans as submitted" The letter is signed by Wes McKee, Sergeard,
Traffic Bureau The fourth item is from the Inspection Departin®t, dated
July 10, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of June 25,
2001, the above referenced petition has been reviewed The followmg is
noted. (1) This site is missing the required handrails and guardmds atthe
stairs in front ofthis Petitioner's location. (2) The site is missing
guardrad(s) at the southeast and northeast corners ofthe building at
landiigshaised surfaces. (3) This petition will require an exit and
corridor at the rear as the travel distance exceeds that allowed for a am-
18671
exitbui(ing. (4) This petCion, as depicted, is incorrect as to the width of
the corridor accessing the restroom&. Barrier Free requirements area 48 -
inch wide maneuvering space (at restroom doors), (54 inches ifthe door
has a closer). This item will also be further reviewed upon plan submitia4
as a change in use requires full compliance with the current Barrier Free
Code (5) No signage has been reviewed (6) This restaurant requires an
addCionalten (10) parking spfaces over the previous tenant's
requirements. This entire site had an extra ten (10) parking spaces over
the required minimum and, therefore, is shill in compliance. This
Department has na further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by
Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. Thehflhilamisalenirliom
Andy Hanoush, President of Mr. Pita Franchises, wherein he states that the
Rens mentioned in the Building hispection letter are in the correction
process and will be in full compliance with the City ordinances as soon as
possible. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Mccarm
Is the petitioner here this evening
Andy Hanoush,
2411 Joseph Strive, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48314.
Mr. McCann:
Tell us about your reslarsarR
Mr. Hanoush:
I woAdjust like to stress the fact that at the restaurant we don't do any
cooking and we don't do any fire hazards, stoves or whatnot It is all rolled
sandwiches. We have coolers and the microwave. That was one of the main
objections as for as having the rear exit and corridor. In speaking with Alex
Bishop and the landlord and our layout person, we have come up with a
solution for that and that is in the process of being conecRd right now.
Mr. McCann:
Are there my questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
What percent of your business would be canyout?
Mr. Harousb:
I also brought Frank Lombardo, the founder of Mr. Pita with me and he
would be able to answer those questions beth than I would.
Frank Lombardo,
48238 Lake Valley Circle, Shelby Township, from Pita Franchise
Corporation. Typically the majonly of our business is talmaII which is about
45% to 50%.
Mr. Alaaskas:
How many Mr.Pita's are there in the Metropolitan area?\
Mr. Lombardo:
Thereare 24 and one in dowrrtown Chicago.
Mr. Alaaskas:
Of the 24, what is the average number of sents in these restaurants?
Mr. Lombardo:
Between 40 and 50.
18672
Mr. Alamski s: The reason why I ask is because if this is approved and you are very busy,
would you possibly wart to expand the number of seats you have there?
Mr. Lombardo: There really wouldn't be that much space to do that At most, there may be
enough mom for an expansion of two. Ewh location is a fi le bit diff=h-
Tb is, I think, will be a nice pickup store, in and out type of location. I think
we will be very comfortable with this. Our other store in Livonia has 36 seats
also, on Stark and Plymouth
Mr. Alanskas: Do you know what percent of that building is occupied A the present time, as
far as space? Is it 85% bill? Is it 70% or 30%?
Mr. Lombardo: I am comfortable with the fact we are real busy at Inch. Had is our prime
time and AT&T, as much as I would like to say everyone is going to come
over to us for every lunch, the reality of lunchtime is that a Im of people will
be leaving the parking lot
Mr. Alanskas: I know becausejust to the east in the back there are a lot of small buildings
with dentists and doctors and there are a lot of people there. I am sure that
you are going to be very busy in regards to the 36 seats and whether or not
that will be enoigth for you What will you hums be in the eve ming after
lurch?
Mr. Lombardo: We will be open until 9:00 pm -
Mr. Alanskes: How marry days a week?
Mr. Lombardo: Seven days a week but 8:00 p.m. on Sunday. We open at 8:30 am
Mr. Alanskas: O.K Thank you
Mr. McCann: If there are no fiulher questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Do you have arty
last comments?
Mr. Lombardo: Yes, I would like In, say, it is and of an opportune time, I know we are going
to put an exit on the back and I think, as an owner I think that is good and I
think the landlord, it is an oppordme time for us fordmately behind us right
now, it is vacam. I think now is a good time to go in and do the building
properly the way it should have been done initially.
Mr. McCann: Thank you A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPme and unanimously approved it was
#7-113-2001 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on July 24 2001, on Petition 2001-06-02-12 by Andy
Hanoush (Pita Franchise Corporation) requesting waiver use approval to
18673
operate a fill service restaurant located on the South side of Six Mile Road
between Laurel Park Drive and Newburgh Road in the N.P. 1/4 of Section 18,
the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 2001-06-02-12 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 36 seats;
2. That the issues listed in the correspondence dated July 10, 2001 from the
hrspection Department relating to missing handmils at the stairs and at
landings/raised surfaces, the requirement for an exit and corridor at the rear
of the building, and the width of the corridor accessing the restrooms not
being in compliance with Barrer Free requirements shall be rectified to
that department's satisfaction; and
3. That all other conditions and requirement set forth in Council Resolution
4188-99 granting site plan approval for the reconstntion of the Laurel
Pointe budding shall remain in effect and shall be adhered to.
For the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 an
the Zoning Ordinance 4543;
2. 'That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use;
and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Sectiw 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance 4543,
as amended
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motive is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted
It will go on to City Council with an approNrng resolution.
ITEM #4 Preliminary Plat Rosati Industrial Subdivision
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, amrounced the next itent on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval
of Rosati Industrial Subdivision by Franco, Rosati proposed to be located w the
west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft Road (I-96) and Plymouth Road
in the South 1/2 of Section 28.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
18674
Mr. Nowak There are forams of correspondence The fast lett is from the Division
of Police, dand June 7, 2001, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed
thepreliminaryplat m provided and have the following recommendatwm
(1) Adeceleradonl n forsouthboundstarkforthepmpowds4et (2)
Posted speed limit of25 "IL (3) Posted as a DeadEnd or No Outlet
sheet Drectional signs for the two curves. (4) Stop sign at the exd to
Stark (5) Woubl recommend NO PARKING on the street (f) Street
fighting the length ofthe street" The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The second letter is fiver the Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated June 28, 2001, which reads as follows: "This offwe
has reviewed the preliminaryplat submihed. We have no objections lo this
proposal with thefollowwg stipulations. (I) Adequate hydrants being
provided and located with a maximum spacing of300' between hydrants.
Most remote hydrant shallflow 1,500 GPM with a residualpressure of20
PSI. (2) Access around buildings shall be provided for emergency
vehicles with turning radius up to forty-five feet wall to wall and a
minvnum verticalclearance of13-l-2 feet. (3) The minimum dhmehr of
cul -de -.vac shall be at lea# 800 to accommodate emergency vehicles. (4)
Any curves or corners ofstreets shall accommodate emergency vehicles
with a turning radius of4S' waI to wall." The letter is signed by James E.
Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Deparhnent of Parks&
Recreation, dated have 18, 2001, which reads as follows: "The Department
of Parks andRecreahon has reviewed the above petition. At thts here, Ifind
an discrepancies or problems that would be caused by the development of
the Rosatilndustrurl Subdivision." lhekfterissignedby Ronald Remk %
Superintendent. The fourth letter is from the Engineering Division, dated
Jane 7, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the
Engheerwg Division has reviewed the preliminaryplat for the above
referencedsubdrvtsion. We have thefollowing concerns regarding the
prelimbmryplat. (1) The legal description shown on the phidoes not
close within the standards setby the Subdivision ControlActofI967. As
well, the legal description has typographical errors compared to the
drawing. This willneed to be corrected before we can accept the plat (2)
No easements for utilities located outside of the right-ey1way are shown on
the proposed plat, such as the sanitary sewer located within lots I thru 6
and the water main running between lots 6 and 7. Sanitary sewer
easements shall be shown as 12' wide, and water main easements shall be
shown as 20' wide. (3) No regional or subdivision wide retention basins
and fore bays are shown as required by the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance. The engineers ofrecord, Bastrey & * Smith, Inc,
have indicated that storm water retention will be on a lot by lot basis. This
arrangement ofeach lot having ifs own retention is acceptable to the
City's Engineering Division, however, it should be noted that Wayne
County will make the final decision as they are the governing authority.
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested." The
lister is signed by David Lear, PE., Civil Engineer That is the extent of the
correspondence.
18675
Mr. McCain: Is the petitioner here this evening
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, representing Mr. Rosati who is also in the audience and
available for arty comments. I think it has been about a year and a half since
we started ov this specific project If you recall, this land was landlocked and
the City of Livonia bas the access parcel, 66 feet wide going out to Stark
Road After several negotiations Mr. Rosati was successful in purchasing
thatsothatwecouldcorNnueon. After that time, being a portion of this is
R-5, being that I was the engineer for Phoenix Land Development
Corpwmtion, I was. I have since then left that corporation as their engineer,
they had some idea, and spoke myself and Mr. Rosati that perhaps the R-5
land, residential, could be used for mitigating the wetlands at George Bums
ILeater. So this in tum involved a delay of aboutnine months, monitoring,
getting figres for this. At that specific time when it appeared as Poough that
could have been done, Phoenix Land Development decided they would not
get involved. So we are back again to square one. A year ago, we had a
concept Poat also includes the development of the R-5 parcel. I have four
copies ofthat drawing at this time ifyou feel at this time A would be helpful
in malting the decision on the industrial.
Mr. McCann: What is it that you want to do in the R57
Mr. Roskelly: Build 11 or 12 single family residential lots, each home being no less than
100' X 150' fret as per R-5 requirements. If it would help you, one of the
things I did not show was a complete wall in my drawings. Certainly I am
aware that the ordinance calls for a masonry wall when you separate
residential from industrial. If you recall, when Mr. Rosati purchased the 66
t. wide ingress and egress, though either the Planning Commission,
Engineering or Council it was mandated that we not put up a wall there but
instead put up a berm In fact, this was recorded It was decided that one of
the requirements would be that we would put landscape, being that it is 66
feet wide, we would use that for right-of-way and use about 20 feet of it for a
berm in order to soften the contiguous existing land use on Poe adjoining lots
prior to getting into Poe industrial sub. I do have a large drawing that gives
you some idea of what ultimately will happen, wbether you want to see that
Mr. McCann: Itis not before us tonight and we have a large agenda to deal with this
evemng. It is helpful to know that it is your intent to make that into single
family horns that comply with Poe R-5 m ^g. That will take access off the
industrial trough Stark Road?
Mr. Roskelly: I have a layout that indicates that as we get to the westerly portion of the
industrial parcel, ane of the roads goes in a northerly direction This ore,
ultimately, you would have a road in the front and in the back of the
industrial. The road in the back of the industrial lots would be the residential
road to serve these 12 or 13 lots.
Mr. McCain: So the residential road would separate between the two but this wall would
still be there on the site?
18676
Mr. Roskelly: Yes. As far as the drainage, the idea is that we certainly would have some
on-site drainage in the parking lots, which I don'tlike but in consolidating
this and when we get to our final engineering, because of the latest changes
in Wavne County storm sewer requirements, we would have a detention area
perhaps in some of that we may lose one of the residential lots that would be
contiguous to the mad that we aregoing to create. Perhaps one ofthese
dmwmgs might give you a better idea
Mr. McCann:
You can bring them up but am going to try and keep the meeting focused
on the M-1 project.
Mr. Roskelly:
I think the M-1 project, Mr. Rosati for the years I worked for him, he builds
smaller industrial buildings. I would like to compare this to the sub that is
contiguous to it on Globe Road. I think it is Globe Subdivision. That one
has, very typically, the same size lots and the type ofbuildings that Mr.
Rosati would be budding If you have questions on the type of building Mr.
Rosati or Its son would be able to give you that informntiou
Mr. Alauskos:
In regards to the 16, how many truck wells are we talking about in the whole
complex?
Mr. Roskelly:
ID have to have Mr. Rosati answer that He will be building them
Enrico Rosati,
18845 Gary Lane. We are putting in the number of truck wells that are
requred-
Mr. Alanskas:
So we are talking about 15?
Mr. Roskelly:
Perhaps, or less.
Mr. Alanskas:
Beira; that you are near residential, when trucks come for deliveries what
hours would they be delivering to these parcels; offs 9:00 am or nothing
early in the morning so people can sleep?
Mr. Rosati:
During the working hours.
Mr. Alanskas:
Ijust want to nake surethat, I know this project is really scaled down, I am
thrilled in regards to the R-5 but I wart to make sure that a couple ofyears
ago it was a very big project and the neighbors came out in aura. They
wanted to make sure there was a large buffer, which you are doing but I also
wart to make sure in regards to trucks going back and forth that would not
be in the early hours of the morning where it would disrupt the residents
sleeping.
Mr. Roskelly:
I relate again to the sub on Globe Road, just contiguous to this land. They
are basically the same size. I would say only abou half of the buildings
have arty truck wells and only one each and there it is very passive. Itis not
18677
Pols heavy industry and certainly not hike the bottling company that was
coring in here.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you wouldn't have all of these big diesel trucks parked and naming in the
early haus of the moming?
Mr. Roskelly:
Absohnely not
Mr. Alanskas:
TLavk you
Mr. Shave:
This is an M-1 district and as such I believe, if am arrect, allows ou tdoor
storage of materials? Assuming I art correct, lots 1 Port ugh 7, do you have a
problem with restricting those lots such that they would have no outdoor
staage allowed, through deed restrictions or some other way?
Mr. Roskelly:
That is no problem In fact you will find in most of these subs there is no
aIIdoa storage but certainly we would have no problem restricting those
specific lots to no outside storage.
Mr. Shane:
Wilh respectm theprotective wall thatymmentioned, how high vmuldyou
be erecting that wall.
Mr. Roskelly:
I flunk Poe ordinance calls furtive feet
Mr. Shave:
Is it passible that the greenbelt, which abuts the new road, could be estended
also across that area to augment that wall? I assume that some of these
houses may or may not be two stones but you might have Poat height
situation that you may have to deal with
Mr. Roskelly:
I guess my thought on that, Mr. Shane, ward be that if we continue to
proceed with these 12 or 13 single family residential lots, then we would
have a secondary street that would be a buffer. In the process ofbudding
Poaz then I would say that we could do some berming on that side of the
street
Mr. Shane:
O.K. Thankyou.
Mr. LaPlne:
Ib I understand if I am hearing you right, you are planning on berating
from Stock Road all the way back to lot 1 where you make the Lor into the
sub. Is that correct?
Mr. Roskelly:
Approximately to the beginning of or property line, so to speak
Mr. LaPine:
I guess my problem is wiPo that and I don't ever remember this plan. It
probably was given to us a one time but on lots 106, 107, 108, 109 and 112,
those hones me pretty close to that road You are going to have 18
budding in here and assuring you have approximately 10 employees and
Poaz each bidding will have 180 people coming and going on that mad all
day long. I don't know if these buildings will have night shifts or not, those
18678
are all things we don't know at this point It seems to me that the better
protection for those people for a sound barrier would be the wall rather than
a berm.
Mr. Rosts➢y:
We went through the City Council and through the atromey's office the
Council seemed to mandate that they wanted this bean in from of those six
or seven lot. If you note, the width of that right-of-way is 66 feet at that
point I suggested that we would offset the paving of the road so that we
would be allowed to have about a 20 foot area that we could bean up maybe
three feet and then put on these pines etc., which certainly would be as good
or better a buffer, in my opinion, and I believe in the Ca ncil's opinion, than
a wall would have been.
Mr. LaPive:
As long as those trees were maintained, from my perspective, over the years
that I have been around here, those type of berms just don't hold up. People
don'ttake care of them. It is the responsibility of the commercial property to
take care of them but the only time they ever seem to take care of them is
when they come in here and need something else and wa tell them to take
care of the dead stuff. That is just a personal opinion. I think the wall is
betferthantheberm. Thankyou
Mr. Piercecchi:
In regards to the wall and the berm, it is my opinion that we should have
them both, the wall all the way across the southern border with a berm on
Stark to Brewster. You can hide the wall and you could have the trees and
get a double impact on sound I guess we willwaryabout the R 5 when
you make the presentation. But I think this would resolve a couple of
things. Number one, you could make that wall higher and that would take
some of the noise away and hide some of the trucks coming and going and
plus the berm could be an additional sound barrier with the additional pine
trees, Poatyoujustmentioned
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Taormina, does the wall have to be on the property line?
Mr. Taormina:
It normally would be placed on an easement line. If no easement exists,
Poen A would be located on the property line.
Mr. McCain:
The plantings would be on the roadside and not on the neighbols side.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. If a wall is built right on the property line with a 20 foot separation
between the property line or the wall and the edge of the curb, that would
provide the space for the plantings that you are referring to.
Mr. Piercerchi:
Mr. Taormina, what prevents us from putting the wall where wa want to port
it? What laws would we break?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know that there are any laws that would prevent us from modifying
the location of the wall.
18679
Mr. Piercecchi: We can substitute a bean for a overt so in effect, we are substituting a bemn
for a wall an that area and we are moving the wall in.
Mr. Trumann: I think the answer to your question is that the Planning Commission can
impose reasonable conditions upon the approval of this plat and if you deem
that theimpacts; associated with the construction of this road upon the
residential are such that A would require whatever screening that you find to
be an appropriate barrier, I think you can establish those standards.
Mr. Piercecchi: So in you opinion, it is a reasonable request to have the wall and the berm?
Mr. Taormina: I think it is worthy of discussing. Yes. How exactly that would be
accomplished I think we would have to see more details on that
Mr. Piercecchi:
We may have to table this.
Mr. McCann:
A concern is, ifyou put the wall on the outside of the plantings A doesn't
atowthe petitioner access to the plantings to maintain them
Mr. Shane:
An alternative might be that if you could move the roadway itself north. Is
that possible to offset it?
Mr. Roskelly:
Our original plan was to move it to the north Yes. Thereis a 66 footright-
of-way as we enter prior to getting to our parcel. The original intent was to
move that road. Ibis we had deah quite closely with the Council in study
meetings, that we would offset the pavement itself so as to give it a larger
area, which is about 20 feet
Mr. Shave:
This drawing doesn't look like itis offset That is why I ask that
Mr. Roskelly:
I don't think the large drawing is bull think we did discuss this.
Mr. Shane:
The twenty feet is Bre most you can get out of it then?
Mr. Roskelly:
In an industrial road I think we need 34 fret and another 10 feet is 44 feet
If we have 66, maybe we'll have 22 fret. My concern with a wall, the
ordinance says that Bre wall will be on the zoned line. Are you indicating
that you want the landscaping on what side?
Mr. Piercerchi:
The south side?
Mr. Roskelly:
The residential side?
Mr. Piercerchi:
Yes sr.
Mr. Roskelly:
Who is going to maintain it?.
Mr.Piemecchi:
The people thatlive therewoldhaveto dolt
18680
Mr.MCC=
But it is not their property.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Another scenario - deed it
Mr. Shane:
What is wrong with putting the wall where it belongs and puttmg the
landscaping on the north side of it?
Mr. McCain:
My question to Mr. Piemecchi was, he wanted the landscaping on the
residential side. You can't Number one, the statute is correct as we
discussed before, that it needs to be on the zoning line. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, the wall itself
Mr. McCann:
The wall would be on the zo mg line?
Mr. Taormina:
In this Case it would be the property line that separates where he is showing
the Rosati Avenue right-of-way and the residential lots to the south
Mr. McCain:
Then we would get some landscaping on the other side. I dont have a
problem with that because A still creates a buffer and it still helps to absorb
the noise. As Mr. Shane points, out you create problems because the owner
of the property is the ane who would get the violation if he doesnt maintain
A yet he would deny himself access if he tried to more the wall
Mr. Roslwlly:
Can I reserve some comments and maybe some of the audience, I think some
of these people were at some of the meetings and they may clear up some of
the items.
Mr. McCann:
Right Wearegomgtogettotheminjustarroment
Mr. LaPine:
The only problem I have with having the landscaping on their side is that in
the wurprame wham they go through and plow all the snow is going to be all
over your plantings and the odds are that it is going to kill it all anyway.
Mr. McCain:
That is going to be true anytime.
Mr. LaPine:
But it doesnt really my effect, I am nymg to protect the residential
homeowners as much as I can. It is not going to affect them. They are not
going to see the landscaping. You might just as well have the wall and no
landscaping to my opinion.
Mr. Shane:
Wherewouldymputthewall?
Mr. LaPine:
Put it right on the property line.
Mr. Shane:
That is what I am saying That is wbere it should be.
Mr. McCain:
Ifyou left enough room for shrubs, they grow above the wall and they do
help with the noise so you may not need a berm but you would get the
18681
shnubbery and the wall. If there are no other questions, I am going to go to
the audience. Before we begin, we do have a number of other items on the
agenda. I do ask you to keep you comments to about two minutes.
Dave Fleming, 12124 Boston Post, which is the end of the road. I believe they want to talk
about the use for the R-5. The thing that bothers me Poe most, because
would like to see this denied and I know my neighbors would too, there are
about 115 homes there. Just as an example, my Boston Post oudet has nine
houses and 14 children between the ages oft and 14. That is typical of our
whole neigbbodmod. There are a lot of children and we have a lot of
concern abauthow this is gomgto affectthem Everything thing the
gentleman wants to build here is speculative. Your questions about when the
trucks will come. He coal answer because he will rent that to someone else
and how the property is maintained will often depend on the people who rent
Poe buildings that he uses.
Mr. McCann: I think I71 ask Mr. Taormina to clarify this a little bit more, but the zoning he
is proposing right nowbefore us tonight is properly zoned at M-1. Ihis is
called a prelirmnary plat What we are looking at is not whether or not A is
proper zoning. Not whether the use is proper. I could sit here and listen to A
mail 2:00 am. The point is it doeml affect what we are doing here tonight.
What we are doing tonight is looking to see if the plat and the development
is as good as it can be because a person who owns property is entitled to
develop under thezoning wit is laid out Ibisisan M-1zo"^g. Heis
coming in and requesting to only use the M-1 zoning portion. He is stating
lhathe is only going w be using the R 5 for R-5. Therefore, what we are
trying to do is to see how we can best make this site plan fit together. We
are looking at things such as, where can we put the wall, where can we do
things to eliminate the noise? Ifyou aresaying we dont want M-1 in 8tis
arra we don't want this. It is not falling on deaf ears but our hands are tied.
We have no control over it It is M-1 zoning. We coal change that He is
entitled to develop it Am I correct, Mr. Taormina?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct
Mr. Heng: I understand that and I appreciate that. I know most of my comments should
go to the City Council but A would be nice if A never got that far. I will just
make me last quick point and that is, I dual think you can separate the R-5
fmmthe M-1. AlmofwhatIamheminghereisthattheywilldevelopthe
industrial there then come back and work on the R-5. I &nk they have to be
seen as together and that whatever he showed you tonight for the R-5, I think
has to be taken into account because it seems to me everytbing is related in
termsofhowhebuddsthewall. We'vegotsixneighbaswhoarednecily
affected but even my home, which has some of that R-5, will still be affected
by the road and everything else that gets built
Mr. McCann: I am going to pass around a copy of the plans that were given to me so that
you and the audience can see them
18682
Mr. Fleming: I am pretty sure that is the same thing he showed us a year ago. That is all I
would ask is that that gets taken into account also.
Mr. McCann:
We will take a look at this. We are trying. Thank you.
Guy Chopp, 12017
Brewster. Nammlly, I wouldn't warn to see anything built there but I also
understand that something will be built there one day. Om immediate
concems are the six homes that will be along the roadway to get m there. A
berm doesn't work because we have one over by the truck rental place by
Stork and Plymouth. Every day we are picking up hash. You need a wall to
keep the trash from being blown aramd. A wall is ugly. The wall he put up
now, already, he put up the wrong way. The good side is facing his property.
I don't know how he got away with that We've got the cinder block side.
He's got the decorative side. If you put a wall up, my own opinion is I think
you pert a wall on the property line and on the residents' side of the wall you
plant arborvitaes, about 8 feet arborvitaes. They grow about 25 feet tall.
There is no made to them but you have to plant the rt #to each other
about three feet apart so they grow and fill in. You won't even see the wall
plus they give added protection. Another concern is we would like to see the
whole plan for the residential place. The number one concern is we want
some type of guarantee that no way that industrial area will have roadways
into our subdivision. The way it is now, there isn't, but once you develop the
R-5 part of it, I don't understand how these roads are coming in there and we
don't want arty connection with that
Mr. McCann:
What is shown to us is two cul -de -ears. Tobe honest with you, the way the
plan is laid out I think it is probably in his best inkiest to go forward with it
He has designed the industrial park to access it in this way and separate the
industrial park with the road. The backyards would be facing the rear yards
and two of the side yards of your subdivision.
Mr.Chopp:
But the ore by RS, you are saying the roads will be side by side going out to
Stark.
Mr. McCain:
They would share the industrial park.
Mr. Chopp:
We wouldn't want to see anything like Boston Post or anything open up into
there.
Mr. McCain:
It doesn't call for that It was one of the fust things I looked for that it is
going to be totally separate fromyoir subdivision. Thatissomethmgwe
will deal with when we come back on the Frelimmary plat for the
subdivision or if he does the site condos, we will look at it at that point and
make sure. When I say site condos, it is residential homes. It isjust because
of some legal technicalities now. Everybody is using condo development for
single family residential.
Mr. Chopp:
We don't want to see that.
18683
Mr. McCann:
It is the exact same Poing
Mr. Chopp:
The way he has this broken up into 18 plots, why was it broken up that way?
Is each lot sold separately and if so, is it like a residential lot?
Mr. McCann:
Thatis correct
Mr. Chopp:
O.K. Thank you.
Terry Lemmon,
12101 Brewster. Right now he has a wall that goes along the side of his
bump shop. That is an 8 foot wall. They were saying a 5 foot wall It would
def rtely have to be an 8 foot wall and for what Mr. Chopp said about the
trees on the outside for a buffer. I also wanted to know, he has the bump
shop and this dark dotted line, is that a wall going all the way around?
Mr. McCann:
No. That is the zoning for the property that is under the plat for tonight
Ms. Lemmon:
What are these two properties that are shown that are right next to these three
businesses off of SlzrlQ Those are not there now and I am wondering what
those are. Why couldnl the road start off and go along that property. These
areal in the plat for tonight I'm not sure what those are. They are not there
now. Therearenobrildingstherenow.
Mr. McCann:
Those are rear lots. I dont believe he owns those portions of the property.
Ms. Lemmon:
Who has access to that, no one?
Mr. McCann:
Mr. Tammina, are those owned by the industrial buildings up from?
Mr. Taormina:
Are they identified on the map that you are looking at as "Lle3 and LIM"?
Ms. Leaman:
Right
Mr. Tammina:
I am not sure who owns those or whether or not Mr. Rosati has an interest m
those parcels, but they would have frontage on the industrial road that is
proposed Although they would not be pmt of the subdivision, or the
industrial park, they could be developed separately as industrial properties
with frontage on that road.
Ms. Lemmon:
I do have a complaint Weare that last house on Brewster and the road is
going to go more or less right by the side of our house and it is going to be a
lot of noise and pollution and I think arty buffer that you can put in, and I
understand that it is M-1 and I agree he should be able to build on it, but I
think maybe there should be less lots than what he is planning back here and
see if the road could go in a little sooner and more to the back and have the
buildings face where the truck wells would be facing the railroad tracks and
farther in. If we could have more of a buffer, and the wall going in more and
the trees in front of the wall on am side to create more of a buffer for the
pollution and the noise. That is all I have to say.
18684
Dean Kandt, 11775 Boston Post. It is obvious we are well along into the process. It is going
to be developed and it is going to happen. The question is, "How is it going
w happen?" The concern is, you ran drive by places and it isjust m ugly
eye sore and you say, "Whatwere they thinking" The problem is not
enough &nkmg was going on. Here is an oppormorty for us in this forum to
pert our brain power to its task and really come up with a resolution that is
going to be pleasing to the residential as well as pleasing to the person who
wants to develop it My hope is that in that right-of-way, subsequently
already purchased fiom Livonia and it is pleasing to the neighbors that are
gang to be bordering it, I suggest also an 8 foot wall as well as plantings. I
don't think putting a wall up on the north side of the plantings will deny him
access to maintain it It depends on how you work that 20 feet If we are
capable of sending someone to the moon, we are certainly capable of
figuring how they can maintain bis property on the other side of the wall. If
you can design space for an access area to make space for a mower to get
back in there if things need to be mowed or maintained, that can be done. It
is a matter of researching it It can be done. With reference to the lots that
are proposed in the cul-de-sac in the industrial park Ijust hope that they are
not going to be sold off and combined so that these buildings could be hand
into larger industrial complexes and hope that they maintain the lot sizes he
is proposing as well as maintaining the rnosimum square footage allowed for
light industrial buildings on those lot sizes. Thank you
Jennifer Vingmess, 11865 Boston Post. I live in the middle of the subdivision. I am the one
who called Phoenix Corporation earlier in the year in the hope that we could
move the wetlands wer there. I didn't get a chance to hear anything back I
realize that the people who own this property have the right to build on it and
that it is whhm zo mg requvanerls of what that lot is for. I am looking at
R-5 there and I am thinking that there are very few places in Livonia that a
wetland could be moved to. We have foxes and wildlife that live back m
that area. I don't know what is going to happen to them I don't know if
there is anyway that people can look at the plans and see if there is any other
use that could be used for the land besides wbat the proposal is.
Kristen Kavdt, 11775 Boston Post. My concern is the wall that they are going w put up for
the noise barrier. I lived in the neighborhood for 32 years. I grew up there.
I did live on 34901 Standish We were the third house from the dead end of
Poe sheet There is a light industrial park area that was built a little beyond
There was a field and then this industrial area There is a 13 foot wall that
divides the residential neighborhood there from this industrial area and there
was still a lot of noise and it dishrb the neighborhood. My concern is if they
are only going to put that size of a wall up, even with the trees, I don't think
A is going stop the noise.
Gordon Vavzq 12066 Boston Post My lot abuts the R-5. I am lot 58 if you take a look at
that plot map. In first place I have never heard of an official organ of any
government buying a pig in a poke. We have, on the basis of what I have
seen nought, no hard evidence of any kind of construction on this site, M-1.
18685
Wedoniknowwhatis going in orhowmany buildings. Wehaveanideaas
to how the layout is but we really havenl seen arty hard and fast drawings
that anybody could put a seal of approval on. Unless I am mistaken, butI
havenl seen arty and I live there and I would like w see those things. The
second thing you have heard tonight, time and again, on R-5 and that is our
principal concern. Lets face it That is our fife and if we are going to pert
housing back there, who is going to five back there? Are they going in be
like us? Are they going to have houses like curs? Are they going to be
better! We dont know. We dont have anything to base any decisions on
How much are those houses going to cost! Are they going to be trailer park
loll or are they going to be $250,000 homes? We don't know. Are we going
14 use Boston Post Road as an access? You are going to find out that we will
go to war over that That wont happen. We have to have something
concrete. That is what this whole business is all about We are sitting here
as rational people frying to discern exactly what is happening We dual
know. When I go to work, because I have been in coaslrnctinn for the better
part of 30 years, I cannot bid on thejob unless I have the drawings in fond of
ire, unless I physically walk thejob and I knowwhat the story is. ThenIcan
make a rational decision. htis is the same way as you gentleman. You
cannot cake a rational decision unless you have it right there.
Mr. McCain: Sm, you are trying to tell us something that we really don't have the
opportunity to review. In this case, he is complying with the ordinance. He
is providing us with the prefintinary plat We are looking for the design of
the subdivision tonight, the industrial subdivision under M-1 zoning. Weare
not looking at the buildings, the site plans or anybing else. Tonight itis
under the ordinance. It is to look at the egress, the ingress, the situation of
the property as it affects those neighbors. We are trying to do that We dont
have the building plans. We are not going to have the building plans. That
is not part of the process. We don't have control over it We dont have
control over the R-5 because it is not before us. But it is properly zoned R-5.
That is what we will look for when it comes to us.
Mr. Vanzo: Thatistheproblem. We break these things up and nowwe have this
consideration, M-1. You coal divide these things because there is total
mlegration ofthis. This is anneigbborhood and we arenot going to let Ago
to "you know what" in a hand basket without major league fights. In the first
place, we dont want anything back there but O.K., M-1, fine. But R-5, if we
are gongto develop that, it had better be under some very serious
regulations. One thing, that Boston Post Road will not be used as egress,
period. How are we going to figure that art? That is why I say, "We've got
to have something." If all you are doing is giving them preliminary
approval, but if you are giving them the O.K. to go ahead and construct
something, I say, "No." Thank you.
Keith Lemmon, 12101 Brewster, the adjoining lot to that I wasjust wondering what kind of
traffic is going to be flowing in and our of there? Where is the parking fa
the cars for the people that are waking in this light indushmP
18686
Mr. McCann: They will have to conform within the ordinance for the buildings themselves
and will have to be maintained on the site.
Mr. Lemms n:
So many square feet of parking per so many square feet ofbudW.
Mr. McCann:
That is correct
Mr. Lemmon:
What is that?
Mr. McCann:
Forindustrial,IdmIl ow. They would have to go through thatwhen they
file site plans with the City. The City Engineers would go through A and
make sure that everything is correct.
Mr. Lemmon:
Thank you
Dean Kandt, 11775
Boston Post Road. I have a question for the landowner. Am I correct in
saying that potentially later developing the R 5 for single family resi lmlial
homes will also be coming in off the same access as the industrial?
Mr. McCann:
That was one of the things that the Commission was cumremed about is that
the proposed prefvni= plat tonight does provide entry for the subdivision.
We established that right away.
Mr. Kandt:
O.K. And that complies with the ordinances?
Mr. McCain:
Yes. We wanted to be satisfied that when the R-5 is developed that they will
be able to take access from that road.
Mr. Kandt:
I wasjust clarifying information I heard before. Thank you
Jay Marchione,
12141 Boston Post, which is the dead end house A the end of Boston Post I
just want to make sure that we all make the ngbt decision and where the
roads are going to go and that you have the ngbt decision with what is going
on with the M-1. This is the lastthmg that is going to happen. Make sure it
is the best thing that is going to happen. That is all I ask.
Paul Berger, Berger Easton Industrial Realtors, 23933 Research Drive. I wouldjust like to
reassure all the neighbors and this Board as well, we have worked with Mr.
Rosati for a number of years and have found his character, not only
personally but also as an industrial developer, to be of the highest level and
to assure everybody that whatever Mr. Rosati builds, and again, it is
dependent upon the market's delarmmmon, will be in conformance with all
City of Livonia codes, ordinances and regulations. Ona step-by-step basis,
everything will have to reappear back before this Board for approval. We
look forward to that opportunity. Thank you.
Mr. McCain:
I amclosing the pubfic hearing. You have the last comment, Mr. Rosk ally.
18687
Mr. Roskelly: Just to address a couple of the items that the people were concerned about.
Number one, the two parcels of land that the young lady was speaking of,
Mr. Rosati made arrangements to get 66 feet of frontage ftom those two
parcels so as to connect the road from Stark to get rid of this landlocked
parcel. So as a result, at a latter date, Service Iron who owns those two
parcels could in fact build industrial budding on those two sites. The size of
the lots certainly indicate to, I hope, this Commission, that under no
circmubnces is there going to be some big factory because when you have a
lot that is approximately 200 feet deep, you certainly aren't going to put a
road in here and have some user with 40,000 - 60,000 foot building because
you would lose the ambience of what we are trying to do. It is light
industrial, small users. The one lady who mentioned the wetlands, we tried
for almost a year to work out a wetland situation which the Corned wanted
so bad and l stood on my head and l got knocked over. So that will not
happen. We are doing whatwe feel is right If may, Mr. Chairman, if
could have those frau prints back and PII them to these people who are
questioning as to what mu thoughts are on the fifiue R 5.
Mr. McCann: We would like to keep one set for Mr. Taormina.
Mr. LaPme: Is there any indication from you client, if there are going to be any railroad
spies coming into this area?
Mr. Roskelly: Absolutely not
Mr- aPme: It is my understanding Post the road coring in from Schoolcraft there will be
spur off of it, which will be used when the RS development takes place? Is
fl atw.
Mr. Roskelly: Off of Stink Road, not Schoolcraft.
Mr. LaPlne: Then the people going into the sub will tarn south and the people going the
other way, will go north. My question to you is, how do we control the
people leaving these diffe t buildings in the evening that dont want to get
tied up on Stark and cut through the subdivision. How do we do that?
Mr. Roskelly: First of all, there will be no access to the subdivision. The only ingress and
egress will be off of Stick Road. If you look at that one drawing, it shows
like a "V". You would have to make a 270 degree tun to get back on that
residential which wouldn't and couldn't happen.
Mr. LaPine: Ijust warded to make sure that was taken care of I wodd risme thereis a
possibility, that if you get a tenant that wants to be able to take three lots and
bald one build ing, Haat is a possibility?
Mr. Roskelly: I think Haat would be the maximum desirable way. Yes. Perhaps two or one
and a half.
Mr. LaPive: Thank you
18688
Mr. Roskelly I don't believe that this Planning Commission or my agency can msiAthat
we do both wall and berm. I think we would be happy to pert in a six foot
wall. I ]bink an eight foot wall is mnsightly. There was a country that fought
over that and took it down. It seems to me that an eight foot masomy wall
would be more than adequate for buffering sound and I can't even feature
how Mr. Rosati, as the owner of that, could such amazing trees that are on
the other side of the wall.
Mr. McCain: But you would agree that having some type of arborvitae or some type of
tree on your side of the wall would enhance the view of the rad coming in
and as they grow taller, help to eliminate noise that would travel to the other
side of the wall.
Mr. Roskelly: Yes. I agree with you there but certainly we can't have, as somebody
suggested a five bot easement passage to water those plants.
Mr. McCain: It wouldn't meet the ordinance anyway because it bas to be on the property
live, as you pointed out
Mr. Roskelly: Thank you
Mr. McCain: A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPme and unanimously approved it was
#7-1142001 RESOLVED that, puvsmavt to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on July 24, 2001, on Preliminary Plat approval ofRosati
Industrial Subdivision by Enrico Rosati proposed to be located on the west
side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft Road (I-96) and Plymouth Road in the
South 12 of Section 28, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
Poe City Canal that the Preliminary Plat for Rosati Industrial Subdivision be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That alandscape plan and the budding and use restrictions be submitted to
the Planning Commission within 60 days of the approval of the prelmninary,
plat by Poe City Council, which shall provide for a masomy screen wall and
landscaping that will extend along the entire southerly portion of the right-
of-way of the proposed street where it abuts the single Candy residential
zoning as well as along the south property lines of Lots 1 through 7; and
2. That a plan for the required enhance maker shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission and City Conch for approval prior to approval of
the final plat; and
3. 11:9 a masonry, screen wall be installed at the maximum height required
under the ordinance.
18689
4. That the landscape plan will come back within 60 days for review of the
prelmmmay plat by the City Coand.
5. Mark suggested building and use restrictions for the industrial subdivision
because of the concerns of the residents.
For the following reasons:
1. Ibat the preliminary plat is drawn in compliance with all applicable
standards and requnements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision
Rules and Regulations;
2. That the preliminary plat represents a reasonable land use solution for
property which is difficult to develop;
3. That the prelnmmay plat will provide for additional industrial building sites
which will increase the City's tax base and employment opportunities;
4. That the location of the proposed industrial road providing access to the
proposed industrial lots is in coaphance with the Master Thoroughfare
Plan;
5. No reporting City department has objected to the preliminary plat and
6. That the petitioner will do the R 5 for certain
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the
Budding Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fre Department Police
Department and the Parks and Recreation Department
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi: Are you going to include a wall?
Mr. Alanskas: We certainly are. What height we will have to get with Planning and see what
height can be put in there.
Mr. LaPine: Mr.Cbah=, if may interject that we change the language to read, "that a
landscape and wall at the =an= allowed under the ordinance, will be
extended and the plan be submitted to the prim tenarR"
Mr. Taomrim: If could make two suggestions, one is that we time stamp this or provide a
date certain when the landscape plan would appear back to the Planning
Commission for review, possibly 60 days following Council review of the
prel¢ninary review. And second, that we include with the information to
come back with our review, building and use restrictions for the industial
subdivision It seems to me that a number of the items of concern that were
18690
expressed by the residents this evening could be addressed in those building
and use restrictions including issues of outdoor storage, issues of loading and
unloading, exterior building materials, as well as putting a limit on the
number of lots that can be combined
Mr. McCann: Are there any objections to those suggestions?
Mr. Alanskas: No.
Mr. LaPine: We drool see any plans ofwbd the buildings are going to look like or how
they are going to be conshucted in the M-1 district Is that correct?
Mr. Taomins: I can tell you that lots 1 through 7 will have to come back to this body for site
Plan review.
Mr. LaPine: Just those six lots?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. As long as they border the residential, they are required to go through
The site plan approNal process.
Mr. Lal? v AlI right Tbank you
Mr. McCain: Please call the roll.
Aroll call was taken with the following result:
AYES: A]anskas, LaPine, Shane, McCain
NAYS: Piercecchi
ABSENT: Koons
Mr. McCaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted
This will go on to City Council with those restrictions and with the building
use restrictions and the greenbelt coming back to us 60 days after Council
approval. This concludes the public hearing portion of our agenda We will
now proceed with the miscellaneous site plan portion of our agenda
ITEM#5 PETITION 2001-06-05-20 Bill Brown Ford
Mr. Piemecchn Secretary, n
announced the ext item on the agenda is Petition 01-06-08-20 by
Bill Brown Ford requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to conshnct an addilion
to the existing auto dealership located at 3 04 00 Plymouth Road in the S.W.
1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side ofPlvmoulh Road between Middlebelt
Road and Sears Avenue. Bill Broom Ford is proposing to construct an
addition to their body shop and used vehicle sales building located an the
subject site. This property is the former site of the Terrace Movie Theater.
18691
Earlier this year the petitioner received Site Plan Approval to construct a two
storyvebiclemmptotherearofthebudding. The existing budding is two
stories in height and stands at 16,800 sq. ft in size. The proposed addition
would be one story in height, 8,200 sq. ft in area and constructed to the east
elevation of the existing building Once completed, the enlarge budding
would have a footprint of 25,000 sq. ft According to the notes on the Site
Plan and the layout diagramed on the Floor Plan, the new addition would
provide the dealership with an additional 16 work bays and a customer lounge
area. Parking required is two (2) spaces per bay+ 1 space per employee+ 1
space per 500 sq. tt of sales area ( 2 x 44 bays + 37 employees +2,788 + 500
= 88 +37 + 6=131 spaces. Parhg provided— 131 spaces +228 spaces for
vehicle display. The south or from elevation (facing Plymouth Rd) of the
existing budding is constructed out of fieldstone and large vertical aggregate
stone panels. The remaining three sides of the building are constructed out of
painted block The south or fmr elevation ofthe new addition would be
constructed out of split face block with a 9 tt band of decorative dryvit along
the top. Incorporated iMo this elevation would be two large overhead doors
and a pedestrian entrance door. The east or side elevation of the new addition
would be constructed out of painted standard block Two large overhead doors
are also proposed for this elevation The north or rear elevation of the addition
would be constructed out of painted standard block. No doors, other then a
single pedestrian door probably to be used as an emergency exit, is proposed
for this elevation. No color rendering has been submitted A this time.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four ids of correspondence. The first letter k from the
Engineering Division, dated July 5, 2001, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant
to year request, the Ecia eleermg Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. We have an objections to the proposal at this tbne. We trust that
this will provide yvu with the information requested" The IAhris signed by
David Dear, P.E, Civil Engineer. The second letlaris from the Livonia Fine
& Rescue Division, dated July 19, 2001, which reads as follows: "This offwe
has reviewed the site plan submitted m connection with a request to
construct an addition to the existing auto dealership on property located at
the above referenced address. We have an objections to this proposal with
the followiogstipulations: (1) An onsite hydrant shallbe located between
50 feet and 100 feet from the Fire Department connection (2) Adequate
hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with
commercial areas. Most remote hydrant shall flow 1500 GPM with a
residualpressureof20PSL (3) Access around buildings shall be
provided for emergency vehicles with turning radius up lo forty-five feet
wall to wall and a minimum vertical clearance of13-LI feet" The letter is
signed by James 13 Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the
Division of Police, dated July 20, 2001, which reads as follows: "We have
reviewedthepla msubmittedfortheproposedaddihom Wehaveno
objection to the addition as proposed Based upon a review of the plans, five
handicap parkmg spaces are required andwe would also recommend
installation ofstop signs at all exits." The ]alter is sipped by Wes McKee,
IF;LSyi
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau The fourth letter is firm the Inspection
Department, dated July 20, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request ofJune 26 2001, the above referenced petition has been reviewed.
The following a noted (1) The west 12 ofthe fence existing at the rear of
the property (north) is topped with barbed wire, as is the fence along the
westpropertylire. (2) The fence exiding along the east property lire is 8
feet tall not 6feet as noted on plans. (3) The barrier free parking, as
indicatedontheplans,isincorrect. A van accessiblespacemustbe
provided which consists ofan 8 -foot space with an adjacent 8 -foot aisle.
(4) Theparkmg lot needs resealing and double sloping. (s) signage has
not been reviewed due to a lackofdetail This Department has no further
obfecdon to this pettoon." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Director of Inspection That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCain: Is the petitioner here this evening
Tom Crabill, Medom Building Company, 40816 Delta Drive, Northville. I represent Bill
Brown Ford in this petition this evening. I also have Mr. Bob Gunnigle wi8i
me, as well, to answer any questions that you may have regarding this
1efifto"I
Mr. McCann:
You provided all of us with additional copies of the plans. Have you made
any changes to the plans?
Mr. Crabill:
Yes we have. In corresponding with the Plamting Department regarding the
study meeting that was held last week, we understood that there were some
concerns regarding the original application for the facade of the addition In
a review of that, we talked to our architect and designers and decided that it
would be better w go with a split have block, which is actually dyed, not a
normal split face block It has some aggregate in it that would be more
consistent The existing building consists of stone, as you know, and also a
pre -cast concrete with aggregate. Neither of those materials is commercially
available. What we wanted to do was draw attention to the new addition but
yet have it compliment both the materials that are existing. The dryvit we
felt was a litfle bit busy, actually. With this particular material, we feel A
would compliment both the existing materials and yet give the addition a
little distinction and this is the main area wbere people will be coming and
entering this estimating area and customer service. We do warn to draw a
little attention to it but yet deal want it to stand mut That was one of our
reasons fm getting rid of the dryvit That is why we presersed this new
stone.
Mr. McCarn
Why is the stone commercially unavailable?
Mr. Crebill:
The stone is not commercially unavailable, but the stone that is existing an
this particular budding is extremely large stone. In talking to a couple of
stone companies, we deal feel comfortable that the stone would match the
ems[mg stone. Itmight come close b twe areafraid in trying to match the
existing stone, it wmuldnl give us the distinction we warn to try and achieve.
18693
Mr.McCann: CouldnY you use some stone half way up, like the budding next to you has,
so that it can match at the end and then some type of accent above that?
Mr. Crabill:
We diverted from that because of the fact that we also had the pre -cast
panels we had to deal with as well. But the stone alone, as you know that is
a very old budding and we have not been able to come up with anything that
would not look more or less like an atter thought
Mr. McCam a:
You are cormng up with a totally new third material. Obviously, A is going
to be an afterthought Why not brick?
Mr. Crabill:
Because we wanted something that would compliment both the stone and the
existing aggregate. This particular material is a split face block but it has
aggregate in it The shade that we would choose is a little lighter than Ibis.
It would really, I think, pull colas out from the stone and the existing pre-
cast.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are saying that is the exact size? You cant get them any larger!
Mr. Crabill:
It would be a full size, 8" X 16". Thus isjust a sample. Ilud would be
approstran ely half the size.
Mr. Alanskas:
The reason I ask is because I had estimates done for my home in regards to
stone. I had three companies come out and they said that you could have arty
size stone you wanted, from a 6 inch to a 3 foot stone. So that stone is
available in larger sizes. I not sure what you are saying is that it is cheaper
for you to have this instead of the stone. I think it is a monetary thing, not
that A iml available. It is available.
Mr. Crabill:
The cost is not a concern This is a 40,000 sq. ft state of the art facility.
They are sparing no expense at doing what they think is right for the City. I
not sure you will agree that this is going to be a very nice facility. As I have
discussed with contractors, regarding the stone, is that particular stone would
be nearly impossible to match.
Mr. Alouskas:
But you could come very close.
Mr. Crabill:
Wejust now received, a week ago, the response from the study meeting and
we have been trying to address that ILis was our original mteatto go wAh
this but we understood and respected the fact that the dryvit may possibly
make this a little busy, at least that was my take of what was discussed. We
tltink Pols is a good complimamto what is existing We dont necessarily
want this particular addition to blend in with the entire fnad of the budding.
It is a separate operation. It is where people come in and have their cars
estimated for damage and this is vehicle sales. Butwe didn1 want it to stand
out entirely.
Mr. Alanskas:
Ibatis only for estimates and repairs, for accidents only?
18694
Mr. Crabiu:
That is correct
Mr. Almnskas:
I thought it was also going to be a repair facility.
Mr. Grabill:
The addition, in the rear, is the actual body shop.
Mr. Almnskas:
So what you are saying, is those two doors me for people coming in only for
body shop repairs?
Mr. Grabill:
That is coned All of that is done in the rear of the budding. This is si®lar
to an msravice company where you pull in wbere the glass doors are.
Mr. McCann:
Is this going to be the cinder blocks, 8" X 16",just one on top of the other
with cememt in between them?
Mr. Crabiu:
That is correct
Mr. LaPme:
On your new drawing, is the color the actual color it is going to be?
Mr. Crabill:
This was the only large sample that I could fid Whatwe would like is
something one or two shades lighter than that We haven't actually fine
tuned the color. But something that would compliment that would be
between the color of the stone and the existing pre -cast.
Mr. LaPme:
One of the problems I had at the study meeting, which I was probably the
only member who has a problem with this is, I don't like the overhead doors
in the Gout of the building. Why can't the overhead doors be in the rear of
the budding and they go around and get then estimates in the rear`.' The only
reason I don't like the overhead is, I thunk the whole budding should look
like the Ford dealership because you don't have any overhead doors in the
Goat of the budding. Everything is on the side or in the rear. Is there my
way that can be changed? Why does it have to be at this location?
Mr. Crabill:
I understand your concern.
Bob Gtr®gle, 32222 Plym mth Road, Livoma AllPoe new amhikcNml ihwgs that Ford is
asking Ford dealers to do is put the service on the front. That is exactly what
they me asking us to do to let people know where to go to get their service.
These are not steel doors. These me aluminum doors with glass inserts.
They are very attractive doors. What will be inside that door is drywall,
pained, and nothing else except lights to inspect vehicles. What chill happen
N our customers will come here, we will physically, ourselves, drive the cars
inside these inspection stalls and walk around them with a clipboard and
noting the damage and then pulling the cars out or either taking them back or
let the customer drive them away. So, this will be a very attractive non-
reparr rea if you will.
Mr. Almnskas:
What if they are not drivable?
18695
Mr. Gmangle: If they are notdrivable, they will be estimated outbehind the budding.
Mr. LaPme: I understand what you are saying and Ford Motor Company shouldn't be
dicFaling to us how we thunk something looks nice in Livonia. I dont thunk
Bimnngham or Troy or RochesterBills might not hike Us design and say,'T
don't care what Ford wants, we warn it this way." Ijust dont like the idea of
overhead doors in the hart of the budding I think it tales away from the
nice looking type of operation you are trying to build here. That is
personal opinion I warn to commend you, you did knock down the sign and
it does look 1000%better.
Mr. Gmangle: Thank you
Mr. LaPme: That is just a personal deal. Idon't know how anybody else feels about that,
bat that is how I feel about it
Mr. Piercecchi:
As Bill pointed out about the doors in the from, have you considered
relocating them? No matter how pretty they are they are going to be up.
Mr. Gurmgle:
Some of the time they will be up, yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Then you are going to lose the looks of the so-called pretty doors. That is
another good reason why they should be moved. It looks like love buildings
but apparently you want it to look like two buildings. I wouldn't thunk so. I
can believe that you don't agree that extending the aggregate, fieldstone and
stone panels along the emme front wouldn't make it more aesthetically
Pleasing
Mr. Gu®gle:
The beauty is in the eye of[he beholder. That is true. One of my concerns
was that there would be too much stone there, if it were available. Tom has
researched this and Tom is pretty good at this and the people tell him that
[hey think it is goingto be a difficult lhmgtomatchthat stone. Soweare
trying to come up with a compromise here that would blend in with the two
materials that are already there. It is not the Perfect solution but we think it
is a good solution With respect to the doors in from, we think it enhances
[heappearanceofthebuilding Youwillnoticetherearetwocullured
limestone arches over each door to tie in with the other arches that are
already present in the budding This building sell back 100 yards from the
cater ofPlymorath Road So it is not like it is right upon the street It is not
like people will be able to exactly see what is going on inside there but we
did want to attract the attention of people and give them an idea of where
they should head to if they have a body shop repair.
Mr. Piemerchi:
Could there be somewhat of a compromise here? Above the doors, extend
that aggregate paneling. At least then there would be some flow. You do the
best you can. Mr. Alanskas, if he said it is available, you can bet it is
available.
18696
Mr. Gunnigle: Mr. Alauskas, was that the aggregate up here or the stone?
Mr. Alauskas: It is the fieldstone but enlarged You could have any size that you wanted
It was fieldstone.
Mr. Piercecchi:
At least put that on top of the doors. There would be blending.
Mr. McCann:
I think wbatwe need to do is come up with something uniform Obviously
the cinder block is going to look like cinder block, no matter what color you
paint it, because it is the squares. Everybody drives by and you know a
cinder block budding. I don't mean w interrupt Mr. Piemeccbi, tutI am
extremely concerned. I like the project but to take and add on a cinder block
building you are saying you wart something to attract, what I think you are
doing is detracting to it You have expensive materials in the front of the
theater and you are putting a cinder block addition. It looks like you are
adding a garage to the side of the building. Again, these are all personal
comments but my concern is that we've got something. In regards to the
existing concrete panels, they make dryvit now in just about a thousand
different abodes. There is something that you can find that is complimentary
to that If we did the fieldstone around the door area in between the two
garage doors and some dryvit on top of it, maybe not the exact shade but
something to attract to it I am very concerned about cinder blocks. Ijust
don'tthink that is a solution
Mr. Pierrzrchi:
Sir, when I say the aggregate in the stone, what I wanted to say, dryvit in
certain areas above those doors with appropriate, maybe fieldstone, in
between that sounds like a fine compromise, too, but cinder block, no.
You've got a beautiful theater budding there but it looks like you are
building a garage on to it I don't think you really want it to look that way.
Mr. Sbane:
I am concerned about the architecture, myself. What I don't want to happen
is to add some some in there and have the split face blocks as well, because I
think you will have a hodge podge there. I Unk if you go with the stone,
youwill have w go back w concrete panels or dryvit, or something. I can
see adding a little bit of stone somewhere on there. Probably down at the
bottom or up a little ways. Going back to the dryvit, the doors don't bother
mebecauseImspwtihe megomgwbealotofem"inf7mtofit You
probably are not going to see much of it anyway.
Mr. McCann:
Are there any father questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, is
there anybody m the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no one, do you gentlemen have any last comments?
Mr. Crabill:
We me a position where we certainly would Likes move on with this
project and the contractors that I have spoken to so far have not indicated
that a match exists but I am sure if call Mr. Alanskas, he can help us.
Mr. McCann:
Two hundred feet from the road, it is not an exact mawh. Obviously, the
stone that was from that quarry, you are not going to find an exact duplicate.
18697
As you say, the material you werematching wasn't exactly Poe same but you
can find something to give it the look or feel. Cinder block, to me, gives me
a Five Mile gas station, seventy years ago, look. Cinder block, I know they
have done a lot with it but you still see the pattern and you still have the look
and the impression.
Mr. Crabill: What we would like to propose is to scratch the split face block from the
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 6/21/01, as revised, prepared by
Michael L. Priest& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
io;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Shed A-2 dated
6/18/01, as revised, prepared by GAV Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the architectural look and
budding materials of the south elevation of the addition shall match that
of the south elevation of the existing building (Le., stone), and that no
portion of the exterior of the south elevation shall consist of masonry
block;
3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fre Department's satisfaction the
following as outlined in the correspondence dated July 19, 2001:
plan and insert stone to match the existing, with the understanding that we
are going to do everything that we can m our power to match the existing
exactly. I anal feel that is going to happen but I think that it would be
satisfactory to this Planning Commission. We would hike to do that at this
time, if that is possible.
Mr. McCain:
I don't have a problem with that TLat can be done since it is you asking that
your plans be amended. Your plans would go on to Council with that
amendment and recommendation.
Mr. Crabill:
Correct I don'tthink, in trying to incorporate drymt with the stone, it would
necessarily be a good idea I would rather keep it uniform.
Mr. McCann:
I am sure it is not a problem to have plans amended to go to Council in that
respect Is there amotion?
On a motion by Mr. Piercecch4 seconded by Mr. Slane, and unanimously approved it was
#7-115-2001
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Conmussion on July 24, 2001, on Petition 01-06-08-20 by Bill
Brown Ford requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance m connection with a proposal to construct an addition to
the existing auto dealership located at 3 04 00 Plymouth Road in the S.W. 1/4
of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 01-06-08-20 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 6/21/01, as revised, prepared by
Michael L. Priest& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered
io;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Shed A-2 dated
6/18/01, as revised, prepared by GAV Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the architectural look and
budding materials of the south elevation of the addition shall match that
of the south elevation of the existing building (Le., stone), and that no
portion of the exterior of the south elevation shall consist of masonry
block;
3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fre Department's satisfaction the
following as outlined in the correspondence dated July 19, 2001:
18698
that an m site hydrant shall be located between 50
ft and 100 ft from the Fre Department Connection
that adequate hydrants shall be provided and located
with spacing consistent with commercial areas
that the most remote hydrant shall flow 1500 GPM
with a residual pressure of 20 PSI
that access aromd the budding shall be provided
for emergency vehicles with tuning radius up to 45
I wall to wall and a ®mmrm vertical clearance of
13VR
4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be
submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the budding pewits
are applied but.
Mr. McCain, Chairman,
declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted
It will go m to City Council with an approving reoAurioa
Mr. Cnbill:
As you know, we have been before the Commission with regards to this
protect and where we stand right now with the Building Department and this
addition is, we are pretty close. We know that we are going to be before
Coumcil andwe assumethatwewill have approval. Wewouldlilretogeta
waiver for the effective date of the resolution, if at all possible.
Mr. McCann:
There are two requirements for that, one is that you have to have a need and
demonstrate it and two, that you have had prior contact with the Council
Officeand President Maureen Miner -Brosnan. Shehasw approve it There
is no use for us to approve something unless it can get on the Council agenda.
It put the City Clerk, the Planning Depamnent and the Council Office
through a lot of extra work to do it At this mae we have an agreemerR with
the Council that we won't grant any seven day waivers unless we previously
avenge that with the City Council. We are doing it m other items tonight
Mr. Taormina. Do you have a recommendation? I don't know what the City
Conrad's agenda is and I think A is the 13" of August their regular meeting,
that they are trying to get on, whether or not there is any room for you to get
on.
Mr. Taormina:
I would suggest that if the Planning Commission was willing to approve the
seven day waiver, that it be contingent upon the authorization by the Council
Office
Mr. McCam:
If we waive the seven day waiver tonight I believe the minutes have to be
prepared and everything has to be done. Can we do it subject to waiving the
seven day requirement subject to Council approval?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. I think that would be appropriate. We would have to handle the
administrative work in preparation for that meeting so long as it was approved
by the Council Office. The Council is on a two week vacation. So I think we
have a little extra time to be able to handle that paperwork
18699
Mr. Piereecchi: Even if we do that, the Council could still reject it, right?
Mr. McCam: Right But they would not have to go Hvagb since it is,"subject b". They
would mthave to go through the additional paper work. It would go thro gh
with the seven day waiver? Correct? If Councilsays,"no"wecan1getitm,
itwould go through m the normal process.
Mr. Taomina: Yes.
Mr. McCaw: Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piewecchi and unanimously approved it was
#7-116-01 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commiesim does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness
ofPlanning Cormr issim resolutions in comectim with Petition 01-06-08-20
by Bill Brown Ford requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
of the Zoning Ordm rrce in connection with a proposal to construct an
additim to the existing auto dealership located at 30400 Plymouth Road in
the S.W. 1/4 of Section 26.
Mr. McCaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted,
subject to Council Office approval.
ITEM#6 PETITION 2001-07-05-21 Richard Gallagher
(Robert Weaver Dentistry)
Mr. Piewecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 01-07-08-21 by
Richard Gallagher, on behalf of Robert Weaver Dentistry, requesting
approved of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
comectim with a proposal to construct an addition to the cor m Trial
building located at 33111 Seven Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Seven Mile between Farmington and
Woodring. The petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the vacard
building on the subject site. This building was most recently utilized as a
bank. The addition would be construct in place of the drive -thin teller
structure that is located on the side of the bidding. The existing bidding is
me story in height and stands at 2,739 sq. R in area. The proposed addition
would be constructed to the east elevation (facing Woodring Ave.) and would
be 640 sq. tt in size. Once completed, the new enlarge structure would
become a total of 3,379 sq. tt in area According to the Site Plan, the exiting
drive of the drive-dau would be removed and replaced by new landscaping A
new curb would close off the approach of the drive -thou and direct traffic
either aroundthe building or out toward Woodring Avenue. By closing off
one of the existing driveways of the site, the property would be left with two
18700
resna^ ng driveways that offer both ingess and egress. Required parking is
1 space per 200 sq. fl. of floor area (3,379 sq. fl. = 200 = 14 spaces). Parking
provided is 33 spaces. According to the submitted Landscape Plan, additional
landscaping would be incmp ated in to the existing landscaping of the site.
New plant material would be installed up nest to and around the proposed
addition. Required landscaping is not less then 15% of the total site.
Landscaping providedis 36% of the site. Ile FAevation Plans show and note
than the proposed addition would be constructed out of budding materials that
would match that of the existing budding The new addition would be
constructed out of brick up to the bottom of the peak areas and then vinyl
siding the rest of the way up to the roof. The roof would be covered with
asphalt shingles. The petitioner assures stafftlat upon completion, the entire
briding would look litre it was conshucted all at onetime. The existing
kidding sets back from Seven Mile Road about 54 tt The required front yard
setback in a C-1 zoning district is 75 tt Therefore, the proposal would require
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding on to a
contaminating budding.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four ids of correspondence. The fust letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated July 9, 2001, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant
to your request, the Egineermg Division has reviewed the above referenced
petwon. We have an objections to the proposal at this time. However, we do
request that the petitioner notplace new curbing along Woodring Avenue
where the exatmg drive approach is to be removed Also, along the southern
drive approach onto Woodnng Avenue, two flags ofsidewalk have been raised
by the ad amt tree roots causing a trip ha sarrd We request that the petitioner
be required to remove the existing sidewalk, remove any roots from the area
and replace the sidewalk We trust this will provide you with the information
requested " The lett is signed by David Lear, PE., Civil Engineer. The
second left r is from Livonia Fine & Rescue Division, dated July 13, 2001,
which reads as ksllows: "This offwe has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request tb construct an addition tb the buckmig located on
property located al the above referenced address. We have no objections to
this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran. Fire Marshal. The
Pond letter is from the Divisim of Police, dated July 17, 2001, which reads as
follows: "We have reviewed the plans submittedregarding the proposal to
construct an addition to the budding d 33111 Seven Mile Road We have o
objections to the plan as proposed." The letter is signed by Wes McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated July 19, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request ofJuly
3, 2001, the above referenced pention has been reviewed. The following is
noted: (1) This expansion of this nonconforming building will require a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for a deficient front yard
setback Existing is 53 feet h inches. proposed addition is 59 feet 4 inches
and is defuient 20 feet h inches from the required 75 feet (2) The existing
protective wall does not extend to the east property tine (as noted on the
plan). Ifi pproved, the Commission may wish to comment on the greenbelt
18701
at the east propertyBurn. (3) The concrete sidewalk along the east property
fine has trip hmards. (4) The parking blocks near the barrier free access
need to be rearranged (5) The parking lot needs maintenance, resealing
and double striping. This Department has no further objection to the
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Richard Gallagher, 29991 Munger, Livonia What you see is what webe got
Mr. McCann: I walk by theremost evenings.
Mr. Gallagher: What we are hymg to do is follow the same type of arehitectre Haat is there
right now. The landscaping is pretty decent but, ofcome, wehave tore -
landscape Haat is there around the east end and the north side where the
driveway was. With his type of business, this is great because he puts you to
sleep for a little while and somebody has to drive you home and they like to
sneak you out the back door instead of the beat door. This works omper
greatanyway. The wall, bythe way, was there when they built Hue building
in 1959. It is well landscaped on both ends. I deal think it has been a
problem in the las[ 22 years to anybody but anyhow, we are here to answer
your questions.
Mr. Mc Cam:
Are there my questions from the Commissioners? I think it is going to be an
improvement Are you already m the Cit}?
Robert Weaver:
I have been in St Mary's Professional Budding for 13 years. I plan on
bringing a partner in.
Mr. McCain
Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing no me, a motion is in order.
On a motion by
Mr. Sbme, seconded by Mr. LaPme and unmimously approved it was
#7-117-01
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Cound that Petition 01-07-08-21 by Richard Gallagher, on behalf of
Robert Weaver Dentistry, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a propose] to construct an
addition to the commercial budding located at 33111 Seven Mile Road in the
N.W. 1/4 of Section 10 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plmmmked Sheet 1 dated 6/8/01 prepared by RA. Zischke
Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to,
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Shed L-1 dated 6/8/01 prepared by
Gallagher Group Conduction Company, is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to:
18702
3. That all disturbed lawn areas sball be sodded in lieu ofbydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and
sodded areas and all planted materials sball be installed to the satisfaction
of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently mormained m a
healthy condition;
5. That the Fxtenor Budding Elevation Plans marked Sheet 3 and 4 both
dated 6/8/01 prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be M face 4 inch brick, no
exceptions;
7. That the three walls of the trash dummpster area shall be conshnckd out of
the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a
poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and calm shall match
that of the budding and the enclosure gates shall be mournamed and wbm
not in use, closed at all times;
S. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated July 19,
2001
that the parking blocks nem the barrier free access
shall be rearranged
that the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed
and double striped
9. That the petitioner sball correct to the Engineering Department's
satisfaction the following as undated in the correspondence dated July 9,
2001:
that no new curbing along Woodrmg Ave. be
installed where the existing drive is to be removed
that any flags of sidewalk that bas been raised or
deemed hazardous shall be repaired and/or replaced
10 That the greenbelt along the easterly 20 ft of the south property line, as
shown on the approved Landscape Plan, sball be substituted for the
protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance;
11 That any change of cucmnstances in the area corm mung the greenbelt
resulting in a dim aution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protect ve
barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to construct the
protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45.
12 That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding an to a nonconforming
18703
budding and any conditions related thereto;
13 Tbafm signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with
this petition;
14 That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be
submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the budding pernals
are applied for.
Mr. Mc Cam: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Piervecchi: I thinly Mr. Gallagher, thatthis addition is a wirowm proposal for the City of
Livonia. Namely, it will increase landscaping from 15% to 36% and it will
remove an out of place drive -thou structure with a 640 sq. ft. addition. which
will complimamthe east elevation. My compliments.
Mr. Mc Cam, Clu mean, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted.
It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. I do have a letter
from Mr. Gallagher requesting a waiver of seven days. Mr. Taormina
informed me that the Council Office has agreed to that through the Council
President, Maureen Miller -Brosnan. Further, I have been by there. They have
started taking down part of the canopy and structure around the drive-tlua I
flunk they are in a need to move along. Is that correct Mr. Gallagher?
Dr. Weaver: The issue is, to be honest with you, I lose my lease A St Mary's Hospital
beforethe end ofthe year. Currently, I am paying double for the bank with a
big mortgage and I am paying at the Professional Building. So the sooner
can get along, the better offI am going m be. That is my problem
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion?
On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane and um mat monsly approved it was
#7-115-01 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby detemrme to
waive the provisions of Section 10 ofArGcle Vl of the Plamning Commission
Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness
of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 01-07-08-21
by Richard Gallagher, on behalf of Robert Weaver Dentistry, requesting
approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial
budding located at 33111 Seem Mile Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 10.
Mr. McCain, Charmaan, declared the motion is camped and the foregoing resolution adopted
ITEM#7 PETITION 2001-06SD-02 Edward Jones Investments
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the ne item on the agenda is Petition 01 -06 -SD -02 by
Edward Jones Investments requesting approval for the installation of a
18704
satellite dish antenna on office zoned property located at 14800 Famtington
Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Farmington Road between Lyndon and
Five Mile Roads. The applicant is requesting approval to erect a satellite dish
tarenna within one of the landscaped comer sections of the parking lot of the
office complex located on the subject site. This office complex is locatedjust
south ofthe Civic Centerarea ILe submitted Site Plan shows that the
proposed dish arderma would be erected within the comer section at the
northeast comer of the site. This comer area has an existing deciduous tree
planted within it and is immediately adjacent to the Civic Cent Fire Station
In order to be able to link up to the antenna to the petitioner's office unit, the
wrong would have to be bored under the existing black top of the parking lot
According to the Specification Page submitted with the Site Plan, the proposed
dish would be 6 tt diameter and mounted on a 10 tt high pole. The dish itself
would be of a solid type fiberglass contraction. The petitioner has stated that
because of the size and location of the existing tree planted in the comer
section, there is no room for additional landscaping to screen the dish antenna.
In order to attain the best possible sight line to receive the mfomtation from
the appropriate satellite, the dish must be positioned in frond of the tree and oid
towards the parking lot
Mr. McCain: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are two ids ofconespondeoce. The letter is from the Inspection
Deparhnent, dated July 19, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of July 3, 2001, the above referenced petition has been reviewed The
following u noted This petition will require a variance from the Zoning
Board ofAppeaa for proposon to identify a dlvldual tenants on a
Freestanding Business Center Signs, which a not allowed Thu Department
has nofurther objection to the petition" The letter is signed by Nei Bishop,
Assistant Directoroflnspection. Wehavesecondletterofcomspondence
which is a letter from J. D. Dinan, dated July 16, 2001, directed to the Planning
Commission which reads as follows: We are the owners incileritelas
Commons Office Center, LLC in which Edward Jones Ina, will become a
tenant fdwyem mstal/theproposed Commercial Satellite Ant neezz Weve
been wor t ng with Edward Jones, Inc, onplacement oftha Commercial
Satellite Anterma and have selected the area adjacent to the Livonia Fire
Department property in the northeast comer ofour property. The satellite will
be located in a very inconspicuour location that will be screened by an
existing screening wall tree foliage landicapmg and will not be collectible to
the neighborhood Edward Jones, Inc., u a national company and must have
this communication satellite to perform their office functions. Our location
would be the second for Edward Jones, Inc., in the City since they civrendy
occupy office space on Seven Ade Road east ofMddlebelt Road in which a
similar satellite device war installed Therefore it a imperative that the
installation be approve{ as they will be an excellent tenant andgood neighbor
to the City ofLivors" We will be unable to attendyour meeting on July 20
but we urge you 0 allow this satellite 0 be installer{ so that Edward Jones,
18705
Inc can locate in the City ofLivonia." The letter is signed by John D. Durant
Managing Member. That is the extent ofthe correspondence.
Mr. McCain: Is Poe petitioner hereIbis evening?
Wesley Kaszubski, 11329 Cadillac, Allen Pads, M ebigam I represent Nortbcomm, the
company that would like to pert in the satellite dish for Edward Jones. We
went through a few options. Ibis is really the only option that we have is to
do this ground mamt It is a crucial part her Edward Jones for
cmnrnunicatmg with then main hub through satellite, transferring every data
that they do through their computer system Everything gets trensferred
through there. I am basically here to answer any questions you may have on
the satellite dish itself.
Mr. Piemecchi: Sir, why an additional satellite? You have me on Seven Mile east of
Middlebelt It is pretty close to have two six footers, isn't it?
Mr. Kaszubsla The satellite is for each office for Edward Jones. The only way to get the
information to transfer, I am not aware of the dish that you are uslang about
Mr. Pierceedai: It says here, from John Doan to Maly Taormina, "Edward Jones, Inc. a a
national company that must have this communication satellite to perform
their olRee funetums. Our beechen would be the secondjor Edward Jones in
the City since they currently occupy offwe space on Seven bide Road east of
Middle belt Road which is a similar satellite device was mrtalled."
Mr. Kaszubsld: I am not aware ofihat letter but if that dish is at Seven Mile Road and
Middlebeh, it would have to communicate through some type of wiring
system w where the Edward Jones we are looking at here would have to have
cable going from that dish that is cormnunicating on Seven Mile all the way
to this location and that would be installing the wire.
Mr. McCann: Sir, is there anybody here from Edward Jmes?
Mr. Kaswbsld: Not that I am aware of, no.
Mr. McCann: And there isn't anyone here from Mr. Dmad's office?
Mr. Kaszubski: Not that I am aware of, no.
Mr. McCann: So yin cant tell us what the dish is doing and why that infOrmatim caul be
transferred over the internet or anything else?
Mr. KaszubsId Yes. I am here to answer any questions on the satellite dish. I am from
Norihcomm the company that would be putting the satellite dish in. So those
are the only questions that I would be able.
Mr. Shane: Could you answer the question, why does it have to be that particular dish and
not something smaller!
18706
Mr. Kasmsbskc No. The way that then system is set up and the way they commumca�, it is
difficult to explain how the satellites sit in the sky on a horizon. The one that
they sit w it takes thatbig of a disb w opemte. Sometimes you see little
disbes for differcureasons. They gum a different bind in the lower horizon
of the earth to where this dish communicates through a bind that is a lot higher
that needs the six foot dish
Mr. Shore: O.K. Thank you
Mr. Alaaskas: Being that there is no one here from the company, I think this should be
tabled because of the fact that all he can answer are questions in regards fo
installing the dish I think we need to hear from the petitioner.
Mr. McCann: I am concerned about the maintenance, the parking area and the vegetation
too. Is there support?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Sbane and unanimously approved it was
#7-119-01 RESOLVED that, the City Planting Commission does hereby recommend
flat Petition 01 -06 -SD -02 by Edward Jones Investments requesting approval
for the installation of a satellite dish arderma on office zoned property located
A 14800 Farmington Road in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 22 be tabled to August
7, 2001.
Mr. McCa®, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted
It has been tabled to the August 7, 2001, meeting At that time we would need
to hear from the proposed user of the sahlliR dish as well as someone from the
Heritage Commons office cater.
Mr. LaPme: I would recommend that we send a letter fo Mr. Dinav and have him here
because of these violations. Every time we get a violation on a piece of
property we have to get a clean upjob. If we are going fo go for a dish, we
should get the place cleaned up.
Mr. McCain: Can someone on the staff send a letter to Mr. Dinah?
Mr. Taormina: We will take care ofiL
ITEM #8 PETITION 01 -07 -SN -01 Realty Development Company
(Victor 3 Office Building)
Mr. Piercerchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 01 -07 -SN -01 by
Realty Development Company, on behalf of the Victor 3 Office Budding,
requesting approval for signage for the office building located A 20000
Victor Pukway in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 6.
18707
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast comer of Victor Parkway and Pembroke.
On Match 10, 1999 this site received Site Plan Approval for the construction
of an office budding. As part of that approval A was conditioned: 'That no
signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this peN6on;
all such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City CounciL In compliance wRh that
requirement, the applicant is requesting approval for two ground signs. The
proposed signage would be located adjacent to two of the three driveways of
the development One sign would be located on the east side of the drive off
Pembroke Street and the other would be located on the north side of the
southern most driveway off Victor Parkway. When a development bas more
then 400 ft. of frontage along a major thoroughfare a second ground sign is
perrnted The mdinance defines a parkway as a major thoroughfare.
Signage Permitted fer this site under Section 18.50F is two (2) business cater
signs, (1) not to exceed 30 sq. ft. in sign area and (2) a sign which gives
direction, name and identification to a business center— cannot contain name,
logo, or trademark of any business located within the complex Proposed
signage is two (2) ground signs, (1) both at 20 sq. ft. in sign area and (2)
graphics include individual murimpanels. Because the signage identifies
individual tenants of the office building, the proposed signage would require a
variance firm the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. McCain: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence. It is a lister from the Inspection
Department dated July 23, 2001, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request ofJime 26, 2001, the above referencedpeuuon has been reviewed
(1) This site was previously approvedjor dumpster enclosures, (which was to
alleviate the on site trash issue), that at this time are not apphadfor nor
installed Currently one day a week all the bash, a great mound a piled on
the right of way on Lyndon. (2) The north half of the parking lotions to be
double striped this }ear and u not done yet. (3) The landscaping
maintenance has been an ongoing usue at this site for the pastyear andis
sullnotyetfullyresolvedorrestored This Departmenthasnofrather
objection to this petition." The lister is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant
Stream of Inspection. That is the exert of the correspondence.
Mr. McCain: Is the petitiowm herethis evenmg?
Stuart Frankel, 3221 W. Big Beaver Road, Troy, Michigan.
Mr. McCraw: Mr. Frankel, is there anything additional you would lie In 0 us about this
political?
Mr. Frankel: We are allowed two monument signs. We have developed two mnnument
signs, which incorporate the aesthetics of the building using the same quality
of materials. We have two New York stock exchange tenants, who are going
to be occupants of the building and they would like to pmt of the monument
identification That is why we are seeking identification on the wxmumen
fF;iM
signs. There are other signs on the parkway especially the building
immediately south of me that bas multrtevard identification m it and we
would like to be in keeping with that
Mr. Piemecchi: How many lmads do you wish to include an each owe of these signs?
Mr. Frankel: I think there is a total of four or five. Yes, there would be five, total. There
would be svndar graphics with similar mkrr and sim lar design. So you would
not have one red, me blue, me go= or owe yellow. It would all be a unifmn
sign criteria.
Mr. Alamkas: You are entitled to two signs with 30 sq. & but you ward to have two signs
with20 sq.ft Thatis 10 feetoverwhatis in compliance. Why cmlyoujust
have the 15 sq. It?
Mr. Shane: That is 30 sq. ft for each sign So he is under.
Mr. LaPine: I know you are entitled to have two signs but is it necessary to have two signs
becauseyousitrightonthecorner. Can't that sign be somehowplaced onthe
comer so that it is two faced, two sided and we get away with one sign? Mos[
of the buildings to that area only have the me sign
Mr. Frankel: I am the only building thaz has two, drives and two access points m two
different sheets. I think it is important to have identification at the access
points on each sheet If you are coming on Pembroke, you will not see the
sign az the intmectim. If you are coming south m Victor Parkway, you will
not see it when you get to the comer yet there are two access points above that
Mr. LaPine: I was just az a very nice industrial park in Plymouth this morning and Johusm
and Johusm is in there and a lot of other big corporations are in there. You
come in off of Beck Road, the only sign that is out there is the name of the
subdivision then when you go in there they each have a little sign m then
property. When we originally had this planned for Dave Johusm's property,
we were trying to hold the signs down to a vmmnnum I still think that you can
accomplish what you ward to accomplish with me sign because people are
going to be looking for that complex by As name not by the individual naves
of the companies that are in there. Once they get in there, by the address, they
should be able to find the building with no problem at all. If they are coming
to off of Newburg, all you have to do is mum az Pembroke at the Post Office,
come down and you are at the end of the sheet
Mr. Frankel: But we have an entrance right at my easterly property line where we want to
identify the address of the building and the address of the budding, 20000
Parkway and Victor Park No.3 will be identified m each hummed sign We
think it is important to have identification at each Because we are entitled to
have two signs, we didn'ttake the luxury of extending A to the maximum. We
were sympathetic in trying to keep something within good architectural control
and conmpatibility with it so we are smaller flim what we could otherwise be.
18709
Mr. McCann: If there are no further questions from the Commissioners, I will go to the
audience. Is there anybody in the audience wisbing to speak for or against this
petition? Seeing nobody, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved it was
#7-120-01 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 01 -07 -SN -01 by Realty Development
Company, on behalf of the Vidor 3 Office Building, requesting approval for
signage for the office building located at 20000 Victor Parlovay in the N.P.
1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Sign Package submitted by Realty Development Company, as
received by the Pla ^ ag Commission on July 2, 2001, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That these grand signs shall notbe illuminated beyond one (1) hour after
this office budding closes;
3. That arty additional signage shall come back before the Planning
Commission and City Council for their review and approval;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance
from the Zoning Board of Appeals for tenant identification on a business
center sign and any conditions related thereto.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carred and the foregoing resolution adopted
R will go on to City Conned with an approving resolution
ITEM #9 Motion to Hold a Public Hearing Open-air Sales
Mr. Piercerchi, Secretary, announced the next dent on the agenda is a Motion to hold a Public
Hearing pursuant to Council Resolution #395-01 to determine whether or not
to amend Sections 10.02 and 10.03 of Article X and Section 11.02 of Article
XI to make open, an sales ofnursery stock, fruits and vegetables a permitted
nue for food stores, grocery stores and meat markets subject to certain
restrictions contained in Zoning Ordinance Section 10.03.
Mr. McCann: Is there a motion to hold a public hearing?
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane and unanimously approved it was
#7-121-01 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pmsuaz¢to Council
Resolution #395-01, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance 4543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish
and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to make
open -an sales ofm eery stock, fruits and vegetables a permitted nue for food
stores, grocery stores and meat markets subject to certain restrictions crammed
in zoning Ordinance Section 10.03.
18710
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance 4543, the Zoning Ordinance of 1he City of Livonia,
as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation
submitted w the City Council.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted
ITEM#10 APPROVAL OFMINIJTES 82e Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, annonnced the next item an the agenda is Approval of the Minutes
of the 820 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 8, 2001.
On a motive by Mr. LaPme, seconded by Mr. Alauskas and unammously approved, it was
#7-122-2001 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 820h Public Hearings and Regular
Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 12, 2001, are hereby
approved.
A ro0 call vote was taken with Poe mflowing result:
AYES:
Lupine, Alanskas, Shane, McCann. Piercecchi
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Koons
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is camed and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 828u Public Heanngs and
Regular Meeting held an July 24, 2001, was adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
James C. McCann, Chairman
/rw
CY Y•Y J W -100I MOD16161 IH.Y ON
Dan Piemecchi, Secretary