HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2002-10-2219753
MINUTES OF THE 853rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 853`° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. William LaPine, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: William La Pine Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane
Robert Alanskas John Pastor' John Walsh"
Members absent: James C. McCann
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV, Scott Miller,
Planner III; Bill Poppenger, Planner I; and Ms. Marge Roney, Secretary, were also
present.
-Mr Pastor stepped down at 8:12 p m. and reWmed at 8:50 p.m.
"Mr Walsh amved at 730 p.m. and left at 9:00 p m.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a
petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in wnting, to the City Council.
Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7)
days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff
have reviewed each of these petitions upon their filing. The staff has furnished the
Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission
may, or may not, use depending on the outcome ofthe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2002-09-01-72 COWICK
Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-09-
01-12 submitted by Steven, Tim and George Cowick, requesting to
rezone property located at 8863 Floral Avenue on the west side of
Floral between Joy Road and Wilson Acres Park in the Southeast
%of Section 36 from C-2 to R-1.
19754
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine:
Let the record show that Mr. Walsh arrived at 7:33 p.m. Is there
any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering Division,
dated September 23, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to
your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -
referenced petition. The following legal description should be used
in conjunction with this petition. Then; art; no additional right-of-
way requirements for this site and we have no other objections.
We trust that this will provide you with the information requested."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That
is the extent of the cor espondence.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Steven Cowick, 8863 Floral, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. LaPine:
Please tell us what you want us to do for you, sir.
Mr. Cowick:
All three of us own the property. We're hying to mortgage it out to
my uncle so we can start a family of our own in another place. We
can't get a mortgage with it being zoned C-2, commercial land,
because no one will give us a mortgage for the home. I've been
living there for 23 years this month, your Honor. It's always been a
house to me. It's never been a business.
Mr. LaPine:
Don't address us as "your Honor." Please.
Mr. Cowick:
I'm Sony.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from the
Commissioners? I have a couple questions. Once you gel the
mortgage, are you going to do some upgrading oflhe home?
Mr. Cowick:
Yes, we are.
Mr. LaPine:
I noticed the driveway is all gravel. Do you have an old car in the
back there? I couldn't get back there because the dog was pretty
vicious.
Mr. Cowick:
Yes, I'm going to be taking that with me. I've got two '69 Firebirds.
I'm going to piece them together and make one car.
Mr. LaPine:
So if you gel the rezoning, you're selling the house to your uncle,
and the uncle is going to move in.
19755
Mr. Cowick:
He already lives there.
Mr. Alanskas:
Do you have an approval with the mortgage company if it is
rezoned?
Mr. Cowick:
That is what's stopping me.
Mr. Alanskas:
But its all been approved if you get the proper zoning?
Mr. Cowick:
No. They cant get an appraisal on the home while it's zoned C-2,
commercial land.
Mr. Alanskas:
So if it is rezoned to R-1, you may not even get an approval?
Mr. Cowick:
No, I'm already approved with my job and everything else like that.
I just need the down payment that I'd gel from selling the house.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thankyou.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Hearing none, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Pastor, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-133-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on October 22, 2002, on Petition
2002-09-01-12, submitted by Steven, Tim and George Cowick,
requesting to rezone property located at 8863 Floral Avenue on the
west side of Floral Avenue between Joy Road and Wilson Acres
Park in the Southeast % of Section 36 from C-2 to R-1, the
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 2002-09-01-12 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the
area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will reflect the established
residential use of the subject property;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
zoning classification of properties along Floral Avenue
immediately to the north of the subject property; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will remove unneeded
commercial zoning in the area.
19756
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. La Pine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2002-09-0246 MID AMERICA SHOWS
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
09-02-16, submitted by Mid America Shows, Inc., requesting waiver
use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia Mall
Merchants Association consisting of amusement rides, games and
food concessions from Friday, Apnl 4, 2003 through Sunday, Apnl
20, 2003, inclusive, on property located on the north side of Seven
Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Pudingbrook Road in the
Southeast %of Section 2.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning ofthe surrounding area.
Mr. La Pine: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is a letter
from the Engineering Division, dated September 24, 2002, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering
Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The following
legal description should be used in conjunction with this petition.
There are no additional right -0f -way requirements for this site and
ws have no other objections." The letter is signed by Robert J.
Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Division
of Police, dated September 30, 2002, which reads as follows: We
have reviewed the proposed plan for the Mid America Shows
carnival. We have no objections to the plan as submitted as long
as adequate security is provided." The letter is signed by Wesley
McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third letter is from the
Livonia Fire & Rescue, dated September 24, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in
connection with a request to operate a carnival from April 4, 2003
through April 20, 2003, on property located at the above -referenced
location. We have no objections to this proposal provided the fire
hydrant located south of Value City remains accessible." The letter
19757
is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The fourth letter is
from the Inspection Department, dated September 24, 2002, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of September 23,
2002, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. This
Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed
by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent
of the correspondence.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
James Wegerty, 3041 Serenity, Oakland, Michigan. I am accompanied this evening
by Bobbie Gelman, who is the Marketing and Community Affairs
Director of the Livonia Mall, in the event you would have any
questions for her.
Mr. La Pine:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Could you explain what process you go through when you hire
people to work in the shows to run the rides?
Mr. Wegedy:
Absolutely. Number one, every living human being that we hire,
whether they are on a ride, a game, selling popcom or whatever, is
drug tested by a lab to begin with. They are then subjected to
random drug testing at our whim, you might say. So that's the
number one requirement. Secondly, all of our personnel, and I'm
assuming you wantto speak about the ride personnel primarily ....
Mr. Alanskas:
Correct.
Mr. Wegedy:
They are trained. We have two complete carnivals. Each of them
have a licensed approved inspector who has been schooled by an
organization named NARSO. It is their job to school and train
these people. They are then turned over, after that individual has
been given some training, to management personnel under that
individual who kind of tutors them along, you might say. So they go
through a bit of an apprenticeship with us, and then they are finally
turned loose on their own, or whatever the best way to describe it
is. We do actually have an in-house training program. We're proud
of it. Our safety record is really quite good, and we're very pleased
with it.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you. I know last year Channel 4 had like an expose on
different carnival shows. They had sent one of their people in for a
job, and you just hired them on the spot with no training, no
nothing.
Mr. Wegedy:
Are you saying that was us?
19758
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Wegedy:
That was Wade Shows.
Mr. Alanskas:
You used to be with Wade Shows?
Mr. Wegedy:
No, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay, thank you. My mistake.
Mr. Wegedy:
That's the company that does Livonia Spree.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I notice this year you're going from two weeks to 17 days. Could
you tell me the reason why you're increasing the number of days?
Mr. Wegedy:
It's really quite simple. Like I mentioned in the letter, our schedule
only allows us to do this event early in April, and we lose x amount
of days due to inclement weather. Its that simple. And Bobbi, God
bless her, who is here with me this evening . they do such
wonderful community -related activities at the mall, that their portion
of the proceeds is directly related to how we do. We've just not
done very well, to be very frank with you, during the past few years
due to the weather. I guess you might say that we're trying to buck
the odds a tad by adding another weekend. We're assuming we're
still going to lose x amount of days to weather, if you know what I'm
saying.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess my worry is that we're setting a precedent. If you do well
with an extra three days, next year you'll want another few days. I
don't want this thing to go on for a month.
Mr. Wegedy:
Oh, no. I will go on record right now saying that we wont ask to
exceed this.
Mr. LaPine:
What was the Iadys name from the center?
Mr. Wegedy:
Ms. Bobbi Gelman.
Mr. LaPine:
I'd like to ask her a question. I'm just curious. How much
additional traffic does this carnival generate for the shopping
center?
Ms. Gelman:
As far as from the technical point, as far as vehicles, or as far as
inside the mall?
Mr. LaPine:
Business for inside the mall.
19759
Ms. Gelman: Actually, very little. The impact to the retailers . . obviously we
have people that come that may not be familiar with the location of
the property. That's always a good thing, especially for
independents who are struggling with this economy right now.
Mostly our involvement in doing this is to be able to fund our
community programming. We also garner funds from the Michigan
Arts Council for those programs. We apply them towards the
performances that we offer to the school kids, towards our support
of the YMCA, the Gid Scouts, Boy Scouts and other community
groups.
Mr. LaPine: Okay, thank you. I was just curious. A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-134-2001 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on October 22, 2002, on Petition
2002-09-02-16, submitted by Mid America Shows, Inc., requesting
waiver use approval to conduct a carnival sponsored by the Livonia
Mall Merchants Association consisfing of amusement rides, games
and food concessions from Friday, April 4, 2003 through Sunday,
April 20, 2003, inclusive, on properly located on the north side of
Seven Mile Road between Middlebell Road and Purlingbrook Road
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-09-02-16
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the duration of the carnival shall be limited to the dales
from April 4, 2003 through April 17, 2003, inclusive, except
under the circumstances that an extension of three (3)
additional days to April 20, 2003, is granted by the Director of
Public Works under the provisions of Section 11.03(L) of
Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the
area as illustrated on the Site Plan submitted with this request;
3. That all rides, food concessions, booths and all other
equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the
carnival shall be located at least 60 feet distant from the
Seven Mile Road right-of-way line;
4. That all trucks and other transportation equipment shall be
parked or stored within the northwesterly portion of the Livonia
Mall parking lot, but no closer than 100 feet from the west
19760
property line abutting the Ziegler Place site or 250 feet from
the south property line abutting Hunters Brook Condominiums;
5. That there shall be no motors running on the stored trucks
during late hours, especially between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.,
including motors on any refrigeration trucks;
6. That there shall be no living quarters at the location of the
stored trucks;
7. That the hours of operation of the carnival shall be as stated in
a letter dated September 20, 2002, from James K. Wegedy,
Vice President of Mid America Shows, Inc., which have been
approved by the Police Department; and
8. That access to fire hydrants is provided for the Fire
Department;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2. That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use;
3. That the use of the subject property for carnival purposes will
not interrupt the normal traffic flow and circulation in the area
and will not impede access to the Livonia Mall; and
4. That no reporting City department objects to the proposed
use.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. La Pine: I made a mistake. I didn't go to the audience. I didn't see anybody
out there. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak
for or against this petition? Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pastor: Item 6 says 'that there shall be no living quarters at the location of
the stored trucks." I think that should be, "there shall be no living
quarters on the site' period.
Mr. Wegedy: In the past, we have always had some management personnel, it's
mentioned in our letter, with a box of concession trailers that you
19761
can't view up in front where the carnival is just because we need to
have someone there during the night and things like fiat if we may,
so we have always done that. But there are no living quarters in
the back.
Mr. Pastor:
That's the reason why I asked the question at the beginning.
Mr. La Pine:
I was just going to say, if I remember right, they did say they had
one trailer that management people stayed in.
Mr. Wegedy:
There is actually more than one, but we've always had a few
trailers.
Mr. La Pine:
How many people would be in these trailers?
Mr. Wegedy:
Oh, gosh. I think we had probably three or four management units
there that aren't even in view, if you know what I'm saying. And its
important that you folks know that the trailers are inspected and
licensed by the Wayne County Health Department on site, and
things of that nature. I don't know if you've had a problem with
another company or something and that is what this is a result of,
but we've done this ever since we've done the carnival at Livonia
Mall. There have been some personnel on site. To my knowledge,
we've never had a complaint about them. We just feel very strongly
that if someone appears during the night or something, we need to
have someone there for the safety of the equipment and the people
that might come.
Mr. La Pine:
Mr. Pastor, do you want to change the condition?
Mr. Pastor:
No. I'll get retrad my request.
Mr. Alanskas:
On whatever trailers you have, are they allowed to have parties in
these quarters or can they entertain people themselves?
Mr. Wegedy:
No. They are not loud or anything. These are very lovely Irving
trailers and things like that. People like my partner, Danny Huston,
would be on site and things like that.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I'd like to comment that I've known the management of this carnival
company for many years with Spree and at the State level. They
have an impeccable record in both areas. I think they are a fine
operation. I have no concerns really about them creating any
problems for our City.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to your dales in April. I happen to have 13
grandchildren. I have to go to all these carnivals. And April for any
vendor, its always cold, rainy and wet, even for the children. So
19762
possibly you may want to consider having the show in May, if
possible, where you have good weather. April is always bad for
weather.
Mr. Wegedy: We understand that We have tried to be conscious of other events
here in Livonia. Wonderland Center has a carnival in May and, of
course, the Spree takes place in June. We try to be conscious of
that. And we're very fortunate, not to bore you, but we have some
very, very large organized festivals similar to the Spree that we do
in May. So for us the reality is we just have to do it in April if we're
going to do it.
Mr. Alanskas: I'm sure that if you had good weather in April, your numbers would
be much higher.
Mr. Wegedy: That's the upside. If you do gel lucky, everybody has cabin fever.
Mr. La Pine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. This concludes the Public Hearing section of our agenda.
We will now begin the Miscellaneous Site Plans section of our
agenda. Members of the audience may speak in support or
opposition to these items. Will the Secretary please read the next
Rem?
It 1=1 h Fri.MJ=1 Y Y I W7 UP1111=QrybK -.• _, r r •-L, , i
Mr. Piercecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 99-04-
02-13, submitted by Phoenix Land Development, requesting to
amend the plans previously approved for the development located
on property on the northeast comer of Plymouth Road and
Farmington Road in the Southwest%of Section 27.
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast comer of Plymouth Road and
Farmington Road. On August 13, 2001, this site received wavier
use approval to construct a planned residential development. The
development consisted of a mixture of 142 residential condominium
units on a portion of the site located north of the commercial zoning
which was approved to have six buildings totaling 44,870 sq. R. of
retail space fronting along Plymouth Road. The residential was
comprised of 13 buildings, each containing between 8 and 16 units.
All the residential buildings were to be 3 -stories in height. On
August 28, 2002, the site plan for both the commercial and
residential phases of the development was extended for a period of
19763
six months. The petitioner is seeking to revise the previously
approved plans as it relates only to the residential phase of the
development. The changes to the plans are primarily in response
to market demand. Under the new plan, both the number of
residential buildings and the density of condominium units have
been reduced. The Site Plan now shows ten buildings and a total
of 94 condominium units. Six of the buildings would contain 10
units, Wo would be made up of nine units, and the remaining two
buildings would consist of eight units. All the buildings would be
two stories in height as opposed to the three-story buildings that
are currently approved for development. Each condominium unit
would contain two bedrooms. The setbacks of the two buildings
along Farmington Road have been reduced from 70 feel to 50 feet.
Required parking is 235 spaces; they have provided parking of 238
spaces. Each building would be comprised of stacked ranch type
condominium units. Six of the buildings would have four units on
the first floor and six units on the second floor. Between each set
of first floor units would be two storage rooms that would be
available for the residents of the building. Each end unit would
contain approximately 1,232 sq. R. of living area and would have a
one -car garage. The middle units on the second story would each
be approximately 1,274 sq. R. in area with a two -car garage. Two
other buildings would have a set of stacked ranches on both ends
for a total of eight units, with an additional unit in the middle of the
second floor. The area between the first floor units would be used
as storage. The remaining buildings would consist of eight slacked
units, four on the first floor and four on the second floor. The
architecture of the buildings would differ from the previous
elevations that were approved. Originally, the buildings featured
ornamental windows and door framework. The new buildings, on
the other hand, were designed to be more contemporary. The
design includes shuttered windows, column -supported porches,
and asphalt singled roofs. The Building Elevation Plans show that
the buildings would be constructed out of brick on all four sides of
the first floor and a combination of both brick and vinyl siding on the
second floor.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
Did you show the landscaping on that package?
Mr.
Miller:
This is the landscape plan.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
Is that SP -2?
Mr.
Miller:
This is L-1, the landscape plan.
Mr.
Pieroecchi:
I see very dense planting along Farmington Road there. Will there
be parking in that area also?
19764
Mr. Miller:
No. This is all lawn. They have sidewalks. There is no parking or
drives in front of these buildings.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So, in effect, we're going to have a greenbelt of roughly 50 feet
there?
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I was concemed about that setback. In fact, I'm going to comment
on that. Do we know what type of trees those are?
Mr. Miller:
It just says deciduous trees and flowering trees. Maybe the
petifioner has more information. On the notes here, it just says
deciduous trees. It doesn't specify the size.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
My concern is, because it's deficient really 25 feet of setback, which
normally requires a waiver ... are we assured that the green area
is going to be sufficient to really screen that area? I'd hate to see
another Newburgh Road. You know what I'm referring to.
Mr. Miller:
Yes.
Mr. LaPine:
We will let the petitioner answer those questions, if you don't rind
Dan.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
No, I don't mind at all.
Mr. LaPine:
In the meantime, Mark, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There are three items of correspondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 17, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition dealing with a revised plan
for the residential portion of the project. We have no objections to
the proposal at this time with the following conditions. The
detention facilities will require Wayne County approval and MDEQ
approval to the extent that they impact the wetlands. The drive
approach to Farmington Road requires Wayne County approval.
Condition 9 of the approval granted by C.R. 522-01 dealing with
maintenance of the detention facilities should be continued in any
revised approval. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron,
P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from tie Livonia Fire &
Rescue Division, dated October 15, 2002, which reads as follows:
"This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with
a request to construct a planned residential development on
property located at the above -referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) If any
19765
of subject buildings are to provided with automatic sprinkler
systems, hydrants shall be located between 50 feet and 100 feet
from the Fire Department connections. (2) Adequate hydrants shall
be provided and located with a maximum spacing of 300 feet
between hydrants. Most remote hydrant shall Flow 1,500 FPM with
a residual pressure of 20 PSI. (3) Access around building shall be
provided for emergency vehicles wilts turning radius up to forty-five
feet wall-to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13.5 feet. (4)
Fire lanes may be designated at a later date contingent upon final
parking configuretion." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran,
Fire Marshal. The final letter is from the Inspection Department,
dated October 22, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your
request of October 9, 2002, the above -referenced petition has been
re -reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site has been
proposed for zoning changes, i.e., a shift in the G21R-8 zoning
boundary. Also, applications for waiver for Planned Residential
Development and Planned General Development using Article XX
have been submitted. Therefore, the review has been conducted
as the zoning is proposed and also Article XX of Ord. 543. (2) The
site is lacking the fenced and adequately equipped recreation area
of 2350 square feet, and therefore, will need a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The required protective wall or
greenbelt between the C-2 site and R -8C is not sufficiently detailed
and needs to be clarified to the Planning Commission's satisfaction
or a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required.
(4) The deficient front, side and interior yard setbacks may be
waived by the Planning Commission and City Council under Article
XX if it is determined that such modification is a more efficient use
and will not be injurious to surrounding land and to the public as a
whole. (5) This plan will need a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals for deficient covered parking spaces (118 required, 108
provided, 10 deficient). (6) This review has been conducted under
the premise that the exterior construction is essentially
maintenance free. (7) No lighting appears b be provided for the
residential area. This should be clarified for the Commission. (8)
No signage was reviewed. This Department has no further
objections to this Petition. 1 trust this provides the requested
information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. La Pine: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Mark Perkoski, Phoenix Land Development. This is the same plan you just
discussed. We just brought a rendered copy itis time. Instead of
repeating everything, obviously the density has gone down. We
are closer to Farmington Road with these buildings - 50 feel - but
the buildings are shorter than previously proposed. As you may
recall, our previous buildings were similar to ones at Bell Creek
19766
Square, Six Mile and Farmington. This is a different product
altogether. It's a smaller building and we were hoping that we'd be
able to be a little closer to Farmington Road. The problem is that
we have the wetlands, a seven acre regulated wetland on the east
side of the site so that kind of limits what we can do. There was a
question about the height of the trees. I'll ask our landscape
architect to detail the diameter of all the trees that are put in. I can't
imagine them being any different than the ones at Bell Creek
Square and off hand I dont remember the size of those in terms of
height or diameter.
Mr. Alanskas: The diameter was two inches
Mr. Perkoski:
That sounds approximately right. I don't know off hand. We old
submit a detailed plan for a six fool high PVC screen fence, and I
think that was mentioned in one of the review letters from your
department heads. What we intended was something again similar
to the Six Mile and Farmington site, perhaps even the same fence.
I think the one we showed on this plan had a little lattice option at
the lop, but that's discretionary. We can replace that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
My concern, sir, was not just the circles that I see on that map, but
adequate screening. The Six Mile/Farmington area basically is not
screened. Its even closer . . that's 45 feet. . . which was a
disappointment to me. Actually I'm disappointed that we only have
50 feet here, but I would like to be assured. I can support this issue
in all sincerity if I had some assurances that we do have adequate
screening. That's why I'm asking this question because I see at
Newburgh Road, somebody pointed out today, trees are falling off
of that thing. Its a mess. I want to be assured that we don't have
that br such a high quality operation and a major installation within
our City. Can we be assured that the screening will be adequate?
We don't want it solid, but enough to break it up.
Mr. Perkoski:
I believe so. I think we're showing more trees on this than we are
at Six Mile and Farmington. I can't speak for the Newburgh site.
I'm not familiar with that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
No, no. That's not your project.
Mr. Perkoski:
But we're showing actually more trees and more screening along
Farmington Road, being sensitive to the screening to the front of
the building.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I'd like to ask Mr. Shane, if I can Mr. Chairman, what type of trees
would you recommend to give us adequate screening?
19767
Mr. Shane:
I recommend a combination of evergreens and deciduous.
Deciduous for a canopy along there and the evergreens to try to
give some additional screening and colorthrough there.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Does your plan, sir, stale that? Mr. Shane is an expert in
landscaping as if you didn't know.
Mr. Perkoski:
We do. Actually, on Farmington Road we have all deciduous.
Most of the evergreens are in the back. We could certainly
subsfilute a few of those if that is what's desired.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Can you break that up to follow the wisdom of Mr. Shane?
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes, we can. That would be taking out some of these and putting
in clusters of evergreens as opposed to a solid row?
Mr. La Pine:
You canwork thatoutwith Mr. Taormina.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I wanted to make sure, Mr. Chairman, that it is agreed gcon that
there will be something to work out with a combination to give us
some type of screening in there. They don't have to be these big
spruces that grow 30 feel in diameter, but something to give it
adequate screening. That's my main concem. Do I have your
assurance thalyou will work with Mr. Taormina on that?
Mr. Perkoski:
Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, do you have a copy of the letter that Mr. Taormina read from
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Perkoski:
No, I do not.
Mr. Alanskas:
I just want to make sure all the negatives on that are taken care of,
and I thought you should have a copy of that letter. Wouldn't he
Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we can provide a copy of that letter to him.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you can look that over and make sure all the contents that are
negative tum into positives. Did you understand everything he said
when we read it off, basically?
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes, I did.
Mr. Alanskas:
Okay. And you can take care of all the negative things in that
letter?
19768
Mr. Perkoski:
Correct. h terms of the variance for the recreation space, we're
going to have to address that obviously. The details for the
protective wall ... we can certainly provide more information if that
helps.
Mr. Alanskas:
You were short eight or ten spaces?
Mr. Pastor:
They have covered parking.
Mr. LaPine:
They have garages.
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes, I don't understand that comment.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If I may comment on the interior. In conversation today with a local
fireman, the narrowness of the Six Mile/Farmington stairways was
brought up. He requested that I question the stairways. Are they
compatible with the Fire Department EMS stretcher requirements?
Mr. Perkoski:
I don't know what those are, off hand, but I can certainly ask our
architect if you can provide the specific requirement.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The Fire Marshal should have input on those because they have to
maneuver those stretchers. He said its very difficult with the Six
Mile/Farmington area because the stairways are very narrow, and
he wanted me to bring that point up.
Mr. Perkoski:
That's in a different building altogether. It has a lot of stairways.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I realize that, but they still have to get to that second floor, right?
It's not three, but its still two.
Mr. Perkoski:
Correct. And we will certainly provide a complete set of
architectural plans.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
So you will make contact with the Fire Marshal and square that
away?
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes, we will.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay. Thats it.
Mr. LaPine:
You didn't bring a drawing tonight of the actual buildings that we
can show the audience, did you?
Mr. Perkoski:
No, I tried to get a rendered copy of the elevation, and all I have is
the black and while that you have.
19769
Mr. La Pine:
Why dont you put up the black and white for the television so
anybody looking in from around the City could see what they are
going to look like compared to what the original plan was.
Mr. Alanskas:
In regards to your rendering, are you going to have all your electric
units and meters and stuff in the back of the homes or the side so
they won't be shown in the front?
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
In Dearborn, they had them in the front and we brought that to Mr.
Schaf&s attention. Al Six Mile, they put them either on the side or
in the rear.
Mr. Perkoski:
We talked about that at the office. There may be one or two
instances where it may be challenging, especially when we back up
to the wetlands. What we're going to do is ask the architect to
provide detail.
Mr. Alanskas:
I'm concerned with Farmington Road.
Mr. Perkoski:
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
They will not be seen then.
Mr. Perkoski:
Anywhere where they are more obvious, we're going to try to come
up with a small wall detail which might be even more thorough than
the screening that we've been providing elsewhere. Yes, the
answer is they will be screened.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. Pastor, and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-135-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 99-04-02-13, as
revised, submitted by Phoenix Land Development, requesting to
amend the plans previously approved for the development located
on property on the northeast comer of Plymouth Road and
Farmington Road in the Southwest '/.of Section 27, be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP02 dated September 24,
2002, as revised, prepared by SSOE Architects, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
19770
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated September
17, 2002 prepared by Russell Design, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to, and shall be detailed to the satisfaction of
the Planning Department;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan, dated July 15, 2002,
prepared by Progressive Associates, is hereby approved and
shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four
inch brick, no exception;
7. That the petitioner shall correct to the Fire Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated October 15, 2002:
That if any of the subject buildings are to be provided with
automatic sprinkler systems, hydrants shall be located
between 50 ft. and 100 ft. from the Fire Department
connections;
That adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with
a maximum spacing of 300 ft. between hydrants. Most
remote hydrant shall flow 1,500 FPM with a residual
pressure of 20 PSI;
That access around buildings shall be provided for
emergency vehicles with a turning radius up to 45 ft. wall-
to-wall and a minimum vertical clearance of 13TH.;
- That fire lanes shall be designated upon final parking
configuration;
8. That any identification signage for the residential portion of the
development shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
and City Council fortheirreview and approval;
9. That the petitioner shall submit within sixty (60) days of this
approval to the City Law Department for its review and
acceptance copies of the Master Deed and bylaws, which
19771
shall permanently establish the wetlands as a
conservafion/preservafion area;
10. That the pefitioner shall include language in the Master Deed
or a separate recordable instrument wherein the condominium
association shall reimburse the City of Livonia for any
maintenance or repair costs incurred for the storm water
detention/retention and outlet facilities, and giving the City of
Livonia the right to impose liens on each lot owners property
prorata and place said charges on their real estate lax bills in
the event said charges are not paid by the condominium
association (or each lot owner) within thirty (30) days of billing
for the City of Livonia; and
11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Pastor: Mr. Chairman, I have to excuse myself. I have a commitment at the
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that is also being held tonight. I
will be back as soon as I can.
Mr. LaPine: Okay, Mr. Pastor. Lel the record show that Mr. Pastor left at 8:12
p.m.
ITEM #4 PETITION 200240-08-21 ADVANCE AUTO PARTS
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
10-08-21, submitted by Trails End Holdings — Livonia L.L.C., on
behalf of Advance Auto Parts, requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection
with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property
located at 29155 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest ''/.of Section
12.
19772
Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Seven Mile between
Middlebelt and Maplewood. The petitioner is proposing to construct
an Advance Auto Parts Store on the split zoned property that is
located between a VFW Hall and a Burger King Restaurant. This
property has 150 feet of frontage along Seven Mile Road and a
depth of 390 feet. The south 170 feet of the property extends into
the Livonia Manor Apartments and is zoned P, Parking. On this
lower segment of the property is an existing parlang lot that is used
by the adjacent VFW Hall. This parking lot received Site Plan
Approval from the City on July 10, 1991. The north 220 feel of this
property is presently vacant and is zoned G2, General Business.
The proposed commercial building would be 7,000 square feet in
size. By positioning the building as far west as possible, parking
can be placed in front and to the east of the structure. The Site
Plan illustrates that this development's parking lot would integrate
with, and have access to, the existing lot to the south. Parking is
summarized as follows: required parking is 37 spaces; provided
parking is 37 spaces, including 2 handicap spaces. Landscaping is
summarized as follows: required landscaping is not less than 15%
of the total site; provided landscaping is 16% of the site. The
landscaping would consist of narrow landscaped greenbelts along
the west and east property lines and next to the sidewalk along
Seven Mile Road. There also would be a small landscape island
off the northeast comer of the building. The Elevation Plan shows
the building would be constructed out of brick, with a band of split
face block along the lower 3.5 feel. Red panels would be installed
over the entrance area. A band of dryvit would run along the
roof ine back from the red panels. The petitioner is proposing a
conforming ground sign and one wall sign. The wall sign would be
142 square feel in sign area, which is over double the size
permitted by the sign ordinance. Because the wall sign is
nonconforming, the petitioner would have to be granted a variance
by the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive sign area.
Mr. La Pine: Mr. Miller, just clarification on one thing: we discussed changing
the upper portion of the brick veneer. Is that going to be taken care
Of.?
Mr. Miller: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Miller, on the wraparound in the back, on the south side, how
many feet is that?
Mr. Miller: I would say its only about two feel.
Mr. Alanskas: What is the width of the entire south elevation, the building?
Mr. Miller: Seventy feel.
19773
Mr. Alanskas:
So to gel a complete wraparound, he'd have to add another 64
feet, roughly?
Mr. Miller:
Yes, I would think so.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There are four items of conespondence. The first item is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 16, 2002, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to
the proposal at this time. There are sanitary sewers, storm sewers
and water mains to serve this site. Detention facilities will be
required in accordance with the Wayne County Storm Water
Management Ordinance and the drive approach to Seven Mile
Road will require County approval. It appears that the owner is
planning on the detention facilities being in underground pipes. The
owner must coordinate his drive approach with the widening and
sidewalk that is currently ongoing on Seven Mile Road by the
County. An ingress and egress easement needs to be put in place
to permit the VFW to continue to use their rear lot, which would be
landlocked if Advance Auto Part's south line was fenced. We trust
that this will provide you with the information requested." The letter
is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second
letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 7,
2002, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a
commercial building on property located at the above- eferenced
address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is
signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from
the Division of Police, dated October 15, 2002, which reads as
follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in regards to a request to
construct a commercial building on property located at 29155
Seven Mile Road. We have no recommendations or objections to
the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee,
Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection
Department, dated October 10, 2002, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of October 3, 2002, the above- eferenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site
does not encompass bre area marked as "Parking" in the package
provided. (2) It is not clear how legal access to the existing parking
area immediately to the south will be obtained. This needs to be
resolved by permanent easement or another method acceptable to
the Law Department. (3) This Petition does not meet landscape
requirements. Fifteen percent of 58,500 is 8,775 square feet of
landscaping. Provided is 4,560 square feet, or approximately 8%
landscaping. (4) Some details indicate hydro -seed instead of sod.
19774
Also there is a lack of detail about the required landscape irrigation.
(5) The site of the barrier -free parking is incorrect as depicted,
however, the space allotted (29 feet) will be able to be reconliigured
property. All striping must be double striped. (6) It is unclear if
there is curbing at the parking spaces that abut the public sidewalk.
It is assumed there is a curb at the landscaping area. (7) The
elevations and floor plan on Sheets A-1.1 and A-2.1 are
inconsistent and not reflective of site conditions. The west
elevation can have no opening in it and the north elevation is
approximately 69 feet across. (8) There is no dumpster detail
provided. (9) As proposed, this Petitioner would need two
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess number of
wall signs and excess square footage. The Petitioner needs to
revise the wall signage to one sign on the north elevation of 69
square feet maximum. (10) The monument sign as depicted is
within ordinance. However, where it is proposed to be located
blocks an existing sign to the east. (11) The entry doors as
depicted will not meet the barrier free code and even though the
code allows four inch address numbers, they should be larger, such
as six inches up to twelve inches. (12) Other issues such as
construction type will be addressed at plan review. It is unclear
what the lift' is. (13) The protective wall on the plan detailed at four
feet is actually in excess of five feet tall. This Department has no
further objections to this Petition. 1 trust this provides the requested
information." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. Mr. Chairman, I will note loo that we received
correspondence dated October 7, 2002, from Jarrett-Mills-Schron
and Associates, Inc. I believe it is in response to the concern
outlined by the Inspection Department in their report that there is
deficient landscaping. In fad, this item of correspondence provides
details on the amount of landscaping provided on the revised plan
which is indicated to be 16.3% of the net development area. Also,
I'd like to note that in response to a few other concerns outlined in
the Inspection Department's report, the revised plan does address
those mncems, specifically the monument sign has been relocated
so that it would not obstruct the sign on the adjacent property. That
is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. La Pine: A lot of those mncems of the Inspection Department are noted on
the new plan that we got dated October 17. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I'll lel the architect or the
representative of Advance Auto Parts address each one of those
individually. I'd also like to point out that we have received a sketch
of easement provided by Jarrett-Mills-Schron, which is available in
your packets. It provides the area on the south portion of this
properly and describes it as an ingress/egress and parking
19775
easement. I'm assuming that's in favor of the adjoining property to
the east, which is the VFW Hall. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
The parking that is directly south of here behind the barrier that is
coming down ... are they going to be using any of that parking in
the rear to the best of your knowledge?
Mr. Taormina:
The site plan does not rely on any parking that is located south of
that driveway. I'm not sure whether or not the ingress and egress
panting easement that I just mentioned would actually allow for the
patrons of Advance Auto Parts to use the VFW Hall parking lot.
Mr. LaPine:
The only reason I bring it up is because that lot needs some
repairs. Its not in the best shape. It needs striping. If they are
going to be using that, then we should probably get it fixed up.
That's the only reason I asked.
Mr. Taormina:
I agree.
Mr. LaPine:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Paul Bahra:
I'm the managing member of Trails End Holdings. Our address is
37679 Pembroke, Livonia, Michigan. To give you a little
background about Advance Auto Parts, the company is based
corporately out of Roanoke, Virginia. Its a New York Stock
Exchange listed company. Its been in business for about 70 years.
They are located in 38 states across the country, and they have
approximately 2,500 to 2,600 locations. In Michigan alone, they
have approximately 50 stores. This is their first venture into the
City of Livonia. I'm here to answer any questions you have. I can
go through the list of the issues that were brought up.
Mr. LaPine:
Could you go through those and tell us which of those issues you
have resolved and which ones are unresolved?
Mr. Bahra:
Okay. On Item #1, we were a little bit unclear as to what it meant,
that the "site does not encompass the area marked as 'parking' in
the package provided" I guess I wasn't quite sure what that was in
reference to.
Mr. LaPine:
Maybe Mark can clarify it for us.
Mr. Taormina:
Why don't we move on to Item #2, and I'll take a look at it.
Mr. Bahra:
As mentioned in #2, yes, we have worked out a survey and legal
description for a cross easement agreement that would work
between Advance Auto Paris and the VFW Hall, not so much for
parking, but it allows for traffic to flow in the rear portion of this
19776
particular site and the VFW Hall. Their concem was, and rightfully
so, that when they have overflow parking for banquets and so forth,
they would like traffic to be able to utilize the parking to the south of
our property. That has been worked out. We have yet to provide it
to the VFW Hall for their review. Obviously, their attorney has to
review it. If everybody is happy with the legal description and the
survey that's been done, then that would become the legal
document.
Mr. LaPine: Okay, thank you
Mr. Bahra: As far as the landscape requirements, as it was previously
mentioned, that now encompasses 16.3% of the site. It's beyond
the 15%, so we think we've met that requirement. As far as the
hydro seed instead of sod, we typically do sod in all areas of
landscape that require it. So that's a non -issue for us. It is all
irrigated. So all the landscape area will be watered. Item #5 is fine.
We'll go along with that. We don't have any problems with that
particular item as far as double striping of the parking areas. As far
as curbing, yes, we curb between the landscape areas and the
sidewalks on the entire site. So that would be a non -issue. Item
#7, that was another item we weren't quite sure what that was in
relation to. I can tell you on the west elevation of the building, as
you can see, there are no openings. It's a solid block wall. So I'm
not quite sure. That might be in relation to one of the other
elevations, but there is no opening on the western side of the
building. As far as Item #8, no dumpster detail, I think we comected
that now. It will be a brick enclosed dumpster. Item #9, that is a
standard sgn across the facia. I think it encompasses about 140
square feet. I talked with Commonwell Sign, which is the sign
company that handles all of Advance Auto's signs across the
country. They do have a 59 square foot prototypical sign for the
facia. The requirement is not to exceed 69 square feet, so we
would fall within that signage requirement. That will not be an
issue. The monument sign is obviously within the ordinance. The
entry doors, as far as we know, the doors that we use on this
particular building and for the corner entries is the same we've
been using across the State of Michigan. As far as the code goes,
we've not had a problem with the doors we've been using up to this
point. Obviously, if there is an issue with the barrier -free code
requirement, we'd make the changes to the doors. Item #12, the
question with regard to the lift in the rear, it's located adjacent to the
overhead door. It's an electrical lift. When the semi -truck backs up
to unload the merchandise, the lift is brought up to the level of the
truck bed. Then the pallets are unloaded to the lift and its taken
down, and they are wheeled into the back of the building. As far as
the protective wall in the back, that's an existing wall. I would
guess that's going to be left for the southern parking.
19777
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thank you. I just have one question. You won't have
outside storage of any type there, will you?
Mr. Bahra: No.
Mr. Alanskas: Let's address the rendering of the building. On your glass
windows, why are pu going all the way down to the sidewalk with
the glass? We discussed about lalling three feel of the brick and
going all the way across the entire front of the building. Usually
when you have it down there, it can be cracked. It can be kicked.
It can be broken. Cars pull in. They could have something flying
that could hit it. Usually if you have a three foot brick going across
the entire front of the building, you wouldn't have that problem.
Mr. Bahra: Historically, on all the buildings, this entry design is a custom made
design for all the Advance Auto's comer entry buildings.
Mr. Alanskas: Everything is subject to change depending on the city that you're in.
Mr. Bahra: Well, that's true. All I can tell you is that we have not, up to this
point, ever had a problem — and we've done approximately 30 of
these buildings — of any of the lower glass plates being broken or
kicked in.
Mr. Alanskas: Queston #2 is in regards to your rear building. Why don't you wrap
the facia across the entre back of the building? Its two feet. It
really looks awkward that way.
Mr. Bahra: One ofthe reasons is that it's not visible to the public.
Mr. Alanskas: Yes, it is. People who go the back to the VFW Hall are going to
see that. Aesthetically, if you even look, its just not done correctly.
Mr. Bahra: Part of the issue that we ran into here is you can see where this
little area in the back of the building is notched in, that's where the
downspouts for the water drains come in. Those panels that we
worked out on the Advance Auto facia, to engineer and ran those
panels all the way across the back, they'd have to be custom cut
and custom made.
Mr. Alanskas: You're doing it for the front, aren't you? The same thing? You'd
have to cut them anyways.
Mr. Bahra: Those are all preset because they do these across the country.
Mr. Alanskas: How long are the panels that you have precut? How long are they?
19778
Mr. Bahra:
In terms of width?
Mr. Alanskas:
No, in the length?
Mr. Bahra:
If you're talking this way or this way?
Mr. Alanskas:
Length.
Mr. Bahra:
Length. Those are approximately three or four feel, each panel.
Mr. Alanskas:
So you could still extend that more than what you show it?
Mr. Bahra:
Yes, we can wrap it around further.
Mr. Alanskas:
How far could you wrap it around?
Mr. Bahra:
How far would you like it?
Mr. Alanskas:
Across the whole back of the building up to where you have the
gutters. It would look more professional. It would make the
building look much better than just having it two feel around the
side. We had a gas station that we approved. By mistake they
didn't go like they were supposed to, and it looked terrible. They
had to come back and correct it. So I would like to see, as one
commissioner, the lop facia going across the entire back of the
building.
Mr. Bahra:
Okay, so you'd like to see us wrap the dryvit portion of it all the way
around?
Mr. Alanskas:
Correct.
Mr. Bahra:
Okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Did l hear you say that you wanted the west elevation all block?
Mr. Bahra:
It is. I guess my point was, in the one comment that was made,
they said there was an opening in the west elevation. This is the
west elevation here. Its all solid wall. There is no opening. It's all
brick.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You said that. I was looking at the plan. I see block on the bottom
and brick on the lop. You said all brick. I was confused.
Mr. Bahra:
Oh, I see. No, its solid wall. There are no openings to it.
19779
Mr. Pieroecchi: Oh, no openings. But we will have the look of block and brick?
Mr. Bahra: Exactly.
Mr. La Pine: Mark, just one question. On a solid wall like that, does the Fire
Department require any fire exits on that wall, or do they only need
it on the rear of the property.
Mr. Taormina: I don't believe that will be a requirement because in order to have
that reduced setback along that side, it has to be a fireproof
construction. It is my understanding that the code alloys buildings
for a limited distance with zero setbacks and no openings where
fireproof construction is provided.
Mr. La Pine: Okay. Thafs fine. I was just curious. Are there any other
questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak
for or againstthis petition? Hearing none, a motion will be in order.
On a motion by Mr. Pieroecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-136-2002 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2002-10-08-21,
submitted by Trails End Holdings — Livonia L.L.C., on behalf of
Advance Auto Parts, requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a
proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at
29155 Seven Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 12, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1, dated October 17, 2002,
prepared by Jareft-MillsSchron, is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 1, dated October 17,
2002, as revised, prepared by Jarrett-MillsSchron, is hereby
approved and shall be adhered to;
3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of
hydroseeding;
4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall
be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
19780
5. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-1.1
dated October 17, 2002, as revised, prepared by W.L. Perry
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
6. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face four
inch brick, no exceptions;
7. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be
constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of
the building or, in the event a poured wall is substituted, the
wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building,
and the endosure gates shall be maintained and when not in
use closed at all times;
8. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 it. in height and shall
be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light
trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent
roadway;
9. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's
satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence
dated October 10, 2002:
That the parking lot shall be doubled striped;
That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply
with the Michigan Banner Free Code;
10. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition,
and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
11. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution
shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time
the building permits are applied for; and
12. That the E.I.F.S. panel shall wrap completely around the rear
elevation of the building.
Mr. La Pine: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Alanskas: To the maker of the motion, also #12, that the rear elevation will be,
instead ofjusl wrapped, the entire length of the rear will be done.
Mr. Pieroecchi: I acceptthat.
19781
Mr. Alanskas: I understand your changing the color of the brick from red to gray.
Is that correct? I thought you said he changed the color today?
Mr. Miller: The color of the brick is gray.
Mr. Alanskas: Okay. Thank you.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: McCann, Pastor
Mr. La Pine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of
our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of
our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior
meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight.
Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the
Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item?
ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-08-0245 ROCKY ZEBARI
Mr. Pieroecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-
08-02-15 submitted by Rocky Zebari, on behalf of Cooper Tires,
requesting
waiver use approval to expand the use (floor area
utilized
for automotive repair within the existing building) of an
existing automotive repair facility on property located on the south
side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Beatrice
Avenue in the Northeast%of Section 2.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, is there anything new?
Mr. Taormina:
No, at this time I think it would probably be appropriate to allow the
petitioner to describe the improvements that have been to the site
since our last meeting.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Mr. Zebari, what do you want to tell us? What have you
done out there that's going to make us happy?
Rocky Zebari,
37731 Stableview, Farmington Hills, Michigan. I did everything you
asked me to do. If there is anything else, you can attach it to my
19782
Certificate of Occupancy, and I'll do it. I have no objection to do
anything else thatyou notice on the site that needs to be done.
Mr. La Pine:
Are there any quesfionsfromthe Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. Zebari, in regards to the bncks you put down around the north
ofthe building and the west side, the small bricks on an angle?
Mr. Zeban
Yes.
Mr. Alanskas:
Why did you do it? They are all falling over.
Mr. Zeban:
I noticed that. I'm going to replace them.
Mr. Alanskas:
You're going to take them out?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes. I will put the same kind of backs that I have around the sign.
These are too small.
Mr. Alanskas:
But they will be laying flat, not on a angle?
Mr. Zeban:
No, no. They will be flat. We're going to dig the ground and secure
them. We'll put double.
Mr. Alanskas:
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Pastor asked, prior to his going to the ZBA, to mention a couple
items, one that I had noticed. You still have some bumper blocks
that need to be replaced.
Mr. Zeban:
They have been ordered and they will be done. I ordered 25 of
them.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. The other thing Mr. Pastor asked is that you replace the
gates on the dumpster.
Mr. Zeban:
I will replace them again. I will put a metal gale.
Mr. Walsh:
You will do the metal gates?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Walsh:
Very good. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
I was out there today. Are you going to paint the doors on the east
side of the building? There's a big blob of black paint on one of
them.
19783
Mr. Zebari: Oh, yes. This is just a primer. All the doors will be painted. We
haven't decided what color, but they will be painted.
Mr. LaPine: Eventually you're going to deal with tires here. Selling tires and
replacing tires and soforlh.
Mr. Zebari: Yes, sir.
Mr. LaPine: If and when you do that, how are you going to handle the old tires?
What are you going to do with the old fires?
Mr. Zebari: There are companies that pick them up. We pay like $2.00 a fire
and they come and pick them up.
Mr. La Pine: How often?
Mr. Zebari: As often as needed
Mr. LaPine: Because you have some tires stored out there already between the
dumpster and a parked car.
Mr. Zebari: I don't know anything about this. Mr. Kim, I told him before, he's
not supposed to leave anything over there. When I'm there, I'll
make sure nothing is left there.
Mr. LaPine: I know you keep telling us this and that. Its your property.
Mr. Zebari: I understand. But when you're a property owner, you can't go
everyday and see what he's doing.
Mr. LaPine: Lel me finish. Its your responsibility to see that these things are
taken care of. It isn't our responsibility to ran out there everyday to
check to see if you're doing what you say your going to do. You
know, quite frankly, I am very reluctant to vote for this because I
just got the feeling that once we give it our approval, god only
knows what's going to happen after you got it. I don't want to hold
up your business. I want your business to go. I want it to be very
flourishing because it helps the City of Livonia and it helps you. But
I gel this feeling. For instance, I was out there today. There are
two big sheets of sheet metal. One was red up against the fence
on the east side; another one in front of the door. It wasn't red, it
was another other color. Why is that sluff laying around like that?
Mr. Zebari: I don't know.
Mr. La Pine: Nobody knows
19784
Mr. Zeban:
When I'm there, I'll be watching over it myself. When I'm running
that business, I'll make sure it's all done properly.
Mr. LaPine:
Your son is there, right?
Mr. Zeban:
My son, yes.
Mr. LaPine:
Are you and your son going to be running the tire business and
then Mr. Kim is going to run the other business. Is that the way it's
going to be?
Mr. Zeban:
Yes, sir. Unless Mr. Km decides to leave one day, then we'll be
running the whole show.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there any other discussion by the members?
Mr. Alanskas:
Mr. LaPine brought to my attention that you have a sign. Is it a
new sign, Bill?
Mr. La Pine:
Not neon. Its a paper sign.
Mr. Alanskas:
It's a sign that says you do engine removal and replacement?
That's not light work.
Mr. Zeban:
I don't do that.
Mr. Alanskas:
It doesn't matter who does it. Someone's doing it. And it's not
allowed.
Mr. Zeban:
I don't know. I'll make sure. I don't even know there's signs.
Mr. LaPine:
If you dont know there are signs, then you dont go to your building
very often. There are three big signs in your front window. One
talks about transmissions and one talks about "we replace motors."
Big signs. I'm not talking about little signs. I mean I don't care
about the signs. It was my understanding that you were going to do
light work here, tune-ups and things of that nature.
Mr. Zeban:
Exactly.
Mr. LaPine:
If you're going to start pulling motors, that's pretty big size stuff,
which leaves me to believe that once the motors are pulled, where
are they going to throw them? Are they going to throw them out of
the back of the building? I hope somebody is going to pick them
up.
Mr. Zeban:
I'll make sure he doesn't do these things. Especially if I have to buy
the whole building in the future, we don't do these things.
19785
Mr. Alanskas:
Sir, you did not double stripe the lot yet?
Mr. Zeban:
I did, sir.
Mr. Alanskas:
When did you do it?
Mr. Zeban:
When?
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes.
Mr. Zeban:
Almost two weeks ago.
Mr. Alanskas:
Two weeks ago? Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You brought up a good point. Mark, does this site permit heavy
work like this, transmissions and that?
Mr. Taormina:
The required conditions of the waiver use allow for automobile and
light truck repairs, including tune-ups, replacement of shock
absorbers, brakes, mufflers, exhausts and tailpipes, transmissions
and other similar repairs. So its not meant to be an exhaustive list.
But what it does do is exclude certain types of repairs or heavier
automotive repairs including bumping, painting, spraying and rust
proofing. It doesn't really talk about the removal and replacement
of engines. Transmissions are approved under this section of the
ordinance. I'll note, however, that transmission repair shops do
require more parking than the parking requirements for other light
automotive repair operations.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I forget exactly how much parking we have. If he did do
transmissions, would the parking be short?
Mr. Taormina:
That would depend on how many service bays would be devoted to
repairing transmissions because the requirement is 10 parking
spaces per service bay in connection with operations involving
transmission repair, as opposed to two parking spaces per service
bay involving other automotive repair operations. In terms of the
total number of parking spaces available on this site, there are 26
spaces available. He has seven bays that he is proposing to utilize
in connection with this business. So that would require 14 total
spaces plus the number of employees employed at any one time.
I'm not sure how many that would be. I guess we'd have to rely on
information from Mr. Zebari. Five employees is what was
discussed earlier. He has 26 spaces available. A total of 19 are
required. Thus, with five additional spaces, I don't believe that
would be enough to permit him to devote one of those service bays
to transmission repair.
19786
Mr. Zeban:
One oflhe garage doors is onlylo store cars; it's notfor repairs.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
What was that, sir?
Mr. Zeban:
We have six garage doors. One of them will be used to drive cars
through at night for storage.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
If he used one bay for transmission repairs, he'd be short of parking
then? Correct?
Mr. LaPine:
What he's saying is that one of the doors he's not going to use for
any repairs. Its strictly going to be used to park cars.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay.
Mr. Taormina:
Actually, as indicated by Mr. Zeban, with only five bays in use for
general automotive repair and one bay used for transmission
repair, plus the five employees, that would require a total of 25
parking spaces. So he would have enough parking on site, but I
would caution you that transmission repair facilities typically have
overnight outside storage of automobiles, which is precisely what
we're trying to avoid at this location.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mr. Chairman, do you think it would be in the best interests of the
City if Mat can and cannot be done on that site was precisely put
down?
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Piercecchi, Item #4 under the conditions takes care of that.
Mr. LaPine:
I thinkthe motion is preftystraightforward.
Mr. Shane:
A little embellishment will take care ofthat.
On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it
was
#10-137-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on September 24, 2002, on Petition
2002-08-02-15 submitted by Rocky Zebari, on behalf of Cooper
Tires, requesting waiver use approval to expand the use (floor area
utilized for automotive repair within the existing building) of an
existing automotive repair facility on property located on the south
side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Beatrice
Avenue in the Northeast %of Section 2, the Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that Petition 2002-08-02-15 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
19787
1. That this waiver use request is approved, in part, to allow the
use of not more than five (5) work stations/service bays,
including not more than four (4) hoists and one wheel
alignment machine. One year following the approval of this
waiver use, the petitioner may request the Planning
Commission and City Council to consider the expansion of the
use to include additional service bays for automotive repair on
the east side ofthe building;
2. That the site plan submitted by Rocky Zebari, received by the
Planning Commission on August 27, 2002, is hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
3. That the subject facility shall conduct automobile and light
truck repair work consisfing of repairs such as motor and
electrical tune-ups, replacement of shock absorbers, brakes,
mufflers, exhaust and tailpipes and other similar repairs;
4. That repair work conducted at this facility shall not include
bumping, painting, spraying and rust -proofing, or transmission
repair;
5. That there shall be no outdoor storage of auto parts,
equipment, scrap material, debris, waste petroleum products
or other similar items generated by the subjectuse;
6. That there shall be no overnight outdoor parking or storage of
vehicles on the site, with all overnight parking or storage of
vehicles occuning only inside the building;
7. That the dumpster enclosure gates shall be replaced with
metal gates and maintained and when not in use closed at all
times;
8. That the underground sprinklers to be provided for all
landscaped and sodded areas shall be set in position and
adjusted to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and
shall thereafter be properly maintained in good working order;
9. That the drive approach from Eight Mile Road shall be
narrowed in width to the specifications of the Engineering
Division, as recommended in the correspondence dated
September 3, 2002, from the Engineering Division, with the
excess asphalt in the area between the site and the roadway
in the Eight Mile Road right-of-way to be removed and
replaced with sod;
19788
10. That handicapped parking shall be individually signed as
required; and
11. That all conditions imposed in connection with Council
Resolution Nos. 191-99, 458-00 and 743-01 that are not in
conflict with the foregoing conditions of this approval shall
remain in effect;
for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special
and general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area; and
3. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use.
Mr. La Pine:
I will pass the gavel and second the motion.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Shane:
I want this petitioner to succeed. I want this particular building to be
utilized, and I hope it will be in the best interests of the City. But the
petitioner does not have a good track record when it comes to site
maintenance and that is what concerns me. I just want to tell him
that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But if he doesn't
perform and he comes back to us asking for something else, it will
probably be his worst nightmare. I hope you're listening, Mr.
Zeban.
Mr. Zeban
I'm listening very well.
Mr. Shane:
And l hope that you're going to do what you say you're going to do.
Mr. Zeban:
I will, sir.
Mr.Shane:
Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas:
I think, Mr. Zebari, you really tried hard to do what we've asked for.
But in my heart, I feel that once, if this approval is given to you,
within six months we're going to go back and have the same
problems we had already. In the past, you've been there when you
had your store there with the back repair, and it's still been in
disarray. The landscaping has always been in disrepair when you
19789
were there. Nothing was done. So, I just don't see how you're
going to correct these problems when you haven't done it in the
past. Therefore, l cannot support this petition. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine: Deep down, my gut feeling is b vole against you. But I seconded
the motion because I want you to succeed. But I'm going to be
keeping an eye on you and every time I see something wrong, I'm
going to tum you into the Inspection Department. Now you're
talking about talking those bricks out. I was out there today.
They're all just laying there loosely. You could hit them with your
boot. They fall out. Now you say you're going to put in those
retaining wall bricks. Well, you've got a problem because you've
got your sprinkler systems almost up to those bricks. That means
the sprinkler systems got to be moved back to get those paving
blocks in there. How are you going to do that?
Mr Zeban: We can put just a banner to keep the wood chips from falling to the
sides.
Mr. La Pine: Well, I dont know what you're going to do, but I'm going to vote for
your proposal. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I'm
going to be like Mr. Shane. I'm going to be keeping a good eye on
R because I live down in that area. I go by that place every day and
I'm hoping you're going to dowhal you sayyou're going to do.
Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against
this petition?
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: La Pine, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi
NAYES: Alanskas
ABSTAIN: Pastor
ABSENT: McCann
Mr. LaPine, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
Mr. Zeban: I promise I will do more than whalyou asked me to do.
19790
ITEM #6 PETITION 2002-02-06-01 OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
Mr. Piercecchi,
Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Pefition 2002-
02-06-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Article IV, Section
4.04 and Article V, Section 5.04 in order to establish an open space
preservafion mining provision in the R5 and RIF zoning districts
as required by House Bill No. 5029.
Mr. La Pine:
Let the record show that Mr. Pastor returned at 8:50 p.m. Mark,
let's hear it tonight on this great ordinance.
Mr. Taormina:
Just to summarize, this language change to the zoning ordinance is
in response to an amendment at the State level; a change to the
zoning enabling statute which requires all municipalities, including
cities, townships and villages, to adopt certain open space
preservation provisions within their zoning ordinances. There are
certain criteria that have to be mel. These standards are rather
general. As it affects the City of Livonia, we will need to make
certain changes to our ordinance related only to two zoning
classifications, R-5 and RIF, because of the density limitations
provided for in the statute. The changes we are requesting would
occur in Section 4.04 for the R5 District Regulations and Section
5.04 for RIF District Regulations. The proposed language for both
sections is very similar. It would allow for this development option
to be utilized at the option of the landowner that would permit
development on 80% of the property with the remaining 20% to be
retained in an open space conservation easement. They can
develop that 80% with the same number of dwelling units that
would otherwise be authorized to develop over the enfire land area.
I know that sounds a little confusing but, in essence, what it says is
you can build the same number of homes on a parcel of land
ufilizing only 80% of that property. The remaining 20% must be
retained in open space. One of the concerns we had in previous
meetings was what shape is this open space going take? Is the
statute specific enough in terms of whether or not there has to be
significant environmental features that are present on the site? Or
is it completely at the discretion of the developer or the landowner?
So what we've done is attempted to tighten up the language.
Specifically, Subsection C(2) under Section 4.04 specifies that
these open space areas shall be the site's most significant natural
features including but not limited to wetlands, flood plains, natural
water sources inducing buffers around such features, woodlands,
paths of recreational areas, nature trails and other significant
natural or cultural features as may be determined by the City. So
we've added that language. In addition, we added a couple
19791
sections at the end that give the Planning Commission and the City
Council greater authority and discretion in reviewing these types of
developments to make sure that these open space areas are
accessible to all of the owners within a particular development. It
would not be for the exclusive use of just one single property
owner. We cannot require that the open space be dedicated for
use by the general public because the statute doesn't provide for
that. But I believe we can require that it be available to each of the
residents within a particular development. For example, as a
common area within a condominium development or even an
easement within a platted subdivision. Also, we've added language
that would give us greater authority to review whether or not these
areas are contiguous with other open space areas. That would be
the last section that we added to the proposed draft amendment.
Hopefully, this meets with your satisfaction, and we can move
ahead with its approval since this is a change that has to take
place. It is time restricted. The State has indicated that these
changes must take place one year following the effective date of
the original approval, which is on December 1, 2001. So we only
have a couple months left to get these changes enacted. Thank
you.
Mr. LaPine:
It has to be done by the end of the year. That means we have to
approve it, it has to go Council, Council has to hold a public
hearing, it goes into committees or whatever lheyre going to do,
and still have it done by the end of the year.
Mr. Taormina:
We're going to try our hardest.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, I compliment you on adding a lot of wording and some
clarification to some of the areas. Are you satisfied that the Council
and the people who run this City can impact this and can have input
into this process? Are we totally left out of the process? Can a
developerjusldo what he wants here or can we have input?
Mr. Taormina:
No, I don't believe that is the case at all. I think the greatest
protection we have, so that there is not abuse, is in the language
that we provided in Paragraph 3, which requires at the time
somebody petitions under this section, that they submit a parallel
plan demonstrating how many homes could be built on a particular
parcel of land in full conformance with all of the ordinances. Once
there is a showing and a determination of that density yield, then
we can apply these more flexible design guidelines, the result being
the preservation of additional open space.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Well, House Bill 5029 does require that the parallel type of
development be proposed just to determine the number of houses
that can go into that area. Isn t that true?
19792
Mr. Taormina:
No, actually the statute does not specifically reference parallel
plans. But it does include language that would authorize a
community to first determine the number of homes that would
otherwise be permitted under governance of the communitys
conventional design standards. So we interpret that to mean that
we could require at the time they submitted a proposal the review of
a parallel plan.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
At that time, theyd have to determine the number of houses.
Again, my compliments on bringing forth some of the points and
improving what was originally put out here. I still don't like the state
government getting involved in our zoning. Obviously they have
and we dont have any choice but to adhere to the laws that come
out of Lansing. But you're satisfied that we can have impact in the
process?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, we will have impact in the process with the way this ordinance
is drafted.
Mr. Shane:
Apparently, they allowed us the flexibility to become somewhat
more restrictive than the actual Act itself. Is that not right? We
have interpreted it to allow us to require that parallel plan, which
sounds to me like its somewhat more restrictive than maybe what
theyintended. Do you know what I'm trying to say?
Mr. Taormina:
I do know what you're saying.
Mr. Shane:
They allowed some discretion to become somewhat more
restrictive and still accomplish what they're looking for.
Mr. Taormina:
I will tell you that other communities that are faced with this
requirement are passing similar ordinances. There has been a
great deal of discussion by professional organizations of exactly
how to treat this, and many communities are being advised by their
legal counsel to do exactly this, to require the parallel plans as part
of the submittal to make that determination.
Mr. LaPine:
Let's assume this open space is behind a number of homes. Is it
open to everybody in that subdivision or only the people who abut
that open space?
Mr. Taormina:
All lots in the development.
Mr. LaPine:
So how do they get down there? Is there going to be an easement
so they can walk down there, or can they walk through anybodys
property? I'm going to cut through this person's property to get to
the
back here or use this area for a soccer field or for a kid to play
19793
catch or football. How will they get back there without trespassing
on somebody else's property? And the second part of that
question, what happens if a guy has a swimming pool behind his
house and he wants privacy? How does he get privacy if all of this
is open space, and it's open to anybody in the subdivision to come
out there and sit there and watch them use their swimming pool?
Mr. Taormina:
I haven't really considered that particular scenario, but I would say
he would probably have to put up a fence between the open space
and his backyard if he was concemed about privacy. But to answer
your first question, It's something we would have to review at the
time the plan was submitted to see whether or not access to these
open spaces is being provided to each of the lots, whether it's in
the forth of some type of access easement that crosses other
properties or whether each of the sites possibly abut this open
space area. If it's in a comer of a piece of property and a number
of homes don't immediately abut that open space area, then there's
going to have to be a provision, some type of allowance, an
easement or access path to that area.
Mr. LaPine:
That's the point I'm getting at. If I was a homeowner, I wouldn't
want people trespassing into my lot to get back to this open space,
and they have a right to use d, apparently, accordingly to the way
the ordinance is going to read.
Mr. Taormina:
If you would like, we can supplement the language here to address
that.
Mr. Shane:
That reinforces the point I tried to make last week, that we have to
be very careful when we approve these plans to make sure that the
open space makes sense. Not only if it is located right but if it has
proper access and so forth. I think we have the discretion to do
that.
Mr. Taormina:
I believe we do, loo.
Mr. LaPire:
Are we required to do this? If somebody comes over to Planning
and wants to do this, and we dont like it, we dont think the access
is right or something like that, can we deny it? We don't have to
allow it? He has to build it according to our regular ordinance or do
we have to try to accommodate him somehow?
Mr. Taormina:
If the open space area is inaccessible to one or more of the lots in
the development, then it would be my opinion that it could be
denied under this section of the ordinance.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Thank you.
19794
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, I don't want to beat this thing to death but what about
plantings and things of that nature? Open space doesn't forego
plantings. Who would determine if that was the proper thing to do
for that area, the people that would abut it?
Mr. Taormina:
These conservation easements ...
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It open space right now; 8's just a field. And it's fairly large and
wide. People who abut it could say we want this kind of tree and all
that. Is that up to their discrefion?
Mr. Taormina:
We can approve the landscape plan in connection with the
development proposal involving an open space area. Otherwise,
it's the intention that these areas be left substantially in their natural
state and without disturbance. In fact, the language in the
conservation preservation easements that the City will be providing
with these developments states exactly that.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But leaving it alone can call for big tall weeds and all that too, can't
it?
Mr. Taormina:
Again, that's one of the reasons why we're going to take a look at
these parcels to determine what their value is as open space. Are
they woodlands that should be left undisturbed? Are they we0and
areas, which certainly are going to be left in their natural stale,
'Weeds' and all. Or, are they passing as some other form of
recreational area that, at our discretion, we can approve and then
stipulate certain maintenance guidelines that might be placed within
those preservation agreements that we require.
Mr. La Pine:
Is there any other discussion? We have one ace in the hole. When
Mr. Pastor gets up to Lansing, he can make some changes.
Mr. Pastor:
The election isn't over yet.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Oh yes, it is.
Mr. LaPine:
A motion is in order.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved,
it was
#10-138-2002
RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by
the City Planning Commission on March 26, 2002, on Petition
2002-02-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Arficle IV, Section 4.04 and Arfide V, Section 5.04 of the Zoning
19795
Ordinance in order to establish an open space preservation zoning
provision in the R-5 and RUF zoning districts as required by House
Bill No. 5029, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend
that Petition 2002-02-06-01 be approved for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed language amendment will meet the
minimum statutory requirements of HB 5029, which requires
that the City of Livonia adopt certain open space preservation
provisions in the R-5 and RUF zoning districts;
2. That the proposed language amendment will provide a useful
tool in preserving open space while, at the same time,
assuring that any development that takes place under this
option is done so in a manner that is compatible to and in
harmony with surrounding developed land;
3. That the proposed open space zoning provisions will allow for
only the same number of homes on a paroel of land that could
otherwise be developed, under existing ordinances, laws and
roles.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Alanskas, La Pine, Pastor, Shane, Piercecohi
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Walsh, McCann
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 853rd Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on October 22, 2002, was adjourned at
9:13 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST:
William La Pine, Acting Chairman